Mini 859 - Cleansing of Falls Church - Over

[ConfidAnon]

/confirm

This is like a reunion from my newbie game!

[ConfidAnon]

Vote: Peabody

I feel obligated to continue the tradition.

[ConfidAnon]

Vote Bigbear

for voting for the player who caught three scum in two pages!

FoS Peabody

for questioning the scumhunting master. Obviously you can't be mafia (Sanjay's already caught all of those, but perhaps SK?)

Pretty pleased with myself for finding all three scum in just two pages.

How do you know that's all of them?

Talking about the sk early is an sk tell.

Unvote, Vote DeathRowKitty

[ConfidAnon]

Shrinehme, I know in this instance you wouldn't, but as a general rule do you follow Lynch All Name Butchers?

I, for one, am a strong follower of Lynch All Name Butchers.

Unvote, Vote: Shrinehme

[ConfidAnon]

So much so that you abandoned your seemingly non-random vote on DeathRowKitty to put a vote on name butchery Shrinehme?

Was your vote on DeathRowKitty less than serious or do you really hate Name Butchers that much?

My DeathRowKitty vote was not fully serious. Right now we are still pretty much in the RVS.

[ConfidAnon]

What's your goal in the Random Vote Stage, ConfidAnon?

To generate discussion, and it seems I have done so. One discussion happens, we can move on to scumhunting.

Shun the non-believer....Shuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun.....At the moment, Unvote. Don't want any wagons this early, and with three votes, might just be heading that way.

Why so quick to jump off the wagon? There's no way we are going to let a wagon with three random votes lead to a lynch (unless, of course, shrinehme starts showing that he is scum). Your jumpiness is noted.

[ConfidAnon]

So what exactly was your rationale for dropping the vote on DeathRowKitty? Surely that was more provocative than the vote you changed it to.

Changing your vote a lot in the random voting stage will usually spark discussion. As you can see, it worked.

[ConfidAnon]

Okay, just throwing it out there, shoot it down if you want.

You get the most votes, the closest to a lynch, and then BigBear votes no lynch.
Far_Cry votes BigBear for wanting a no lynch.
You vote Far_Cry.

Shoot it down.

To be honest . . . . that's not that bad of a theory.

One thing holding me back: I've seen BigBear play as scum. He's competent, and voting No Lynch is horrible scum play.

[ConfidAnon]

BigBear might me doing this on purpose. It's a possible idea that he is scum that does some things that are SO terrible that people think he's not scum. A possible reverse psychology strategy.

It didn't occur to you that he intentionally voted himself and No Lynch in order to coax Scum into thinking he was an easy target gun for [And Far_Cry took the bait, notably]? T'was the first thing to pop into my head... but maybe I have a slight advantage from being more familiar with his play, and I shouldn't assume everyone should recognize the same?

I don't have much to say about Looker's points, other than that BigBear voting No Lynch doubtfully had anything to do with my three random votes [yes they were "the most", but still.... three, no where near the majority vote needed]. Aside from that, the progression of events were just... convenient/coincidental/ect.

That possibility did occur to me, but I chose not to say anything because when a gambit like that is explained, then it becomes worthless.

@BigBear: Were these your intentions? WIFOM? Can you refute these allegations?

That will just lead to more WIFOM.

No offense to Looker, but this is a terrible theory.

Firstly, it supposes that BigBear is stupid enough both to believe that the RVS wagon on Shrinehme is enough of a threat to his scumbuddy to take drastic action.

Secondly, it supposes that BigBear is stupid enough to believe voting no lynch would work. Sure, it could serve to distract from his scumbuddy, but I don't really see how distracting from your scumbuddy by heaping a bunch of suspicion on yourself is a good idea.

Thirdly, it supposes that scum are going to vote to help out their scumbuddies even in the random voting stage, when the threat of lynching is very low.

unvote: nook
vote: ConfidAnon

Mind explaining how you disaggreeing with a theory that I supported warrants a vote? I don't see the leap from "he supported this theory" to "he is scum," sorry.

Oh hey, here's a question for me.
Hold on a moment.
He switches his vote a lot in the same posts and he's mean to other people(!!!!). I don't know why he'd vote for No Lynch either.



Sanjay, I hope, isn't serious about "catching all three mafia."

Looker is likely Godfather; Sanjay merely a Goon.

I don't know how he knows a godfather even exists. Honestly, half the posts in this thread aren't serious.

I don't like Far Cry's personal attacks, but I don't see anything scummy with him.

I'm just jumping on the Shrinehme bandwagon because I don't get good vibes from him.


Vote: Shrinehme

This vote does not seem protown at all. It practically screams bandwagon.

Unvote, Vote: EtherealCookie

[ConfidAnon]

You supporting a theory that is rubbish is what warranted the vote, ConfidAnon.

This makes me believe you are voting me for faulty logic, which is not a scumtell.

