Mini 767: Cubic Mafia (Game Over!)

[Isacc]

No, this is simply not true. I accused you of following in post 313; I acknowledged that I had overlooked Phily's lack of posting in post 319.

No, my accusation

is

entirely true. In the post where you called me followy, you

did not include

Philly on your list of lurkers. 319 was just where you admitted that in 313, you hadn't realized Philly was lurking.

Again, simply not true. I was not setting out to prove it; you said it was an overgeneralisation, and rather than go back and point out all of the previous posts where it had happened, I said "Look, you are still doing it- take your most recent post as an example". The evidence was there from throughout the game.

Irrelevant. The point is, rather than using evidence that you had when you made the case, you brought up something new (which was, coincidentally, not good evidence in the least, which I assume you agree on since you never countered that argument?), and tried to play it off as evidence of my following.

This suggests that you tried to find evidence to fit the case, rather than actually recognizing a legitimate trend. I think that if you had been making a solid argument, you would have pointed to the evidence that led you to believe I was following.

Do you know what strawman means? Apologies if I seem to be repeating myself, since you didn't seem to read it the first time. You started off by saying (paraphrasing) "By following, you mean...". You continue by saying "following is usually ..." and "in general, following is ...". In doing so, you have made an initial assumption that is wrong (whether intentionally or not), and from there proceeded off down the wrong path. The result is that you have not disproved my argument- you have not even addressed it. In post 319 (prior to your strawman) I expanded on "following" by saying

I concede the point that I did not see the connection to strawman, while there is a connection. Yes, my analysis of your bad evidence does not disprove my following.

However, the blame is laid on me for "strawman" in this scenario, why? You accused me of following. I asked you for evidence. You used bad evidence, I disproved it.

You didn't bring up any better evidence afterwards.

I was not avoiding the issue of following, you just failed to make a case that actually addressed the entire issue. Don't pin the blame on me.



Alright, finally you do an actual case. This time I will argue against the entire case you make,

because you have one

.

Post 10 and 37 are obv not important.
Post 47: Philly's comment was that he noticed a trend of last voters being scum. Trends like that are disproved by more valid trends, therefore it was logical for me to comment on it even though others had, as it gave more evidence to Philly's idea not being a legitimate trend.
Post 48: *Buzzer* WRONG. Magnus had asked Nocmen who he thought was scum and why. I asked an entirely different question, specifically what he felt was a better strategy than random voting.

No following here

.
Post 52: Wrong again. Magnus is querying Nocmen about who he thinks is scum. I am responding to Nocmen's response to

my

question, of a different nature. I did ask a question about Magnus' issue at the end, however it was a question Magnus had not asked yet.

No following here either

.
Post 66-72 are as you described them.
Post 69: Yep.
Posts 94-125 are V/LA, as you mentioned.
Post 137 and 138: I do not see how you find that to be "by nature" expressing similar views as others. I spent some of it pointing out that Magnus was being honest about his strategy (which no one else could have said, since only I know him in person), and then asked questions of you and Dour which had not been brought up before. There were two, maybe three opinions I made in the PBPA which were arguably "following," but out of 17 posts I analyzed, that's hardly significant.

"Similar views" is not the majority of

this

post either

.
Post 145: Yes.
Post 149: You are really trying to add "misrep" onto the list of suddenly appearing points against me, aren't you? However, this was not misrepresentation at all, as a quick glance at the post should show.
Post 166: Yes, this is the only arguable evidence I have noticed thus far of "following." I have defended myself against this, but to reiterate, my 166 was a direct response to Philly's 158 which really pinged the scumdar hard, and had little to do with Magnus's post. In fact, something else I am noticing, is that Magnus's vote against Philly used one of

my

arguments as a major reason for voting, so Magnus is about as likely following me as I am of following him (specifically, neither of us are following, we just happened to agree once). Not to mention, my post in which I voted Philly made different arguments than Magnus, and so really wasn't "following," in the most literal sense.

Arguable, but not very solid evidence of following.

Post 173: Hey, you're also ignoring an entirely original inquiry against Dourgrim here, and only mentioning the very last line of my post.
Post 180: Yep.
Posts 200-259 all V/LA, so yeah.
Post 275/276: Catching up, and mostly original, is the real point. Posted my personal opinions on a couple things.
Post 279: Yes, clarification.

So, where is this following that was so common? I see one example of following that is arguable at best. The others were not examples of following. I see no real case here.

Not to mention. 13 of the posts (I grouped the same ones you grouped) that you mentioned were non-V/LA, and of those, you only even accused me of following on four of them. Add that to the one most recent post that you tried to write off as following, and

you

have only even mentioned 5 out of 14 of my posts as following.

