Mini 767: Cubic Mafia (Game Over!)

[magnus_orion]

/confirm

[magnus_orion]

I think its safe to assume we just start since all the players are bolded and stuff...
...
err... right?

[magnus_orion]

Vote: Dourgrim
Dawrves are the least interesting of fictional creatures.
Orks (or Orcs) are far superior.

[magnus_orion]

vote:dourgrim

Arrgh. Forgot to bold my first vote

again

How many times is that now?

[magnus_orion]

Magnus_orion, are you scum?

no. Are you?

[magnus_orion]

Now why would I be scum?

because you didn't answer the question directly.

[magnus_orion]

nocmen, as you do not want to participate in the RVS, who do you think is scum, and why?

[magnus_orion]

Anyone could be scum right now. RVS is a nice way to see some voting patterns, but I much rather prefer just jumping ahead and asking questions to see how people reply when confronted early on, and then use that as a means of comparison if they come under fire later on.

Well, that's nice and all, but its another direct dodge of giving an actual answer to my question. I'm starting to notice a trend here.

[magnus_orion]

Anyone could be scum right now. RVS is a nice way to see some voting patterns, but I much rather prefer just jumping ahead and asking questions to see how people reply when confronted early on, and then use that as a means of comparison if they come under fire later on.

Well, that's nice and all, but its another direct dodge of giving an actual answer to my question. I'm starting to notice a trend here.

Are you saying that you could get possible scum reads a day into the game just like that? I'm not going to base a vote off RVS or get suspicions from that, I prefer to see how their opinions and style changes as time goes on.
The only small scum reads I've gotten so far was PhilyEc's mentioning about how he thinks scum would post at certain times during RVS. This game has only been going on for a day, and I don't think that everyone would go and vote and post for RVS right away.
The second thing that irked me a bit was Issac's last post, but before I make a conclusion on that post, I would like him to respond to the question I asked him in my last post.

Actually, I don't think

I

can. However,

I'm not saying its impossible for everyone, I'm saying its challenging for myself. Other people have different reasons for finding people suspicious and voting them. As for my possible "defensiveness", I saw you as slightly ignorant in your previous post to my questions, trying to get people to open their minds and get out of RVS. Ignorance to questions seem to me like you're possibly afraid of them, because I may ask you something that lets you slip up.

Issac's pressure of the Phillyec question was what I intended on bringing up next, to which, you gave the response I'd consider most common. Unfortunately, you, yourself, have already cut yourself off from using this to explain your actions.

You see, if you are, as you claim, trying to see how people slip up to being asked questions like this, then the town has a right to see how you slip up in the same fashion. So, in response to this post:

I'm intrigued by this. Were you expecting a straightforward answer (a list of names, or something) at this early stage? PhillyEc was also asked a similar question recently, but you didn't say anything about his response. What is your opinion of PhillyEc's thoughts?

Yes, I was expecting a straightforward answer, in order to see how he reacts to this questioning, to see if he's thrown off base. Dodging the question does not allow us to guage him later on in comparison, which he has suggested doing to the players. In other words, he is not only dodging the question, but avoiding us from getting reads on him, as a direct result of that which he has already helpfully explained to us. (unless, of course, he intends to form a trend of dodging questions, which is much more problematic in determining his allignment)

That said, once his dodging was indicated, he did answer the question, which brings up an issue of why he dodged in the first place, as it is still problematic since it sticks with the above.

Philyec's reasoning on the RVS is something below wifom, along the lines of irrelevant, in my humble opinion. Though, also in my opinion, there is nothing scummy about using precieved trends in one's line of thinking.

That's nice and all, but at least 4 of us can vouch that Magnus is always this....eager. He expects the town to be magical and always direct, despite the impossibility of that happening right now.

I don't expect the impossible, but other than that this is a fair assessment.

[magnus_orion]

This kind of contradicts itself. A non-straightforward answer still showed you how he reacted. I think "Anyone could be scum" is a reasonable answer at this stage, far from being indicative of dodging and trying to avoid giving the town reads. What is the point of forcing someone to name names at this stage? What does it tell us about that person? What does it tell us about the questioner?

I believe nocmen explained what the point was.
And how does it contradict itself if he ended up answering the question anyway? However, yes, you are right in that a non-straightforward answer is still a reaction. What that reaction implies is important.

The fact of the matter is that he named names when pressured.
Which means he had names, which means he had suspicions, which means he was dodging the question, which is how he reacted. Now my question is why he reacted in that manner.

I've got to go, more later

[magnus_orion]

what do you think of Isacc's answer?

Issac didn't answer the yes or no question directly. I can't think of anything he'd be hiding by doing so, and the answer he did gave heavily implied a "no."

So, walnut, what do you think of nocmen?

[magnus_orion]

EBWOP: *give

[magnus_orion]

Hey, quadruple post!

mod: why is Dourgrim's votes seperated?

My bad. Must have missed him being in there already. Fixing it now.

[magnus_orion]

Isacc: I believe he's referring to this post:
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 1:36 pm Post subject: 52
The post that talks about question dodging is mine.

[magnus_orion]

btw,

hos: nocmen

you were mentioning conclusions about isacc's post?

Also, Isacc, for the sake of clairty, which question are you referring to?

[magnus_orion]

hey, nocmen, how about you answer my questions!

unvote
vote: nocmen

Out of spite for not answering.

[magnus_orion]

Magnus, do you consider this to be a true statement,? Whether you consider it true or not, do you consider BB justified in making it? What do you see as his purpose and the likely result of him saying it in this game?

Well, err... I'd hope they'd listen to me.
I don't know, I supose I'm not good at convincing people, but fiding the scum is a different story. Generally, more people think I'm scum when I'm town, and call me obvtown when I'm scum, judging from the games I've been in. (Much to my amusement, of course).

That said, why ask these questions? High suspicion here. Looks like you're sizing me up to see how well you can convince people to mislynch me from my POV.

Am I to take from this that you don't think anyone could be scum, and you have narrowed it down to a certain group of people?

It's tentative at best, but I suspect walnut. You're also up in the air. If walnut turns out to be scum, I also suspect nocmen, but he's really the least suspicous, and completely dependent on walnut's flip at this stage. I reiterate, tentative at best.
See, its not so hard.

I note that your original question didn't ask Noc to give a few examples of scumtells, it said 'who do you think is scum and why' or words to that effect. This is a polarising way of phrasing the question, leaving him really with the 'all or nothing' option-set of either saying someone is scum or not. Having presented him with such a narrow set of options, I don't think you can complain when he opts to take the (more reasonable) middle ground by naming a couple of minor scumtells. Your case on Noc is not very strong, imo.

Lulz, what case? I don't have a case.
I never called nocmen scum.

I'm voting him so he answers what I have to say. I'd think that'd be obvious from the post I made.
speaking of which,

unvote

That said, your comments are interesting. I presented him with a narrow set of options? Would you rather I allowed him to include people not in the game? Do you consider there to be more options?

This bothers me, because it seems true of a lot of players, but is also an excuse for the scum to cruise through Day 1. How about saying something startling and waking yourself up?

Meta suggests BB lurks as scum, and acts indecisive. His play during this game has proven to be very different, so far.

That said, he clearly understands my playstyle, and may be trying to avoid me, but I don't think B_B would consider trying to convince me that he's town worth the risk of appearing scummy to others.

I think B_B is town, mostly because I was wrong last time I said that, and I said it for different reasons.

[magnus_orion]

So you think B_B is acting differently, even with the last post he's made?

BB didn't active lurk, he just plain lurked.

And you do realize that just because you were wrong last time doesn't mean anything regarding the outcome of this time, right?

It means that what I thought back then made BB town is actually how he plays as scum, so the fact that he's playing differently suggests to me that he's town.

[magnus_orion]

So you think B_B is acting differently, even with the last post he's made?

BB didn't active lurk, he just plain lurked.

And you do realize that just because you were wrong last time doesn't mean anything regarding the outcome of this time, right?

It means that what I thought back then made BB town is actually how he plays as scum, so the fact that he's playing differently suggests to me that he's town.

I'm okay with the differences, but why do you think he should be cleared from actively lurking? To me, that is still lurking.

Cleared!? He's a long way from that! "Suggests" is as weak as its meant to sound. In that game, he made extremely long analysis posts every so often, and they extensive, but few and far between.

Gotta say, the nameless quotes arent helping anyone. Could you please name them? ><

I'll try to remember, sorry if it made things harder for you.

[magnus_orion]

Meh, how do you think I'll play this game? If I play exactly the same way (once we're in the thick of it), would you think me scum?

If you play exactly (or generally, even) the same way, then its null, since I don't have town meta on you. But if you play different from my experience with you as scum, then it raises the probability that you're town.

How I think you'll play this game? I'd think you'd play it the same way, but with more frequent posts, as you'd be less worried about scumtells as town. Or possibly completely differently, still because you're less worried about scumtells.
(Of course, that assumes you're town to begin with. )

@Issac: Anything to say about anything?

[magnus_orion]

What baffles me is that when I point out that BB is undermining your credibility (and, to use your words, potentially setting you up for a mislynch), you ignore the elements about BB and instead perceive it as me attacking you.

BB is undermining my credibility?
I humbly request you support this statement

BB is answering honestly and, from my POV, more or less correctly, about how I play.

You're the one who keeps pushing conversation down this route, resulting in this so-called "undermining of credibility"

Afterall, you've told us your obective right here:

4) To have all players thinking about the situation.

If this results in "undermining my credibility" without analyzing if I'm actually scum or not, doesn't that imply your objective is not to find scum, but instead get someone (namely me), to look scummy to people so you can get them lynched? (I want an answer to this.)

My, you do like to polarise things. Cases don't come simply in the form of stating "X is scum!" One might be tempted to think that the following posts...

I

LOVE

to polarise things. I want the town to divide into two groups on an issue, those with one thought and those with another thought. The scum will tend to agree with each other on the thought that benefits them, and then, they're found. Of course, saying that doesn't worry me too much, because the other option is for scum to be disunified, in which case, they're screwed due to infighting.

Reasons would be nice.

