Open 177 (Monks and Masons) - Game Over.

[Scien]

Vote: Hewitt

Why hello there.

Although I don't know what to think about the Wulfy not confirming thing, or the person going after him without mentioning this. No really, its a curiosity, and I haven't made up my mind if it actually means anything >.<

[Scien]

Good legitimate conversation already.

The only time I see people touch on a possible scummy thing and back off our typically scum.

I don't see how it is possibly scummy. I think it is odd that he hasn't confirmed yet and no one mentioned it, especially for people random voting, but its just a poof of WIFOM really, and there is no real reason to try and push it as a real case.

That's why I chose the word 'odd' and not scummy. There is no way to derive meaning from this... so I can't attribute scum points for it.

For you to be legitimately concerned about my play, you must think something about the late confirm or random vote was acutally scummy and not just a curiosity, and are wondering why I didn't think so as well.

Just for record are you claiming that the late confirm is scummy? Or the fact that the random voter didn't mention the late confirm? (Yes, this is in addition to you claiming that me not pushing it is scummy too, I understand that.)

[Scien]

Seriously you have a

good thought

and you feel like random voting?!!! [...] Your not being aggressive on this, your sitting back and just bringing it up but you don't want to press on it. [...] A late confirmation is null tell. [...] If someone confirmed late it's for any reason and all reasons.

I have a good thought? One that you simultaneously say is also a null tell? But you are criticizing me for not being aggressive over it?

Your views are all over the place if I am reading this right. What was a good thought? How was it a good thought? If its a null tell, why do you want me to aggressively pursue it?

You are not making sense lady.

---

Here let me try and ask this question again since you missed it the first time:
Your previous posts made it sound like me mentioning it was a good thought that I should have pursued. Which thought? The thought about the late confirm? Or the thought about the random vote on a non-confirmed and not mentioning it? Please clarify what you are talking about so we know what to talk about.

[Scien]

Don't play mind games or twist my words sir. I don't not appriecate it.

I am directly quoting you and not twisting anything. I don't see the mind games. Nice try on both counts though.

Your the one who brought up the fact wolfy had not confirmed. You found it yourself to be odd but did not pounce on it as anything more then a eh comment with a random vote.

Because I agree it was weak. That is why I said it didn't mean anything to me yet. Weak points do not a case make.

If you did not find it so worthwhile then why mention it in the first place?

I thought it was worth mentioning that we had a 'random' vote on what was a person who had not checked in the game yet. It's WIFOM to have suggested anything else about it, and it wouldn't have helped town. However it is something worth noting. Combined with future actions, it may give sight to motives involved.

It was the whole comment I found very peculiar. Why waste a random vote on something you found whether small or not on a vote? Why random vote at that point if you found it odd and not persue it further?

Okay, so both phrases I mentioned in the post that you are complaining about you think are weak? Thanks, that helps a bit. Why not pursue something that is small? Can that small thing be scummy? I'm not so sure it is. I am looking for scum... I am not looking for small things that can excuse my vote.

---

Serious questions:
If my two phrases were weak, why do you suggest an aggressive case? What is the townie benefit of aggressively pushing a weak case?

---

Trying to claim that I am playing mind games here is laughable. You are simultaneously telling me that my points suck, and that I should have been more aggressive in pushing them. That is a contradiction, and it doesn't even involve any analysis to see that. It is directly observable from raw quotes.

[Scien]

Now your saying it's weak after I said it was a null tell but seeing the first post it looks frankly like your trying to bring something to a random vote but flutter off into nothing for no reason. No where do you say it's weak.

I will answer this by quote:

I don't see how it is possibly scummy. I think it is odd that he hasn't confirmed yet and no one mentioned it, especially for people random voting, but its just a poof of WIFOM really, and there is no real reason to try and push it as a real case.

That BTW was my second post.

[1]Is this a weak attempt at finding something? [2] Was this attempt at anything and why did you wait till I said it was a null tell and weak to say it was weak yourself?

[1] No. It was an observation.
[2] No, it wasn't an attempt of anything but an observation. Why did I wait? I didn't, I believe part of the post that you are complaining about said: "No really, its a curiosity, and I haven't made up my mind if it actually means anything." Did I say it was scummy? No I said it was a curiosity.

I see weak case and I'm going to question your motive. I see an attempt at a weak comment with a random vote and pounce on it wondering if your vagueness is a slight buss, or if it means more.

Oh? So I was making a case now? That's news to me.

You didn't answer my questions... again. I know you are trying to keep the pressure up on me, but please do try and address my counter concerns if you truly are pro-town:
If my two phrases were weak, why do you suggest an aggressive case? What is the townie benefit of aggressively pushing a weak case?

[Scien]

Please don't condescend me. I can do it too but I"m much more mean about it.

You aren't doing it? I've definitely been getting that vibe. I can assure you on my end, that it is unintentional. I just want my questions answered as well. You can beat up on me all you want, but I'm not going to stop looking around because of it.

1) you didn't see it as a weak case first post. Looking just at the first post.

I disagree. The reason I didn't draw conclusions is because it was a weak observation. Something my second post suggests.

[1] you seemed to meantion in a second time as a muse then blow if off as nothing. [2] I sense you trying to see if you were going to get a bite off of such a comment which it didn't then tried to fish some more to see if anyone else would bite.
[3] Either (a) this is a trap or (b) a scum trying to build a weak case off crap and hoping others will fallow and screw up.
I'm trying to see which category you are in. [4] Since you seem to be aggrevisely harping on me for finding your analysis irksome and weak I go with (b) as a townie looking to trap someone would have not backtracked and found my inquiry on your weak comment something to make catty comments about or twist into something not there.
[5] Since you want to look at comments and can't seem to really put together everything I said without spinning it I like my vote where it stand.

[1] I'm not sure I fully understand. Are you saying that I tried pushing that WIFOM twice? Where did I do anything other than mention it and get jumped right away? I honestly don't think I tried to 'push' anything even once. I know that is the cause for some of this grief, but I am not going to push an observation that if regarded as scummy was weak at best. It would not have helped town, and would have hurt me no matter what alignment I am. I don't understand how you are saying that if I pushed it I would not be attacked for pushing a weak case.

[2] The 'looking for bites' comment makes sense, and I know that is part of the reason why I am being looked at. I can't prove I wasn't polling like you suggest. No one could, its not merely a personal fault.

[3] Or merely an observation. It's not an either/or. Also suggesting that it is a either or with two negatives sounds manipulative to me. I'm not intentionally trying to piss you off, and I am sorry if I am doing so, but are you sure that that's not emotions leading your views. I assure you there is a way to be in this mess and still have a protown alignment.

[4] I am aggressively defending myself. That's scummy now? I don't think the fact that you think the initial comment was weak is irksome. Its natural, and I feel the same way. One of the reasons I didn't push a case over it. You are putting words in MY mouth, aren't you accusing me of the same?

[5] Um?

---

You didn't say anything about it as weak till I did here

However I did say in the original comment that I hadn't decided if it meant anything. If it wasn't weak, it would have been an easy decision to make. Instead I just throw it out and don't attack anyone over it. Yes, you claim that is scummy, but it also suggests that that observation was not strong enough for me to get a good read off of it.

You didn't say anything about it as weak till I did here

You then quote my SECOND post in the game. This discussion has been going on for a long while now, and you seem to be suggesting that I was holding that my observation was not weak all along. I am trying to tell you this is not the case, and even when I posted it I thought it was weak. Yes, I didn't explicitly say it was weak, but my actions, and second post suggest that I was treating it with the weakness it deserved.

Then you try the old Lets put words in someone's mouth trick:

No, I'll fall for your trap. I didn't put words in your mouth there. Here let me grab the quotes for you:
I say this to start this mess:

Although I don't know what to think about the Wulfy not confirming thing, or the person going after him without mentioning this. No really, its a curiosity, and I haven't made up my mind if it actually means anything >.<

You say this in response:

Wow this is so weak. I mean really?

Seriously you have a good thought and you feel like random voting?!!!

[...]

I assume that by "good thought" you mean there was something in what I said that was strong enough to pressure over, meaning that you thought something in there was not weak (which surprised me, because I didn't think there was anything in there strong). So I respond with a question to determine which of the things you thought was strong enough to push a case on:

For you to be legitimately concerned about my play, you must think something about the late confirm or random vote was acutally scummy and not just a curiosity, and are wondering why I didn't think so as well.

My thought there was mainly, "Hey, you are complaining because I didn't push my observation hard enough, how could I when it would have been immediately criticized as a null tell at best."
Slowly over the next few posts you let me know that both of them are weak in your eyes.

Long story short there is NO manipulation here, I am not trying to fool anyone. Your initial complains were worded as to criticize me for not pushing 'a good idea'. A 'good idea' that you call a null tell and criticize me later for even bringing up in the first point. I saw this as an inconsistency and tried to question over it, but apparently pissed you off in doing so.

Then you avoid comments I noticed.

I did?

[Scien]

I think it's obvious. So why did you choose as you did, Scien?

It has been suggested that I should have tried to push that observation as a case. Let's just take a second to see what would have happened.

I post a comment about the situation, which utilizes WIFOM and is fairly weak without anything to support it. Since this is early game there is nothing to support it yet.

So in this "choose your own adventure", I immediately attack ODDin on the grounds that he is 'random' voting for an inactive, someone who wouldn't have defended themselves. (Or I guess Wulf on the grounds of the late confirm. Depending on which I wanted to pressure more). I would have to overextend a lot here, because it IS early game and there's nothing to back me up.

Town/scum catch this, and depending on their alignment will manipulate it, or be critical of it. I will get accused for pushing a weak case, and fabricating suspicion. Mainly pretty anti-town stuff. Pressure is immediately taken off ODDin in favor of me, and we are in the same mess as we are now for different reasons.

It doesn't matter what alignment I had at that time. It was a bad idea to use a weak observations in ANY case. I am now caught in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

"Why were you pushing a weak case on someone when you didn't have much to go on. You are manipulating the situation scum."

Or.

"Why did you not use your observation in an attack on ODDin or Wulf. You are manipulating the situation by pushing cases that you don't want to be involved in. Scum."

Of course I didn't foresee how much trouble I would get into for not pushing a weak case. Wow, that last sentence is not something I ever expected to have to say.

[Scien]

Of course my question

still

stands to Farside. She suggested that I should have pushed a weak case as opposed to letting the observation rest. I want to know why that makes sense to her.

[Scien]

I would have been attacked for using a weak observation on someone, if that observation is all I had, and I needed to stretch for the rest. This would not have been good for the town. I can weather a bit of scrutiny, but getting the town to focus on me is wasting time trying to find scum. It would not have made sense for me to walk down a path where the town would immediately make me the main suspicion.

I don't think using the weak attack would have been the right move there. There are several telling me that I am wrong, but I just don't see how.

WIFOM is weak alone. It can be backed up with evidence down the road. WIFOM is not totally useless, but it is useless in a vacuum. Early game is kind of a vacuum.

Yes, someone confirming late is a null tell. It was merely an observation. You still think that I should have taken that null tell and pushed a case against ODDin or Wulf over it? I still think this sounds like you are arguing both sides. Pushing that case would have been scummy, just like not pushing it is apparently scummy (I don't understand why the latter is the case though).

I couldn't be MORE sincere at this point.

I have been trying to explain my actions to the best of my ability. I have tried to hit any question you had. I am not hiding. You mentioned that I deliberately missed something earlier I believe. Can you quote it? I don't mind answering anything.

---

As a first post, having ANY evidence is great - the goal is to get out of RVS as soon as possible.

I don't think that observation was strong enough to be considered evidence. We are certainly out now, heh, although that was not the plan with that statement.

Refusing to put pressure on other players out of fear of being attacked comes across as very anti-town: it reflects the scum motive of being more concerned about staying alive than finding villains.

I knew it would be spun that way, but it is also the in the interest of town to avoid suspicion. Avoiding suspicion is a null tell, both alignments want to do it.

