Mini 880 - Mini Quick and Dirty - Game Over

[Scien]

/confirm

[Scien]

Vote: Amished

Not satisfied with a single role eh?

Although pretty classy trying to opt out to save the game.

[Scien]

Er... and I even reread the rules before I posted...

Fine then:

Revote: Amished for reals this time.

[Scien]

Those of you who don't already have them on your wiki page: could you post links to some/all of your completed games?

For being the first to post in the game: [voted Scien]

My wiki is up to date with games that are not currently running. Behold!

As for your reasoning for what I believe is a random vote, just out of curiosity, are you claiming there is meaning to derive from the person that posts first? Or is that just an explanation for your vote?

[Scien]

I read it :(

I just didn't read it well. :(((

I also don't expect to be let off for it, heh, heck I'm in good company with this mistake it seems. Let's dispense some indiscriminate justice. J/k

[Scien]

Oh and this: "You sir, are overthinking random voting."

On the contrary, I was making sure

THEY

weren't over thinking a random vote.

[Scien]

Heh. You can claim I'm using WIFOM that if you want, but my question was obviously only to clarify his position. I never made a claim that I thought it meant something (unless he came back with an answer that suggested that the first post meant something), and you fabricating it otherwise is ridiculous at best and manipulative at worst.

[Scien]

One more try.

For being the first to post in the game.

As for your reasoning for what I believe is a random vote, just out of curiosity, are you claiming there is meaning to derive from the person that posts first? Or is that just an explanation for your vote?

First. How is me making sure that it was truly a random vote, me 'overthinking'.
Second. When I specifically asked in the post you are criticizing if it was merely a reasoning for a random vote, how can you claim that I wasn't looking at their 'thinking'. Instead you accuse me of WIFOM.

Stretch much.

That's enough for a non-random vote.

Unvote
Vote:AGar

[Scien]

Nope, I realize you are currently playing in a joking manner. And that is fine.

But throwing suspicion that in my opinion is a stretch, even jokingly, is more of a tell than a guy for getting multiple roles. Hence non-random vote.

Carry on.

---

Ekim, "getting worked up" is relative. I never said it was a huge tell. I said it was enough for a non-random vote.

Even in the random stage people have motives for things. Actions mean things. Even jokes in certain contexts. You disagree?

[Scien]

I said in a joking manner, not that his posts are completely meaningless. He accused me of WIFOM, and overstretching, which I also think is overstretching. Even if they were in joke form, he hasn't said he didn't mean it slightly.

Even if he does say in the near future that 'it was merely a joke in RVS', it doesn't mean there aren't motives for choosing who to target with jokes.

He is a better target for a vote than my previous target, I hold with my decision here.

[Scien]

it doesn't mean there aren't motives for choosing who to target with jokes.

[Scien]

Okay, let's discuss.

Your complaints now are what? That I am making a big deal about it? And that you saw a scum do that before?

I don't think I am making a huge deal about it, I just think its odd and feel it is worth a vote and discussion.

And I don't see how that sample size of one is enough to call a scum tell.

[Scien]

Who knows. I don't know his motives.

I am merely saying that all actions have motives.

---

In this case, his jokes claimed that I was using WIFOM defenses and overstretching questions. Subtly.

Was it because he was just picking a target and acting like he saw scum tells? Maybe.
Was it because he wanted to subtly suggest that I use WIFOM, and stretch facts? Maybe.

There's no way to know, and that IS WIFOM.

However, him suggesting things that in the future could be considered scummy over pretty much nothing, is enough for my vote at the moment whether he was joking or not and much better than voting for someone for pregame stuff.

[Scien]

Do you not see the problem here?

I don't see the problem. Worth it to investigate rather than to stick around pestering my RVS target.

[Scien]

Yesh. Already prodded. Fell behind. Will catch up and post when I get off work.

[Scien]

First off, I agree with others wanting to see the PapaZ case. I'm looking at the two and don't see much of anything at the moment. Personal bias maybe.

Secondly to Agar:
Ok, so I was getting worked up over jokes. That's a fair claim. Are you telling me that you don't think I was using WIFOM defenses or 'over thinking' the RVS? There is no truth in that?

[Scien]

I count 4 or 5 players all uselessly saying something like 'I await PZ's case with fervour', which might indicate a lack of desire to scumhunt rather than just a lack of desire to commit too early.

Let me rephrase it then. I think PapaZ doesn't have a case, and even if he does it is 'meh'.

If he doesn't have a case, then that is bad, because he lied. If its 'meh', then its just typical begin game stuff, but I will likely not follow it.

In a way, me asking for his case IS scum hunting. But nice try.

As for Amished's play, it's been edgy. He's attacked one target who couldn't defend himself (lurker) and as soon as he materialised he attacked a target where he could share responsibility (joining the wagon). Looks vaugely scummy to me. (but again, scumtells D1 suck)

Could you explain why you believe either of those actions are more likely to be scum motivated than town? I think that both attacking non-posters (which IIRC, was the first attack you are talking about), and jumping wagons for pressure, are both typically done by town as well.

[In responce to asking opinions] Doing it doesn't help scumhunt, most of them are things like 'I think xxxx is pro-town at the moment' or 'getting slight scum read on yyyy'. It doesn't point anything out to anyone, and it becomes way too easy to then pull out replies later and turn them into a fake case. The most common of these being linking cases.