I don't know, I'm just sorta getting a gut "meh" on you. I don't fully understand it myself.

...might constitute a case, or as close to a case as it's possible to muster in the first 3 or 4 pages. You may have largely renounced your suspicions of Nocmen now, but from my point of view making my last post, he was clearly your top suspect at that point. Even though the vote may have been for pressure, it still indicates you found him suspicious enough to warrant pressuring.

Except I admitted that finding scum would be difficult at an early stage.

I was hoping for someone to encourage my falsely implied suspicion (basically that was on purpose) of nocmen, actually, because that would mean they were trying to encourage a nocmen lynch.
Instead I see something even more interesting develop. A small group of players (as opposed to a larger group) trying to discourage this, and that same group trying at the same time, to check how much people agree with me and how much people generally find me scummy (as opposed to in this game), as if to guage how well they will be able to undermine my positions in the future.

You misunderstand. The narrow set of options you provided was when you asked Nocmen to say who he thought was scum. Not who had done anything suspicious at that early stage, but who was scum. You effectively gave Noc two options: say someone is scum on a very limited set of evidence, or not call anyone scum ('anybody could be scum') and incur your wrath for supposed question dodging. When he gave some minor suspicions, you criticised him for not doing that straight away, when in fact the reason for that was the initial phrasing didn't give him the option to do so.

Yes, I was trying to guage both nocmen's reactions and people's reactions to it. (See above.)
I was hoping that more people would talk before the game reached this stage in questioning, so I could get more reads before explaining this, but, oh well.

[magnus_orion]

You're actions now start to make sense, making me feel a bit more comfortable about what you did. Definitely thought through,and planned ahead. Not sure if that's good for town or scum though. I'll remain with you on neutral.

how do you feel about walnut and caf19 in regards to what I did?

[magnus_orion]

IMO. However, this topic is getting a bit stale, I will admit.

Yeah. I'll agree here. More people need to be in the posting of the comments.

Especially Isacc, whom I used to being a tad more talkative than he's being, but it may be due to homework and stuff, as expressed a few posts ago by him.

[magnus_orion]

My suspicion right now is on magnus_orion, however. He was pushing pretty hard on nocmen there for a bit, and then when questioned himself backed off FAST, complete with apologies and phrases like "from my POV" and "I was hoping," which sound like backpedaling without conviction. Bad mojo, and worth pressing the issue on

IMHO.

Emphasis mine. "OMG you used polite words+phrases! Must be scum."

Anyway, would you rather me be condescending and arrogant, or polite and civil? Both apparently make you suspicious, afterall. Do you suspect yourself? You used "IMHO" in your last post, afterall.

fos: dourgrim

Also, perhaps more importantly, you're condemnation of my actions is written in a manner seeking majority agreement, rather than interrogation. (otherwise I would have thought you town for the attack on me backpeddling) Do you want to figure out if I'm scum, or don't you? Scummy, IMHO. You're looking for a lynch, not for the scum. Why?

Walnut's last post makes me believe he is town. He suspects me for the backpedeling, but argues and presents points and questions against me directly.

Nocmen's praise and acceptancey post make me believe he is scum. Towny thing to do was what walnut did. Furthermore, he pushed my suspicions for walnut and caf19. But mainly, I really dislike when someone says, "Oh, okay then. That makes sense." In my experience, they tend to be scum.

fos: Nocmen

I am amused that you then say (paraphrasing) "I made a dumb attack on nocmen to see who would follow it" and are then surprised if people think it was a dumb attack

...
Yeah, well, it usually leads to stronger attacks, which is the most important bit. More discussion, more deliberation, more scumhunting, and the scum suffer.

What do you see as his purpose and the likely result of him saying it in this game?

To provide a description of his feelings on the game adequetly. The results are... ? I dunno.

Caf19 continues to earn himself a "meh" status, as he has decided to ignore me for now.
@Caf19: what if I'm scum? Why can't you broaden your suspicions?

[magnus_orion]

Painting up the foregrounds towards a later reason for a mislynch? Is you scum?

No, I'm not scum, I've already answered that question.

Anyway, this tell is the one I least like to argue, since it is least likely to convince people, but has been most accurate in the past.

...
Which is probably why BB said I can't convince people.

[magnus_orion]

Um, what? I found something I believed was telling, and I exercised my only tool for applying pressure (a vote) and noted said fact. I didn't go out of my way to ask for others' opinions... I explained my point and use of vote.

Oh, really? Yet you feel no desire to ask me questions? If you believe I'm scum, you should try and gather information out of me. Find the scumbuddies of mine that theoretically should go along with this belief. Besides, I wasn't saying that you were trying to look for other's opinions, but rather that you were trying to convince people of your opinion.

Um, what? I'm VERY OK with polite and civil... matter of fact, I tend to go after people who go out of their way to be rude as a policy because I believe rudeness in mafia games should be discouraged. And, for the record, "IMHO" isn't vague; it's an acknowledgement of the preceding statement being opinion rather than established fact. In this case, it literally translates to "In my opinion, this point is worth applying pressure with a vote."

Then why is being "apologetic" and admitting your own personal bias (Ie. My opinion) an additional scumtell to the backpedeling, according to you? (Hence the words "In addition...")

Post 119 is somewhat strange in general, though, as it constitutes another flip of opinion back to suspecting Noc again. In accordance, it appears that your previous retraction of Noc-suspicion was a 'test' to see how people reacted, with the correct response being to suspect you for it... so the suspicion of Noc was a test, and then the non-suspicion of Noc was a further test? How am I to know that this most recent FoS of Nocmen isn't another test, as opposed to being genuine this time? Constant application of these 'tests' basically puts you in a position where you can change your opinion to anything you want, in the vein of "Oh that last post was actually a test and you failed!" I would prefer a more transparent approach from you.

Not so much a test. After the first suspicion of nocmen, the following will, more often than not, be my true feelings on subjects. Walnut's post changed my opinion about him. I changed my mind, which shouldn't be a foriegn experience to anyone. Also, I'm usure as to why altering one's feelings about who is scum is bad. I'd think it worse to remain consistant. Afterall, that allows scum to predict your suspicions to better choose their nightkills to influence said suspicions.

That said, I still look at how people react to what I do and try to pick out their actions, because I know I may be wrong, and have tendencies toward paranoia as town.

So no, these were not "tests", but rather a switch in suspicion.
I currently believe nocmen and dourgrim to be scum.
However, I'm unsure of which to persue, as I have but 1 vote.

For now,
@Nocmen and Dourgrim: Comments on each other's play, please.

@BB: ??

[magnus_orion]

Mod: can you plz fix quotes in the above post?

Yep. Fixed.

[magnus_orion]

Finally, if you develop a theory that you believe has merit, isn't it your job to try and convince the other players of its validity?

No.
Its your

job

to try and

prove

its validity, not convince players that its already there.
In other words, its your job to try to

verify

that your theory holds, not push it to a lynch without further investigation.
Its only your job to try and convince other players of its validity without trying to verify it if you're scum.

First of all, I am currently gathering information from you via this conversation. I'm learning about your playstyle, your methodology, and your reactions to suspicion, whether you believe the suspicion to be valid or not. You don't always have to "ask questions" to learn about other players in a game of mafia, y'know.

Fair enough, I'll concede this.
However,

whether you believe the suspicion to be valid or not.

What's this here for? Do you believe there is reason for me to find your suspicions invalid? I in fact praised you

for

suspecting me for what you did. Unfortunately, the way you went about doing it I found to be scummy.

It wasn't you admitting bias... it was the perceived lack of conviction, and your sudden willingness to back down when attacked.

Once again fair enough.
However,

Everyone in a game of mafia, regardless of alignment, has bias... if you don't, you're a soulless robot and probably shouldn't be playing at all (see "convincing others" above). I will admit, of course, that it can be difficult to have ironclad conviction about anything this early in a game of mafia, but I believe you're better off sticking to your guns a bit more than it looks like you did. At least then no one can accuse you of being too wishy-washy later.

Yes, everyone has bias.
Did I dispute this?
Why are you bringing this up?

I like Doug's last post. Looks quite town to me.

Reasons?

[magnus_orion]

@Issac: How are you feeling on Philyec (as in analysis of play so far)?

[magnus_orion]

double post:

135: The first section of this post makes good points, which again leads back to Dourgrim needing to answer my question.

....?
135?

I like Doug's last post. Looks quite town to me.

There were sections in there?
I'm completely lost on how to read RBT.

[magnus_orion]

Yes, and of those 5 posts, there was only one that was worth commenting on, and I mentioned that I already commented on it.

...
Anything to say about his posts NOT involving you?
ie. the rest of them

[magnus_orion]

Yes, and of those 5 posts, there was only one that was worth commenting on, and I mentioned that I already commented on it.

...
Anything to say about his posts NOT involving you?
ie. the rest of them

As of that time, the posts were 5 total, the first 3 which had little to no value at all, and the fifth that was merely an explanation of some of his actions.
His 6th post is to me, raising a debate of what your goal is to do in Mafia. He only has stated his playstyle there, and how it differs from yours. Though I am curious to see if he really will add more content as he claimed he would tomorrow.

Do you not like his mentality or take on Mafia?

I'm not sure I understand what your asking me.

Huh. Your way of interpreting things interests me. Describe your own play to me, nocmen.
I don't care that the source is highly biased. How do you go about finding scum?


@issac: Yes, I agree, especially with the lurking bit.

[magnus_orion]

No.
Its your

job

to try and

prove

its validity, not convince players that its already there.
In other words, its your job to try to

verify

that your theory holds, not push it to a lynch without further investigation.
Its only your job to try and convince other players of its validity without trying to verify it if you're scum.

OK, look: it's early in Day One of the game. I proposed a theory that I believe has merit, and I used my ONE VOTE to apply pressure in support of that theory. I haven't at ALL tried to "push a lynch without further investigation." Matter of fact, as far as I can tell, this IS the "further investigation" you're looking for right here. You still haven't refuted my comment about your wishy-washy stance before... you actually gave me a "fair enough," which seems to mean that you're conceding the point and agree with my assessment. How does that equate with me pushing a lynch without further investigation?

whether you believe the suspicion to be valid or not.

