Open 177 (Monks and Masons) - Game Over.

[ElectricBadger]

Vote: Yami

Discussed!

[ElectricBadger]

Unvote Yami, Vote Maemuki

just for the cookie. Mmmm cookie.

These aren't scummy cookies that will end up killing us during the night, are they?

[ElectricBadger]

The I've eaten too much pie Vote Count

Maemuki (4): Zazie, Maemuki, YamiJoey, ElectricBadger
Hewitt (2): Scien, Yankcrane151
Wulfy(1): ODDin
Scien(1): Farside22

Not Voting: Nikanor, hewitt, Wulfy, Fuzzyman

With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch. Deadline is 3 weeks from now. Tuesday 17th November, 9pm English time

Lots of Love,
Hayl xxx

Well, your assurance is good enough for me.

Unvote Maemuki, Vote Nikanor

for not posting yet.

*Devours the cookie in a distinctly non-lycanthropic, non-mafioso sort of fashion* Move along. Nothing to see here, just a badger with a cookie.

[ElectricBadger]

@ Electric, so you're most definitely not a villain, right? xP

Oh hecks no, I Just Say No to scumminess. Townie 4 Life and all that.

@farside: I'm glad to see you didn't play that newbcard you decided to give yourself. You would be my vote right now were it not for your attacks on Scien.

Erm...you're calling him out for not doing something you'd find scummy? This is even worse than Scien's vague suspicion thing.

[ElectricBadger]

My read is that Scien's first post indicates he understood the case was weak/vague/what-have-you, which is why he didn't pursue it. Farside, other than not specifically stating it was weak what did he say that indicated to you he believed it was a strong case?

However, I do agree that his choice of a random vote rather than pursuing a weak case is questionable and anti-town. Scien comes across as deliberately obtuse in avoiding addressing that issue:

What is the townie benefit of aggressively pushing a weak case?

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

[ElectricBadger]

Hmm.

Later in the game, yes, pushing hard on weak evidence is a scum tell. As a first post, having ANY evidence is great - the goal is to get out of RVS as soon as possible. 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'll have to ponder this. Either a bad play as over-conservative town or a tipped hand as a villain. For the moment I like my vote as it is until I hear an explanation from Nik.

[ElectricBadger]

Well, your assurance is good enough for me.

Unvote Maemuki, Vote Nikanor

for not posting yet.

Why Nikanor and did this vote have a purpose or was it still random?

In my last game town lost to a trio of lurker-scum. Another game we were both involved in is now over 5 months long because of lurkers and inactives. So I'm getting kind of touchy about the subject and starting to lean towards the Lynch All Lurkers mentality.

Also, my vote on Maemuki wasn't serious, provided no pressure so was unproductive, and although her wagon wasn't in much danger of an accidental lynch I didn't feel comfortable letting my vote sit there when I logged off.

Nikanor was the first person on the list that hadn't yet posted (and the first one period) and I didn't see any other appealing wagon. So it was a little arbitrary (in selection) and a lot policy (as to why).

[ElectricBadger]

So being the only one to not post after six hours makes me a lurker, eh?
And what does me being the first on the list have to do with anything?

I believe my reasoning was clear and verifiable: "for not posting yet." Don't put words in my mouth: I didn't call you a lurker, I worked proactively to ensure you wouldn't become one. As I recently told Scien, it's better to vote for a weak reason than nothing at all. Of course I wouldn't lynch you for taking 6 hours to post; but a lone vote hardly put you in any danger of that. It did, however, give you something solid to respond to in your first post and maybe made you a little nervous if you were intentionally waiting - way more productive than voting for my favorite avatar or some such nonsense.

On the list of players, you're at the top. Thus, when I read down them to check which players were listed there but not in the Iso menu, you were the first I checked and hadn't posted, so you got my vote rather than anyone else in the same situation.

Calling his Nik vote a policy vote based upon him not having posted yet, while the game started the same day as his vote was made. I also don't trust policy lynches.

One vote isn't a policy lynch; and I haven't even approached such a situation, so I really can't say whether I'd kill for it. Right now I'd simply say that I've become more dedicated to pressuring lurkers into speaking or being replaced. Again, from my last game regarding Vaya-scum, right before I placed the losing vote:

Either way this works out, I think the Vaya situation indicates a need to out lurkers better in the future, but other than his play yesterday there's no particular evidence.

Not having evidence cost the game. I don't want that to happen again. Do either of you feel that's a scum tell?

[ElectricBadger]

I really think talking about those who haven't posted on day 1 is a bit much but that was not the case here. Nik had posted and recently.
I'm not sure if you were giving less pressure off Maemuki or why. This vote at this time makes no sense.

Not sure what you're saying here. Could you rephrase?

Why push for a lurkers right now out of curiousity? Do you not have a say about others in the game and comments made so far? Is so what are they?

I have had things to say - Iso me? And my vote now has nothing to do with not posting - it's due to Nik's first post, as I mentioned in response.

[ElectricBadger]

Why does it seem that everybody is justifying everything with, "It doesn't matter since you were nowhere close to lynch"? A vote is a signifier of intent to lynch.

Are you saying we shouldn't vote at all until we're positive who is scum? What's your opinion on the use of a vote for pressure?

What's your take on Nikanor? Farside? Scien?

I see you posted several times elsewhere yesterday. Why not here?

first comment: Basically it's day 1. Not many talked so far. You had a RVS vote but change to a vote on someone who had not said a word that day.
I do not understand why you would change from a RVS to a non talker so early in the game.

Isn't this - voting for a weak reason rather than a random one - exactly what you've been attacking Scien for NOT doing?

I've mentioned my reasons for the switch, but to specify even more:

Of course not. They'll just give you very high levels of sugar. Mmm sugar.

*gives cookie*

...doesn't feel like my vote is generating pressure and conversation likely to help find scum. Why WOULD I keep my vote there?

[ElectricBadger]

It's not something to be annoyed over so much. farside seems overly emotional over this. Reading over the whole exchange makes me wanna go "jeez, come down..."

I agreed with this at first - farside is too experienced to be so stressed by a minor issue on the first day. However, some background research revealed a rather...frustrating-ish...argument with some...interesting fellows...in the Open Queue, where she mods (it's removed now). I'm forming doubts about farside, but I'm inclined to dismiss this particular tell.

I think you're attempting to undermine my opinion via an over-aggressive accusation of misrepresentation. Am I right?

Curiously, I'm thinking the same thing about you - you've completely ignored my reason for voting for you and request for an explanation, and instead blown a barely-not-random vote wildly out of proportion to derail the conversation.

[ElectricBadger]

Not avoiding your question. My answer included my reasoning - that a very weak reason for a vote was better than a completely random vote. My question to you was also valid: what makes my vote different than what you attacked Scien for not doing?

why not wait to vote if your intent is more to focus on the quiet at first then do a RVS to a semi random vote in one day.

Not voting wouldn't have done anything to spur conversation. As I mentioned,

It did, however, give you [Nikanor] something solid to respond to in your first post and maybe made you a little nervous if you were intentionally waiting

Maybe it would help if you explained to me why not voting, or voting randomly, would have helped town? Because I don't see a reason it would, and therefore I think you're attacking me for acting pro-town.

[ElectricBadger]

Not avoiding your question. My answer included my reasoning - that a very weak reason for a vote was better than a completely random vote. My question to you was also valid: what makes my vote different than what you attacked Scien for not doing?

I don't understand what your asking here. What does scien have to do with what you did?

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.

Is there something I'm missing, or a way to reconcile these actions? Right now I can only read your actions as hypocrisy; casting accusations without any real basis in an attempt to lynch innocents.

