Newbie 848 - The Bunny Mafia Family - over finally!

[Nachomamma8]

Vote: TheBeanBurrito

I don't want him stinking up this game.

[Nachomamma8]

No need for better reasoning just yet... This is the random voting stage, which means mostly-random voting in order to have something to go on.

[Nachomamma8]

<snip>
One of those traditions is the random voting stage. It is generally accepted that in the beginning of a game, when there isn't much to work with, players vote each other randomly and joke around a bit, in the hope to get reactions, use those to get a read on players, and use the information gained in that way to really start the game.

Personally, I don't agree with that. It is my belief that, if you want to get the game started, the best way to do that is to take actions that actually help the game move forward. That may mean pushing small scumtells you have found. That may mean asking people game relevant questions in order to get people discussing something useful. It definately means that you should actively be looking for scum, rather then fooling around.
<snip>

But what actions do you take? In fooling around and drawing reactions from people such as you, you can get a general idea of who wishes to get the lynch first. For example, townies can spam for pages and pages without regret, but usually, the scum is the first to step in and accuse, just for the sake of getting the game started. And if no one is fooling around, what scumtells do you have to draw from? Absolutely nothing.

Secondly, I feel asking game relevant questions is much more beneficial to scum. By asking innocent-seeming questions that will ultimately result in an advantage to scum, scum can rolefish with minimalistic risk. The newer players who are unsure what questions to ask, however, are crucified because of what questions they end up asking in the end, and any old scum can cause a mislynch immediately. It's much harder for scum to decide what to do/how to act in the RVS than in a questions game, and I prefer to give Mafiosos the minimal of breathing room. Of course, since you find pursuing small scum-tells more important, here's me pursuing one:

Unvote, Vote: MichelSableHeart

.

Please explain why game relevant questions benefit the town more than the RVS does.

[Nachomamma8]

I'm your IC for this game, which means I'm here to play along while helping you with questions about game theory, mafia in general, and mafiascum traditions.

One of those traditions is the random voting stage. It is generally accepted that in the beginning of a game, when there isn't much to work with, players vote each other randomly and joke around a bit, in the hope to get reactions, use those to get a read on players, and use the information gained in that way to really start the game.

It's just considered standard procedure here... so next time, if someone gets mad at you for random voting, get mad at them for questioning it

[Nachomamma8]

Towntells and scumtells can be found when players react to others, not when everyone is acting virtually random. Therefore, the actions that you should take are actions that are likely to draw reactions. Fooling around only draws reactions from players who are actually interested in getting the game on the road. By accusing someone of being scum for being eager to start (interesting role, therefore likely scum), for being the last to confirm (wanted more time to speak to scumbuddies) etcetera, you are actually going to get a response from the player you are accusing.

But when players act "virtually" random, they offer something for others to respond to. And fooling around can also draw accusations from plenty of people, such as a person who found a part of fooling around they thought was scummy, no? These accusations at the beginning of the game have no more water than "you have a funny name", and more often than not, these are simply brushed off, and blatant OMGUS reccurs from both townie and scum. You will get responses from people no matter what you do, so it is generally better to take the RVS stage for what it is; making a ton of no-water accusations will only make you look worse.

I very strongly disagree with your statement that townies can spam for pages and pages whereas scum will step in to get the game started. If nobody does anything but fool around till deadline hit, the lynch will effectively be random. Scum would be perfectly happy with that, because it basically means that the town is not using it's main weapon: lynching. Town, on the other hand, needs all information they can get. They won't get significant info if everybody is fooling around. Therefore, town should be the one strifing to get significant discussion started, whereas scum would be perfectly happy if the RVS continues.

But how often do you see people fool around until deadline hits? In all the games you've been in/read, has this EVER happened? Eventually, someone's going to lurk, or someone will lose their patience... The RVS gives a lot of information to the town; not necessarily at first, but during later games. With a longer RVS and a few confirmed roles, scum might have quite the time hiding. The RVS is usually when scum choose to relax, which is when they make mistakes the most often.

I can't follow your reasoning here. Scum have information that they want to hide. They know of two roles which they want to keep secret at all costs. If hidden roles are more likely to be revealed by questions being asked, it seems to me that town is the faction that benefits most.

Scum have information that they want to hide, but townies do as well. A good mafioso can completely take control of the game when they know who's comfortable where, and there are far too many questions that make you look bad no matter how you answer them. I suppose it's just too easy to incriminate a person, scum or townie, with questions.

Because the random voting stage is mostly random, it results in very little information becoming available to the town. However, if you ask game relevant questions (for example about lurking, quickhammering or the like), you can compare the answers they give in the beginning of the game to actions they take later. Town needs info in order to lynch correctly, whereas scum already knows who is and isn't on their faction. Info becoming available is therefore far more benificial for town. Besides, by asking game relevant questions, players won't be able to cop out with the completely useless "it's only the random voting stage, it doesn't matter what I do".

Questions about what players find scummy is practically giving the scum advice. If they see most of the town hates lurkers, guess what they know not to do? If they see that the town believes quickhammering is alright under the right circumstances, guess what they're going to do? Game relevant questions provides plenty of information, sure, but most of that information usually goes to the mafia.

[Nachomamma8]

Also

Unvote

Now that things are getting more serious.

Now that things are getting more serious, who's your top suspect as of now? Why?

[Nachomamma8]

@Teh:
Asking questions is good, yes. But asking questions about theory and such is just not something I agree with. I'm not trying to say that I disagree asking questions about people's behaviors; no, those are the very questions I like. Make sense?

Umm... looking for reads...

No, not many. Trying to get a read on Michel as we speak.

[Nachomamma8]

The problem though, is that you are relying on other to do the responding. An accusation of "you have a funny name" can be ignored, as it doesn't imply mafia in any way, so it can indeed simply be brushed of. An accusation along the lines of "you were eager to start, bet you are exited about receiving the mafia role" is a valid accusation, and therefore requires a defense. It forces people to respond to you, rather then just giving them the option.

True enough; however, I disagree that those early accusations require a defense. Normally, they result in being completely. On the rare occasion the accuser follows through with the occasion, however, it only ends up making the accuser look worse, and thus making a townie with the intent to end the RVS look scummy. I believe townies should not concern themselves with ending the RVS early; take, for example, Mastin. He is infamous for it, and yet, as a townie, it almost always ends up hurting the town in the end.

I admit, I haven't seen people fool around till the deadline hits. But I also can't remember ever seeing anyone use the RVS to nail scum. In my experience, if players are voting randomly for three days, that's basically three days less to find the scum.

The RVS is most useful when you have one confirmed scum or a couple of confirmed townies, for how to interact during the RVS is usually the interaction the scum focuses too much on, and hopefully, they overthink it all and leave a few gaping wide gaps.

Pro-town players should answer these questions in a pro-town way. If scum are acting according to the responses given, they will be acting in a way that is advanteous to town, and therefore will make it more likely that they'll be exposed. I prefer to make it perfectly clear to all players that quickhammering won't be accepted, rather then seeing a player quickhammer on day 1, and then spending day 2 discussing the lynch of what is possibly a clueless newbie.

But how do you answer a question in a protown way? By giving your opinion? Scum will act according to the responses given, but townies will as well, so that doesn't help a whole lot as far as exposing them goes. I do agree that players should be told what is generally considered anti-town or bad play.

[Nachomamma8]

Also

Unvote

Now that things are getting more serious.

What was the point of this!?

My vote previously was a random vote, also I thought he had three votes(including mine) aand thaat thaat was entirely too much. Sorry, my "aa" key is a little screwy right now.

Why are three votes way to much? It's not like a bandwagon with any substantiality is forming on him as we speak...

[Nachomamma8]

Unvote: MichelSableheart.
Vote: Jase

Please answer all questions addressed to you.

[Nachomamma8]

[@Nachomamma: It seems to me that you are using two standards. You have no problems with the fact that completely unbased accusations during a RVS can be brushed away, but you seem to believe that an accusation on very slim evidence being brushed away is a problem. It is my belief that a based accusation, no matter how slim the evidence, will do more to get the game started then a completely unbased vote. In the same vein, I also belief that game related questions are a better way to start discussion then basically random behaviour, even thoughI agree with you thatthey don't do a whole lot for exposing the scum.

The connections you are talking about are, in my experience at least, not very helpful. Especially without a meta available, it is virtually impossible to reliable predict how someone is going to act given a particular role during a RVS. It is simply impossible to say "A is town, because a confirmed scum voted for him during RVS".

It is true that you cannot determine anyone's alignment by what happens in the RVS, but it is also true that you can make strong inferrances. For example, you can say "I believe A is scum because B, a confirmed scum, ignored him during the entire RVS while saying something to everyone else."

I have to agree with you that accusations get the game rolling, but I'm saying that the RVS can still be used as a tool in the town's favor as opposed to the scum's favor.

[Nachomamma8]

Sorry, addressed this yesterday, but must've forgotten to hit submit.

Unvote: MichelSableheart.
Vote: Jase

Please answer all questions addressed to you.

It seems a bit early to vote me for "not answering questions"...this seems a bit suspicious, and I'd like you to address it. Now, I said three votes was too much because it's only one more vote and there could be a quick lynch.

It's actually kinda funny that you vote me for not answering a question when you completely ignore my post 62.

Why is it too early to vote you? Are you at L-1? *checks* Nope. L-2? *checks* Nope. L-3? *checks* Again, nope. Yeah, I don't see any problem from attacking you based on your refusal to answer a question. I am currently the first person to vote you, as far as my knowledge goes.

Yeah, I completely ignored your post 62 because you didn't ask me a question. Wasn't obliged to answer it, so I didn't. What were you looking for in response to that post?

[Nachomamma8]

WTF is an L-1?
L1-3 for that matter.

L-(Anything) is how many votes until lynch. For example, if someone is at L-1, it will take 1 vote to lynch them. If someone is at L-2, it will take 2 votes to lynch them, etc...

[Nachomamma8]

Sorry, addressed this yesterday, but must've forgotten to hit submit.

Unvote: MichelSableheart.
Vote: Jase

Please answer all questions addressed to you.

It seems a bit early to vote me for "not answering questions"...this seems a bit suspicious, and I'd like you to address it. Now, I said three votes was too much because it's only one more vote and there could be a quick lynch.

It's actually kinda funny that you vote me for not answering a question when you completely ignore my post 62.

Why is it too early to vote you? Are you at L-1? *checks* Nope. L-2? *checks* Nope. L-3? *checks* Again, nope. Yeah, I don't see any problem from attacking you based on your refusal to answer a question. I am currently the first person to vote you, as far as my knowledge goes.

Yeah, I completely ignored your post 62 because you didn't ask me a question. Wasn't obliged to answer it, so I didn't. What were you looking for in response to that post?

I didn't say it was too early to vote me, I said it was too early to vote me for not answering questions. Fact is that you asked a question that wasn't particularly intense, and then voted me roughly 24 hours later without even waiting to see if I would respond with my next post (my first post since you asked the question). I still perceive this as scummy and would still like for you to address it.

Additionally, I may not have asked a question in my post 62, but I did indicate that I had a problem with it, and you failed to clarify or elaborate in any way.

FoS: Nachomama

I'm not ready to change my vote yet, but I really don't like the way you're playing right now.

Alright, what's the difference? And how is it scummy? I saw something suspicious, I went for it. Did I miss the memo where scumhunting was scummy?

Ummm... why is whether

you

have a problem with my posting or not

my

problem? If you want me to explain something, ask a question. Again, I ask: what do you want me to explain or clarify?

Why aren't you changing your vote? You're unhappy with how I'm playing maybe because I'm suspicious of you? Here, we have a phrase for that: OMGUS (

O

h

M

y

G

od

U

S

uck) Basically, it means that you're voting me since I'm voting you. If this isn't the case, why don't you give a few reasons why you're FoSing me?

[Nachomamma8]

Edit: Why are you voting me now? Why would a previous vote have any water whatsoever if you've found a new suspect? Afraid of looking flip-floppy?

[Nachomamma8]

Did what, bronco?

[Nachomamma8]

1. Give me an amount of time that is reasonable to you. It's an aggressive statement, sure, but it doesn't cloud the issue. Instead, it evokes stronger emotion from the targeted player, and takes away the likelihood that scum will look over their posts closer, and answer based on personal opinion instead of what might necessarily be better for their side. So I will continue to make such phrases in the future as I see fit.

2. Why is it my duty? If I do not believe the statement will lead to a mislynch, it doesn't really matter. If the issue presses itself, I am obliged to answer. But until then, I have no obligations whatsoever. If you find a misunderstanding, press it.

3. It's called scumhunting. I have a suspicion, and will continue attacking you until you can manage to defend fully against them. Normally, OMGUS voting isn't a good way to do so, which is still what I view your vote as. Make your suspicions clearer by utilizing quotes if you want to change my mind, as well as the minds of others.