What's this here for? Do you believe there is reason for me to find your suspicions invalid? I in fact praised you for suspecting me for what you did. Unfortunately, the way you went about doing it I found to be scummy.

You removed the emphasis I placed on the word "you" above in my original post, which changes the meaning of the post entirely. My point was that I'm learning about you and your playstyle with this conversation, and that learning is independent of the specific facts of the case and your opinion of those facts. Does that make more sense?

Yes, everyone has bias.
Did I dispute this?
Why are you bringing this up?

This:

Then why is being "apologetic" and admitting your own personal bias (Ie. My opinion) an additional scumtell to the backpedeling, according to you? (Hence the words "In addition...")

You referenced bias above, and I was refuting your claim that bias itself is a scumtell by stating that everyone has bias. That's all.

-----------

Dourgrim's play in this game also bothers me, but I'm afraid I must wait before I can say anymore on this.

This pisses me off. It's a VERY thinly-veiled reference to something else current on the site, and B_B, you should know better. That's a MAJOR no-no.

-----------

Isacc: I'll try to answer your questions today... and I owe somebody an analysis on Nocmen as well. Yeesh, you guys are needy on Day One.

*sigh*
This conversation acts as investigation into how I play only because

I

engaged

you

. That was a concious decision on my part. In other words, I could have chosen to ignore you. If I had, you would not be gathering information about me now. However, If you claim to be gathering information on me, then you should be able to substantiate your case against me, assuming it is correct.

You removed the emphasis I placed on the word "you" above in my original post, which changes the meaning of the post entirely. My point was that I'm learning about you and your playstyle with this conversation, and that learning is independent of the specific facts of the case and your opinion of those facts. Does that make more sense?

I use copy and paste and not the quote button on posts to make my quotes. As such, any emphasis is removed as a result of this method, and is unintentional. However, you dodged the question. Why did you include the comment about whether I consider your suspicion valid or not? Also, why does my opinion of the facts not matter? I'm the one being investigated, so I'd think them highly relevant.

You referenced bias above, and I was refuting your claim that bias itself is a scumtell by stating that everyone has bias. That's all.

You misunderstood me. You included "in addition" in your intial case against me, which lead me to believe that this was an additional point of your case of my scumminess. And this "in addtion" included admitting my personal bias, implying that you thought doing so was a scumtell, which I disagree with.

However, after your read on nocmen, I no longer think you are as scummy as before. I'll stop attacking you, for now, but you're still pretty high on the suspect list.

@Mafiassk: I'm not voting. (well, I wasn't, I am now) If I'm trying to get to night phase, my method of doing so sucks. Of course this is wifom, but your reasoning is lolsomely awful and based on gross generalization.

Phillyec is scum. He's trying to avoid making definite comments in order to see who the town will support, me or my targets, and then jump on. This is why he is active lurking. IIOA is an extension on this.

@Phillyec: You're tryng to pull out of suspcion on BB before you get hanged for it. Why?

vote: phillyec

[magnus_orion]

Arrgh I wrote up a big post, and then it logged me out.

In summary,
1. I think Isacc would be scum if philly flips town
2. First point in Dourgrim's last post: This is semantics, plus, conversations aren't worth credit
3. second point"""": I'm not going to do extra legwork just because you can't make your points without appeal to emotion. Also, your points rely on pathos? + to scumminess
4. Third Point"""": If I disagree with you in one aspect, (I disagree that I'm scum), it is an Association Fallacy to assume that I disagree with you in all aspects. So no, it would be the opposite of logic to think that. + to scumminess
5. Last point"""": I like how I'm scummy if I change my mind on you. + to scumminss

HOS: Dourgrim

[magnus_orion]

Magnus says I'm scum but for what, repetition is very effective and this is exactly what hes doing. Good scum play in my books but theres always the chance that hes just decided to tunnel on someone hes assured himself is scum, a very unavoidable thing town players do when eager to grandstand in a game.

I'm not active lurking, so explain how this is "exactly what [I'm] doing"?

[magnus_orion]

He should concentrate on the more scummy of players if he wants to be considered pro-town.

Who are these "more scummy of players" that he should be concentrating on?

Wrong choice of words. He should concentrate on people that have a more solid ground for being scum.

LOL, the question was who, so reclarifying it doesn't make the question go away does it?

You really should've bothered to rewrite whatever it was you originally wrote, magnus, because this synopsis of yours didn't work.

2. First point in Dourgrim's last post: This is semantics, plus, conversations aren't worth credit

1. It's NOT semantics, it's FACT. You can try to brush off your misrepresentation all you want by giving it an easy label, but what it really boils down to is this: YOU LIED, and I caught you.

3. second point"""": I'm not going to do extra legwork just because you can't make your points without appeal to emotion. Also, your points rely on pathos? + to scumminess

2. Wait, wait, let me see if I have this straight: you believe placing emphasis on a word is an appeal to emotion? Wow... that's almost stunningly simplistic of you. The fact is, you intentionally misquoted me, either because you're too lazy to bother putting formatting tags into a quote or because you wanted to misrepresent my post for your own reasons. I suspect the latter, which is why I pointed it out.

4. Third Point"""": If I disagree with you in one aspect, (I disagree that I'm scum), it is an Association Fallacy to assume that I disagree with you in all aspects. So no, it would be the opposite of logic to think that. + to scumminess

3. Go back and read the series of posts you're referencing. I said that your opinion of my case ON YOU didn't matter... I never said you disagreed with me on everything. Seriously, stop lying.

5. Last point"""": I like how I'm scummy if I change my mind on you. + to scumminss

4. Are you even reading my posts? I said that you backing off of me proves my point about your early wishy-washy backpedalling when called out on a case.

HOS

OMGUS cuz the big meanie is picking on me: Dourgrim

Fixed.

This is getting unpleasant. (Judging from your attitude thus far, your response will be to blame me for this, but you're the one using lack of tags as a scumtell.)

1. Conversation requires two people. Otherwise it is merely statements. Thus, when I engaged you it became a conversation. However, we could also say you started the conversation because it was your original statement that was engaged. So it is semantics, based on how you are defining the word conversation.

And You're meanwhile desperately grasping at something as ridiculous as me lying about who started a conversation to call a scumtell.

2. You have no retort to my over simpilicty? Good. It stands then. The fact of the matter is that what you were trying to say doesn't change with the emphasis, at least from what I can tell, so the only thing it has is emotional impact. Me not actively going in and putting your precious emphasis on words does not prove anything, other than that I copy and paste for quotes. Your fascination with these little details that you keep slashing away at is so desperate its laughable. I mean, are you for real? I'm scum because I didn't put tags in when I quoted you? If that isn't reaching I don't know what is.

3. [quote="dourgrim]Also incorrect. If you're my suspect, it's only logical for you to contradict what I've said. Therefore, your opinion of the case I made is irrelevant in my eyes because there's only one opinion you can logically have. [/quote]
My response is that this is not logical. It is association fallacy. Which means that your reasoning is flawed, so you need to go about another way of proving that my opinion of your case doesn't matter, which I say it does, because I'm the one being investigated. Actually reading this again, there is more fallacy, "there is no alternative" is a special case of false dichotomy. So yes, I hold an alternate viewpoint to you in one respect, but my opinion on your other veiwpoints still matters.

In other words: I will not necessarily contradict what you've said in all respects, so it is illogical to think that I would. So your basis for ignoring my opinions on your case has no grounds.

4. Once again, saying "OMG you think there's the possibility of Me (as in Dourgrim) being town, as opposed to thinking me (dourgrim) scum, so you (magnus) must be scum, since you're backing off!" after I say a post made me think you were less scummy is like saying I'm not allowed to change my mind, because doing so would be a scumtell.

Also telling me to "go back and read your posts" if I'm misunderstanding you is not the best way of going about correcting me. So if I'm misunderstanding, you should explain where I'm misunderstanding you, since the words in the posts won't change unless the mod edits them, believe it or not, so I'll read them the same exact way, since they are the same exact words, in the same exact order, with the same exact meanings in my POV.

So you had run out of reasons for attacking everyone until now and attacked Philly. You really don't care who gets lynched. Also by doing WIFOM, you have yet another scumtell.

Right, I don't care who gets lynched [/sarcasm] So, care to back that statement up? Because I want my suspects lynched.
Preferably philly, because I'm pretty sure he's scum.
Or do you disagree with that assessment?
I'd like to hear your reasoning on a few other players, besides me. (And including how I interact with them as the defining quality is unhelpful.)

[magnus_orion]

BB, I find it interesting that your results indicate that your two friends from a previous game are least scum-like. Do you believe it possible that your % approach favours a particular playstyle and has little relevance to scumminess? It might be time for a little reflection on that.

Right now, my sense is that magnus_orion has shown the most scum like play, but I am still trying to figure out what out of that might be attributable to his personal style. I am not interested in the Phily lynch. Look at his join date, note how he was pretty much the first person to voice an opinion on anything much and got slammed for it, then has tried to play it safe-ish from there. My read is more a new player than a scum player.

So he's using a newb scum strat. If he's town he's got no reason to worry about his opinion making him look scummy. Town's advantage is in numbers so worrying about being lynched for your opinions should be a scum problem, not a town problem. At least at this stage in the game.
Later things should be a little different. So town should be bold and state their opinions, and take whatever may come, and then fight back if necessary. In my opinion, the time for critical thinking comes later in the game. The time for action is now.

I presented a case on why I thought you were scummy and voted for you. You responded with a bunch of rhetoric and a FoS. The current argument ensued. Does that sound like an accurate accounting of the timeline? Then, you should be able to easily tell who began this exchange. I could care less who you believe started the conversation... you tried to take credit for starting this exchange, and I pointed out the lie therein.

You claim to scumhunt by trying to polarize the Town on an issue. I scumhunt by analyzing each player's posts, and then using my vote to apply what pressure I can to someone whose posts indicate potential scumminess. The whole reason we got off on this "who started it" tangent was because you wrongfully accused me of not scumhunting as part of your retort to my vote. I pointed out in return that I was scumhunting by applying my vote on the person who I believe is the scummiest looking player in the game. You then LIED about who began the exchange.

