Newbie 841 - Game over!

[PaltryExcuse]

Woo! It's begun!
Because your name is alphabetically last, I gotta

Vote: Tororingu-chan

[PaltryExcuse]

Just reading other games on the forum, I noticed a lot of conversation on whether or not random voting is necessary / helpful. Curious as to people's thoughts, especially those who have experience on this forum.

Also, a random question aimed more at the newbies, how much experience have you at this type of mafia (forum-based)?

Personally, I only have the bit of lurking and reading other games on this forum. I've played mafia with friends, but never before on forums with people I've never met. This is my first game.

[PaltryExcuse]

I noticed a lot of conversation on whether or not random voting is necessary / helpful. Curious as to people's thoughts, especially those who have experience on this forum.

Of course it is necessary. How else would people start an actual conversation?

Some games start with random questions about how the game works, or just semi-loaded questions. People respond to them and work off those answers as leads to scum/townie.

Also going to

unvote

my completely random vote.

Answer seriously, because my vote isn't random!

If it isn't a random vote, what's your reasoning for voting? I'm unsure.

[PaltryExcuse]

At this point it is hard to tell, but the person I have my eye on the most is Mafia_failure. His vote started the bandwagon of T-chan, and moved to DeathNote starting a new bandwagon.

Part of me thinks these are joke votes as this happened within the RVS, but it nonetheless caught my attention. Thoughts Mafia_failure?

[PaltryExcuse]

I believe I unvoted. But, if not:

Unvote

You did, I missed it, thanks.

[PaltryExcuse]

I think the bolded one is the person who will be lynched at the end of the day if the votes remain the same until the deadline.

[PaltryExcuse]

There is not a lot of talk, and the little there is re-iterates that we have even less to go on. So I'll ask a couple questions to all:
What behaviour do you consider to be scummy?
Who do you believe is trying to stay out of the limelight, and who do you believe is just quiet?

[PaltryExcuse]

I'm going to

vote: havingfitz

at this point in time. He hasn't contributed anything beyond telling us that he can't find any leads. So, I say, find some.

[PaltryExcuse]

I think at this point a little pressure can be put on fitz. If he is having trouble getting online, he has ample opportunity to respond (and I'll take back my vote if that's the case). I see the case building against Lyncher and think fitz probably has an opinion on the developments at this point. Where is the problem in provoking a response on someone who I have little information on? It doesn't seem like the group as a whole is ready to lynch Lyncher, so I'm trying to get input from another source. In any case, I'll

unvote

, as it has become apparent that disclosing all this information might defeat the purpose.

[PaltryExcuse]

My suspicions:

Right now, I am looking at two people in particular interest.

Firstly, OMGLyncher, probably because he is the only one who has a case laid out against him and also the fact that he seems to no longer post. He has admittedly lurked, and overall this behaviour makes him look scummy.

Secondly is ronnieroo. ronnieroo posts infrequently at best, but still comes up with succinct arguments. Definitely a player to watch out for, although I can't point out anything as inherently scummy.

Also, Mitey, who are your top three suspects?

[PaltryExcuse]

Don't go cower in a corner because people are suspcious of you.

This is exactly the reason OMG seems scummy. I think it's the major reason why people have begun to question his earlier actions into the detail that they have. I know, for me, it seems like he's been caught and doesn't know how to get himself out.

@OMGLyncher: Posting would be a good idea soon, at least answer Mitey's questions about your suspects. It'd be interesting to hear from the most targeted person as to whom he'd like to target.

@The people who are watching me, what makes you think I have a potentional to be scum?

You're playing the game. Hence, possible mafia.

On a more serious note, it is the infrequent yet detailed posting that makes you more suspicious in my eyes. Almost like saying "I'm contributing!" without giving too much away about yourself. This is more a gut feeling however on your style of posting than based on hard evidence. Hence suspicions and not a scum-tell (yet).

[PaltryExcuse]

It's not that you're not posting enough. It's more like your posting style is not very aggressive. The fact that you don't give much away is a good thing, it just makes me wary. Like I said, not a scum-tell, just a sign to watch for (a good player in other words).

[PaltryExcuse]

@Mod: Could we have a prod for OMGLyncher? The consensus seems to want a response from him.

[PaltryExcuse]

@havingfitz: Are you saying you're 'looking' at Mitey as a possible mafia (aka lynch) or just that he hasn't been clear in his intentions?

[PaltryExcuse]

If we have two replacements, what tends to happen to those who replace in? I mean, they inherit the role of the previous owner, but does that mean they have to take responsibility for what their predecessor said and try to explain their thinking? Basically, do they take ownership of whatever was said by the one they replaced?

It just looks like we have two possible runaways so I'm trying to get a little background so I know what to expect.

[PaltryExcuse]

The timing of your vote, havingfitz, really is odd. The thing that scares me more is the fact that you're inviting us to vote out OMG and stating

no consequences or suspicions

from yourself. In that situation if someone threw on a 5th vote I would think them reckless and scummy. It reeks of a quicklynch now that we've waited for many days waiting for an OMG response.

3. For the minor reason of stating he would not take off his random vote from Roo unless he had something better to vote for....and then took his vote off Roo right after Roo wished him a Happy Scumday. Coincidence...trying to build a favorable relationship with Roo?

3. I changed my mind and thought it was sweet of him to wish me a happy Scum Day.

What made you change your mind Mitey? The fact that the vote was random, or you no longer suspect Roo the most as scum? If the latter, why? Just looking for those thoughts on who you suspect.

[PaltryExcuse]

All in all I still am leaning towards a OMG / his replacement lynch, as his actions have just screamed scummy throughout. The rampant voting and the like could be perceived as scummy, but his lackluster defense and subsequent disappearance is what made the case against him legit.

I don’t think two weeks into the game is a quicklynch…especially when OMG has been the scum focus of the game and has had votes on him for most of the game.

What I meant was, now that he has stopped posting for 3 / 4 days and hasn't posted, I was waiting for a response. And then the 4th vote comes on and you encourage us to put the nail on the coffin, like a "quick, lynch that guy". I think what happened was suspicious, but all in all it more raised my eyebrows than convinced me of your guilt. Your comments have provided a large portion of recent activity and my gut is leaning towards you wanting to move things along.

[PaltryExcuse]

Hello Albert B. Rampage and RayFrost!

@ABR: Very interesting. I have to say I didn't see Roo's posts in that light before and it really piques my curiosity. I'll have to go re-read the posts in order to figure out what, I think, are the context of her posts.

@Ray: Obviously, as OMG's replacement, you got some explainin' to do.

[PaltryExcuse]

Upon a perusal of Roo's posts, I have to say ABR's argument does stand strong in my mind.
Reason: Roo plays the newbie card a lot when talking about OMG. Inexperience can be a detriment, but it's not an excuse for scummy behaviour. The defense is weak.

I don't feel, however, the case on her is as strong as the one on Ray/OMG. Blatantly admitting you're acting scummy, and then departing once the pressure is on? To be cliché: Actions speak louder than words. Scummy, I'd say.

@ABR: Is any 'buddying' proof of scummy behaviour? I'm starting to think it is and it isn't. If Roo doesn't want someone lynched then wouldn't she defend them? She doesn't believe OMG is scum, and defends him against pretty much everyone else. However, if she was scum, Ray gets lynched and is town, she looks like a defender of the down-trod. I'm having trouble seeing how a defense is instantly bad. Also:

Ronnie saying that "we shouldn't rush things" actually is very scummy.

I thought a more thought-out approach for a final lynch is the way to go. No? Although I will say that in no way were we 'rushing' things. It has been two weeks.

@Pablo: I hear you on the classes front. Guh!

[PaltryExcuse]

OMG didn't give us anything to go off of for serious votes. He was simply the best option since he lacked the ability to defend himself.

OMG did give us reasons for serious votes, and his inability to defend himself is not normally a good thing. In no way was the town convinced of his (OMG's) scumminess originally, but in his defense he admitted he was scummy, and the fact that he ran just screams "I got caught." to me. I still think he's the most scummy, and even if it was hard for OMG to dig himself out, RayFrost now has taken up the role. There is no reason for me to expect an explanation from OMG that I don't from Ray. It's not unreasonable to want some sort of comment. I think its unfortunate from a player's stand point that Ray starts with this stigma, and I think Ray realizes that he's starting from behind (his first comment was on how he was replacing the guy with the biggest wagon).

I want to keep the pressure up, and he is my biggest suspect, so:

Vote: RayFrost

[PaltryExcuse]

I think he's at L-2. Votes for RayFrost: T-chan, me, DN.

[PaltryExcuse]

I seem forgotten from your list, other than the fact I got the vote count right.

[PaltryExcuse]

I think Ray means that he thinks I'm mafia defending town so that when he pops up town I'll look innocent.

I don't think Ray will pop up town, hence I don't think it is a when, but an if. This sounds like you're pretty sure Ray will flip town. I have to say this makes me a bit suspicious of you.