Er, could you explain for me more. If someone is backing up their claims for why they see someone pro-town or scummy, doesn't it sort of provide concrete evidence of your attitude to another player? If your view is weak, can't you say that its weak? I don't see how you can say that asking for other's positions on players is meaningless. I also don't see how someone could spin it as 'scummy' if you tell the truth about it.

In the last 1.5 days, the following people haven't posted.

Welcome to the weekend. Actually it is a rare occurrence that I post over them. But since I was prodded earlier I kind of felt obligated in this case.

I believe Agar for the moment. It seems that he was just joking. There might have been motives or not, and ekiM is right, I can't investigate that at the moment. But I still hold that I had things to question him about, and there was at least something to investigate.

Unvote

I personally see 'meh' in the argument between SC and the town. Yes, I don't agree with what he is saying about D1 play and how it is anti-town to build weak cases on people and pressure them. However, he has been unswerving in his answers to people so far, and has not flinched to get out of pressure. I believe he believes in his views. And if that is the case, he is acting as he would as townie.

Er, I guess that means I...

Vote: Sando

I also have a hard time not calling you Santos. And I apologize for that. My concerns are pretty much the above questions to you. To reiterate:
1) You seem to be ignoring that typically people back up their views on someone when asked for their opinion. How is this information useless to town? You don't think that going back later and seeing a confirmed scum's opinions on people help? You don't think you can read motives and logic on someones views on another?
2) If you treat the information you give as weak, or not enough to make your read slight pro-town/scummy, how do you expect people to twist it? How do you think that would not reflect badly on the twister?
3) Er, I think I am lost by something, what is the difference in your opinion by a rundown and an opinion?
4) Your original concern seemed to be 'If I give you my thoughts, they will be twisted against me'. Would you say that paraphrase is a good representation of one of your concerns? If not could you fix it for me?

[Scien]

No, I find generic 'xxx is scummy because he's done 1 tiny screw up in 5 pages' people freakin useless, and way too easy to turn into a link case later on. You seem to think that it's a good idea to make an incredibly weak linkage case?

And Scien, saying that I was responding to being asked for opinions is an absolute lie, and one that I've cleared up multiple times. My posts will focus on a single player or only 1 or 2, I won't make big 'these 6 players are likely scum'.

Er... those two thoughts don't go together, but I think that's just carry over from what you were talking about to VP.

I am not lying. Someone asked for someone you thought was scum. I believe there was an implied 'why do you think they are scum', because just listing who is pointless, and typically people go the extra mile.

Since you supposedly don't know the roles. Asking for a scum list IS asking an opinion due to you not knowing roles.

This is what happened. Amished (IIRC) asked you for a scum list (your opinions). You immediately fight him on this on the grounds that it is unhelpful to town, and your views would be used against you. You think this is a misrep?

I don't see either. Just as I don't see how I lied. Nice stretch though.

Where am I disconnecting from what you are trying to say?

[Scien]

I can haz PapaZ views on the game?

So far all we have is your pressure vote and defense of it. I think that's it.

[Scien]

Who are you?

(heh)

[Scien]

9. Scien - Ditto ODDin question here.

Which question are you trying to ask me? The serious business stuff?

I caulked it up to making sure the wagon had pressure. If you thought you had a case, or if dropped the 'serious business' claim, I would have been highly critical.

However coming back you said your intentions were to bandwagon. Seems to me that you were just making pressure. So I buy your play for now.

[Scien]

Holy thread explosion.

I'll catch up, but probably won't be able to post anything meaningful until tomorrow. Kind of have a big thing going on today.

Sorry.

[Scien]

I find the fact that Amished indicated "seeing what Vito was possibly on to" (paraphrased) to be slightly suspicious, as I doubted very much that Vito had anything up his sleeve.

I quote this for truth. Did you ever say what PapaZ was 'possibly up to', Amished? Sorry if you did, I am in catchup mode.

A wrong impression was created regarding PZ's reason for voting SC. The impression was that he was voting based on a case. The truth (if we are to believe PZ) is that he was "serious" only in choosing to create a bandwagon - the reasons for chosing the candidate at hand weren't really serious (although I'd point you to SC's post 284, which nicely points out that even this interpretation is to be doubted).

But if we assume that this is the truth, we must ask ourselves why was this wrong impression created. I talked about this in post 281. I think PZ has a conscious hand in creating this false impression - at least in that he avoided telling us his reason for voting SC, although it must have been obvious to him that he'd be asked that.

Ok... can I ask you a question? Let's say YOU are in early game, and decide to bandwagon someone for pressure. When questioned about it do you A) say you have a reason? If you give a reason it will likely relieve pressure because it will be easilly refuted as weak. Or do you B) claim that you did it just for the bandwagon pressure. This would take all pressure off totally. The middle way is to claim you have reasons, but not share them. I've seen it done before, and believe it is pretty common.

I can see truth in what PapaZ is claiming. Not only that, but it is what I would expect from a person claiming he did as he did. Anything else would be weaker play. I can't see how you would expect otherwise in this situation.

[end page 12 still catching up]

[Scien]

I'm around... but the won't be able to post due to holiday stuff until Monday. Sorry.

[Scien]

OODin... all your current reasons for your vote are reactions to actions he has taken against you. Could you explain why his actions make him more likely to be scum in your eyes? Right now it looks vaguely defensive.

