Mini 859 - Cleansing of Falls Church - Over

[DeathRowKitty]

vote:

/

confirm

[DeathRowKitty]

We just can't get a game away from each other, can we, DRK?

It's like you're stalking me or something....you're not stalking me, right?...Right?!

[DeathRowKitty]

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?

[DeathRowKitty]

1/Not OMGUS at all.
2. Speculating role set up already, regarding the SK. Why do you think there is an SK?
3. Why do you question Sanjay about catching all three scum? When a few lines above that, you condemn someone for voting Sanjay, based on the supposed "Fact" that he caught all three scum.

1. I would hope you wouldn't OMGUS on a real vote based on a random vote...
2. There's always that one player in the game who doesn't realize when someone is joking around. I figured that since the three scum spots are being occupied by Sanjay's three suspicions, it was more likely for Peabody to be SK.
3. Obviously I don't really think he caught "all three scum", nor do I expect that he caught three scum (or am I the one not getting the joke?)
4 (Yes, I added in a 4). Overreaction much?

[DeathRowKitty]

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?

Seconded. (and yes, I'm abbreviating a 6 letter name)

@BB
How serious were your 2 votes + FoS in post 46?

[DeathRowKitty]

I'm not liking FC right now.

And, can people like Sanjay. nook, and bear (among others) stop saying stupid things and actually try to do something?

This came in his 6th post, immediately following (51 seconds after) his first serious post, while we were still essentially in the RVS (arguably we're still in the RVS).

Now, just what was his first serious post about? It was basically a post about other people not being serious enough and/or saying stupid things. If he's really so adamant about people getting things done instead of messing around, there were things to comment about (BB's odd voting, my potential SK tell).

Then came FC's most recent post that concluded with the following:

I'm not sympathetifc to your cause. Why the early no lynch? Want an easy night of killing? unvote vote BigBear

This really looks to me like making a big deal out of nothing, even for the RVS. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain BB is either trying to be lynchbait to get us out of the RVS or is just playing around (hopefully I didn't just give him an excuse...). BB's actions thus far would be terrible scum play and I have a hard time believing that it is scum play. Considering that FC hadn't commented on BB's play (besides saying BB needed to stop saying stupid things), a vote out of the blue based on a no lynch vote seems like FC reaching to get a bandwagon started on BB, especially when there was legitimate evidence to bring up against BB.

Unvote, vote: Far_Cry

[DeathRowKitty]

Don't want any wagons this early, and with three votes, might just be heading that way.

You think a wagon is going to build up over the fact that shrine doesn't support a lynch all name butcherers policy? Being overly cautious+pointing it out=

FoS brothernature

.

[DeathRowKitty]

I'll give you an example:

Let's say I were to post in thread "Hey guys, I think [INSERT PLAYER HERE] has a PR."

That would be horribly scummy play and completely valid evidence to bring up. I should probably be policy lynched for doing that, but it would be ridiculous play as scum. Some people might think it makes me scum, but that alone wouldn't be a strong case due to the sheer stupidity of scum making such a statement.

Okay, that wasn't actually a good example...

I was saying that there are suspicious things BB has done. His overly serious post with 2 votes + and FoS and his self-vote post are pretty bad and are legitimate evidence. However, the combination of his self-vote with his vote for no lynch would be very poor scum play, especially coming from someone who knew to breadcrumb a fake role in his newbie game. The fact that FC didn't notice the valid evidence or didn't care about it and attacked the scummy, yet completely transparent action instead speaks volumes to me.

[DeathRowKitty]

I'm being cautious. What's wrong with that? I don't want anyone lynched during the RVS. Shrine has done nothing that condemns him, yet he already has three votes on him. Those votes are real even if the reasons for them aren't. A few more and he's lynched and we just might have a dead townie on our hands.

There's nothing wrong with being cautious. There's something wrong with being

overly

cautious (as the word "overly" might suggest) and pointing it out is a good way of trying to appear pro-town. Seriously though, do you expect 4 players to suddenly pile on shrine over nothing??? In fact, if that did happen, and shrine flipped town (which you seem to be assuming for some reason), it would be good for the town because we would have an obvious Day 2 lynch.

[DeathRowKitty]

Actually, my reasons for voting BigBear were more legitimate than yours for voting me.

Your reason was his no lynch vote. If my reasons were less legitimate than yours, I'd be voting BB, not you.

And you don't say anything about this, Death? That you have started a bandwagon on me, and turn around and say that bandwagons are bad? Completely contradictory.

[sarcasm]You're right. I should have commented on the post I didn't see until now. Also, I very clearly said bandwagoning was bad.[/sarcasm]

And do you have anything to say about this Death?

Another post I didn't see until just now. I'm not thrilled with the reasoning in that post, but given that I found you scummiest up to that point, I can't say it's a bad thing.

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 sounds like you're acknowledging your option is less likely (albeit implicitly). Defending a vote you know is based on bad reasoning is scummy (scum want to appear to believe in their votes).

I am not Scum, let alone aligned with [BigBear].

Scum slip-up?

I'm not too keen on EC's L-2 vote, but I think FC is scummiest at the moment.

[DeathRowKitty]

Is it really useful to put someone at L-2 right out of the random voting stage? L-2 means business. If you want someone to claim, you put him/her at L-2. You're voting shrine largely for bad vibes. Is that worth an L-2 early in the game? What do you hope to accomplish by putting him at L-2, especially with nothing for him to respond to?

[DeathRowKitty]

Is it really useful to use sarcasm right out of the random voting stage? What do you hope to accomplish by using sarcasm?

That's a completely different situation. Unreasonable comments like FC's are sometimes best dealt with using sarcasm. It doesn't have a tangible influence on the game and it accomplishes something (responding to FC). Putting someone at L-2 right out of the RVS for a joke comment and "bad vibes" however is suspicious and if you're not looking for a response or a lynch, it's pointless.

[DeathRowKitty]

Looker's theory found connections between players. Finding connections is a genuine scumhunting tactic. I supported this.

How good of a lead do you think the connection was, as compared to other leads so far this game?

@EC
Congratulations on winning the "Most Useless Player I've Ever Seen" award. If you don't feel like playing properly, ask to be replaced.

[DeathRowKitty]

@SJ

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

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.

How did you go from "supporting a theory that is rubbish" to "casting suspicion on a lot of people"?

[DeathRowKitty]

@EC
What do you think about Peabody's play so far?

[DeathRowKitty]

Slow day.

Mod, can we get a prod on Idiotking? He hasn't posted since October 1.

Oh and...

Did you (EC) just claim???

I'm not seing it, unless you mean that he claimed he was a townie.

*twiddles thumbs and waits for FC or EC to show up*

[DeathRowKitty]

@EC
Yes. I figured you might try to be useful and respond to PB's post.

[DeathRowKitty]

Well, Far_Cry last posted back in page five, and he's been posting elsewhere since then

I don't like that AT ALL. It seems to me like FC is too happy with what's going on in the game (EC being useless and attracting lots of votes) and doesn't want to jeopardize it by posting when he's the second highest wagon.

@BN
Great to know you're "observing."

@SJ
Sorry for talking to your lurker

[DeathRowKitty]

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.

[DeathRowKitty]

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?

[DeathRowKitty]

Skim Day 2 of this game if you get a chance (the link is to the start of Day 2). Near the start of the day, the cop (CoCo) announced that he had a "not town" result on someone (but didn't say who) and that was enough to prevent most people from wanting to scumhunt (we ended up lynching scum anyway and not even the one CoCo caught). Having an obvious lynch lined up almost completely ruins that day discussion-wise, which is particularly bad Day 1 and even more so if we don't lynch a killing role in the process.

[DeathRowKitty]

if there really is a jester, which I doubt, i think they should be either vig'd or night killed.

That assumes we have a vig, since no mafia team in its right mind would NK a jester. If EC is a jester and claims it LATE IN DAY 1 WHEN IT WON'T HURT THE TOWN, I would prefer if we lynched him. If we don't have a vig, it would mean wasting a non-mafia lynch and probably losing a lot of Day 2 discussion.

Bringing up the idea of a jester, is actually scummy, I forget who brought it up, but it's scummy.

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

[DeathRowKitty]

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.

[DeathRowKitty]

Just checking in to tell you I'm (not) lurking. (Okay, I'm semi-lurking.) For the moment, I'm sticking EC's actions in the back of my mind to come back to later. Right now, I'm more interested in ZazieR's take on the game or nook's response to why he brought up the possibility of jester (which is anti-town at the least).

[DeathRowKitty]

Yes, that's all I have to say about that post.

@EC
If you don't want to be lynched, try scumhunting. Who do you find most suspicious and why? Are you still suspicious of shrine?

[DeathRowKitty]

Ok, I've got one question already for everybody:
Which posts made by you were NOT seriously intended?

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?

The part not crossed out is mostly serious.

Surprisingly I think that was my only non-serious post (except the pre-game posts to IK). I could've sworn I had more...

@ZazieR
Since I'm too lazy to type 6 letters (especially with the first and last letter capital, is it okay if I abbreviate your name to either Zaz or ZR or anything else you might prefer?

[DeathRowKitty]

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.

[DeathRowKitty]

@BigBear
A link to FC's posts

Here was FC's last post in his newbie game, made about a minute before he replaced out of this game. If you look at the previous few posts, they were just waiting for d3x to show up before they hammered him and ended the game.

I just realized he signed up for the newbie game September 23, which makes this not quite so bad. I don't feel like deleting what I already typed, so I put a strikethrough through it instead.

[DeathRowKitty]

2 straight pages of posts?!

Post 50 – Why would you hope so, DRK?

That was basically in place of saying "ok" or something similar. I would hope he wouldn't OMGUS against a random vote for one of his real votes because...well...that would just be really stupid.

Why did you point out the bolded?

It was almost as if FC was trying to get in a low blow on half the game. We were more or less in the RVS, FC made one serious post, and immediately accuses 3 players by name (and others namelessly in parentheses) of not doing anything. What exactly was he expecting out of the RVS?

Can you rephrase the quoted part of FC?
Also, why didn’t you question Shrine further on his ‘scum-slip’?

1. Do you mean what I said about what I quoted from FC? If so, I didn't like how he said "might be" in his first sentence and then "possible" in his next two sentences. Basically, to me it just screams "Maybe not, but it could be if you squint your eyes hard enough!"
2. There really wasn't anything to question him about.
Possible Conversation:
-Hey shrine, how do you know you're not aligned with BB?
-I don't.
-Why did you say that then?
-[INSERT REASON/EXCUSE HERE]

The reason/excuse would probably either be "I think BB is scum" or "typo on my part" or something to that effect and wouldn't tell us much.

I personally think it's better not to stagger your arguments against someone and to present them in bulk later. Small things like this tend not to be effective alone, but if shrine acts scummy later, it could be important evidence as part of a larger case.

Why did you ask about Peabody?

I was playing around with the idea of EC being jester and wanted to see how EC would respond when asked about a player who hadn't done much suspicous and really didn't stand out.

unvote

[DeathRowKitty]

brothernature, if that's all you can come up with, I don't think your sitting and observing is really justified. Unless you explain to me how posting random shit and distracting the town is a scum-tell, you are basically telling me that after all the observing you have observed basically nothing.

When are you planning on posting your thoughts on the game, exactly? Is it a matter of piling votes on you? Because I'm sure there are a bunch of players that would be happy to oblige.

Bandwagon? I'm in!

Vote: brothernature

.