Either a bad play as over-conservative town

Ouch. I assure you it could have been a whole lot worse. I was starting to get mad there for a bit.

As I have said before, I don't fear talking, and am not hiding. If you want me to comment on my play just ask. Plugging in small attacks like that doesn't really help, and does nothing to promote me providing evidence to change your mind.

[Scien]

Nope I understand that perfectly. But arguing against it is going to be impossible, because just as the accusation is a bit of WIFOM, even if experience shows it holds, any defense is also going to be based in WIFOM.

I really haven't been around

that

long. This would be my eighth game, not counting other ongoings, but I am not hiding behind that. Eh? Just to see what kind of reactions I would get I suppose. I was definitely surprised to get a huge push back from you saying I should have used it in an attack. I just didn't think it was strong enough.

What I expected? Either people directly telling me to STFU because it was WIFOM, or maybe people lightly speculating. Both of which would give me views on them. I didn't expect it to be used in a case (that would have been very odd and I would have been highly critical of it).

I guess I kind of lost sight of that in the immediate defense I had to make due to your strong attack. That attack caught me off guard.

[Scien]

Questions:
-Why could one of the mentioned actions have scum motivations behind them? (Wulfy not confirming and ODDin not mentioning this when voting)
-You're saying here that you don't know if either means a thing. Yet in the case it could have meant something about the allignment, wouldn't it have been better to vote one of Wulfy or ODDin, instead of your random vote? If you agree, why didn't you do so?

They couldn't. Hence me not pursing either Wulfy or ODDin on the grounds that I thought it was scummy.
No, because of the answer to your first question. Yes, I know how wanting to not pursue someone based on how it would make someone look could be spun as anti-town. However, as a pro-town role I have a duty to stay alive too. Pushing a weak case using nothing but that statement would have been ridiculous, and we would have been having this same fight now if I had done so. It's just as easy for people to spin someone scum for pushing a weak case.

So I guess answer to your last question is I don't agree.

[On my initial comment] [1] So why is it odd to him then that nobody pointed it out?
[2] Secondly, saying the bolded. Then why point it out?

[1] It's not really. I never really held that it was.
[2] LOL, why not at this point. Apparently it got people talking, I just thought the focus would either be on slight WIFOM coming from me, or people claiming that there was meaning there. As I have said before, I definitely didn't expect to be attacked for not pushing it aggressively. There really was nothing to push.

No, what she's saying makes a lot of sense.

I disagree. You can fault me for one or the other but you can't fault me for both. You can't say "Hey, you didn't use your logic to push a strong case against them" and simultaniously say, "Hey, that logic is too weak to use in a case, so why did you bring it up." I can understand why people have griefs with either of them, but having griefs with both of them doesn't make sense. (Yes I know I am paraphrasing here, but that is what I was reading into as two parts of the case against me, weak points, and not using those weak points in an aggressive case)

[C]an you elaborate on what you mean with 'future actions' in this case?
Also, from this post (Post 37), I get the impression you're suspicious of Farside. If this is true, why no vote?

Future actions? Actions in the game later in the day... I assume you mean who would have been making them? Anyone. People attacking the point, people using the point, people mentioned in the point. They were going to give views based on the point, those views have motives. When you combine the reactions everyone is having now, with claimed views and actions they have later, you can look back and see things more clearly.

As for the vote, I was/am emotional. It's typically a bad idea for me to vote for someone who I was mad at for being condescending. It was either a manipulation to get me to place a vote in the middle of being attacked, or I am not thinking clearly. I suspect her, but I am perfectly willing to wait to vote until we discuss more.

Why I haven't voted anyone else? Harder question. I guess if I was going to move it it would be to her, but I don't want to based on the above.

I'm going to go ahead and volunteer this, even though its going to get spun at scummy, I have nothing to hide here: another motive is if I moved it in mid discussion my vote would have been considered reactionary and OMGUS. That would have taken any pressure out of it, and wouldn't have helped me or the town. Spin that how you want, I don't feel like hiding it from you guys.

First of all, you're stating that you'd see whom of Wulfy and ODDin you'd have wanted to presure more. If you wanted to pressure one of them, why no vote? Secondly, it's noted that you thought that much about yourself.

First of all you are reading that out of context, I explicitly stated there that if we play this game of "what if I pushed that weak case", I would have voted one over it and the resulting case would been weak. My point is, that would have lead to an attack on me as well, for "Pushing a weak case as strong, and fabricating suspicion."
Second, I don't understand what you mean... I thought that much about myself? I'm assuming you mean that I should be less concerned with self-preservation as town. I can't fight that, and people have mentioned it before. I claim that wanting to live is neither pro-town or anti-town, but spin it all you want.

I don't see why you wondered if confirming late could be scummy when you state here that you think it's a nulltell. Please explain this. This reinforces my earlier statement as well that you stated it was odd that it didn't get mentioned, while you state that it's a nulltell.

Also, can you link to your last scum game and your last town game?

As I have said before, I never really wondered if it was scummy, I never thought it was. I mentioned it just to see what others would say. I never treated that statement as an attack, and yes I understand that doesn't mean anything because I caught flack for it immediately. I would still challenge you to show me where I said that statement showed anyone was scummy.

As for the links, my wiki has an up to date game list in reverse chronological order, minus running games. There are both scum and town in there, and they are listed. I am not trying to be obtuse, if that's not enough, I will list them for you. Would you like me to?

I'm going to end this post here, on grounds of length, still catching up to page 4 and 5.

[Scien]

I was asked from scien why I felt him not being aggressive was bad and I was answering the question.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I would like to point out, I understand what you guys are saying about aggression and that's not what I asked you. I asked you why you think I should have aggressively pushed an extremely weak case. I would like to point out the difference since it is still something I don't understand.

I call it a null tell. He says later if it's a null tell why be aggressive.
Basically everything I said he says he meant later.

On those grounds, I can't say anything at this point, because you happened to post after my first post. Here is my argument as it stands since you won't let me do that:

1) I posted an observation but did nothing with it. There was a motivation for this, even if I don't get to post later about it.

2) You assume this motivation was scum not wanting to get their hands dirty.

3) I assert that there are possible other motivations that could explain why I didn't push the case at that point.

I know this is a bad defense, but if I attempt any other one I am faced with a "Well you didn't say that before I attacked you about this point". How could I have you posted literally 15 posts after me, before anyone else really piped up over it, and still on the first page. There wasn't time to explain my motives, and now I am getting attacked like there was?

[1] I called it a null tell that wulfy had not confirmed but Scien was the one to bring it up as a musing. [2] Then backs off when questioned further on it. [3] Then attacks me for questioning his lack of aggression.

[1] Did I ever treat it as more than a musing?
[2] How do you back off from a musing?
[3] No, I attack you for wanting me to be more aggressive with no backing. You can attack me for being non-aggressive all you want, I am still confused about how you can fault me for bringing up weak points, then also fault me for not aggressively making a case from them.

He backtracked, attacked, then conceded and cowered.

Nice, no emotional attacks there.

How do you backtrack from a musing? How is attacking anti-town? I conceded, where?

I cowered? Your opinion. I have never backed down from answering a question, or asserting that what I did had a pro-town motive. I cowered from nothing. Although I'll point out the hypocrisy of calling me out for hurting your feelings with condescending tones, and then laying up personal character attacks within your cases by calling me a coward.

Am I the only one noticing Oddin pointing out my flaws and reaction but neglecting to mention scien at all and his reactions to being called out?

On the contrary, well kind of, I am currently getting a weird vibe from it for different reasons. I find it hard to believe that anyone could be on my side now after all the spinning that has happened, and ODDin seems to be defending me... I think that is strange.

I have done nothing to garner defense from others, I have not played well, and even though I have been vocally defending myself to try and save me it doesn't appear to be working. And yet someone comes in and starts talking like what I am doing makes sense? I am getting a creepy buddying attempt feeling out of it.

You attacked Scien because he cast a random vote rather than pursue a weak lead (wulfy not having confirmed).

You attacked me because I cast a vote for a weak reason (Nik not posting) rather than a random one.

Bam?

The beginning of the day is a good time to be voting and pressuring over all sorts of things to stir things up and get healthy discussion. You accused Scien of *not* doing that, after all.

Bam?

I am saying bam, because I feel like this is a vindication, not because of the attack on Farside. I totally understand using either side of the argument to keep pressure up. My confusion is using both sides on the same person at the same time.

Again, I can see someone having grief at either mentioning weak points, or pushing weak cases as aggresive cases, but I don't understand how you think "Your points are too weak, you should have pushed them as a case".

Am I just missing something?

[Scien]

I apologize for that. There are a lot of questions coming at me, and I didn't want to miss any of them.

[Scien]

I don't see how that 2) of yours shows where I backed down. I explicitly said I never pushed it as a case. I explicitly said what was going on in my mind, even if it could have been spun as scummy. I throw out the counter to this entire scenario, and how I would have been attacked just as easy. I just don't see anything in there that is backing down.

As for the quote in 3, I have to ditto my thoughts. I don't see how that is backing down if it was my thoughts all along. I know you are going to go back to your argument that "but you can't prove that that is what you were thinking all along", and you are right. However I never treated that statement like it was a case, because it is too weak to do so. I can point at it and say that's why I didn't "draw conclusions" in my initial post, but if you are not going to let me use posts after you first attack post on me, due to "thats after someone pointed out grief at your play", then that's all I can show you.

Also @ Scien: What part of my accusations on you seem scummy and why?

* Simultaneously pointing out that me making weak statements that sound accusatory is scummy, and the fact that I didn't generate a big aggressive case from them in my first post is also scummy. Its a play I don't understand, and due to that misunderstanding it sounds like flipping any part of my play is convenient at that specific part of your arguments against me.

* Setting up a subtle damned if you do, damned if you don't between pushing a weak case aggresively, or backing off a weak case due to it being weak.

* Getting 'emotional' and considering it counter scummy for me to look in your direction after receiving such a strong attack. I guess I should ask, (and this is hypothetical), assuming I am a townie, what do you expect me to do if not question your motives, when I am attacked for what was 3 pages at that point based on one statement? Of course I am going to pressure you for counter answers... but somehow that counter attack was scummy. Why?

I'm having a hard time with you. I have not checked meta, but you sound like you are very fond of aggression. That's cool and all, and would explain your hardcore pressure against me. But simultaneously I am having a hard time wondering how, every explanation I give is almost completely disregarded or spun in a negative light. I know that this is something that happens, but I am going to question why. Aggressive townie player? Or manipulative scum looking for an easy target?

Questions towards you are all I have got to make up my mind.

[Scien]

As for disregarding your comment can you show where[...]

No. This is more of an overall play thing at this point. I have been explaining my positions and decisions to the best of my ability. I am asserting that what you are looking at as scummy play could have townie motives. This is disregarded. I know that assuming people to have scummy motives is the norm and I should be complaining, but that is exactly what is happening here and it frustrates me. I can not give a defense that you can't attack with any of these statements:
a) You only say that after you caught grief about it.
b) You can't prove that.
Long story short, WIFOM.

[...] please let

not rehash the same question I feel I've answered [...]

You haven't. In any case you have changed the question through misunderstanding or manipulation, and answered the derivative.
I'm not going to rehash at this point. It is obvious you don't want to answer. I guess I am glad that I 'scummilly' counter attacked you, if this is the outcome of that.

As for looking at it in a negative did you see the part I put in bold to you with your mussing about Oddin?

OMG... I asked you about this in page one, and was met with refusal to answer and counter accusations. Dang... As for your question, no, I didn't see it above.

So putting everything together, you thought that the comment on ODDin was a good comment with a weak backing. Which you immediately attacked as weak (possibly just because I didn't pursue it, but your words were 'weak! weak! weak!'). When I said that I didn't think it was strong, immediate attacks on not using it.

Doesn't make sense. Never did, and if you answered as you claim, still doesn't.

[...] there was something I felt was almost a substance. [...]