Assuming that those were good examples (most were not, but let's assume for the sake of this argument), you, who made the argument in the first place, listed nearly 2/3 of my posts as original content. Where do you get off saying that I am usually following?

Isacc again misrepresents my case as arguing that he was lurking because he was V/LA

Misrep is the accusation of the day!
No, I didn't misrep. I explained that I was not following, you accuse me of admitting that I was actively lurking (which would logically mean that you find that a scumtell as well, no?) and I countered the accusation by saying that I was V/LA so the accusation is null.

So, there.

[Kairyuu]

Votecount 7 (The 72 hours to deadline votecount):

Walnut(5):

Trumpet of Doom; Riceballtail; MafiaSSK; Isacc; Beyond_Birthday[/i]

Dourgrim(1):

Seraphim

Seraphim(1):

Walnut

PhilyEc(2):

magnus_orion; caf19

magnus_orion(1):

Dourgrim;

Riceballtail(1):

Nocmen

Not Voting(1): PhilyEc;

With 12 players alive it's 7 to lynch.

If deadline were to hit right now, Walnut would be lynched.

Still looking for a replacement for PhilyEc.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Noc feels faintly town.

Why?

Not really sure. Mostly a feeling, to be honest. I had faint scummy vibes, yes, but just...getting a strange town feel. Other half recognized, now mostly dropped.

Side note: Isacc's post pretty much wins him the argument in my book. Anyone reading this differently post your views, as a few opinions on that before deadline (and very shortly after, a few votes) could be very helpful.

[Walnut]

Walnut has made exceptionally little atention to others

Read again, and you may realise that I have in fact mentioned almost every other player in the game. I have not made big cases on them, but I have asked them questions and drawn them into public exposure so that the town has a view of them.

No one other than me is voting for Seraphim (although two others have belatedly agreed that he should talk today), so at this point I think it is time to move my vote

unvote

.

I don't have time tonight for another long post. Anyway, a lot of it would be repeating myself, as Isacc either does not read well, does not understand well or is scum deliberately misrepresenting most of what I have said.
His last post starts with the following argument:
Isacc: Statement A.
Walnut: That is wrong, Statement B.
Isacc: No you are wrong, Statement B!

Then, in response to "The evidence was there from throughout the game." he replies

Irrelevant.

The evidence from throughout the game is irrelevant? Oh, that's ok then.

I have decent suspicion of Isacc, but at least this has caused him to post more, so the town has a clearer view of him. RBT, on the other hand, also looks scummy and has a fairly close ratio of votes to words posted, so

vote Riceballtail

.

[Isacc]

I don't have time tonight for another long post. Anyway, a lot of it would be repeating myself, as Isacc either does not read well, does not understand well or is scum deliberately misrepresenting most of what I have said.

I have done none of these things. If you want to make these accusations, you must back them up with evidence.

His last post starts with the following argument:
Isacc: Statement A.
Walnut: That is wrong, Statement B.
Isacc: No you are wrong, Statement B!

This is just wrong. 'Nuff said.

The evidence from throughout the game is irrelevant? Oh, that's ok then.

WOW. Talk about misrep here, and from the big misrep accuser too. That irrelevant was NOT at all referring to the evidence being irrelevant. Maybe if you actually quoted the full context rather than

one word

you would be able to see that.

What I was calling irrelevant was an entirely different issue; specifically that the fact that evidence was present throughout the game was irrelevant

as long as you did not actually use it in the case

.


And you end with an "Isacc is suspicious, I'll vote RBT"? That whole last paragraph sounds like you saying you're going to wait until others will join the wagon before you actually go after me anymore. Not to mention, you haven't countered my arguments...

[Nocmen]

RBT, in post 316 you vote for Walnut. What are the reasons for your vote here?

Lurkervoting is not always the most productive course of action.

QFT. However, as I said in my previous post, we have a whole third of the town not contributing much, so I am in no hurry to lynch yet, and more keen to get them involved. The deadline is now less than a week away, and it is insane that someone can go the whole day without posting a single content post.

you actually be in favour of lynching Seraphim if he continued to lurk for the rest of the day?

Depends what else comes up, and if there was any chance of getting a lynch on him before deadline. If no one else was going anywhere near him, I wouldn't waste my vote there. I am a bit more suspicious of him than the average lurker on account of his making an active decision to replace into a game then lurking.

What's funny is that I have no idea what SSK see or is voting for. I was quite literally going for reactions.

"I have just done something scummy, but of course I did it on purpose". Similarly to when magnus did it early on, you get a reaction that says "That was scummy". It's a terrible defence.