In case I wasn't clear enough, yes, that vote is serious.

Brief PBPA of BN

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 23#1891323 - Confirmation post
1 - Well meet your roommate's ex-wife's scumbuddy!
2 - Random votes Shrine
3 - Overly cautious in the RVS; I explained it here
4 - Defends his cautiousness
5 - Says he's lurking
6 - Says he's "sitting back and observing" (observing what?, as SJ pointed out)
7 - Says sj might stand for Sanjay and agrees with me that it would be useful to hear Zaz's thoughts
8 - Says he was messing around in most of his posts and casts a self-declared pressure vote on a lurker (ironic, isn't it, BN pressure voting a lurker). I'd group this post with his overly cautious RVS post as possibly trying too hard to look good, both by lurker hunting after a few others of us did so and announcing his vote was a pressure vote, which takes a lot of the pressure off, as if it's more important that we know he doesn't necessarily think nook is scum that that his vote fulfills its purpose. However, I don't think this was anywhere near as bad as being overly cautious in the RVS.
9 - He reiterates the fact that he's lurking in response to Zaz's points. He says he doesn't like EC for "posting random shit and distracting the town", as opposed to BN's own random shit, which is "more so on topic." I really don't see how BN's posts are more on topic, since all he's done is random vote, unrandom vote, and announce he was pressure voting a lurker (and admit to lurking).

@BN
Who are your top three choices for scum right now?

[DeathRowKitty]

Mod, can we get a prod on nook?

We're on a new page? Zaz must have been posting again!

Post 325 shows that we're dealing with town-Looker and not scum-Looker.

How does it show that (meta-based reasons?)?


Just a thought, but if EC gets lynched and flips town, I could see Looker as trying to gain townie points as scum by saying he thinks EC is a townie with an interesting playstyle.

[DeathRowKitty]

Before anyone calls me out on it, yes, this is very convenient timing.

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

WRONG. Nook's post is the one that sparked the jester discussion. I highly doubt that nook picked up on the fact that I was suggesting jester based on what I said in that post and if he did, he shouldn't have said anything anyway. Personally, I wasn't planning on bringning up the possibility at all. Also, where did I admit I was trying to spark a discussion on jesters??? Given that that wasn't the intention of my post, it would be very odd for me to say that later on.

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?

Also WRONG. It was in response to BB saying he didn't remember who brought up the possibility of a jester. If you'd quoted one more line of my post, you would see that. Also, how exactly did I spark that conversation again?

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.

One last time, WRONG. I didn't start the discussion and I ended it because everything that needed to be said had been said and the discussion was diong more harm than good. There was still discussion going on and if I were scum, it would be in my best interest to continue the discussion.

[DeathRowKitty]

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

1. The jester discussion started here
2. You're mistaking annoyance for defensiveness.
3. Did you actually read the game before you made that lovely case against me?

[DeathRowKitty]

Your question implied a jester, therefore you started the discussion.

Just for good measure, WRONG. Had nook not said anything, no conversation about a jester would have occurred. Therefore, I didn't start the jester discussion. My intention was to try to get a vote off EC to get him further from lynch so we wouldn't lose too much discussion lynching him if he was a jester. I figured IK would be the only one with a decent chance of picking up on the hint and I was right in thinking that no one else would (of course I was wrong in thinking IK would pick up on it).

[DeathRowKitty]

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

[DeathRowKitty]

The past few posts by CA were just awful and his vote based on something that was blatantly incorrect really annoyed me. You know how (IRL) when Person A suddenly gets really mad at Person B and Person B doesn't see why and Person A starts stammering trying to angrily explain the obvious to Person B? That was kind of my state of mind when replying to CA.

I do think his last post is very scummy, almost as if he's pushing the issue just so he doesn't look bad by being wrong. Given the situation, "your question implied a jester, therefore you started the discussion" is a ridiculous statement. I'm actually considering moving my vote over to CA, but definitely not until BN checks in and makes a decent post.

Confid is dodging one of my questions? That's news to me.

Oh, my bad. Zaz mentioned that CA was dodging a question and in my annoyance with CA I never went back to check if he actually was.

[DeathRowKitty]

I didn't think much of it at the time, since all he really did was say the theory wasn't bad, not that he believed it (and he even mentioned it would require BB to be playing a very weak scum game). Given CA's recent posts though, I think this gains a lot more merit.

That's scummier than the original point, which is still valid.

I'm not seeing how the original point is valid at all...

[DeathRowKitty]

Well, here's the post you originally took issue with:

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.

He acknowledged it wasn't "that bad of a theory," but then went on to say that he didn't think BB-scum would act like that and there was no vote or FoS accompanying this post. Basically, I didn't think it was as big of a deal as you made out of it.

Fast forward 11 pages. CA makes an argument against me based on incorrect evidence and places a vote, which would make sense in the context of the post I linked to.

We'll agree to disagree.

"We" implies both of us. Only one of us agrees to disagree (I disagree to the agreement that we agree to disagree). Do you think a discussion about jesters would have started because of my post had nook not mentioned jesters?

[DeathRowKitty]

I smell OMGUS in your last post, DRK.

It's not OMGUS if I have a legitimate reason.

Okay wait. You lynch EC, he flips town, so then you lynch me? That sounds like a personal gameplan to me, Kitty...

Yes it does look like that. I seem to say something like that once per game...

I view the possible connection much like I view the possible Shrine scum-slip. It's nothing to make a case on and unless you act scummy it's fairly meaningless. It's more a note I'm making now to come back to if you look scummy later on.

@CA
You missed this:

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

[DeathRowKitty]

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.

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?

[DeathRowKitty]

Link me to a post where I said I intended to start a conversation about jesters. I implied a jester, but not with the intention of starting a conversation and I don't see why you keep insisting I was trying to start a conversation.

[DeathRowKitty]

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

You did start the jester discussion.

You started the Jester conversation.

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.

Your question implied a jester, therefore you started the discussion.

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

I believe you intended to start a conversation about jesters because you said so yourself.

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

I'm not getting it. Did I start the conversation about jesters or did I intend to start the conversation about jesters?

[DeathRowKitty]

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.

[DeathRowKitty]

So...who won the jester argument?

I guess we'll find out when CA posts and points me to a post I made that doesn't exist.

Sorry, but DRK's sig is a serious turn-off. It hurt my eyes...

Then lynch me for it.

Mod, can we get a prod on nook?

Could we get a nook prod, please?

Stop stealing the lurker I stole from BN!

Speaking of brothernature, I think we have our first lurker-scum.

[DeathRowKitty]

EBWOP: I'm not sure prodding nook is going to help actually. He seems to have fallen off the face of the planet since his last post here.

[DeathRowKitty]

EBWOP EBWOP: Even brothernature's alt has posted since BN's last post here.

[DeathRowKitty]

@IK
What do you think of the argument between me and CA?

[DeathRowKitty]

I think that the argument is over a small detail that's pretty trivial in the first place.

My point isn't the small detail we're fighting over; it's that he's clinging to an argument that's provably wrong and he's changed his position back and forth as I've shot down his argument. I'm just waiting on CA's response and then I'll make a more detailed post.

Speaking of making arguments that are blatantly wrong, I might have "accidentally" miscounted the votes on hiphop in Internal Struggle Mafia to make IK look bad . I'm kind of surprised no one noticed actually...

[DeathRowKitty]

I'm done talking about this

Weird. You only seem to say that when you're out of valid responses.

---

The entire argument I've been having with CA has been over, as shrine called it, "a small detail." However, it's a big deal in the context of what happened before it.

CA's "case" on me started in this post. I think I've already said enough about the inaccuracy of the content of this post, so I won't go into detail on that in this post. Just notice that the entire case is based on the premise that I started the jester conversation. Without that premise, the entire case falls apart. That's where this argument comes in.

A few posts later, upon realizing that nook was the first one to specifically mention a jester, we get this quote buried in one of CA's posts:

You asked the question with the clear purpose of starting a discussion about a Jester.

, 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.

Not long later, I post this statement:

I'm not seeing how the original point is valid at all...

to which he responds:

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.

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.

Next, we get this quote from CA:

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

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."

I quote this post in its entirety because it's just so full of crap I don't want to miss anything:

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.

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?

Questioned once again, CA gives us another gem:

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

[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?

Here's CA's next post:

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

Now suddenly, I started the conversation about jesters. Of course, realizing he's cornered, he tries to make the argument sound trivial.

Now, in his most recent post, we get this:

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.

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).

tl; dr
CA is scum. He's been changing his position to accomodate his points being shot down to defend a theory based on incorrect evidence.

Unvote, vote: ConfidAnon

[DeathRowKitty]

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.

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?

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.

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

By posting about a subject, you are attempting to start a conversation about that subject.

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

I have never said that you said you inteneded to start a conversation about a jester.

Oh really?

I believe you intended to start a conversation about jesters because you said so yourself.

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.

It's still possible, but I'll concede this point.

[DeathRowKitty]

Also, how does

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.

fit with your statement that I started the conversation? You were making a clear distinction between starting and intending to start a conversation that you're now claiming doesn't exist.

[DeathRowKitty]

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.

Your inability to read your own posts is alarming. Your tendency to change your stance when your current stance looks bad is also alarming.

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

So let's see if I have this right: You thought it was a trivial detail, yet you kept your vote on me for it because you thought I was scummy, and you had no intention of convincing anyone else by continuing your case?

It takes 7 to lynch. 7

Yes. Yes it does.

[DeathRowKitty]

BN is now lurker-scum who needs a prod.

[DeathRowKitty]

Three more posts in our lurker scum's other game today. I think he's too happy with the current state of affairs.

Unvote, vote: brothernature

.

@CA
Don't think my vote will stay off of you forever.

[DeathRowKitty]

No one has anything to say about me, CA, or our resident lurker-scum?

[DeathRowKitty]

Unofficial Vote Count

brothernature (4) - ZazieR Shrinehme DeathRowKitty Peabody
ConfidAnon (1) - Sanjay
DeathRowKitty (1) - ConfidAnon
EtherealCookie (3) - BigBear nook Idiotking
nook (1) - brothernature
Shrinehme (1) - EtherealCookie

Not Voting: BigBear Looker

Unfortunately BN's play here remotely matches that Newbie game half of us were in.

What was his alignment in that game?

[DeathRowKitty]

Looking for replacements for Idiotking and brothernature

Unvote, vote: ConfidAnon

Mod, if you can answer this, did BN ask to be replaced or are you replacing him for his lack of posting?

[DeathRowKitty]

He was town. And him asking to be replaced out would fit his small town meta.

The only other game I played with BN (he was town tracker), he replaced out after 2 posts (one of which was an edit of the other).

Nook seems to have completely and mysteriously disappeared from the site...

I'll probably mostly stop posting until replacements come in or CA posts because I really don't have much to say at this point.

[DeathRowKitty]

I believe Confid's and DRK's argument was contrived.

By "contrived," are you saying you think I'm bussing CA? If so, what made you choose to vote CA over me?

[DeathRowKitty]

Ethics: You don't reveal an alt

He already revealed it in-game anyway. If you don't want an alt revealed, either don't tell anyone or don't get an alt.

brothernature asked to be replaced in response to the prod sent him.

Well, it's not as bad as if he was replaced without request, but I still don't like that he didn't even post in-thread to tel us. It's as if he didn't want to come to the thread and make it look like he's not acknowledging what was said about him.

Both are very stubborn to see that it's a town VS town discussion.

Why do you think CA is town?