[PaltryExcuse]

Alrighty, I did a quick re-read, so now I got a few questions:

@ABR: I'd think you'd have the most broad perspective considering you came into this game later. Are your suspicions on ronnie still worth the vote you threw at him Day 1 and why?

@DeathNote: You posted once that you were watching Pablo, and later pursued Pablo on his argument against fitz. Are you still 'watching' fitz or has any of that changed into a more definite suspicion and why?

@Havingfitz: You put a vote on OMG to make him L-1, and encouraged others to vote before replacements (considering your distaste for them). Why was it once Ray 'arrived' the time to wait for OMG/Ray a chance to talk?

@Pablo: When you switched your vote to fitz, it was upon his voting OMG and the fact that the vote put OMG at L-1. Were your suspicions of OMG gone? If not, were you going to hammer Ray? If yes, what cleared OMG?

@Ronnieroo: You seemed to suspect Pablo (accusing him of a WIFOMy argument) on the first day, and you defended anyone else who you talked about. Are your suspicions still pointed at Pablo and if not what changed your mind?

@T-chan: ABR claimed you were tunnel-visioned towards OMG, I never saw a response to that claim. What do you think of that assessment?

[PaltryExcuse]

I am assuming you meant to say, "am I still watching Pablo" and not fitz.

Hah, yah. Typo.

@Havingfitz: You put a vote on OMG to make him L-1, and encouraged others to vote before replacements (considering your distaste for them). Why was it once Ray 'arrived' the time to wait for OMG/Ray a chance to talk?

Please see post 171. I basically answer the same line of questioning from Pablo.

Which was:

I was gung ho until the vote on OMG went from L-1 to L-2 and the town consensus seemed to favor waiting.

That doesn't make your intentions clear at all for me. If the town doesn't want him lynched, they'll respond in kind. It seems to me as though you shied away from attack and hid behind 'what the town wants'. From what I understand, it was the 'what the town wanted' that convinced you.

On a sidenote to both DN & fitz, Pablo has mentioned his workload increasing since school has restarted. Probable explanation for his decreased posting. But other than that, I'm gonna give the case on Pablo a second look.

[PaltryExcuse]

I think one of havingfitz and Pablo Molinero are scum. Which one would you guys side with based on what we have so far? I'm having trouble deciding.

It's definitely looking that way, with Pablo building a case on Fitz, and vice versa. However, the thought that we might have one scum cornered, brings to mind that there still is another around.

To answer your question though, I'm a little hesitant to get rid of Fitz at this point as he has become much more active in comparison to the busy Pablo. However, I haven't seen Pablo's case on Fitz, so it may change my mind. Fitz's case on Pablo, on the other hand, is more an attack on inactivity and a lack of progression in Pablo's arguments. If Pablo was active in many other games, I could see this case having a little more backbone. Fitz's defense looks logical enough to me that I can't pinpoint him. I'm not really convinced on either front enough yet to vote.

My thoughts on Fitz may change if I am convinced by Pablo's argument, while my thoughts on Pablo are waiting on how he goes at Fitz as well as the answer to my question. Overall, I think the inactivity on Day 1 is coming back to haunt us in a bad way.

In other news, ABR, you didn't answer my question so I'll try rephrasing it: How do you feel about Ronnie come day 2? You didn't really respond to her defense from day 1 either.

@Fitz: If you could line up exactly what parts of Pablo's posts you see as hypocritical it would be much more clear for me.

[PaltryExcuse]

I have a small problem with one of your arguments Pablo. In a replay of the contentious Post 110:

Heh, while I do admit that my "playstyle" sequence posts looks odd (what was I thinking?!), you have to ask yourself if that odd behavior=scummy. I was going to ride out the next few days because I thought the town was going to be more active than it is. When it was apparent we have quite a few people here semi-lurking, I took it upon myself to push the town forward.

Believe me: Quiet towns = Dead towns.

And yes, guess what, I STILL want people to pile on some votes. Anyone, anywhere: it is the #1 guaranteed way to spark a discussion.

I think you're looking at all the wrong reasons with your # 2 and 3, fitz. It appears to me that you're marking the 2 most active (content-wise) players simply because there's a lot of material to go off of with us. I'd be more concerned with the people NOT talking.

The bolded part is what fitz omitted when he quoted you. The first part refers to whether or not people felt your admitted lurking and your comment on how you were 'winning for the town' was scummy. I think the answer to the first part for havingfitz is a definitive yes. His argument seemed to be that you were advocating a more active town, very early in day 1 was not one of the two most active posters (despite you claiming to be) and then later drifting off. This post is a part of a series, where you push for content and votes, is displayed.

If my interpretation is right, I don't think fitz was misrepresenting you here. If anything, it may add a little to the case against you. Your admittance to being quiet at one point, and yet on the same post stating that 'Quiet Towns = Dead towns', damages your defense, not enhances. The fact you pointed out your odd behaviour before he did? Yay. It doesn't change the charge of you having contradicting behaviour.

[PaltryExcuse]

Echo

...

Echo

...

Echo

...

Echo

...

Echo

...

[PaltryExcuse]

@havingfitz: You seem to wonder why I got you to explain your argument of hypocrisy against Pablo. The reason is, the case is much clearer and defined when you explain the posts you're referring to rather than giving a blanketed statement with references. It allows me to see your thought processes, and lets me decide whether or not it makes sense. It also saves me time.

In the argument of fitz vs. Pablo:
I'm currently leaning towards a vote for Pablo.
Pablo's early play was contradictory, or at the very least confusing. Although he recognized this, it doesn't change the matter that his actions were. Pablo's was the first vote against OMG, although T-chan first brought up the matter of OMG's suspicious behaviour. It was suspicious, my problem is not in his regard of OMG at that point. My question to you, Pablo, regarding whether or not you found OMG scummy at the end of day 1 (before fitz's hammer), has gone untouched. Pablo argued that fitz willingly omitted parts of your posts to aid his case, however the parts he left out do not change anything in regards to his points (neither making nor breaking it; see my 2nd to last post for explanation). The beginning admitted odd behaviour, and the false accusations of misrepresentation lead me to believe that Pablo is more likely scum than fitz.

However, I'm not convinced yet. The reason is in the second part of Pablo's case against fitz. Firstly, I believe fitz was coaxing a 5th vote, something he has admitted in a way.

I wasn't shying away...when the votes for OMG were getting fewer I was basically resigned to the fact he wasn't going anywhere (at least before a replacement was made) and once that replacement was made, it was only common courtesy to let the replacement have their say.

Coaxing that 5th vote does look scummy. The other part that irks me is the fact that he wants to reduce the prospects of replacements, something that confuses me. Obviously, the need for replacements is not a good thing, but active replacements can be better than those they are 'succeeding'. Just a weird vibe off that line is all.

I won't vote yet, simply because I'm not convinced either is scum. It definitely seems as though one or the other is, but I'm not satisfied. I expect Pablo and fitz to respond, but I'd really appreciate any more third party perspective on the matter.

Questions:
@Pablo: The original question still stands: Did you find Ray scummy that you too would have hammered? Secondly, I currently find your case of misrepresentation lacking. In those two posts where you felt misrepresented, what were we to infer from those posts?

@havingfitz: What does RayFrost suspecting Pablo and believing you help you? He was being truthful (or I assume he was as townie), but he died with less information than we have now.

[PaltryExcuse]

EBWOP:
It should be, "

How

does RayFrost suspecting Pablo, and believing you, help you?"

Sorry 'bout that.

[PaltryExcuse]

EBWOP:
It should be, "

How

does RayFrost suspecting Pablo, and believing you, help you?"

Sorry 'bout that.

[PaltryExcuse]

@Mod: Ack. Double Post. My internet is frazzing in and out this evening. I'd appreciate if you could remove one of the two.

[PaltryExcuse]

Echo

...

Echo

...

Echo

...

Echo

...

Echo

...

I'm looking for some sort of conclusion to this.

Damn you, Narcissus.

[PaltryExcuse]

Really, admitting to fault and having some semblance of self-awareness before someone can point it out is a FAULT? Yikes, you have some messed-up priorities, if that's so.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that you admitting to a fault does not deny the fact that it happened.

There are 4 other players that are relatively silent in the past few days. I appear to be on the losing side of this argument so far, (though I'd like to see what the

whole

town thinks about this), but it in my experience in the newbie games that the players not actively building cases: those piggybacking, simply agreeing, and staying silent (yeah, yeah, I know, I know) are those more likely to be scum.

It has been rather quiet these past few days, hence my joking that there seems to be an echo in here due to the emptiness and my comment on how I want another perspective.

[PaltryExcuse]

The Story of Echo and Narcissus: (Abridged)

Echo is a nymph who likes Narcissus.
Narcissus doesn't know she exists.
Basically, she stalks him, does whatever he does.
She gets up the nerve to talk to him.
He shuts her down.
She curses him, but in so doing, becomes what she was in life: an echo of who she once was.
Narcissus learns to love, but only his reflection. Becomes a plant while looking at his reflection in the water.