[ElectricBadger]

Perhaps a strong word, but I think suitable. I've given plenty of reasoning for my vote, and repeatedly stated that the alternative was a random vote.

I do not understand why you would change from a RVS to a non talker so early in the game.

I don't believe you, not after all your interrogations when Scien voted randomly.

I agree with ODDin that the Farside/Scien skirmish was a lot about nothing. Nikanor has my empathy for being attacked for lurking.

I'm not saying that we need to be absolutely positive to vote for somebody; we rarely have that sort of feeling towards somebody. Regardless, on principle, one should only vote for those whom they would feel comfortable lynching. Also, I don't like pressure votes. It creates too great a scapegoat for people who vote badly, whether those people do so unintentionally or otherwise.

Nikanor+Fuzzy is our first team of baddies. Joins with Nik in blowing a vote out of proportion, playing up the victim card; excuses his own silence at the same time; attempts to stifle a townie's only weapon and excuses mislynching on principle. It's a veritable buffet of scumminess.

[ElectricBadger]

Lurker lynching is typically scum driven hence my questioning of your vote. Although after you had a point you made on Nikor. I still want to ask why the change of heart from RVS to lurker voting.
Now that is more clear as to a deffinate is more of a what changed your mind but looking in whole at your reasoning is not my questioning.

Again, not trying to lynch a lurker, trying to send a message I won't tolerate it. If you feel that's scummy, fair 'nuff. I need to re-read if that motivation coincides with your questions.

What changed my mind was simply that I didn't want to leave my vote on Maemuki when I logged off (it wasn't accomplishing anything and the wagon was large - and seemed destined to get larger - for RVS). I didn't see any non-random reasons to vote those posting, so I went after someone not. I still can't quite fathom how the switch wasn't acceptably justified when my preceding vote was for a cookie.

Do you know scien to be innocent? Are you saying that my reasons forl attacking scien lacked merit?

He currently reads to me as town who made a bad play out of fear of risking himself. I think your reasoning had merit - I mentioned that before - but was the opposite of your comments to me, and this self-conflict is what I'm questioning. I think your investigation into Scien was out of proportion to the read, but that may have just been your way of forcing the game out of RVS. I also didn't agree with any of your insistence that he didn't initially find it a weak argument and I'm not sure why you kept forcing that issue.

[ElectricBadger]

@ Haylen - vote count, please?

See the top of the page ~ Hayl

[ElectricBadger]

Farside's criticism of the lurker lynching vote is supported, but I think both are correct. As votes are added to the wagon by EB's coercion of other people to join a lukrer wagon, Farside becomes more correct. At the moment, I think their play is equally helpful (with farside being a tad agressive and EB missing the point).

1 - do you think I'm on a lurker wagon?
2 - who joined it?
3 - what point am I missing?

...'cause I think you missed a bit yourself.

[ElectricBadger]

What? I see no request for explanation.
You said your original reason for voting me was because I was the last to post. Is that still the case? If so, I can explain it by saying I was first asleep, then at school for a couple hours before being able to get to a computer to post. Believe it or not, some people live in seperate timezones. If your reason has changed since then, point out the place where you have said your reasoning changed, because I don't see anything.

I didn't and don't see anything scummy about taking a few hours to post. My vote for you was a tool to prevent lurkers later in the game, so hopefully no one will try to use that most annoying of tactics. It was barely more than random, and at this point the only thing I find interesting about it is how defensive you've become when faced with suspicion and who has jumped to champion you.

My reason changed 2 hours and 12 minutes later, in my next post (before anyone took issue with the vote):

@farside: I'm glad to see you didn't play that newbcard you decided to give yourself. You would be my vote right now were it not for your attacks on Scien.

Erm...you're calling him out for not doing something you'd find scummy? This is even worse than Scien's vague suspicion thing.

To clarify my issue with this: You imply you find farside suspicious ("You would be my vote right now...") but don't actually place the vote, the same thing Scien did (which you apparently also condemn since you go on to agree with farside). I read this as casting vague suspicion coupled with an attempt to bully her and control her attacks/vote, or early bussing (when coupled with her later comments to me for my vote on you).

So please explain why you felt the need to make the comment.

[ElectricBadger]

Let me see. Fuzzy has done nothing. How can you say that? Am I missing something here?

@ Everyone, I like the fact that EB attacked Nik + Fuzzy for lurking

I was referring to this post of Fuzzy's.

I cast a vote in RVS for "not posting yet." Do you feel that was less townie than my vote on you for a cookie? Otherwise, please cite where I attacked him for lurking. I haven't been voting him for that since post 36, as I keep explaining (and frankly I can't believe that so many here are that obtuse, definitely scum trying to jump on a wagon in there).

I did address one comment to Fuzzy, who posted several times on D1 but ignored this thread (see his profile/recent posts). He hasn't responded why he did so, so I'm left to assume he WAS lurking.

Sorry, what I meant by that is that playing the newbcard on yourself is scummy. Since she didn't use the newbcard on herself, I have no reason to vote her.

But then why mention it at all?

[ElectricBadger]

Responded to this, then I think I pasted over it by accident:

Anybody can make a tl;dr version of Scien's posts? There's no way I'll read all that. I'm too lazy.

What I got from it (I'm glazing over quite a bit myself):
-Scien didn't case a vote on a weak case because he feared being attacked (scummy)
-Farside attacked him for not being aggressive with his observation (townie)
-Farside also attacked him because the evidence was weak, which seems to contradict with her insistence Scien should have pressed it (scummy)
-More beating of the poor horse's corpse (yawn)

Misunderstood it then, I'm sorry, but then you were attacking him...for what, exactly? Feeling empathy?

For the implication I was launching an unwarranted attack, which I felt was a deliberate misinterpretation intended to fan the flames of a weak case, yes.

This is going to end up like farside/Scien isn't it. This was the base of their argument.

Oh good lord, I hope not. I'm just trying to figure out the motivation (v. restating the comment), not debate it.

[ElectricBadger]

Vote Fuzzy

[ElectricBadger]

Fuzzy's continuing deflections and lack of scumhunting are again noted.

But then why mention it at all?

It was meant as a condescending remark, actually.

I can buy that, for now at least.

a very weak reason for a vote was better than a completely random vote.

So your reason that you didn't point this out after Scien stated the stuff about Wulfy, is?

I didn't consider the initial comment a very big deal; *I* didn't feel it was worthwhile to comment on either way - still don't, although I had no problem with using it to force our way out of RVS either; my reads are based on the conversation that followed, and the reasons given - and refusing to pursue a lead due to fear of being attacked is generally a bad play for town.

I hoped that weighing in as a third party with a bit of perspective might check the conversation and reroute it to something worthwhile when it started to drag on pointlessly. At the moment I think it's more likely that the Scien/farside debate is bussing than actual scumhunting, since there's so much blather over something so minor and I'm having a VERY hard time accepting that farside really sees all she's claiming in it. But to be honest, I stopped reading the exchange a while ago.

Zaz, what's convinced you that Scien is scum?

[ElectricBadger]

Nudge.

Zaz, what's convinced you that Scien is scum?

Still waiting for -

Sorry I was gone for - however long that was. I'll catch up and post by tonight.

I owe this game a reread

I need to reread this. Aaaaargh.
Although I think that the Scien/farside argument is pointless, it's like a circle if you think about it. I'll tell you why...later today.

It's really a fairly quick read right now. I think I'll do one after showering.

Nikanor and Hewitt - you haven't posted here since the 31st, but posts every day elsewhere: why the lurking? Any thoughts on recent events?

@Haylen - please prod Nikanor, Hewitt, and YamiJoey - no posts here this month.