[Nachomamma8]

1. Give me an amount of time that is reasonable to you. It's an aggressive statement, sure, but it doesn't cloud the issue. Instead, it evokes stronger emotion from the targeted player, and takes away the likelihood that scum will look over their posts closer, and answer based on personal opinion instead of what might necessarily be better for their side. So I will continue to make such phrases in the future as I see fit.

2. Why is it my duty? If I do not believe the statement will lead to a mislynch, it doesn't really matter. If the issue presses itself, I am obliged to answer. But until then, I have no obligations whatsoever. If you find a misunderstanding, press it.

3. It's called scumhunting. I have a suspicion, and will continue attacking you until you can manage to defend fully against them. Normally, OMGUS voting isn't a good way to do so, which is still what I view your vote as. Make your suspicions clearer by utilizing quotes if you want to change my mind, as well as the minds of others.

I appreciate the numbered paragraphs. Thank you sir.

1.A reasonable amount of time...well if they haven't posted I would say until they do post (However voting them for lurking is another matter) How can you say it doesn't cloud the issue when you imply that I've said or implied something that a) I didn't, b) is wrong, and c) is extremely scummy. You will have to clarify the third sentence for me, I'm not sure what you mean.

2.I disagree whole heartedly. It is up to you to make sure that you're understood because such misunderstandings make it difficult to get an accurate read on you.

3.Ok, so, my version of events here, you ask me why three votes are too much at this point in the game, then you wait roughly a day, and I haven't posted yet, so you vote me, claiming that I'm not answering questions. Slightly less than a day after that I answer the question (apparently to your satisfaction), and declare suspicion of how quickly you vote me based on the accusation that I'm not answering questions, I also point out that you ignored a post of mine (Post 62 was part of the answer from when you asked who my top suspects were and why, and I said, you, and I had to go but I'd qoute the reason later.). In your next post (directed at me) you misundertand the my suspicion for your vote and brush off your ignoring my post. I explain why I said you voted too early, I continue to show that I have a problem with you ignoring posts, then FoS and imediately vote you when I see that I don't have a vote placed. And that seems to be pretty much where we're at, we're still arguing over why I voted you, if you are responsible for explaining yourself when someone has a problem with something you say, and all that. What is it that you think happened here?

1. Everybody's sense of time is different. I still saw you online, so I thought you'd respond.

2. I don't need you to get a good read on me until I fall under heavy suspicion. If you get a good read on me and I'm a townie, guess who the scum NKs day one?

3. We're playing cat and mouse. I chase, you run.

[Nachomamma8]

Unvote, Vote: Bronco

I think that his questioning of Jase is just trying to

look

town, but isn't actually accomplishing anything! Particularly, post 100. I'd like to know what Bronco is trying to accomplish here.

I love how you're piggybacking right onto Teh's back. In fact, you just pretty much said the exact same thing Teh said, but in different words...

Unvote: Jase

Vote: Sposh

It's obvious what Bronco is trying to accomplish. He's trying to scumhunt; someone brought up the subject of Jase's scumminess, so he added his input to the argument. You basically agreed with the poster before you and voted who he did. Mind explaining that? Also, why is Jase or me not scummier to you than bronco?

[Nachomamma8]

Well, most players seem neutral to me, but there are two scummish players that are sticking out right now, and those people are Sposh and Jase.

Sposh doesn't seem to have the town's best interests in mind, as evident in his beginning posts, as well as by Michel's post 64 evaluation of him. It seems he's looking to lead a mislynch on the newer players, evident in post 68. He asks TBB why he unvoted,

even though he stated the very reason in the post before

. This, combined with the fact that he dropped it almost immediately afterwards, gives him scumpoints in my book. Then comes his almost immediate piggybacking on Bronco from Teh's read without providing any new information; instead, he simply rephrases it a bit.

Jase is fairly neutral, but he does have a few scummy bits. Notice all the contridictions he has in his defense from my attack; he votes me for voting him too early, then votes ME for voting too early. His main defense against my original attack is the fact that I refused to respond to his post 62; but if he had done his reading, he would've noticed that I already explained it in a response to Teh a bit back in post 59. Then, he comments on how he thought I was voting him for something unreasonable even though Michel's first vote was for something he even ADMITTED was a small scumtell, and votes me for doing so, an equally small scumtell.

[Nachomamma8]

Your memory is better than you think, Haylen... Alex actually kicked my ass my first game

Now, back to the game...

Uhh... even more blatant hypocrisy.

It's obvious what Bronco is trying to accomplish. He's trying to scumhunt; someone brought up the subject of Jase's scumminess, so he added his input to the argument. You basically agreed with the poster before you and voted who he did. Mind explaining that? Also, why is Jase or me not scummier to you than bronco?

Is that not what you just did? You agreed with the poster before you and voted the same person... adding on more reasons to it doesn't matter, because when I tried to explain my own personal reasoning, you said I wasn't actually scumhunting, I was just regurgitating information! Does it matter if it's been said before if I agree with it and find it accurate?

In my opinion, you're looking for ME to be the easy target and jumping on MY bandwagon (I had the most votes at the time of your post... would that not make me the EASIEST target?).

Why doesn't adding more reasons to it matter? On the contrary, it's exactly what matters. Instead of "regurgitating information", as YOU called it, I'm agreeing with the poster above me and adding to his argument. It matters because otherwise, I just see you riding on the coattails of everyone else.

Just because you're the easiest target doesn't mean you're not also the best now does it? And if you haven't noticed, I've been jumping from person to person scumhunting. So surely you didn't think you would escape just because you had a couple of votes on you, correct?

In other news, you COMPLETELY ignored my question, even though you quoted it in my post. Mind answering it this time?

[Nachomamma8]

Foilist, can you fix your quote tags? I'm not exactly sure what's going on...

As for my attack on Jase, I saw he was online and not answering my question, so I voted him to get his attention. As for the "he doesn't have any real argument; he just words it well and sounds convincing"... I'm gonna disagree with you there. Just because I find things scummy that don't seem scummy to you doesn't mean my arguments are any less real than yours.

[Nachomamma8]

Oooh, happy birthday mod!

[Nachomamma8]

I think that was just a huge, confusing, jumbled mess of things. So, before I continue, I'd like to hear input from the others on these interactions.

[Nachomamma8]

I agree with most of your bronco points, but I'm not following your last point. Sure, it's a Captain Obvious comment, but I don't know why that's scummy. Doesn't really seem like a scum-defense to me, not an effective one, anyway.

I still think Sposh is scummy.

The first thing that stands out to me is his attempt to extend the RVS as much as possible, as in his post 45, where he states "is it really possible to have a case this early in the game with two pages of information?". This sounds to me like he's suggesting that scumhunting is impossible that early in the game. And I'd like to clarify: while I find shortening the RVS scummy, attempting to extend it is just as scummy. In a nutshell, I just disapprove of people trying to manipulate it...

Second thing is his piggybacking, as demonstrated on page 5. Tehstefan votes bronco, and, one non-mod post later, Sposh votes for bronco, simply what Teh just said. He then says he doesn't need to add anything new because "there's nothing left to add". This is definitely anti-town in my book, for it discourages more scumhunting on bronco, and sets up for others to vote bronco while following the "there's nothing more to add" reasoning.

I wouldn't have a problem with the second quote of foil's analysis of him, had he tried to explain said "personal reasoning". I told him that he was regurgitated information; he said he didn't, although he himself inferred that he didn't add anything new by saying "adding on new reasons doesn't matter".

[Nachomamma8]

Sorry to hear that, Haylen. Hope you feel better soon!

[Nachomamma8]

I agree with most of your bronco points, but I'm not following your last point. Sure, it's a Captain Obvious comment, but I don't know why that's scummy. Doesn't really seem like a scum-defense to me, not an effective one, anyway.

I think he's arguing that subconsciously, someone who isn't used to being scum would feel it necessary to point that out as a sort of defense mechanism. Or, I could just be completely wrong!

I still think Sposh is scummy.

The first thing that stands out to me is his attempt to extend the RVS as much as possible, as in his post 45, where he states "is it really possible to have a case this early in the game with two pages of information?". This sounds to me like he's suggesting that scumhunting is impossible that early in the game. And I'd like to clarify: while I find shortening the RVS scummy, attempting to extend it is just as scummy. In a nutshell, I just disapprove of people trying to manipulate it...

You are taking my quote out of context! That's mean.
The

full

quote is:
"Also, I saw that someone said Bronco "made a case" against Sable... is it even really possible to have a case this early in the game with only two pages of information??"
Which means I was just asking if anything said at that point could qualify as an actual, strong case on someone because we had very little information. I do not understand how you turned that quote into me suggesting that scumhunting is impossible.

Yet, in page one discussion, I do believe me and Michel's exchange already went over that. I see it as suggesting that scumhunting is impossible because you completely underminded the case by the second part of the quote. Still unsure what the first part changes, however.

Second thing is his piggybacking, as demonstrated on page 5. Tehstefan votes bronco, and, one non-mod post later, Sposh votes for bronco, simply what Teh just said. He then says he doesn't need to add anything new because "there's nothing left to add". This is definitely anti-town in my book, for it discourages more scumhunting on bronco, and sets up for others to vote bronco while following the "there's nothing more to add" reasoning.

Me saying that there is nothing left to add doesn't mean that there won't ever be anything else to add to a case on him, I simply meant that at that moment I saw nothing more worth adding, so I just repeated the parts that I agreed with and placed my vote. Also, to say I added NOTHING new is a bit harsh... I actually pointed to a specific post with a question. It's not like I just slapped on a vote for bronco and that was it. I was adding to the pressure on him!

You could've made that tons clearer by saying "I agree with Teh's main points, especially... In the way you wrote it, it seemed you were trying to pass it off for your own words. And what was the new point you brought up?

I wouldn't have a problem with the second quote of foil's analysis of him, had he tried to explain said "personal reasoning". I told him that he was regurgitated information; he said he didn't, although he himself inferred that he didn't add anything new by saying "adding on new reasons doesn't matter".

Once again, I can't believe how out of context you're taking what I said!
The WHOLE thing said:
"You agreed with the poster before you and voted the same person...

adding on more reasons to it doesn't matter

, because when I tried to explain my own personal reasoning, you said I wasn't actually scumhunting, I was just regurgitating information! Does it matter if it's been said before if I agree with it and find it accurate?"
I was stating that there was no point in explaining my "personal reasoning" because even when I put my suspicions into my own words and pointed out a post which I thought raised questions, you said I was just regurgitating information! So it would not matter if I had added on more reasons, because you still would have called it regurgitating information instead of scumhunting!

It seemed to me that you were just regurgitating information because I didn't see anything new in your post. Had you added on new points, you would've been able to counter my entire case by saying "I added on new things because Teh didn't notice point 1, point 2, or point 3."

Bolded is mine.

In other news, where is Michel?

[Nachomamma8]

What do you mean, misquote? I quoted the scummiest part of what he said because that's what I wanted everyone to focus on; I wasn't trying to misconstrue what he was saying in the first place.

[Nachomamma8]

Well, isn't that just part of the game? You emphasize certain points of what people say in order to clarify them and put them to light. The point of saying ANYTHING is to make it sound worse than the first read, because the worse it sounds, the closer you look at it because you become surprised you missed it.

[Nachomamma8]

On a ungame related note: Sposh, any reason why you put exclamation marks after everything?

In most cases making someone sound worse than what they said WILL cause people to go back and look at it, but then they see that it wasn't as bad as it was made out to seem and that makes YOU look bad.

Which is the difference between town and scum. Town aim to make things sound as bad as they are, scum aim to make things sound worse than they are. I might be sticking my head out here, but mafia is not a very honest game to play; it's mostly about manipulation. As a townie, you don't want to be too honest or else you set yourself up to be NKed the first day; you always want that iffy aspect around you. On the other hand, you don't want to lie enough to get yourself lynched. As a townie, it's all about finding that balance.

[Nachomamma8]

Unless you have a suspicion on a certain person, and you believe the night's actions might clarify something. Or if you're a power role. Or if you enjoy the game of mafia and don't want to die on the first night.

[Nachomamma8]

Uhh... even more blatant hypocrisy.

It's obvious what Bronco is trying to accomplish. He's trying to scumhunt; someone brought up the subject of Jase's scumminess, so he added his input to the argument.

You basically agreed with the poster before you and voted who he did.

Mind explaining that?

Also, why is Jase or me not scummier to you than bronco?

Is that not what you just did? You agreed with the poster before you and voted the same person... adding on more reasons to it doesn't matter, because when I tried to explain my own personal reasoning, you said I wasn't actually scumhunting, I was just regurgitating information! Does it matter if it's been said before if I agree with it and find it accurate?

In my opinion, you're looking for ME to be the easy target and jumping on MY bandwagon (I had the most votes at the time of your post... would that not make me the EASIEST target?).

The italicized one.

[Nachomamma8]

@Nachomamma8 - You still win if you die, assuming the town wins. Being alive is not necessary to your win condition, and deceiving the town to try and not be nightkilled only makes it more likely you will be lynched. Obviously it is infinitely more valuable to the town for you to be night killed rather than lynched. If your night killed they might still catch scum, if they lynch you thats 2 town down.