Do you have any concerns of PapaZ that involve his actions to others in this game? Or is all of your complaints just interactions between you two?

---

This killing of SC is funny in my book. I know trying to draw conclusions from it is WIFOM, but I would be lying if I said I didn't think it was made to draw attention towards PapaZ. Yes I know that this is a bit of an assumption, but it is my views right now.

---

Welcome ABR.

[Scien]

Am I wrong, or at the time of your post 280, was the only thing he was criticizing you of was supposedly 'agreeing with VP about the scumminess of someone' while keeping your vote on ekiM? If at that point is the only thing that you say is blatantly wrong is calling it a RVS vote, then 'meh'. I think I could have fell for the trap and called a vote you made in your first post, and that you yourself called weak, a RVS vote.

Even if it wasn't a RVS vote his point was that you had a vote for someone that you called weak, when you were agreeing with VP about someone that should have been more scummy than your admittedly weakish case on ekiM. In the posts you are pointing out you focused on him being wrong about the random part. Not on his concern about you sticking with a weakish case over a stronger case. That is if I am reading every thing back there in correct context.

Basically, my conclusion at this point is that your main complaint on him is that he called your vote a RVS vote and you say he was lying because of it. I just don't see it. It's a minor mistake. Weak vote vs random vote.

But you do have a point that he didn't take back that he called it random I guess.

[Scien]

Except everything you just said falls back onto him thinking you had a RVS vote instead of a real vote. Assume he is town for a sec. If he really thought that your initial vote was random, wouldn't he be concerned that you stuck with it when you also suspected him?

What, in your words, makes his play more likely to be scum manipulation rather than town mistake?

I'm not trying to defend him, I'm really just trying to look at you.

[Scien]

@VP
[WIFOM]
Both the PapaZ post and the Agar post I believe are pointing to the NK and saying "Hey, the scum NKed to push more suspicion at PapaZ". If they believe that way, ODDin coming in and immediately voting for PapaZ looks like scum continuing the plan.
[/WIFOM]

[WIFOY]
If the night kill truly was supposed to get rid of a competitor of PapaZ, I haven't found partnering yet.
[/WIFOY]

But nothing yet to back any of that up.

[Scien]

That's a pretty ridiculous stance to take at this point Scien. I'd rather lynch on behavior than NK analysis this early in the game.

Who are your top suspects right now?

That would be why I haven't building cases with it. Doesn't mean I am going to ignore my gut here. I think I can use the NK to know who to look at for behavior. Who said anything about me lynching based purely on the NK?

Top suspects?
ODDin, and you at the moment. But its weak.

I started talking to ODDin to get a better feel for him, but that's still on going. I think I need to give you another read before I question you.

I guess I should ask you right off the bat, are you suggesting the NK tells us absolutely nothing? Did you not think that people responding to the NK and actions afterward might have been referring to the NK? What makes you think that PapaZ's 'WTF' post didn't refer to the NK?

You seem confused about something that it seems multiple people took as a granted assumption.

[Scien]

Sigh... just clearing up a confusion.

VP clearly didn't understand the post he called 'WTF', and it was pretty obvious to me what PapaZ was going on on about.

[Scien]

Working on gathering my views on every body. Just saying so to avoid my last prod. You should expect something from me soon.

[Scien]

I know its bad form to dump out full lists but meh. I kind of need it to keep involved. I've been slacking.

AGar - slight to fairly positive- I think I was overly loud at AGar in early game, and when asked about his opinion of me it didn't seem negative in the slightest. I know it is a bit of WIFOM, but I don't see a scum player who should be a bit reactive not acting on my loudness and early vote on them. At least not at the moment. Been fairly quiet although participating a bit.

Albert B Rampage (Amished) - neutral - Hmm. I have a hard time with Amished. He did claim he thought he knew was PapaZ was going on about, when it was later revealed that PapaZ was just wagoning to wagon pretty much. That's pretty odd in my book. Was fairly aggressive against SC in early game, but ended up on the Sando wagon I think. He seemd to be actively looking around though. ABR hasn't said anything yet.

Charlaten (ekiM) - slight positive- I think that I could read his early questioning of me as just thinking I had bad logic. He didn't necessarilly think that was scummy, and so he never moved his random vote. I think that makes sense. If he was seriously suspecting me, then yes, I would think it odd that he didn't move that vote. But going back to the logic, him just full fledgedly stopping it does seem a bit odd. I would expect him to let me carry on or something I guess. Instead he immediately writes it off as pointless, quick conclusion me thinks, but meh. Then Charlaten replaces in... He pretty much goes hardcore against Sando, but I think he was looking around a bit too, so null read.

ODDin - slight to fairly negative. - Most of his begining day was defending against SC I believe. Meh I am going to be lazy. I did one of these walls recently in a on-going game... and its a bit exhausting sifting through stuff. I think its funny SC died. I think ODDin has been tunneling a bit more than most meh. I can forgive the PapaZ vote after the night, even if it does look like it was a scum plan. However the rest of the stuff still is going to keep him negative in my eyes.

Ojanen - slightly positive - Been away for a bit due to life. When she is around, she is examining multiple people, and her vote hopping seems to follow her suspicions in previous posts, meaning she isn't making the suspicions up as she goes. But life sucks, and the activity level is keeping me from being firm in this read.