@Isacc: Whether it is due to the frequency and timing of your posting or that you just happen to think similarly to other players, the majority of your posts say something that someone else has already said. Taking a look at post #310 as your most recent example, it essentially includes two points:

Prod gotten, and I haven't really been inactive, I just was hoping Philly would have posted by now, since he's my top suspect. This is getting pretty frustrating.

@MafiaSSK, and RBT: Wow -_-. Worst case ever lol.

First, that Phily hasn't posted (which magnus has already said). Secondly, that RBT and Mafia SSK have not presented a strong case (which I have already said. So, not so much an overgeneralisation, and it keeps you in my top three. Now that he is starting to post more, I am getting more of a scum vibe from RBT (see earlier in this post). I'll do some more thinking about who I would round out my top three with.

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

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.

Okay, I agree with your post for the first part, but after that, it seems like...you're going and talking about wasting votes? That just sounds like an attempt to bandwagon on someone...

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.

I'm going to have to take magnus's side on this. You're arguements seems like you got caught with your pants down, and you're doing wahtever you can to deny it...

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

Oh wow this is just classic. You stop being defensive when you have a vote on you?

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.

Okay, I really see this argument, but I'm just a bit...uncertain with BB's other posts. I'm willing to let this slide for today, but I'm curious to see what happens once we lynch somebody.

Yeah, I'm still confident with my vote right now. I like the wagon progressing.

Is that all you have to say?

To keep my vote on RBT, or vote Walnut...I see both as good candiates for today's lynch.

[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.

[Beyond_Birthday]

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.

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.

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?

Walnut, don' claim yet. I want Magnus' response to this and other people's views. Maybe I just received the wrong impression or misread. If I didn't my vote's moving.

[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.

[caf19]

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.

[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.

[Riceballtail]

Walnut: you should be claiming now. It might be your last chance.

[Isacc]

Alright, this may very well be my last post before deadline, as tomorrow is prom for me (and Kairyuu). Before the day ends, I want to be clear.

My suspicion on Walnut is at about 80% right now. Not perfect, but not weak either. However, Walnut lynch is better than no lynch, which is what we are dangerously close to seeing.

I think that's all I needed to say. Hopefully I can post again before deadline, but I wouldn't bet on it. If not, can we please decide on a lynch? I really don't like the idea of a no-lynch on D1.

[Seraphim]

I am willing to drop votes in order to prevent a no-lynch. Currently, I am doing a thorough read of the game in order to grasp the various nuances...

Also, I suck at day ones anyway.

[Kairyuu]

Mod update: You have ~24 hours to deadline. The votecount has not changed (I think).

Also, it is obvious that several of you have not read the rules. Plurality gets a lynch at deadline. As long as someone has at least 4 votes they will die.

Still looking for a replacement for PhilyEc. I think I may have one lined up, but I'm waiting to hear back from them.

[caf19]

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.

[Beyond_Birthday]

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.

[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.

[Walnut]

I am vanilla town.

Making the assumption that I am lynched, as I don't see a great willingness for people to switch their votes at this stage, here are a few parting thoughts.

Overall, I am not a bad lynch, as I have been open and involved enough for people to have made a decent read on me. Can I honestly say that voting for me is a scummy move? No, as Day 1 is always a bit unclear, and I am sure that there are things that I have done that could be seen as scummy. However, I don't think good arguments have been put up against me. ToD voted for me two weeks ago, has made two posts about Phily since then, and is V/LA for the week up to the deadline. What will the town be able to say about him come Day 2? MafiaSSK is voting me for overdefending (as far as I can tell). Is that a legitimate argument? Will it seem any more or less legitimate when you review at the start of Day 2? I don't really know why RBT is voting for me- does anyone? Isacc and BB's votes I am happiest with, as while I think the argument that Isacc makes is completely wrong, at least it is there and available to everyone to reread later. There is an argument for keeping me alive as I have posted a lot and am therefore a known quality, whereas if you lynch me, you are still almost at square one in terms of what you know about some of the other players. However, there can be value in seeing who is on a mislynch (as magnus said), so that may make sense too.

Get well soon Dourgrim, and on a parting note I have to laugh- I can't quite believe that Seraphim finally posts, only to say that he is still re-reading!

[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.

[MafiaSSK]

I am willing to drop votes in order to prevent a no-lynch. Currently, I am doing a thorough read of the game in order to grasp the various nuances...

Also, I suck at day ones anyway.

Even day ones like these?

[caf19]

A whole lot of quiet going on after the claim... looks a lot like there are scum happy with the situation right now.

[Seraphim]

Hey, what's deadline again?

[Kairyuu]

Yesterday, but I was at prom, so it's now.