Its still semantics, and now you've simply exchanged "conversation" with "exchange"

This conversation acts as investigation into how I play only because I engaged you. That was a concious decision on my part. In other words, I could have chosen to ignore you. If I had, you would not be gathering information about me now. However, If you claim to be gathering information on me, then you should be able to substantiate your case against me, assuming it is correct.

Here's my "lie". Please underline the part of the post that contradicts your "facts" and make my "lie" more apparent. Underline the lie, state the facts, show how they contradict each other, and then you will have called me out on a lie.

Really, I'm not even voting you, haven't been since my random vote, and you're freaking out.

Are you familiar with the "Lynch All Liars" theory? It says that pro-Town players should never outright lie in a game because falsehood creates confusion and mistrust, which are the bread and butter of the scum. Therefore, I called you out on the lie. What is unclear about this? Furthermore, why is your lie (which it looks like you admit to above) somehow exempt from LAL?

Obviously I wouldn't expect you to know this, seeing as how this is our first game together, but I'm a strong opponent of LAL. I believe that LAL is silly, in the fact that it creates an overarcing generalization and ruins some very good townie moves. LAL should only be applied given the secarnio, and whether the lie was intended to benefit the town or not. For example, if you are about to be lynched, and you are a doctor, if you feel that a vanilla claim will get the lynch wagon off you, better to claim vanilla than doctor, as scum will see you as a mislynch target, and you will be able to protect people. If you are a pgo, suggest you are a lover, or some other pro-town role. If you are a lover, suggest you are a pgo. There are plenty of opportunities for pro-town lies.
So, I'd prefer if you not only demonstrate my lie in the above post, but also prove the lie to be against the best interests of the town. Now, I don't think I lied, I'm just throwing this out there because you mentioned it. In short, yes, I have heard of it. And don't agree with it.

I've already tried to explain why the emphasis changes the meaning of the post, so I'm not going to bother re-explaining it to you here... but with regards to quoting tags and preserving the original posts, see my "Lynch All Liars" reference above. You can call them "little details" all you want, but there's a reason that LAL is a valid part of mafia game theory, and one that most successful players subscribe to. It doesn't take much misrepresentation and misdirection to influence people's opinions of a player. B_B up there is a shining example of this: he uses his %'s to create a false sense of legitimacy to his theories, a practice that I'm not very fond of. This game is all ABOUT details, magnus, and the sooner you start to realize that, the better.

Right, right, you think I'm a lying bastard because I didn't include "

" and "[/i ]" in your quote, minus the spacing. So, prove that my "lie" was in fact a "lie", and then prove it was anti-town. Because leaving out emphasis is really a very biased thing to call a lie. And you make quite a lot of assumptions. Most importantly, that the leaving out was intetional (It wasn't).

Yes, your opinion of my other viewpoints matters, I completely agree with that. However, that's not what I was saying at all, nor have I said that in any way, shape or form in this thread. What I actually said was that your opinion on the case I made about your scumminess was irrelevant to the case itself, because your opinion on the case itself was obvious. I have never once said that your opinion on everything else didn't matter. If you disagree, quote one post where I say that. Otherwise, stop lying.

Alright, then I misunderstood. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

You're certainly allowed to change your mind in a game of mafia. If you weren't, we'd all just stick with our random votes, and this game would completely suck. However, this is twice this game that you've come out with very aggressive (but not necessarily strong) arguments and subsequently backed down (or changed your mind, whatever you want to call it) when someone starts to put up a fight. That doesn't look like "changing your mind" to me, it looks like backpedalling... there is a difference, although you may consider that just a "detail" not worth considering.

Meh, if you want to call my backing off of people a scumtell, go right ahead. I change my mind a lot, mostly in response to a suspect's post that makes me think them town. I'd like to hear more reasoning from you about people other than me as well, since I think you might be tunneling, and just facing a confirmation bias.

Dude, I have been explaining it to you. I'm sorry if I haven't been specific enough for you, but I've been doing the best job I can of spelling out exactly where you're wrong, exactly why I'm suspicious of you, and exactly why I'm voting for you. Have I been somehow ambiguous?

Unfortunately, you have somehow been ambiguous, otherwise we'd be reading your posts the same way. Apologies.

[magnus_orion]

@Dourgrim:

OMG BACKPEDAL

Fair enough. I want to hear what you have to say about other players.

He should concentrate on the more scummy of players if he wants to be considered pro-town.

Who are these "more scummy of players" that he should be concentrating on?

Wrong choice of words. He should concentrate on people that have a more solid ground for being scum.

LOL, the question was who, so reclarifying it doesn't make the question go away does it?

Stop not doing what the inner quote says.

So you had run out of reasons for attacking everyone until now and attacked Philly. You really don't care who gets lynched. Also by doing WIFOM, you have yet another scumtell.

Right, I don't care who gets lynched [/sarcasm] So, care to back that statement up? Because I want my suspects lynched.
Preferably philly, because I'm pretty sure he's scum.
Or do you disagree with that assessment?
I'd like to hear your reasoning on a few other players, besides me. (And including how I interact with them as the defining quality is unhelpful.)

It seems you have suspected nearly everyone in the game. So you want everyone lynched? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your assessment of philly being scum. I'll define other players later.

The jump from induction, to generalized statement, to more generalized statement is wacky.

"magnus has suspected a lot of players => magnus has suspected most of the players => magnus suspects all of the players." I don't like this movement of thinking at all.

I will say that I don't currently suspect walnut, and my suspicion on issac is purely conditional. And the condition being that I'm wrong. I also don't suspect nocmen as much after dourgrim's post on him, which sounds like he's had prior experience with nocmen.
Dourgrim is "iffy", I feel that his reads on players other than me will be valuable information into his alignment, information that has been lacking so far, so I don't really know, all I know is I dislike the points he's used against me.

So basically the only one I'm really okay with lynching at this point and time is phillyec.

[magnus_orion]

I'm suspicious of Isacc if phillyec is town.

[magnus_orion]

This probably best explains the issues I have had with magnus. My preference is for thinking, especially as action without much thought naturally looks either silly or scummy.

Yes, well I do think when I post, I just don't focus on soley passive thinking. I focus more on aggression, the better to gather info pn day 1 with, and make it available for subsequent days.

[magnus_orion]

*on

[magnus_orion]

his jumping on an easy and obvious action and subsequent explanation that I don't really buy.

Tie that into the fact that I've been distracted doing other things. When I skimmed the thread I picked out the most obvious scum tell and brought it up. My contribution when unfortunately unable to keep up with thread. I'm pretty caught up and I still think the action I pointed out was extremely scummy, what you call 'obvious'.

@Magnus
Who arent you suspicious of? Rather than aggressive gameplay it seems like random mud hurling till you hit a bullseye, your explanation is something scum would most likely fabricate for their suspicions being so random. Throwing my opinion in on the approach of Magnus' approach to the game~.

I'm suspicious of everybody, just in different measures. BB is pretty low, and a lot of people are in the ?? department. Scummy includes, well, just you.

Considering your playstyle so far, suddenly trying to attack me in this manner seems unnatural. You're trying to argue defense through ad hominem, I'm guessing.

Also, since I think you are scum, this post tells me something else. You're attempting to push momentum on the people voting me, without voting me. Because of this, it means you're still trying to avoid seeming scummy by voting, but you're also trying to see if the wagon will form momentum and justify your vote later if it does. Because of this, and the risks involved with the sudden change in playstyle, I theorize that someone currently voting me is town.
Between Dourgrim and Mafiassk, I'd say dourgrim is more likely if only 1 of the 2.
Mafiassk has shown a reluctance to display opinions, making a read on him difficult.

It is however possible that they are both town. Of course this is speculation based on you flipping scum, but putting it out there doesn't hurt anyone.

[magnus_orion]

@BB: What about phillyec suddenly changing from passive fence sitting comments to active attacks? Is that common for him?

[magnus_orion]

Why not ask me directly? Seems like you're trying to insue suspicion even before you get your answers.
Anyways, I just finished Mass Effect, hence the effort appearing out of the blue, twas an awesome game.

Because you are a biased source. I'm also suspicious of the fact that you felt you had to appear to be scumhunting, but not putting effort into it. In other words, you were just trying to appear pro-town, so you could play mass effect? or you were just trying to appear pro-town because you're scum.
And an Ad hominem arguement is not a good arguement.

[magnus_orion]

Why not ask me directly? Seems like you're trying to insue suspicion even before you get your answers.
Anyways, I just finished Mass Effect, hence the effort appearing out of the blue, twas an awesome game.

Because you are a biased source.

This looks like hypocrisy to me, based on my statement earlier that magnus' opinion on my case against him didn't matter (and his subsequent "of course it matters" argument). Just sayin'.

Because I prefer my answer from a less biased source than a more biased source. His opinion on the matter still matters, and is noted. He admits to active lurking, and excuses himself through mass effect.

So what I'm bothered by in this excuse is that he was bothering to appear to look for scumtells, and such, but no bothering to put real effort in. As if he didn't want to appear suspicious, but was more interested in mass effect at the time. So his concern appears to be not finding scum, but just not appearing suspicious. Otherwise, I'd expect a player to make a concious decision to look up the game, analyze what's going on, and give what they find to be scumtells, not pop in and throw some more obvious junk out and then get out of there to give the guise of contributing. I'm pretty confident he's scum based on this excuse.

That said, BB's comment does instill a little doubt.

Though definitely not cleared, Phily's behavior doesn't condemn him. However Magnus and caf, you two probably need a better reason to attack Phily. I do like voting Phily till he returns to scum hunting (as far as I can see).

Looks like I may have to do a bit of meta research, maybe?

[magnus_orion]

I just had an idea.
*(window shatters. doors slam shut and lock. dogs bark. small children cry)*



@ phillyec: Alright, let's proceed under the assumption that you

were

playing mass effect. Now, what does that lead to regarding your comments thus far.
Two conclusions:
1. Phillyec should be able to read through the game thus far, and provide comments that show a more in depth analysis prior to what we've seen out of him originally
2. Phillyec's analysis and posts will be more in-depth and common from this point forward.