[ElectricBadger]

Yeah, I can sympathize with that; I think the farside/scien walls kinda killed off all the conversation. Why I'm stirring the pot *makes stirring motions to demonstrate*

[ElectricBadger]

Simulpost ftw.

If we don't push at least a little with weak arguments in the start of the game, what do we have to work with? It's unlikely someone will suddenly burst out with solid evidence in RVS. If they keep pushing out of proportion *cough*farside*cough* then it becomes questionable, and same if they keep pushing weak arguments when better ones are presented.

How would you suggest we switch from RVS to serious investigation?

"Lack of scumhunting"=

you aren't asking probing questions or providing critical commentary, and thus aren't helping the game move along.

Or more bluntly,

you're only posting to avoid being called out for not posting.

I'd say it's fairly easily disproven, as saying it to someone who IS scumhunting makes one look like a complete arse who's manufacturing an unbased attack.

[ElectricBadger]

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?

On Maem: Meh. Light RVS banter was amusing but not really productive, since then she's mostly commented on the 'confusing' nature of the scien/farside debate, which strikes me as a little odd: she seems to state both that she doesn't get it and that she's not reading it, asks for summaries and when those are given ignores them. Hopefully she'll start focusing on the other conversations that are emerging. Still resolving a read.

On Hewitt: Not too thrilled so far. Iso shows some interesting patterns: admits his lack of contribution but excuses it based on the s/f walls (though he hadn't participated before those, and they're the only thing he mentions in the first half of his posts). Goes on to 1. Defend not pushing evidence until it's significant (doesn't reply how we should get out of RVS), 2. Defend lack of scumhunting/content as charges that are only 'schoolyard bullying' and indefensible 3. Attempts to overstate/stifle votes, saying we shouldn't cast them until we're serious about a lynch (again a curious statement when combined with his lack of ideas of how to move out of RVS) - generally I find any attempt to tell players not to vote or control when they do to be harmful to town 4. Identifies attempts to prevent lurking as eagerness to lynch townies. Basically he seems more inclined to dismiss investigations and attempts to find evidence than to weed out scum.

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

Anyways the thing that bothers me the most about ElectricBadger is his insistence about the lurkers. I feel like it's really fake and that the whole anti-lurker/lynch the lurker strategy could very possibly be a scum ploy to get us to lynch lurker town.

@ EB, eeeh, pretty much wants to lynch the lurkers and no one else. Follows the town, and it seems like he's more likely to vote for a town-lurker than a scum-active poster. That bugs me.

The only reason I'd lynch lurkers is if they are intentionally doing so: deliberately posting here only enough not to be booted and not posting anything with content. Do you feel such actions are pro-town, or a scum tell? What effect do you think these players will have on endgame and potential LYLO situations? How do you suggest we address those situations?

You're welcome to disagree with my methods against lurkers, but it would be more helpful if you could provide an alternative more helpful to town.

What're your views on Fuzzy's admission of deliberate lurking in his post 7:

I did address one comment to Fuzzy, who posted several times on D1 but ignored this thread (see his profile/recent posts). He hasn't responded why he did so, so I'm left to assume he WAS lurking.

I prefer the term "minimally neccesitated to speak".

Players that simply aren't posting just need to be replaced, not lynched, which I'd rather do sooner than later.

EB - Why did you fall into this joke of a band wagon?¹ What was the assurance from maemuki that you talked about in post 25?² Please explain what you meant in post 36 to nik.³ I don't see how nik is calling anyone really scummy. Most people feel that anyone who uses the newbie defense is more likely scum. Do you find this normal?⁴

Quite the barrage of questions, and of all things about my RVS votes, not my later ones with real content. Why are you playing so aggressively on weak tells this game?

1. I assume you mean the Maem wagon? RVS. Bandwagons in RVS are fun. I was curious if Maem was bluffing; calling a bandwagon on herself seemed more likely to be scum preemptively dismissing any RVS votes as comical than town trying to get reads on people. It was also some pleasant joking. The exchange lacked any tells so I moved my vote.
2. Post 21: it was a joking response to her assurance that her cookie was scum free and wouldn't kill me in the night.
3. Very curious question, as you commented previously - when I first directed you to it - that you then understood my reasoning for voting him because of it. Why the return to the statement, then? But to answer: he said he'd vote you (implying you're suspicious) except that you weren't doing anything suspicious. I took it as an attempt to instill doubt without presenting a case, which is anti-town.
4. The only place I can recall running into the newbie defense is newbie games, and I never really tallied whether it was used by scum more often than town. Had you tried to dismiss a slip with it, yeah, probably would have been scummy: but you didn't, which made a derisive comment about it sound like stretching to me.

Also, YJ is being prodded and probably replaced (since he hasn't responded yet). I'd call him on it, but no use talking to an empty chair.

[ElectricBadger]

Waiting until it's critical to have a read on them is kind of the problem, though. The first couple days are important later, when we can read their comments towards known townies and scum.

Combined with your other comments, "manipulating the rest of town" sounds suspiciously like "voting and investigating". Could you explain the difference?

[ElectricBadger]

Welcome, Canada! Who's scum?

I dislike refuting the comment about aggressive=townie as 'out of context'. It was a response to a question, yes, and shouldn't be assumed scummy as unprompted grasping, but it does state a paradigm that, currently, is the only reason given for farside's super aggressive attacks.

[ElectricBadger]

Fuzzy, is farside scum?

[ElectricBadger]

Heh, no worries. Warning: upcoming walls. But post your suspects when ya catch up, hey?

[ElectricBadger]

No worries, long as you read and post and try to reason things out you'll do fine. Just be sure to let us know if you're mafia, that helps simplify the game a lot.

[ElectricBadger]

Welcome, Rice.

'Twisting words' usually implies misrepresenting them to mean something they didn't. I don't see that as the case; it's not a difference of meaning or context, just of importance and inference. I think the comment provides a possible insight as to why farside is playing so aggressively over minutiae - something I can't really explain as normal behavior. Question IMO is whether she's trying to be ultra-townie or just trying to distance herself from her scumminess.

[ElectricBadger]

Hmm. I don't think you intended to claim that you're town because you're aggressive; I think you were indeed just responding to a question. However, it provides a legitimate insight into your reasoning for playing so aggressively.

Does that make sense?

[ElectricBadger]

Apologies for being quiet lately; have been sick. I'll try to catch back up tonight: I glanced over the thread and didn't see any questions aimed at me, repost if I missed them.

[ElectricBadger]

Not MIA - just sick and busy. Lots of interesting here though.

@Riceball - why would our monks and masons claim now? Are we that concerned about counterclaims later? How would this break the game? Your first post reads very badly.

-

@Hewitt - why are you concerned that you'll be mistaken for scum if you post? If your town, isn't it more likely that you'll have a chance to prove yourself and avoid a mislynch later?

Casting a vote - by your own words, with the intent to lynch - without stating a case is scummy in the extreme. If you see such solid evidence of scum, why not share it with the rest of town to help us win the game?

-

@Maemuki - What are your feelings on the current arguments? Are you avoiding commentary? So far your only posted suspicion has been v. me due to my stance on lurkers; which reads a bit like self interest since you're not posting much.

-

Also, the argument isn't based on a different game.

Asserting one's towniness without provocation is a scum-tell.

The question at hand is whether your post on aggressive scum was, in fact, implied assertion of your towniness or not.

This is a misrepresentation. Farside's comment was a response to a question, not an unprovoked claim. Although extrapolation from it is interesting, it's largely WIFOM; pushing it this hard as a scum tell is bad. Condemning farside for being too aggressive countering your hard push of a weak argument is hypocrisy.