But you also gain a lot more information. I can be the most pro-town player throughout all of day 1, but I may not have a proper analysis on anyone; no one really tries to frame me, and I get NKed by day 1. As a result, the town has no information on me whatsoever.

Second scenario comes around, and I'm a fairly scummy player; I accuse players quite easily, and whenever a bandwagon doesn't form on that person, I move on. When the bandwagon comes full circle to me, it's a lot easier for Day 2 people to look at my interactions with others; who was on my bandwagon, who wasn't. Personally, I don't have much faith in an D1 lynch, so I think it's better to draw as many reactions from people as possible, whether it makes you the first one lynched or not.

[Nachomamma8]

hmm...

Vote Nachomamma.

Hmm... Why?

[Nachomamma8]

@Michel: I missed his question at the beginning, but I certainly articulated the answer to it:

I agree with most of your bronco points, but I'm not following your last point. Sure, it's a Captain Obvious comment, but I don't know why that's scummy. Doesn't really seem like a scum-defense to me, not an effective one, anyway.

I still think Sposh is scummy.

The first thing that stands out to me is his attempt to extend the RVS as much as possible, as in his post 45, where he states "is it really possible to have a case this early in the game with two pages of information?". This sounds to me like he's suggesting that scumhunting is impossible that early in the game. And I'd like to clarify: while I find shortening the RVS scummy, attempting to extend it is just as scummy. In a nutshell, I just disapprove of people trying to manipulate it...

Second thing is his piggybacking, as demonstrated on page 5. Tehstefan votes bronco, and, one non-mod post later, Sposh votes for bronco, simply what Teh just said. He then says he doesn't need to add anything new because "there's nothing left to add". This is definitely anti-town in my book, for it discourages more scumhunting on bronco, and sets up for others to vote bronco while following the "there's nothing more to add" reasoning.

I wouldn't have a problem with the second quote of foil's analysis of him, had he tried to explain said "personal reasoning". I told him that he was regurgitated information; he said he didn't, although he himself inferred that he didn't add anything new by saying "adding on new reasons doesn't matter".

[Nachomamma8]

EBWOP: To clarify, that should read: "I missed foil's question..."

[Nachomamma8]

My Defense:

[

Nachomamma8

- I'm getting a scum vibe here. His accusations of Jase seems like an attempt to start a bandwagon rather than joining one, but to me is equally scummy. He doesn't have any kind of real argument, but he words it well and it sounds convincing. I'm not sure here, but there is a lot of content to sift through.

What gave you the idea I was trying to start a bandwagon? It is extremely ineffective for townies to tunnel on one person, or simply to only focus on people that have not been thought to be scummy yet because you have not gauged each player's reaction to pressure; it's like failing to read all of your choices on a multiple choice question. Thus, I prefer to jump from person to person and gauge their responses and make sure I'm making an informed decision when I vote to lynch.

Nachomamma

Nachomamma feels scummy to me. He makes very little comments that make me think "good point!". He takes strategic stances that are in my opinion antitown ("RVS is good", "the other town players don't need to get a read on me", "the point of anything you say should be to misrepresent it", "town players should behave scummy"). Furthermore he tend to argue a lot, seemingly more interested in being right then in comprehending the point of the other player.

In his attacks against Jase, he looked pretty badly. Jase gave understable, clear explanations, but Nachomamma kept pressing the point. The case he makes against Jase in post #113 doesn't make sense to me at all.

Nachomamma was also the only player who ignored foilist's request for explanation of the Sposh votes (#133).

On the plus side, Nachomamma is active and contributing. We need players like that. I would prefer not to lynch him today.

I'll admit, you're first post rubbed me the wrong way. And as a person who has read his fair share of mafia games, I am slightly paranoid of ICs who influence and lead the town into bad decisions by telling them bad strategy. To me, your first post seemed like you were setiing up for that such manipulation, so I decided to try to "test your ideals" with some bad logic of my own mixed in with a bit of personal beliefs (I will clarify in a moment). In doing so, I hoped to get you to agree with the obviously anti-town points of mine (unfortunately, foilist, Jase, and your inactivity kind of got in the way...). But in your stolidity in refuting said ideals, as demonstrated in your analysis, definitely helped me in disproving that fear.


As before, I said I used "good logic" and "bad logic".

Good Logic:

"The RVS is good." ~ The RVS is the birth of the game of mafia in itself. It is extremely important to the game itself, especially when it starts to become later in the game. Day 1 is the scum's easiest time at getting a mislynch, and it is also the time when newbie scum are first trying out their wings; thus, it is often an extremely effective tool in catching scum. And despite popular belief, I don't view the RVS as having ended when the first accusation is made; it's still everyone groping around in the dark. The RVS has ended when the first valid accusation is made, and people become confident that they have singled out a scum member. For an example on how the RVS can be used to catch scum, check out Echo's play in Newbie 826, found at http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12091.

"Game-relevant questions are good for scum." ~ Even if you aren't the one who initiated the change in procedure, the scum end up benefitting more from the information than the town does. If you can come up with some game-relevant questions to dispute that fact, then be my guest.

Bad Logic:

"Townie players should appear scummy." ~ Obviously false. Townies should act as pro-town as possible to give MORE information on their deaths. After all, it's much easier to pinpoint a scum who makes a case against a pro-town player than vice-versa. When you act pro-town, you take away the scum's choices for who to try to get a mislynch on.

However, acting excessively scummy is NOT a bad town strategy, but expect to be lynched if you do try it. If you haven't read any Mastin games, I'd highly suggest doing so. He usually is a HORRIBLE scum, but quite a good townie. Everyone gloms onto him, and scum see the opportunity for the mislynch to happen. Townies normally reanalyze people's interactions with him, and their questions put scum in quite the tight position, who normally don't think of valid reasons to get someone lynched.



Naturally, I could be lying, and I could be telling the truth. No one but me knows (HOW annoying is that?). So, to avoid ANY confusion about Good Logic - Bad Logic, I urge you to ask any questions you want of me. Then, after all of your questions have been asked, lynch me to verify that I'm telling the truth. If you don't lynch me or until I have been lynched and declared scum, don't even try using any bad logic for your own to get a mislynch.

Yes, I just dared you to lynch me. How does everyone feel about this?

[Nachomamma8]

I agree with Michel's reasoning completely as far as The Bean Burrito goes. He's made a grand total of 15 posts, and throughout the course of these posts, he has not had a SINGLE suspect (with the exception of StarOfTheShow, whom he unvoted as soon as she joined the game). He hasn't required any prods until recently, and the majority of his posts have been "Gone, not gone, confused, don't have an opinion". He hasn't been a major asset to the town, and he hasn't done so much as to express his opinions on ANYTHING. So, a couple questions:


1) Is the RVS a good judge of a person's scumminess or not? In case you haven't been reading, it is a point MichelSableheart and I disagree on. Who do you agree with? Why?
2) Foil and Michel both take different stances on Bronco's scumminess. Michel views him as a newer player, foil sees him as scum pushing for the mislynch. Who do you agree with? Why?
3) Who's the scummiest player right now? Why?

[Nachomamma8]

Nachomamma, I may be reading you wrong. Are you claiming that your antitown posts from post #166 and onwards were intended to see if I would agree with them? When just 5 posts before that, post #161, you noticed that I wasn't very active at the time? Or am I mistaken in what your saying? If so, what did you intend to achieve with your behaviour in those posts?

---
On you daring us to lynch you: it seems bad play regardless of your alignement. If you are pro-town, you should be more interested in getting a lynch on someone you don't know the alignement of rather then someone who you know for certain is a mislynch. And if you're scum, you want to get a lynch on someone who isn't of your alignement too. I admit, being lynched is slightly less worse for town then for scum, but you as scum would be aware of that. Overall, you daring us to lynch you doesn't tell me much about your alignement.

Where are you getting anti-town posts from #166 on? I'm talking about antitown posts from the very beginning. And I, being a player who has played extremely scummy, don't think that I should be around in LyLo if everyone still believes that I'm that scummy because it will make the scum's job FAR too easy in LyLo. As for the game related discussion, we'll just have to disagree. I understand your points; they are valid. I simply don't agree with them...

If you're looking to see what I was to achieve in my earlier posts, read my long post again.

[Nachomamma8]

Foilist, please think about the way you sound for a moment. I'll answer your questions tomorrow.

[Nachomamma8]

As a townie, you don't want to be too honest or else you set yourself up to be NKed the first day; you always want that iffy aspect around you. On the other hand, you don't want to lie enough to get yourself lynched. As a townie, it's all about finding that balance.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the mafia already know your alignment.

The default alignment is being town. Usually even mafia pretend being townspeople. Why don't you want to appear as a townie? Having an iffy aspect and telling lies only makes it harder for the town. If we later find out that you've been telling lies (and that it wasn't under pressure to protect a town aligned special role) we'll find that suspicious and you'll be up for a lynch. Right or wrong we might as well do it now.

The mafia won't kill people solely for being honest. Because we expect every townie to be and I don't see the mafia killing their own at night. Putting myself into how the mafia would think I would be pleased if I had the luxury of keeping dishonest townies alive along with the dishonest scum. This might be that I'm new to this game but I don't see why people who have nothing to hide would be telling lies and playing dishonest.

Those who will be at risc at night is those that are a threat to the mafia. If anything the mafia will spare those who might do the mob a favour getting themself lynched.

Vote Nachomamma

Please read the entire game, even though it's a bit long. I have a fairly long post describing the fun little twist of this game.

[Nachomamma8]

Where are you getting anti-town posts from #166 on? I'm talking about antitown posts from the very beginning. And I, being a player who has played extremely scummy, don't think that I should be around in LyLo if everyone still believes that I'm that scummy because it will make the scum's job FAR too easy in LyLo. As for the game related discussion, we'll just have to disagree. I understand your points; they are valid. I simply don't agree with them...

I was talking about your antitown stances in general. Examples I mentioned included "the point of anything you say should be to misrepresent it" (free interpretation of post #166) and "town players should behave scummy" (free interpretation of #171 and #184). Your defense read that you were taking antitown stances in order to see if I would agree with you. I wanted to know if that was also the case for the antitown stances in the posts after post #166. And if that wasn't the reason for you taking those positions, I wanted to know why you took them.

---
The deadline is next tuesday. And if there isn't a majority at that point in time, there will be no lynch. Because of this, I am willing to switch to Nachomamma if it guarantees a lynch, but I would prefer to lynch TheBeanBurrito today.

@everyone: please make sure you are voting someone you actually want lynched.

All of my anti-town positions take up until my long post were for that very reason.

And,

Unvote, Vote: TheBeanBurrito

. He hasn't really said or done anything beneficial or interesting, town or otherwise.

[Nachomamma8]

I'll admit that I haven't really been playing as good as I should've been, but does everyone here think a me-wagon is that much better than a TBB wagon? At least I've have been putting my input into things and scumhunting a bit, as opposed to TBB who just likes to "watch, and decide".

Also, notice at what times he's posted after the game's started. Once on the 4th, once on the 7th, once on the 9th, once on the 10th, and once on the 15th. During this grand total of 5 posts, he's required one prod (which he didn't pick up for almost 48 hours, might I add), he hasn't had one suspect, and he hasn't offered his input on anything that has happened.

[Nachomamma8]

It's close to the deadline, what do you expect me to do? It is my duty as a townie to get someone I'm unsure of lynched instead of a confirmed townie. Giving up now, as you seem to want me to do, would be EXTREMELY anti-town.

And how are you so sure TBB would be mislynched? And how the hell was that an appeal to emotion?

And as for the last point, you're wrong. Taking an anti-town position to serve a pro-town purpose =/= anti-town.

[Nachomamma8]

As for your fun little post...

Unvote Vote:Nachomamma8

Yes, I just dared you to lynch me. How does everyone feel about this?

Sounds fine to me.

Now here are all the reasons why what you just did was completely anti-town.

1. Despite the fact that the town outnumber the scum, we cannot afford throwing away one of our players the first day because he decided to be a martyr. If we lynch you and you flip town, thats two town dead and NO information to go on. You realize how easy it would be, and probably will be for scum to just bandwagon you right now and jump into the second day without any serious evidence against them? As scum, assuming you thought this out, you could just pull a stunt like that, we wouldn't lynch you because it was stupid, and then you could point to it later when you get into trouble.

But obviously you don't care whether I flip town or scum, you just want me dead. And if it was going to be SO easy for scum to bandwagon me right now, then why did you bandwagon me in this post? You just said how easy it would be for scum to bandwagon me, and then did so yourself. Wouldn't the townie thing to do be to investigate a few other people, and see what pro-town things THEY'VE done? Obviously there is a mafioso on my bandwagon, that's just a bandwagon too easy to pass up, right? So when I flip town, try investigating a few people who pile on my bandwagon, especially after this post, where you gave everyone the urgence to.