[ConfidAnon]

That's because I respect you, ConfidAnon, and have a tough time believing you actually thought that theory was good.

I think you just said it was because you were trying to be chummy, or at worst because you were trying to spread ungrounded suspicions, both which ARE scumtells.

Ummmm, no.

Looker's theory found connections between players. Finding connections is a genuine scumhunting tactic. I supported this. If you disagree with the theory, you think that my logic is faulty, which is not a scum tell (but it is something that scum will try to jump on.)

[ConfidAnon]

And casting suspicion on a lot of people so you can support favorable lynches later is a genuine scum tactic. That's why my vote is on you, ConfidAnon.

Fair.

[ConfidAnon]

Welcome to the game, Zazie!

@ all - I'd like to apologize for not being as active as I'd like, here in the next couple days I should kick back into gear.

[ConfidAnon]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm not Jester. I'm just a guy who got swarmed with too much shit, said a few stupid things, and is in a deep pile of shit right now and is too busy to get out of it currently. Give me till the weekend, guys.

Appeal to emotion, js.

[ConfidAnon]

Could you elaborate on what kind of a tell you feel appeal to emotion is and why?

It's an appeal to emotion alright.

But Confid, what was with those last two letters were? js? Are you labeling him as jester?

They are a web acronym that stands for "just saying."

[ConfidAnon]

Interesting state of affairs with FC the past few days:

He replaced out of this game when he was about to be lynched in his newbie game, after which he joined another newbie game. He then joined another newbie game. Net result: -1 game, a result he could have achieved by staying in this game instead of joining a new one. The fact that he chose to join a new one instead of sticking with this one

really

doesn't sit well with me.

This is

extremely

interesting.

[ConfidAnon]

Umn. I'm not sure very many of my posts were all that serious. Was just messing around most the time. But anyway, like we've all asked 100 times now, we'd like to hear your opinions on everything so far. Since he hasn't posted since a while,

Vote: nook

to get some pressure going.

I don't think your in a very good position to try to pressure people to be active, with you not being very active and all.

[ConfidAnon]

Just thought of a question:

Confid

, why did you see EC's vote against Shrine as a bandwagon vote, but not Bear's vote aganst Shrine?

Where is Bear's vote against Shrine at?

[ConfidAnon]

Sorry, I was too lazy to make a big post. That's my normal posting style.

But I do have good news: I'm back from Lurky Land and ready to play!

[ConfidAnon]

I just simply missed your question.

I generally see Appeal To Emotion as a scumtell. It is a method used to avoid a lynch, and scum have the most motivation to avoid a lynch. It is true that townies do not want to be lynched either, but normally only newb townie's use appeal to emotion . . . and unless I am mistaken, EC is not a noob.

[ConfidAnon]

The one about DRK reading one of the dates wrong or something? Yes, but I was too lazy to take back my post. I did those posts during a readthrough. This reminds me of something else that I saw which was interesting that I forgot to point out.

Just so everyone knows, that's L-2.

@IK
Can you think of any non-mafia motivations for EC's actions? I'm just looking for a yes or a no (I asked you specifically because your experience playing with me makes you more likely to figure out what I'm implying).

I don't think EC is a bad lynch, but I would prefer to look in other directions right now. Of course, FC's replacing out puts a bit of a damper on that, but I'm keeping my vote on him until his replacement convinces me to take it off.

This is the quote that sparked the jester discussion. (DRK admitted that was the intention of the post later on.)

I think lynching the jester is a bad idea. and if there really is a jester, which I doubt, i think they should be either vig'd or night killed. Bringing up the idea of a jester, is actually scummy, I forget who brought it up, but it's scummy.

BigBear says that talking about a jester is scummy.

Nook brought it up (I quoted it a few posts ago ).

This is in response to BigBear saying bringing up jester is scummy. Funny, if I'm not mistaken, DeathRowKitty sparked that conversation. Trying to pin the blame on someone else and cast suspicion on them?

The jester win condition and the town win condition aren't mutually exclusive. That's just my two cents. I'm done talking about that possibility for now.

A few posts later, he tries to shut down the discussion about the jester that he started. To me, this reads like scum trying to avoid suspicion. Right now, I like DRK as a vote more than EC.

Unvote, Vote DeathRowKitty

[ConfidAnon]

Just thought of a question:
Confid, why did you see EC's vote against Shrine as a bandwagon vote, but not Bear's vote aganst Shrine?

That was back when Bear was acting purposefully scummy to spark discussion.

Though this wasn't aimed at you, I wouldn't mind if you'd respond to this as well, confid

He was being pretty jumpy there . . . that's kind of scummy.

The guy who bandwagoned himself doesn’t like that somebody else bandwagons? How come?

He wasn't contributing, which, when combined with the bandwagon vote, was very scummy. I know I'm sounding hypocritical here, but I have since made an effort to start contributing more. He really hasn't.