I went back over farside and although she's playing incredibly aggressive I don't see particular scum tells within it. I think people are more distracted with

how

she's presenting evidence than

what

she's saying. It does, however, mean that she needs to be taken in perspective.

Not to say I have a town read. I'm still not sure of the reasoning behind her aggressive play. But I don't see her as a good lynch today, if for no other reason than that she seems a useful nexus of discussion.

-

Fuzzy continues to read like he's jumping on a bandwagon without really understanding it or having any solid reasons. Refusing to clarify his questions while voting farside for not answering them (as I believe she

did

) is horrible. Nor is he introducing anything new; his only real question was someone else's to begin with. I'm also not thrilled with the emotional reaction to a fairly weak vote.

I'm content to leave my vote where it is.

[ElectricBadger]

...what the fuck are you talking about? Concerned that I'll be mistaken for scum if I post? Where are you getting that crap?

You stated they would be used against you by scum.

But in the chance that it could be used against me by scum I will withhold it for the moment.

Why would having reasons behind your vote be misused by scum?

I'm not going to start arguments or discussions that are distracting and unhelpful to the town. Personally, it would benefit me because we would be talking about what I want to talk about

Comments about lack of good reads and overblown minor tells seem to be a theme of the game, so not sure what investigation you're worried about distracting us from.

[ElectricBadger]

there's a theme in this game that one Mason is town and the other is scum and I know I'm town I have a 50% chance (I think) that he's werewolf.

What? Where did this theory come from - this isn't in the setup. Are you implying the mod skewed the randomization, or that there are closed aspects to the setup?

[ElectricBadger]

Unvote Fuzzy

while I ponder the mason thing.

[ElectricBadger]

I felt the need to point out there is no way to know whether 1 or both mason's are town.

But presumably have the same 1:10 chance as the rest of us (excluding the mafia), not 1:2, right? Or the scenario would indicate it?

[ElectricBadger]

er, 1:5 of being a werewolf.

[ElectricBadger]

I'm really not seeing any of the limitations that are being thrown around, and lynching by probabilities is ridiculous. Hay's explanation was pretty clear as far as I'm concerned. Any non-monk has an equal chance of being a wolf, and likewise for masons and mafia.

Unvote Fuzzy, Vote RBT

for spewing nonsense that can only lead town to false assumptions.

[ElectricBadger]

In this light, @everyone who hasn't said so yet:
1) What do you think of farside's case against me?
2) Who do think is most scummy? Why?

1. There's a little validity to it. Your insistence that her comment was an unprompted townie claim is a misrepresentation, imo, and I'm not sure why you're pushing it so hard.
2. RBT, for throwing out misleading information; Fuzzy, for general tone and joining the last two bandwagons on very weak reasoning.

[ElectricBadger]

Wulfy, what're your thoughts on the leading wagons? I find it curious that you're hopping off one non-wagon onto another...would you rather a no lynch than RBT? Or do you think I'm a viable lynch right now?

As for stirring the pot and sitting back, I actually tried to do the opposite with Scien/Farside; weigh in with enough opinion to give a valid conclusion to the spam so we could move on to something else. I didn't keep harping on it 'cause the walls of text were mostly pointless imo. Do you think they would have stopped arguing if I hadn't spoken up? Do you think saying more would have helped the discussion?

[ElectricBadger]

Am doing a re-read, since my top suspects are gone and apparently were quite off.

[ElectricBadger]

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.

Did you ever try to stop the crappy and forced wagon? If so, please reference it...if not, please explain why.

Also, please explain why Scien's vote was scummy and yours on Fuzzy wasn't, as both suspects flipped town.

[ElectricBadger]

Did I not argue for cases on other players? And going back and overdefending my D1 play is a move that can be painted as scummy by other players so don't blame me for not listening to your suggestion thanks. And come on, don't be stupid with that last inquiry.

Your main antagonists yesterday were Wulfy, Fuzzy and me. Particularly from my point of view, not a really great track record. You countered some investigations - my comments on the scien/farside debate drew particular notice - but I see no comments about the content of the RBT case being scummy.

So if you're saying the truth and you felt the RBT case wasn't a good one, you allowed a townie to die without trying to step in - which IMO is far worse than lynching a townie based on a decent, if erroneous, case. If you're lying, the attack is pure hypocrisy and equally scummy.

This is also the second time you've mentioned that you don't want to post for fear of being seen as scummy. Ironically, that's exactly what it comes across as.

Vote Hewitt

[ElectricBadger]

What are you trying to prove with the "not a really great track record" ElectricBadger?

I was pointing out that your calling Scien scummy for pushing a mislynch is hypocrisy.

That second paragraph is completely stupid. Allowing a townie to die? What the fuck is that supposed to mean? As if I'm supposed to know that RBT was a townie and to step in and save her? That's complete crap. So far you're pushing real crap here Badger.

According to you,

I never really understood the wagon on him to begin with I thought it was pretty damn crappy and forced.

Why didn't you point this out? You didn't need to know RBT was town or scum. However - particularly in this game - that doesn't mean too much. Instead, you let the wagon roll and now you're setting up the people on it for a lynch. That's scum.

[ElectricBadger]

Gads, this is a game for walls, I guess. Benmage seems to have lots to write but not much to say. Any solid suspects, Ben?

[ElectricBadger]

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.

Did you ever try to stop the crappy and forced wagon? If so, please reference it...if not, please explain why.

Also, please explain why Scien's vote was scummy and yours on Fuzzy wasn't, as both suspects flipped town.

touche, but you(hewitt) are dealing with scum here...soooooo

So...what? It's okay if he lies, as long as he does it to kill off people you want dead?

I get the feeling, throughout your reading, that you've already latched onto a couple people from the start and are just trying to cover your bases after the flips - the only reason for the walls of text is to have a handy reference to point at that you accused the scum at some point - but I'm reasonably sure you've called everyone scum so far, and they're so broad and ambiguous they don't help town much.

Anyways, please explain exactly why you so blithely absolve hewitt.

[ElectricBadger]

Not much of a corner, tbh, when even you aren't voting me. And not much of a dodge. More than one scum team here even if you were right - but you're not really looking for scum anyways, I think, just trolling for what people will jump at.

What point about ODDin? That he didn't jump at Scien's townie comments, or that he identified lack of votes/views as anti-town? That was the last comment about him I see. A weak tell and a null tell, imo, not the amazing insight you seem to bill your commentary as.

[ElectricBadger]

Blazing? Zounds. The theme of this game has been godawful cases in long walls of text that are very *yawn*. I'm keeping up, but there's not much worth commenting on, and what is gets lost in the sea of inanity. It's hard NOT to be sidelined in this monstrosity, and continuing to press lurkers would be hypocritical at this point. I'm letting the current trolling run its course with the hope we can resume proper scum hunting tomorrow. Isn't Hewitt's case against me, which you jumped aboard, based on the fact I commented on the farside/scien dispute? ...though it seems to be going on fine without me, so not sure how I manipulated that.

Intrigued by all your recent injunctions for players to comment on one another. I thought I was supposed to be the manipulator?

[ElectricBadger]

Way to dodge the points that benmage made on you completely

What points? The ones I've seen are 1) jumping on Hewitt's claims that I am a 'puppet master' manipulating the game to destruction - which I find laughable and have responded to anyways, and 2) I'm 'coasting' which yeah, I pretty much agree with and stated my reasons for. What do you see that's convincing?

Ben - presumably game days, although hopefully earlier if the walls stop and something real emerges. So far not much to comment on...hardly anyone is even bothering to vote at this point, so I don't think I'm alone in this.