2. Good logic vs. Bad logic, what a treat.

Good logic:

"The RVS is good." ~ The RVS is the birth of the game of mafia in itself. It is extremely important to the game itself, especially when it starts to become later in the game. Day 1 is the scum's easiest time at getting a mislynch, and it is also the time when newbie scum are first trying out their wings; thus, it is often an extremely effective tool in catching scum. And despite popular belief, I don't view the RVS as having ended when the first accusation is made; it's still everyone groping around in the dark. The RVS has ended when the first valid accusation is made, and people become confident that they have singled out a scum member.

I will concede that, oh, lets say 1 in 60 successful lynches result from the RVS. In the RVS people can throw out whatever bullshit they want. "Vote: So and So for wrongful use of satire." So could you tell me what this tells you? Really you must be brilliant.

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12091. I figured out RPG was scum mainly BY the RVS. So.... thanks for the complement, buddy!

"Game-relevant questions are good for scum." ~ Even if you aren't the one who initiated the change in procedure, the scum end up benefitting more from the information than the town does. If you can come up with some game-relevant questions to dispute that fact, then be my guest.

Now what the fuck have you been smoking? How in the bloody world do you expect to catch scum without relevant information? Looking at the RVS? You have fun with that.

Don't ask the same question twice.

Or maybe you meant that the town benefit, but the scum benefit

more.

Brilliant deduction. Now tell me, as scum, what do you get from game relevant questions? Opportunity for bandwagoning or lurking? The scum don't need to guide the town, they only need to evade the town. So long as you don't get lynched, you don't care. Content helps to lead the town to scum, and makes it more difficult for the scum to hide. The scum get chances to jump on bandwagons for foolish town players who made mistakes too grievous to defend themselves from and aren't really benefitting the town anyway. Now tell me again, how does this benefit the scum exactly?

Umm... but good scum will guide the town. With game relevant questions in the RVS, scum can rolefish like pros without any heat back on them, they can frame newbies, and they can learn who's comfortable and who's not. Do you need an example of this, too?

Bad logic:

"Townie players should appear scummy." ~ Obviously false. Townies should act as pro-town as possible to give MORE information on their deaths. After all, it's much easier to pinpoint a scum who makes a case against a pro-town player than vice-versa. When you act pro-town, you take away the scum's choices for who to try to get a mislynch on.

So... this is a bad thing? I fail to see your reasoning here. If all the town players play pro town, the scum have no choice but to play as town as possible. Only they or unintelligent or careless town will make a mistake which will eventually lead to a lynch. The most pro-town players will probably be night killed, but if they aren't, and everyone seems pro-town, then it is a fair bet that they are scum. There are all sorts of ways to play a game like this that are much easier than trying to sift through all the other town player's "Good Logic."

Congratulations, you added more to my point. Honestly, what was the purpose of this? To incriminate me more, 'cuz I don't see how that helped.

However, acting excessively scummy is NOT a bad town strategy, but expect to be lynched if you do try it. If you haven't read any Mastin games, I'd highly suggest doing so. He usually is a HORRIBLE scum, but quite a good townie. Everyone gloms onto him, and scum see the opportunity for the mislynch to happen. Townies normally reanalyze people's interactions with him, and their questions put scum in quite the tight position, who normally don't think of valid reasons to get someone lynched.

So we should all be martyrs and when we've all died we'll see for sure who is scum? Or what, we should all be scummy so that we don't get night killed? So there is no way that town players acting scummy would lead to scum players who slip to get by? But no, if

they

slipped we would all know, right?

Did you miss my whole point?

Sposh: I've run out of time for the moment, but if you'd still like me to comment on you I will as soon as I can.

[Nachomamma8]

Dude, that's a Radiohead song...

Anyways, TBB, do you have any input to share on what happened yesterday?

[Nachomamma8]

@Jase: Right now I'm suspicious of Sposh. He's been on a different bandwagon this entire game, and I still don't think that he's been trying to make an effort to scumhunt.

So far, today's discussion has been trying to point the blame for the no lynch yesterday. Now this is all well and good, but no one's actually talked about suspicious behaviors during Day 1... Who is everyone's top suspect right now, and why?

[Nachomamma8]

Did I have your eye the entire day, or until I started to suspect you?

[Nachomamma8]

I think that we shouldn't no lynch today if we can help it. That way, we don't have to worry about another no-lynch happening if we find ourselves in the grip of indecision again; also, I think that no-lynching today would be a complete waste of a day because we will have practically no information to go on for our lynch tomorrow if we decide to no-lynch today. Why practically hand over a townie today instead of lynching a possible scum?

[Nachomamma8]

Bwain, Foilist voted me, not YamiJoey. I think that he thought I was scum, and so he voted for me; not much more to it than that.

As to how I thought the Mafia was thinking... I have no idea; I'm not mafia. However, pure speculation suggests they're taking out the replacement before he can even speak, which is QUITE foolish in my opinion.

[Nachomamma8]

Bwain, trying to determine mafia based on NKs doesn't do a whole lot except open up a can of WIFOM. I don't know about the rest of us, but I've never seen anyone successfully pin scum due to NKs before...

Sposh, I'll repeat Michel's question: Why are you voting for a no-lynch if you want to lynch me or Haylen, and why did you change your mind so quickly? I really don't like the fact that you're simply suggesting a lynch without getting behind it.

[Nachomamma8]

Your sources must be faulty, for Octorocks are delicious. I eat them for breakfast, and I enjoy it so.

[Nachomamma8]

Why are you voting for a no-lynch if you want to lynch me or Haylen, and why did you change your mind so quickly? I really don't like the fact that you're simply suggesting a lynch without getting behind it.

I think a no lynch will balance the numbers out better and put us in a better situation at the end of the game! I am p sure everyone here knows the math so I won't bother with it.

A no lynch will also balance the numbers out better tomorrow. So isn't it better to get a scummy suspect lynched today as opposed to tommorrow? That way, if you find that you DON'T know who to lynch tomorrow, you have a little breathing room.

[Nachomamma8]

Nobody's posted for a long time!

You haven't responded to my question, nor have you changed your vote to someone you actually want to lynch. Maybe, to encourange more posting, you should try posting something of substance, eh?

[Nachomamma8]

Not a whole lot of activity is happening here, is it? I suggest everyone start voting their suspicions, like... now. This enviornment is only truly helpful for scum.

[Nachomamma8]

VRK, you present some good points in your analysis. However, it's not my belief that you should bring your List Mod status into the game. While you're in the game, you're as low as the lowest of us, and you have no right to bring a threat of denied ICship into the game. After the game, I could care less. But right now, in this thread, you are a PLAYER, not a LIST MOD.

That out of the way, I see you know all of the mafia terms around here, but I also see you don't really explain them too much. If all of the players are "full of newbieness", as you so eloquently put it, then don't you think it's more useful to explain things rather than link to a Wiki they may or may not understand? On top of that, you use your noobish vibes as a replacement for an actual read. VRK, we are playing a NEWBIE game. OF COURSE THERE WILL BE NEWBIES! Most of us, minus those with IC status ARE newbies.

Jumping on Neto's analysis because he put Sposh as a neutral is odd, to say the least. But starting to contemplate about scum buddies on Day 2 is scummy. But Bwain's conclusion that Neto and Sposh are definitely related is anti-town at best, and VRK makes no move to explain the difference between a possible relationship and a definite relationship. Nor does he point out Bwain's buddying to him in post 420 or 422.

[Nachomamma8]

Nacho, even if I wasn't the listMod, I would have said the same thing. Your play is NOT a good example of how we play Mafia here. In that regard you are NOT, at this time, cut out to be an IC.

AT NO TIME DID I SAY YOU WERE SCUMMY. AT NO TIME DID I SAY "WE SHOULD LYNCH X BECAUSE I'M THE LISTMOD". That's an Appeal to Authority, and it's against the Code of Conduct for the experienced players (see Being a good IC - I may not be an IC here but I try to play that way). I said "Having said that, I can really only find a few glaring issues, despite the propensity for the copious amount of posting.". That meant that since you are posting a lot, and still not really making scummy posts then you are not scummy.

Again, anti-town, yessir. Scum? No I don't think so. But I can easily see where your play makes you a scum's best friend - a lot of players have a hard time deciding between anti-town and scum.

You never said I was scummy, but you took away a lot of the effectiveness of my scumhunting by saying my grasp of Mafia logic was WRONG. Whether you believe it or not, you have a lot of influence here (as evident by Bwain's reaction to your analysis), and when you say someone has a bad grasp of Mafia Theory, you're going to be believed. So, why don't you try explaining why things are so fundamentally wrong instead of simply stating they are? If you expect me to improve, you have to give me something to work with.

That being said, you seem overly concerned with being called scummy for your analysis on me. Why is that? I never said you were scummy for the analysis, and, as far as I can see, nobody else did.

I said that your Neto/Sposh connection was scummy because you didn't notice that MichelSableheart really didn't comment on Sposh at all up until this point, which i find worse than getting a null tell on him. I thought it was odd that you didn't point out Bwain's blatant buddying at all and basically using your reasons to make a vote you didn't approve of.

[Nachomamma8]

VRK, to answer your question...

I will be voting Sposh. He is the scummiest player right now in my mind, and unless his play improves shortly, I don't see my mind changing.

[Nachomamma8]

Whether you believe it or not, you have a lot of influence here (as evident by Bwain's reaction to your analysis), and when you say someone has a bad grasp of Mafia Theory, you're going to be believed. So, why don't you try explaining why things are so fundamentally wrong instead of simply stating they are? If you expect me to improve, you have to give me something to work with.

1)

My reaction to which analysis? I'm getting a feeling here you are implying that I'm letting him lead me. Is that what you are saying? I'm not aware of his mind control over me. Could you please explain?

VRK commenting on how suitable you would be as IC that made me think less of him. Though I don't share your perspective on the game I think the comment was uncalled for and off-topic.

I said that your Neto/Sposh connection was scummy because you didn't notice that MichelSableheart really didn't comment on Sposh at all up until this point, which i find worse than getting a null tell on him.

I'm glad you bring to our attention that MichelSableHeart didn't comment much on Sposh.

2)

I strongly disapprove of how you attempt to make it as if I was withholding information. In post 422 I did not only say why I find Sposh scummy but I told you how I came to the conclusion. The process I used was to decide among the three named suspects who to vote for.

I thought it was odd that you didn't point out Bwain's blatant buddying at all and basically using your reasons to make a vote you didn't approve of.

3)

I think I motivated my vote in 422 quite clear. Why would I need approval from VRK to cast my vote?

As for buddying the joke in 422 was on purpose phrased so that in can be read in two ways. It's a joke on my behalf, and a pun on VRK for calling me newbie out of context. Not that I'm not a newbie but his argument didn't hold water.

1) The reaction you had to the first analysis and your conclusion about a Neto/Sposh scumpair felt heavily based on VRK's analysis, and the people you took a closer look at were all VRK's top suspects. You also didn't comment on me although I was one of your suspects for a while, and you didn't say that I did anything to shake your suspicion, so I assumed I was still pretty high on your suspect list.

2) My comment was aimed more towards VRK than you.

3) I didn't get the joke on my previous read. It just seemed like you were joking around with VRK and trying to buddy up to him a bit...

[Nachomamma8]

osh than Haylen; at least Haylen has been contributing and making an effort. Haylen has brought up points against her suspects; Sposh hasn't. In fact, let's see what he has contributed; shall we?

My top two scummiest people are Nacho and Haylen

In a few posts before this, he said he would support a Haylen or bronco lynch. He never said why, and he never said why his suspects change. Now, let's see what case he's posted against his number one suspect, Haylen.

I really am not going to make a strong case because I've been very busy and haven't had time to contribute much. I also don't mind being lynched because I'm just a vanilla townie and the scum people are going to try and push my lynch the whole rest of the game!

That was sort of my reasoning... I just figured everyone would vote before deadline I didn't know people would completely lurk their way into a no lynch! But at least I was voting... Haylen was not!

Vote: Haylen

Let's also not forget that Sposh did have the opportunity to get the lynch four hours before deadline (he failed in doing so), and that he hasn't come up with any suspects of his own thus far. Now, let's try looking at a little bit of Haylen's case against Sposh.

Why I'm pretty sure Vel is scum

457 - Chainsaw defense.

Her push against Michel is another point against.

He's attacking me for attacking Michel. This could be because he is either scum with Michel, or because he is buddying with Michel. I wont rule out either of these possiblities. A person who a player who defends another player by attacking the other player's attacker is very probably scum.

413 - Insulting behaviour and AtoA

Jesus Christ, where do I start. First off, your grasp of basic Mafia theory is so far off from what is the norm on this site that I don't want you applying for IC status - I'll just flat-out deny it

You shouldn't come in and start throwing authority around straight away, despite being listmod or IC, you're just another player like the rest of us. His actions have been contradictory to what he knows. The guide to IC, which he himself linked to in his OP and he himself said that every IC needs to read before applying, clearly says that personally attacking the newbies is an IC-bannable offence. This is scummy because he is asserting his authority to try and control the town.