Something else I was trying to ask about as far back as page 1 or 2. If its weak how can there be substance, there couldn't be. I could have made a case about it but it would have immediately been torn down as WIFOM, weak, and scummy to suggest. The middle was WAS the best. Not raise a case, wait for comments.

You questioned me aobut wolfy being nonconfirmed but you, yourself ever said in was a null tell.

Yep. Getting comments helps. So what if it is a null tell, people bit it. Some people claimed they saw logic in it, some people might have said they thought it was WIFOM, the reaction of ODDin and Wulfy would have been informative as well. So what if I asked for your opinion and later said that the initial comment was a null tell? What are you implying here?

Agressive townie to me is someone who targets a player they felt made and error and relentless questions the motives and actions.

Yep, I agree.

Well this is a bit more difficult but I would say someone who is manipulative scum is spinning something that is not there and making it a case. Or finding something small and twisting it into something worse.
I can see your wheels spinning already but I didn't not put words into your mouth Scien. You took the words and comments I made and said it was what you meant. How do I know what you meant? How do I not know you were trying to look productive and hoped to spin it into a conversation piece into just a muse for distraction?

Again, knew this was coming back again. I think its possible that this is what you are doing. I think there was a damned if you do damned if you don't case there. Every attempt to show townie motives was met with a 'you can't show that's what you were really thinking' which means you are accusing me of WIFOM defense. I can claim the same of that element of your attack because you can't prove that your WIFOM of 'usually when someone doesn't attack based on weak points in RVS, they are scum' is true.

You stopped me too quickly for it to not be WIFOM one way or the other. However when you do it, its kosher, when I do it, I'm scummy.

How do I not know you were trying to look productive and hoped to spin it into a conversation piece into just a muse for distraction?

You don't. How do I know that you're willingness to ignore any pro-town motive I suggest on grounds that it is WIFOM, is aggressive townie?

---

I post too much, instead of countering every paragraph here would you mind just listing your current points against me. I think this will help everyone here, and I will do my best to try and counter as briefly as I can. This post block stuff has to be getting the town to not pay attention and that's not helpful for anyone.

[Scien]

1) It's not really a bus if I didn't pursue it as a case. A musing is not going to do any real distancing.
2) I asked you about this around three times. I asked you where you thought the 'good thought' was in the two. You ignored the first two questions, then got 'angry' when I called you out on ignoring them. You then answered with "I think both are weak", which I took to mean you thought both of them were not 'good'. Apparently now you are saying something else.
3) I never suggested that I brought up weakness before you. This is an artifact of trying to explain why I didn't push anything in my first post as a case. You wouldn't let me use any explanation after my first post on the grounds of "it being after you called me out". So I point to my first post and say that the motive for not pushing is that it was weak, even if I didn't explicitly say it (would have invalidated any comments I got on it anyway, since you seem to be claiming I should have said it was weak as I said it). As for capitalizing on it to get out of the RVS, that depended on what people said about it. It was very possible to get out of RVS using that comment.
4) Yep, frustration can do that. What's UTR? I have balls, you just aren't seeing them. Although the personal attack is again noted, after claiming that I was being condescending towards you.

Having a musing about something and just siting on it to see if convo happens is one thing but you didn't do that.

That is exactly what I did, until you started attacking me heavily for having weak observations and not pushing them. You saying "you didn't do that", when you came out immediately and griefing me about not using it as a case. My response was 'it was weak it wasn't meant for a case, it was meant for others to comment on'. This complaint is silly. The moment you started attacking me on it, no one had any desire to comment further on it, they wanted to stay out of the crossfire.

[Scien]

They didn't comment on it directly... they many chimed on on the you vs me IIRC.

[Scien]

mainly even

[Scien]

Scien does contradict himself somewhat in this: at first he said he wasn't sure if his observations on Wulfy and myself meant anything. "Not being sure" means allowing the possibility that it does, in fact, mean something. Later he says he knew for certain it didn't mean anything and knew it weren't scum tells.

The place I said I was "not sure" was in the initial post. If I came out and said "Hey, it's actually a null tell" in the initial post, people coming in to comment about it would have not bitten. It's not really a contradiction, it was bait.

[Scien]

I owe this game a reread... I have been focusing on Farside/defense too much.

I'm going to reread a bit and comment more later in the day. As for pending questions I will hit them then.

(Sorry guys been a busy weekend)

[Scien]

YankCane - 4 posts. Criticizes Farside, but says little. Not enough for me to make up an opinion on him.
YamiJoey - 7 posts, most of which RVS stuff. Catching up, he says.
ODDin - Until pressured by Wulfy just comments on Scien vs Farside (I suppose that was the main thing going on though). I would say he is coming off less objective than some other players, but has been looking around a bit.
Nikanor - He seemed to actively look outside of the me vs Farside, and seems to have found an early connection between EB and Maemuki.
Maemuki - Suggests a connection between EB and Hewitt. Mostly random stuff. Not much else.
Fuzzy - More posts than I though, due to little content per post. Null read.

---

Everyone else I am either deliberately avoiding commenting further on due to them being named Farside, or me having nothing negative to question about.

So I guess I want to ask a few questions to the above:
EB? What's your current views on Hewitt and Maemuki?
Hewitt? Whats your current views on EB?
Maemuki. Whats your current views on EB?

[Scien]

No. But then again I didn't imply it was negative.

Just because I said that everyone else was positive doesn't imply everyone in my comments was negative. Its more of a 'these guys I want to comment on'.

[Scien]

I am merely interested in the connections that people are seeing between people criticizing one person of something while ignoring the other.

Those were suggested in pairs:
Hewit and EB, and Maemuki and EB. I want to get impressions in writing, and examine those views that's all.

It is very unlikely that you guys are going to be 'pitted' against each other for just explaining your views.

[Scien]

Must... not... respond... so... hard....

[Scien]

Yes to the first question.
I don't understand the second question.
And, meh that's fair I guess to the third comment.

[Scien]

@Scien - Very curious that all your questions revolve around me. Any particular reason? What's your read on me so far?

Not curious at all. On my reread, I noticed two people trying to suggest connections between people. Now, preemptively, I'm not suggesting it is ever a good idea to build this kind of connections, it is a good idea to get the parties to comment on each other. It gives them less wiggle room later if they are indeed scum.

Here I will quote the two people that suggested links so you can tell I am not pulling this out of thin air:

Vote: YamiJoey for his double standards regarding EB and Wulfy.

@ Everyone, I like the fact that EB attacked Nik + Fuzzy for lurking, but if hewitt is doing the lurking, then it's a-ok!

Well crap. In my building a post I screwed up my questions. But my desire to get current feelings in writing still stands in the cases where we haven't yet.

I really wanted to ask YJ and EB for their views on each other, and EB and Hewitt (I got that one right) for their views on each other. Just to get them in firm writing.

---

Read on you? To put it short, you seem at the moment to be objective in your reasoning so far. You have actively been considering multiple possibilities for game state, and have been considering multiple people. You didn't find an easy target so far and stick with them. In isolation I would say that's protownish. Of course it can be pulled off by scum too, but at the moment you haven't taken the easy route, so there are better people to look at.

---

This is scummy. [...] explain what you think of Farside's questions. Someone else, in answering yours, noted potential manipulation in your question phrasing. Do you see anything similar or anything of worthy note in Farside's questions? More importantly, could you clarify (with complete sentence that include parts of the question [/teacher-esque-ness]) your statements in post 214?

Meh, not really at this point. I'm worried that me commenting on Farside will result in more flame wars, we just aren't getting through to each other. But since you asked, I'll give short opinions below. But first...

In my post 214, I am equally worried that me commenting on it is just going to perpetuate this war. But I guess I am obliged:
She asked if my "must not respond" comment was directed at her. I said, yes.

To elaborate, I wanted most to respond to this:

"I still don't like scien but I can see the hypocrissy comment but I still, still don't like when someone ask questions to me without answering the questions first and then following my reasoning as their own. If makes me feel all sorts of scum vibes. "

I was immediately attacked for having weak points that I believed in. When I say immediately, I mean before my second post. If I laid down my first post in hopes that someone would comment on it and overextend: one, how could I have provided my feelings on my questions in that first post and still get people to comment; two, how can you be sure that I am following someone's reasoning as their own rather than following my own; three, how could it have played out any differently if I was attacked immediately rather than waiting for me to dig a hole?

I actually have commented on and tried to explain much of this, and at this point DON'T want Farside to comment on it. Was just irritating me.

As for the sentence that I didn't understand: "Or is this like saying I'm not going to say a worday a word type thing?". I said I didn't understand it. I don't understand it. I don't think I can get much clearer. Want me to say what I don't understand? Sure. What is "worday a word type thing". I get the first part, she is saying that my comment was like saying "I am not going to <blank>" I don't understand blank.

As for her "no comment from the peanut gallery". I am fully willing to take her advice just so we don't muddle the thread any more.

---

As for the rest of her questions to others in that post:
I think I can cover it with a blanket statement. She seems to be focusing on people's RVS mainly. This is not bad at this point in the game. The bulk of many people's posts were RVS posts, and she is trying to get them to comment more on the game as it stands. Seems okay to me.

---

Just out of curiosity Wulfy are you really wanting to know what my thoughts towards Farside are? Or is this an attempt to flair up things again?

[Scien]

As for the rest and just really a last question on the subject for now Scien. How long was I supposed to wait till you stated that your first message was weak? If no one has said anything to you about it would you even have brought it up yourself?

Thanks for the explanation on my misunderstanding, first of all.

And secondly, I understand where you are coming from above. Yes, if you thought it was funny you should have questioned on it immediately and I can't fault you for it. You shouldn't have had to wait forever to wait for me to explain myself, and if no one commented on it at all, it is likely I would not have explained myself.

My point is merely, that this situation is setup (maybe not intentionally setup) so that there was no way for me to get out of that situation without 'appearing to ditto your logic', assuming that I have my current train of thought. Basically, yes, it looks scummy to you because it looks like a ditto, but you have no way to know for sure if it was truly a ditto or not. It's WIFOM.

I could be townie here and have set that up hoping to get people to comment on it, but not pushing it as a case. Or I could be scum not wanting to get my hands dirty. But my using your logic is a null tell. You can hold it scummy, but really its meh.

[Scien]

I'm having a very hard time getting my footing in this game. So much 'meh' to wade through. That's my problem, not your guy's. You guys aren't doing anything wrong.

Anyway Hewitt is acting within his meta, and I believe it was a RV anyway.

Fuzzy has done pretty much nothing all day...

Unvote
Vote Fuzzy

[Scien]

Why are you guys thinking that it is possible to have multiple scum in the mason/monk roles?

You guys got me all confused about possible setups.

Now I need to go back and read the setup possibilities again...

[Scien]

Here was my impression of possibilities so far.

There is a vanilla monk and a vanilla mason. Their partner might be a anti-town role, but might not.

There are 4 antitown roles in two groups, but one in each might be part of the monks and masons.

The counts at the beginning of the game are variable because the mod was counting anti-town role/masons or anti-town role/monks as not vanilia scum and not vanilla mason/monks.

So in those cases, by her numbers, the scum lose a person, and the monks also lose a person, for the '1' case in both.

---

Also as an aside due to the way that the mod said she determined roles I don't think it is more likely that a mason/monk pairing has a scum, over the normal chance.

It might have been different if the setup was rolled for first, instead of each person individually and letting the die roll where they may.

[Scien]

Er, I'm pretty sure having multiple masons as anti-town is impossible. It should have been an invalid case and rerolled if that happened.

[Scien]

I personally think that Haylen's answer above is only a partial picture of what went on. I think it was an answer that she made when it was late and she was tired.

I think saying that the impossible is possible based purely on that post is probably not wise either and we should get clarification.

[Scien]

I want to hear from RBT about why she thought the mass claim was a good idea in day one.

I also want to hear the reasoning why she is gung-ho about lynching what appears to be outed masons.