[ConfidAnon]

I have a wild speculation that he's a Jester out to get lynched as quickly as possible.

That's what I was trying to suggest to IK.

@IK
I thought you might pick up on the fact that I said "non-mafia motivations," when I normally use "scum" almost exclusively to refer to the mafia. By non-mafia, I was trying to imply third party (perhaps one that wanted to be lynched or accumlate votes).

Of course, best play with a jester is probably not to mention it and to just lynch the person anyway. Why? Glad you asked!

Jester=insta-lose in lylo via self-vote. Therefore we can't bring a jester to lylo. This means that if we find ourselves one mislynch from lylo, unless we're sure someone is scum, we're forced to lynch the jester and put ourselves in lylo, which is an unfortunate prospect. We can continue this reasoning down the line, with the conclusion that a jester becomes more and more dangerous to the town the longer (s)he's left alive. Optimal play is (probably) to lynch immediately, without mentioning the possibility and try to gain some tells off the wagon. A jester wants to be lynched and (as much as I would love to spite a jester by refusing to lynch him/her), it's in the town's best interest to lynch a jester. That's of course why jester is a stupid role in most games.

Optimal play by EC right now (theoretically) if he were a jester is probably to claim jester right now and get himself lynched. However, having the lynch already determined has a tendency to take the town out of scumhunting mode. If EC is a jester and decides to do this, I would strongly push to lynch someone else out of spite.

Keep the possibility in mind now that it's out in the open, but right now, we have to play as though EC isn't jester (most mini normals don't have jesters and he probably isn't one...).

@ZazieR
What do you think of your predecessor's play?[/quote]

You did start the jester discussion. 1. Why are you lying? 2. Why are you getting so defensive?

[ConfidAnon]

You started the Jester conversation. In Post 187, you asked the question about EC having "non-mafia motivations."

Later, in post 211, you clarified that you were implying that EC may be a Jester. You asked the question with the clear purpose of starting a discussion about a Jester. It is true that I misread nook's post. I was thinking that he responded to your question. He did not, but that is not the case. Your question implied a jester, therefore you started the discussion.

[ConfidAnon]

@CA
You're really trying to stretch this jester thing. Any particular reason (besides dodging SJ's question)?

Yes, I'm stretching the issue because the reaction you gave me when I first brought up the point was very defensive, and you continue to overreact. That's scummier than the original point, which is still valid.

[ConfidAnon]

Meh, I'm not gonna restate the case again. I believe that you were the one who sparked the jester discussion, you believe that you didn't and that nook did. We'll agree to disagree.

[ConfidAnon]

I smell OMGUS in your last post, DRK.

Yes, yes I do.

[ConfidAnon]

I don't believe that, that's what he believes. I was stating both viewpoints, and then that I'd agree to disagree. Sorry for not wording that clearly.

[ConfidAnon]

No, it was perfectly clear.

You believe that DRK thinks that nook started the jester conversation, correct?

I fail at wording posts. This is going to look scummy, but what I meant was that neither of us are going to change our minds on this matter. He says that nook started it, I say that he started it.

[ConfidAnon]

Do you think that if DRK actually does believe that nook started the conversation about jesters then his reaction is unreasonable?

No I do not.

I admit that my theory is not as strong now as when I first posted it, but the possibility still exists for him to be scum lying through his teeth after being caught.

[ConfidAnon]

What has changed, ConfidAnon?

Why isn't the theory as strong as it was before?

I didn't step back to look at it from the perspective of DRK being town, I immediately jumped to the DRK scum conclusion.

Do you think a discussion about jesters would have started because of my post had nook not mentioned jesters?

Absolutely. You said yourself that's what you were implying, so it's natural to assume you would have followed up with your implications.

Define 'jumpy'

Overly careful with your vote, taking it off just as quick as you put it on.

And I missed the EC post, my bad.

[ConfidAnon]

Given what Zazie quoted in post 425, why do you think I was intending to start a conversation about jesters? Also, how did your position change from me starting the conversation about jesters to me planning to start the conversation about jesters?

I believe you intended to start a conversation about jesters because you said so yourself. Your ignorance of your own post is telling.

Post 388 is where I quoted the post where you admitted that you were implying a jester.

My position has not changed, I don't know why you believe it has.

[ConfidAnon]

Implying a jester is starting a conversation by placing the thought into the thread.

[ConfidAnon]

You started it . . . whats the point of arguing this point? There is very little difference between either argument.

[ConfidAnon]

My point is that you're being inconsistent. Unless you can reconcile your statements and show me a post where I either started a conversation about jesters or said I was trying to start a conversation about jesters (or whatever your view is supposed to be) IN YOUR NEXT POST, my vote will land on you IN MY NEXT POST.

Caps don't scare me. Your question implied a jester. You were the first person in the thread to do so. Therefore, you started the conversation about a jester. I'm done talking about this because, as Peabody pointed out, it's trivial.