435 - WIFOM and Other stuff.

nice try, but as you can see from my explanation above, I didn't use my status as ListMod to try to bully anyone into taking a specific action.

WIFOM. That's subjective ect. Circular logic because you could just be lying. WIFOM is not good for the town, please leave it out of games.

The phrase 'nice try', clearly shows that he has already made up his mind one who he wants to be lynched today. This is something that should be discussed with the town, not just one player. Of this were not a newbie game, I would suggest that he's an SK. Because he isn't working as a team. Which is scummy.

436 - Holding a vote.

I will be voting for either sposh or Haylen today. I will place that vote on Thursday, probably in the morning. That will allow ~36 hours until deadline - plenty of time left for decisions to be made but enough time will have passed that a quick lynch will not matter as the majority of the day 2 discussion will be done.

Why with hold a vote? He infered earlier that Michel was town because his suspicions matched his voting patterns. By not voting he is contradicting his own theory. He also suggests that a quicklynch wont matter because most of the discussion will be done. I disagree, every town player her is valuable to the game, whereas he infers the contrary.

Buddying Michel:

In every single one of his posts, he mentions about how protown Michel is. In his situation, Vel replaced into a game, looked at the most protown player here and stuck by them. That's my theory anyway. If anybody wants to read through Vel's posts they will see the same as I do here. He has had the same views as Michel throughout the game, and has actually been voting the same people. Buddying is scummy because scum can use the most protown player in the game to kind of save them in gaves and prevent them from being lynched. It's quite a subtle scum tactic, I've had it done to me once and it took ages for me to realise.

Pushing for my lynch.

It seems to me that Vel just read the game, saw that the easiest lynch was me and went after me, that's where the suspicion was at the time he replaced in. I have given evidence about that he had no intention of changing his mind (Hurray for english classes), and it seems to be the easiest and is the least likely move to put him into the spotlight. Yeah, he voted for Sposh first, but it is clear that the person he really wanted to vote for was me. He's been hiding behind my lynch all day and pushing me towards the noose too.

By saying Sposh has a lot of scumtells and he isnt sure why he's being lynched, im pretty sure that he is distancing him. Hence the sposh vote when he replaced in.

]K. In summery, I want you all to post your cases on the people you think are most likely to be scum. I wont be supporting a no lynch today, because to me it doesn't seem logical - the only time I feel confortable no lynching is during mylo, because a mislynch means the game is lost. No lynching today is like no lynching on day one, it shouldn't be done.

Yeah, I know you're going to say that's my own fault, but I'm not going to be a sheep and follow everybody else. I vote to lynch people I personally find scummy. I encourage the rest of you to vote for who you find scummy and not because everybody else is voting them.

Now because I, for some reason, can't draw logical conclusions while reading the thread as a whole, im going to iso read you all cause im more of a detailly person.

Splosh

Post 3 - Appears to want the RVS to end
Post 5 - Gets oversensitive when Michel ends the RVS by finding him (splosh) scummy.
In the posts afterwards, it looks like he is trying to hard to be town-like, kind of like he's going 'oops, made a mistake by getting oversensitive, now i've got to wriggle my way out of it and try to get people to forget it.'
He only expresses a will to vote for the people under suspicion.
So...he's either just overenthusiastic, or he's scum.

Teh/Bwian

- I have a town read on Teh and a newbie town read on Bwian, he is lucky that he replaced a non-scummy person

TBB/Neto

- Lacks content, newbie scum vibe. Neto is playing differently compared to a game in which i played with him before, in which he was town.

Jase

: I can't comment until I know how many games you have played and your experience level. I know the others, roughly, cause I'm taking into account experience levels when I'm making my judgements.

Nachomamma

: Based on meta, he is most likely town. (Nacho, well done on improving I notice a big improvement in your play.)

Bronc

: I'm not sure, I'm hoping Vel can shead some light on his play here...or at least defend him from the cases put forth against him.

Michel

: I think he's trying to lead the town into no lynching and forcing them to suspect me. Scummy.

Suspects:

Splosh

Michel
Neto.

Vote Splosh

Vote: Sposh

At least Haylen's shown an effort to this game.

[Nachomamma8]

Uhh... I'm lost o_O

It's a post like this that makes me want Sposh dead. He comes back after an absense, posts "I don't know what is going on", then leaves again. He KNOWS how to play the game; he defended himself during day 1 and even did a *tiny* little bit of scumhunting, but once day 2 started, he simply voted Haylen and let everyone else do the dirty work. Every once in a while he sees who the catch of the day is and states his suspicions of them, but other than that, he does NOTHING. All he is doing is being active enough to avoid being placed; he's not even bothering to pretend to scumhunt.

Haylen, on the other hand, is POSTING, and she will be around tomorrow. Why not lynch the inactive scum now, and Haylen tomorrow? That way, we'll have more evidence on her to work with and we can make a more informed decision, and Sposh will be out of the way.

Right now, we effectively have one shot to hit the scum before we go into LyLo, which is something we should keep in mind as a worst case scenario. If we lynch Haylen and Haylen is town, tomorrow we'll have 6 people left, and we will most likely no lynch to lower the lynch pool candidates. Sposh will be alive, and his play won't most likely change much. If this is due to his newbieness and he is town, we're effectively screwed.

If we lynch Sposh and Sposh is town, we have tons of games to analyze if we want to look up Haylen meta, and we'll also have some posts to work with in order to better judge her alignment, and I feel like a TownHaylen will prove a far greater asset in LyLo than a TownSposh, and I also feel we can make a much better decision with a whole other day of posts to analyze her alignment.

The other point I'd like to bring up is the fact that we will get more information from Sposh's lynch than Haylen's. Almost everybody has attacked Haylen since the beginning of day 2, and the reason most of us are on Sposh's bandwagon is simply because his scumminess has been so obvious and blunt. They are both fairly suspicious characters at this point. However, there have been people who have hung back on the Sposh wagon and only decided to lynch when their actions were criticized. If Sposh is scum, we'll have a lot better chance day 3 on determining his scumbuddy than if Haylen is.

Unfortunately, I'm using Mafia as an excuse not to work on my English paper right now, so I'll have to edit that tomorrow. I will be on this topic at 5:30 PM EST tomorrow, an hour and a half until then. If Sposh is not dead at that time, I will hammer Haylen.

[Nachomamma8]

EBWOP: The last paragraph should read:

Unfortunately, I'm using Mafia as an excuse not to work on my English paper right now, so I'll have to edit that tomorrow. I will be on this topic at 5:30 PM EST tomorrow, an hour and a half until

deadline

. If Sposh is not dead at that time, I will hammer Haylen.

[Nachomamma8]

Because of my defense of her, or because of her buddying up to me?

[Nachomamma8]

Great....just great.....Alright, everyone, put down your suspicions - would you rather lynch VRK or Haylen today and why?


Personally, I think that these are the only two options, and I feel that Haylen is the best one. Her play seems oddly defensive and she really should have known better about the no lynch day 1.

Vote: Netopalis

I think you are the best one, actually. Who said that there are two options? Look at all of the possibilities and don't try to direct the crowd into lynching yesterday's top suspects.

[Nachomamma8]

Why did you suspect them?

[Nachomamma8]

VRK for his odd attacks, tunneling against Sposh and urging of a quicklynch with statements like "Why is Sposh still alive?" and use of poor scumtells. Humor is not a scumtell, nor are connections until it is shown that a person is mafia.

Haylen should have known better about the D1 No Lynch. I find it a little too convenient that she didn't - she's a very experienced player who has certainly seen multiple number analysis of games. Further, she has seemingly jumped on anybody who is not her through her posts. I find her defenses to be weak at best.

What do you mean, odd attacks?
VRK was voting for Haylen at the end of the day.
"Use of poor scumtells"? Describe some.

What's scum motive for getting a no lynch as opposed to a mislynch? Why are her defenses weak?

[Nachomamma8]

@VRK: If you are a townie, are you willing to risk the entire game on the fact that Haylen is scum? Because after your statement in 514, I'm willing to bet my head on the fact that one of you is scum. So would you agree to being lynched after a Haylen town flip?

[Nachomamma8]

I'm not going to argue against being convinced that Haylen is scum, because there's no way she's not.

That sounds like 100% certainty to me... Does it to you?

[Nachomamma8]

Well, if today's MyLo..

Unvote

.

I'm also recommending a no lynch after some discussion because there isn't really a super protown player right now. Also, Jase... Stop lurking. Please.

[Nachomamma8]

Thanks Neto.

Nacho, since you suggested it, what information do you think will be gained from a No Lynch today? Do you think that it will significantly help the Town's chances tomorrow of catching scum if we narrow the field from 6 to 5?

Does anyone besides Jase and Nacho have an opinion on this?

Right now, there is no extremely pro-town player. I can see every one of us being scum. Looking at it statistically-wise, if we no lynch today, we'll have a 50% chance of hitting scum on a random lynch. If that random lynch is successful, we have a 2 town versus 1 scum situation, which is the best chance we have right now. If we lynch and manage to hit scum, we'll still be in MyLo, and we'll have 3 townies versus one scum instead. I have full confidence that a no-lynch today will improve the town's chances dramatically, regardless of who the scum decides to kill.

[Nachomamma8]

It caught my attention when an experienced player doesn't keep track of the current votes, and what effect his own vote might have. It seems so sloppy and detached. Would you please explain yourselfs?

VRK did it in post 426 and Nachomamma8 in post 527.

What do you mean?

[Nachomamma8]

Thanks Neto.

Nacho, since you suggested it, what information do you think will be gained from a No Lynch today? Do you think that it will significantly help the Town's chances tomorrow of catching scum if we narrow the field from 6 to 5?

Does anyone besides Jase and Nacho have an opinion on this?

Right now, there is no extremely pro-town player. I can see every one of us being scum.

Looking at it statistically-wise, if we no lynch today, we'll have a 50% chance of hitting scum on a random lynch. If that random lynch is successful, we have a 2 town versus 1 scum situation, which is the best chance we have right now. If we lynch and manage to hit scum, we'll still be in MyLo, and we'll have 3 townies versus one scum instead.

I have full confidence that a no-lynch today will improve the town's chances dramatically

, regardless of who the scum decides to kill.

How can you possibly reconcile the two bolded statements?

If you can't find a pro-town player today, how are you going to find one tomorrow? A No Lynch today means that we're down to LyLo tomorrow. If you can see any one of us being scum, how is getting rid of only one person going to dramatically improve our chances tomorrow?

Don't take this as me saying I don't think we should No Lynch. I'm not saying that at this point. What I am saying is that I think your logic is flawed and that you're not doing anything to convince me that a No Lynch is the way to go. If everyone is of the opinion that we should No Lynch, I'll go with it, but I'd feel better about it if we had solid reasons why it's going to help us. Right now, if we No Lynch we'll still be stuck with the same group of all scummy-looking players. I don't see how that's going to help us.

Not only do we gain higher chances of a correct lynch, but we gain time. We gain an entire day of scumtells, towntells, activity, or the lack of it. For example, I guarantee that if Haylen is town, she will work a little to redeem herself so she doesn't remain most of the reason why the town loses. If she doesn't, then I will be far more confident in her lynch tomorrow.

Right now, if we No Lynch, we'll be stuck with 5 scummy players as opposed to 6, which is one suspect gone from 3 townie's lists. It is also a confirmed innocent, so we can look at those who bandwagon and push for lynches based on yet another connection.

[Nachomamma8]

Bwain: We don't really gain much from the speculation about power roles. Somebody used the possibility of an additional investigation as a reason for a no lynch today. That being said, I realized if we don't no lynch today we should do it tomorrow. May as well be today.

Jase, you do realize how badly you're fence-riding right now, right? You're not taking a firm stance on ANYTHING and you've been lurking for the past two days. I was satisfied with your play day 1, but it seems you used day 1 to establish a pro-town view on you, then you've been coasting by for the past few days. I need some content from you, now. I want your top three suspects, and I want you to provide at least three reasons each as to why you believe so, or else you will remain the top suspect on my list.

[Nachomamma8]

Regardless if we no lynch today or not we're now so few that all town must agree and vote for a mafia player in order for us to lynch a mafia player. If we don't lynch today we reduce the number of town players that must agree to 3, but at the same time we reduce the number of town players that can vote for the wrong player without the mafia hammering a mislynch. When reducing our numbers we also lose the inerta that saves us from losing the game at a single bad vote.

I do not appreciate the emulating of VRK's style at this point, and I also believe you are not in any position whatsoever to do so. You are not able to judge someone's logic, rip on their experience, then create an entire post on invalid logic. Based on your logic, we have a better chance of lynching scum on day one than in a 2 town 1 scum scenario. Prove me wrong if you disagree.

If we want to gain time it's a bad idea to vote for a no lynch since that would end the day. If we want to use the time we should not vote today.