[Scien]

No... what you are saying makes sense... I just don't think that post is the full picture, so I am inclined to still believe that the double scum setup is impossible.

I think that it was a post that was made late at night (like it said) and probably is a simplistic view of what could have happened.

[Scien]

No... what you are saying makes sense... I just don't think that post is the full picture, so I am inclined to still believe that the double scum setup is impossible.

I think that it was a post that was made late at night (like it said) and probably is a simplistic view of what could have happened.

[Scien]

^ This.

Jumping to conclusions much Fuzzy?

[Scien]

To RBT. Ok, so you are claiming that you are not gung-ho over lynching Fuzzy because of the claim, you just want to because before the claim he seems scummy. That's fair I guess.

I was reading into the time of your vote as the claim having significance as well. That might not be the case, and I guess that is your answer to me.

I still want to hear why exactly you thought the mass claim would be good. Yes I know you have touched on it a bit. But could you go into more detail?

ODDin, what exactly do you want me to comment on? I can go reread it to derive meaning if you want me to, but it looked like a bunch of 'meh' to me. (I'm taking your advice and trying to start conversations that interest me, since I have having problems with the ones ongoing. Yes I know that this advice wasn't directed at me.)

[Scien]

Ok. Fair. Tell me if I miss anything you want my opinion on.

1) She accuses you of twisting her comments with your "look how extremely and terribly aggressive I'm being right now. Ergo: I'm not scum."

My opinion? She has a point. She was making a point that in her opinion scum are rarely aggressive. She was not trying to push a point that she her being aggressive made her not scum. On the contrary, I believe she has said before that she plays aggressive as scum (somewhere in some meta discussion. I can find it if you wish).

You kind of have a point on your side, and we shouldn't discount her being aggressive scum. But trying to act like she was suggesting herself as pro town for being aggressive seems a stretch to me.

2) She goes on about the twisting. Pretty much my same comments above. Yes, what you are saying is a concern. But I don't see where she was pushing that her aggression made her pro-town. I think that's a derived thought coming from you.

3) She quotes your reasoning for your vote on her. I'm not seeing what she is getting at. It looks like you are saying that all cases are weak, and you don't want to lynch anyone yet in your quote, and that you just pressure voted. In general I would say meh to everything in that quote. But I wouldn't necessarily call it scummy. Indecisive would be a better word. (Of course to her, that is scummy). Also, saying your vote is for pressure removes pressure.

4) She suggests a pairing between me and you. The only thing I can comment on here is that as a townie, I can only assert that for my side of this 'pairing', its a mistaken view. However you could be scum and buddying to me for some reason. My opinion was that you were kind of objective, so I don't really see the buddying claim.

5) She comments on your pressure vote, and not wanting to talk about others at this time. I say my comments ditto 3 above. I can see her complaint, and she has already let the town know she is a stickler about this, but IMO what your quote was indecisive not necessarilly scummy in its own right.

6) More of her accusing you of twisting words. Meh, partially true. I think you are making assumptions that

might

be protown, but to get to those conclusions takes an assumption. Pressing that as a case is going to look wrong, and that's kind of what you are doing.

7) She complains about you calling her vote OMGUS. I disagree with it being that. She definitely has claimed issues about your case in thread.

Conclusion? I can see where you are coming from. I'm not going to lie and say I don't (even now) suspect Farside, but much of your case does seem fairly weak, and stretched.

I think you have valid concerns. But many of them make assumptions that we can't prove. Trying to push a case at this time isn't going to work. I think you have been fairly vocal about your case, and you didn't take the easy route and back off. But the case itself has issues, and she is right to question you about it.

Why are you interested in where I stand in the you vs Farside discussion anyway? What does my opinions gain you? Are you looking for an ally? Are you wanting to stir Farside up? I kind of find it odd that I was polled here. Why am I so special?

[Scien]

^ I think that this is a stretch. I made the same one.

Between this comment, and the immediate vote for fuzzy on Hewitt's claim, I was under the impression that the 'I want to see masons/monks flip' was a motivation for the vote. However when I questioned about it, RBT immediately said that she never said she wanted to lynch the m/ms. Going back and trying to prove her wrong, I couldn't find her pushing this reason for her vote ever.

It's an assumption, and a decent one, but its not very concrete. You think the assumption is strong enough to lynch RBT over?

Assuming the assumption is correct, why is it more likely that RBT is scum, over just wanting to pursue bad play?

IMO, I think a fuzzy lynch would give us more information over a RBT lynch. I think I am sticking with my vote.

[Scien]

Oh and mod, when you get back, could we get some clarification about if the Masons/Monks can have multiple anti-town roles in them? Is the amount of wolves/scum variable? Or is the 1-2 listed in early game just vanilla anti-town roles?

I still believe that my view on possible game setup is right. And if that is the case, then I believe everyone's game state changes.

[Scien]

Welcome in CSL.

Scien, why am I the best info lynch? I'm not opposed to going down for the team, but it'd be nice to know why.

This is in response to me saying, "IMO, I think a fuzzy lynch would give us more information over a RBT lynch. I think I am sticking with my vote."

First off, I said you would provide more info over a RBT lynch, not that you would provide the most information out of everyone. That's a difference.

This is because you are in an all but confirmed mason/monk group. Haylen just confirmed one part of my view of possible game setup. And that is that there is always going to be one pro-town role in a mason/monk group.

If we lynch you there are two possibilities. A) You are anti-town, your partner is in the clear. B) You are townie, and Hewitt is either or.

Compare that to RBT. A) She is anti-town, and that explains her apparent (although non-concrete) desire to hit m/m groups. B) She is town, and that apparent desire is weird, but gives us no motives.

---

Actually I think given the above I switch my stance. If RBT is town, I can't see her having that desire. I know she is saying she doesn't, but given what Farside suggested, I think it is probably likely. Plus she would have a good motive to want to blanket lynch a m or m group if she has the opposite anti-town alignment.

Also, the m/m groups should have slightly less chances to be scum due to being invalid for two of the positions, and possibly 3 of the 4 if their partner got one. I know it isn't a blanket card that should save them. But pure statistics should suggest that a given m/m would be less likely scum than any other person.

So I guess I changed my mind. But I still am looking at you. You have been fairly unproductive today (pot calling kettle black I am sure, but my concern stands)

Unvote
Vote RBT

[Scien]

Time issues as in... time zone? Or bad time as in, she hates some of us but doesn't want to say it... heh.

Even if its time zone, I think ODDin has a point.

I would think that someone would have at least a slight opinion at the end of day 1... even if they were half-way across the world.

Although I could see this as someone not knowing how to play in day 1... wanting to be more sure of yourself that you really can be with little information.

[Scien]

We could really use a hammer here... with 8 mins left.

[Scien]

I found Scien asking for someone to hammer at the end on RBT was incredibly scummy, especially looking in hindsight as he flipped town. I never really understood the wagon on him to begin with I thought it was pretty damn crappy and forced.

Ya, horribly scummy to beg for a lynch with only 8 minutes to spare. It would be much more pro-town to just sit back and let a no-lynch happen.

As for a crappy, forced wagon, er ok. Kind of typical for day 1 to follow weak cases, since you typically can't form strong cases yet. She did seem to have something against M/Ms, and she did lead with a suggestion to mass-claim. Not Kosher.

[Scien]

It's not the fact that it was begging for a no lynch it was the fact that you were begging for a lynch on a crappy ass case. I think it was clear that she did it to start conversation which is a tactic that a lot of players do to start convo.

As I said before... the case on her was better than you are pretending. And even if it wasn't, I would have been pushing for a lynch with eight minutes left before deadline. Info is king.

I also don't hold that she was just trying to 'start conversation' with her game entry views. I think she believed them. Her actions in later game supports this. Namely voting for someone that claimed unsolicited.

Here, lets stop this and start something new:

I would beg for her lynch again, even knowing that she was townie. With eight minutes to spare, and with the wagon being an either or at day end, it is important to have a lynch due to the info it brings to town, and I thought her probable scum due to voting patterns and claimed views.

[Scien]

The HUZZAH! PRINGLES! Vote count

Hewitt - ElectricBadger
Scien - Farside22

Not Voting: Nikanor, Hewitt, Maemuki, Scien, Canada, ODDin, XofElf

Lots of love...now I get back to my nanowrimo, that I still need to start.
Haylxxx

Heh, I could try and argue with you again but it will dissolve into WIFOM. I thought, and still do think that RBT was a good choice. I think fuzzy was too. But with the statistics of knowing that Fuzzy was a M/M, I went with the other side.

That flip that you are complaining about, is me in full honesty switching my views in mid post as I attempted to post why Fuzzy was the better lynch. Going through my points trying to argue for Fuzzy's lynch, I changed my mind.

I didn't try and hide the change in attitude, in fact I explicitly said in the post you are quoting that I changed my stance.

IMO this WIFOM case that I am scum and decided that I should switch from a 'avoid the townie stance' to a 'Oh actively lynch a townie' stance is a bit silly. Not only that, but the person I was voting, and attempting to argue was the better lynch was also killed and flipped townie. If you honestly think I was avoiding voting for a townie at that point... why was my vote on a townie, and why was I trying to get others to lynch that townie?

You don't have to believe everything I say. But trying to claim that when I was voting Fuzzy it was because I was afraid of voting a townie, is silly.

You want to try, 'Well maybe he was actively going for any townie with pressure on them'? You would have a better complaint there I think, however still wrong, and still WIFOM.

[Scien]

Won't be around till Monday... sorry. Also... big page is big.

[Scien]

Calling it another battle and more WIFOM is just a way to down play the scum move.

Fine:

So far I see first trying to avoid what he knows to be a townie lynch to flip flopping to lynch said townie.

Both the person I was voting when you say I was 'wanting to avoid a townie lynch', and the person I was trying to push a case along on, was Fuzzy. The person that flipped town in the night.

If I was 'afraid' to lynch a townie, why was I on a townie pushing for a townie, until I changed my mind to another townie?

[Scien]

And... what makes it more likely in your mind that I am an anti-town afraid to lynch a townie over a townie who just changed his mind as I claimed, when going back to build a case on fuzzy?

[Scien]

I'm trying hard not to be condescending.

Fuzzy's wagon went nowhere you went to the one wagon that was going somewhere.

Again, what makes it more likely in your mind that this was a scummy action, and not me switching my mind, as I was building a case on Fuzzy?

[Scien]

Fuzzy's case was valid. Hell his own mason buddy thought he was scum and who wouldnt' based on how he played.
You fliped onto RBT after trying to distance yourself. There is a big difference.

What makes you think that? What evidence do you have that your assumption of my motives is correct. (This is what I was talking about WIFOM BTW).

We can go on all day about what you think I was thinking. How about we talk about why you think it instead.

Whattt?? We have a claimed mason, and a fuzzy flip? Who?

You haven't caught up to that point yet I don't think. Hewitt claimed Fuzzy as a partner a bit before day end. Right before RBT voted for Fuzzy (pretty much right after the claim IIRC).

[Scien]

Also, If I was trying to distance myself from a townie lynch, why was I pushing to lynch a townie before my change of heart? You are claiming that I was distancing from RBT's eventual flip. However I was pushing for someone that is now a confirmed townie. It doesn't make sense that you are claiming I was 'afraid' to lynch a townie due to how it would look, when both targets were townie.

I was on a townie at the time, pushing a case on a townie. He had other votes, and would have been easy to stick with and still lynch, so claiming that I was just picking the easier road doesn't make sense either.

[Scien]

The Facial recognition participation wtf? Vote count

Hewitt - ElectricBadger
Scien - Farside22

Not Voting: Nikanor, Hewitt, Maemuki, Scien, Canada, ODDin, XofElf

Lots of love
Haylxxx

WIFOM... and anytime I get you to try and explain yourself you spout the same thing. WIFOM does not a case make.

You may think my actions are scummy. But if you can't say why, then woop de do. Just saying "Scum move", "Scum move!", "SCUM MOVE!!!!" over and over again doesn't help.