I wonder if these conclusions will prove to hold. Phillyec, reread, and provide a more in-depth analysis, now that you can focus more attention on the game.

[magnus_orion]

I'm also a bit wary of magnus trying to string lynches together by saying that Isacc is scummy if Phily is town. did you ever explain why that is the case, magnus?

Well, its about time somebody mentioned that. I was starting to think you'd all lost your heads.

1. Neither philly nor issac are lynch worthy at this point. If we were forced into making a lynch this instant with no further discussion, I'd go with philly. But we should interrogate the suspect, gather information on them, and collect data. This way we are better informed once we decide on a lynch.

2. Issac is scummy if philly flips town. Based on a few premises: That scum want to lynch asap, and that scum are afraid to push for this. I've played as scum, and I feel that there is a natural inclination toward finding something acceptable once a townie or two does it. Since I know I am town, Issac's reluctance to vote Philly upon post # 145, but he votes philly in his post # 166, directly following my post # 165 where I vote philly.

Assuming philly is town, then Issac would feel that when I voted him, it became established that it would not be impossible for a townie to take this route. Issac's immediate jump to take this action makes him slightly scummier then anyone else on the wagon. That said, with any town lynch day 1, unless the lynch is forced by deadline, the possiblity is much greater that scum would be on the wagon as opposed to not. So, if philly flips town, everyone on the wagon should be subject to greater scrutiny. Issac had already commented on philly, but only voted him after I did, so he sticks out among the members of the wagon. With a deadline lynch, I'm not entirely sure if scum would necessarily want to avoid the lynch or not, since it is technically forced, so they might hide from the wagon to avoid aforementioned scrutiny...

Also, the reason I deal with "stringing lynches together" is very simply due to habit forming, as a result of me never having survived night 1 as town in the history of my play on mafia scum, for various reasons, so its only natural that I'd put out my thoughts on future events before I no longer can. Its not that I suspect I'm going to be nightkilled, but more of a "just in case" type of thing.

[magnus_orion]

I'm also a bit wary of magnus trying to string lynches together by saying that Isacc is scummy if Phily is town. did you ever explain why that is the case, magnus?

Well, its about time somebody mentioned that. I was starting to think you'd all lost your heads.

1. Neither philly nor issac are lynch worthy at this point. If we were forced into making a lynch this instant with no further discussion, I'd go with philly. But we should interrogate the suspect, gather information on them, and collect data. This way we are better informed once we decide on a lynch.

2. Issac is scummy if philly flips town. Based on a few premises: That scum want to lynch asap, and that scum are afraid to push for this. I've played as scum, and I feel that there is a natural inclination toward finding something acceptable once a townie or two does it. Since I know I am town, Issac's reluctance to vote Philly upon post # 145, but he votes philly in his post # 166, directly following my post # 165 where I vote philly.

Wait...philly is not lynch worthy at this point, but you would lynch him if you had to? That makes little sense.

Though I do agree completely with the point you said about Issac.

I think we need to make a choice which of these we should test today.

Unvote,

, BB has proved a bit better to me.

I think this is bad word choice. Lynching philly would be premature, since we should be able to see if he can reach the conclusions indicated above that I stated.

@BB: Do you want me to attack ToD for some reason? I've kind of ignored him... as well as RBT (though I don't know how the hell to read RBT ) not to mention that flame needs replacement. I agree, discussion is lagging. My reasons for not really moving forward are that Philly isn't posting. I want him to respond to my request for analysis.
Also, you have to remember, Neopolitan was wackier than a usual game. There was a lot of outguessing the mod to do, which I don't see happening all that much in this game.

Alright, reread trumpet of doom's (quite limited) number of posts. ToD's already posted his feeling on the game (more than we've seen from phillyec), but I'd have to say, if Philly flips scum, He'd be one of the top suspects. Wonder why he's lurking, which I assure you he is doing....

Is band a long term thing that still allows you Internet access, ToD?

Hoping to see results from those prods.

I have a few more comments to make on a few things I've noticed, but I'm holding off until Philly posts.

[magnus_orion]

Welcome to the game Seraphim!

1. Neither philly nor issac are lynch worthy at this point. If we were forced into making a lynch this instant with no further discussion, I'd go with philly. But we should interrogate the suspect, gather information on them, and collect data. This way we are better informed once we decide on a lynch.

Hmm. This seems less certain than before, when you stated your sureness of Phily being scum a couple of times. What's changed?

I'll be interested to see what Isacc has to say to your argument, obv.

BB and ToD's comments about philly's meta made me a little less sure. Which is why I'm trying to test this. Philly not posting isn't helping though...

[magnus_orion]

Double Post:
@Phillyec: You'll have to explain why you're lurking again when you do actually get around to posting.
@ToD: You too
@isacc: You Three
@Seraphim: hello.

@RBT: I was going to wait for philly to post before bringing this up... but...

RBT- it is about your third post, and I recall BB calling one of them "the most useful post ever". To say that you can't draw much from what you see is a bit off as you have not contributed significantly yet yourself, and to vote someone for not posting when you are yet to post content is much the same.

For a mini, I've posted more in this game than I do on average. I prefer to let what I read mill through my thoughts instead of make hasty replies that may have partial or biased conclusions.

FoS:Philly

for what may be different tactics, can still be used as scum moves too. Don't think it's lynch worthy, at least not yet.

.... Isn't an fos a partial conclusion?
Based on the first post above, and then going of the second, it looks like you may be trying to open up a window of opportunity for a vote later on.

Also, how can something not be lynchworthy now, but lynchworthy later (in reference to the "not yet"?

Fos: RBT

[magnus_orion]

@BB: Do you want me to attack ToD for some reason?

See, in the last game, you attacked the scum boss (whoever Phate replaced) viciously for his style of posting and his general lack there of. You are doing it against Isacc (who definitely needs it. His play style is radically different from last game), but it seems unlike you to batantly ignore someone like that. As for RBT, we all have that problem.

Not really...
It was more of... Hey these people all look town: names
Which makes these people the scum: names (And these people are all lurkers to boot)
I don't remember being especially vicious on nik. I was more concerned about the "follow the leader" posts from nik anyway, in that game. But towards the stage this game is getting, I was more concerned about breaking the game in that game. Actually, in that game, I'm pretty sure I forgot percy even existed several times...

You do have a point thoug, I have been ignoring ToD... Except nothing jumps out at me when I read his posts... other than the lurking, and the ignoring philly. I'm trying to balance whether or not He or walnut would be philly's scumpartner (as ToD attacked walnut, I'd see he and walnut as being scumpartners unlikely)... and I'm leaning walnut.

@nocmen: You ever play a game with RBT? Also, in regard to your points on RBT, what about Mafiassk?

[magnus_orion]

Riceballtail's in that game too...

And seraphim...

Looks like we're going to be able to get a lot of meta on philly.

I'll look over the game a bit myself later... to see if philly feels like a mislynch or not.

[magnus_orion]

I will say that I don't currently suspect walnut

You do have a point thoug, I have been ignoring ToD... Except nothing jumps out at me when I read his posts... other than the lurking, and the ignoring philly. I'm trying to balance whether or not He or walnut would be philly's scumpartner (as ToD attacked walnut, I'd see he and walnut as being scumpartners unlikely)... and I'm leaning walnut.

magnus, what between those posts caused you to change your opinion so dramatically?

@RBT: I agree that analysis is a separate activity from posting. But along the lines of the conversation BB and I had earlier about the job of a town player, you can't do a lot of good with your analysis if you happened to get lynched for lurking first.

Hi Seraphim, by a quirk of fate I am voting for you. Please give me lots of good reasons to move my vote!

I reconsidered your defense of phillyec. I don't like that you played the newb card for him. Especially when he's acting scummy.

Newbieness is not an excuse for scumminess.

At the time when I posted that, 201, I was focused on other things, but that post of yours where you defend philly doesn't sit well with me.

[magnus_orion]

So magnus:

1) You posted an explicit response to a post of mine.
2) Someone else commented on my post.
3) Someone else voted for me.
4) You then said you found me scummy for it.

Does that sound familiar? It should, as it is pretty much what you are accusing Isacc of doing.

Newbieness is not an excuse for scumminess.

What are you actually trying to say here? That newbie play does not look like scum play?

Yes, newbie play does not look like scumminess, what made you think it would? Now there is such thing as newbie scum play, which is my actual accusation against philly, and newbie town play, but that doesn't make newbie town play look like experienced scum play. Or newbie scum play for that matter.

And am I voting you walnut? Or is suspicion the same as voting? Unless your answer to that second question is yes, then its not the same thing as what I'm accusing isacc of. I didn't like your defense of philly is all. I find it suspicious. I do not find it lynch worthy.

@Dourgrim: Hey, scum, do you have anything to say about players who are not me? Afraid of boxing yourself into a corner from your comments earlier on?

HOS: Dourgrim

Your last post is my favorite scumtell. You're happy with your vote because it is against town, and you feel its been legetimized by someone else's comment. I am reasonably confident you're scum now.

[magnus_orion]

magnus appears to be progressively cooling on his suspicion toward Phily, while his suspicion of players such as RBT and particularly Dourgrim has continued to grow, in the latter case to a point where he is "reasonably confident you're scum now". Yet his vote remains on Phily. This makes no sense to me - there's no point in having a pressure vote on someone if you're going to alleviate that pressure through posts saying you're thinking about whether Phily might be a mislynch, etc.

That was an attack? Didn't look like one to me.

It's getting hard to ignore your refusal to make even a cursory attempt at explanations or analysis. Please try harder.

No, I just can't post on philly

because he hasn't posted

. There's nothing new to comment on. Even more confident that philly is scum than dourgrim.

I'm not icreadibly suspicious of RBT. Though it is hard to get her to react to anything... making her a difficult read.
As for thinking about philly might be a mislynch, its because both trumpet and BB suggested a meta... but Trumpet has changed his mind. And BB is voting him. I'm still waiting to hear seraphim's opinion on this. And if we can, RBT's. Because we now know that they were all in a game with phillyec. In my personal opinion, phillyec is scum. But if there's sufficient meta to suggest he plays like this as town, then I'd change my opinion.