It's a Greek myth, explaining the origins of echoes, and the Narcissus plant (a plant that grows near lakes and bends towards them, "looking at their reflection"). In retrospect, not that funny. But, being a classics history major, I tend to like the reference.

[PaltryExcuse]

All joking aside ABR, I'd appreciate some comments on the action these past few days. However, the disappearance of DeathNote, and now Ronnie, is a bit disconcerting. It's been 4 days since DeathNote last posted here, and 3 since Ronnie did.
Just a little bit of searching: DeathNote's last post was an hour and a half ago, while Ronnie's most recent post is #250 in this game.

@Mod: Prod's please?

[PaltryExcuse]

Grumble-cloud. I have to say I was reading the case on DeathNote, thought we actually have a scum, and now I've learned he's disappearing. Less than happy. Hopefully nothing bad happened to DeathNote himself. I think now the replacement has a lot to answer for, (a completely unresponded case). If, as T-chan said, he does not leave his other games or at least go V/LA it's going to paint an ugly target on his back. I would also like to hear the reason why he is leaving.

@Ronnie: A return to the game would be nice.

[PaltryExcuse]

Oh, just a warning, Thanksgiving this weekend, may be

V/LA from the 9th-12th of October

depending on time and computer access.

[PaltryExcuse]

Welcome back, Ronnie!

Oh, you and your wacky Canadian Thanksgiving.

You're just jealous that I get turkey a month sooner than you do, hehe.

[PaltryExcuse]

I don't like that logic. If you want more action in a game you do something about it. I admit I was looking for more commentary, but it's equally possible that life just got in the way of things for some. I might have said more, but T-chan's lone post of 'What...' is kinda what I wanna get across.

[PaltryExcuse]

SCUM-O-METER!

(Boredom equals action!)

Hello and welcome to the first ever Summary-Read-Out ever done by yours truly.
Sure, the game has been slow. Sure, there’s little to go on. But, *insert positive comment here*. So there!

I figure I’d just take RayFrost’s set-up and update it giving my opinions at this point.
Let’s begin!

-]

Mafia-rific

[-

DeathNote/replacement

: At this point, the strongest case against anyone has got to be DeathNote. The point that struck the hardest was the fact that he seems to follow the club without asking any questions. He votes when everyone else is, unvotes when others seem to. That is the scariest part. As I said, actions speak louder than words, and his actions are not pro-town.

Pablo Molinero

: His very early behaviour was admittedly odd. Initially was lurking, then pushed for action when there was so little, and then went V/LA. Upon his return, after the lynch of Ray/OMG, pursued his case on havingfitz. Part of his case depended on the one fitz built on him, and overall that part was weak in my opinion. The other part consisted of his jumping on fitz for getting impatient in a game where Pablo himself claimed frustration at the lack of action. Backed off fitz later. His case on fitz held more backing then his defense, which seemed to be fitz-oriented anyways.

-]

The Middlers

[-

Albert B. Rampage

: Walked into the game with the null-tell character of Mafia_failure. The guy didn’t really do anything and then he left. Rampage, however, charged in with a Ronnie claim. Then pressured RayFrost for a role-claim any way he could. He said he’d sit back, which in an already inactive game can’t be the right idea. Said he thought T-chan has something to answer for, as to what that is we are still waiting for.

ronnieroo

: The only person who defended OMG. This fact is neither a scum/town tell. Still waiting for an anaylsis on… anything. Little action means little information. Hard to say either way.

-]

Townesque

[-

Tororingu-chan

: She did lead the lynch of OMG, but his behaviour for me was off the map scummy that I have trouble pointing any fingers towards her for that. Her case on DeathNote seems to be the most convincing at this point. However, if we lynch DeathNote and he turns town, I will looking firmly in her direction.

havingfitz

: The first day’s and second day’s actions have been pretty consistent. “I want this game to hurry up and do something.” His case on Pablo didn’t have as much punch as his defense. I could see where he was coming from. With me thinking Pablo is likely scum, my mind goes the opposite way with him.

[PaltryExcuse]

Oh crap. Uh...

EBWOP: Ronnieroo started her case on Pablo while I am writing. More to post on her later.

Sorry Ronnie!

[PaltryExcuse]

Firstly, hello almightybob!

Pablo, I'm guessing that PE didn't read the post before posting his EBWOP, but just assumed that it was a case against you.

Ya, that's pretty much it exactly. I had a couple hours during my V/LA and I thought I'd do a PBPA. I went out soon after and didn't really read the post (just saw there was one). I just assumed that Ronnie'd post on Pablo like she said she was going to. But she changed her mind. My bad. Upon actually reading the post, it actually looks more DN-centric rather than anyone else.

@Ronnie: Who is your focus on at this point? You said you had a case on Pablo, but your summary post's focus is DN. Who do you believe is scum and why?

On Bob's defense:
So far, pretty sound on the points put forth. The posts seem to indicate he believes it to be so, and then quickly changes his mind. Basically, the way things have been written, DN seems positive at times of OMG's scummy-ness and sees it as newbie behaviour in others. One question really: Bob, in your opinion, when is DN convinced of OMG being scum enough to keep his vote on him until the lynch?

[PaltryExcuse]

ABR hasn't said much in Day 2, true, but he has said to be V/LA for most of it so far. Now his sig. says Emergency V/LA. On the flipside, he has posted much more in Newbie 842 than this one, recently.

[PaltryExcuse]

Any comments on Fitz's short analysis of your day 1 play?

[PaltryExcuse]

This has gotten odd. Die in a fire? ****ing idiot? Unnecessary, really.

@ABR: Your defense is non-existent. You accepted the fact that Fitz's case is solid. Why are we to accept this as a positive when you're unwilling to explain yourself? Secondly, if you think Pablo is town, you'd better get him on your side. Part of this includes considering his view points. Numbers are everything for the town, so there are only negatives in being antagonistic and promoting the attitude.

@Pablo: Sifting through T-chan's spam may be annoying, but really harmless IMO. If this habit was incessant throughout the game, I would be less lenient. Still, you're making some good points on ABR's behaviour.

On the topic of my attitude towards Fitz:
1. His play struck me as odd the first day. No lie. The fact ABR uses my quote as evidence against Fitz is proof of my suspicion.
2. His play the second day was consistent with the latter part of the first. However, his argument with Pablo made me think he was town. His defense was more believable than Pablo's attacks, and I can't really understand where Pablo was coming from with his defense. At this point I thought Pablo was more likely scum than havingfitz, and many other players. However, I was not convinced enough to vote, nor am I still.

@T-chan: I am very curious to know where you stand on the Fitz issue. You took flak from Mitey on Day 1 about your defense of Fitz as probable townie. Has your opinion changed on him? And if so how, and when?

@Bob: I think the major problem with your argument as of right now is that one post. It's still making you look suspicious in my eyes. On the other hand, the volume of posts where DeathNote points towards NewbScum is a plus on your side. I'm watching you.

@Ronnie: Post soon!

[PaltryExcuse]

Well, Day 3. Time to re-skim/read. Be back as soon as I can, however, I have a midterm tomorrow so response time is questionable.

[PaltryExcuse]

So I suck at studying. After this, I'm getting off the internet, as I know I'll drift back. However, during my re-read, one question did come up: Why did ronnieroo request a replacement? Her activity was negligible as of late, but I'd like to know nonetheless.

Personal reasons - family in the hospital.

[PaltryExcuse]

Guess: havingfitz
I'm getting the impression I'm supposed to be surprised.

In unrelated news: I kicked that Greek test's ass. That is all.

[PaltryExcuse]

I just read ronnie's reason for leaving. I wish you all the best, and hope everything turns out well. Thanks for playing with us.

[PaltryExcuse]

Welcome Starbuck!

I'm getting the impression that she either
A) Doesn't have a guilty read or
B) She's having trouble getting online for some reason.
I see no reason why we shouldn't start the day. Havingfitz has already posted his thoughts, I'd say its our time to put out our analyses. Gonna finish my re-read and then I'll be back. If T-chan does have a guilty read, she'll just interrupt at some point.

[PaltryExcuse]

EBWOP: I think it's obvious, but 'she' is T-chan in the above post.

[PaltryExcuse]

Alright. My main suspect right now is Pablo.
We’ve all seen the case against Pablo by havingfitz early in Day 2. I do have some observations to make based on the fact that we know Bob/DN was a mafia roleblocker.

Pablo’s comments on Day 1:
Pablo admitted to acting weird early on in Day 1, mentioning that he was deliberately lying low.

You know what, this whole "sit back for a few pages" thing just doesn’t do it for me. It sounded better when I was first doing it. (Yeesh, I don't post for a freakin' day and I already have people saying "the IC doesn’t post enough?! I'm offended good sirs and madams!) I've reread the thread and have some decent reads on people.

Vote: OMGLyncher

The reasons are two-fold. Firstly, he prefaces his RVS vote with "OMGUSVote:" so we're really, super sure that he's not serious with his vote. Being overly cautious is sometimes forgivable in newbie games, but it is as a whole, mildly scummy. Secondly, he challenges a few idea on page 2, but when people come in to argue against him, he just sort of shuts down instead of pushing back. He hasn't posted anything since then and I feel like he's trying to stay out of sight after ruffling a few feathers.