Why on earth would anyone town or mafia form or join a bandwagon if we decide it's best not to lynch anyone today?

Focus now should not be on how many we are. Because we will always need a majority to vote someone and from this point on that majority will need to be all town players or we lose. What we need to remember is that the share of town of players is rather insignificant when compared to the arguments for who to lynch.

Talking about a no lynch or not is a track that leads nowhere. We need to focus on who is scum.[/quote]

Pardon the language, but... Bwain, what the hell are you talking about? Where did I say that we should vote for a no lynch, anywhere? At this moment, am I voting for a no lynch?

Why do we need a bandwagon today? Why can't we have suspects and scumhunting?

No one on either side should be joining a bandwagon today because we are going to no lynch today. No lynching is the best thing to do today. What we have to remember today is that from now on, if we mislynch, we lose. The scum are extremely close to winning unless every town player steps up and gets some good scumhunting going. Without votes.

If you believe we should talk about who to lynch more instead of no lynching, you show me how lynching is the best thing to do right now.

When you mention cop reads I came to think of how tricky it would be of VRK to urge a cop to reveal himself, if he were the cop. Maybe that's too complicated and sophisticated way of playing it being a cop, but unless he's scum that is a good way of leading the mafia into killing someone else at night. Or if he's scum it's a good way making me think that he's making himself

You've confused yourself with WIFOM. If VRK is softclaiming the cop, then he is scummy. He doesn't want to no-lynch, which means he's willing to bet the game on a single lynch. If he is the cop then he better come out of hiding now and announce his results because they will do much to help the town, more so than risking for one more investigation. If he’s trying to make the town believe he has a cop result without claiming cop, then he is being extremely scummy and will be lynched. So, don’t treat ANYONE like they’re a cop unless they claimed it.

Please comment on the issue raised in 539 and further explained in 543.
Please answer the question raised in 537.

Reaction hunting, to verify a scum read on Jase. This scum read was extremely strengthened by his response.

As for the question, I will answer it. Right after you show me where I suggested lynching a random person.

I am extremely convinced of Haylen's guilt now. We have seen nothing but excuses from her...Excuses for her play day 1, excuses for her lack of posting, excuses for her failure to analyze...We simply can't allow that. I feel confident in voting now.

Vote: Haylen

Nothing but excuses? I disagree. She's made her fair bit of accusations, and as of right now, she's been posting more than you have. So if you can't allow Haylen's lack of posting, why should we allow yours? Also, why are you voting for someone based on lurking (this is the main reason for your vote, right?) when we will lose with the next mislynch?

I would support it. Honestly, there's not a single player left in this game that I can really rule out, and it would give a potential cop an opportunity to get in an extra investigation. Additionally, although it's generally frowned upon, I do think that hte identity of the deceased could be useful as well.

Not a single player? Better watch your words, because you're saying you're not even sure about your own alignment.

Have you gotten any useful information from the death of Yamijoey and MichelSableHeart?

I said the same thing; why didn't you jump on me for it? Allow me to answer your questions:

I don't believe my playing before Day 3 has been good OR protown. I realized I messed up quite a bit in a multitude of ways. However, I nor he said that we were scum. We just said there weren't any protown players. Know the difference.

As for your question of the deaths, due to foilist's NK, the only person left on my bandwagon from Day 1 is you. You voted me because of a logic disagreement, and there is a pretty good chance that someone on my bandwagon was scum, so what conclusion do you think I'm drawing here?

[Nachomamma8]

Haylen, who ought to know better,

How do you base a case against someone using this kind of logic?

Are you an experienced player? The reasoning above is jibberish!

I'll explain it if you still don't see the similarities.

Uhm... it was you who wanted to draw conclusions based on who bandwagon. If you're referring to bandwagons in the past, why wait until tomorrow to analyse those?

We wait because I'm still waiting for Jase's analysis.

It seems to me you're using two standards. You vouch for talking about who is scum and yet try to make me look bad for suggesting the same thing in the post you're replying to.

We've been having a lot of arguments based on misunderstandings. I read your post as going against a no lynch, not refusing to vote for a no lynch. Understand?

Your argument on the cons of the no-lynch is still wrong, however. And you still haven't answered the questions I asked about it.

[Nachomamma8]

Well, for one I didn't say we should no lynch because of a potential cop. I

just think

we should

probably

no lynch

today or tomorrow

, because once we lynch haylen there isn't anyone who really sticks out, so we

should

then narrow our lynch pool.

The bolded is where you're fence-sitting; it's called disclaimer language. If you're suggesting we lynch today and no lynch tomorrow, that defeats the purpose of this no-lynch. The second part of your post has nothing do do with your first; you're saying we should no-lynch, but only after we lynch Haylen. Explain. Lynch Haylen today, or no-lynch today?

Also, Haylen, what happened to that content you promised earlier?

Seriously Haylen, it's been almost 24 hours for a post you said you were writing "at the moment". Where is it?

Also neto, there probably isn't any cop, as he would have claimed today in all likelyhood.

It's unlikely that the people who a cop investigates would all be nightkilled.

Bwain: We don't really gain much from the speculation about power roles. Somebody used the possibility of an additional investigation as a reason for a no lynch today. That being said, I realized if we don't no lynch today we should do it tomorrow. May as well be today.

Well, for one I didn't say we should no lynch because of a potential cop. I just think we should probably no lynch today or tomorrow, because once we lynch haylen there isn't anyone who really sticks out, so we should then narrow our lynch pool.

Those are your last 5 posts before the one you just made. Let me sum them up for you: "Haylen, where are you?" "Haylen, where are you? (There is no cop)." "There is no cop." "There is no cop, and that's final. We should probably no lynch today or tomorrow." "We should probably no lynch today or tomorrow."

Do you find any of these summations incorrect, or do you feel they misrepresent your posts in any way?

Also, I want your scumlist before I give you mine. I asked first, and I have reasons for wanting it from you first.

[Nachomamma8]

Ok. We aren't lynching ANYONE today. It's poor play. If we lynch today, we could lose. We wont have a chance to no lynch tomorrow cause we'll have already lost.

6 players.
4 town. 2 scum.
Mislynch.
We go into night with 3 town. 2 scum.
Scum kill.
2 town. 2 scum.

The mafia win conditions of newbie games and every other game is that scum win when they are equal to the number of town. 2 town + 2 scum = Town Lose.

Hear what i'm saying? WE AREN'T LYNCHING TODAY.

Haylen, who is that directed to?

[Nachomamma8]

The only con I can see in not lynching is that we lose a player during the night. However, this means that we have one more confirmed townie and one less person to worry about tomorrow. We also get another day.

NEVER even consider lynching in MyLo without a guilty cop verdict. It's poor player and is likely to cost town the game.

I don't care that I'm the closest to being lynched. At the moment, I see it as my job to teach you how to play in this situation. I'm an IC, I've been in this game situation many times and each time we've no lynched. I'm not going to let this game be the first where we dont.

Now that's been established, who are your top three suspects?

[Nachomamma8]

Ok. We aren't lynching ANYONE today. It's poor play. If we lynch today, we could lose. We wont have a chance to no lynch tomorrow cause we'll have already lost.

6 players.
4 town. 2 scum.
Mislynch.
We go into night with 3 town. 2 scum.
Scum kill.
2 town. 2 scum.

The mafia win conditions of newbie games and every other game is that scum win when they are equal to the number of town. 2 town + 2 scum = Town Lose.

Hear what i'm saying? WE AREN'T LYNCHING TODAY.

A little feedback on your teaching. Your example doesn't bring differences between today and tomorrow into light. All your examples shows is that the town loses if we mislynch in a MyLo situation.

You don't need to yell. It's enough if one town player doesn't want to lynch today and we won't be lynching scum.

If you've got any good arguments to why not lynching is a better idea please put those forward. This newbie right here that already is rather keen on not lynching but is thinking out of the box trying on alternatives for consideration. If we're all convinced a player is mafia, why not lynch that person today? That would give us a 3 vs 1 scenario and more time saved for finding the second scum. Just thinking out loud here.

If everyone is confident in one person's scumminess, we might as well. It's not like the death of our most protown will point directly to scum.

[Nachomamma8]

I was not suggesting that we lynch haylen today, and no lynch tomorrow. I previously said that we should do it today as a matter of fact. I didn't say that we should lynch haylen today. Where did you pull that from?

You said "May as well be today." That doesn't show any dedication whatsoever, and basically says to me that you wouldn't care if the no-lynch happened today or tomorrow.

When you brought up the possibilty of no lynching tomorrow, I assumed you wanted to lynch someone today because it would be all too perfect if you tried to make us no-lynch both today and tomorrow. And since you've only said Haylen for all of yesterday, it wasn't that hard to determine that you would want to lynch Haylen. After all, who else would you lynch today, Jase?

[Nachomamma8]

Also, everyone here has posted a Haylen analysis. I'm much more interested to hear about your secondary and tertiary suspects, actually. That is, unless your Haylen analysis provides something worth reading...

[Nachomamma8]

EBWOP2:

On an unrelated note. Notice that haylens top three are the three who suspect her most.

Invalid point. Everyone suspects Haylen except for Haylen herself, thus, all of her point against anyone will seem like they're OMGUS.

[Nachomamma8]

HAYLEN ANALYSIS

D1 was full of fluff. With an unexplained vote for nacho, and the infamous unvote before deadline.

D2 Accuses michel of trying to lead the town. WIFOM in iso 12 (Why wouldn't I have lynched nacho if I was scum?). Iso 14 "Do you really trust the mod?". Posts an analysis in iso 17 but of the three suspects she pulls from it only sposh is well reasoned. Iso 26 apparently is where she realized that she shouldn't have unvoted D1, and apparently she needed the wiki to know that, difficult to believe for an experienced player. Her case against VRK seems to be held together by bits of chicken wire and string. Iso 32 dismissive attitude.

D3 Lurking as a defence mechanism, the rest is yet to be seen.

Not very impressive. VRK covered your day 1 analysis in a post of his own:

Haylen, who ought to know better, has dropped votes with no reason (188), continued her predecessor's lurking, and managed to unvote 24 hours before deadline to prevent a quicklynch. Seriously? You're trying to prevent a quicklynch after 20 RL days and 11 pages? What kind of crap is this?

We know your next point, again, from VRK:

No I'm not attacking you. Your attack against Michel, as I stated in this post, was predicated on the fact that you attacked Michel for "using his IC status" to lead the town around. That's not attacking you. That's pointing out the fact that your only points against Michel (see post 364) was that you thought he was trying to lead the town around and that he was forcing others to suspect you, neither of which can be found to be true.

As for your next point, you're taking Iso 14 out of context. She was referring to a quote by our mod about her meta. I took it as a joke, why didn't you?

Iso 17: If you find that action scummy, then why are you doing it yourself? If you don't find it scummy, then why post it?

Iso 26: Why are you holding experienced players to a higher standard? She unvoted me because she had a strong feeling she was town, something she herself stated. Why do you bring the point up without responding to her initial defense? Also, don't attack someone based on their cases when your own is held together with some Walmart glue >.<

D3: You didn't even have to say this. That was NOT an analysis of her day 3 play. You failed to comment on her position on no-lynching, or anything of the sort.

Overall, I'm greatly disappointed by your analysis. Try harder, Jase.

[Nachomamma8]

My other two suspects will probably take a good long while to figure out, and I've got things to do. I'll try to get it done later this evening as I don't want to make you wait too long for it, and if I might not be able to do it until Sunday if I don't get around to it today.

Can you provide good cases on them with original content?

Thanks in advance

[Nachomamma8]

So then should I have just pointed to that with a big "What he said"?

Or provided something original.

What action are you referring to?

Making a valid case about a single person.

Because they are better?

Is that truly what you believe?

Did you think her avid support for a no lynch was significant? Huh...

Don't you? It's practically the only thing she's done today...

I get the impression that you don't find haylen suspicious. Do you not think she's a good candidate for a lynch?

Nope, not really. I have a town read on Haylen.

I had wanted to provide a good case with original content, but I think now I won't just to spite you and your smug little smiley.

But the smug smiley will still be there when Incognito says "Jase, Mafia Goon, has been lynched."

[Nachomamma8]

Nachomamma8, I'm not sure which question you're asking about. The only unanswered question I found when browsing through the past few days at a glance is the one where you asked if I got what conclusion you were considering regarding your bandwagon of day one. The shorter version of that question is asking my alignment. There was no scum on your bandwagon day one, but you'll have nothing but my word for it.

I'm mainly referring to my post in response to your inertia case. You never agreed with my position, nor did you shoot it down like I requested.

[Nachomamma8]

You asked me to prove you wrong. I will not. In post 573 I repeated my stance that we should not neglect that there are downsides with not lynching, and gave an example of why using the same scenario as suggested by you.

Yet again I'm not taking a stand against not lynching.

I just want to make sure everyone make their decision with all pros and cons in consideration.

You're creating cons in a situation where they either 1) Are too insignificant to matter or 2) Where they don't exist. If you want people to make a decision with all of the cons in mind, then you might want to begin stating those cons.