[DeathRowKitty]

Both are very stubborn to see that it's a town VS town discussion.

Why do you think CA is town?

Due to the attack against you. It was a bad one, but I don't see scum do it.

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.

[DeathRowKitty]

Mod: Can you prod ConfidAnon?

[DeathRowKitty]

Effective immediately don_johnson replaces brothernature.

Hi don! DJ=awesome replacement (not sarcasm) and not only because he handed the game over to scum in Internal Struggle Mafia (sarcasm).

[DeathRowKitty]

DRK 93 and 94 are just terrible. no reason to defend bigbear, but it happens and its the "too scummy to be scum" fallacy.

a quick bandwagon does not leave an obvious target for a day 2 lynch. narrows choices down, but nothing would necessarily be obvious there.

Interesting how you stuck 94 in there with no explanation

As for post 93, I iso'd BB in his other game (he was scum) before making that post and he played considerably better than he was in this game. Of course that doesn't mean he isn't scum, but to me, that pretty clearly means his actions weren't because he was scum playing badly. It's more of a "too scummy to be a reliable scum tell for a decent player" kind of thing.

The reason I think the Day 2 lynch would have been obvious isn't just the fact that there would have had to be a quick bandwagon; it was the fact that there would have had to be a quick bandwagon

based on random reasons

.

I seem to recall a few instances of players defending other players early in the game (shrine comes to mind but I'm too lazy to dig up posts right now). Any particular reason you singled out my post?

[DeathRowKitty]

Also, CA has disappeared (from the site, not just this game).

Mod, if you haven't already, please prod CA

.

[DeathRowKitty]

Sorry, I somehow thought that quote referred to post 93 too

[DeathRowKitty]

As for post 93, I iso'd BB in his other game (he was scum) before making that post and he played considerably better than he was in this game. Of course that doesn't mean he isn't scum, but to me, that pretty clearly means his actions weren't because he was scum playing badly. It's more of a "too scummy to be a reliable scum tell for a decent player" kind of thing.

Which is what you're being accused off.

To me, there's a difference. BB's behavior by no means cleared him in my mind (slightly scummy read at the time for another post of his I found suspicious), though I do have a town read on BB right now. Basically, I knew he was capable of playing much better as scum than he was (in his only game on the site, nonetheless). There's no reason for me to believe his behavior was serious, especially since it was in the RVS. If he'd continued to play like that, I would have found it scummy, but...I don't know...it just seemed obvious to me that that wasn't serious BB scum play.

[DeathRowKitty]

You're exactly describing said fallacy. You saw something scummy, but thought that it was so scummy, it couldn't have come from that player as scum.
That's the 'too scummy to be scum'-fallacy

I guess I was working under a slightly different definition of "too scummy to be scum." TBH, I'm not a huge fan of age-old mafia theory. I know that I personally exploit a lot of classic theory as scum and I don't doubt others do too, especially with how well known it is. I would explain further, but I'd prefer not to give away secrets to my meta

Because my current conclusion is that the Mafia are: Don_Johnson, Sanjay, & [Cookie - OR - BigBear]

Why Sanjay? I've had a town read on him most (all?) of the game.

[DeathRowKitty]

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


Also, something I just read elsewhere might make me change my read on BB within the next 4 or 5 days. I'll re-read him at some point in the near future.

[DeathRowKitty]

i doubt mafia will kill off their own if they dont have to.

I think you're basing your suspicions a little too much on votes. In my last game as scum (DJ replaced into the game near the end of Day 1), I spent about half of Day 1 with my vote on one of my buddies (and would have looked to lynch him if his claim hadn't sounded believable). Sometimes, the only motivation needed for bussing is a scummy-looking partner.

---

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

[DeathRowKitty]

DRK 131 is a bit non-sequitur. it seems as though shrine is who he finds scummier, but continues attack on farcry for defense of a "bad" vote? i am not following. feels like he should be jumping to shrine here but is choosing not to.

How does that post make it seem like I'm more suspicious of shrine? My comment on shrine was more something I noticed that I threw in as a possibility.

DRK now defends shrine. very odd. reads to me like: "lynch shrine, then lynch DRK regardless of the flip."

DRK echoes reasoning of "L-2 out of random stage is bad." fail logic. scum is scum. time is relative.

I'm not seeing how I defended shrine. Also, my point was "L-2 out of random stage

for little or no reason

is bad."

i don't like 149. there is no "proper" way to play mafia.

Unless you agree with what EC was doing (which you already said you don't), I'm not seeing your perspective on this at all. Whether or not there's a "proper" way to play mafia, EC was (seemingly intentionally) being counter-productive.

[DeathRowKitty]

@DJ
So you're saying I shouldn't defend myself from accusations against myself just because they're old accusations? No thanks. If you attack me, I'm going to defend myself.

[DeathRowKitty]

More or less the same as the case on BN. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of his recent votes (no, this isn't just OMGUS), but it's more of a vibe than anything else.

[DeathRowKitty]

EBWOP: recent posts

[DeathRowKitty]

drk: it is omgus. there is nothing wrong with my recent votes.

Recent

posts

. As I said, it's more of a vibe than anything and has little to do with content. Something's just...different from when you replaced into Internal Struggle Mafia as town.

[DeathRowKitty]

So....I was right when I said something was different. I don't know what was different, but if you do really make a "concerted effort to avoid consitency," I don't really see how it matters what was actually different.

And no, I didn't rewrite the above post at all. You're seeing the original text.

[DeathRowKitty]

@BB and KoC
Before I type up a possibly unnecessary response, have you actually read the argument between me and CA or did you just skim it? (If you just skimmed it, read through it.)

[DeathRowKitty]

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).

then, when nook mentioned a Jester by name, DRK said:

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).

So DRK here admits he was trying to stir up Jester speculation.
bada-bing.

Theory time!

What exactly is it that makes mentioning a jester scummy? Is it the act of using the word? Is it the act of starting a conversation?
Mentioning a jester is scummy for a few possible reasons. If the "jester" is actually scum, the player could have been trying to distract from a lynch. If the "jester" is actually town, the player could have been trying to get the person lynched. Arguably those views are contradictory, but since reluctance to lynch a jester (which is surprisingly common) goes against theoretically ideal play, it's possible for a player to steer it in either direction.

Now let's examine what I was doing. I brought it up semi-privately to IK hoping he would catch the hint and not let the wagon monopolize game play. Notice I said I only wanted a yes/no answer. That was because I just wanted him to consider the possibility so he might unvote and we could check other leads without the EC wagon running away if he was jester. I guess if EC is scum, this could lead into what I typed above, but you'd have to assume EC is scum.

Nook's reference to jesters involved him direcly bringing up the possibility in thread. After nook's post, the thought was in everyone's mind. (When I brought it up, no one (not even IK like I intended) gave it a second thought.) That's what makes a jester reference bad. However, I'm not considering it a scum tell yet and it's because he said it in a way that opposed the lynch. This makes it largely dependent on EC's flip. If EC flips scum, then I think this is a very valid point against nook. If EC is anything else, I don't see a scum motivation.

[DeathRowKitty]

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

[DeathRowKitty]

Sorry for disappearing . . . will et caught up PRONTO

Just when I thought bad logic was dead...

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.

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.

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.

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

@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.

...
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.

EBWOM: Edit By Way Of Madness
Sanjay, Furry, & Cydonia - My apologies, I hadn't noticed Cydonia's vote for DRK.

Clearly I'm obvtown, but...umm...why does KoC's vote for me put him on your scumlist?

I can't see how this is fishing.

Neither do I. Then again, I have absolutely no clue what it meant.

Also if someone can put up a reason why DJ is getting votes

It had a lot to do with BN (his replacee's behavior). Zazie made a decent list of points against BN that I'm too lazy to find/link to right now.

---

First thoughts on Furry: his quick vote for CA earns him some town points for me, but I'm getting some funky vibes right now. It almost looks like he's trying to buddy me a little right off the bat. Obviously, that's not necessarily a scum-tell, but it seems a bit fishy that (I think) he called CA out on a couple of things I've done too while potentially buddying.

[DeathRowKitty]

162 a="dj"ntsy town or scummy fluff.

don't remember drk using the *asterisk* bit in our last game.

Just wondering, why did you find the italicized worthy of note?

Also, same question I asked KoC and CA: what is it that makes bringing up a jester scummy?

[DeathRowKitty]

Ouch. Quote fail. EBWOP:

162: Antsy town or scummy fluff.

don't remember drk using the *asterisk* bit in our last game.

Just wondering, why did you find the italicized worthy of note?

Also, same question I asked KoC and CA: what is it that makes bringing up a jester scummy?

---

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

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

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.

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.

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

There are two things I'd like to point out from this, but I want everyone I've asked this question to to answer first.

[DeathRowKitty]

-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.

-"repats" self-

Did my question to IK open up a discussion?

@dj
You told me I shouldn't argue points you made against me because you're still reading. What do you think I should do instead if I disagree with something you say?

[DeathRowKitty]

drk: the italicized bit was noting a possible change in your playstyle.

People were generally more active in our previous game, so I would have no reason to have posted something like that. Either way though, it would be a change in my posting style, not a change in my playstyle in my mind.

the asterisk bit can often seem smug or arrogant. there are some players who utilize it more than others, but compared to your playstyle in the previous game i felt it may have been exhibiting overconfidence. i.e. you read as obvscum to me, but have most of the thread fooled at that point in the game.

I used the asterisks more to explain why I wasn't posting as much content than anything else. I'm also not sure where you're going with this. I had most of the town fooled in the last game IIRC. Clearly, I didn't have ryan or IK fooled and I received some hostility from hiphop towards the end of Day 1 when I unvoted Jason, but I don't even remember making anyone else's scumlist during Day 1. Why would I be more confident in this game?

The thing is, DRK isn't "just" discussing Jester speculation with CA, he's trying to make CA appear scummy by refusing to admit that he did bring up Jesters first, implied or no, and suggesting that CA is trying to make him the scapegoat for this.

Seriously people, READ THE ACTUAL ARGUMENT because I am really tired of having to explain it over and over again. Here's what the argument is about (presented with as little bias as an angry cat can possibly present with):

CA created a case on me based on the premise that I started the jester discussion. I

(correctly)

argued against the fact that I started the discussion. CA at multiple later points said that I

intended

to start the jester discussion, a point he defended by saying that his saying that I intended to start the jetser discussion was

giving up the foundation of his case

not in conflict with his previous stance that I started the conversation. I personally think my recap in post 459 is better (Looker reproduced it in her most recent post) , but it's full of

THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH

bias.

What I denied earlier, and have been correctly denying for pages now, is that I started the discussion because I very clearly didn't. I mean, seriously, does "Implying a jester is starting a conversation by placing the thought into the thread." make any sense to you, considering what's happened? ZOMG, I was the first to imply a jester and only to a single person. I didn't mean for anything to come of it (hence the yes/no answer thing) and NOTHING DID COME OF IT. Honestly now, do you really believe I started the jester discussion and would the discussion have started BASED SOLELY ON MY IMPLICATION had nook not brought the topic up? If not, I don't see how you're siding with CA here.

---

And now, the verdict: Why is bringing up a jester scummy?

Bringing up a Jester = steering the town away from looking for scum, onto finding a hypothetical Jester that may not exist.
Bringing up a Jester = creating unnecessary speculation. This is the internet, we all mistrust each other enough as it is. Jester speculation begins all kinds of "should we really lynch him, he might WANT to be lynched" WIFOM.