I've kept it going in the past because I like to argue. But now we are to the point where we are talking in circles. I've already pointed out the post several times before.

[ConfidAnon]

My, you really enjoy making a mountain out of a mole hill, don't you?

, mixed of course with insistence that I started the conversation about jesters. This in and of itself is contradictory. Sure the quote doesn't explicitly say I didn't start the conversation, but saying I intended to start the conversation about jesters is a pretty big concession to make considering he's compromising on the foundation of his argument.

Alright, time to deconstruct some stuff. How would that be contradictory? You intending to start a conversation about jesters, and you starting a conversation about jesters, do not negate each other. Both points can be valid simultaneously, and you are treating it like they can't.

The person with a vote on me decides we should agree to disagree. Interesting. If his case has merit, why wouldn't he want to advertise it to the rest of the game? Notice also that he says he thinks I honestly believe that nook started the jester conversation. That's basically admitting I wasn't trying to start the jester conversation, which nullifies his entire case. Logically, his vote is still on me at this point. When questioned, he retracts that statement and changes it to the contents of this post. When questioned further, he says his theory is no longer as strong as it was, a happy medium between defending garbage and admitting he was wrong.

Sure, I admit that I worded the post about agreeing to disagreeing poorly. Take it how you will, it's scummy, my mistake. I did not mean to say that you believe that nook started the conversation, I meant that you would not back down from your viewpoint. I was willing to shelve the argument for now and said that it wasn't strong because it was at that time still a very trivial point.

According to this, I no longer started the jester conversation. Suddenly, his stance has changed to the fact that I would have started the conversation given the opportunity, a huge assumption to be basing an entire case on. This quote comes after Zazie pointed out where I told IK I just wanted a yes or no answer, so I don't see any logical reason to assume I would have "followed up with [my] implications."

Of course, you revert back to your faulty logic. You intending to start a conversation and you starting a conversation do not negate each other. Both points can (and in this case, do) validly exists at the same time.

Let's analyze the three paragraphs seperately (and out of order):
1) I never once said I intended to start a conversation about jesters and when asked to find such a post, CA failed to produce one. Notice also that he once again says I intended to start a conversation about jesters, as opposed to his previous stance that I did start the conversationa about jesters.
3) His position didn't change? Really? Going from saying I started the conversation about jesters to saying I intended to, when that's the foundation of his case, isn't changing his position?
2) I admitted I was implying a jester=I admitted I wanted to start a conversation about a jester? I suppose I implied it instead of mentioning it outright to increase the odds of that conversation occurring?

Not acknowleging a response to one of your arguments is scummy. I've supplied the post you ask for in point 1 several times. Please read the thread before you try to make a case. I've already deconstructed point 3. By posting about a subject, you are attempting to start a conversation about that subject. Simple logic will tell you that.

[sarcasm]Nice way to cover your inconsistencies, CA.[/sarcasm] Suddenly, I never actually said I intended to start a conversation about a jester; now I said I was implying a jester. I guess, naturally, this amounts to a confession of intending to start a conversation about jesters?

In this paragraph, you make no point. It's true you never actually said that, you admitting that would be stupid, and I have never said that you said you inteneded to start a conversation about a jester. You did say that you were implying a jester, which does mean that you attempted to start a discussion about that.

He's finally solidified his position. I started the conversation about a jester by being the first to imply a jester in one of my posts. In his nervousness, he even messed up the person who called the argument trivial (Peabody instead of shrine).

Knowingly using crap logic to strengthen a feeble case is scummy. I got a name wrong =/= nervous scum flailing around and getting sloppy. Getting a name wrong = getting a name wrong. Nothing to read into there. Finally solidified my position? That goes back to you arguing that the two points can not exist together, which is a false assumption.

[ConfidAnon]

I made my case under the assumption you aren't stupid. Changing your stance from I started the conversation to I intended to start the conversation would be a horrible mistake if you were honestly scumhunting. If you honestly believed I did start the jester conversation, there's no way you would have lessened your stance to me intending to start the conversation, especially since you consider starting the conversation to be such a big scumtell. Speaking of which, what's your opinion of nook?

His posts before now, I'm neutral about. But I would like for him to comment on this argument.

If it was such a trivial point and you wanted to shelve the argument, then why were you still voting me?

Me not arguing about it does not mean that you weren't scummy.

Even though I just asked for a yes or no answer?

Yes.

Oh really?

Forgot about that post, but that boils down to implying = sparking discussion.

Post 462 - I was responding to your question which you quoted in this post. You asked me that had nook not posted, would it have still started. I said yes, because either A. Someone else would have brought it up after you put the thought into the thread, or B. You would have brought it up yourself.

@ Everyone Else -

feel free to give your thoughts on this argument as well.

[ConfidAnon]

Sorry, haven't been active, will post more Sunday.