@Dourgrim: Hey, scum, do you have anything to say about players who are not me? Afraid of boxing yourself into a corner from your comments earlier on?

HOS: Dourgrim

Spin-doctor much? I haven't provided much analysis on the other players, I agree, but that's because I think I've presented a pretty good case on you that you still haven't refuted to my satisfaction.

You're a liar

... why should you (or your BS accusations) be trusted?

Your last post is my favorite scumtell. You're happy with your vote because it is against town, and you feel its been legetimized by someone else's comment. I am reasonably confident you're scum now.

No, I'm happy with my vote because you're not making any sense, and because another player besides me has successfully pointed out a flaw in your "case" that you didn't really refute well. You've gone around and FoS'd almost everyone in this game at this point, and you haven't built much of a case against anyone as far as I can tell, let alone me. Besides, if you're so sure I'm scum, why aren't you voting for me? Get over yourself.

Dour: Your play is still radically different. Granted, maybe you need someone like GIEFF to argue with, but I think your being exceedingly passive this game. Reason?

Have you not noticed magnus up there? I was arguing with him, posting quite a bit, and the reaction of the Town was pretty much the same: ignoring us. Why continue to blather on about magnus and his ridiculous "playstyle" if no one's interested? It didn't help last game, did it? You were convinced then that I was scum, so I'm trying to keep the thread noise down in this game to reduce the distractions to the Town. I guess in that way I am playing differently than last game... but also remember, in that last game I said that my work schedule has picked up considerably, and I have less time overall for posting. I'm keeping up with the game, I'm not lurking, I just am not posting walls of text anymore.

What do you mean haven't refuted to your satisfaction? I asked you to present the facts, and post my posts where I "lied" and show where you say I lied through emphasis, and then show how it conflicts with the facts. You never proceeded to do this. If what you claim about me is true, then you should be able to. So why don't you?

And I'm more confident philly is scum. And I can't vote for two people.

Also, I'll note that you refuse to post analysis on other players. Why don't you? Your excuse is ridiculous, posting a case on me does not interfere with you commenting on other players. Unless, of course, you're scum afraid of alienating players from your wagon against me, in which case, you'd have a perfectly legitimate reason for not posting on other players as a result of making a case on me.

As for a case against you, you did something, which I already explained, and as a result, I think you're scum. And I'm going to continue to think you are scum until you do something that makes me change my mind.

Phillyec is in the same boat. His actions lead me to believe he is scum. And I'm going to continue to think he is scum until he does something that changes my mind.

[magnus_orion]

Hey, Isacc posted!

Anyways, the other fact is, it's all well and good to speculate this except that I actually find him scummy. If he flips town, that'll be unfortunate, but I have no real evidence to believe he will at this point.

Who is "he"? Your pronouns were unclear here, isacc. At least to me.

[magnus_orion]

What do you mean haven't refuted to your satisfaction? I asked you to present the facts, and post my posts where I "lied" and show where you say I lied through emphasis, and then show how it conflicts with the facts. You never proceeded to do this. If what you claim about me is true, then you should be able to. So why don't you?

I have pointed out on more than one occasion where you've lied. To sum up: you omitted emphasis in a quote in an effort to change the meaning of the original post, and you tried to take credit for our initial exchange because you asked the first question, when in actuality it was

my

vote on

you

that provoked the exchange in the first place. Do you remember these statements being made in the thread? You flippantly dismissed them as "semantics" because you couldn't directly refute them, but the fact remains that you lied twice, and you have no defense. And now you're lying about me not proving where you lied.

Also, I'll note that you refuse to post analysis on other players. Why don't you? Your excuse is ridiculous, posting a case on me does not interfere with you commenting on other players. Unless, of course, you're scum afraid of alienating players from your wagon against me, in which case, you'd have a perfectly legitimate reason for not posting on other players as a result of making a case on me.

I haven't done a full analysis of the other players, you're right, and that's something I've been trying to work up. Unfortunately, I keep getting distracted by you. Perhaps I should just start ignoring you, since you seem to be ignoring what I actually say in the thread (I assume because it doesn't fit into your neat little pigeon-hole preconceptions).

As for a case against you, you did something, which I already explained, and as a result, I think you're scum. And I'm going to continue to think you are scum until you do something that makes me change my mind.

If you're going to force me to repeat my case again and again in the thread as to why you're a liar, you could at least have the common courtesy to return the favor by clearly and concisely presenting your case against me again. Or would that interfere with your "HoS"-ing of the rest of the players in the game?

I will attempt to post an in-depth analysis of every other player in the game within the next 24 hours, if for no other reason than I'm sick of listening to magnus babble.

I dismissed them as semantics because you couldn't directly support that your interpretation of my post was correct. (Because its not. Otherwise, since you are "sick of me babbling" about it, you would have gone back, picked out the post where I say something along the lines of, "I started this conversation." as opposed to the actual post where I say something along the lines of "I engaged you in the conversation." The problem being, I can engage in a conversation without starting one.) The "lies" that you use for your case are nothing more than what I'm trying to say conflicting with what your interpretation of what I said.


So, my defense is that your attack is founded upon false premise, namely, that what I was trying to say matches your interpretation of what I said. Hence, semantics, because it is just a matter of word choice.

So my "flippant dismissal" is backed up by explanation, which has not been discounted, since your only response has been, "no it isn't, I've already proven that not to be the case." So if you are right, then you sould be able to prove that this isn't the case.

And its about time, I look forward to hearing what you have to say about the other players.

My case against you is as follows:

I'm still pretty happy with where my vote is, especially considering Walnut's observation above.

I consider this a scumtell. Scum like to lean back, and say, "oh this person said this. I agree, thus, my vote on this other person is legitimized" They want to be able to vote for people they consider to be mislynchs, and then make sure their vote on the person is valid from a town perspective.

And then I suspect that your tunneling on me is an attempt to avoid making definite statements that you'd have to change on later dates to get your mislynches. (Which is why I look forward to your points on other players)

That's the gist of it.

Now this is the whole convincing people thing that I can't do... Obviously this case (if you really even want to call it that) is based on personal bias about things I consider scumtells, which don't meet the norms of what most people consider scumtells.

Since I'm not appealing to normal scumtells, there is less chance that my arguement will do anything other than provoke reaction from the other person, which is fine, because I'm not out to trick everyone into listening to me anyway, since that's what scum do. On the contrary, I prefer them to reach their own conclusions. Which isn't to say they aren't allowed to agree with other people, since that is ridiculous, but more along the lines of people shouldn't solely try and support their arguements through another person's interpretation.

[magnus_orion]

No, I just can't post on philly because he hasn't posted. There's nothing new to comment on.

Well, yes, he hasn't posted which is why I haven't really mentioned him recently. You, however, started vocally having doubts about whether he was the right lynch, which is why I brought up the point.

Even more confident that philly is scum than dourgrim.

K, well as long as you're still willing to confirm this then it's alright.

I dismissed them as semantics because you couldn't directly support that your interpretation of my post was correct. (Because its not. Otherwise, since you are "sick of me babbling" about it, you would have gone back, picked out the post where I say something along the lines of, "I started this conversation." as opposed to the actual post where I say something along the lines of "I engaged you in the conversation." The problem being, I can engage in a conversation without starting one.)

I just went back and found the quotation in question, it goes as follows:

This conversation acts as investigation into how I play only because

I

engaged

you

. That was a concious decision on my part. In other words, I could have chosen to ignore you. If I had, you would not be gathering information about me now.

It doesn't imply that you started the conversation, as you are being accused of, per se. It does, however, give off the strange vibe that Dourgrim somehow 'owes you one' for responding to his vote and not just ignoring it - when, in fact, responding to it is standard and expected of you. Had you ignored him you surely would have been pulled up on that in-thread and further suspected. So you can't really characterise responding to Dourgrim as a pro-active, town play on your part.

There are many strange things about your play, I really can't fathom you...

This is point I've been trying to make. I never lied.

Actually, I have a tendency to ignore suspicions on me part, but if people appear to be tunnelling, then I engage them, or if I get scum vibes from them.

There are many strange things about your play, I really can't fathom you...

I might sig that...

@Mafiassk: how so?

[magnus_orion]

observation: Walnut wants us to stop talking about his defense of phillyec...

Further Observation: Dourgrim is at 26 hours... and counting....
(actually I expected defense for his arguement, followed by a defelection onto some other thing about me, but now that I posted this, he will become angry, and hopefully actually do it)

Further Further Observation: Phillyec STILL hasn't posted.

*Taps foot impatiently while waiting for suspects to post*

[magnus_orion]

First of all, I hope everyone had a great Easter weekend.

I'm still pretty happy with where my vote is, especially considering Walnut's observation above.

So you're using others reasoning as a means for your votes?

No, I used my own reasoning (which has already been discussed ad nauseam) as a means for my vote. Walnut's observation just cemented the validity of my case in my mind.

Dour: Your play is still radically different. Granted, maybe you need someone like GIEFF to argue with, but I think your being exceedingly passive this game. Reason?

Have you not noticed magnus up there? I was arguing with him, posting quite a bit, and the reaction of the Town was pretty much the same: ignoring us. Why continue to blather on about magnus and his ridiculous "playstyle" if no one's interested? It didn't help last game, did it? You were convinced then that I was scum, so I'm trying to keep the thread noise down in this game to reduce the distractions to the Town. I guess in that way I am playing differently than last game... but also remember, in that last game I said that my work schedule has picked up considerably, and I have less time overall for posting. I'm keeping up with the game, I'm not lurking, I just am not posting walls of text anymore.

Honestly, itseems like you have a personal issue with Magus' playstyle. He seems like hes making reasonable discussion, and is definitely pushing towards it more than you have been.

I do have a serious issue with magnus' playstyle because I think it's scummy, or at least non-helpful. Whether everyone wants to agree with me or not, or whether you believe they're important or not, he made false and/or misleading statements in the thread, I caught him, he denied it, I caught him again, and then he played the "semantics" and "interpretation" cards. Supposedly my "interpretation" of what he did isn't valid, but somehow this is:

My case against you is as follows:

I'm still pretty happy with where my vote is, especially considering Walnut's observation above.