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

Let's start with CA's reasoning. I'm scummy for

implying

starting a conversation about a jester because hunting for a jester distracts from scumhunting, which is anti-town. First big problem: anti-town=/=scummy. At worst, by CA's reasoning, I'd be anti-town. That's of course even if his reasoning is correct (which is debatable). Was I, through my implication of a jester, trying to distract the town from scumhunting? Well, let's see: I 1)addressed it to one person. 2) implied a jester to prevent a quicklynch of a possible jester to allow for more scumhunting. How exactly did I distract from scumhunting again?

Now let's move on to KoC's opinion. He presented two options for why a jester is scummy.
1. Clearly, I wasn't trying to get the town to jester-hunt, so that reason doesn't apply to this situation.
2. I later suggested that if EC is a jester, we should lynch him, so that doesn't apply to me. Also, that whole thing about not trusting each other on the Internet....what was that supposed to show? How overly dramatic you can be to make my bringing up a jester seem scummy?

@KoC
What do you think of post 459?

[DeathRowKitty]

Bringing up a Jester = steering the town away from looking for scum, onto finding a hypothetical Jester that may not exist.
Bringing up a Jester = creating unnecessary speculation. This is the internet, we all mistrust each other enough as it is. Jester speculation begins all kinds of "should we really lynch him, he might WANT to be lynched" WIFOM.

QFT

How does any of that apply to this situation?

@KoC
Same question

i'm not going anywhere with this. you brought it up. i never said you were more confident in this game. i never compared your confidence level to last game. i simply pointed out that the post read to me like overconfident scum. maybe i'm not choosing the right describer word, but that's how i see it. there is not much to argue here. i told you your best option(building a case on who you think is scum), but for some reason you want to continue talking to me. that's not going to get youy anywhere. i think you're scum.

I don't get any of what I just quoted. I didn't bring up that I used asterisks.

You

brought it up as quite possibly the second stupidest scum tell I've ever seen (see end of post for stupidest scum tell I've ever seen). It doesn't matter that you never made a direct comparison with our previous game-the comparison was implied by your saying that

Bringing up a Jester = steering the town away from looking for scum, onto finding a hypothetical Jester that may not exist.
Bringing up a Jester = creating unnecessary speculation. This is the internet, we all mistrust each other enough as it is. Jester speculation begins all kinds of "should we really lynch him, he might WANT to be lynched" WIFOM.

QFT

How does any of that apply to this situation?

@KoC
Same question

i'm not going anywhere with this. you brought it up. i never said you were more confident in this game. i never compared your confidence level to last game. i simply pointed out that the post read to me like overconfident scum. maybe i'm not choosing the right describer word, but that's how i see it. there is not much to argue here. i told you your best option(building a case on who you think is scum), but for some reason you want to continue talking to me. that's not going to get youy anywhere. i think you're scum.

I don't get any of what I just quoted. I didn't bring up that I used asterisks.

You

brought it up as quite possibly the second stupidest scum tell I've ever seen (see end of post for stupidest scum tell I've ever seen). It doesn't matter that you never made a direct comparison to our previous game - a comparison was implied by your saying that I didn't use asterisks last game. You're saying I'd use asterisks in this game as overconfident scum and not our previous game, which implies that, since you consider this an alignment tell and not a post-style tell, that I would be more likely to be overconfident as scum in this game than our last one, which also doesn't make sense. I've already made a case on my top suspect (CA) and considering you haven't read half the game, I don't even know why you'd assume I didnt make a case unless you were just looking for anything, scum tell or not, to make me look scummy. Talking to you isn't going to get me anywhere? Why not? Are you so infalliable that you refuse to believe you could be wrong (which you are)? I'm not sure you're understanding the game of mafia. You make baseless accusations against me and I don't just let it slide. If you refuse to let me argue what you're saying, it just gives me more reason to assume you're not seriously scumhunting.

I would give you an FoS, but I use my FoSes differently than most people, so...

IWBVFYIIHTV: DJ

(I would be voting for you if I had two votes)

He calls Eek a girl, which goes against Eek's shown gender. The expression is "no girls on the internet" for a reason. Why would he assume Eek's female when Eek's gender shows male? The other way around is an honest mistake, and might actually be a decent towntell, but that suggests he might know something he wouldn't if he and Eek were both town.

[DeathRowKitty]

1. That question wasn't directed at you.
2. Now it is. Let's hear that obvious answer you seem to have.

[DeathRowKitty]

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

[DeathRowKitty]

@CA
Respond to post 731

[DeathRowKitty]

Under a week until deadline and I currently have the most votes despite lack of any sort of decent case whatsoever. I don't get it.

Let's see who's on my wagon so I can understand this better:

1. CA is on my wagon because I somehow started the jester discussion.
2. KoC is on my wagon because impying a jester is scummy (waiting on his response as to why it's scummy in my situation).
3. BB is on my wagon because...he read the argument between me and CA and yet didn't know I implied a jester (@ BB: If I haven't already directed the question at you, why would implying a jester be scummy in my situation, considering what I've pointed out).
4. DJ is on my wagon for everything I ever posted in my entire life and anything I have yet to post, but may or may not post in this or any future game.

Nope, still don't get it.

@Anyone and everyone
Am I just crazy or is something wrong here?

---

On a lighter note, lol @ Looker's post. I have an odd feeling that's not what SJ was looking for though...

[DeathRowKitty]

I still think CA is scummier. DJ is definitely second scummiest in my mind, but I don't plan on moving my vote unless I know the CA lynch isn't going to happen. If deadline comes closer and it has to be either DJ or [insert any name besides CA], I wouldn't hesitate to vote for him.

Can you explain why you think CA is town?

[DeathRowKitty]

Q: Why would you think CA is town?
A: Because I don't see why you think he's scum. But, on top of that, I fail to see the reverance of the Jester Wars.

For me, it's not about jesters. It's about what I see as an attempt by CA to push undeserved suspicion on me. The jester argument from (from my perspective at least) is to show that CA doesn't actually have a real argument and wants suspicion on me for no real reason.

@Raskol
Well, that's the gist of my case on CA. Post 459 contains my original case on CA (note: that post is not all-inclusive; it only covers the jester argument). There's also the issue of unvoting a semi-random vote (coincidentally enough it was on me) and switching to a random vote. I remember more of CA's recent stuff (things that happened since he came back from extended leave).

---

As for the deadline extension thing, I think it depends on shrine's replacement. If he/she comes in and says he/she needs a week for example, the game might benefit from a deadline extension. If the replacement either reads really fast or really slow, then a deadline extension would just make the day drag on.

[DeathRowKitty]

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)

Here's my point: let's say for sake of argument that you're right about me starting the jester discussion (you're not, but let's just say for a moment that you are). You've been saying for most of the game (in addition to a couple of other players recently that bringing up a jester is scummy, no doubt parroting either classic mafia theory or some player who was parroting classic mafia theory. What is it about bringing up a jester that makes it scummy and more to the point, can that reasoning be applied to this situation? The answer is that no, that reasoning can't be applied to this situation and in most situations, if anything, bringing up a jester is anti-town, not scummy.

I asked a couple of people (KoC and DJ IIRC) how the reasoning could be applied to me and you jumped in and said it applied to me because my starting the discussion about jesters was scummy, which completely ignores the point of the question.

@AB
If you can't catch up by deadline, do you think you could at least get your suspicions in order a bit? I don't think there are many of us who want a deadline extension at this point (I could be wrong on this). My opinion is that long days favor town, but very long days favor scum.

[DeathRowKitty]

@KoC
Don't forget about my question for you here.

@BB
This is a reminder for you to.

---

Activity issues or not, I find it very interesting that neither player's responded after they both jumped on me over very little.

[DeathRowKitty]

EBWOP: "too," not "to"

[DeathRowKitty]

There's still around 3 days and 19.5 hours until deadline. If I get lynched for a mass of null tells (a.k.a. what would happen if the day were to end now), someone better do some hardcore investigation of this wagon. There's no way everyone on my wagon is town.

[DeathRowKitty]

DRK should claim at this time tomorrow if we havent heard anything about the deadline. I still think he is town, but regardless of what role he is, late day moving will occur after a claim. I would rather us have time to at least analyze a bit before going to deadline.

I'd prefer not to until either KoC or BB responds because I feel a claim would give them a bit of an easy way out (after a claim, they have perfectly legitimate reasoning for falling on one side of the fence or the other). If one other person not on my wagon agrees though, I'll claim tonight.

i don't think they can be scum together

drk
ca
bigbear
ik
shrine

How strongly do you feel that one of us has to be scum?

@archaebob
Why Looker?

387 drk lies

Where?

@Raskol
It's all well and good to pressure lurkers, but with the deadline looming, lurker-voting isn't getting us anywhere. If you want Zazie lynched, that's different, but if not, a more wagon-relevant vote would be more useful, especially when we're already discussing whether or not I should be claiming.

I just clicked preview and I saw your most recent post. Twenty-five posts. Wow. Then again, I have trouble calling Zazie an active lurker when he was one of the biggest contributors earlier.

[DeathRowKitty]

Okay, I read through Zazie's wiki page and Raskol definitely has an interesting point. I wouldn't be against a Zazie lynch, but I'd still prefer a CA lynch. Unfortunately, that's not looking very likely at the moment.

I never got a scummy read from Zazie's posts themselves though. At various points, I had either a pro-town or neutral read on Zazie. I'll iso him now.

[DeathRowKitty]

@Furry

I'd prefer not to have to claim yet. There are four players currently voting me:

CA
DJ
KoC
BB

Two out of those four players (KoC and BB) have been contributing the bare minimum, if even that. Basically I'm being pressured into a claim by two votes that may as well have come from empty player slots.

I stand by my previous statement that I'll claim tonight if one other player off my wagon thinks I should.

[DeathRowKitty]

EBWOP: One of those two players has been active on the site since his last post here.

[DeathRowKitty]

Forgot to mention this in my last couple of posts: my iso read on Zazie has him leaning town.

So now there are three reads I've seen:

• Iso-read (leaning town)
• Wiki read (scum)
• Furry's meta-read (town)

@Furry
How many games have you played with Zazie?

[DeathRowKitty]

Okay, so it seems a CA lynch isn't going to happen. I plan on moving my vote at some point in the next day or so.

Right now, Zazie isn't that high up on my scum list. The disappearing thing is unquestionably anti-town, but unfortunately, it's not necessarily scummy (wouldn't mafia be so much easier if anti-town and scummy were the same thing...). Zazie is also a player that could be a harmful mislynch, as his spam posting early on was definitely keeping players honest.

Based on number of votes, scumminess, and potential to gain more votes, my vote would likely go to either BB or DJ if I had to choose now (DJ being my preference).

If I have time tomorrow, which in all likelihood I will, I'm going to attempt to get a meta read on a few players to see if anything jumps out.

[DeathRowKitty]

By the way, if I haven't said this already, I am going to join Team Vote Practically Anywhere To Keep DRK From Being Lynched.

I have absolutely no respect for the reasons of half the people on that wagon.

This post really makes me want to lynch DRK.

Why does that make you want to lynch me any more than you already did?

Bringing up a Jester = steering the town away from looking for scum, onto finding a hypothetical Jester that may not exist.
Bringing up a Jester = creating unnecessary speculation. This is the internet, we all mistrust each other enough as it is. Jester speculation begins all kinds of "should we really lynch him, he might WANT to be lynched" WIFOM.

QFT

How does any of that apply to this situation?