[ConfidAnon]

Sorry for disappearing . . . will et caught up PRONTO

[ConfidAnon]

So, Confid, why push this? Do you really think that DRK made such a significant tell that he's worth tunneling on? What about Nook, who also
brought up Jester?

I pushed this because bringing the jester discussion is scummy. He stated that his post implied a jester, then denied that he brought up the topic.

You're right. I should Unvote: Vote: ConfidAnon, But I was also in the not voting category....

Also, do you mean that I'm not asking questions? and that is why I am scummy?

Bandwagon

I'd just like to know the point of the argument. ConfidAnon, what were your intentions for this dispute?
unvote
vote ConfidAnon

My original post was made to scumhunt. The argument continued because I foundhis insistence scummy. I'm convinced that I'm right, and I'm the kind of guy that loves to argue.

[ConfidAnon]

Here's my take on it, for what it's worth. The initial accusations were anti-town and clearly not based on any sort of attention to facts. As you've said though, scum wouldn't be any more likely than town to initiate such an attack. That's why I didn't vote him initially and the initial attack isn't why I'm voting him. It's his insistence on trying to say I did something I very clearly didn't. A townie trying to scumhunt wouldn't want to make a case based on things that aren't true. On the other hand, I can see CA-scum trying hard to defend his arguments, especially after he based a vote on them. If CA is town, it also raises the question of why he would want to drop the issue if he thinks I'm scum. Basically, everything I said here.

So much fail in one post . . .

I'd love to dissect it and restate how you're wrong, but busted keyboard won't let me.

[ConfidAnon]

DRK
I can see a town player in Confid who thinks he's right with what he saw, even after all the things that got pointed out that show that his attack is wrong.
The only thing that is less is that he's 'dropping' the attack. But even after that, I still think he's town.

Sigh. This is gettng old, I'm done arguing this point.

Btw, posting by page.

[ConfidAnon]

Don't know, cuz now I'm interested in vote: Don_Johnson

You don't know why you made a post? I'm leaning more towards scatter-brained than scummy, but still worth noting.

Because my current conclusion is that the Mafia are: Don_Johnson, Sanjay, & [Cookie - OR - BigBear], so FoS the whole lot of'em.

Explain why?

RESUME SKIMMINGLATER ON 24

[ConfidAnon]

Sanjay - Was working under the assumption that you and Confid are town
DJ - Because I doubt Zaz, Peabody, and Shrine are all scum
Cookie - OR - BigBear - I'm leaning town on Nook & Cydonia.

Those reasons aren't that great imo.

@Looker
How does Cydonia's unvote alter your suspicions?

Good question, I'd like to see an answer.

Cuz I'm working under the assumption that Mafia won't lynch other Mafia.

Fail. Looker, meet bussing. Bussing, meet Looker.

Anyway, I'm asking for two elaborations:
-First is about your first list. You stated reasons why you saw that as scumteam. You had 4 off your scumlist, because you see them as town. But with three who were off your scumlist, this wasn't the reason stated. You couldn't see me, Peabody and Shrine as scumteam. So why wasn't one of us included in the scumlist?
-Secondly, the alteration of the third scum. How does KoC's unvote change it? I've seen your reason, but how does it alter the third suspect when KoC isn't in your scumlist?

More good questions, would like to see some good answers.

One question left after looking at your past posts:
-What happened to your Confid suspicions?

Another good question, I thought the same thing when I read Looker's 594.

Does anyone know what's going on with CA? (Is he still around, is he getting prodded/replaced, etc?)

Bunch of crazy real life crap, sorry about going Houdini on everyone.

[ConfidAnon]

I believe what ZazieR is, rather unsubtly, suggesting is that only scum don't suspect anyone, and that if you don't suspect anyone, you must be doing absolutely nothing during the day, and waiting for night. Which is a damn good point,

Very good post, very good point.

Uhm, correct me if I'm wrong, BigBear, and this is just what I got from my readthrough, but... didn't DRK start the Jester speculation? Because from what I read, DRK made a comment alluding to 3rd parties, then later clarified he was thinking of Jesters when making that comment. So... uhm... explain?

YES YES YES YES YES

THANK YOU for seeing my point!

Good call, I missed that connection.

Unvote:
Vote: DeathRowKitty

No offense, but if you missed that connection, then you must not have read my posts from my argument with DRK.

At the end of the day, all those fancy words don't hide the fact that you, not Nook, initiated Jester dialogue with IK. You brought it up first. No-one was even considering it before you said that to IK.
Bringing a Jester (a horrible role I have only ever used in Bastard setups offsite) into the game without any reason to do so, is scummy. Just 'cause you didn't say "Hey, IK, think this is a jester?" doesn't make it less scummy.

So much vindication in one post.

@KoC
What about bringing up a jester do you find scummy?

The fact that you only ask this question when pressured by more than one player is telling. Sounds like scum reverting back to a more fundamental argument to try to get out of a lynch.