Stop fencesitting. Are you for a no-lynch today, or are you against it?

[Nachomamma8]

Missed this before.

Nacho: You say you have a town read on Haylen. What you don't say is why.

You SHOULD have a read on everyone in this game. You also neglect to say why.

[Nachomamma8]

Missed this before.

Nacho: You say you have a town read on Haylen. What you don't say is why.

You SHOULD have a read on everyone in this game. You also neglect to say why.

You're avoiding the question. What gives you a town read on Haylen?

Honestly? You take the time to reply to posts when they're right in front of your face, but you still refuse to post an analysis of your suspects; your only real suspect is Haylen, and the analysis you posted her was complete and total crap. Why should I explain my reads so throughly when you BLATANTLY refuse to explain yours, hmmm?

[Nachomamma8]

Beg for: Three Day Deadline Extension.

First of all, we had days around Thanksgiving that were practically lost completely due to Thanksgiving and holiday like events. Secondly, next Tuesday is exam day, which means all of Monday will be spent studying and cramming and worrying, which means no computer for me. Third of all, you're a wonderfully amazing person, and you're enjoying reading this excellent game, and really want to give us a three day extension so we can truy impress you.

Please?

[Nachomamma8]

I'm going to ask you to answer my question first, Nacho.

Why? I'm accusing you of parroting what other people say, and I asked you to provide a suspect list first. Now stop stalling and post an analysis already.

[Nachomamma8]

I'm going to ask you to answer my question first, Nacho.

Why? I'm accusing you of parroting what other people say, and I asked you to provide a suspect list first. Now stop stalling and post an analysis already.

You don't really need me to tell you why I want you to answer first do you?

...

Fine, I want you to answer first because you're lack of suspicion about haylen seems illogical, and if you don't have a good reason you'll earn yourself a high place on that list.

Jase. You're stalling. You haven't scumhunted since day 1, you haven't posted ANYTHING of substance almost this entire day, and the only reason you're stalling is because you don't have suspects other than Haylen because you've been tunneling her since VRK came into the game. But, I'll post this Haylen read when you promise me that your next post is an actual scumlist. If you post anything else, I'm voting you, MyLo or no MyLo.

First off, Haylen's unvote was scummy to everyone except for me. Since I am the only person in this game who is 100% positive I am town, I find that her choice to unvote instead of lynch was a protown one. Why? Because a mislynch is ALYWAYS better than a no-lynch. In other words, the only way that the unvote was anti-town was if Haylen was scum with me. So Jase, when you make your OMGUS case against me, I suggest you look for connections between us and make a decent case against us being scum together

Second reason is based on Haylen's meta, both town meta and scum meta. Scum meta is actually pretty damn good; she's active and active and active (doesn't post cases though), lots of bussing or buddying. Haylen's town meta is a bit less active, and tends to joke around on the RVS, and jokes around during the game, with good cases few and far between.

Thirdly, she's drawn a few people to her like moths to the light, and they've really shown their scummy sides. I now have some damn strong town reads and some better scum reads on you know. At first they came from noticing one or two posts, and with an iso and quick reread it just clicks.

[Nachomamma8]

Ok, that was pretty much what I expected. A mislynch is not always better than a no lynch. It allows scum to keep around a scummy player, who will probably be lynched the next day, and get rid of a pro town player, and it leaves the town without as much information.

But a mislynch allows a townie dead, and leaves the players who led the wagon in the first place under heavy suspicion. Also, I was super scummy the first day. I was super scummy the first day. Was I lynched in the end? No.

If I thought I could get a no lynch as scum without being obvious about it I would take it over the mislynch. I just wouldn't be so brazen about it.

Do you think she thought she could get a no lynch without it being obvious? Because if you do, you are wrong.

Your meta argument doesn't mean much to me, because she was the one who pointed it out in the first place, and because as has already been said, she's aware of her meta, and that means she can play to her town meta as scum. There isn't a whole lot of support for your third point, because you seem to be the only one who thinks so.

Show me where she said she was aware of it.

Anyways, my scum list is:

Haylen, no surprise here, the case against her is plenty conclusive.

Yeah, VRK was pretty convincing. But you and Neto kinda tore it apart for me with how much you just smiled, nodded, and let him take the wheel.

Nacho, as the ONLY ONE who doesn't think haylen is scummy...really at all apparently, I'm assuming that you're guilty simply by association.

That's all you have on me and I'm your number 2? Let's not forget that I'm also the other person not just buying the case and nodding.

Neto, he's still been pretty quiet. He really hasn't done much despite his promise to improve his play today.

Yeah, he's also made a few anti-town comments that you haven't noticed at all.

Bwain, and VRK aren't drawing any significant suspicion from me at the moment.

Oooh, that's saying alot.

Also, I was not stalling I needed to make sure you didn't have a good reason for your town read on haylen before I went ahead and said you where scummy for it.

Obviously you were. How long did it take you to type up that scumlist, five minutes? Three minutes? Not worth the wait. That wasn't a real scumlist, even. Is this the best you can do, Jase?

[Nachomamma8]

Post what, exactly? A rant on how we're wasting time being inactive, or a response to something or someone?

[Nachomamma8]

I know what you mean. I don't have anything to do today (However,

Mod: I may or may not be V/LA for the next four days

), and I might be gone soon... So of course, today's the day everyone chooses to be inactive...

[Nachomamma8]

Er, sorry everyone I'm here.

Neto: You do realize that if we lynch anyone and they flip town we lose right?

You won't flip town so no big deal.

[Nachomamma8]

Who said no lynching was a bad idea?

[Nachomamma8]

Ok. We aren't lynching ANYONE today. It's poor play. If we lynch today, we could lose. We wont have a chance to no lynch tomorrow cause we'll have already lost.

6 players.
4 town. 2 scum.
Mislynch.
We go into night with 3 town. 2 scum.
Scum kill.
2 town. 2 scum.

The mafia win conditions of newbie games and every other game is that scum win when they are equal to the number of town. 2 town + 2 scum = Town Lose.

Hear what i'm saying? WE AREN'T LYNCHING TODAY.

Neto, I think the situation's been touched on before. And just because we're no-lynching isn't an excuse for such shitty activity... D:

[Nachomamma8]

I'm still waiting for Jase to respond to my last post...

[Nachomamma8]

Try post 669, Jase.

[Nachomamma8]

If I get killed tonight, lynch Jase, then Neto.

Don't lynch Haylen, or VRK.

Unsure as to what alignment Bwain is, then probably town.

Not getting anything done, so

Vote: No Lynch

. Hammer when you're good and ready.

[Nachomamma8]

Bizarre.

Vote: No Lynch

Neto, why so quick to vote for a no-lynch? Do you want to end this day as quickly as possible?

[Nachomamma8]

So, do you think we should all vote no lynch once again today, or do you think we should talk it out?

[Nachomamma8]

Vote: No Lynch

Jase, vote no lynch.

[Nachomamma8]

Vote: No lynch

If this continues I think I might just die. You know, for the fun of it.

Whatever do you mean? :O

[Nachomamma8]

Neto, irony is thick.
http://mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?tit ... roficiency.

With that being said, Haylen: No mass claiming.

[Nachomamma8]

I object to a MC because it's unneeded. A doctor claim will give us no new information. A cop claim will come when the cop is good and ready, if we have one. I just don't think it will benefit us at all.

[Nachomamma8]

Nacho: That is not a definite logical fallacy, and I've seen it to work in other games. At any rate, it should be a policy to lynch experienced players who should know better so that scum won't use that excuse.

Not a definite logical fallacy? Bullshit. I've been through far more games where experienced townies have been lynched because they should know better than I have where scum have been found because of appeals to emotion. Does that mean AtoE is "not a definite logical fallacy", and 90% of your case on Haylen is null and void?

[Nachomamma8]

The page you linked me to itself says that it is disputed.

The blame for the D1 no lynch needs to lie at someone's feet. Of all of the players, she is most culpable because she was active, in a position to vote but choosing not to and should have known better. And no, that is not 90% of my case it is just, to me, the strongest piece of evidence.

It's disputed; that doesn't mean it's any less valid. It's disputed because it CAN be used as an excuse for experienced players to skate along. However, putting experienced players to a higher standard than everyone else is a mistake, just like treating new players "with kid gloves" is a mistake.

And if you want to put blame on for a D1 lynch, plenty of people didn't do all they could to get a lynch. Those of you who were too stubborn to switch your votes from me to TBB or vice-versa are also to blame. I wasn't going to hammer myself because I know for a fact that I was a townie. Haylen is a major part of the blame, but she wasn't the sole reason for the D-1 no lynch. As a town, we also ignored the deadline approaching, and we could've made a lynch far earlier. Is this Haylen's fault? No.

[Nachomamma8]

Equal part? Phrasing it like that is wrong and misleading. We did all have part in it, but far from equal. I for one was certain that one of the two players remaining to vote were going to, which is why I stood by my vote instead of changing vote to secure a lynch. I for one trusted on you to place your vote. Same goes for TheBeanBurrito who didn't vote either.

I did place my vote. My vote was on TBB. And you definitely should've realized that TBB wouldn't change his vote; he was lurking the whole game, why would he stop lurking then? And Haylen wouldn't be able to hammer me alone, so you are pretty damn responsible for the no-lynch day 1 as well, I'd say.

[Nachomamma8]

What's the blue for?

[Nachomamma8]

Ah, it all makes sense now

@Rest:

Assuming Haylen is your top pick, who is her scumbuddy? Why?

[Nachomamma8]

See, that's something that I've been struggling with. Haylen doesn't appear to have any scumbuddies in this game. The best one would probably be either you or Bwian, leaning Bwian, but I'm not 100% sure about that. That's why I'd argue we should opt for the no lynch.

Her apparent lack of possible scumbuddies, plus the extremely newtown vibe I got from her predessesor has been a huge reason why I feel that Haylen is town. I mean, before I jumbled everything up, EVERYONE was attacking her. Every single person, and yet, none of her attackers stood out. Even if Haylen was scum and we did manage to lynch her, we would still have absolutely NOTHING. And barely anyone is doing any scumhunting because everyone is focusing on her... If Haylen is to be lynched, you need to have at least some idea of connections before it happens, or we'll be screwed.

[Nachomamma8]

With how inactive he's been lately, I kinda want to. (hinthint)

[Nachomamma8]

How about we no-lynch? Anybody have any reasons against that? Chances of a town win are extremely low at this point.

Bullshit. We can win this...

By the way, Draws suck.

[Nachomamma8]

Yeah, if he keeps this up.

[Nachomamma8]

I'm here. I'm against go for a draw. If we can no lynch again without risking a draw I'm in favor of doing so, if not, I'm in favor of a haylen lynch. To answer nachos question, If haylen is scum then I think her likely scum partners are: Nacho, Bwain, and possibly neto. That's it for me until tomorrow.

You haven't said anything for a week. The least you can do is explain why you chose those names; for all I know, you pulled them out of a hat.

[Nachomamma8]

Well, I think it's clear we're going for a lynch today.

Vote: Jase

[Nachomamma8]

*yawn*

That's a little preemptive, now isn't it?

[Nachomamma8]

Good point.

We may be waiting a while, though...

[Nachomamma8]

Mod, can we get a prod on VRK? Thanks.

[Nachomamma8]

Merry Christmas, Incog!

[Nachomamma8]

Kinda back. Wouldn't be disappointed if I came back and saw Jase lynched...

[Nachomamma8]

Confirm Vote: Jase

Bump.

[Nachomamma8]

Yay! Welcome to the game, SK!

Sorry you had to replace in as pegged scum

[Nachomamma8]

Nacho, why do you think Haylen is town?

First of all, Haylen's predecessor, StaroftheShow. I couldn't really see newscum acting that way.

Second of all, her unvote. I know that I'm town, so her keeping me alive is a protown trait to me. I still believe that it would be in scum's best interests to get a mislynch as opposed to a no-lynch. For one, the mislynch would not only get her protown points, but it would get her 2 town deaths instead of one.

Third of all, Haylen's activity has been good, especially during the important times (i.e. MyLo). She's been contributing consistently, and she contributes with content.

4. (Fourth of all just sounds dumb) She's been playing extremely closely to her town meta.

5. She was willing to attack the most protown players when she was under heavy fire, and her cases on them were NOT complete and total bullshit. Smart scum would just go after a scummy looking townie and get the mislynch that way.

Is that enough for you, SK?

I also do not support no-lynch today, because I don't feel that it's going to be helpful to town in the end.

Why won't another day of discussion be helpful to the town in the end?

I'm also not impressed with Nacho's Day 1 play, and I could easily see him as scum.

What about my Day 2 play? My Day 3 play? My Day 4 play? My Day 5 play?

Now, point out to me what in my day 1 play was so bad.

[Nachomamma8]

1. What exactly about StaroftheShow makes you think that she wasn't scum?

Gut read, mostly.