[ElectricBadger]

Not writing it off or resigning, no. I'm posting regularly, made my case on Hew, have my vote up on scum. I'm just not interested in posting things that get lost in the walls.

And a critical day, so you're pushing a policy lynch? Several people more inactive than me, but I'm the one you're attacking for it - and just as I start resuming posting? That seems contrary to your stated goal.

Also, you still haven't explained why it was okay for Hew to lie. It's a bit silly to accuse me of not posting cases while you dodge them.

[ElectricBadger]

EB's definitely had a lot of time to gabber and he did but yeah he really hasn't posted a competent defense at all yet.

I haven't seen a competent case against me, and lots of pointless gabbering is exactly the problem with the play so far. The puppetmaster charge is silly; I did what I could to disarm that argument and have since ignored it as much as possible. If I wanted to inspire it, I would have used my vote, not gone on a tangent with Nik. And no one has tried to say the far/scien debate would have died out without me (as it obviously didn't when I stopped posting) so the charge is baseless.

The lurker charge has more substance, but I've explained my reasoning and in any case there are way too many people not posting for it to be a real scum tell; and I believe some of my wagon has even agreed with my reasons (ie, farside, scien and benmage have spammed so much that trying to get points in edgewise is reasonably pointless until those disputes are done).

If there's some other persuasive evidence I'm not responding to, please repost it.

[ElectricBadger]

-Lurker thing is answered.
-IMO fuzzy's question was rhetorical, but if you need an answer: because I use votes for pressure, like most players, as my question implied.
-I'm noncommittal on your debate with scien, yes. If that were unique to me, one of you would be lynched by now. You're both either tunneled town or overly defensive scum, not sure enough which to vote at this point.
-The reason for the vote should be obvious from his last post, no one else seemed confused at the time: intentional lurking and refusing to explain it. Given his dismissal I don't think there's any way I could have avoided voting him:

I did address one comment to Fuzzy, who posted several times on D1 but ignored this thread (see his profile/recent posts). He hasn't responded why he did so, so I'm left to assume he WAS lurking.

I prefer the term "minimally neccesitated to speak".

-I mentioned the people I was asked about, and asked questions of two others - pretty good for a single post imo. Why is this concerning? Who should I have mentioned?
-Why was my vote on RBT weak? Did you feel her setup and game breaking strategy was accurate or pro-town?
-You missed the whole point of that post - the 'pure hypocrisy' comment. I didn't vote Hewitt because he voted for town, but because he pushed voting townies as a scum tell on Scien despite doing the same himself. He knew it wasn't a scum tell but wanted a lynch anyways, =scum.

VERY weak case, farside, missed several obvious answers that I don't think would really confuse you during serious scum hunting. Reads more like you skimmed me on iso just to throw out a spate of questions.

[ElectricBadger]

Also, apparently your best response to my refuting your arguments is sarcasm and herd mentality.

[ElectricBadger]

Hypocritical? I think there's a wee difference between missing some points towards me on a skim and asking for them to be pointed out and trying to lynch someone without bothering to examine the case.

[ElectricBadger]

Aside from the fact I disagree with several of your picks, Nik, I'm more than a little astonished that three of your four scum are only there by elimination or on the word of others. Not sure how you can have such solid town reads in a game where not a single scum has died, and yet you're apparently willing to carry out a fairly critical lynch without any of your own reasoning.

[ElectricBadger]

I think the list was pretty strong and a decent stance from his PoV.

What was strong about it? It's filled with gut reads and suspicions without evidence.

Whats wrong with some of Nik's read...

He lists the quick points against EB. So....

He also dismisses them as evidence, but states he's willing to lynch just based on the opinions of others, which is horrid at any point but especially when town barely outnumbers scum. Pure distancing.

Has everyone even made the player analysis i asked for?

Has EB?

Hmm? What did you want analyzed?

[ElectricBadger]

The Stupid student.com Vote count

Hewitt - ElectricBadger
ElectricBadger - Hewitt, Farside22, Scien

Not Voting: Nikanor, Maemuki, ODDin, XofElf. Benmage

Lots of love
Haylxxx

So basically, managing to write names down means it's strong? I shudder to think what a weak list would look like. I'm guessing your approval has something to do with the fact he agrees with your intended lynch: the lack of an actual vote seems to be the only thing you're calling him out on (repeatedly).


Scum list:

Def Scum:
Hewitt
Benmage

Scummy:
Farside
ODDin
Nikanor

Meh:
xofelf
Maem
Scien

No town reads at the moment.

[ElectricBadger]

What have i done to be written down as "def scum"??

Read my 48 and 52. You've ignored my responses to your accusations. You haven't been able to support the notion that I influenced the farside/scien dispute or explained why I turned from it to pursue Nik rather than adding my vote to stir it up more, but you're still pushing the 'puppetmaster' catchphrase. At a critical point in the game you're pursuing a policy lynch (my decline in posting was hypocritical, but you haven't said a word how intentional hypocrisy could support a scum agenda). The blind support of Nik's list - as not simply satisfactory but 'strong' - was just the icing on the cake of scum pushing a mislynch.

Also, for the sake of completeness, I'm a monk, as is xofelf. Another reason for my lack of involvement in the game - the role I should be working with has been a flake.

[ElectricBadger]

That the only player I see as likely town (based purely on statistics) isn't posting? You don't see that as a bit of a difficulty or slightly frustrating?

[ElectricBadger]

That the only player I see as likely town (based purely on statistics) isn't posting? You don't see that as a bit of a difficulty or slightly frustrating?

So instead of rising to the challenge...you fall to the shadows...thats great for everyone else whose town...yeah you're a real winner.

Now you're just getting personal. And again, no argument that any of my actions were

scummy

- just a policy lynch.

[ElectricBadger]

Its not a policy lynch..lol dont try and suggest this. You folded you hands up and said lets scum hunt tomorrow...geeeze...you lied about disliking lurkers to deflect a terrible vote....you are guilty or lurking. You've brought zilch to the table. You reads are omgus. You are scum. There is no policy a lynch. A Mae or Xof lynch for whom we have little to go on would be a policy lynch. We know where you stand, and it isn't town.

Your play, or refusal to play is down right detrimental and worthy of a lynch on policy alone.

Unless you can explain intentional hypocrisy about lurkers as a pro-scum move, this remains your only motivation: not that I'm scum, only that I'm apparently not bringing enough to the game as town to satisfy you; perhaps not, but I don't think spamming the thread is any more helpful (in this game it's been a lot worse). And when the spam stopped, I DID resume posting when I could have ignored the thread on several occasions - probably to my own personal betterment.

^^Did that not answer your question?

Not even remotely. What has my being scum - or not - got to do with Hew citing suspicions of townies as a reason to lynch Scien despite his own votes on the same? How could that possibly be interpreted as a response?

[ElectricBadger]

Re-reading ODDin in iso.

Also intrigued by the sudden exodus of votes from me after a claim I didn't expect much from; my guess is mafia trying to find werewolves rather than focusing on an already-weak town.

[ElectricBadger]

However,

What are you trying to prove with the "not a really great track record" ElectricBadger? Because nobody really ever says that unless they're scum looking to discredit a player so nobody will listen to them.

That is indeed a good point against EB.

Hew took my post out of context: I was not accusing him just because he'd suspected townies, but because he was attacking Scien for it despite having done it himself. Hew hypocritically pushed voting for townies as a case and then tried to pass off my pointing out his double standard as scummy.

Later, EB is willing to give up on D2... bad. If you don't like the discussions that are happening, you should start new ones.

Of the players here you have the least room to talk. Per your explanation, you stopped posting because of the spam as well. Posting a good case to have it lost in rambling no one wants to read isn't much help to town.