...Because you brought up the speculation of a jester...... do you not recall...??

Did you not read the discussion I had with CA about this exact post??? Let's pretend you're right and I did cause us to discuss jesters. You agree with KoC's reasons why bringing up a jester is scummy - how does any of what KoC said apply to this specific instance of jester discussion?

Unvote, vote: BigBear

I don't at all like BB's recent posts and as of this moment, I think my vote is going to be more useful on him than on DJ. Then again, I don't like DJ's whole semantics thing ("active lurking" is a much stronger accusation than "lurking"), but I'll iso/meta him later and see what I think then. Either way though, I definitely wouldn't be against his lynch.

---

@Raskol
Better to have Zazie trying to catch up on 3 or 4 pages than to have another replacement trying to catch up on 36 pages, especially with only a couple of days left until deadline.

[DeathRowKitty]

Note to self: Those bagel bites look good.

[DeathRowKitty]

Upon reading some of don_johnson's games, I have determined that he is playing to his meta. I can assure you that we are in fact dealing with don_johnson. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble determining alignment from his meta and the fact that he replaced in isn't helping.

Hopefully I'll have more success with BigBear.

[DeathRowKitty]

@Furry

Well I did already have a scum read on DJ, but considering it would be fairly transparent too many scum to be on the leading deadline wagon, I'm trying to avoid haphazard lynching based on things that could be explained away by meta. On the flip side, I was hoping there would be something obvious that went against one of their metas that would point to scum. Unfortunately, I have nothing meta-wise on either of them. I presently find either of them scummy enough for a vote, so

unvote, vote: don_johnson

to even out the wagons.

[DeathRowKitty]

It was extremely obvious what DRK was hinting at with that question.

Then why did you ignore it at first if you consider it to be a scum tell?

Unless there's anybody who thinks that they can explain the motivation for a scum-CA to unvote like that two days before deadline

Does the fact that others voting me were coming under scrutiny count?

@CA
What do you think of DJ?

After CA's last few posts, my desire to lynch him definitely cooled (not that his lynch was going to happen anyway). If he's town, it does make me wonder about...things (more on this later perhaps).

maybe not confirmed town but I think it means that one of my reads are wrong.

Can you explain what this means a little better?

---

I'd just like to remind everyone how close we are to deadline.

Noted. I should be free most of deadline day (hooray random 5 day weekend!). What's everyone else's deadline situation?

[DeathRowKitty]

unvote because things have been made clearer to me.

What exactly was made clearer to you?

however, I'm fairly certain (at this point), due to the recent turn of events, that one of Don_Johnson and DeathRowKitty are Mafia.

Expliquez, s'il vous plaît.

please note that drk's votes have been almost entirely omgus this entire day.

I disagree. I voted FC without having been voted. I voted BN (a suspicion that later extended into your posts) without him ever having voted me. My CA vote wasn't because of his vote on me; it was because of his posts afterwards.

i'm gonna go ahead and claim power now to help the process.

...
I believed you in our last game because you only had one vote and weren't scummy and therefore no reason to need to claim that (and because I was scum ). Considering you're currently on the chopping block and have been acting scummy, I'm less inclined to believe you this time (a.k.a. non-descript PR claim not making me unvote).

@don
You voted me after finding 4 posts of mine that arguably don't make me scummy at all and have held onto your vote ever since over a mass of other posts that arguably don't make me scummy. If you have legitimate reasons for voting me, make a case. If not, I'm going to assume you just don't want to look bad by unvoting me. Interpreting a whole bunch of posts however you want =/= making a case (and especially when you practically refused to listen to my responses).

[DeathRowKitty]

Okay, I'll rephrase: that's why everyone should have believed you that game.

your bn vote was an oppurtunistic wagon hop out of nowhere.

Do you believe my vote was unwarranted? Also, do you still stand by your statement that my votes were OMGUS (if so, explain why) and if not, why did you belive so in the first place?

i'm not "making a case"

Then how do you expect to get more votes on me, considering we're the top two wagons? Or were you just hoping an empty PR claim would save you?

where would you like to see my vote and why?

On yourself or one of your buddies, duh

[DeathRowKitty]

also: i was hella scummy. didn't i replace in, refuse to read the thread and ride a vote based solely on my reread of the RVS in a twenty page game? not scummy? really? REALLY?

Not reading isn't a scum tell at all and considering we were near deadline, you actually played well and got decent reads from what was going on (of course, once the deadline was extended you should have read but IIRC your refusal to read came before that).

blah blah blah. change omgus to "omgussy", point still stands. hey, i have an idea, let's argue semantics with under 36 hours until deadline!

This isn't the first time you've fallen back to saying people are arguing semantics when that's not what's going on. How were my votes "omgussy" and how is that different from OMGUS?

i would vote twice if i could. not necessarily looking to be saved, but hoping the softclaim would divert our attention to a better lynch. so if forced to answer then yeah, the second thing.

Didn't you say I would be the best lynch? You'd rather try claiming power to haphazardly move the wagon than try to actually convince people your number one suspect is scum?

[DeathRowKitty]

On yourself or one of your buddies, duh

nice deflection. say it with me now : "OMGUS!"

Also, how exactly is that a deflection?

[DeathRowKitty]

i was considered scummy by many players in the game until my claim, and even still after that. you had a town read on me for one reason and only one reason: you were scum.

You weren't scummy in that game.

voting your attacker is "omgussy". between me and CA that is what you have been doing. arguing the "meaning" of a word is semantics. it is scummy more often than not, and anti-town at best. much like the argument about who "started" the jester conversation.

BN was one of my top suspects before you ever replaced in. You seem to have forgotten that. Is my CA vote the only one that's "omgussy?" I would hardly call arguing your points to be arguing semantics. If you say I'm OMGUSing and I'm not, am I to assume you just accidentally picked the wrong word?

i don't know if you are the best lynch, but i do know there are better day 1 lynches than myself. your play reads scum to me so my vote is on you. i am a power role, therefore if i am under threat of lynch then i should claim to push the wagon elsewhere. pretty standard fucking play.

Here's my point: you've been implying you think I'm the best lynch (by voting me, by consistently listing me as the scummiest player, etc), but instead of making a case on me to move votes to me (when you're the highest wagon), you claim townie power role and just want everyone to unvote you and vote anyone else. Why wouldn't you make a case on me if you think I'm so scummy?

drk: i asked you who your other suspects were. maybe not in so many words, but you choosing to take my question in the most literal sense and avoid naming names is a HUGE deflection.

You asked me who I thought you should vote and I gave you an answer. If you wanted my suspects, you should have just asked me that. I thnk you should vote (in some order):
Yourself
BB
KoC or CA (? (I have a lot of thinking to do on this one))

Yes, that probably looks very omgussy, but with how close the wagons were this close to deadline, I doubt more than one of the scum would be trying to divert my wagon. I would like to hear more from shrine('s replacement), but I didn't find shrine particularly scummy just from his actions.

Knowing which power role you are is not going to make the scum any more likely to nightkill you

Not necessarily true, but the risk of this is less than the risk of don making up something better after seeing night actions.

[DeathRowKitty]

Note to self: those percentages are all multiples of 4; very scummy

what benefit does a full claim offer "town" at this time?

I'm not unvoting without a full-claim and is voting you largely for refusing to full claim. If you're actually a town PR, it could potentially get two votes off you near deadline. If you're scum, it locks you into a specific role and makes it harder for you to lie about it later.

[DeathRowKitty]

@DRK: Is there anyone else you're remotely suspicious of? If so, could we try them instead of DJ? If not and you don't think it's worth the risk, then okay, we'll go from there.

I'm suspicious of others, but I want a claim out of DJ first. It locks him into a role instead of letting him choose one later. For example, if no one dies and DJ claims doctor tomorrow/the next day, no one's going to lynch him without a counter-claim from a hypothetical real doctor. If he doesn't think anyone's going to believe him, he could come out and claim a guilty and get an extra mislynch out of it, in addition to the one he could potentially get today. Basically, I feel you have to earn the right to give a partial claim like DJ did through pro-town play. I'd be willing to lynch:
don (depending on whether or not he claims)
BB
shrine
KoC
CA (?)
Zazie ONLY if none of these are possible

do you think this town is so incompetent as to be able to let me get away with "lieing about it later"?

See above.

And why are the numbers scummy again...?

Something like this.

[DeathRowKitty]

YES!!! Becoming increasingly more confident that one of DRK or DJ is Mafia!

Then why are you voting KoC?

[DeathRowKitty]

You mean your response to me? Yes, it offended me! (Nah, it didn't; it did confuse me for a few seconds though.)

[DeathRowKitty]

one more vote puts me out of reach.

i'm a cop. way to go geniuses.

The annoyance sounds forced. I'm about 29-71 on the claim, but it's better to let some night actions resolve before making a decision.

Unvote

Why were you reluctant to full-claim, don_johnson?

Which is why I kept my opinion to myself, or tried anyway. My suggestion makes absolutely no sense because I insisted he wait out tonight and claim tomorrow.

I don't get what this means

Let's do this. BigBearWagon assemble.

Insta-wagon reporting for duty.

Vote: BigBear

. I know he's been posting elsewhere and he seems to be enjoying just watching the deadline waste away.

vote DeathRowKitty
Looker is utterly confused right now.

You're only confused because you stopped considering the possibility of DJ-scum

As of right now Raskol is removed from the game. I have no need to put up with a supposed adult acting like a whiny little baby. I have little tolerance for fools, and he is one. Unfortunately this means there are now two spots for which we will need replacements. And no DJ, this does not mean there will be a deadline extension. The game has dragged enough.

With Raskol not voting and shrine voting DJ, that leaves us two votes short. This should make things interesting.

[DeathRowKitty]

@Looker
You really confuse me sometimes...

[DeathRowKitty]

[quote"dj"]
good luck guys.
[/quote]Sounds a bit premature. Usually this is something you say when your situation is hopeless, not several hours before deadline with wagons seperated by one or two votes. I'm a believer in AtE being a scum tell only in certain circumstances and I consider it one here.

to wifom it: what benefit does scumdj have to fakeclaim cop?

Seriously? It makes us considerably less likely to lynch you, without having the drawbacks of doctor (overused by scum and you have an excuse as to why you don't get NKed (doc protection speculation)).

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.

Fixed. I would hope we're not collectively stupid enough as town to let the crossed out part happen.

After sleeping on it, I dont really like the claim too much.

A regular cop in this setup really seems a little top heavy to me.

What?!

I dont buy no breadcrumbs. You should always breadcrumb, hell if you can make it obvious while at the same time not obvious, its even better.

TBH, I probably wouldn't have breadcrumbed in this game after the pregame discussion about BB's fake cop breadcrumb.

---

I'm really not liking CA's reaction to don's claim, but then again, I'm also really not liking the claim either. Right now, I'm about 17-83 on the claim (numbers adjusted slightly to both be prime (because prime numbers are so much cooler than composite numbers (but where does that leave 1? (STOP NESTING PARENTHETICALS!!! (I'm actually closer to 20-80, but multiples of 10 are overrated (we should be using base 12 anyway (this is just here to have a prime number of parentheticals))))))). I'm a bit torn TBH. I have a bit of a soft spot for claimed PRs and especially on Day 1. I've only pushed for a claimed PR lynch Day 1 once (he claimed doctor and acted

really

scummy (he turned out to be a survivor...go figure)). I'm not quite as sure here as I was in that case, but I am pretty sure. I guess I would prefer if we were to lynch someone who didn't claim cop, but if the 6th vote gets put on (we're currently at 5 votes if you include Furry's failvote), I have a feeling I wouldn't be able to resist the urge to hammer.