FoS
-I was the third vote on you, why are you/were you so worried?
-Bandwagons are quite normal.
-You do realize that I am no longer voting you.

No, I didn't realize that you were no longer voting you, I started where I left off and read from there. And third vote on a wagon is a scumtell.

Something tells me if you find it hard to respond to a paragraph you are going to hate me in the next few days

*shrug*

ah well, I will get typing here soon anyways.

Also if someone can put up a reason why DJ is getting votes, and explain why DRK (who looks pretty town to me) is getting votes too, I would be much obliged.

Got a replacement keyboard now, so responding to a paragraph shouldn't be a problem. Now the hating you part, we'll see.

"fully?" ok... what that means is it WAS in part serious. If anything is partially serious, you have seen a scumtell. If you have seen a scumtell, the RVS is over. Prolonging the RVS is a slight scumtell, since you are avoiding scumhunting when its readily available. But we have him abandoning a partially serious vote for another random vote later on.

Valid point. I can't argue against it, because I was scummy. Is it a major point? No.

This is just such a big fence sit its quite amazing. BB did something scummy, but he is a good player so its null, but its a scummy thing. What is this even? It just feels like calling someone scum and town at the same time, especially that last line.

No, I was saying, in a nutshell, that BigBear's scummy action did not fit his scum meta from my experience with playing with him. I don't see how this is fencesitting.

What does this trap accomplish though?

It draws out reactions, which can be analyzed to try and determine someone's alignment. For example, we could see who agrees with whom on the issue to build connections. A gambit is a discussion starter to aid in scumhunting.

So this means that you're wasting our time? You don't find DRK suspicious at all, you simply like to argue? Not to say that this is a bad thing, it was entertaining to say the least, and I'm sure we can dredge up some interactions in the instance of either your or DRK's demise, lynch or otherwise.

No, I had a valid point to prove. The argument

escalated

because I like to argue.

So many things happen at once, who can keep up? And the team has changed regarding my suspicions. As of this post, I believe the culprits are Don_Johnson, Furry, and Sanjay. I'm also suspicious of Cookie or BigBear; however,

I believe their role, whomever has it, to be one consistent of pro-towness.

Possible role fishing, anyone?

[ConfidAnon]

I could've sworn the argument was about who started the conversation, not who "brought it up." I brought it up to one person in a way descreet enough that he didn't even notice it.

Bringing up an idea opens discussion for that idea, which is what you did.

Now that your keyboard issues have been resolved, care to point out all my lovely fail?

Certainly, but later today . . . have to leave soon.

...
Summarize for me in a couple of sentences what our argument was/is about and then maybe it will make more sense. Also, when you're done with that, I want you to answer the same question.

I stated that you started the jester conversation. You denied it. We argued though several posts. My point was that your post directed towards IK (which you later stated was implying a jester) was what started the jester conversation. You said that nook started it.

Hunting for a jester distracts from scumhunting, so starting a conversation about a jester is antitown in nature.

The second part shows that CA realizes its WIFOM though, yet seems to be playing along all the same. Some WIFOM can benifit the town, as it draws out scum more then town, or impacts scum more severly. This though is just going to be a death blow to the town. CA knows this, but wont let it go. In fact its all that he has contributed to the game.

I won't let go of it? After I mentioned that it was WIFOM, I didn't post about it (unless I'm forgetful) unless specifically asked about it.

Also, mind clarifying on your reasoning behind your town reads? Hastily writing off people as town is scummy.

[ConfidAnon]

How did I open up discussion of jesters and did my post ever open up discussion of jeters?

-

repats self

-

You asked a question of IK that was meant to imply a jester. You brought up the topic, so you opened up discussion.

Yep. Sounds about right. The argument was never about whether or not bringing up a jester was scummy, so I never bothered to bring that up. My point in asking the question now was to show that even if one does believe your side of the argument (which I still say is completely wrong btw), does it actually make me scummy? Basically, it's to allow me to keep the argument focused on what I feel matters, which is your ridiculous and inconsistent attack out of nowhere.

Yes it does make you scummy, because of both your scummy action of bringing up the jester, and how hotly and aggressively you denied doing so.

[ConfidAnon]

Did my question to IK open up a discussion?

No. Does that take away the scumminess? No, because you still setup the possibility of the discussion being opened.

AtE is not scummy. Sorry. No one has ever explained why it is. I see CAs attempt, but it fails. Doubly to him using it as a conditional tell. The ignoring of BB putting him at a precieved L-2 getting not even a second thought is concerning as well.

I would argue that when someone gets votes and uses AtE as part of their defense it is scummy, specifically when the AtE outweighs the argument.

(insert argument about me changing my stance again)

In my mind, my stance has never changed. The way I worded the posts did change, and for that I apologize. I am not used to debates like what occured, and I messed up while arguing my position. However, my point is still valid. Your question was about a jester. You were the first to bring it up. You threw the idea out there, which is anti-town.