Papa Zito - slight to fairly positive - PapaZ's playstyle has changed quite a bit since I have played with him. His begin game was a lot more... well willy nilly. But I didn't catch issues with him wagoning for wagonings sake, or claiming that he had reasons to keep the pressure up. Actually a townie playing the game that way would be most effective using those tactics. He seems to be away at conveinient times... but I can't fault him for that alone. Other than that he seems to be looking around a bit, and is at least appearing to be a bit objective.

Raskol - fairly positive - In early game seemed jumped on ekiM for some of his stances on my actions. Well kind of, he later says it was more about not voting where his suspicions mainly lie when he still had a random vote out. I think the result of this path of discussion was ekiM writing off his concerns of me as 'null', which in ISO on ekiM I buy. Was called out by Amished for building weak cases during the above, but Raskol didn't back down. Goes into a bunch of theory with SA, which is meh in my book, but just meh not worse. Seems confused in day 2, but thats a bit understandable.

VP Baltar - slight to fairly negative - Auto ignore claim in begin game, nice. I don't like the ignoring of PapaZ's unstated intentions (wagoning for wagonings sake is the claim PapaZ later made about his intitions here). He was willing to throw a big fuss at the time about it, possibly trying to decrease the wagon's effectiveness. And he bounced between PapaZ and Sando a bit. That could be legitimatly following concerns, or something else. Eventually switched vote from PapaZ to Amished before he went on vacation and claimed he would come back and switch to Sando if Amished didn't happen (er ok, I would call that an odd thought process). Pretty much immediately comes back and is on PapaZ again. Then votes Zorblag after a bit of discussion. Ok. I'm not going to lie, the 3 major suspicions thing he seems to be doing, and bouncing between confuses me. Sometimes it seems he switches without much game state changing. Seems arbitrary. Also don't like the 'you can't get meaning from the NK' comment.

Zorblag - neutral - Meh. Even with him being away he has been participating a decent amount really. I would really like to see him dump out his current top concerns more concretely though. Sifting through the obeservation/questions he normally does dazzles me.


Questions observations on reread -
Raskol, could I ask for your point about AGar? You are suggesting that him having a parked vote was suspicious? Or just discussing at the moment?

Agar, could you express in words what you disliked about the early day 2 ODDin's vote? I was making an assumption that I shouldn't have.

VP, I am trying to understand the end of day 1 stuff you said. You had a high suspicion of PapaZ leading up to your vacation (your vote was on him), but right before you leave you vote Amished? And say if it Amished doesn't happen you'll just vote Sando? What changed so much that you were willing to leave an unwatched vote on Amished? If Papa was a big suspicion why Sando being the alternative to Amished? Are these guys so close in your head that you move between the group so easilly?

Can I request a current vote count?

[Scien]

Sigh... second prod even.

I never am able to post during the weekends. But I am around. If I am not manditorially replaced now, you can expect something from me tomorrow.

[Scien]

I don't really want to get into this again because it is pointless by now, but I still feel I was correct.

I wasn't really trying to get you to go into it again. I just hold it as a meh moment, and it is part of the reason for my current views towards you.

You mean the shit wagon against confirmed town SC? Sure.

Heh. Hindsight is fun. You didn't know that he was town at the time, in theory, however.

What do you mean "something else"? What would that something else be? Also, do you not feel either of those argument were genuine?

Some other motive, I don't know what yet. I personally think the PapaZ argument sounded a bit... er... awkward we'll say. But I guess that comes from me reading between the lines. What I took for a granted implication in his 'lol scum' post, you seemed lost from to the point that it made you suspicious. Manipulation or just not seeing the situation, well I guess we will see soon enough.

lol, I was? Where? I have barely mentioned PZ today.

Well that probably flys since it was a quiet day until recently. When I wrote that note I was talking about you post 36 in iso. I should say that 'on PZ immediately' or whatever I said would be incorrect at this point. Even though one of your first big points was against him today, but you quickly looked elsewhere...

PapaZ was not a legitimate lynch candidate when I was going on my V/LA at the end of day 1. It was going to be Sando or Amished. No lynch should never be an option on Day 1 and I like to do what I can to make sure that isn't going to happen. As I've already explained, I started to have misgivings about lynching Sando after my long dispute with him and his frustration began to feel more honest, so I put my vote on Amished, who I felt more confident about.

Theory smoke? And yes I agree with the theory smoke, but my confusion is more than what you are suggesting with the theory talk. If you have time to come change it before deadline, why not leave it where your suspicions lie. You said you would be back by the time deadline approached. However, you decided that your strongest suspect is not good enough anymore and subscribe to an end of day either/or? I see this as a bit funny and worth looking at. Why am I wrong?

[more later... I am still rushed and opening dialog with VP is my main goal here]

When I was skimming over the weekend I saw PapaZ and VP, both list me on top three I think (or maybe VP just said he had doubts about me). It both cases that seemed like a new trend, could you guys present your cases? Or concerns.

[Scien]

[This is still catch up mode, forgive me if I ask a question that you covered]

Probably ought to be looking at everyone "for behavior", even as vague as that is.

Who said I wouldn't. I was merely saying that saying that I should totally ignore NK information because of the vague fear of 'it's too early' is meh. I can have suspicions based on that information, and I would go as far to say that it isn't unhealthy.

Troll (obv)
Scien
ODDin

No issues with ABR/Amished at this point.

Again, I caught no probing in my direction yet, and yet I make your top3 list. Why, please.