[DeathRowKitty]

Actually, I changed my mind. 80-20 (or 83-17 if you're into primes) is enough to lynch a claimed cop, especially when there's no one else of comparable scumminess.

Unvote

. I'm not going to vote yet (I'm going to be that person who sits around and waits for the chance to hammer

[DeathRowKitty]

last time i fakeclaim cop.

Fixed

[DeathRowKitty]

No one wants to drop the 6th vote?

Vote: don_johnson

[DeathRowKitty]

too bad, as i was hoping to turn over a new leaf and really give town a helping hand. oh well.

By faking investigation results and trying to kill everyone? Sure.

[DeathRowKitty]

Wow, DRK, how did you know?

How did I know DJ wasn't cop, you mean? Well, there was good reason to suspect.

1. His play didn't seem to match cop play at all.
2. His reluctance to claim made very little sense (his wagon was quickly building up steam and scum almost have to play the game as if he's a cop anyway if he's town (that's more or less how we handled this claim)).
3. I was suspicious of him to begin with.
4. Ironically, what ended up clinching it for me was CA's reaction. He was basically screaming, "HEY GUYS, DJ'S NOT THE COP, I AM!" Oddly enough, when I thought about it a little bit, his play made a lot more sense as cop play than DJ's play.

Post 1000, you said that you didn't like lynching claimed power roles day 1.

I don't, but that doesn't mean I don't do it. I tried to push for the lynch of a claimed doctor Day 1 once who was ridiculously scummy. We ended up lynching mafia instead and our claimed doctor was NKed N1...he was survivor. Basically, I have to have very good reason to believe the person is lying and not have any other candidates whose lynch would be of comparable quality.

Why did you presume, or at least act like you knew he was fake claiming? I'm going to have to do a reread, because it's been at least a week since this thread has been in my head, but weren't you under a lot of pressure? This seems like you bussed DJ, IMO.

As for why I acted like I knew he was fake claiming, it's a two-part answer and you won't like either part.

1. I wanted to avoid suspicion for my vote. If I sounded wishy-washy about it and decided to vote him anyway, it would look very suspicious. Avoiding suspicion is (IMO) a townie's second or third most important duty (if no townies are suspicious enough tor mislynch (and assuming there's never a no lynch), you can't lose).
2. One of my main reasons for voting him was the fact that CA was probably cop. I was hoping to draw some of the cop suspicion onto myself by sounding overly confident.

I don't recall being under much pressure at the time.

DRK, what exactly didn't you like about ConfidAnon's reaction to Don's claim?

Another two-part answer you probably won't like >.<

1. He brought up invalid points IIRC.
2. Considering he was probably cop, I was trying to either make it seem like his response was scummier than it was (in case scum weren't paying enough attention (I didn't realize it until I re-read his posts to make the comment that I didn't like his response, so I was hoping scum wouldn't have noticed either)) or to try to draw suspicion from scum off of him by playing off his reaction as a scum tell instead of a cop tell.

---

@KoC

unvote because things have been made clearer to me.

What exactly was made clearer to you?

I still want to know this.

[DeathRowKitty]

Is there some sort of reason or do you just not feel like answering?

[DeathRowKitty]

ClarificationBWOP:

Considering he was probably cop, I was trying to either make it seem like his response was scummier than it was (in case scum weren't paying enough attention (I didn't realize

it

he was probably cop

until I re-read his posts to make the comment that I didn't like his response, so I was hoping scum wouldn't have noticed either)) or to try to draw suspicion from scum off of him by playing off his reaction as a scum tell instead of a cop tell.

---

Also Raskol lynch looks sexier after the DJ/BN scum flip. This means that Raskol moved from a scum wagon to the pusher of said wagon, to never mention the wagon on his partner again. That is the better lynch for today.

Makes sense, but I didn't think the case on him from yesterday was very strong.

[DeathRowKitty]

@BB and KoC
No response to my response?

[DeathRowKitty]

I just wanted all of you to have a great day and live life to the fullest. You only have one. I'm just sayin

Thank you?

Looker makes a perfectly normal post about how she wasn't planning on reading anything into the lack of her being nightkilled, and BigBear goes all "maybe you are scum, Looker", which seems like a sort of chainsaw defense of me.

I don't think it was a chainsaw, but better BB answers before I go about giving excuses.

This thread could use some more super-hot chick.

Vote: Zazie

[DeathRowKitty]

Sorry about not posting yesterday. I've kept up with the thread, but between having places to go and having college application deadlines once again in sight, I couldn't afford the time to make a decent post.

---

Never has so much been posted and so little said.

But it all seemed so relevant at the time [INSERT APPROPRIATE CONGLOMERATION OF SMILIES HERE].

Yeah, I'm okay with that.

Unvote

Vote: Raskol

DRK, you in?

The Raskol case does look better with the DJ flip and I do enjoy bandwagons.

Vote: Eleven Knives

.

still think there's more to DRK's slip.

Which slip? o_O

Oh, and refusing to answer any of the many questions raised by Raskol's somewhat scummy play? Great. That's not scummy at all. ¬_¬ unvote; Vote eleven knives

Seems very OMGUSy. True, he probably should have addressed something, but realistically, he can't answer for Raskol anyway. It also took KoC's vote off of me, which he's had since his first post of Day 2, which he kept there despite not responding to my defense. Better place for my vote than EKT.

Unvote, vote: Knight of Cydonia

[DeathRowKitty]

if he doesn't either replace out or start posting soon, i strongly recommend an instant bandwagon on his ass.

No

This. Why did you want a lurker wagon when we have better suspects at large?

@Looker
If you're convinced SJ is scum, at least make a case on him because I'm seeing him as fairly likely town atm.

I haven't changed my mind on Eleven exactly. I just don't want to be voting for Eleven right now.

Que? o.O

Gogo gadget bandwagon! ¬_¬

No response to the votes on you?

Some people are just kind of jabbering on about stuff and avoiding the Raskol push I made here.

By using the word "jabbering," were you saying that there were players talking about nothing of importance and if so, which players specifically?

Checking in. Give me a day or two to get caught up with a good post.

Might take you a bit longer than you think...

@EKT
How much of the game have you read?

[DeathRowKitty]

@EKT
How much of the game have you read?

I read from beginning to end before my first post.

Impressive.

People tend to appreciate things more when they have to ask for it, so I didn't just want to throw a case out there and have it looked over. Much more satisfying to ramble on until someone asks me to get to the point.

No more rambling? I was just starting to enjoy the rambling. As for your case, it seems to be based completely on votes starting at the end of Day 1, but I seem to remember you voicing suspicions of him earlier. What were your earlier suspicions based on?

[DeathRowKitty]

This game is dying because questions like ^^^ ain't getting answered.

Speaking of not answering, you do remember you never responded to my defense, right? When do you plan on doing so?

Lol. Well then I guess it's either you or Cydonia, huh? Seeing as moving my vote to Furry would be just as "inefficient" as keeping it where it is. Well, if this has to be the case, I'll unvote sanjay and vote eleven knives in a throat

Just wondering, why EKT and not KoC? It would also be nice if you could respond to my question for you here.

[DeathRowKitty]

why EKT and not KoC?

Because I can't pick Sanjay or Furry. You're limiting my choices, which, to me, seems a little anti-town.

I'm not limiting your choices. You said you picked EKT over KoC and I was asking why.

Starting....NOW!

Daykill: Sanjay
Daykill: Furry
Daykill: KoC
Daykill: Eleven
Daykill: DRK
Daykill: BigBear
Daykill: Fitz
Daykill: Bob
Daykill: Semi

Endgame: Looker

Whoo, that was fun. Aren't you glad you saw things my way?
[My suspicion list, FYI and FFR]

Lol, when did KoC go above EKT? You really confuse me.

I still wish to play, however i am unable to post until tomorrow, most likely in the morning.

Looking forward to it.

[DeathRowKitty]

@BB
I linked this post because it's too long to reasonably quote. In this post, your only comment about my defense is that you didn't like part of it, yet by the end of the post, you unvoted me and voted SJ. Is there something there I'm not getting? Also, it'd be nice if you could elaborate on what you didn't like about my post.

So far Sanjay is my top suspect.

Apart from the facts (yes I know that's going to sound a little weird), what do you think of SJ? I ask this because, while I agree he had some play at the end of Day 1 that looks bad in hindsight, I got a very townie feeling from him Day 1 in general.

[DeathRowKitty]

College apps are (essentially) done, so I can now officially go back to putting off my school work in favor of mafia.

---

O, and can psychology be used as evidence to support a case?

Mafia is a game of psychology. If you can use psychology, do it. If you can read our minds, even better

Condolences BB.

This.

Knight of Cydonia, more like Actively Lurking to Avoid a Fight of Cydonia.

I'm hesitant to call it active lurking, since it seems he's stopped posting in all but his mishmash games. Unless you have reason to believe he's intentionally not posting, he's lurking (which isn't necessarily scummy), not active lurking (which is scummy). That's not to say he isn't scummy; he just isn't scummy for that.

Look at the move from BN to BNs attacker.
Look at the him trying to push policy lynch over scummy lynch.
Look at his jump off DJ wagon to not voting.

The look at no one wanting to lynch him today.

He wouldn't be a bad lynch, but right now i feel there are better, especially if KoC doesn't defend himself. Also notice that KoC had an anti DJ-wagon vote, (unvoted without explanation), and ended up not voting.

I don't think the evidence against either [Sanjay] or Bear is damning. I really haven't found anyone except KoC suspicious this game.

I find that odd.

No one

else has even been suspicious, yet the evidence against KoC is damning? That's a pretty big leap. Can you explain what exactly makes him that much scummier than anyone else?

would never lynch confirmed useless town over confirmed active scum. But I think that this game is unique enough to make keeping the active players around a worthwhile endeavor. So, if I KNEW that Sanjay was scum, I'd want him lynched, but since I don't know, I'd rather lynch someone who I KNOW is useless.

Seems slightly overrationalized (very slightly). I do agree with AB's main point though and I'm not getting what all the sudden AB hate is about.

Town or scum, he's the best lynch today

o_o

So, you don't care what you lynch, just that you lynch? Geez. If your buddy eleven wasn't so obvious after Raskol antics, plus what little he's done today, I'd vote you.

I iso'd KoC and I didn't see him once voice suspicions of EC (AB's predecessor) or AB. Very much an OMGUS reaction. It's even worse considering it was against an easy target and just looks like he was trying to divert attention away from the lackluster post after AB attacked him for it.

If you honestly thought Raskol's antics were "so obvious", you'd have attacked him when it happened. Instead you sat on a lazy DRK vote, not mentioning Raskol at all until Furry brought it up

QFT

Okay, now you're just pushing it, AB. KoC is scummier than SJ. This argument only applies if they're of roughly equal scumminess.

@BigBear, DRK, Semioldguy, & havingfitz: Content with the current situation or no?

I would like the situation better if more people were voting KoC and if we had fewer people acting scummy so we could coordinate onto one wagon. Overall though, I think we have a lot to go on right now.

[DeathRowKitty]

Raskol did much more direct defending of DJ though through an attempt at a Zazie wagon in a huge overblown reaction. This not only distracted from the whole DJ wagon, but also actively tried to surpass it with a new wagon. KoC didnt vote, but never made an attempt to get a different wagon.