I consider this a scumtell. Scum like to lean back, and say, "oh this person said this. I agree, thus, my vote on this other person is legitimized" They want to be able to vote for people they consider to be mislynchs, and then make sure their vote on the person is valid from a town perspective.

And then I suspect that your tunneling on me is an attempt to avoid making definite statements that you'd have to change on later dates to get your mislynches. (Which is why I look forward to your points on other players)

Twice in the above, he's interpreting what I said into what he believes it to mean, but this is given false legitimacy by the use of the word "scumtell" (which is in and of itself crap, might I add). How is this different than my interpretation of his falsehoods?

You yell at us for ignoring you, when you ignore everyone else?

I wasn't yelling at anyone for ignoring me, where did you get that from? I was pointing out to B_B that his statement that I need someone like GIEFF to argue with is ironic, considering I was having a very similar argument with magnus when he said it.

I will attempt to post an in-depth analysis of every other player in the game within the next 24 hours, if for no other reason than I'm sick of listening to magnus babble.

Good, I want to see this.

I'm doing the writing on this in Word when I have free time at my day job (it's LONG), but those moments are few and far between. I apologize for the delay, but as I've said before in this game and others, my free time has become quite limited at work, and so putting together long posts with that level of analysis can be quite challenging for me. I'm not ignoring you, I'm not refusing to do it, I'm just struggling for the time to do it. Bear with me.

so... I'm still a liar, even though the "lies" you've been claiming have been proven to be nonexistant?
Now the lies are just implied?

That's a dramatic shift in your position up until now.
How about you claiming that I commited falsehoods is a lie, made in your overzelous attempt to get me lynched via policy? So if anyone is a misrepping liar here, its you. Not me, who simply neglected to put tags in a quote, but you, who went so far as to display that as a form of lie.

[magnus_orion]

Ah. Sorry, I was under the impression you had accepted that I didn't lie outright. Though I still don't see how you can't. I do believe we have a deadline to meet... though I'm not sure on ts status.

@Nocmen: do you think dourgrim is scum?

[magnus_orion]

Well, if it had been a no, nocmen, I would've thought you were town. If yes, definitely scum... For now, null, but + to scumminess, for not saying no, and fencesitting, since you are aware I do tests like this from earlier in the game.
BB is Town. (why is it that every time I say this, I get the feeling I'm going to regret it?)
Dourgrim is town. (Your last reaction changed my mind completely, but I wanted to check nocmen, because his post bothered me... my test was inconclusive, unfortunately. I still want those reads from you though, if for nothing else but a new take on the situation. My humblest apologies, accuse me of backpedalling all you wish. I deserve it, as it is how I play, so it is technically true. Just know that you could be finding the actual scum instead.)
Too bad I couldn't get any more reactions out of that... Any more would be tainted by opinions posted immediately after.

In short, excet for suspicions on me, I agree with everything BB just said.
Oh, and phillyec is still scum, imo, until he can establish in my mind otherwise, so I don't agree with BB's unvote either.

[magnus_orion]

*jab Riceballtail*
Get back here dammit! I'm not scum this time to know your right and not really challenge your short posts! Get back here and explain you damn logic! *Is frustrated*

Magnus: Saying you disagree with suspicion of you is pointless. Unlike me, for example, who conceded the point that I was scummy as hell, thus catching a scum who was defending me with terrible logic. Caught a scum-a-day in that game.... ah...good times, right Dour? Goo-ood times. Although, it was really just laziness on my part.

Back to being angry at Rice*

Yes, well, it is quite difficult to suspect myself.

@Caf19: apparently so, though rbt and mafiassk won't let us know what.

[magnus_orion]

Unsubstantiated cases are fail, but there's not really anything else I can say about it, so I'll move on to a couple of other things.

Dourgrim is town. (Your last reaction changed my mind completely

Dare I ask what it is about his last post that looks so town?

@ Walnut, reading through your posts I am having some trouble discerning who you actually suspect right now. Please enlighten me.

Scum simply don't explode like that.
Its too attention grabbing. And scum dislike attention. Besides, from a scum pov, there's more panic and anxiety involved with suspicion, as opposed to genuine anger, which is hard to fake.
Btw, that question makes you look scummy, since moments ago you were attacking me and supporting dourgrim, now your asking why I don't suspect dourgrim, meaning that your not keeping consistent with whom you suspect.
So, caf19, who is scum, in your opinion?

[magnus_orion]

In respect to RBT and Mafiassk:
Actually I can hazard a guess at what they were getting at, but I want to hear them say it.
So I'll just sit quietly for now.

[magnus_orion]

-_-

Well, fine, I can hazard a guess at what mafiassk was getting at...
I still want to hear him say it. If I'm wrong, then I'll explain what I was thinking...

I agree with Isacc in regards to walnuts obsession with lynching lurkers. The only problem is that I've used attacking lurkers as scum to substantiate an arguement for opportunism that got me the win in lylo once, so I'm not certain whether or not its the best indication of scum. Some people just like going after lurkers. Which isn't to defend walnut, because he really should be going after other people. And his defense of phillyec is still suspicious.

[magnus_orion]

Actually, come to think of it, Walnut's last list should have included phillyec. Selectivity, much?
Walnut will have to explain this.

[magnus_orion]

Fair point on Phily. I guess I felt I had a decent read on him from his early posts, but had overlooked that he has not posted much more recently.

You overlooked it? But it was in your points against isacc, which were hinted at in the post where you left out philly. More selectivity.

[magnus_orion]

Fair point on Phily. I guess I felt I had a decent read on him from his early posts, but had overlooked that he has not posted much more recently.

You overlooked it? But it was in your points against isacc, which were hinted at in the post where you left out philly. More selectivity.

How would noting that Isacc followed someone else's opinion on Phily have a direct correlation to whether I was keeping tabs on how much Phily had posted recently? I agree it would be suspicious for me to say that Isacc was repeating a point about Phily being absent then in a subsequent post say that I did not realise that Phily was absent. However, to make an argument out of saying it in the same post seems a bit unbelievable.

Unbelievable? I disagree.
As it stands, your defense involves the implication that the evidence for the case against issac made itself apparant after you accused him.
Then what lead you to accuse him of following people?
This evidence on isacc you present is invalid, because you could not have used it to reach your conclusion because, by your own admission, you hadn't noticed philly's lurking. So, give us the evidence that lead

you

to your conclusion of this generalization with respect to isacc.

[magnus_orion]

*Is blissfully ignorant of what "grandstanding" is*

Caf19's observation is correct, but I would have expected walnut to find that on his own, were that truly the case.

[magnus_orion]

Well, y'know, nobody is going near him at the moment either. I guess I just don't see the utility of your vote and I think it could be better put to use elsewhere.

By leaving my vote on Seraphim and explaining why, I have drawn attention to the fact that Flame/Seraphim accounts for 2 (now 3) posts, for a total of "Hi, I am here", an in-joke with RBT, and now his most recent post to say he is still re-reading. That is insfufficient for a Day 1 contribution- we will go into Day 2 knowing nothing about him.

@Caf19, magnus:

those who have posted considerably and I have a slight positive read on, those who have posted considerably and I have a mild scum read on, and those who have not posted much at all.

Fair point on Phily. I guess I felt I had a decent read on him from his early posts, but had overlooked that he has not posted much more recently.

I see what you are getting at, but the answer is simple. I felt I had a decent read on him (which was largely that he was showing more newb than particularly scum); his not posting for a long time after that was not consistent with the read that I had made, so he fell more into the lurker category.
And if you think I am trying to be too agreeable, I should mention that BB's last post was worthy of American Idol- y'know, the early rounds where they show people who think they can sing but really can't.

@MafiaSSK: Go meta me. I live for defense. I consider it a better scumhunting tool than groundless accusations

In accordance with that last point you make, your accusation of isacc may be groundless... But isacc's talking about that, and he's explaining pretty well.
Or at least, is not very well grounded, and your defene is merely verbaitum what has been pointed out by Caf19 to be the pro-town answer,

which you did not originally give

The fact that you had to figure this out in order to use it as defense means that this was not actually your train of thought, but an excuse, otherwise that would be your immediate response, because that would actually be the case.

And I don't understand your reference to american idol, as "can't sing" as well as "think they can" is subjective. The only thing I know about american idol is that it is quite possibly the most ingenious business venture I've ever seen: Take a process that normally costs the industry money, namely, the processing of people wanting to become stars, the good from the bad, present it as a game show, net a profit from advertising, and highly increase the success rate of those chosen to become stars, cutting costs by reducing failed stars, because the customers themselves were the ones who selected the stars. Truly brilliant, manipulative, and profitable. A business marvel.

[magnus_orion]

Dourgrim, get well soon.

Magnus found, in his post on the last page, a question Caf asked that he called scummy. Caf never responded and Magnus never pursued it. This is scummy on both.

Sorry, BB didn't include tags... lazy. Hope you don't mind.
I asked caf a question, and his response left nothing to pursue, nor gave me any reason to. My top suspect is phillyec, and caf responded with suspicion on phillyec. Its too early for bussing, I think, so caf's reponse ended my questioning for now...
Though I can see where you'd get this.

Noc feels faintly town.

Why?

[magnus_orion]

Walnut should claim.
L-2.

[magnus_orion]

Double post:
And lets try not to lynch anyone 'til seraphim talks some.
I know that suggesting this is normally considered a scumtell, but with recent circumstances I think its a protown move. I'd like to get at least something out of seraphim, so that we're not flying completely blind on him day 2.

[magnus_orion]

I'm uncomfortable with how quickly this wagon picked up speed, and how walnut has not claimed yet.
Walnut should claim so we have an opportunity to discuss this claim.
Also, if walnut flips town, based on the wagon, I suspect Isacc, RBT and BB to be the scum team.
I seem to be catching hints of a group in Isacc and BB, and RBT seems to just enjoy pushing the wagon. Though Mafiassk seems to do the same thing, so Mafiassk might be the other scum...
Anyway, its an IFF, and if these people on walnut's wagon are town, they have nothing to worry about since they should believe walnut scum (hence the wagon)

However, if Walnut flips scum, I suspect phillyec, for obvious reasons, but I don't have an idea of a third scumbuddy as of yet.