[ConfidAnon]

AtE is not scummy. Sorry. No one has ever explained why it is. I see CAs attempt, but it fails. Doubly to him using it as a conditional tell. The ignoring of BB putting him at a precieved L-2 getting not even a second thought is concerning as well.

I would argue that when someone gets votes and uses AtE as part of their defense it is scummy, specifically when the AtE outweighs the argument.

Again, what is scummy here is poor/failure to defend oneself, not AtE.

Well then sorry for using the wrong term. "poor/failure to defend oneself" was the point I was making, I just called it AtE because that was present in the post.

[ConfidAnon]

Its still not AtE... thats almost as big of a crap tell as "overdefensive". I am much more willing to lynch players pushing those on a case then the pushed, they are that bad of tells.

I'm not understanding the point that this post is making. It's not AtE, I called it the wrong name, so I'm scummy? You worded it kind of funny, sorry for the confusion.

[ConfidAnon]

You said "poor/failure to defend oneself." Using AtE as a main part of your defense would definitely fall under that category.

[ConfidAnon]

Well then sorry for using the wrong term. "poor/failure to defend oneself" was the point I was making, I just called it AtE because that was present in the post.

[ConfidAnon]

How does any of that apply to this situation?

Duh question of the game.

[ConfidAnon]

You brought up a jester . . . what we've been talking about for the past several pages.

[ConfidAnon]

Furry

- Sorry if I missed it earlier, but did you ever explain your town read on DRK?

[ConfidAnon]

Do you understand why I asked people to tell me why bringing up a jester is scummy?

To be honest, no. Mind explaining it to me, because I really don't see how this question connects to my post? (a little out of it today, lol)

Formation of wagons is quite a big one. Most of the people I have had anti-town reads on are attacking DKR. DRK has been on wagons of people that I have anti-town reads on. I know thinking the same things are not completely indicative of alignment, but I trust my reads enough.

Also I think the jester thing is a really bad thing to make a wagon on. Jester speculation is stupid, not scummy. Trying to make it scummy and actually basing an entire case off anything jester related, is far more scummy.

So wagons + other reads + case on DRK = town to me, and I am willing to vote most anyone but DRK to stop that lynch

Meh, obviously I disagree with your reasoning on the DRK town read.

And the reason I suspect him is more so because of the way he reacted when I pointed out the jester thing than the jester thing itself.

Case summary: The jester thing was a minor scummy point imo, but his reaction to my mentioning it solidified my suspicions.

[ConfidAnon]

The main reason I was voting for ConfidAnon was suspicious scumhunting:

A few times, ConfidAnon sort of threw around some wiki tells, like here and here and here. Unless pressed he doesn't actually explain why in the specific instance he thinks it is scummy. I think it could be scum trying to make other people look scummy without actually committing strongly to positions.

Also, a lot of his case against DRK is silly. DRK mentioned jesters before nook, but DRK did not start a jester discussion. DRK's answer was reasonable given that, and though this was most of the basis for CA's case, he has not abandoned it. This drew my attention because I feel like scum might be more inclined to hold on to bad cases, because they have less of a feel for what are good cases because they aren't making genuine cases.

I don't think making the initial case against DRK is scummy. I can definitely see why town would do it. But I can't for the life of me understand why it is a good case.

What first caught my attention was this, which I still don't like. Seems kind of like fence-sitting right now.

I'm not really positive I want the vote on him right now though. A lot of the reasons I think Confid is scum could be written off to personal style.

I'm kind of inclined to switch my vote to DJ if anyone, though I'll re-read him to see if that is justified.

Really, my only defense to the wiki tells is that I'm a relatively new player . . . I'm not that great at scumhunting and building cases yet.

[ConfidAnon]

Day 1's already been long enough without a deadline extension imo.

[ConfidAnon]

FoS: Zazie

I like the case that Raskol posted, but I dont' want to move my vote off of DRK just yet.

[ConfidAnon]

Out of the three remaining on the table, I think Zazie would be the best lynch at this point, because of the scumminess already pointed out. Is there a vc, btw? That would be really helpful, because I'd rather have DRK lynched than any of the three. However, if that's not gonna happen, I'll switch to Zazie.

[ConfidAnon]

Asking for only a 'yes or no' and only asking one player. Both do not result into discussion.

It was extremely obvious what DRK was hinting at with that question. And saying that it would not result in discussion is, no offense, bull.

Imagine if I posted something like this:

Zazie - Do you think that post 777 by Player X indicates that they are mafia? I'm only looking for a yes or no answer.

Obviously that would start a discussion.

Confid, you've stated that bringing up jester is scummy. Yet, you never commented at it towards Nook, while he brought it up in the group.
How come?

Gut. There was one post that rubbed me the wrong way, although I'm too lazy to go back and find it again (don't remember it off the top of my head.)