[ElectricBadger]

That was a stupid statement.

Solid defense. Explain?

I in no way attacked Scien for pushing a case on a townie

Oh?

I found Scien asking for someone to hammer at the end on RBT was incredibly scummy, especially looking in hindsight as he flipped town.

That seems clear to me.

[ElectricBadger]

Meh...worst trap ever, imo. In SK's place I would have done the same thing: refused to claim - the urgency came across as an obvious ploy to make him do something without complete information. The idea that he would mistakenly claim the wrong role is absurd (when would someone claim scum?)

The 'scum claim' is ridiculous. Agree with Scien that people seem to be, shall we say, 'not critically thinking'. SK started with the accusation that ben was scum; what else would he be looking for? Outing a townie?

That said, and while I think ben is indeed scum, the vote appears pure omgus unless SK has other reasons to support it. Personally I'm more inclined to think ben was fabricating a distraction to save scumbuddy Hew. I can't believe he actually thought that trap was a great plan.

[ElectricBadger]

EB: in your chats with your partner did either of you talk to one another? If so what was your impression on your monk partner that makes you feel they are town?

I've stated before I don't have town reads on anyone. However, I see no evidence as of yet that the spot is scum, and as a monk I believe there's less chance, statistically, than most other players. That may change either way with an active player in the role, so I can base a read on more than odds.

[ElectricBadger]

Yes its a bad trap...Thats the point. Only works on bad scum. If you, as town, ever misclaim than you are terrible at this game.

Agreed that misclaiming VT instead of a real claim would be bad play. However, I'm not seeing either the hesitance to claim or a VT claim as a

scum tell

. Why would not claiming monk help scum?

[ElectricBadger]

...not knowing what to claim...

You've mentioned this a couple times. What to claim - as in, to claim monk or mafia?

[ElectricBadger]

Meh...weird sudden silence.

The trap was BS, and I can't believe townie-Ben would have thought it was a real reason to lynch let alone kept pushing it in the face of logic.

I also think Scien has a point about Hew; not as solid a point as he seems to imply, and I'm not sure why he's pushing it, but Hew probably isn't the best lynch today.

Unvote Hew, Vote Benmage.

Vote count pretty please!

Looking forward to hearing from Maem...very close to the deadline and still no vote or commentary at all is distressing.

[ElectricBadger]

Didn't you nearly lynch me for sidelining the game while it went in annoying directions, Ben? ...and that wasn't while people were challenging me.

Convoluted endgame scenarios aside, I'm still liking my Hew/Ben werewolf pairing and it makes the desire to kill off a monk fairly obvious.

[ElectricBadger]

Umm...wait, wasn't that the hammer on ODDin?

I believe it's L-1. Not sure though.

Also, EB, you said you were intending to do an ISO of me. Any news on that front?

Mmhmm; I don't think the case on you is all that strong, I don't like the people pushing it, and I see much better lynches. The charge of 'ignoring' questions from Ben was silly, as he spouted a ton of spam and the comments weren't even questions. Wasn't thrilled with how quickly you jumped on Ben's foolishness, though, and from your other observations I think you should have been able to see through it.

I think right now Ben is desperate for any lynch at all. He's been eager to kill off me, SK and ODD in just the last couple pages.

@Ben - his argument doesn't crumble, it just meanders into confusing and ill thought scenarios and you keep refusing to acknowledge what other players has agreed on. The basis is valid: if I were town replacing in and someone demanded a claim without allowing me to read through I wouldn't accede to it either.

[ElectricBadger]

No, saying you're pushing for any lynch you can get and were getting petulant because you kept failing. Not overly townie IMO.

Both, really.

Isn't that what happened? He wouldn't say anything without consideration...then did so and gathered evidence...then answered you?

[ElectricBadger]

You've been a top suspect of mine for a while. I'll return the favor you did me earlier: read up if you're confused why.

Attempting to lynch someone based on logic you know is flawed is absolutely not a null tell; it's the best scum tell there is.

[ElectricBadger]

Hmm. So Maem gets off without a vote and hardly a word in...Hew dodges a bandwagon by switching into lurk mode as the pressure is applied...ben ends the conversation about how horrible his argument was...we barely get to hear from SK.

Nicely played.

[ElectricBadger]

Mmhmm.

Vote Benmage

I'd rather lynch scum.

[ElectricBadger]

That a claim?

[ElectricBadger]

Judging by your attacks on Monks and buddying with a Mason, I'd say you're the last wolfie. *Waits for you to go where I'm pretty sure you're planning to go*

[ElectricBadger]

I already knew the scenario, yes. You're not a good lynch for today; but I wanted to hear your rant, pretty much a claim imo:

don't lynch you because you're obviously a werewolf.

What you're failing to take into account - purposefully or not - is that the town's only chances now lie with the hope that the scum teams will accurately target one another. This means that M/M's are horrible lynches for today. We need scum to target scum, and they need the same. Two living monks tonight means the mafia can narrow their target list nicely. Which I'm guessing is exactly what you've been trying to avoid.

So we need to kill mafia, and either farside or nikanor is one (potentially both). Even a mislynch here pretty much ensures revealing mafia. Not a huge fan of either, but my preference is-

Unvote Benmage, Vote Farside

[ElectricBadger]

The Gahhhh Vote count

ElectricBadger - Benmage
Farside22 - ElectricBadger

Not Voting: Nikanor, Hewitt, Farside22, SaintKerrigan

Lots of love
Haylxxx

Aww EB, i saw you still browsin the web page a few minutes after my post...surely you read it...you we're awaiting what you 'thought' i'd say...did i scare you with facts?

Yes, Ben, in the middle of the work day it took me 23 minutes to reply to an interwebs game. You need something to occupy your time, man.

[ElectricBadger]

mine

Damnit, EB

Haha, NINJA'd!

[ElectricBadger]

Your logic is retarded. The best scenario for the town, involves not mislynching. Thus the town going for a monk is the most logical solution... Also if we miss leaving two monks for the last wolf to decide is bad..if we hit a town monk, the wolf only has one monk to pick from. Yet if we hit a mafia monk, we confirm a town roles 100% and narrow the options for the wolf to hit the last mafia. We want to enter tomorrow in a 2-1 state, or with 0 mafia, lol having the two factions NK eachother off.

You keep assuming that one monk is mafia, which isn't certain: in fact, one monk must NOT be mafia.

However, assuming you aren't mafia, and obviously Hew isn't, one of Nik/Farside MUST be mafia; and potentially both could be.

Mislynching a townie monk narrows the potential mafia to 2 of three; mislynching one of farside/Nik makes the NK a sure kill v. mafia.

The ONLY reason to kill a monk is to give the werewolf a better chance of surviving through the night. So I'm not surprised you're pushing that agenda.

[ElectricBadger]

Oh boohoo. Good excuse. Way to try and belittle me. Your job must be soo important. I dont go to work till 6, thanks...and you dont see me posting there.

Nice chain of logic in those last couple posts. I'm scummy because it took me 23 minutest to post...it took that long because I'm at work...my work must be useless. Ergo, I'm scum because my work is useless. Quality.

Also, for your personal edification, I work in a funeral home: your 23 minutes were partially involved in assisting a woman whose mother just died this morning. So pardon me if your urgency is a little ridiculous.

[ElectricBadger]

What !!?? lol... you mean in that if we mislynch a town on a non monk the mafia have less chance to miskill because they'll know not to hit the monks (if they're town)

I mean whatever the monk's flip, there will be 3 possible werewolves left. I'd rather give the mafia better odds, personally: killing a non-monk reduces that to 2.