3. Lack of activity is a scumtell, but lots of activity is not necessarily a town-tell. I've noticed that certain players tend to be much more active if they're mafia.

Some players. Not Haylen.

4. Meta can be manipulated.

It CAN be, but meta usually gives me the strongest reads on people.

[Nachomamma8]

Haylen, what do you think of SaintKerrigan?

[Nachomamma8]

@ Nacho: I speak of your defense of misquoting people and highlighting only the scummy sections, as well as your stated belief that town ought to lie in order to survive. Your other Days didn't have anything that I saw which rubbed me wrong other than potential buddying with Haylen (if she's scum). That actually concerns me, in that you could be scum that realized you made a mistake, and are now trying to cover it up.

Can you get specific, please? You have to understand, I'm a little bitter from the Monks and Masons loss, and Jase WAS my top suspect, so... vague things aren't going to help me. I need quotes and examples . Also, it'll help me get a lot better read on you because so far you're being quite vague.

[Nachomamma8]

SK, you're worsening my read on yourself AND Haylen as we speak.

Is it just me or does the underlined section imply that VRK is scum?

That's just bullshit...

#2: One, it's kinda hard to believe your case when you haven't even voted for the person you claim should've died already. Second, did I accuse you of tunnel vision? No. I accused you of not scumhunting anyone else.

1) What does that have to do with ANYTHING whatsoever?

2) Tunnel Vision = Not scumhunting everyone else. The difference between them is minimal, and you pointing out something that small is just annoying.

As for "trying to get on the town's good side," wouldn't I have been better served attacking Haylen if that were the case? From what I read it seemed that there was more suspicion on her than there was you.

Not if Haylen was your scumbuddy. Then you would find her suspicious, just not the MOST suspicious. And also, do you really think no one would notice the BLATANT WIFOM?

How could my interpretation of Haylen as a frustrated townie be as likely to apply to a frustrated scum?

I'm actually hoping this question isn't serious.

[Nachomamma8]

Also, what do you think of VRK?

Missed this.

VRK is a town read. His attacks seem genuine to me, and he's put far too much effort into lynching Haylen to be scum getting a mislynch. Yes, I have a town read on VRK and Haylen; I see your false dilemma of one of them having to be scum something only scum want to set up, honestly.

[Nachomamma8]

Haylen, voting with the scum is not a very good thing to do

[Nachomamma8]

after all, if he really is town, I feel we're screwed regardless

What makes you think that?

[Nachomamma8]

Why no Nacho-VRK scumpair?

Why no Nacho-Bwain scumpair?

Why no Haylen-Bwain scumpair?

[Nachomamma8]

Read the quote: "I'm not convinced that you're not just trying to get on the town's good side..." To me, that seems very indicative that VRK knows Haylen is innocent, and is trying to get a mislynch off of her.

Explain.

If VRK believes Haylen should be dead already, why isn't he voting for her? No vote implies that he doesn't actually believe Haylen should be dead for what she did, but it would be convenient if she did die for it. In other words, I don't think he believes his own case.

Jase believed the same. Neto believed the same. They didn't vote for Haylen.

But there is a difference. I specifically accused him of not scumhunting, and he defended himself as if I accused him of tunnel vision. I simply wanted to put things back on the right track.

Explain the difference between not scumhunting everyone else, and tunnel vision.

Aren't you doing the same thing (defending Haylen) that you're accusing me of doing? How is what you're doing not scummy, yet scummy from my player slot?

Haylen is your third suspect. You aren't defending her, and you've mentioned how she seems scummy. You're not pushing for her lynch, and yet you're not sticking your head out to call her town.

I could maybe understand a me-Haylen pairing, but the rest of your scenarios are just far-fetched and not factually based. In other words, it's a mess of WIFOM.

Why could you see a you-Haylen pairing?

[Nachomamma8]

Can't we, like, just lynch VRK and get on with it?

But I'm not sure VRK is the scum.

Instead, let's lynch SK, okay?

[Nachomamma8]

Can we lynch VRK tomorrow if SK's scum?

If Neto continues participating like he is and Bwain's replacement doesn't fudge everything up.

[Nachomamma8]

I've made several cases on him so far. And SK hasn't made the slot look any better.

[Nachomamma8]

Just vote SK so we can get a scum lynch real quick, please?

[Nachomamma8]

Just vote SK so we can get a scum lynch

real quick

, please?

What do you mean here? It's like you want a quick lynch...

I don't want a quick lynch, but I would like a lynch soon.

It's been MyLo for a little over a month and 17 pages of discussion. I'm 95% sure Jase/SK is scum.

In my opinion, it's time to move on.

[Nachomamma8]

Ok, I've only read the first seven pages, but it's really obvious Bronco is scum and I'm pretty sure Nacho is his buddy.

VRK's post 917 saying he will self hammer is just a plea of some sort, there is no way he would self hammer as town. I'm pretty sure he forbid's IC's to do it.

vote VRK

This game is like torture reading through, I'll try to keep chugging along.

No. NONONONONO.

Saint Kerrigan was at L-1. If VRK was scum and SK was town, then he would've hammered. Otherwise, he's an idiot.

SK IS SCUM. Guaranteed. I 100% can guarantee that SK is scum from VRK's post. He is either town, or scum with SK. There is no possible way that SK isn't scum.

Haylen. Vote SK. Charter, or VRK. Hammer.

[Nachomamma8]

I still think he's scum with SK.

Then let's take care of SK today, and VRK tomorrow.

[Nachomamma8]

SK, now that you've lost your favorite suspect to attack, I'm your top suspect. Where's your case on me?

I'd also like to hear your opinion of charter.

[Nachomamma8]

Personally, I find process of elimination like this to be a pretty strong town tell. Scum isn't likely to try clearing townies in lylo like Kerrigan has done.

Right. Explain how Kerrigan could've continued a case on VRK when he didn't hammer him during MyLo.

[Nachomamma8]

Nacho, you neglected to answer this, please do.

I thought it was a rhetorical question; the answer's obvious enough.

Don't forget that if Haylen and Nacho (or really just if Kerrigan isn't scum) are scum, then it makes sense for them to identify the weakest player and push them. Haylen's push today is just ridiculous. In fact, I think she's called more than two players scum today. Her suspicions change to match everyone else's. You've seen her scummy arguments, but I'm about to work up another case.

And don't forget that if Kerrigan and you are scum, then it makes sense for you to identify the weakest players and push them, getting the bandwagon off your partner and onto an easy town target.

I'm not saying Kerrigan could have continued a case on VRK, I said the opposite, and I said it's a town tell on Kerrigan. I also said I don't think VRK is scum after finishing reading the game.

How is calling someone town WHO DIDN'T HAMMER YOU WHEN THEY HAD THE CHANCE DURING MYLO a town tell? It's a nulltell because there's absolutely no other option to take, whether you are town or scum. Where are you getting towntell from this?

Also, everyone check out page 19 and Nacho's awesome vote on Sposh which tips the scales from a Haylen lynch to a Sposh lynch. Buddies.

I posted my reasoning for lynching Sposh and Haylen at the time. Do you disagree with it? Why?

Nacho is defending himself by saying VRK is abusing his list mod status, which isn't true or relevant. VRK isn't trying to say that he's right because he's a list mod. VRK said Nacho's grasp on mafia theory was poor and he wouldn't be allowed to IC, and his grasp on mafia theory IS poor.

I don't care whether my grasp on mafia theory is poor or not. Saying that if I applied to become an IC was a completely uncalled for comment that had no place in being commented on during the game; it belonged in the postgame. This is something VRK himself realized after I pointed it out, and apologized for it. I wasn't trying to warp it into something that would point VRK out as scummy; in fact, I'm pretty damn sure I didn't say anything of the sort. I was offended, and I told him where he had misstepped.

Here Nacho "seems to know [SK's] alignment without seeing his role PM or anything" but does Haylen say anything about it? No. She's applying this ridiculous scumtell to just townies whose views don't mesh with hers.

Wait. Do you mean like you're doing right now, or like VRK and Haylen have been doing the entire game?

VRK, Neto, how about we lynch Haylen today and then deal with Kerrigan tomorrow? Both of you seem to be suspicious of those two the most, but if we lynch Haylen first, and she flips scum, we get the added bonus of Kerrigan being town, but lynching Kerrigan first won't get us anything.

This doesn't make sense. At all. If Haylen is scum, how does that make SK town?

[Nachomamma8]

So you think Haylen is full of it, but you just ignore it? Why don't you question her on this? Why haven't you questioned her total lack of responding to people's points on her the entire game? Why do you even think she is town?

Yay for questions. I ignored it because you had it covered. I haven't questioned her total lack of responding to people's points because VRK had that covered and I didn't feel like regurgitating information. I think she's town because the only person who has come out and tried to defend her is me, Star gave me a newtownie read, and this play is similar to her town meta.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. I voted VRK before and gave it up, which I did because I kept reading the thread and saw that VRK probably wasn't scum, because Haylen is scum and I can't imagine him being her partner. If I was just trying to push a lynch on someone besides Kerrigan, why not pick VRK who others (READ: YOURSELF AND HAYLEN) suspect? Come on, I thought you were supposedly town. Why should I pick Haylen over VRK when I could easily get more votes on VRK? It doesn't make any sense if I was scum with Kerrigan to be doing what I'm doing. Your accusation doesn't even take in to account that you're town, which is because you aren't.

I don't suspect VRK. Nice try though. And I suggest you read what you just posted, go to MafiaWiki and search "WIFOM", then come back to me.

He's clearing someone else as town in MYLO. Clearing people as town is a town tell, scum hate to do it, since it limits their options. Clearing people narrows down the pool of potential scum which is what townies spend the whole game doing and scum spend the whole game impeding. He is thinking like a townie on a very basic level, along the lines of 'well, now I know VRK isn't scum' instead of what scum would be thinking 'I need to mislynch today'.

You know, maybe if him making a case on VRK at that point was even possible, this point would hold water.

We'll cross this bridge when we get to it, but you think that Haylen and Kerrigan can both be scum? Really?

Easily. SK came into the game with an attack on VRK, noted me as the second suspect, and noted Haylen third. Said that Haylen was just a "frusterated townie".

Haylen, on the other hand, immediately joined her attack on VRK again. She only ended up switching her vote back to SK when it became clear no one except for them were going to vote VRK.

[Nachomamma8]

Nacho, how are you sweeping that one under the rug?

I'm taking it as personal issues.

If she wanted to use V/LA to disappear until deadline, then she could just disappear for 5 days instead of 2. Or, she could stay gone for the 3 days she said she was going to anyway...

Are you serious in counting that as a scumtell? Just wondering.

[Nachomamma8]

I can see when the fight is lost. You guys go ahead and lynch Kerrigan, and then I hope after the game you reread this game and learn, because there's a HUGE learning opportunity from this game. Haylen and Nacho are two of the most obvious scum on the history of MS. Yes, call it an appeal to whatever you want, but it's true and it's a shame you are handing the game to them when they've played utterly terrible.

Sure, I'll call it an appeal to emotion when it's so blatantly obvious that it is. If it wasn't then why didn't you hammer if "the fight was lost"?

[Nachomamma8]

All of what I can say is just continue telling you you're letting the scum trample all over you. Their play has been downright awful, and you're excusing it by writing it off as fallacies and false dichotomies.

Appeal to Emotion. "These guys are so obviously scum, why can't you see it?"

Nacho seems to just be trying to fly under the radar to victory. He's ignored practically all my case against Haylen, he has no comment on it.

Flying under the radar? I am the most active person here aside from you...

As for ignoring your case against Haylen, I don't see why I need to comment more on it. I've showed you why I disagreed with some of your points against her. I ignored some of the ones I agreed with. As for the rest, she'll have to defend herself.

Nacho hasn't bussed Haylen one bit this game. I don't know where you've gotten that from. He's really not commented on her hardly at all the entire game. He voted Sposh over Haylen because "at least Haylen's shown an effort". He tried VERY HARD (post 477) to vote Sposh over Haylen, he gave a ton of BS reasons for doing it.

I had been pretty suspicious of Sposh for a while. Note ISO posts 19, 24, 26, 48, 50...

RE: 1092:
I don't see the point of 80% of that except to make it look like you spent your time making a long, thought out post. As for the relevant part, you cited a reason as no killing as scum is to preserve the game state.

GAME STATE BEFORE THE NO LYNCH/NO KILLS:

People who had Haylen as a top suspect: VRK, Neto, Bwain, Jase.

That seems like a pretty anti-Haylen game state right there.

[Nachomamma8]

Also, on the important stuff:

Charter, you accused me of trying to lurk until deadline, right? When was the last time SK posted anything semi-meaningful?

[Nachomamma8]

Bah. Go town!

[Nachomamma8]

I thought that charter was town in the beginning of Day 1. As scum, I would never make my first post of the day as "I'm sorry" when I'm in hot water; I was expecting charter to continue his attack on Haylen...

On another note, why did you kill me, VRK?

[Nachomamma8]

Maybe, eh?