Trying to get you to explain your WIFOM is not a 'old, tired, scummy' move. It's a move to try and get to real discussion.

---

There is no wishy washy stance here. You are spouting a bad case. I want you to support it and so far you haven't. Why are my moves scummy? Why do you believe my actions scream scum to you, when I could have just as likely thought better of my case on Fuzzy and moved to RBT? There has to be a reason. Why not give it to us?

[Scien]

You have yet to explain [moving your vote] instead you throw up this wall of "well either way I was on a town wagon so your point is invalid" I stated the fuzzy case as valid. He was acting scummy you thought RBT was town then switched.

No. I explained already. I was going try and convince people that Fuzzy was the better info lynch of the two. When I was going back and formulating my post, I thought a bit more about math, and thought that RBT would be the better target from the two since she was not claiming to be in a M/M pair (due to statistics). I said this way back when, in the post where I switched my vote. You claiming I didn't is odd.

No for your other point as well. You changed your position since, but one of your original claims against me is that I was reluctant to vote RBT because you suspected I knew he was town, and I was afraid to push hard for a townie. This was not a valid point, I was trying to push for what we now know as a townie lynch in Fuzzy while you suggest I had this fear.

Soooo. You say my switch was scummy. I say I changed my mind due to math. Why do you believe you are right? What points to me having scum motives? Answer so far? Silence.

That's because your 'case closed' case is nothing but WIFOM at the moment.

[Scien]

Right... read my post where I voted RBT. I said I changed my mind in it, due to math among other things.

And if you can't say why I'm so scummy and can only repeat over and over that I am scummy then, quite frankly this is pointless. You are pushing nothing.

[Scien]

1) It's not back tracking if no one is accusing me of wrong doing.
2) I never said he wasn't scummy. I said in the post you quoted that I thought that one was the better lynch. That's not the same as saying that one is looking townie to me.
3) This vote had town motives. You are just pretending that it could have only been scum motivated.

[Scien]

1) You said I back tracked back then. Were you telling me I shouldn't have been pushing for Fuzzy then? No? Then I wasn't backtracking there.

You are suggesting I am backtracking now? How? I have been consistent in my views I believe.

2) Right. Because I felt that Fuzzy was the better lynch in that post. When thinking about statistics above what I was feeling, I decided to switch. It was in the post where I switched.

3) See 1.

[Scien]

I think it might be correct in assuming that just because one Mason flips scum does not mean the other is confirmed town.

Keep in mind that this statement is now proven false for future information. There can only be one scum role within a given M/M group.

Via:

There cannot be 2 scumroles in the masons and monks groups, there could, however be one.

One of the parts of that statistics stuff I keep bring up with Farside is the fact that the mod came in and cleared this up not long before I started thinking about statistics again. If a standard player has a 4 chances to get an anti-town role, a given M/M has less than 2 chances. (Less because if their buddy already got one of the anti-town roles they qualified for, they were an invalid target). Given a Fuzzy, RBT lynch either or near end day, I would have went with the non-claimer anyway.

[Scien]

The meow meow meow Vote count

Hewitt - ElectricBadger
Scien - Farside22

Not Voting: Nikanor, Hewitt, Maemuki, Scien, Canada, ODDin, XofElf

Lots of love
Haylxxx

1) What are you talking about?! Where did I backtrack on RBT? When did you ever say I did? You said I backtracked in the middle of you complaining about me switching my vote. Of course I am going to assume that you meant that the vote move itself was a backtrack from Fuzzy towards RBT. I honestly have no idea what you are going on about this time.

2) See here you go. You are talking about my reasons for the vote switch, and then call it backtracking. You are implying that the vote switch was backtracking. You are saying something else?

3) Er...

[Scien]

I want to hear from RBT about why she thought the mass claim was a good idea in day one.
I also want to hear the reasoning why she is gung-ho about lynching what appears to be outed masons.

Compare that to RBT. A) She is anti-town, and that explains her apparent (although non-concrete) desire to hit m/m groups. B) She is town, and that apparent desire is weird, but gives us no motives.

If RBT is town, I can't see her having that desire. I know she is saying she doesn't, but given what Farside suggested, I think it is probably likely. Plus she would have a good motive to want to blanket lynch a m or m group if she has the opposite anti-town alignment.

Also, the m/m groups should have slightly less chances to be scum due to being invalid for two of the positions, and possibly 3 of the 4 if their partner got one. I know it isn't a blanket card that should save them. But pure statistics should suggest that a given m/m would be less likely scum than any other person.

So I guess I changed my mind. But I still am looking at you. You have been fairly unproductive today (pot calling kettle black I am sure, but my concern stands)

Oh ya, I never said I had griefs with RBT. Sigh. Outright lies this time. Vote tiem.

Vote: Farside

Lie's at worst, unhelpful tunneling at best.

[Scien]

I'm ignoring it because it is going to require more than an inebriated post...

I doubt anything I say is going to stop the tunnel... but we deserve more than me coming in and half-assedly answering your concerns...

This is more about Farside's questions and less about yours. Expect more from me tomorrow... and spin that however you want Farside.

[Scien]

Central

[Scien]

Scien how do you currently feel about Oddin. Did you happen to notice his point against farside wherein she gave a definition on how scum act, the opposite how she was acted so in a way subtly saying shes town. Yet Oddin made a definition of his own on how town should, which one could argue reflected subtly town onto himself. Double standard aye?

How about his clear statements of being against things like "I'm town" Which you've said, and which hes ignored.

Does seem like a double standard. Or an inconsistency might be a better way to word it, because I see no reason for him to hold me under a different standard. I definitely have been explicitly saying I was town and he did attack Farside in early game for just a slight hint that she might be implying she was town (which I didn't see).

Of course, I said earlier in the game that I thought he was buddying me as well.

post 474 stop dodging

[...]So far he was one not on the lynch for RBT he held back and his comment about RBT seemed to me like he knew RBT was going to flip town. [...] In this post he completely flips is reasoning and points it to what I said [...] Then pushes the vote. So far I see first trying to avoid what he knows to be a townie lynch to flip flopping to lynch said townie.

I have answered each of these time and time again. I am not dodging anything. But one more time for you.

I went back to try and explain why Fuzzy would have been the better info lynch. Halfway through making my case (I think I even dumped most of it out in my vote post before I changed my mind. I separated with a vertical bar where I switched my views. My changes came about due to thinking about the math of the m/m team, which by that time we knew Fuzzy was a member of. I then switched my vote, after I told you why even back then, and yes as deadline loomed I pushed for it.

As for the you saying I was afraid to lynch a townie, that is also something I have gone over and over again. IF I WAS AFRAID TO LYNCH A TOWNIE WHY WAS I PUSHING FOR A TOWNIE.

You guys saying that I am dodging this post is laughable. I have been answering it ad nausium. Stretch much? What exactly am I dodging Farside and Benmage? What point of yours have I not addressed? Would you list it out? I am trying my best to explain my thoughts. At this point I don't think its a fault of mine that you can't understand me.

Also what are you wanting me to do? Come up with more reasons why I changed my mind? There is only a small subset of reasons why I switched, I can't manufacture more... jesus.

It's around page 20 I'm questing how he goes back and forth on the RBT vote, doesn't vote on him and then once the lynch nears flips onto RBT.

Again. Thought that Fuzzy was the better lynch due to activity and the possibility that a M/M lynch might be good. Thought about it a bit more and thought otherwise of it. But you won't listen to that so meh. Heh, you will probably come back three posts from now and say I never answered this point.

[Scien]

No... you claiming that I am scum when I could have had another motive for the change of mind, with no way to support that conclusion is WIFOM, lady.

My vote was not an OMGUS. Just as I said in the vote, you are either actively lying at this point, or you have such a blind tunnel vision at this point that you can't see anything I do having non-scum motives. Which means you are totally unhelpful, because everything I do has no scum motives. Both of which is a good target for a vote for me.

I try and point out my motives, you ignore them. I try and get you to back up your conclusion, you won't/can't. I point this out, you claim I am the one introducing the WIFOM here. Arguing with you is pointless. You aren't objective, you are emotional, you are opinionated in a concrete manner. I'm not trying to insult you here, in some places those traits are fine. But if you are going to have a hard core argument with me, and ignore everything I say, you will never catch scum.

---

If indeed you guys are going to lynch me over this crap (and it is crap, you don't have points as much as you have possible motives with no backing), I urge you to take a good look around you. Oddin is not cleared by my flip. Farside isn't either. It is common from what I have seen to get into a 'Well she pushed that townie so hard... she wouldn't do that as scum'. You make sure you really believe that statement if you are going to let her slide for this.

[Scien]

Yep. Not a word got through. Moving on.

[Scien]

No one can say what is in anyone's mind but the person themselves. You can lie it's not hard for scum to do.

That's exactly why using what I might have been thinking as a main point in your case is WIFOM, unless you can back it up.

I pointed out your backtracking and stated that you questioned RBT but decided it wasn't what you thought then flipped again and lynched him how is that lying?

The part where you said, "He never said a word about RBT before the vote". Seems like a lie to me.

Reading your comments about RBT and your sudden reversal is scummy

Or an honest change of mind. Support your WIFOM.

that is indeed OMGUS

I have reasons for my vote. Not OMGUS.

I showed the quotes in which you stated your thoughts on RBT and your post after that lynching him how is that not backing up a case?
So far all your doing is whining about my case and throwing it up as WIFOM and aTe.
If you were truely not scum you would show more comments on everyone and I find it funny that until someone brings up Oddin you ignore him as well.

It's not backing up the case because it doesn't explain how the switch was more likely to be scum motivated over town. Not that you will listen.

So far all YOU are doing is throwing WIFOM my way, then crying when I call you out on it.

Pointless.

[Scien]

Also why is it you completely ignore oddin or even scum huntting till someone calls you out or it's close to day end?

Lynch me then. I'm done arguing with you. At this point my lynch might give you more information over others anyway. I think you should start with ODDin... but if you are so freaking sure your view is right that you won't even listen to me, then meh.

[Scien]

Hah. Whatever.

[Scien]

That would be why I didn't respond to her points. Just so you know.

[Scien]

What do you think of EB?

Meh. Slightly negative view. I see actions of his that seem off, then again, other times he makes points that I was thinking, or that I agree with.

On rereading ISO, he seems to flip a bit when talking about the big fight in day one. Some times he claims to support one side, other times the others, sometimes neither, he even got a plug in there about busing at one point which to me would make me think that he supported neither. Weak read though, it was spread out enough it could have been honest view changing as the game went on.

Other than that, his targets seemed to be the quieter people and he stayed away from overly large conversations. Which would make sense if he is telling the truth about him hating inactives due to a recent game. When he was making points, he seemed to be thinking logically, and was a objective most of the time.

Let me see what you were suggesting about him.
On your catchup you said something along the lines that you didn't like that he placed a real vote on Nik even though he didn't support LaL. I don't really agree with your point here.
You suggested later in your catchup that you thought he was trying to look overly townie due to him talking about lurkers and whatnot. Meh, maybe, but I never really thought that was much of a tell without more evidence.
He at one point said his initial vote was barely more than random. I think this was after he removed it, but I can go back and check if you want. I tend to agree, at the time his vote was placed, he seemed pretty serious about it. Later in the day it was more like he minimalized it.
You caught some of what I found in ISO and talked about above, about funny views on the Farside/me fight in day one.
You suggested today that the inconsistencies of ODDin should have been more of an issue for EB, and I agree. Again he seems to be minimalizing.

Am I missing something else you would like me to comment on?

[Scien]

1) So you think his vote on someone who hadn't post while the thread wasnt even open for 24hrs, and than goes on an anti-lurker lynch rant to even link a different game holds weight. Fine, agree to disagree. [...]
2) So alone null. (I forget this exact point myself i'd have to relook at my own wording) [...]
3) So you agree with me that he sorta wavered here. He certainly opened the day defending his (2nd vote btw) strongly. Saying LaL, ruined a game of his...links the game, etc etc. Later he calls it barely better than random. Check Check, this is certainly something to note. [...]
4) Other than his minimalistic play, hes hypocritically acting the way he supposedly hates. Lurking.