Votes are our weapons, kiddies. If we sit back and look for people doing things scummy *cough*havingfitz*cough, you'll get NOWHERE and the game will die and/or get taken over by the scum. You have to be proactive and challenge people.

Pablo deliberately attracts attention to himself, basically telling everyone that he was actively lurking. Why bring attention to yourself? Hm.

Next up:

Heh, while I do admit that my "playstyle" sequence posts looks odd (what was I thinking?!), you have to ask yourself if that odd behavior=scummy. I was going to ride out the next few days because I thought the town was going to be more active than it is. When it was apparent we have quite a few people here semi-lurking, I took it upon myself to push the town forward. Believe me: Quiet towns = Dead towns.

And yes, guess what, I STILL want people to pile on some votes. Anyone, anywhere: it is the #1 guaranteed way to spark a discussion.

I think you're looking at all the wrong reasons with your # 2 and 3, fitz. It appears to me that you're marking the 2 most active (content-wise) players simply because there's a lot of material to go off of with us. I'd be more concerned with the people NOT talking.

Now he admonishes any guilt by semi-asking a rhetorical question. “Obviously it’s not scummy” is implied in the post. I question why an experienced player, such as Pablo, would deliberately call attention to himself as he did. From what I’ve read, a good strategy with a power role is to draw a little bit of attention to you so you aren’t night killed. With T-chan as cop, and ABR as doctor, that leaves no other power roles left. Why would someone draw attention? Perhaps because you don’t want the roleblocker lynched Day 1, just in case mafia is playing against power roles (which turned out to be the case). As mafia goon, Pablo, early on, made himself a suspect. Knowing he had real life obligations coming up, Pablo jumped on the chance with OMG, yet looked the suspect himself. This, combined with his lackluster defense (which still reads to me as more of an attack), brings me to believe Pablo is our final scum.

[PaltryExcuse]

Pablo’s comments on Day 2:
While looking at Day 2, I was looking specifically at DeathNote/almightybob’s, as well as any posts where one of us living members talks to or about the dead roleblocker. Pablo overall was much more active Day 2 due to his lessened amount of distractions. So he must’ve had something to say about T-chan’s case or Bob’s defense.

Post 278:

Yeah, the timing of his unvote/vote on Ray was only about 2 hours. Didn't take long for him to put his vote back on.

*Right after T-chan’s first outlining of the case.

Post 280:

...

Did he give a reason, VRK?

*This refers to DeathNote’s departure.

Post 294:

God, I can't tell if that's ultimately scummy or just shamefully lazy.

*This refers to the reason DeathNote gave for his departure.

Post 336:

ON ABR:
Seems like everyone is commenting on that last post! I guess I'm the only one who liked it~~~ ^_^

Yeah, explain this. You're buddying pretty hard for no apparent reason.

*This is a comment on a point that Bob made.

Post 403:

"Before I go into my drunken 21st stupor and watch my Bearcats crush the Bulls, I think I'll just pop in to my games..." I say to myself.

Well done, T-C. (You just better really be cop.)

Vote: almightybob

That’s about it. Firstly, Pablo comments on the case against DN saying he can see the legitimacy. What worries me about this entire thing is the only times Pablo talks to or about Bob. These posts respond to Bob pointing out something about ABR, and when Bob has revealed that he is, in fact, mafia.
For 67 posts, Pablo is still active. So where is his focus? ABR.
Pablo questions ABR’s every little move. I will note here, that ABR wasn’t acting the towniest he ever has. However, the monster posts by Bob and responses by T-chan are left completely response-less. The post that brought me to suspect that this was the case was Post 336. Pablo is first to respond to Bob’s defense. Or should I say,

after

, as it is pretty obvious by the post that he doesn’t respond to it at all. He then distances himself from Bob, until Bob reveals he is scum.
It is a continuation of DON’T LET THE ROLEBLOCKER DIE! As pointed out by fitz already, the goon needed to kill the doctor in order to not lose. So, with concerns expressed over ABR’s play, there’s a new target.

Vote: Pablo Molinero

[PaltryExcuse]

And one more point:

Let’s look at the townie lynch and what we know.

RayFrost - 5 (Tororingu-chan, PaltryExcuse, DeathNote, Albert B. Rampage, havingfitz)

T-c: Cop
Paltry: ?
DeathNote: Scum
ABR: Doc
Fitz: ?

I would add one more
Pablo Molinero: ?

Questions:
@Pablo: The original question still stands: Did you find Ray scummy that you too would have hammered? Secondly, I currently find your case of misrepresentation lacking. In those two posts where you felt misrepresented, what were we to infer from those posts?

If forced to, due the deadline, I would have hammered, yes.

You can join me and fitz on that vote because you would have hammered. You said so. OMG was acting scummy. T-chan, our cop, led the lynch. You also were the first to get a vote onto OMG.
Long story short, it's hard for any of the three of us to absolve ourselves in this situation as we all were willing to lynch him. Deadline or not.

Okay, then let’s take a look at the scum-lynch:

almightybob - 4 (Albert B. Rampage, havingfitz, almightybob, Pablo Molinero)

ABP: Doc
Fitz: ?
Almightybob: Self-vote
Pablo: ?

What do we see solely based on this? Simple enough.

Paltry: scummy (voted for townie lynch, stayed out of scum lynch)
Fitz: scummy (voted for townie lynch and scum lynch after the Cop claimed)
Pablo: neutral (stayed out of townie lynch, voted for scum lynch after the Cop claimed)

Back to my analysis. Obviously, I know scum was driving 2 votes on the first lynch. Now I gotta figure out which one of you it is.

So Pablo would now have:
Pablo: scummy (would have lynched a townie, voted for scum lynch after the Cop claimed)
That's a bit more accurate. Secondly, about the second lynch, I just wasn't online to vote when you, ABR, fitz, and Bob himself all voted for him. I have class on Thursday's from 10:00am until 2:30pm, plus I usually grab something to eat with my friend and we muck around on campus. I wasn't home until after Bob had been lynched and VRK had closed the thread.
The fact that you and fitz voted for Bob after he admitted he was scum is a null-tell for me. Yay, scum admits they're scum and you vote for them. Really it was just a matter of time before enough people logged on for Bob to be lynched. So if we do go on those votes alone, everyone is on an equal playing field. Your points just seem like a red herring.

[PaltryExcuse]

First, I should address that “case” of yours. I’m not touching that Day 1 bullshit with a ten foot pole. It’s a weak point that fitz started championing and you’re just parroting/running with the baton. It was weak then and weak now. Know why: ABR DID THE EXACT SAME THING DAY 2. And yet, no one called him out on it.

Don’t believe me?

ABR’s first post on Day 2:

Ah crap. You guys been here since the beginning, who do you think is scum? I'm gonna sit back for a while and go "hmm..yes...interesting. indeed."

It’s hypocritical that no one comments on this and shows that I’m being tunneled in on for something trivial. You and fitz can yell about it all you want but it’s not going to make it any less crap.

I did comment. You're right, I didn't hold it over his head as vehemently as I have with yours, however I did try to get him to respond.

@ABR: I'd think you'd have the most broad perspective considering you came into this game later. Are your suspicions on ronnie still worth the vote you threw at him Day 1 and why?

In my questions post, 2 posts later, I say I think he'd have the most broad perspective. I wasn't happy with his deference to us to make a case and/or probe for answers. I do try to include him post-haste. After you and havingfitz stop going at it, I try to get him to be included again:

All joking aside ABR, I'd appreciate some comments on the action these past few days. However, the disappearance of DeathNote, and now Ronnie, is a bit disconcerting. It's been 4 days since DeathNote last posted here, and 3 since Ronnie did.
Just a little bit of searching: DeathNote's last post was an hour and a half ago, while Ronnie's most recent post is #250 in this game.
@Mod: Prod's please?

Long story short: the first person to point out ABR's inactivity was

me

.

Secondly, to deal with your flippant disregard for my Day 1 case, it is a completely different interpretation than one previously had. I try to show that you deliberately draw attention. I say that the only reason to do this, is to make yourself not as much of a nightkill candidate (i.e. you have a power role) or you're trying to distract from some other issue(i.e. A save the roleblocker campaign).

Your Day 2 argument seems to revolve around me “distancing” myself from bob. In conclusion: I don’t say a whole lot about bob due to me attacking fitz and then moving on to focus on ABR. During this time, all the while T-c is grilling bob. And you don’t think scum-me would jump in and defend him or deflect for him? It does not add up. At this point we don’t know that T-c is cop so why would scum throw his floundering partner to the wolves?

I'm building more to the case, just wanted to get that out there first.