Don't get me wrong, I think walnut is scum, but I what I really want is more data, being, walnut's allignment.

Yes, Walnut, I read your post. Isacc has posted his retort. I read that too. So far both cases have a point, but Isacc's is winning.

Oh, I'm not deciding on voting walnut, yet, btw, until I get a claim from him.

[magnus_orion]

I'm not confident he's going to flip town...
Like I said, I've never lived through the night as town before, so I don't get an opportunity to comment if I'm wrong. So, I consider both the possibility that I'm right and wrong, and make arguements for both.

Also, BB=scum refutes more than half of your statements about me/in reference to me. I'm starting to consider my latter theory, and the sheer confidence of casting preliminary doubt on if/when Walnut flips scum is very suspicious to me. Then, there is the fact that you, unlike me, failed to consider potential scum with Walnut. Maybe you already moved on since you know he's town?

You mean phillyec? I mentioned him as another scumbuddy in my last post. Did you read the whole thing, or not?


I said, if walnut's scum, you shouldn't have a problem.
So, the one who is considering my accusation valid is, in fact, giving it strength, because its quickly ruling out that walnut will flip scum.

So, BB, did you have faith in the walnut wagon or not? A good townie should be willing to put his reputation and standing with the town on the line when making a lynch he believes in, and you've just demonstrated that you don't feel walnut is scummy enough to warrant you becoming more suspicious if he flips town.

So, what makes

you

so confident that he's going to flip town? Because its perfectly reasonable that townies would try and lynch scum and scum would try and lynch townies, so analyzing the wagons from those two perspectives seemed reasonable, and those were the results I came up with. I favor the walnut=scum one, but admit the possibility of the other.

Your theory is flawed. Scum rarely, if ever, vote in unision this way unless it lead directly to a win. Not to say its impossible, but it just...doesn't happen. Scum are too paranoid.

I believe I've done it as scum before.
And "Its not impossible, it just... doesn't happen" is a pretty weak defense.

[magnus_orion]

I'm starting to think that I'm not particularly happy with the Walnut wagon. The behaviour of those on or close to the wagon doesn't inspire me with confidence. Apart from the obvious issue of RBT's refusal to state her reasons for jumping on, there's also the fact that Trumpet has basically lurked through its entire development, not to mention SSK who has only posted a couple of near-useless one-liners on the subject. There's also been a bit of questionable logic from his other detractors, the result of which results in cracks forming in the reasoning for this wagon.

BB's case on Walnut in particular leaves a lot to be desired. Most of his posts on the subject are just agreeing with Isacc instead of expressing any original thought on the matter.

Also, something about magnus's approach rubs me the wrong way:

Don't get me wrong, I think walnut is scum, but I what I really want is more data, being, walnut's allignment.

This sentence, unless I'm misunderstanding it, seems to advocate Walnut's lynch, as that will provide the info of his alignment. This goes against the doubts about Walnut's scumminess that you express in the next post:

I said, if walnut's scum, you shouldn't have a problem.
So, the one who is considering my accusation valid is, in fact, giving it strength, because its quickly ruling out that walnut will flip scum.

How can you simultaneously be sure you want Walnut lynched, and think there to be such a great chance of it being a scum-driven mislynch? It's contradictions such as this one that are worrying me.


Thing is, deadline is staring us in the face and critical mass is looming down upon us. For that reason, I think Walnut should claim now. It's barely more than 36 hours to deadline and we need time to assess the claim.

---

Your theory is flawed. Scum rarely, if ever, vote in unision this way unless it lead directly to a win. Not to say its impossible, but it just...doesn't happen. Scum are too paranoid.

I agree that scum don't usually follow 'eggs in one basket' strategies, but there's almost definitely at least one scum on the wagon, so if he's town then it's a good place to start.

Also, BB=scum refutes more than half of your statements about me/in reference to me.

I agree. Magnus has done this type of sudden switch more than once today.

I fixed that last quote... It had my name in the upper left, instead of BB's.

The fact that I usually consider the possibility that I might be wrong is:
1. Contributing to me not voting walnut at this time, along with previously mentioned matters of the claim and seraphim.
2. Allowing me to avoid confirmation bias in this situation
3. proof that I'm not trying to convince you all of anything, but letting you all draw conclusions yourself. (make of that what you will.)

Caf19's post is very interesting. So, you're bothered by my behavior, yet mention the exact same things I mentioned about the walnut wagon as afflicting you as well? Clarify this for me, please.

[magnus_orion]

I fixed that last quote... It had my name in the upper left, instead of BB's.

My bad.

The fact that I usually consider the possibility that I might be wrong is:
1. Contributing to me not voting walnut at this time, along with previously mentioned matters of the claim and seraphim.
2. Allowing me to avoid confirmation bias in this situation
3. proof that I'm not trying to convince you all of anything, but letting you all draw conclusions yourself. (make of that what you will.)

Caf19's post is very interesting. So, you're bothered by my behavior, yet mention the exact same things I mentioned about the walnut wagon as afflicting you as well? Clarify this for me, please.

There's nothing wrong with considering the ramifications of you being right or wrong. You, however, went further than that, and assessed the likelihood of you being right/wrong in your previous two posts. And you went from wanting his alignment revealed (ie. wanting him lynched) to saying that BB's reaction was 'ruling out' Walnut being scum. And this latter comment was still surrounded by comments of "I'm not confident he's going to flip town" and "I favour the Walnut=scum one [possibility]". It's not that you merely considered the possibility of Walnut being town, it's that your opinion appeared to vary so dramatically.

Oh. That's simply because its easier for me to analyze how people jump on to a wagon for a mislynch than anything else, so that possibility looks more thought out than the other (and explains what I was shooting for with my gambitty play toward day 1 start, but it didn't shoot off as well as planned). Plus, I've already stated why I think walnut is scum, there's no reason to restate it when I bring forward a newer argument.
...
I want walnut to claim. I also do not want a plurality lynch.
I'll probably end up voting him if he hasn't claimed by when I get home tomorrow.

[magnus_orion]

Dammit, this feels so...
Arrgh...
I think this wagon gained speed far to quickly, implicating BB up to 95% (Dramatic change, yes, but I'm better at reading BB later in the game, often after I'm dead) if walnut is town. This number is slightly amplified by BB's invalid hypocritical accusation against me. Issac hits a solid 75%, which jumps to 85% if BB is scum.
RBT is racing with Mafiassk, but its like 65% RBT, and 63% Mafiassk, irrelevant of issac or BB.


Purely based on how the wagon formed alone, irrelevant of walnut's play, walnut looks town, but his scummy behavior is bringing his scumminess up.

I think avoiding the lynch is impossible, though, but I would have liked (a lot) more time. Day 1s usually last like 40 pages for me, so I feel like we're lynching prematurely

vote: walnut

A lynch is better than a no-lynch, and I don't see the wagon changing. Plus, plurality is bad.

[magnus_orion]

BB's Hypocritical accusation, because I forgot to detail it:

So, BB, did you have faith in the walnut wagon or not? A good townie should be willing to put his reputation and standing with the town on the line when making a lynch he believes in, and you've just demonstrated that you don't feel walnut is scummy enough to warrant you becoming more suspicious if he flips town.

I think we both know I have no issue voting to death people I know are town, as scum. However, I do take issue when someone decides to start attacking tomorrow when today isn't finished yet. Town or scum, you haven't won yet, and when it comes to lynching, only scum CAN move on with absolute certainty. Lose a partner or townie, they are always looking to associate the wrong person in order to get a mislynch next time no matter what happens this time.

And "Its not impossible, it just... doesn't happen" is a pretty weak defense.

This means that while possible, it is very rare and there is a lack of data to say, as of yet this has happened.

Hm... I feel that given Walnut's lack of reaction, the wagon is the right play. And due to this last minute discussion, ramifications should be devastating from scum assuming town plays well. With deadline so close, I doubt we have time to hope off. I'll be able to check once tomorrow before deadline. Make a plan by then. Sorry for any inconvenience.

It's okay Dour, but do try and give a well reasoned vote by Friday.

Unvote; Vote: Walnut

If Walnut is scum, Phily is 30% likely to be scum.

Magnus' forgetfulness to include Phily and his near passive play in reference to.

If Walnut isn't scum, I would suggest Caf19 is scum with Magnus Orion.

Magnus found, in his post on the last page, a question Caf asked that he called scummy. Caf never responded and Magnus never pursued it. This is scummy on both.

A third partner could be Dourgrim, but this is far less likely. (But a more likely third partner to those two than anyone else.)

If Magnus did coach Caf as my last post alludes to as a possibility, it could be infered that he reminded Caf of something along the lines of: Don't suspect Dour without reason, even though you know he's scum.

I may, to be honest, be reading too much into this, but these are my thoughts at the moment, and why, if we do not lynch Walnut, I will pursue Magnus/Caf19.

Noc feels faintly town. Isacc feels faintly town. Everyone else is still on the border line, which is almost as bad as being a suspect. As in, so far from being "town like," its like being suspected of murder.

How is my possibilities any more of an attack than his possibilities?

Just something to consider, BB's reaction might be an omgus to my suspicion, in an attempt to reduce the value of my arguement ad hominem.

This theory is really starting to feel to me like the right way to go...

Practically speaking, walnut's the better lynch, but gut-wise, we should string up BB. Oh well, I think its too late.

[magnus_orion]

Oh, I'm allowed a bah post under these rules.

Very well then, I better make this count:

BAH!

hmmm... feels lacking..
oh well.

[magnus_orion]

Note to self: People getting angry at you is not a towntell. Otherwise, keep doing what you've been doing.

[magnus_orion]

Mm-hm. I had fun replacing in.

What'd you think of me instantly locking into Phail being scum?
"Note to self: Never let Mastin replace into a game if I want the scum to win."?

I think he should have been lynched day 1. Phily/phail was very lucky to survive til end game.

[magnus_orion]

I was willing to hug trumpet before, but now my faith in him has diminished