Killing a non-monk also gives us much better chances of killing mafia (1-2 of farside/nik are mafia, 0-1 of the monks are).

Hitting the last wolf and we lose.

A slight risk, but at this point well worth the reasonably small 1 in 4 chance. If they NK's go badly we're done for.

Anyways, I'm not too concerned that niether you nor Hew are scum.

[ElectricBadger]

...must fight the temptation to spam 36 more posts....

[ElectricBadger]

But didn't you just call him town last page??

Not that I recall. Although if you're a wolf then he's town it's due to process of elimination, not a townsome feel.

And nice. Playing the logic card heavily until it went against you, then dismissing it.

[ElectricBadger]

@EB: Why am I scummier then Nik? How about a case between the 2 of us and why one is scummier.

You've felt off since the start of the game; I still can't place a townie face on the heavy attacks v. Scien over minor reasoning, contrasted to a fairly light touch with other players. Overall, your play seems designed to give the appearance of an active player without getting too involved in lynches.

And I think you were trying to play up being town: not so much due to the initial comment, which was mostly WIFOM, but you've repeatedly (and imo ridiculously) implied since that scum are never aggressive, even demanding examples. It dovetails well with potential buddies, as both have been minimally active this game, helped along by your walls of spam that drew attention away.

Outing Maemuki last night also took a very good player, I think: on a night when finding opposing scum was critical, the mafia correctly targeted a player that had barely spoken - either a major risk or someone noticed a tell that the rest of us didn't see.

And no, I'm not going to mount a defensive case on Nik for you.

[ElectricBadger]

The fact you don't want to do any more then say X or Y is scum and I pick Y to be scummier with nothing much as back up is either a lazy townie or scum hopping to use a minimal post

Most of the argument thus far has centered on what roles or lack thereof we should lynch, rather than which player among them. Calling me lazy in that discussion is ridiculous. You haven't commented on the theory; nor have you stated who you think we should lynch or investigated. You're letting everyone else do the work. So your calling me lazy is very ridiculous.

You don't think of me as a very good player? I'm offended.
Also, despite saying you didn't want to defend me, you seem to do so anyway with this quote by implying that it had to be a player of superior skill to my own that killed Maemuki i.e. farside.
Further, this quote seems to imply that you find it impossible for both farside and I to be scum. Why is that?

I don't think you're a bad player. I just think farside is a very good one.

Why would my statement imply you aren't scum with farside? That actually goes directly against my theories. Indeed, the fact you both repudiated my vote on farside, she didn't show any suspicions of you, and you both ignored the logic that led to a vote on one of you is intriguing.

Who do you think is a good lynch today, Nik?

[ElectricBadger]

Spammer.

Also, Hewitt...why no talkie talkie? I seeee you pooooosting.

[ElectricBadger]

Good luck with that.

Ben is scum. I just don't see him as mafia, considering his buddying with Hew and continuing attacks on monks.

I also called out ODDin, and Scien at times, and as a possible pair...look how that turned out. Noones perfect...(**waits for bad, opportunistic scum to hop on to my mistargets**)

Yes, because examining your past votes and wagons is oh so scummy.

Frankly, of your three 'sure thing' wagons yesterday at least two were against townies, and your flip flopping affirms you have no idea where scum is and are just trying to force a wolf agenda. You're on your own, desperate, and you need both the monks and the mafia dead - not just mafia.

@Haylen - please prod Hewitt.

[ElectricBadger]

I'm not the last wolf, I have a damn good idea who it is...but I see the whole picture, and know lots will be sorted out with tonights kills...but first things first lynch a damn mafia....jebus.

So you're keeping the identity of the wolf hidden why? If you know who the wolf is, you need to make it obvious so mafia can kill them tonight (thus my opening this morning). The secret knowledge thing is ridiculous. So, for amusement's sake - who's our wolf?

To answer your poorly thought responses:
-No, your buddying with Hew does not mean you're both wolves; however, it's unlikely mafia would ignore a chance to help kill a mason; so it's indicative you aren't mafia. Obviously.
-And no, your voting yesterday doesn't necessarily mean you're scum, as they would indeed be hunting other scum. Your voting - most particularly your votes on SK and I - just indicates you're grasping without any real idea of who is scum.

[ElectricBadger]

EB: I did my review of Nik's play. I would like now a post by post comment on why you think I'm mafia scum in comparision to Nik's play.

I've stated my reasons for thinking you're mafia. Add to that your play today, which met my expectations for mafia: even when asked directly you didn't comment on my tactic to pursue mafia (I get the feeling you agree with me but don't want to say so); you attempted to portray Ben as potential mafia without any real proof and pushed heavily in that direction (again, you seem to agreehe's likely a wolf, and at this point lynching the wolf is an instant win for mafia).

If you have specific questions about Nik I'll answer; but I'm not going to analyze every one of his posts. He could be scum - at this point I think the case on him is decent and that it's likely - but as two of you, nikanor or SK are mafia that doesn't really change things. I think you're the better lynch not because Nik seems town but because you seem like a pretty sure thing.

[ElectricBadger]

I'm still waiting to hear who the wolf is, Ben.

[ElectricBadger]

Ummm...for argument's sake...: so you're trying to keep the wolf ALIVE through the night?

[ElectricBadger]

Simulpost...but a little shocked it took you this long to figure out that we want to identify all of our scum. The willingness to let a townie die - in theory including yourself - rather than the wolf is telling: obviously you don't fear being

accidentally

mistaken for scum.

[ElectricBadger]

The George Michael, Dont Ask *facepalm* Vote Count

Farside22 - ElectricBadger, Nikanor
ElectricBadger - Benmage
Nikanor - Farside22

Not Voting: Hewitt, SaintKerrigan

With 6 alive, it takes 4 to lynch.

Lots of love
Haylxxx

No, farside - a response to Ben in 1071.

[ElectricBadger]

Tactic was lynching a non-m/m to make targetting easier for the scum to kill each other off.

Not quite following the mafia mislynch sequence...mafia might try to mislynch a monk, although it would be their worst choice atm...if you mean could ben be mafia, it's possible I guess but I really don't think so.

You were involved in lynches, yes; just not very actively. Nik has been lurker scum most of the game, and yes - I find it very suspicious, particularly right now. If he were town, unless he disagreed about Ben he would know for sure that you are mafia - but he hardly contributes a peep towards killing you off.

Nik would be a good lynch today, and I'd vote him. You seem to keep implying that my vote on you indicates I don't think he's scum when that's hardly the case.

In any case, killing mafia today is going to require every non-mafia so there's not really much to be done except argue with each other until Hew, SK and Ben contribute or gain some sense.

[ElectricBadger]

Where was Nik in all this?

You know...this is actually a pretty good point. And he's the one lurker atm I can do something about, so:

Unvote Farside, Vote Nikanor

If nothing else, I'd at least rather lose to scum who worked for it.

[ElectricBadger]

With the lack of punctuation that was a bit hard to decipher, but to try to respond: If there were a Ben-Nik team, then they wouldn't have any need to push so hard for a monk lynch. Lynching anyone other than mafia tonight is a near-certain mafia victory. In fact, killing you would mean they'd be 100% certain of killing the wolf during the night, while the wolf would be almost certain to target a monk (two living monks tomorrow means he's the lynch). Killing the mason is even better. Other than a mafia lynch, killing a monk today is the only way they have a chance of losing, actually: only a 50/50 chance of NKing a werewolf then, and a chance they'd be the wolf's NK and tomorrow's lynch.

So no, I don't see Ben as mafia by today's voting unless he's trying overly hard to be tricky or he's acting foolish.