My case says: no, that makes no sense. How does someone ignore a case that is going on right around them? Not talking about someone and not talking with someone can be distancing yourself, especially when at that point I find that the majority of posts are about the other case. Bob makes a comment on ABR, then Fitz makes a small analysis of ABR's play, and now your focus is there. Point of the matter is I doubt scum would want to bring attention back to the case by T-chan. Talking about it might give the case more validity. 'Look, a distraction!' springs to mind.
Also, putting quotation marks around certain words doesn't make my "case" on you "distancing" less valid.

[PaltryExcuse]

Alright, Post 434: Personally, I’m a bit confused as to how I’d come off scummy by the end of this post. The main idea is that I’m bussing

I said at the beginning of Day 3 that we need to look at Deathnote/bob interactions, which you took to simply jump on me. There is no indication that you looked at anyone else, but go right after me with a pretty flimsy case.

Just because I didn't mention my intentions before hand doesn't mean I haven't considered other possibilities. And obviously, I don't think my case is flimsy.

Why? I can guess: you know fitz has been gunning after me since Day 1 and I wasn’t exactly cordial to T-c yesterday. I’m the prime target for a mislynch and it feels like you’re trying to take advantage. You jumped for your vote quick and I don't like it.

The link to fitz makes some sense, but would make more if I had never expressed suspicions of you. Obviously, not the case here. However, the T-Chan connection makes none. So you were a bit vicious towards T-chan... I think she's moved on. Personally, I think a display of emotions is a null-tell. Frustration is natural. You're underestimating both T-chan and fitz.

Let’s turn this analysis around and look at your (Paltry) interactions with Deathnote/bob on Day 2:

@DeathNote: You posted once that you were watching Pablo, and later pursued Pablo on his argument against fitz. Are you still 'watching' Pablo or has any of that changed into a more definite suspicion and why?

Question that looks a little leading towards yours truly.

That's not the entire post. The question I ask ABR in the same post is about ronnieroo. Basically, I asked a question based on the last suspicions of each of the people had at the end of Day 1. The question is about you, but the entire post isn't.

Grumble-cloud. I have to say I was reading the case on DeathNote, thought we actually have a scum, and now I've learned he's disappearing. Less than happy. Hopefully nothing bad happened to DeathNote himself. I think now the replacement has a lot to answer for, (a completely unresponded case). If, as T-chan said, he does not leave his other games or at least go V/LA it's going to paint an ugly target on his back. I would also like to hear the reason why he is leaving.

- You say that it’s a good case and then proceed not to do anything abut it.

Mentioning I suspect him is not a way of doing anything?

I don't like that logic. If you want more action in a game you do something about it. I admit I was looking for more commentary, but it's equally possible that life just got in the way of things for some. I might have said more, but T-chan's lone post of 'What...' is kinda what I wanna get across.

-About DN’s disappearance.

-] Mafia-rific [-
DeathNote/replacement: At this point, the strongest case against anyone has got to be DeathNote. The point that struck the hardest was the fact that he seems to follow the club without asking any questions. He votes when everyone else is, unvotes when others seem to. That is the scariest part. As I said, actions speak louder than words, and his actions are not pro-town.

Oh… wow. Really. This genuinely surprised me. You’re calling more attention to a potential scumbuddy. Either epic bussing or a very townie indicator for Paltry.

This is where the case against me starts to fall apart. At this point, a lynch of the roleblocker is almost certain death. If the mafia members are facing no roles, the bus will go over ok. If the mafia is facing power roles, well, the goon needs to kill the doctor. Why would I highlight negative points about DeathNote if I was scum? I wouldn't. It’s like asking for a 50% chance of death.

[PaltryExcuse]

On Bob's defense:
So far, pretty sound on the points put forth. The posts seem to indicate he believes it to be so, and then quickly changes his mind. Basically, the way things have been written, DN seems positive at times of OMG's scummy-ness and sees it as newbie behaviour in others. One question really: Bob, in your opinion, when is DN convinced of OMG being scum enough to keep his vote on him until the lynch?

“Pretty sound” and yet says right after bob is unsure of himself. Very confusing post.

It made DeathNote's defense a bit more plausible. However, right at the end I want him to clarify something. When did DeathNote start suspecting OMG? Page 5, according to almightybob. Here's some context: T-chan had just highlighted the fact that Post 174 DeathNote mentions there is nothing serious to go on.

@Bob: I think the major problem with your argument as of right now is that one post. It's still making you look suspicious in my eyes. On the other hand, the volume of posts where DeathNote points towards NewbScum is a plus on your side. I'm watching you.

You’re watching him and yet don’t think it’s suspicious enough to garner a vote. You appear to be coming around to his defense.

His answer made him see more scummy. From the previous post to this one, I go from saying his case is 'pretty solid', to thinking there is a major problem with his argument. I call him suspicious, I'm watching him... I'd say I'm near ready to vote for him. In retrospect, yep, I thought he was the scummiest and should've. I was being a bit cautious as last time my vote led to a lynch. So sue me.

Your playstyle as a whole seems very much into moderating discussion, commenting here and there, and asking questions to lead discussion to where you want it to go without having to participate too much yourself. But the big thing: you don’t seem to come up with a while lot of original conclusions/attacks. Aside from today, you’ve done a good job at riding the wave and staying out of the spotlight. You jumped pretty hard onto fitz’s case against me and parroted a LOT of points as scummy/lazy sort of action.

Honestly, I thought I was participating. I didn't think I was leading discussion, just contributing.

@havingfitz: You seem to wonder why I got you to explain your argument of hypocrisy against Pablo. The reason is, the case is much clearer and defined when you explain the posts you're referring to rather than giving a blanketed statement with references. It allows me to see your thought processes, and lets me decide whether or not it makes sense. It also saves me time.

In the argument of fitz vs. Pablo:
I'm currently leaning towards a vote for Pablo.
Pablo's early play was contradictory, or at the very least confusing. Although he recognized this, it doesn't change the matter that his actions were. Pablo's was the first vote against OMG, although T-chan first brought up the matter of OMG's suspicious behaviour. It was suspicious, my problem is not in his regard of OMG at that point. My question to you, Pablo, regarding whether or not you found OMG scummy at the end of day 1 (before fitz's hammer), has gone untouched. Pablo argued that fitz willingly omitted parts of your posts to aid his case, however the parts he left out do not change anything in regards to his points (neither making nor breaking it; see my 2nd to last post for explanation). The beginning admitted odd behaviour, and the false accusations of misrepresentation lead me to believe that Pablo is more likely scum than fitz.

However, I'm not convinced yet. The reason is in the second part of Pablo's case against fitz. Firstly, I believe fitz was coaxing a 5th vote, something he has admitted in a way.

I wasn't shying away...when the votes for OMG were getting fewer I was basically resigned to the fact he wasn't going anywhere (at least before a replacement was made) and once that replacement was made, it was only common courtesy to let the replacement have their say.

Coaxing that 5th vote does look scummy. The other part that irks me is the fact that he wants to reduce the prospects of replacements, something that confuses me. Obviously, the need for replacements is not a good thing, but active replacements can be better than those they are 'succeeding'. Just a weird vibe off that line is all.

I won't vote yet, simply because I'm not convinced either is scum. It definitely seems as though one or the other is, but I'm not satisfied. I expect Pablo and fitz to respond, but I'd really appreciate any more third party perspective on the matter.

Questions:
@Pablo: The original question still stands: Did you find Ray scummy that you too would have hammered? Secondly, I currently find your case of misrepresentation lacking. In those two posts where you felt misrepresented, what were we to infer from those posts?

@havingfitz: What does RayFrost suspecting Pablo and believing you help you? He was being truthful (or I assume he was as townie), but he died with less information than we have now.

My stance at that point in time is that you looked more scummy, but not scummy enough to vote for. I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who said that. Secondly, my asking questions provoke answers. I get to understand more of another's perspective. If you needed to hear what I thought, I told you. If you needed clarification, you need but asked. Because I took the initiative to clarify other people's arguments doesn't mean I'm parroting, it means I'm exploring. When I thought I had a case, I gave it. Just because you make a case before me, or more often, doesn't make you more town.

[PaltryExcuse]

Correct, the mafia lynch is a null-tell. I'm not faulting you for not being on it. Congrats, you managed to parrot my point to try and make it your own.

I just misinterpreted your intentions when you were mentioning the scum vote. So in other words, we agree that it is a null-tell. Where in your post do you mention it was a null-tell? This is not me parroting. However, your wording does lend to this misinterpretation. According to your post, it looks like I'm scummy for two reasons, havingfitz is scummy for one, and you are neutral on both counts.

But the townie-lynch is not a null-tell. I said,

if forced due to deadline

, that I would lynch Ray. Because that's the right move for town no matter who is being lynched. Even if I'm 99% sure they are town. A Day 1 lynch in a newbie game is ALWAYS advantageous over a No-Lynch.

Obviously I disagree, but enough has been said on the issue. A lynch being necessary on day 1 makes sense.

The difference between you and fitz and me is that you actively sought out the lynch while I wanted to pursue other avenues (fitz at that moment). You can not logically lump me in with you two so stop trying. You lynched a townie, I did not.