Exactly my point. As far as I know, your reason for voting DRK is based upon him starting the jester discussion according to you. Due to this (And his hypocrism if you believe this argument), he's your top suspect. And you want to drop this, because you're done arguing.
1. It's your case against your main suspect. And you want to drop it.
2. It was also the case that you stated that you wanted to drop it after somebody made a comment about that.

Me being done arguing doesn't mean I want to drop the case. Perhaps I wasn't clear in that post. At that point, I had repeated myself and was about too again. I see no point to repeat the same things over and over (which I inadvertently had done.)

Post 874: Geez there's some beef.

Also, forgot to ask Bear, you stated that you read the discussion between Confid and DRK. So how come you missed Confid's statements that DRK started the jester speculation, when this was the point of said discussion?
Also, you stated earlier you disagreed with Confid. So what happened?

I also want this question answered.

I read it. There's absolutely nothing in it that changes my desire to get you out of this game, or the fact that you were inactive long enough that by site standards you should be.

This quote is activating my gut. If you really feel that the site standards should be upheld, then why didn't you push them as soon as Zazie hit the required length of inactivity, instead of waiting until after your little arguement?

Sanjay, 885: Your analogy is flawed in the fact that the phone call between you and your friend was private, whereas the question from DRK to IK was made public in the thread.

Furry - I honestly have nothing left to add to the DRK case. His reaction/tone when called out on the jester point, in addition to the jester point itself, have earned him my vote.

[ConfidAnon]

Confid, that's not a flaw. Nobody understood what DRK was talking about. At the very least, nook didn't.

nook quite independently mentioned jesters, I reacted to it, and that started the jester discussion.

If you are really reading that nook post and think that nook started talking about jesters BECAUSE of DRK, then please explain number 3.

Confid, I don't really have a problem with your DRK vote. But you might want to check the rest of the people supporting that wagon, and see if their reasoning makes sense to you.

Ask, for instance, why if they have such a big problem with talking about jesters they aren't voting Furry/nook?

Ask if their votes look well-reasoned or opportunistic.

I understood what DRK was talking about . . . maybe I just assumed that everyone else did too.

Anyways, even though this will probably get me lynched,

Unvote.

I don't like how Furry mentioned (I think it was him) that the others are letting the wagon push into a deadline lynch.

Between Zazie and BigBear though, I'm waffling kind of. I know I said Zazie earlier, but I'm kind of rethinking things now because Sanjay's post made me view the jester discussion in a different light.

[ConfidAnon]

I don't like that it is happening, I like that Furry mentioned it, sorry for the confusing wording.

[ConfidAnon]

At first I thought it was scummy and should be lynchable. Now I'm thinking ZazieR is just a prick, and the absence is explainable by that. Betterr to replace that kind of player rather than waste a lynch on a slot you've got few reasons to think is scum.

Can you explain how getting ZazieR repalced would further a scum-Raskol's goals more than a town-Raskol's?

Replacements create confusion as people try to catch up, scum can capitalize on confusion.

@CA
What do you think of DJ?

Honestly, he hasn't been one of the players I've been paying a lot of attention to. From what I've seen, he just seems like he's trying to catch up, and I don't remember him seeming that scummy, although I would like to go back and read his posts to refresh my read. Regrettebly, I don't have time to do that today. I'll probably have to catch up on him during hte night phase.

I would like for CA to weigh in with a vote, though.

Honestly, its a tossup between Zazie and BB for me today, but since you asked, and we are EXTREMELY close to deadline . . .

Vote: BigBear

In what way were things made clearer to you, Knight of Cydonia?

I want this question answered as well.

DJ softclaim issue: Wtf, there is so much fail here. Your claim is EXTREMELY scummy. DRK, forget what I said above, my mind is being changed RAPIDLY. If you haven't full claimed by the time I'm done reading, you get my vote.

. . .

and you failed to full claim. Time to die.

Unvote, Vote don_johnson

[ConfidAnon]

this is bad. 3 out of four votes on my wagon are lurkers. one of them has been camping their vote for 30 pages with the initial accusation of "lurking" and very little follow-up. shrine is being replaced and CA is voting because i didn't full claim when asked even though i was only at L-4 and clearly explained why i didn't and since have.

they can't all be scum and there's no time left to switch wagons with any shred of hope for me to survive so i guess i'll just have to leave this game utterly shocked and appalled.

good luck guys.

I know you explained, it just sounds like B.S.

[ConfidAnon]

Scum DJ could be trying to out a hypothetical cop by getting them to cc your claim right before he gets lynched. And if no cc happens, you will move into night. Then you could use wifom saying you didn't die because scum were thinking you'd be saved by a protection role, and use your now influential position to clear your buddies and lead lynches.

Soft claiming leaves a lot of options open for scum to work with, like others have pointed out. To clarify, you can easily full claim after you get a read later on about hwat role sare likely to be in the setup.

What good did your full claim do? None, because I'm fairly certain your scum, and lies hurt town.