You call him slightly negative. Who do you find scummier? Hell a player analysis from everyone on everyone ranging from scummiest to town would be ideal imo.

1) I think I can see a motive being that he voted for a person that wasn't talking yet, in order to get them to talk. Ya, him saying he wasn't for LaLers at that stage is going to take pressure off, but in early game I could see him voting for a non-talker to get them to talk. So ya, meh. I don't think this point holds tons of weight.
2) Alone null yes. Its worth noting, and could add to a case, but it wouldn't be enough for me to call scummy by itself.
3) Yes, a waver.
4) So are a lot of people. I wouldn't call his play as minimalistic as some. During some parts of day 1 he did seem to be going and starting discussions on his own. If I had to point to a minimalist, I think I would have to have pointed at Fuzzy yesterday, or Nik over EB. I also wouldn't necessarily say EB has been lurking. But meh.

[Scien]

Okay... and this failure suggests what? Being an early anti-lurker then lurking (I still don't think he was lurking but ok) makes him scum? Even if he was lurking, I don't see how becoming a lurker is scummy. Even if they are hardcore against lurkers things in life happen.

You think otherwise?

[Scien]

Long, but you asked for it. They are also roughly in order. I typically don't list out the people I have positive views on, but I figure you are making me do this because you don't think I have views on everyone. Anyway here we go:

Hewitt

- very positive - I apparently have a hard time reading Hewit. Play style differences, even when I am playing better. But here is my shot anyway. He also wanted to be deliberately disengaged from the Farside/me stuff in day 1. But not to the point that he was completely out of it. Multiple times he said that he thought both sides were crap, and that the supporters on both sides were opportunistic. Point being he did claim to have views. He did comment more on it than others, because people were pressing harder for his views on theory for some reason. Seems to have a fear of Farside just for her being Farside, which is meh, but whenever in discussion around her, it doesn't appear to effect his judgment. Claims mason... no counter claim. The only funny thing here is that he partner flipped vanilla mason. Since then he has continued along the same track, seems like he is legitimately examining other people.

Nikanor

- fairly positive - I would be lying if I didn't think he is/has been a bit quiet. He had/has a tendency to be on the defense in early day 1 (yes I know I am a bit guilty of that too). He also says he ignored most of Farside and my discussion in day 1, so maybe that is part of the reasons why he has been quiet. When he's around he seems fairly objective and does appear to be looking around him. Enough that I think it outweights any concerns I have about him being quiet.

Benmage (Canada, YamiJoey)

- very slight positive - YJ was fairly meh IMO. Also not a ton of content from Canada before the Benmage replace. Benmage posted a lot of views on catch up, and I too feel that most of his comments were negative rather than neutral or positive, but I haven't seen him try to use that to his advantage yet. I feel that some of the stuff he has said since he caught up has been funny in my mind. Especially him saying I was dodging questions, when I believed I was answering them ad nausium. But meh.

XofElf (CSL, Zazier)

- very very slight positive - I got the feeling that Zazier was overly focused on me at the beginning of his questioning. But then again he could have just been legitimately concerned about me. I don't think his questions were bad as other are suggesting. But I did see curiously low amounts of questions coming back at him. CSL nothing, absolutely nothing. XofElf nothing yet, absolutely nothing.

ODDin

- slight negative - I personally believe what I said earlier. I think he was jumping at conclusions when he said Farside was subtly saying she was town. He seemed to take a stance in the Farside/me fight that was slightly on my side with reservations. I could see this as a bit of stratling the issue so he could jump later. When I accused of a bit of buddying he immediately pointed at what I would consider his stratling post. He then sets up more stratling positions in that same post. He occasionally used this stratling when talking with Farside too I believe. I think that he has been around too if a little quiet. I wouldn't call him a lurker either. He has been posting more than some, but that is meh in this game heh.

EB

- slight negative - I still don't think this guy was lurking, but meh. I still hold to my views I posted just a few posts back. He seems to flip a bit when talking about the big fight in day one. Some times he claims to support one side, other times the others, sometimes neither, he even got a plug in there about busing at one point which to me would make me think that he supported neither. Weak read though, it was spread out enough it could have been honest view changing as the game went on. He did go on about lurkers for a while.

Maemuki

- slight to fairly negative - Meh. Not a lot of content here. Sometimes brings up good points, but for the post part it just seems to be hollow theory about role claiming. Not saying that's all she did. Just saying that that was a good bulk and it seemed meh to me. Not enough content for me to have a very good read.

Farside

- fairly negative - I will give her that she has been looking around decently when she is not tunneling me, and has been actively starting conversations. And I believe that you guys know many of my complaints about her. I could go into them if you would like me too. On top of the stuff that we have been fighting about, I believe that she has had a bit of inconsistencies in her attacks on people, but meh. I'm sure I'll have to bring this up in the near future, but lets see how long I am allowed to stay out of defense.

Interesting things on reread as well:

Nikanor in his first post suggested some kind of pairing between what is now Benmage and Maemuki. I have mentioned this before in day one, but now we have more information with one of the involved parties being confirmed townie. I think there might be something here to look at. YamiJoey at the time placed a vote on Wulfy (a confirmed townie here) for doing the same thing that Maemuki did, placing a L-3 vote in early game. However when Maemuki placed their L-3 vote, not a peep. Yes this is early game stuff. Does there still appear to be a link? I need to see Benmage's interactions with her.

Hewitt claimed Mason with Fuzzy. He also voted Fuzzy on grounds that he was fairly sure that he was wolf. We know now that it is impossible for both roles to be anti-town within the m/m's, and even if they could, that vote makes me think it is unlikely that he is a wolf. I mean, yes it could be a ruse, but I'm going with my gut for now.

Also the only thing to note was Hewitt said "there is a theme in this game where one mason is scum and the other is town. I have a 50% to hit scum if I vote Fuzzy" [iso post #17]. Number one is wrong. Number 2, an interesting mistake to make. One that should be examined I think. If he truly believes that one of each team has to be scum here, he should be 100% sure his partner is scum. Why would he still think he had a 50/50 shot? Anyway, he eventually realized his logic was off. But the mistake above is still curious given his claimed thoughts on the game at the time.

[Scien]

Forgive grammar issues and wording up there... I did that all in notepad first and had no spell check.

[Scien]

Based on this set up and the possible scenario's I'm going with the assumption that there is 2 wovles and 2 mafia. If this a fact we mislynch with 9 players and then it's just a battle between 2 scum factions for who wins.

I am almost positive this is the case. I said similar when we were having the setup questions in day one. I think the 1-2 wolf/scum was really saying vanilla wolf/scum. If there was only 1 vanilla wolf/scum, that means the other was a non-vanila m/m as well.

But, we can try and clear this up as well:

Hey Ms. Mod, is it possible for a wolf/scum team to have less than 2 members counting both the vanillas and possible M/M anti-town roles? For instance could we have started the game with only one member on the mafia team or was there always going to be two no matter the way setup landed? If you can't answer that, could you say that you can't answer that just so I know?

---

As for your lingering question to ODDin, I didn't see it explicitly. I assume you are talking about the suggestion that he is ignoring aspects of my play that he should question? I can't see the motive for that, although I know what you are getting at. I think you need to ask him, because him ignoring me truly doesn't make sense to me.

I guess in abstract though either:
A) Both of us are on the same anti-town team, and therefore are ignoring each other. This is not the case, but is what you suspect at the moment it seems.
B) He is town, and for some reason is confident I am town. This shouldn't be the case because repetitively in this game he said that he was unsure of my alignment.
C) He is scum and thinks that eventually I will get nailed by town, or is afraid to push my way thinking I might flip town (he wouldn't know if I was the other anti-town team or not). This could be the case. Although I think if I was in those scum shoes I would have pushed harder on me throughout the game, since I seemed to be the easier target between Farside and me.
D) He is scum and is confident that I am town. It would probably benefit him at this stage to start trying to hit the other anti-town team, in order to promote his team's win. As you guys said, at this point unless the town starts getting really lucky, we might get overwhelmed soon if the next round of lynch/NKs all land on pro-town roles.

But that's all speculation. I think I would lean with D, but you guys are thinking A. Well. Sure think what you want. But make sure you realize that in this game type the anti-town roles aren't out against just the town.

[Scien]

In the setup you say that there could be 1-2 scum.

Does that mean that in day 1, it is possible to have a single person scum team? In other words, a mafia member by himself?

[Scien]

Heh, I'm a bit insulted that you think that I am a bad enough player to completely ignore a teammate. But carry on.

The only thing that makes sense to me is D, which I know looks like a stretch to you guys. But its the only thing that makes any degree of sense to me at the moment. With my additional info of my role added to the actions of ODDin.

Just for the record, could you dump out the plays of mine that he has ignored?

[Scien]

I'm not saying anything about reading, I was talking about if your claim is we have been ignoring each other, it susks to think you think I suck that much. When I am scum I don't ignore my partner. Joke post anyway.

As for the 'didn't you read it' plug, I'm doing a bunch of catch up in my games. And a bunch of ISO skims. I read it, but its lost in my memory now due to the amount of information I am going through. And at the time that you posted that I was in tunnel defense against a tunnel anyway.

I caught you when you mentioned one instance you thought I was coaching when you were catching up. I really don't have a defense for that. But I legitimately wondered why he was purely interested in my response. Meh.

557:
I have commented on the whole Farside 'vague townie suggestion' claim verses me explicitly saying that I was townie thing you mentioned first. It does seem a contradiction I agree. You keep using the phrase 'double standard' but that doesn't fit. He has no reason to hold me to another standard over any other people than his scum team.

"Doesn’t it seem like Oddin wants people to read this and see ‘oh hey, that’s how Oddin is acting’ Ergo: Oddin isn’t scum/is town" -- IMO seems like as much of a stretch as when ODDin tried to pull that claim off.

But he truly didn't mention my townie claims at all. Not a peep. You are correct there. You are just wrong about the motives for that ignore.

---

So. You currently suspect EB more that ODDin or me? It seems that with the inconsistencies of ODDin, and your 'hypocrisy=scum tell' stance, that that should be pretty damning, but you are pushing EB. Why is this?

I also would still like to have an answer for what you said I was dodging in your post 570. In my opinion I was trying to answer the concerns as best I could. What exactly was I dodging in YOUR opinion?

[Scien]

Let's try that again, even though you guys are going to spin it:
You keep using the phrase 'double standard' but that doesn't fit. He has no reason to hold me to another standard over any other people than his scum team.

Assuming he is scum.

[Scien]

Double standard to me implies that he has a seporate standard for Farside and me. There is no reason for this unless Farside and him are a scum team and I don't think that is the case.

Maybe, but doubtful.

That's why I am saying inconsistent instead of double-standard.

[Scien]

Thats the point, oddin is a hypocrit

You missed the point. I think you saying "Doesn’t it seem like Oddin wants people to read this and see ‘oh hey, that’s how Oddin is acting’ Ergo: Oddin isn’t scum/is town" is as much of a stretch as when ODDin tried pulling that off on Farside. I think you are guilty of the same stretch that ODDin was. I didn't see the motive ODDin was claiming Farside had. I don't see the motive you claim ODDin had there.

i see no logical reason for him to complain to one player, make a bold statement about himself, and fail to comment on you.

I gave you D. You believe A. Both are logical. Actually so are B and C, I just don't personally believe them. But I get what you are saying. You think that D is not logical? Please tell me why.

I'm for eithers lynch, and to be honest would vote you if there was enough backing...that said i dont think there is, i think you the least scummy of the 3, and dont see you as a viable lynch for today. I think there is ample evidence to get either EB or Oddin lynched today. I initially wanted Oddin, but after Eb folded up his hands...well he surpassed Oddin. Regardless i'm for either to see hung, will campaign against both, and am willing to see either lynched. I dont want this day to goto deadline and have another horrible speed lynch. That was completely anti-town by all players of this game, and just horrible to witness.