BAH! This is just outright lying now. Fitz and I did pursue a lynch on our main scum target, OMG.
I agreed with you initially on Fitz's odd behaviour of putting Lyncher at L-1. I questioned Mitey when she finally removed her random vote. I critique Ronnie's defense of OMG (the fact that a newbie defense is illegitimate was brought up by me). Fitz questions you and Mitey. We were keeping our avenues open. However, the top of my scumlist was OMG. So, I voted for him.

And before you even come back with some elaborate-scum theory, let's be real here. Scum does not sit back, rubbing their hands, going "Muahaahahaha, the town is doing my bidding." No. They're right there on the town-lynch wagons 99 times of 100, pushing it along. You're trying WAY too hard. "Red herrings" rarely exist in mafia, especially in a standard newbie game.

If someone looks like they're going to be lynched, what is the point for scum to push it along? Secondly, DeathNote was on the lynch. That is the scum presence required by your logic. Can't tell me he wasn't pushing for a lynch.
And the comment about me trying too hard? In your argument, you have said that I was not being original enough, and coming up with my own ideas. Now that I have one, and its you, I'm doing it too hard? How convenient. This isn't the first time you've contradicted yourself. Havingfitz followed your advice, and voted for the person he felt was most scummy. Then, you jump on him.

I did comment. You're right, I didn't hold it over his head as vehemently as I have with yours, however I did try to get him to respond.

Sense: it makes none.

It makes perfect sense to me. I show I was questioning ABR before your posts even mention anything.

My case says: no, that makes no sense. How does someone ignore a case that is going on right around them?

EXACTLY! How does scum ignore a case right in front of them against their scumbuddy? Particularly when we don't know the guilty result. Surely they would make some sort of casual attempt to clear their pal. In fact, both you and fitz commented on the case IN FAVOR OF DN/BOB and sort of dismissed it until the guilty result came. How am I the scummy one, then? If I'm scummy due to this, you two are scummy^100.

This doesn't make your point at all. Firstly, you've omitted the rest of my post where I go on to say that it makes logical sense to NOT mention it. Your basic point in this is that I'm scummy because I suspected him, and then was influenced by his defense. However, later, I state I still find him suspicious and that I am watching him.

Finally, your most recent post:

Look at it from my point of view: If I am not lynched then the town is guaranteed a win. Period.

Your final statement is that if town never lynches you, town wins. What the crap? If the town never lynches you and you're scum, town loses. Both unconfirmed townies think at this point if they remain unlynched town will win. The goon thinks at this point if they remain unlynched they will win. Secondly, your original points against fitz seem to have no bearing on your opinions now. If you look at it from my point of view: You're scum.

[PaltryExcuse]

I'm here! I just missed one day. I've returned. I spent that Wed. night online here and then fell behind on readings (which I'm now caught up on). I'll post as soon as possible.

[PaltryExcuse]

Oh! And fitz is V/LA until today, so I'd expect to see a response from him sometime.

[PaltryExcuse]

Don't try and spin this. I say "Look at it from my point of view" as in I know I'm town. Unlike other mafia games where you have to choose between people in LyLo and hope for the best, if I can secure PE and fitz lynches (in either order) in 2 days, we are guaranteed a town win.

The bold part concerns me, since if you were true town you'd have some degree of uncertianty and should be looking at

both

me and fitz, and try to secure those two running lynches.

My point was that the statement was unneeded. It seemed as though you were waving the townie flag. Secondly, I'm not sure making a case against the guy I think is less scummy is a good thing as it could just confuse matters. If others think I'm wrong, I can post where I think fitz has acted odd / my thoughts on his relationship to DN/almightybob.

I'm pulling the IC card: I believe my argument because I have played many a game on this site and you start to see trends after a while. This is one of them.

...I'm done with you. I'm going to be asking around for opinions after this game is over just to see how wrong you are: your grasp of basic mafia theory is crap if you think lynching me over the others is a good idea based on the points I've put forward/argued.

FYI I have no intention of explaining anything unless asked by someone who is not Pablo~ I really don't think I need to! ^_^;

You don't think you have to explain yourself?!?! What kind of privileged attitude is that bullshit. Come up with some reasons and flow of logic instead of just going "nuh uh" and leaving it at that. You may be cleared as an innocent, but that still means you have to think critically at times. Someone call her on this. Starbuck? Fitz?

Gah, I can already see the inherently false calls of "scum-blowup" coming my way. I urge someone to do a meta on me: I get this passionate/pissed when I'm town.

I think the game that T-chan pointed out is a case of you getting angry (calling other people f***s) and being scum... so you do get passionate/pissed when you're not town. Secondly, if you know you have a meta of only blowing up while town, why not blow up while scum? Anger over text is easily faked. Like I said before (post 445), I think emotions are a null-tell.

Thirdly, on the matter of the IC Card and just the general issue of experience=right, I just want to point this out from the wiki:
Fallacy!
Appealing to your position as IC, or to your experience in general, to prove you're right is not a good way of proving anything.

Finally in that same game, Open 153, Incognito has this to say about your scumbuddy JDodge after the reveal:

I don't really get why we didn't lynch Pablo Day 1; I thought the case I made against him was perfectly sound, and he didn't really do anything all game anyway. Every other post was a complaint about how busy he was, and you guys pretty much allowed him and JDodge to lurk to victory. Plain and simple. I'm appalled that after I was night-killed, nobody looked back to see any of the points I raised against him and JDodge;

JDodge was pretty obviously avoiding commenting on Pablo when I pushed my case against him.

I IM-ed Nuwen directly after I was killed asking her if the scum team was JD and Pablo, and she confirmed that I was correct. Yeah, there's night-time WIFOM that could come into play, but you can't deny the fact that scum have to eliminate threats to themselves, and me being the only person to point out Pablo's behavior was an obvious threat to his agenda.

The highlighted part, about JDodge avoiding commenting on the case against his scumbuddy, is what I want your attention to be drawn to. Not saying anything or avoiding talking about an issue against a scum is a pretty telling thing. The idea of 'not talking about a case' being scummy, especially a case against a known scum, is not a new concept to the game.

After all this, I come to say:

Confirm Vote: Pablo Molinero

[PaltryExcuse]

I think his vote counted because T-chan had moved her vote to DeathNote, who was no longer in the game.

@Starbuck: Problems with getting on maybe?

[PaltryExcuse]

@The people who are watching me, what makes you think I have a potentional to be scum?

You're playing the game. Hence, possible mafia.

How is this in any way answering the question she asked?

The first comment "You're playing...etc." was just a bit of humour and the more serious part comes later in the same post. I said its her infrequency at posting and it really is more of a gut read.

[PaltryExcuse]

Oh really? I'm sure we all have our eyes on you now, Ms. Cop. Haha.

[PaltryExcuse]

Question for the more experienced players....when you are provided your roles at the beginning of the game...if you are Mafia and your game has a Mafia Roleblocker and a Mafia Goon like our does....are you informed that your scum partner is a Roleblocker if you are the Goon or would the only way you know your partner was a Roleblocker if he/she told you during your night PMs to each other?

Odd timing for this question...

[PaltryExcuse]

And how is my 'towniness' scummy?

[PaltryExcuse]

What would have been a better point to ask it? It did not occur to me to ask it until I began looking closer at yours and Pablo's interactions with DN/AMB. I just want to know when the Goon would conceivably know their partner was a Roleblocker. In the initial notification from VRK? If not...they can communicate before the game begin...right? Or at the very least at night between Day one and two.

Obviously, the remaining scum would know the answer to this question. So you're basically saying, I can't be the last scum because I don't know how scum works.
I'm pretty sure this question is honest, as I also believe Pablo is scum, however the timing makes it weird.

[PaltryExcuse]

The reason for it aside, it was still a weird question to ask considering where we are in the game. It wasn't how it reflected on us, it was how it reflects on you. Essentially, you must be townie since you don't know how scum works. Do you see how it could be weird for me coming from one of the two unconfirmed people?

[PaltryExcuse]

On PaltryExcuse

Upon a perusal of Roo's posts, I have to say ABR's argument does stand strong in my mind.
Reason: Roo plays the newbie card a lot when talking about OMG. Inexperience can be a detriment, but it's not an excuse for scummy behaviour. The defense is weak.

How do you feel about it now that OMGL flipped town? You, yourself, are a newbie, and this statement is very odd coming from someone who at this point has only been playing on MS for 21 days. Ronnie has been playing for awhile now, and I'm definitely surprised that she is the only semi-experienced person to point out that his actions are showing more frustrated townie than scum.

I was completely wrong, obviously. In retrospect it makes sense, even though I couldn't see myself doing the same in his position. I still think the newbie excuse shouldn't be used too much. I've read games where scum has flown under the radar with it the entire game. If it's scummy, it's scummy, and I saw OMG's behaviour as scummy despite the source.

You say just up there that the defense is bad, but then you turn right around in the same post and say this:

If Roo doesn't want someone lynched then wouldn't she defend them? She doesn't believe OMG is scum, and defends him against pretty much everyone else. However, if she was scum, Ray gets lynched and is town, she looks like a defender of the down-trod. I'm having trouble seeing how a defense is instantly bad.