Also while I am thinking of it, could you explain your griefs with me VP. Right now all I have is 'he is vaguely making me feel a bad vibe', and I don't recall much probing from you up till now. Both your concerns and PapaZ's seem... odd... considering neither of you really questioned me yet.

Well I guess Raskol won't be sticking out the rest of the day. This hurts my soul a bit, but I don't know if I can lynch a player slot that has been vacated.

Er... out of some feeling of fairness or what? If you honestly think him your top suspect, why does the replace matter?

One of {AGar, ODDin, VP Baltar} should be lynched today for not being on the Sando wagon.

Oh?

[To VP] Why are you so quick to distinguish my comment as idiotic rather than as scummy?

Yes indeed why?

Because I don't jump to conclusions from one poorly-thought out theory.

Er. So instead you completely wrote off his actions? Please tell me you considered what his motives may have been... especially from someone replacing what seems like 2 seconds ago was your biggest suspect.

BTW my opinions on the Crypto subset thing is meh... and it could be used to focus his targets if he is scum... I believe it as bad play if he is a townie, but you guys can fight about that for now. At the moment I didn't have a overly negative view towards Raskol and you guys are mainly fighting about what Crypto's stance means, which is cool. Have at it.

I do think he has points outside this, but I am still curious about VP.

---

I know its mainly self-interested, but you have done nothing to interrogate me even though I am suddenly giving you a bad feeling that you can't explain. Suspicion without trying to clear it up = suspicion that is furthering your goals somehow. Tell me why I am wrong.

Your end of day voting... er... policies(?) still strikes me as odd.

Post 515 was unaddressed and contains most of my points before this big Crypto fight stuff.

I do agree with Crypto that it is odd that he replaced what was your biggest suspect (judging from your vote), and when he comes in with a move that you apparently disapprove of (judging from the long fight now), you immediately shrug it off as newbie instead of probing it for scumminess. This actually is a fairly big black mark for you since I was mildly suspect of you before now.

VP

[Scien]

I don't have to probe anything about you to have a feeling about your play in this game. It's not like I'm pushing for your lynch without putting out a case. If I feel you have been scummy enough that I want you lynched, I'll bring a full case.

Meh. Fair. I thought you listed me in a top 3 scum. But going back to look for it, apparently I was mistaken.

My question about not probing in my direction while being on a top 3 scum list still stands to PapaZ though.

er...out of actually trying to lynch scum. I posted my case and Raskol didn't respond to any of it, how am I supposed to judge his actions from there? Maybe he had a good explanation for the things he did that I just wasn't seeing. That is why I asked him to stay until the end of the day at least and give an account for himself. I wanted to hear his responses and see if my suspicions were grounded. That's how scumhunting works. Lynching a replacement solely on the actions of their predecessors is probably one of the worst things you can do unless it was something blatantly scummy.

I still have questions over this. You believed him scum enough to place a vote. You had questions out true. But you believed him scum. The response to the replace is to remove your vote? How is that trying to lynch scum?

Yes, you lost the opportunities to see reactions to your points on your target. That sucks. But you suspicions should remain no?

And no, I wasn't claiming you should blindly lynch your target if that is what you are implying. I am claiming that you had a vote for pressure, you supposedly had suspicions of the player slot. Your response to the replace was a vote removal? Why? Why not keep it there to add pressure to your future discussions?

It was a stupid question when crypto asked it and it remains so when you repeated it.

See this just sits with the unvote to. The player slot is something that you supposedly were HUGELY suspicious of like 2 days ago. But the replace has you removing your vote, and apparently your suspicions too. You trust the replacee enough to not look at something that could easilly have scum motives, and instead write it off? This is not a stupid question, it doesn't make sense to me that you would not be critical of the replacee.

Wow, that's amazingly vague. Explain to me how my end of the day voting was not logical given my explanation.

I already have. If you have time to come change your vote before deadline, why not leave it where your suspicions lie. You said you would be back by the time deadline approached. However, you decided that your strongest suspect is not good enough anymore and subscribe to an end of day either/or? I see this as a bit funny and worth looking at. Why am I wrong?

I'd like you to explain my motivation as scum for carrying out the actions you are accusing me of. I don't understand why it's a "fairly big black mark" or how it would help forward any goals as scum.

Heh, you would like me to lay out WIFOM. Cool... cool. First step of avoiding a trap is knowing of it's existence I suppose.

One possible motive. You were adding pressure on someone that eventually replaced. Seeing that they replaced, you lost the nerve to follow through and risk the town seeing you push towards a townie lynch. The replace was a good time as any to remove your vote and 'look elsewhere'.

Less negative on playstyle motive? You realize it is getting towards end of day, and that your target is not going to be the lynch. You need to free vote up so that you can press towards people with more townie interest on them. Replace came along and gave you a good excuse to remove your vote and lose your suspicions.

Why it is a black mark for me at the moment? I don't understand it. Raskol was the top of your scum list. You just went back and reread day 1 and he was a topper of your list, you were in the process of pressing in his direction. However he replaced, and you remove your vote and start treating the slot much less critically. I don't understand the town motive for that, if you are truly trying to catch scum.

So it would be impossible for a town player to think a wagon was bad at that point because he or she doesn't know alignments for certain...that's completely ludicrous.