He was a part of my wagon (a.k.a. the second biggest wagon near deadline) up until people started questioning the motives of those on the wagon. Also, don't forget he still hasn't said why he got off the wagon (still waiting for that, KoC).

[DeathRowKitty]

Oh, that's a good one.
I see no reason to wasste my time on such a benighted, easily lead town. I will claim if/when it is necessary, but until that time comes, frankly, you can all go to hell.

You'd rather wait around and claim instead of defending yourself? Make sure you have a good fakeclaim ready. Also, what EKT said.

@Looker
Let's say for sake of argument that SJ were to die and flip town. Who would you then suspect as scum?

[DeathRowKitty]

@BB
I linked this post because it's too long to reasonably quote. In this post, your only comment about my defense is that you didn't like part of it, yet by the end of the post, you unvoted me and voted SJ. Is there something there I'm not getting? Also, it'd be nice if you could elaborate on what you didn't like about my post.

Would you like me to explain why I didn't like the answers? On the second one, could you point out posts where you thought CA was likely to be cop? Because I find that second answer to be more of a cop-out since we know that CA was a cop. As for the first one, its like your saying "oh I didn't want to look scummy, so I had to act confident." I just don't like that, it's like your trying to look like a town player.

As for the second part, the point was just about entirely to look townish. Good intentions don't mean anything if you get lynched for them. As for the part about CA being cop, read the post reproduced below (bolding added for emphasis):

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.

The bolded part is a dead giveaway, but if that isn't enough, read the first paragraph of this. He's practically screaming that he has inside knowledge that DJ isn't cop. Also, it made sense from a psychological point of view given his previous two posts. Working from the assumption there was a cop (since there is in most games), it

had

to be CA.

I'll look at the back and forth between SJ and BB more closely tomorrow....err, today (it's 12:13AM where I am).

[DeathRowKitty]

I iso'd KoC and I didn't see him once voice suspicions of EC (AB's predecessor) or AB. Very much an OMGUS reaction. It's even worse considering it was against an easy target and just looks like he was trying to divert attention away from the lackluster post after AB attacked him for it.

Does someone have to place suspicion on a player in order to suspect the replacement when he comes in? I wasn't suspicious of EtheralCookie, but I am now of archaebob.

You kind of missed my point here. It's perfectly fine to be suspicious of someone who replaces in without having been suspicious of the person who was replaced, but read KoC's post. He had never mentioned suspicion of AB or the player AB replaced. Then, when AB attacked one of KoC's posts, KoC came back at AB by pointing out something from AB's post (that admittedly looks bad) and calling him scum for it. Not just scummy; scum.

As for KoC, my day 1 reread made me less inclined to push a lynch his way, and while we disagree on our reads on DRK, I can see where he is coming from with it. General town opinion (that DRK is likely scum, that Knives is obv scum and should be lynched) has gone against KoC and that is the best reasoning I can come up with for his anti-town reaction. WIFOM thought it may be, what scum responds to accusations of being unhelpful with "Oh yeah, well screw you town, I'm going home"? Frustrated town makes more sense to me.

Going against popular opinion shouldn't make one resort to being anti-town. Here's the sequence of events that took place:

1. KoC brought up the fact that I mentioned jesters first in response to something BB said.
2. BB voted me for it.
3. KoC immediately voted me for it too.
4. (He stopped posting for a while), then unvotes because "things have been made clearer to [him]"
5. He votes me again near the start of Day 2.

Yes, he took a stance against what a lot of the game did, but how exactly does that explain his behavior?

Also, scum may just resort to a screw you attitude to try to avoid lynch

---

I read the SJ-BB argument. I got an overall townie feel from BB's defense.

[DeathRowKitty]

It was a town read of BB's defense, not necessarily of BB. I'll probably re-read him to see what I think now.

As for Sanjay, my opinions of him are similar to Furry's. I have a fairly strong gut town read on him. Sorry.

[DeathRowKitty]

My first thought on reading the thread: KoC needs more votes. His SJ vote is just the icing on the cake. It reminds me of this vote (context available upon command if you don't feel like reading from the start of Day 3) and it's ridiculously scummy this far from deadline. At this point, KoC-town would much more likely be scumhunting (or at least defending himself), not jumping on the leading wagon to save himself.

As for Furry's case, vote hopping isn't a scum tell and I don't remember a big push to save DJ from him, despite his vote hopping. Remember: DJ wasn't the leading wagon until near the end of the day. Anything before that looked more like a push to save CA (which I seriously considered during Day 1), who flipped town.

[DeathRowKitty]

@Looker
You've said you find a SJ-KoC scum team to be the most likely scum team. Do you only find KoC scummy because you find SJ scummy or do you find KoC scummy for other reasons?

Im a little old to be going crazy in snow

Im only in my early 20s

You're too young to not be going crazy in snow

Everyone needs to get posting like a mofo right now because it would be really solid if people actually commit to some real votes this time.

My vote is real. Also, more focused posting might be better than having everyone post like a mofo. For example, it would be nice if everyone could take a solid position on every wagon currently available and we debate from there rather than have everyone flood the thread commenting about everything.

[DeathRowKitty]

danakillsu, this is pathetic.

That's really all there is to take from the most recent argument.

@DKU
Explain exactly why it is that scum would be more likely to claim to know all 3 mafia in the RVS than town would.

@Anyone voting Sanjay besides DKU
Whether you think Sanjay is scum or not, if you ignore DKU's reasoning, you're encouraging it. Is that the kind of reasoning you want to see in a game that you commit months of your time to?

[DeathRowKitty]

I would definitely be willing to go for either a KoC lynch or a DKU lynch to prevent a SJ lynch. I wouldn't be quite as happy with a DKU lynch because I wasn't as suspicious of his predecessors and his play since replacing in seems more newb than it does scum, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of newbscum.

Basically, I'm keeping my vote on KoC unless the DKU wagon suddenly explodes in size and SJ is the likely alternative.

[DeathRowKitty]

@KoC - We are lynching Raskol/EKT/DKU again, please come back

Two votes=/=a lynch. You'll have my vote if a DKU lynch becomes more likely than a KoC lynch.

[DeathRowKitty]

KoC lynch not gonna happen I guess.

Unvote, vote danakillsu

.

I agree with Sanjay that DKU could very easily have come in and joined the biggest wagon to protect KoC, who had the second biggest wagon at the time.

[DeathRowKitty]

@DKU
So I hear you've read the thread. Describe day 1 for us. Also, what do you think of KoC? (town or scum and why?)

@KoC
You better have a stronger case on SJ than you've been letting on. If you post it after SJ's had to claim/gets lynched (if he gets lynched and flips town at least), I will personally do everything in my power to make sure you don't live through day 3.

O, and he also asks you some bullshit about KoC which you really won't give a fuck about, but that's the point, to show the town just how apathetic you are. That way,

when [Sanjay] pops town

, you'll look like mafia scum. Are you writin' all this down?

(bolding added for emphasis)What?

[DeathRowKitty]

@KoC
In light of information that's recently come to my attention, I would like to clarify that the case you make on SJ may

not

be plagiarized from DKU.

[DeathRowKitty]

Well, you've been saying since the start of day 2 that SJ is scum. It just strikes me as odd that you would suddenly mention that you're not so sure the day before deadline with SJ in the lead. How sure are you exactly that SJ is scum?

[DeathRowKitty]

@DKU
If you're not a cop, then what are you? Would you like to claim the other dead guy's role? (I might believe you if you do.)

I'm more willing to believe that DKU was scum who didn't read the game and didn't realize the cop was dead than a townie who wanted to get out of a lynch by claiming cop.

[DeathRowKitty]

Whoa...a lot happened in the one day since the thread was opened.

KoC's death is really odd to me. If he were still alive, I would be voting him in this post and I'm sure I'm not the only one who would push for his lynch. It's also interesting in the context of the Sanjay wagon. Up until DKU came in and got himself wagoned, the KoC wagon was the only real competition for the Sanjay wagon. It would be really stupid for Sanjay-scum to NK the only other lynch candidate (unless of course I'm falling into some sort of WIFOM trap by mentioning this), considering it practically dooms him to be today's lynch.

I'd like people on that wagon to explain why they were on it. For most it seems like he was not initially their top suspect, but they voted for him anyway. Sounds really scummy to me, like trying to get a scum buddy saved from lynch by building up an alternative wagon.

The KoC wagon wasn't going to happen and there's no way Sanjay was a better lynch than DKU day 2 based on the information we had. Also, DKU-scum could easily have been paired with KoC-scum, which I thought was the best bet at the time. Also, I still have doubts that DKU read the thread, regardless of what he said.

Dude, you know how much I want Sanjay lynched, but you should realize that Furry was the one that started TWO wagons to save Sanjay's ass. Now, I don't care which one we lynch, just so long as they both go down.

Unvote:
Vote: Sanjay

It sounds to me like you consider Furry to be scummy mostly because he tried to save Sanjay from lynch. Wouldn't it have made sense to vote Sanjay first?

ATTENTION ALL TOWNIES: DO ANY OF YOU HAVE JUST REASON WHY SANJAY SHOULD NOT BE TODAY'S LYNCH?

A Sanjay lynch does look more attractive after both other wagons from day 2 ended up being on townies and possibly given recent events. More on that later in this post.

Not completely sold on Sanjay's SOG case at this point. I originally got a pro-town feel from SOG, though some of his more recent posts have been straining that read.

IGMEOY SOG

Player Name ---> (What are your reads on this player)
[...]
DeathRowKitty ---> BigBear

Probably my biggest question mark right now. I suspected him towards the end of day 1 and the start of day 2 and then started getting town vibes. Now, depending on Sanjay's flip, I'm really not so sure. If Sanjay isn't scum, PoE would bring BB near the top of my scum list. Do I think Sanjay is scum? Keep reading to find out.

Just a general comment: I'm starting to see

a lot

of confirmation bias against Sanjay. Even if you think Sanjay is scum, think about what you post before saying that everything Sanjay does is a scum tell.

Yeah, I remember now, cuz I couldn't help thinking that you should've claimed cop - everyone else has.

Furry's push to get Sanjay to claim his role name and win condition tells us a lot, though I suppose not nearly as much as we could have hoped. One big thing it tells us though is that Furry is

very

likely town if Sanjay is town. Asking for role name/win condition as scum would be stupid if Furry is scum and Sanjay isn't. If scum don't have the vanilla role PM, it would be stupid because Furry wouldn't be able to verify if Sanjay was giving correct information and could very easily be trapped. However, it's pretty safe to assume scum were given the vanilla role PM, since it wasn't posted in thread until very recently. In that case, unless Furry and Sanjay are both scum, Furry would just be unnecessarily confirming a townie and very possibly be preventing a mislynch.

As for Sanjay's reaction, it's very interesting. It does make him seem scummier on the surface that he refused to respond until after the PM was posted, but I would argue it actually makes him more likely town. Assuming scum received the vanilla role PM, Sanjay-scum could have tried to look townier by using the PM to "confirm himself," similarly to how Looker made a reference to the role PM, whereas Sanjay-town would have less inclination to go against what he feels to be proper in a mini normal. WIFOM? Sure. So make of it what you will.

Basically, I still think Sanjay is town.

Vote BigBear

P.S. I will be v/LA from this Friday until 02Jan10 (as the Mod was aware of before I joined). I would like to stay in the game assuming I am not lynched or NK'd, but I will understand whatever the Mod decides.

I approve of the BB vote. Also, HF, will you have any access during that time?