Fair. And nice answer by the way.

It isnt u! He called Farside bad for one thing, and did the same fault...thats a double standard no?....you arent involved in the double standard thing!!

OOOOH. I completely read you wrong. I thought you were saying he was holding me and Farside to a different standard. You are just making the hypocrite claim again. Nevermind... ignore me >.<

Calling one player out on a behavoir and not calling out another player doing the same thing looks scummy. It looks bad and yes it looks like a scum pair. Especially the way you both blantantly ignore each other unless directly asked.

Ya caught that the first 100 times you said that. And I understood it. Thanks for the reminder though.

[Scien]

"He holds farside guilty for one action, that he himself commits.. "

ya ya ya... I get it now...

[Scien]

Eh... here's a quote from day 1 for you... nice lying again.

1) She accuses you of twisting her comments with your "look how extremely and terribly aggressive I'm being right now. Ergo: I'm not scum."

My opinion? She has a point. She was making a point that in her opinion scum are rarely aggressive. She was not trying to push a point that she her being aggressive made her not scum. On the contrary, I believe she has said before that she plays aggressive as scum (somewhere in some meta discussion. I can find it if you wish).

You kind of have a point on your side, and we shouldn't discount her being aggressive scum. But trying to act like she was suggesting herself as pro town for being aggressive seems a stretch to me.

2) She goes on about the twisting. Pretty much my same comments above. Yes, what you are saying is a concern. But I don't see where she was pushing that her aggression made her pro-town. I think that's a derived thought coming from you.

3) She quotes your reasoning for your vote on her. I'm not seeing what she is getting at. It looks like you are saying that all cases are weak, and you don't want to lynch anyone yet in your quote, and that you just pressure voted. In general I would say meh to everything in that quote. But I wouldn't necessarily call it scummy. Indecisive would be a better word. (Of course to her, that is scummy). Also, saying your vote is for pressure removes pressure.

4) She suggests a pairing between me and you. The only thing I can comment on here is that as a townie, I can only assert that for my side of this 'pairing', its a mistaken view. However you could be scum and buddying to me for some reason. My opinion was that you were kind of objective, so I don't really see the buddying claim.

5) She comments on your pressure vote, and not wanting to talk about others at this time. I say my comments ditto 3 above. I can see her complaint, and she has already let the town know she is a stickler about this, but IMO what your quote was indecisive not necessarilly scummy in its own right.

6) More of her accusing you of twisting words. Meh, partially true. I think you are making assumptions that might be protown, but to get to those conclusions takes an assumption. Pressing that as a case is going to look wrong, and that's kind of what you are doing.

7) She complains about you calling her vote OMGUS. I disagree with it being that. She definitely has claimed issues about your case in thread.

Conclusion? I can see where you are coming from. I'm not going to lie and say I don't (even now) suspect Farside, but much of your case does seem fairly weak, and stretched.

I think you have valid concerns.

But many of them make assumptions that we can't prove. Trying to push a case at this time isn't going to work. I think you have been fairly vocal about your case, and you didn't take the easy route and back off. But the case itself has issues, and she is right to question you about it.

Assumptions about motives that you can't prove? Does that sound like WIFOM? Oh snap!

[Scien]

That was to Farside saying I never called his case bad due to WIFOM. Sorry.

[Scien]

1) Er... and this is not never how? You claimed I never said peep about his weak case. You are INCORRECT.
2) Could that be because you were grilling the hell out of me at the time, and they were one of the only people claiming to see the other side?
3) Yes, you've proved that I switched my vote. Very good. But you can't prove what made me switch my vote... you have my word and your suspicions. You need to back up your suspicions.
4) Again, I was in tunnel defense of your tunneling in day 1. Besides others called him out on it. You wanted me to what... ditto them? I think they had it covered. Besides when he asked me directly and I told him it was weak, that is not exactly 'meh'. Especially since he pushed it for so long.

How have I scum hunted? I've asked my questions between your harassment. And besides in my discussions with you, you have slipped a few inconsistencies and tendencies to ignore certain possibilities, not to mention a tendency to tunnel using fairly meh cases, and then refusing to back them up when asked about it. I think I am doing just fine.

OMGUS when I do it, not when you do it, even though you claim that if you have reasons it's not OMGUS. Calling me out for not following a weak case in begin day, calling others out for spouting weak cases in later day. Calling me out for placeing a RV instead of following a weak case, calling others out for removing their votes too fast. Very nice.

---

I take it you are not going to let us stop fighting huh. Just can't stop.

[Scien]

Sure we'll go with that.

[Scien]

"In the mean time, both of you have listed EB as scum....so enough giggly gagging and vote him."

How much to lynch today? 5? With me being the 4th vote and L-1? Ok, fine. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to here Nik chime in on the events so far this day, or to actually hear a

real

defense from EB.

Unvote
Vote: EB

[Scien]

So while you are around Hayl, was it a setup possibility on day one to have only one Mafia or have only one Wolf on a team all by themselves? You have 1-2 on the setup, so just trying to figure what that means. Thanks for your input :D

No, what I meant by 1-2, is 1 ordinary mafia/werewolf. If there is a mafia-monk or mafia-werewolf they can communicate with both their scum faction and their monk/mason friend. They have the same win condition as their scum buddy. Hope that cleared it up a bit. ~ Hayl

[Scien]

No, what I meant by 1-2, is 1 ordinary mafia/werewolf. If there is a mafia-monk or mafia-werewolf they can communicate with both their scum faction and their monk/mason friend. They have the same win condition as their scum buddy. Hope that cleared it up a bit. ~ Hayl

Cleared it up perfectly, thanks

[Scien]

:\

[Scien]

The only 2 people you seem to have a point on was me and scien.

I assume his point on me was his comment about meta? Out of morbid curiosity what do you claim his point on you was. Or are you trying to say the fact that he is commenting on you vs me as a pair has a single point?

Didn't see much in the intermediate that wasn't hit already.

Question to ODDin. You're claimed grief with townie claim is that you didn't like people doing it unsolicited by necessity no? I would say that neither Farside or I fell into necessity. As I have said already (even though some try and say I never did), claiming Farside was claiming, was a stretch. A fairly long stretch. You could have been right. But there was no way for us to know in thread.

However, I EXPLICITLY said that I was townie. There was no vagueness, there was no stretch to say I did so. And for the most part the couple of places that I did say I was townie was completely unsolicited.

But neither of those places brought a comment from you. You don't think that is odd?

[Scien]

I in no way attacked Scien for pushing a case on a townie I attacked him for pushing a crappy case. Those are two completely different things and there you go again attempting to manipulate and twist around other players' words.

You keep saying this... but really you picked me off the wagon of people, and attacked me for asking for a hammer right before deadline.

The whole crappy case thing came later, and I wasn't the only person pushing it. Are you looking at the others as well as me? Or am I the scapegoat for today?

[Scien]

Go study.

Pushing for Hewitt is silly. Even if he does have personal issues with me.

The guy is a pretty much confirmed mason with a dead mason buddy as confirmed town.

But I do think that post 785 was put together well.

Hewitt. Would you say that you have looked at the other people pushing the RBT case? I kind of got the feeling like you singled me out of that wagon for some reason.

[Scien]

I'm accusing him of being a werewolf, obviously."

Then he dies tonight anyway. And saves the town from a double hit from scum teams. Obviously.

[Scien]

I wanted to see if he claimed the same thing without knowing what the first claim was you truly are terrible.

What makes you think that a townie in that situation wouldn't claim vanilla townie?

It would've taken 10 seconds to realize i wasn't lying. If i forced an uncalled for claim I would've been jumped all over faster than anything. Thus a claim for a scum would be perfect. You ruined it. Luckily she still f'd up regardless, and you outted yourself.

What makes you think they might not sacrifice a player to out the other M/M team and possibly drag out a member of the other scum team?

Overall this was an ill thought out 'trick' I think.

---

But as an aside @Kerrigan, what makes you think your partner is townie? You've made some posts that make it sound like you are pretty certain about it. (Sorry catching up it seams you changed your mind about this)

That being said, he (it's he, not she) did made a rather weird choice by not claiming.

Er... what? In that situation, why trying to figure out what is going on a bad idea? You would be stuck with no information, no way to know if it was a scum ploy or not, and immense pressure from the 'trick' to answer instantly. I think I might be hesitant as well.

Your role was known. No way was i lying. If you thought i was and you claimed, everyone would've murdered me. An infant could deduce this. You got flustered, and scarred cause you're scum.

Ignores the possibility of a scum willingly sacrificing themselves to draw out the team. Kerrigan had no way to know at the time if the scum were in a position where they would try that. Please tell me you thought about the possibilities before you pulled this off.

SK should've known i wasnt lying and claimed (correctly)....it was all rather simple. She didnt, messed up, cause shes scum.

Way to keep pushing this point like its a fact. There are other possibilities.

In other news: Vote: Benmage. I think he used this little stunt as an attempt to draw out a member of the opposing scum team.

Meh. Catch up and tell me if that is likely. The scum in this game are in GREAT position. I don't see them willing to sacrifice someone for the hint of a chance to draw out a member of the opposing scum team.

But to Benmage, she would have had no way of knowing what the scum position was until she was caught up to day 2 at least.

"other scum team" ...yielding you are indeed mafia...the play could only be done to that team because you replaced a monk...gg

She was implying that you were on one scum team, and you were dragging out the other with a ploy. Not likely, but it is a possibility. Are you deliberately manipulating words here Benmage?

f they didnt claim and I demanded this, i would've been murdered by everyone else...it was all very obvious.

And that could have been your intention. This possibility is obvious.

Kerrigan, the "other scum team" does pretty much constitute a claim of being scum.

Has everyone gone retarded in this game? Read the post you are complaining about again...

So if one monk turns up scum does that mean the other is confirmed town?
I ask because the set up still confuses me a bit.

We know that both teams have 2 scum, and only 1 of those scum

might

be on a m/m team. So we know that if a scum is hit that was on a m/m team, the other is confirmed town.

[Scien]

The problem I have is the Ben is clearly baiting him to see if he is scum. I'm not going to get into the samantics of this right now but it frankly can be read either SK is scum or he is calling Ben scum trying to draw out a member of the opposing scum team.
I dont' see how Ben doing what he did is the later.

Clearly to us. What about someone who isn't caught up and doesn't know the game state?

But I can easilly see someone in SK's shoes, who is not fully caught up, and current in game state, see the claim request as coming from a scum trying to out what SK thought to be a hidden Monk team. There are game states where it would make sense for Benmage as scum to out himself as scum to out a monk team in order to possibly hit a opposing scum. We have the privilege of being informed enough to know that this is almost impossible since the team is already outed. However SK didn't/doesn't know that for sure.

Basically a person (scum or townie monk) in those shoes, I can see hesitating, and considering the person pressuring for the claim as scum, trying to out the monk team. IMO the hesitation is a null tell, as well as the apparent jump for SK to think that Benmage is scum.

---

It's not necessarily an 'either/or' between them either. Could be an 'and' or 'neither'.

Benmage, knowing the team was already outed, could know that he is relatively safe from the town crying fowl for role fishing. He could be amping the pressure so his scum team could be sure that both Monks are dead by tomorrow morning...

or

Benmage could have thought this was a full proof trap. He seems to have thought that way during his recent pressure posts.

---

SK has the reaction I would expect to give in her shoes... but that doesn't mean she isn't scum. Scum would have had the same confusion, hesitation, and immediate suspicion of Benmage as a townie would have in the same situation. We don't know which she is yet.

---

It will be interesting to see SK's reactions when she is more fully caught up.

---

BTW I think that Benmage was a bit manipulative in his pressure and might have been actively skewing possibilities as well as words. Benmage, why did you seem to ignore possibilities? Why are you so sure that your trap has worked?