Ben-wolf seems like a very solid case, though. Whether or not the monks are mafia, he needs at least one dead before tomorrow. Ideally, he wants to kill a mafia-monk, which puts him in a fairly good position if he can survive the night. He's desperate, though, which is why he's pushing at me so hard.

Also, he did acknowledge that my case for not voting a monk was sound, implying agreement with your stats - he just stated he didn't care and wanted me dead anyways. I don't things between us are overly personal, so there's only reason I can see that taking such a risk is reasonable.

[ElectricBadger]

Do you think between me and Nik that we are both mafia or do you think only 1 of us to be mafia?

I'm inclined to say you both are, but there's a large degree of uncertainty as I have nearly nothing to go on with SK. I want to say what I've seen of him so far is townish, but honestly I think that honestly has more to do with his agreeing with me and more to do with the quality of attacks by ben than his defense against them.

But at present there's a lack of evidence against him and decent, though not perfect, cases against you and Nik.

[ElectricBadger]

We did a little, but he didn't catch up reading so there wasn't too much to talk about.

[ElectricBadger]

This is nonsense because I've acknowledged this statement already, and have already answered. If its 50-50 between you and Nik its also 50-50 between EB and SK.

No; at least one mafia is a non-monk, but there's no guarantee that any monks are mafia. Continuing to assume you aren't mafia, the odds of a monk being scum are actually closer to 25% (0-1 mafia) while farside and nik are closer to 75% (1-2 mafia).

We've already explained to you that going after monks is anti-town because it makes targetting harder for scum NKs - specifically, it makes it harder for the mafia to kill the werewolf. It may also make it harder for lynching tomorrow; if we lynch a town-monk today it's unlikely we'll have any monks tomorrow, while if the wolf to kills a mafia-monk we'll have a proven townie, a huge advantage in lylo. But I'm guessing you already knew that, and are just pretending to be obtuse.

Also, I'm still waiting to hear who the wolf is. Why so much difficulty with a question whose answer you already knew?

[ElectricBadger]

So who's scum if farside flips town, Ben?

[ElectricBadger]

You're that amazingly sure that far is scum, but it took you that long to vote her? How strange. You seem to have a theme today of being unable to fathom a mislynch.

My last inclination was far and nik. I'm reconsidering, though. I don't think it's likely that the mafia would bus right now, and with Hew a mason there has to be mafia on farside's wagon right now.

So right now I'm leaning towards a nik/SK pairing.

[ElectricBadger]

The I'm a little teapot short and...damn, I'm short... Vote Count

Farside22 - Nikanor, SaintKerrigan, Benmage
Nikanor - Farside22, ElectricBadger

Not Voting: Hewitt

With 6 alive, it takes 4 to lynch.

Lots of love
Haylxxx

It makes me think you'd better be mafia who bussed amazingly well or you're going to look really stupid for trash talking right now.

[ElectricBadger]

@ EB: Why are you assuming that the mafiascum aren't bussing someone at this point?

It's possible I'm wrong; but with Hew gone it's impossible to lynch mafia without their assistance - so it seems like a terrible time to bus.

[ElectricBadger]

Actually, in a 1-1-1 I think town would be better off voting No Lynch and forcing the scum to kill each other off while hoping their opposites mis-target.

Farside, that didn't answer your scenario...definitely seeing some logical fallacies in there.

[ElectricBadger]

How did it not? You just pointed out the one point in which the town can win.

The question was why mafia would target a proven townie.

I see it as remotely possible - if they feared entering a prisoner dilemma, then having a proven townie is bad.

Though not really seeing all this speculation as overly useful. Having a proven townie=good. Making the wolf give us one=better. It's not so complicated as it's being made out to be.

[ElectricBadger]

EB, will you just bus farside already...what do you thinks gonna happen when hew comes back...

Didn't you have a fit once about my not playing to win? And isn't this the second time since that you've tried to convince me to the same when it's convenient for you? I may have been a bit disinterested in the game at times, but I'm hardly going to sink town intentionally.

I'm not really sure what I expect when Hew's slot is replaced (seems unlikely he'll return at this point). But it seems to me since we absolutely have to find mafia that it might be useful to hear from the one player we know isn't one of them.

I'm also trying to figure out your play. Rolling around another scenario in my head, but it still points to Nik as scum, so I like where my vote's at.

[ElectricBadger]

So basically either way Ben is scum, which scum plagues me. Either way I come to the conclusion that Nik is scum either with Ben or SK.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Ben is obvscum, but if he's the wolf he's playing more like a jester today...and only one way that makes sense.

If Ben isn't the wolf, Hew probably is; and rushing the vote v. far-town to enter night asap, before Hew can be replaced means no wolf kill submitted v. mafia and an assured mafia win.

Hew losing his wolf-buddy and suddenly turning from competing solidly for the win explains his sudden disinterest in the game.

And I'm still a bit haunted by Nik's petulant reply when I assigned the deduction for the wolf kill to farside.

The only common feature I'm seeing in scenarios is that Nik is the best lynch and we need a replacement for Hew.

[ElectricBadger]

Thank you, Haylen!

I agree with far that the support of Nik seems beyond reason and reaching. But in any case an impasse for now.

I won't be here much/at all until after Christmas.

[ElectricBadger]

happy xmas and bdays and all that business.

Yay getting a replacement - really appreciate anyone who'll join a 45 page game.

Not much to say otherwise, catch up as you can, ask any questions you may have.

Still got holiday gunk to do (yeah in laws and out of town family) so may not be back until sunday night/monday morning.

[ElectricBadger]

Good game, all. Mafia definitely earned the win!

[ElectricBadger]

Oh hai, partner.

*cries for ElectricBadger, as promised via QuickTopic*

Did you really think I was the most town? I had a not-as-favorable view on myself exiting Day 3.

This was, I think, the first game I've been in past D1 that I've never gotten a town read on ANYONE. Due somewhat to the fact we didn't manage to lynch a single scum *sighs* but also lots of flawed arguments and bad attacks.

I didn't see reaching attempts at lynches from you and in retrospect some AtE worked in your favor after Ben's trap, which imo was really horrid.

As an aside, 3/4 scum were lurkers (at least most of the game). It's continually frustrating to me on this site that the only thing scummier than lurking is trying to prevent lurking.

[ElectricBadger]

Ha, if I wasn't scum when I replaced in, Nikanor would've been my choice. He acted scummy most of the time...

Mmhmm. Once more I did a reasonably decent job of finding scum and was completely incompetent at rallying a wagon against them.

[ElectricBadger]

Are the Monks, Masons, Mafia and Werewolves happy for me to post their Quicktopics?

I'm fine with it, yeah.

[ElectricBadger]

^^w00t! Got both posts 1200 and 1300!

Hayl should so modkill you for that.

[ElectricBadger]

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.

I did, sorta. It really felt hard to get any conversations going around the far/scien/ben spammage.

Haylen, one issue I almost forgot to point out:

Werewolf
...yadda yadda....

You win when at least half of the living players are Werewolves or nothing can prevent the same. Please confirm via PM.

In a normal game, half the players being on a scum team is a win - but in this one, this phrasing actually would have allowed both the wolves and mafia to win together. Not sure if that was intentional, but threw a large wrench into my potential endgame scenarios that was hoping no one else would see.

[ElectricBadger]

I can't even see what you mean

If half the players were werewolves, and half the players were mafia, with no remaining town then both scum win objectives would be satisfied: "at least half of the living players are Werewolves/Mafia".

CSL - that's normally how it's done, yes - and sometimes that's considered a town win, others not - but it's not how the win objectives were written in this game. Thus my comment

[ElectricBadger]

No worries, not a biggie and it didn't have any effect on the game, but wanted to bring it up.