@SOG, Looker, or someone else strongly invested in the Sanjay case
If you want Sanjay lynched, please make a single post describing your case for those of us who aren't sold. Copy and paste posts you've already made if you have to.

[DeathRowKitty]

As much as this is more the mod catching scum then at least me, its a strong tell to claim the wrong thing. Also I guess its a good lesson on modding practices

Do you have any good reason to think that scum didn't receive a copy of the vanilla role? Either posting a sample PM or sending one to scum is standard practice and it would be a pretty big mistake by the mod to have not done so. Kreriov's been a good mod and I find it more likely that Sanjay was playing to his values than that Kreriov a major modding mistake.

[DeathRowKitty]

Mod, if you can answer this, did scum receive a copy of the vanilla role PM?

[DeathRowKitty]

I'll assume choice 2 should say "scum" and not "town?"

I put a lot of stock in town reads and I'm not so quick to relinquish one, especially when I don't see why option 2 would be so much more likely than option 1.

He probably

should have

claimed resident, if he is in fact vanilla, but he was right in saying that answering your questions would have unfairly confirmed him, if only by the WIFOM of scum not expecting to be confirmed by answering (I also feel more strongly about this because I was once modkilled for saying too much about my role PM in a mini normal >.< ).

Why do you consider option 2 considerably more likely than option 1?

[DeathRowKitty]

Furry: Why is it yesterday you thought my vanilla town claim made me townier than a bag of chips but you just remembered today that the PM said resident?

Interesting find. I'd like to hear this too.

@Anyone voting Sanjay
You need to convince one of: me, AB, or HF to vote Sanjay if you want his lynch. It could help if someone either made a post dedicated to the Sanjay case or explained why it's more likely Sanjay is scum based off the role PM situation because I'm still not seeing Sanjay as scum.

[DeathRowKitty]

Who do you think is scum?

This question was easier to answer before DKU and KoC flipped town...

Right now, I'm looking more closely at SOG and BB, but I'm really lost on BB. Sanjay's observation about Furry was interesting and if Sanjay does turn out to be scum, I agree with you that Furry is a likely partner. If not BB or Sanjay, perhaps AB? Meh, my scum reads aren't quite as strong as my town reads right now.

[DeathRowKitty]

Sanjay today. SOG/BB tomorrow[

if Sanjay flips town

]. Does this sit well with you?

I'd prefer to be more careful today so we won't have that to worry about if Sanjay is town.

[DeathRowKitty]

I am not. Nor am I a cat.

[DeathRowKitty]

Erm, well, umm...you caught me. I'm actually a cat. But I'm not on deathrow!

[DeathRowKitty]

@AB
It was fun. Enjoy your "real world" stuff.

@Looker
We should probably wait to at least see AB's replacement before lynching anyone. Also, does

And im the only feline here I think

count as evidence that I'm not a cat?

[DeathRowKitty]

What about those of us not voting Sanjay who don't think you're scum?

Hint, hint: I don't think you're scum.

[DeathRowKitty]

@

Looker

, semioldguy, BigBear, Furry
How adamant are you about your Sanjay votes?

Also, I just lost the game.

[DeathRowKitty]

@Looker
It's better we don't even think about hammering anyone until AB gets replaced.

@Furry
This game (For some reason, I couldn't like to the wikipedia article)
Thanks for the avatar offer, but fractals>felines (besides, enough people mistake me for a female without a cat avatar ).

[DeathRowKitty]

I don't see the point of AB. It's either he's scum, which I doubt, he's an information role, which we've already lost and, if he were, he would have presented a better case than "going against the grain", or he's your mason buddy, in which case, I'm not trying to lynch you or him at the moment so the awareness of your collective alignments would be null. I see no point in waiting for AB's replacement. Let him catch up in night.

I just don't see why we should lynch now when there's an empty player slot as opposed to in a day or two (hopefully only a day or two) when it gets filled.

And is DeathRowKitty some kind of an environmental awareness campaign? What possessed you to choose that name? Cocaine?

I didn't expect to be on this site long (as in, I almost quit before my first game started...) and when prompted for a username, I just typed literally the first thing that came to mind. >.<

While we're off-topic, what's your opinion of fractals?

[DeathRowKitty]

Okay, here's the current situation as I see it:

There are 8 players and 5 votes needed for a lynch. There are currently 4 players voting Sanjay and none of them have any intention of voting anyone else. Unless one of the 4 remaining players vote Sanjay, the town is stuck in deadlock. The only thing the rest of the town can accomplish is a no lynch, an interesting option that I would really like to avoid. Considering we're currently on even numbers, if Sanjay isn't scum, we should probably no lynch at some point to get onto odd numbers. However, no lynch would be a horrible option right now, if it were even possible to get half the town coordinated to do so. With literally half the remaining players voting Sanjay and every single one of them claiming to be adamant about his/her (depending on Looker's gender) vote (except SOG, who I already know is adamant about his vote), lynching Sanjay and getting tells based on who was and wasn't on the wagon is much better earlier rather than later, considering Sanjay would almost definitely be tomorrow's lynch anyway. I want to at least give AB's replacement a chance to post in the thread. At that point, I'll hammer if Sanjay is still alive and at L-1.

- They're somewhat beautiful; however, I find them very depressing, for, no matter how deeply you look into them, you always find the same thing. They have no mystery, they have no intrigue, they have no hope. I guess the key would be to find one that is so beautiful you wouldn't mind staring into it for an eternity - this has yet to happen with me. (<--obviously single)

Have you ever watched a video of zooming in on the Mandelbrot Set? If not, well, you should go do that now.

[DeathRowKitty]

especially when it is our last mislynch.

This.

If we don't lynch Sanjay today, we either have to be pretty damn sure the person we're lynching is scum or we have to be pretty damn sure Sanjay is scum, since he's the inevitable next lynch.

Deadline is in 3 days and right now, the only people posting at all are Looker, Furry, Sanjay, and me. We don't have time to try out another lynch and hope it's right, especially when a mislynch will mean that we HAVE to be right about Sanjay tomorrow.

Vote: Sanjay

. Well-played if you were scum and sorry about that if you weren't.

[DeathRowKitty]

If you're town, there's a lot for us to look at tomorrow (probably better I don't give specifics). Speaking of which, were you town?

[DeathRowKitty]

Scum killed the guy who probably can't post at all for another 8 days??? Wow.

---

I'm going to take a closer look at SOG. In his Iso 31, we have the following:

Check my ISO 3, 4 and 7 for my main points on Sanjay as well as why I find those points scummy.

Basically, he'd been riding his Sanjay vote without bringing anything new to the table (except harassing Sanjay about not wanting to question him in twilight) for 24 of his posts, which was a lot of real life time and a lot of game posts. Plus, if you look at his Iso 3, Iso 4, and Iso 7, Iso 3 contains a paragraph and a half about Sanjay, most of which is composed of generalizations that he doesn't back up with evidence, Iso 4 is just him repeating a point that Sanjay argued, and Iso 7 is more generalizations accompanied by a vote.

Basically, it looks like he came in and latched onto a popular suspicion where he might not take as much heat for an eventual mislynch. I'll read his Iso more closely later.

[DeathRowKitty]

This is probably Lylo.

I would say we're almost definitely in mylo.

I don't recall Sanjay being a popular suspicion when I came into the game. Though I wasn't looking for a popular suspicion. In retrospect it seems to me there were much more popular suspicions such as Knight of Cydonia.

You put the 3rd vote on Sanjay, as opposed to putting a 4th vote on KoC, so it was close. Joining the second biggest wagon also has the benefit of looking pro-town by not being on the lynch wagon of a townie.

I would like to throw out both suggestions of mass claiming and/or a no lynch for today

I would say no lynch. I see one main reason we should MC, but I think it's countered by a potentially more important reason to not MC.

Also, it seems Looker is female again.

[DeathRowKitty]

@HF
You're not even allowed a bah post in this game, let alone one with content...

@Everyone

STOP POSTING SCUMLISTS. IF WE NO LYNCH (WHICH WE SHOULD), YOU'RE JUST HELPING SCUM CHOOSE THEIR NIGHT KILL TARGETS.

@Looker
Massclaim should be tomorrow.


@Everyone
If anyone has a reason this town should not no lynch, speak now or forever hold your peace.

[DeathRowKitty]

I'd prefer to wait until we get a replacement for AB if possible.

Ok, that's all I wanted to sa.....HEY WAIT A SECOND! WANNABE KITTY?!?!?!

DAYKILL FURRY

YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE "KITTY" IN YOUR USERNAME. SO THERE.

[DeathRowKitty]

The daykill was totally legit. I just daykilled Furry for calling me a wannabe kitty.

[DeathRowKitty]

Wait is this really serious?

It was completely serious. And tomorrow I'll dayvig Looker for saying my name sounds like jailbait. Is there a problem with that?

[DeathRowKitty]

@Looker
I'll respond to your second post first:

I would prefer to wait, but if deadline gets close, I'll vote.



As for your first post:

umm....

"DEATHROWKITTY!!" MeOW! Somebody likes it rough.

^Well it would make an intersting sig...but...umm...what?!

[DeathRowKitty]

Furry? o_o I thought I killed you yesterday.

Anyway,

DAYKILL FURRY

. Let's try that again.

Interesting there's been no quickhammer yet, considering this is almost certainly lylo.

[DeathRowKitty]

Actually, I think I agree with Looker as to the scumteam. This is a scary moment.

[DeathRowKitty]

Shouldn't we start with top suspects? Seeing everyone else's claims just gives SOG/BB more information to work off of to make a claim (assuming of course that they're scum).

[DeathRowKitty]

Also, AB's death is very odd. Why would scum want to kill someone who's being replaced in a 70+ page game? o.O

[DeathRowKitty]

[kidding]HEY GAIZ, LET'S QUICKLYNCH SOG BEFORE HE READS THE THREAD[/kidding]

(Note to self: posts turn into babbling after 2AM)

[DeathRowKitty]

Vote: Semioldguy

[DeathRowKitty]

Okay, now unvote ; )

[DeathRowKitty]

No, I was just kidding.

[DeathRowKitty]

Yea...4 second apart simulposts are lovely...SOG is probably scum though.

[DeathRowKitty]

Meh, I doubt it. If SOG

is

town, it's as much my fault for voting him as it is yours.

[DeathRowKitty]

OMG FURRY WAS SCUM?! WHY DIDN'T EITHER OR MY DAYKILLS GO THROUGH?!?!?!

SOG is gonna be thrilled when he sees the thread

I think this is my 8th completed game and somehow, it's the first in which I've survived until the end.

Anyway, good game to all; it was fun. I'll let Furry decide whether or not to post the QT (and give him a chance to delete anything he may or may not want to delete).

[DeathRowKitty]

Do you have any good reason to think that scum didn't receive a copy of the vanilla role? Either posting a sample PM or sending one to scum is standard practice and it would be a pretty big mistake by the mod to have not done so. Kreriov's been a good mod and I find it more likely that Sanjay was playing to his values than that Kreriov a major modding mistake.

Subtle jab at the mod for not letting scum have a copy of the vanilla PM

Well, here's the QT for anyone interested. I'd forgotten I was so paranoid early on.

[DeathRowKitty]

Any particular reason I was the NK?

Well, it was mostly a process of elimination I guess. We didn't want to NK anyone who was a likely lynch target. Looker was obv-town, but we were hoping she'd go for a SOG lynch, which she did.

[DeathRowKitty]

It wasn't necessary. But it could have been!