I really have to go into theory? Wagon's are tools. Pressure helps get real reactions out of people. It doesn't matter if the target was good or bad really. The pressure is the goal.

What were you "reading between the lines" exactly? What could I have been 'manipulating' by saying "wtf" to a one liner from PZ?

Well, sense he was talking about the NK, I was reading between the lines that him laughing was at the NK, most likely? Because it seemed to be a push from scum to make the town look at him.

What was the manipulation? You took a post of his that seemed to be a lame off the cuff comment post and turned it into a declaration of him making no sense. "That post of PapaZ is a big WTF?", while me and others could see what he was talking about? Ok... maybe you truly didn't get it. Or maybe you wanted to toss suspicion his way and were using the situation.

What big point? I never made a big point against PZ. Please quote that. Also explain how me looking at suspects other than PZ makes me scummy.

I messed that up again. One of your first points against someone today was PZ... but we are talking about an observation I made and turning it into a full fledged case point at this point in time, and it was never meant as such. It was just something I was looking at.

Also, I never said you looking at others was scummy. That was another observation. I was saying your first point against someone in day 2 was PapaZ. Then you moved on, so meh...

I don't understand what "theory smoke" you are referring to. No lynches on Day 1 are bad...that's not theory, that's common sense. That's why you're wrong.

This: "No lynch should never be an option on Day 1 and I like to do what I can to make sure that isn't going to happen."

But the theory wasn't my point.

You were on PapaZ. You supposedly had him as your main suspect. But were going to be away towards end game. But back in time for deadline. You change your vote to the developing either/or anyway, and say that when you get back you will change it if necessary?

PapaZ is your main suspicion. You will be back to help prevent the no-lynch before deadline. You switch anyway, are you trying to tell me you thought without your switch at the time, we would have no-lynched? Meh.

---

My last post had a fail vote at the bottom of it.

Vote: VP

[Scien]

AM?

[Scien]

I need a [...] case on VP from scien with the main reasons highlighted.

I'll throw everything I am currently looking at out here, even the weak stuff:

• Made a big fuss about the PapaZ 'wagoning for wagoning's sake' stuff in early day one. He could have also been trying to limit the wagon's effectiveness. When I mentioned this possible limiting last time the defense from VP was 'You mean a wagon on a confirmed townie? Ya I did that.' (paraphrased). He had no way of knowing it was townie at the time though. Still weakish on my part, he might have just wanted to pressure the other side when he questioned PapaZ. He also might not have seen through the bandwagon tactic, and griefed at what would have then looked to be an outright lie. But meh
  
  
• Throughout day one, he bounced between PapaZ and Sando, which is fair. Before going on vacation he plants his vote on Amished because 'PapaZ is not going to get lynched today', with a promise to come back before deadline and help solve any no-lynch scenario by voting for Sando if necessary. My griefs here are that his main suspect is supposedly PapaZ. Yes he is going on vacation, but seemed relatively sure that he would be back (he never made a defense yet saying he moved his vote to the developing either or just in case he didn't get back). He still moves his vote to the either/or. It strikes me as odd. He will be back but he moves his vote from his claimed top suspect? Sounds like using his vacation as an excuse. When asking about this, he tossed a bit of 'a no-lynch is something to be avoided at all costs' theory smoke at me. I agree that no-lynches are something to avoid, but that was not in my complaints against him, or my discussion towards him.
  
  
• In early day 2 he pulled the 'I don't understand what PapaZ is doing' card again. PapaZ was obviously commenting on the NK, given with a meh type post. I say obviously because I am not the only person to 'read between the lines' on that post. This is a weakish point, because I can't prove he was doing this just to toss suspicion PapaZ's way, or if he legitimately didn't understand what PapaZ was talking about.
  
  
• Late in day 2, he comes in and says he has reread day 1 and decided to move Raskol and Agar to the top of his scum list (I assume me moved them with a comment like "My biggest conclusion is that there is almost certainly scum between Raskol and Agar, if not both of them.") He then proceeds to pressure Raskol. While pressuring, Raskol replaces and VP removes his vote (claiming that he is "trying to lynch scum" when asked about it later). Crypto comes in and immediately expresses a tactic that could easilly have scum motives. VP writes this off as newbie and not scummy. VP seems to effectively lost his suspicion when he moved that vote.
  
  
• He pressures me to layout WIFOM, in the case of what could be prompting him to act this way, "what exactly are the possible scum motives?" I give a couple, but do realize that it was WIFOM. I don't think he has been back to call me out on it yet. We will see if he tries to.

Again, I caught no probing in my direction yet, and yet I make your top3 list. Why, please.

And you're awfully nervous about it, aren't you?

Dang right I am. I make your top three, and you have not even really asked a single question my way all game? Odd. You are considering your all main suspects right?

[Scien]

???

I am on your top three and you haven't even talked to me this game. Does your top three mean anything? Or is it just there to fall back on later when you need to move your suspicions...

If you haven't talked to a person on your top 3 suspects... are you even really suspect of your top 3? Or are you just focused on one for the meantime?

[Scien]

Er... could someone help me out here? How are we in Mylo?

We have 8 currently right? Let's say 3 are anti-town (maybe this is where I am wrong, are you guys saying it is likely more?) That leaves 5 townies? A mislynch and a nightkill tonight leaves us with 3 vs 3 tomorrow right?

Don't you need a majority to lynch?

[Scien]

Oh... I am retarded.