Contradiction much?

Not in the slightest. I say a defense itself isn't scummy. I still didn't like the newbie defense and its use was weird in my mind. One was making hypothetical comments, and the other my analysis on her defense. Two different things. I stand by my thoughts on a weak defense being more telling than a weak attack any day.

I also think it's very scummy that you vote for Ray before he gets his analysis post up. This game is very, VERY wordy, which is what's taking me so long to get through it.

I wanted to keep the pressure on seeing as everyone was removing their votes. I thought they were absolving Ray of OMG's guilt and didn't like it.

I don't think Ray will pop up town, hence I don't think it is a when, but an if. This sounds like you're pretty sure Ray will flip town. I have to say this makes me a bit suspicious of you.

So after Ray flipped town, were you still suspicious of ronnie?

Slightly, yes. But her lack of activity took her off my radar as day 2 goes on as I had nothing to go on.

[PaltryExcuse]

I shouldn't be doing this while in class... but right now I have some doubts toward havingfitz I didn't have before. I'm gonna look over Starbuck's case in detail and then vote again. Until then:

Unvote

[PaltryExcuse]

About fitz: He says he hasn't posted his defense against Starbuck, so I'll wait before I vote either way or ask any questions about it. Post 509 seems nasty though.

About Pablo:

This sounds like I'm trying to sweet-talk Paltry

I'd like to think this wouldn't work against me anyways.
However, I do have a question about your more recent posts:

Well, that vote from fitz is not at all surprising. Right after a big ol' analysis against him, a vote is dropped and he goes from cautious to self-preservation mode.

Well, my hand has been sort of forced here.

Thank you, Starbuck for reminding me of my old cases against fitz. My mind has changed a little reading that,

and I think it's still about 60/40, but in favor of fitz, (due the attack on me on Day 3), since he has plenty of history against him. I can't get past his little, "I agree with Bob on his DeathNote defense," and that's IT about that subject. That's how scum sweeps things under the rug (I is a broken record, but that's what I believe).

At the risk of NK analysis (don't know why this hasn't been mentioned yet). ABR died in the night and it just so happened that he was the experienced player that was going head-to-head with fitz near the end of Day 2. He may have been bumped off since scum knew he would hound him the next day.

How does the old case come into play now, instead of before, when you voted and pressured me?

[PaltryExcuse]

@Starbuck:

Starting at the beginning of Day 3

On Havingfitz

That sucks that ABR was the doctor. If the doctor had made it through the night town would have been guaranteed the win. Now a town win is more like 50-50 unless TC guessed right during the night. As she had a 1-4 chance of investigating the right person I hope she chose wisely.

I love a bowl of WIFOM first thing in the morning.

Could you explain how this is WIFOM? I don't really understand this.

Following the crowd is when you just go along with it without adding anything new to the case, and you didn't add anything to the case already on OMG. DeathNote was sitting there all day on Day 1, scummy as all hell, and you let that slip right past you because you were too busy focusing on an inactive player, OR you were trying to cover for DeathNote.

I think during day 1 all four of us did that (let DN slip by). That is not really a point against havingfitz specifically.

@havingfitz:

How is an entrance onto a wagon scummy? Are you saying every L-1 vote is scummy (as apparently is an L-2 and a hammer vote)? How do you think people get lynched? As for all the other questions above... I have addressed them in full in post 148. I can cut and paste the entire post but to not make this post twice as long I would appreciate it if you would just read it, I can’t make those points any better than I did.

An entrance on a wagon, in general, is not guaranteed scummy. However, the timing of yours was odd, and you were voted for that and I also had issues with it at the time. There was no replacement, pressure was sufficiently supplied, and the vote seemed unneeded. The question for me is: Is your vote motivated by impatience (town) or is it motivated by mislynch (scum)?
Previously, I have argued impatience, as many expressed their dislike of the inactivity of Day 1. It made sense... however, is this an easy cop-out for scum? I don't know...

My goodness....your nose is brown.

I admit your case was weak. How else would you interpret your admitting you appeared to be on the losing side of the argument? Interpret reality to your liking much? Your actions over the last several posts have screamed scum to me. Quick flip...sucking up to Starbuck and the person you spent most of day three voting for. No sweet nothings for TC?

I think the flip has to do with ensuring his survival, something he has highlighted as necessary for himself before. This is just a continuation of these thoughts.

Overall: Right now, the case against fitz is reminiscent of the one Pablo made Day 2, as well as the flaws pointed out by me and others day 1. On that alone, I'd go for a vote on Pablo as I believed fitz before, and little had changed. The new info for me lies in the analysis that fitz could care less what Ray said when he replaced in. A lack of possible redemption, to paraphrase Starbuck.

[PaltryExcuse]

Sorry I wasn't on yesterday! I meant to tell you all I had 2 midterms today and was going to be studying all last night. Sadly, again, its catch up time.

[PaltryExcuse]

Just to bite the meta thing in the bud: in this case I think it is a null-tell. Two reasons:
1. Emotion can be faked. Not saying you are, but it can be. From what I've read, people act differently sometimes when scumhunting, are scum... etc. One of the reasons there are problems with fitz's first post of Day 3 is that it could be fake disappointment.
2. You seem very aware of your meta. Whether it was played to your advantage, or it was a genuine reaction, will be determined by your flip.

[PaltryExcuse]

2. You seem very aware of your meta. Whether it was played to your advantage, or it was a genuine reaction,

will be determined by your flip

.

I don't like this statement. It already assumes I will be lynched and in doing so subtlety pushes the town in that direction.

That's not what I meant at all. I thought flip just meant when your role is revealed.

[PaltryExcuse]

Page 23 will hereby referred to as: "Teh Fail Page".

In more serious news:

Agreed that the Meta is null and most likely playstyle. I simply posted it in response to T-c pulling out one of my scum-games to try and make it a point against me when it isn't.

I disagree with the fact that you disagree! ^_^ Gosh, I think it's stupid for scum to call any attention to their scumbuddy (whether they agree or not with the arguments put forth) so naturally that makes you scummy for me! @_@;

Also, can't believe you just tried to use Occam's razor. =_=

I don't think you're dense enough to really believe the stuff you're proposing, so I'd have to say I think you're scum! ^_^ I have a better opinion of you than that!

What a f**king terrible attitude. You've slapped me in the face and act as if you don't realize it. Hide behind those cutesy smiley-faces all you want. I'm town and yes I do believe in what I'm saying. You're condescending, dismissive, and oblivious all in one post. I'm pulling the IC card: I believe my argument because I have played many a game on this site and you start to see trends after a while. This is one of them.

...I'm done with you. I'm going to be asking around for opinions after this game is over just to see how wrong you are: your grasp of basic mafia theory is crap if you think lynching me over the others is a good idea based on the points I've put forward/argued.

FYI I have no intention of explaining anything unless asked by someone who is not Pablo~ I really don't think I need to! ^_^;

You don't think you have to explain yourself?!?! What kind of privileged attitude is that bullshit. Come up with some reasons and flow of logic instead of just going "nuh uh" and leaving it at that. You may be cleared as an innocent, but that still means you have to think critically at times. Someone call her on this. Starbuck? Fitz?

Gah, I can already see the inherently false calls of "scum-blowup" coming my way. I urge someone to do a meta on me: I get this passionate/pissed when I'm town.

The second quote was the first indication mention of meta, and it was being used as a possible defense. Am I misunderstanding something here?

[PaltryExcuse]

I am not particularly convinced by the case on havingfitz... It's not easy to see when rereading, but when havingfitz dropped his weird L-1 on OMGLyncher the game had stalled -- iirc we were literally getting one post every three days or something! >_< I remember feeling very frustrated and impatient at that point, so I didn't find it a stretch to believe that fitz felt the same way~

Hence why I find the strongest point against fitz is Starbuck's argument nothing RayFrost could do would sway fitz's opinion. I'm still thinking about this one.

There's a difference between defensiveness and OVERdefensiveness.

What are signs of overdefensiveness vs. a defense in your opinion?

[PaltryExcuse]

@Paltry. Someone had asked everyone what their experience was with Mafia. I couldn't find your response. Could you answer that question? Thanks.

It was me who asked the question, ironically enough. And I answered it in the same post:

Also, a random question aimed more at the newbies, how much experience have you at this type of mafia (forum-based)?

Personally, I only have the bit of lurking and reading other games on this forum. I've played mafia with friends, but never before on forums with people I've never met. This is my first game.

[PaltryExcuse]

Dual post for the lose.

[PaltryExcuse]

Here’s how I see things at this point:

Day 1

: Pablo and Fitz act a bit odd, and find each other scummy. Fitz’s actions, i.e. the odd voting habits, are much more scummy the Pablo’s odd starting behaviour. Fitz seems to go with the town on this one, and uses ‘what the town wants’ as an excuse for his actions. 1-0, Fitz to lynch.