[Scien]

Vote count when you have a second please.

I would add to Nik's concerns that ODDin has been jumping to the same hasty conclusions during this that Benmage seemed to be:

That being said, he (it's he, not she) did made a rather weird choice by not claiming.

Also, what has been seen cannot be unseen. Kerrigan, the "other scum team" does pretty much constitute a claim of being scum.

I'm willing to vote him, especially because he had a case on him before he started acting opportunistic in this recent turn of events.

Vote:ODDin

Hewitt - ElectricBadger, ODDin
Oddin - Hewitt, Nikanor, Scien
SaintKerrigan - Benmage
Benmage - SK, Farside22

Not Voting: Maemuki

[Scien]

I myself am still not entirely sure it's the correct course of action - the mafia wants the town to get rid of the wolves as much as the town wants the mafia to do the same.

That's a good point. I really didn't talk much about it, and when I brought it up it was more of an 'off the cuff' feeling post than something I logically thought out.

It's probably too early to assume that either anti-town team would go ahead and start sniping for scum. However eventually they will. When they do, they will likely hit M/Ms first... due to the hint of possibility that there is a scum within that 'subset'.

At least that was the basis of my ill formed thought.

[Scien]

I was voting for SK not Benmage.

Er... crap. I knew you were... I just screwed that up.

I'm not going to repost and just wait for a real one, since I am full of fail.

[Scien]

Town should never lie. If she was a Monk he'd of claimed so.

Remind me to rolefish you some time when I am scum and you are town. If you hold to that when we are talking about unrevealed roles.

Lol...why would a scum sacrifice themself for a mason. And out their partner most masons in every game i have ever seen end up claiming their partner real quick. This is a terrible counter.

Look again. Its a pretty simply trick to avoid. SK messed up.

I could easily see a situation where it would be beneficial for the chance to out an opposing scum team's member. Like you said... if you get them to out, then the monk partner is outed too. Gives the scum more info about who to hit. They might sacrifice for that info. It's not as terrible as you claim it. And someone in SK's shoes would have to wade through the possibility anyway, meaning they wouldn't necessarily trust you right away.

Are you an idiot? A scum ploy?? Really, if only the scum were so bad....if scum did some false ploy like this they'd be hung up by the rest of the town instantly...geeeze scien...wow..

YARLY... in some cases it would be benefitial for the scum to do so. Not saying that is the case here, but SK couldn't know that if she was behind on the game. Of course she is going to be careful trying to decide what you are pushing...

ITS D2. Hopefully she read page one and the rules...holy shit a 1-1 trade is ideal! And it wouldnt even be a 1-1 trade...it would be a scum for a claim..and she wouldnt have to out her partner...

You have no idea how caught up she is. You never asked, and she didn't say. She had no idea it would be a 1 for 1.

You keep pushing saying I think that is what is going on here. That is not the case. I am merely saying it is a possibility and SK, as someone catching up in the game, wouldn't be able to distinguish if it was likely or not for the scum to try and pull off a trade.

Nothing you've thought of.

Uh huh.

To be the worst scum player ever? Yeah that could've been my ploy.

From our perspective. Not from the person who isn't caught up. They have no idea if it wouldn't be a good move or not.

Post 847 is probably one of the worst I’ve seen in this game.

Well since you are getting personal... your logic about how SK should have acted in this case is about the biggest pile of crap I have ever seen anyone spew. And I have played with a few bad people.

Like I said the trap is easy to see through an answer correctly even as scum. Only bad scum will fall for it. Like SK.

Why did you decide to breakdown what i did here, and come to rescue SK? Are you her scum buddy?

Nope... try again. You didn't give them the benefit of understanding the game state. You don't understand the game state, you don't understand what you were trying to pull.

Why did I decide to question a case trap that was ill thought out and jumped to conclusions while manipulating words and positions? I assume that was rhetorical.

[Scien]

This is crap.

Catching up when you have a role, and seeing someone tell you to claim? I think expecting them to trust the person pressuring the claim is crap no matter their alignment.

Your trap is not as clear cut as your crappy logic is claiming it to be.

[Scien]

No idea it would be 1 for 1 was a bad sentence. Should have said wouldn't have known if 1 for 1 would be a good idea or not.

[Scien]

This has gone to the point where it was ridiculous. Yes, you are right. Knowing current game state, and most game states, it would be bad for scum to try and pull something like this off.

However, without knowing the game state, you would not know if it was a good idea to claim or not. I wouldn't have answered you, and I have a pro-town role.

Pretending her hesitation is a tell is retarded.

[Scien]

I should say I wouldn't have answered until I understood game state.

[Scien]

Hesitation can stem from her being mafia and not knowing if there was a gamble previously in the game

So you are saying that it is impossible for a townie to hesitate at that point?

[Scien]

I still find him not scummy. Not a bit. I don't see him outing his own partner in day one as being a scum move in any sense.

Not now that we know that only one scum per m/m. Not then if he thought there could be two.

You think you can see a way that that served scum?

[Scien]

Tthat was to Oddin in response to 862.

[Scien]

@Benmage, how likely would you think a bewildered townie in that position would hold back and hesitate while they tried to feel things out?

Who cares if I can name a scenario. Claiming that someone could think of all scenarios in that position without hesitating is bullshit.

[Scien]

It took me a while to think about, and it was harder than I thought. But I can't think of many. Especially if you force day 2 into the mix. About the closest I can get is this:

Maybe in night 1, a mafia killed a werewolf. Leaving 7 townies, and 1 werewolf and , 2 mafia. They are relatively sure that the town is going to mislynch today, but decide that having the other m/m team would be a good idea. They have one mafia perform something that happens to out the m/m team, and is able to save himself for one day while the town screws around with what just happened.

We'll give the town the benefit of the doubt and claim they don't lynch off of the m/m team, and happen to hit a townie instead.

Werewolf kills a townie we'll say, mafia start hitting m/ms.

We'll say they hit a townie.

Walk into day 3 with 4 townies, 2 mafia, and 1 werewolf.

No way the town would let the person that outed the m/m off now... he dies today

wolfs kill another townie, remaining mafia kills the remaining m/m, we'll say they were wrong and it was a townie too.

day 4 1 wolf, one mafia 2 townies. Not too shabby but even though their m/m gambit didn't work it got them to an almost 50 50.

[Scien]

A possible option is that he wanted to draw the mafia's fire towards his partner, thus having them kill a townie instead of a werewolf. Which worked, for that matter.

That would be taking a big risk since the town knows that its only one in the team. Killing your partner who you should know is townie if you are scum... doesn't clear you at all and in fact might even hurt you in the long run when the town decides to test that "well one of them might be scum" theory.

[Scien]

Not saying it was in this case. Saying it could have been. And the person you were harassing, who didn't have all the information yet, would not have known if we fell into a case where it would make sense for scum to try and out the m/m team.

Hesitation would result no matter what alignment the person had.

[Scien]

Er... right. Wait whats the contradiction?

Statistically, yes, m/ms have a lower chance of being scum than an VT counterpart.

I think lynching him is bad for a variety of reasons... but don't see how that contradicts the above...

[Scien]

Nope. Not buying it. I think anyone would hesitate.

[Scien]

Nope. I think many people, while trying to figure out what is going on, especially after replacing in, would take time to figure it out.

[Scien]

"People aren't just going to "test the theory" for the lulz."
Lawl. I disagree. People do funny things when pressured.

[Scien]

Scien tried, and failed miserably [...]

Nope. You just feel like I failed because you are clinging to your flimsy assertions. It's not worth trying to prove it to you, its obvious to others that your trap proved nothing.

BTW is there anyone in this game that you haven't accused of OMGUS yet?

ODDin would be good dead now. Why isn't he again?

[Scien]

Heh... I'm not falling for your 'bad' troll. I'm not the one suggesting something means more than it does('There is no way that anyone could fall for my trap and be townie'), or that someone said something they didn't ('opposing scum-team comment').

You really want to call me a bad player? Whatever man.

[Scien]

I don't even think its the most probable outcome. That would be another of your assertions I have grief with.

As I have said before I could see either a scum or townie hesitate like that. You

claim

that its more likely for a scum to do so. I just don't see it.

[Scien]

(Should have said, 'Just as likely see a scum or townie hesitate like that')

[Scien]

Best flavor ever in this game. By far the best I have seen. Nothing even comes close.

I am glad I wasn't around in the last day, that looked like a mind job. BTW who killed me, wolves or mafia?

Sorry for the walls, I am known for it. But meh, I really didn't know what to make of Farside's attention for me, and I was trying to survive it, while suspecting her for the immense levels of suspicion tossed my way. Yayaya 'a townie shouldn't be so defensive, and shouldn't worry about dieing' I know I know...

Oh well, game's over I suppose.

[Scien]

"@ Scien: Werewolves, obviously. Why would a werewolf kill one of their own (except maybe Maemuki drawing her name out of a hat)? "

Ya I am retarded... I thought about that like two seconds ago.

Was that another name drawing? I suspected all game that you guys would leave me due to the suspicion everyone was saying they had of me. Thought that was the reason that Farside was tossing so much on... of course, I was pretty negative towards Farside at that point, but meh.

Heh, it was a decent game while I was alive, I learned a bit I guess.

[Scien]

Maybe that was an elaborate attempt to bus each other. To muddle the town's connections, to write huge walls of text so they could ride a easy victory.

Heh, she would have to trust me a lot on that... Being semi-new, she would have no way to know if I would self-destruct under that kind of pressure.

If I could pull that off as scum that would be awesome. But unfortunately I have to agree with Farside a bit and say that I would probably be a little more 'unsure' of myself and muddle about like a 'bad non-aggressive' scum would.

[Scien]

I love quicktopics so much.

Helps me learn...

Like Nik said, I suck at the scumhunting. Partially because I have a hard time feeling scum motives have the time.

As for the me being passive thing... that depends on the game. I think interest drives that more than indecisiveness.

Good thing that Mafia team had a rock to anchor itself with Nik. A new person in the other position every night would have been a hard handicap in other situations I think.

[Scien]

Scien, pay less attention to your own posts and more attention to the posts of others.

Yayaya... I know, I know.

Use your own playstyle to your advantage. For example, who used your walls as an excuse to lurk? SK and myself, I know for sure. Maemuki too, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think any town players did that.

Hmm... maybe there is a point here? I'll have to go back and look at some of my other games.

Typically I just write off the people crying, because I assumed town would cry too. I wonder if that is a prejudice I have picked up after I started though... I seem to remember giving people crap for complaining as such in my first few games.

Hmm.

[Scien]

Use your own playstyle to your advantage. For example, who used your walls as an excuse to lurk? SK and myself, I know for sure. Maemuki too, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think any town players did that.

Actually taking a quick scan through my previous games, I would say the townies cry just as much or more than anyone regarding my walls.

I guess the result of that crying is what matters though. It seems that the townies get vocally hostile, and their participation increases, even if it is directed at trying to get me lynched. Where as in this game (one of the first where I think scum cried about walls), it seems they either directly or indirectly used it as the excuse to post less as you mentioned. I'll definitely keep this in mind for future games though. I just have to remember to look at the actions that go with the crying, not the crying itself.

Good advice I guess. Thanks.

For Haylen... There was a bit of role confusion in this game. I'm not sure about how to fix it, but I think the ranges are what did it.

1-2 Masons, make it look like there might be a single mason on a team all by their lonesome at game start. Same for each scum team.

It might have been better to just list the 2 for all teams and mention below that one of the masons might also be a wolf or whatever... that way everyone knows that there are 2 on each team, and then know there is the possibility for a mole within the m/ms.

Just my opinion though.

[Scien]

No... you make sense...

I knew what Hayl was talking about and I knew the numbers of what everything could have been.

It was the town as a whole that got all confused. Something caused that confusion and can be improved is all I am saying.

[Scien]

Are you guys really going to make me go back and quote people