Nevermind. Carry on.

[Scien]

Alrighty. I would vote for a Crypto claim first then as well. If it's mass claim it really doesn't matter order anyway, and if we are withholding discussion until we are finished, I don't see any risk in claim order.

[Scien]

Followed by VP.

[Scien]

I guess I don't understand popcorn claim then buddy. I thought we were voting for who started us off.

Does the popped determine the next claim?

My vote is currently for Crypto. But I am very interested in you as well. I would vote either of you, but I hope that you have to claim earlier rather than later.

[Scien]

I am interested in both VP and you. More so at VP, but as long as you both claim early, then I am satisfied. Your claim helps me look at him a bit too ya know.

As for the leads thing... I have leads. But I'm not going to go off and start a bunch of discussion while we do that.

Do you really want me to explain why I want you two to claim earlier rather than later?

---

I will ask one more question about the claim stuff. If we are only in Mylo, why claim a day early? If we have a power role, why take away a night of his? Really asking Zorblag here, since he suggested this stuff.

[Scien]

'while we do that' = talk about the claim or start claiming, whatever we start doing.

There will be plunty of time for discussion after we sort this out.

[Scien]

Should claim TODAY now that Troll's basically waved a flag over his head that says "PR."

Oh? Just because he suggested the claim? I think thats a bit of a stretch.

[Scien]

I'm changing my claim vote to VP then.

[Scien]

Hmm. You think lynching is a good idea in Mylo? You must be damn confident about those two.

[Scien]

Can we file this under things we shouldn't be talking about because it is Mylo?

You really think we are going to lynch someone today? You really think we should talk about who we are suspicious of today, given that we probably won't lynch anyone? How is this not just giving free info to the scum?

[Scien]

Er... we might have a power role. Right now that's something the scum don't know just the same as us.

You really think they would not night-kill? They might be giving us free awesome each night they no-kill.

[Scien]

Heh. True. But that would have to be some confident scum to let us go through no-lynch cycles just because its hard to trust the eventual results.

[Scien]

Wait wait wait. I have no issue claiming if we do it. But I am not fully comfortable with the way things are going down yet.

Troll no did bring up the potential to no lynch today as Troll thinks that we probably be better off lynching. We likely have a no lynch available though it depends on a couple things in the setup which Troll no knows much at all about. A no lynch now potentially gives power roles an extra night to work if we have any but it actually makes a bigger impact if we can use it later in terms of target density for hitting scum. If others would like to no lynch today Troll could live with that but it no be Troll's preference.

How confident are you that we going to hit scum today? Especially when we explode the situation with a large poof of WIFOM that is going to be introduced by the potential claim and counter claims?

The above is a

very

strange stance to take on the situation I think. Basically you are suggesting that we take a bigger risk today (which is still has game losing potential), in order to have possibly more impact tomorrow, rather than using our tools to get to tomorrow?

You must be pretty confident of something right? Would you say that is the case? Or are you truly just asking us to gamble.

---

I am very suspect of someone coming in and telling us that it is wiser to lynch now when the pool is more deluted, AND on top of that, start the day up with an early day claim to introduce even more confusion into the town. Really? Even if the town got lucky and hit scum with that plan, the roles would be outted and there would be no 'impact' to have tomorrow. This plan smells very much like it benefits scum in two ways: sets up a decent chance of them winning today, and even if that doesn't work out, puts them in a good position tomorrow by possibly eliminating a power role a night earlier.

Could someone spell out why this plan is better than waiting for a more concentrated pool, and waiting for the role claim until we have to do it?

[Scien]

Sorry VP, Zorblag sparked my paranoid nature.

[Scien]

lol, I'm starting to see that this is the code you live by.

Was that an insult? :(

[Scien]

I don't think any of Scien's arguments matter if we don't lynch scum today, and we need all the info we can, including role claims, to lynch correctly today.

Heh, we have one sure way of not mislynching today. Everyone is going to flat out ignore it eh? How is that wise?

[Scien]

Zorblag... wow.

You are making me doubt you heavilly. But I don't think you are saying anything factually wrong (not that I think you ever would). I am getting a bad vibe from this.

---

Fine. I don't have a problem with the claim. As long as there is not an attached 'we gotta lynch today' with it.

---

After this claim if it happens, I urge people to readdress the no-lynch idea. I know I am going to bring it up again. No offense, but lynching today is almost stupidity really, at least the way I am looking at it now.

Yes, there is a slight possibility that it helps us later on

if

we can surely hit scum today. But that possibility never happens if we fail today. Seems risky, and it truly does seem like a gamble.

[Scien]

True. I think it would be ideal to no-lynch before the claim.

Even with all the push for the claim.

Does this mean you are going to try and explain why the no-lynch is a bad idea now, Zorblag?

[Scien]

But if he's town, I would think he has a good idea of who's scum right now.

He's been fooled before, I'm sure it can happen again. Even if he was totally sure, I'm not sure I trust him enough to subscribe to this gamble.

[Scien]

Er... ok.

But weren't you saying like 10 minutes ago that there was a measurable benefit in your mind by performing a lynch today over a no-lynch? That's my grief. From my view, it is clearly the other way around.

Am I going to have to go back for a quote?

Why is your view adjusting when there is but a minimal amount of exchange going on here due to a possible upcoming claim? You are even waffling a bit (as am I) about which is the better order of no-lynch/claim if we go that route.