Day 2

: Pablo vs. Fitz… not much to say that hasn’t been said already. It IS, however, odd to not comment on case going on around you of the magnitude of Bob vs. T-chan. Every active person except Pablo commented on the case, including two (fitz and ABR) who were pointing at others. This is distancing and possibly deliberately distracting, IMO. 1-1, tie game.

Day 3

: Fitz’s opening comment is a common scum-tell according to the wiki. Pablo only votes me because of the case on him. However, the timing is just a little bit wonky. I am only scummy because of my case? And you’re willing to start a lynch on me so early in the day when you’re only 60-40? The final kicker was this:
It starts in post 447, where I question why your case on fitz has no bearing. Despite you quoting it in post 449, it goes unheeded. Magically, your faith in your own case is refurbished upon Starbuck’s acknowledgement. 2-1, Pablo to lynch.

Vote: Pablo Molinero

[PaltryExcuse]

Vote: havingfitz

[PaltryExcuse]

Hey all! So... I don't know what happened day 3 either, but it went my way so I'm not complaining. If you have any questions for me I'll be glad to answer them, but I'd really like some commentary on my play because this was my first game and I'd like to play more.

I have some questions though (sound familiar?):
Is not commenting on a case really scummy? I think it can be. I still find it weird to the end of Day 2 everyone but Pablo had commented on the Bob v. T-chan debacle.

If anyone who was killed or lynched before Day 3 (ABR, RayFrost, MiteyMouse) kept up with the game, did you suspect me? And why? Hope to play with you all again soon.

@T-Chan: If I play with you again, please let me be on your side. You, single-handed, put me in the NK the doc or lose situation. Why did you lynch Pablo so soon after my vote?

@Pablo: I liked your defense on Day 2, but I needed to discredit it. Fun fun fun start to Day 3 with you. Hopefully you felt the same.

@AlmightyBob, my valiant scum partner... your situation was doomed, but hey, win for you, no? You really helped me out, whether or not it was deliberate, by speed-ending day 2.

@havingfitz: DN and I wanted to take you as far as we could due to the craziness on Day 1. Even though Day 1 was moving slow, that vote put a huge target on you for the rest of the game.

@Starbuck: Thanks for subbing in. I honestly thought your tunneling was a feint to make me feel safe. Obviously, I was wrong. Still, you came in guns-a-blazin' at havingfitz like from my wildest dream.

@VRK: Thanks muchly for modding and everything else! Couldn't have played without you! I appreciate the fact that you did so while moving around early on. Do you have any comments / questions about my gameplay?

[PaltryExcuse]

Oh, also Starbuck, who would've you been leaning towards as scum if yesterday we did lynch fitz?

[PaltryExcuse]

Thanks to both of you by the way for the compliments. I just have to figure out what it means to be 'too townie' or how that translates to my gameplay.

[PaltryExcuse]

I had to get rid of you Pablo. I was trying to subtly push the town that way, but couldn't once the case against DN came out.
And about the fence-sitting, that probably stems more from a lack of experience than anything. I tried to think "what would town me do?"... and then realized I've never played as town on forums. Very confusing.

[PaltryExcuse]

Honestly, I'd prefer to invoke an opinion either way. I think I skated by due to a lack of conviction in posts... but I still remained an active part (I think by the end of Day 2 I was second to T-chan in number of posts). The Mitey kill was to protect DN (we thought she might be aiming in his direction) and the ABR vote was because I thought he would be hard to get lynched and he might be aiming at you. The fact that both targetted you was just a bonus prize.

[PaltryExcuse]

1. About the 50-50 thing: I had to play to survive. I remember, when doing my re-read during the beginning stages of Day 2, that the easiest person for me to do a case against was... DeathNote. His 'nothing serious' comment, coupled with DN's posts being able to be replaced with 'I agree' for the most part made him bussable. I realized it, but I knew that if there was it was T-chan.
**Sidenote: DN wanted to RB T-chan N1. And my original gut was to kill ABR N1. Imagine how things would've played out differently.

2. See above. Except replace 'aiming at you' with 'aiming at me'.

[PaltryExcuse]

EBWOP:

I realized it, but I knew that if there was it was T-chan.

Alright, that was a horrible sentence. I'm not editing anymore for content though I should be, guh.
What it should say: I realized the ucky-situation, but I also know that if there was a cop, it'd be T-chan.

Basically, I couldn't play with the little information I didn't know, and had to play defensively.

[PaltryExcuse]

Paltry...re: my questions about when mafia knows their partner role. Since you knew DN was a roleblocker did that 50-50 chance there was a cop and doc affect your play any...did you suspect TC was a cop and did it cause you to try and distance yourself from almightybob/DN? Why did you NK ABR?

I'm not so sure it does affect your play. It probably makes you PR hunt a bit more, but as scum you have certain priorities: don't look scummy, and act like a Townie and go after anyone else who does look scummy, including your partner.

Ya, that's what I was saying. I thought about the possibility, but really, my survival was paramount at that point due to DN's flub.

[PaltryExcuse]

@AB: Awesome. So I did catch your hints! Thanks for the support, if I were superstitious, I'd say my gut feelings were coming from you (but the ABR thing was definitely an in-game help).

About Starbuck's tunneling: I knew she wanted fitz gone, but I unvoted for two reasons.
1. Get T-chan on my side. Pablo commending me, fitz's vote, all paled in comparison to swaying T-chan.
2. Figure out where Starbuck stood on the me vs. Pablo possibility. I got the impression it was something like 80% fitz scum, 15% Paltry scum, 5% Pablo scum. Once I realized that, it was just timing for T-chan.

[PaltryExcuse]

Thanks for the link, VRK. It's probably my playstyle that makes me look townie. However, I really want to actually play town so I know how I'll act then. Hrmm...

[PaltryExcuse]

I agree with fitz you did a decent job of defending yourself. Problem was DN acted

real

scummy D1 and there was a cop pursuer.
Just wondering fitz, during your re-read, did you notice my response to DN's infamous 'nothing serious' post? I think I might've been lynched if that was brought forward D3.

[PaltryExcuse]

I meant more along these lines:
Starbuck herself said that someone helped DN get by Day 1. You knew going into Day 4 it was me. I think that's a prime example.
a) I'm the only one who noticed and commented on the post.
b) I'm obviously flabbergasted at the response, and yet I don't see it as scummy.
a+b=Evidence?
I dunno. My N2 reread made that post scary beyond belief.

[PaltryExcuse]

So, in your opinion VRK (or anyone else) on the topic of the T-chan v. Bob situation, is Pablo's non-response on the case, fitz's defense of DN, or my wishy-washy accusation the most telling of scumminess?

[PaltryExcuse]

Thanks AB! I guess Pablo's reaction is more telling based on what else he was doing at the time, part of me still sees it as a possible scum-reaction to pressure on the scumbuddy (he wasn't inactive, he was just not saying anything). Obviously in this case, he was just distracted by ABR.

[PaltryExcuse]

VRK, you've answered my questions and more! Thanks as well for another view point. Obviously, reading those two posts now, I think I got a bit to learn.

In T-chan's position I also would've investigated RR. If she was scum, there was nothing for town to go on other than "lurking".

I thought my lack of case-making was a tell, so I wanted to be the first to make a case on Day 3. T-chan's stalling actually helped me as I thought Pablo was the least likely of the remaining 4 for T-chan's investigation. I could point a finger, and then be like "I didn't suspect a townie!" Didn't think that through, as VRK would of been on the prowl instantly.

[PaltryExcuse]

Starbuck is not the only one guilty of tunnel vision this game, as the Pablo wagon was led by T-chan.

I think I aided in making sure T-chan was thinking a Pablo lynch was a good lynch.

[PaltryExcuse]

Yeah, I'm waiting to T-c to show up and post thoughts. I'm still astounded 2/3 townies thought I was the good lynch for Day 3.

I think fitz had the choice of research me, or go for you along with his original suspicions. So fitz went with his gut, you.

That wouldn't really be a problem though. It would have been far better for T-chan to clear/out someone who was generating a lot of suspicion and/or being active, since pushing a mislynch on someone who is already under genuine Townie suspicion is far easier for scum (as you saw).

Here's my list (from my word doc) of who I thought she would investigate and why:
1. ronnieroo / replacement
- if scum, hard to pinpoint either way
- is being replaced, so you're gonna get a fresh new outlook if town

2. havingfitz
- odd, odd behaviour
- has 2 out of 5 possible survivors aiming at him, with one being possible scum

3. PaltryExcuse (me)
- agreed with her too easily perhaps day 2?
- re-read Day 1 and didn't like my vote post <= Main worry

4. Pablo Molinero
- targeted by fitz
- going after ABR at the end of Day 2

5. ABR
- sucked up to her at the end of day 2
- odd behaviour at end of day 2
- probably town based on Bob's vote

It's hypothetical, but meh.

[PaltryExcuse]

Ya, it was really early on... first day I think.

[PaltryExcuse]

This is just a historical question, but has there ever been a 2-post final day before?