You seem fairly certain of yourself in some posts, and not so much in others. Would you say you are still feeling out possibilities?

[Scien]

Troll believes and has believed that a mass claim be better than a no lynch as an option today. Troll said that Troll feels we probably be better off lynching (after a mass claim was implicit) than not lynching and Troll still believes that. If Troll ever failed to make that clear Troll apologizes but that be why Troll's first post this day talked about the mass claim option but not the no lynch option.

The no-lynch and claim are not mutually exclusive, as you guys keep pointing out.

Can you articulate why you 'believe' it is better to lynch today?

As for the claim. I know that any claim can be doubted, even if there is no counter claim, due to the inability to know true game state. I know that popcorn helps a bit... but even in the event of a smooth no counter claim game here, how can everyone say that a bit of confusion would not be introduced?

Sigh.

Fine, claim away. When we are done we can talk about whither its a good idea or not to lynch.

[Scien]

@Troll I wouldn't say that was unproductive at all. That was easily the most organized statement of your views that you have uttered today. Much clearer than claiming one side of your thought process in some posts, and the other side of your thoughts in others. Well either that or it finally got through my thick head this time.

If we mass claim then Troll believe we will probably want to lynch once that be done.

This is one of my unstated fears. That this claim is being introduced now counting on the above, intentionally trying to get the town to lynch early. But meh. I agree we could use the information.

Just keep in mind that if there are no power roles, and no townie lies, it makes it easy for the scum to claim a PR in both senses of the word 'claim'.

Let's see what happens.

[Scien]

Without going into it it would have mainly been carry over from discussion yesterday with VP.

[Scien]

Also does this look right?

[mrow]Person to claim first[col]People voting for them Crypto[col]VP VP[col]Scien Scien[col]ABR, Charlatan
Not voting: Zorblag, Zito, Ojanen, Crypto

[Scien]

3 people seems close enough to start.

Vanilla townie. That was easy.

VP - next

[Scien]

You claimed Virginia. That doesn't count. It has to be a real place.

[Scien]

Or make that Vermont, which also isn't a place.

[Scien]

Night 1, I targeted Scien. I found him less involved than in the previous game I'd played with him, and seemed to be arguing more theory; I suspected he might be trying to fly under the radar.

Er. You never bread crumbed you say? I'm fairly sure you said something similar to this before now.

[Scien]

Bigbear...

He means, if the town keeps voting to no-lynch, and the scum don't want to kill, who is forced to act?

[Scien]

BigBear, how quickly would you force night actions? Would you force night actions the first night after a no-lynch vote? Or second?

[Scien]

Oh! Nevermind Bigbear, just saw your 3 day thing. Thanks!

[Scien]

Even after this claim, speculation on setup is speculation on setup.

Saying we're mountainous (I learned a new term!), is nothing but an assumption. Are you suggesting that it is more likely mountainous than other possibilities Zito?

Also, I take it that you are holding to your VT claim Zito? Not holding anything back?

Charlaten, why did you want me to claim first? I want to hear you say your reasoning.

[Scien]

[...] 5. Troll had thought by the way AGar's death was handled (differently than Sando's in that we didn't learn his role until after the night was over) that him was likely to have some non-vanilla role. Troll thought scum was the most likely (clearly Troll was wrong) but that if him wasn't scum that him was probably a power role who's power involved something happening or potentially happening upon his death. The lack of his role now be frustrating as Troll no can tell whether the manner of death was just story telling or if it was more significant.[...]

Speculation. But I too noticed what you are talking about. No way to know what the mod was up to though.

[...]@Papa Zito, what is the name of your role in your role PM?[...]

Mean question is awesome. Even if its a bit underhanded. Sneaky sneaky. Enough on that though. Don't want to ruin things.

[...]@everyone, what role did you have in the aborted version of this game? Troll's role then was vanilla townie as well. [...]

What good does knowing that do?

[Scien]

Nevermind on that last question. I am slow as always.

My first role PM was the same as my current one. Vanilla townie.

[Scien]

[@ Zito] Saying we're mountainous (I learned a new term!), is nothing but an assumption. Are you suggesting that it is more likely mountainous than other possibilities Zito?

Also, I take it that you are holding to your VT claim Zito? Not holding anything back?

[Scien]

Coming into today, I knew I would claim.

Oh? Why? You would have pushed away from the no-lynch option based on your null tell on me and a guilty?

[Scien]

1. The point of limited reveal is to hide something about the setup.
2. Nobody claimed a role-based action on Day 2.
3. Every claim, bar the scum's, has been VT.

Speculation is fun, but with 4 dead pro-town people, and no way to know their role, there is no point in trying to determine setup. Just because we have a bunch of VT claims now doesn't mean everyone was VT.

Actually more to the point, trying to throw suspicion on someone based on them being the only person claiming a role is silly.

You think that I am wrong here? You think that ignoring what in townie shoes would be a fake guilty, that it is suspicious that there is only one claim?

[Scien]

The only one, with a guilty to boot. What a lucky town we are.

Meh, the guilty is a side point, I agree. But why do you believe that a single person claiming is suspicious in its own right? You can't really point to your speculation on setup for the answer.

What's this in English?

Lol, that did suck. Ignore the guilty. Do you think it is suspicious that there is only a single person claiming? You seem to.

I guess hypothetically, if he claimed two results, and neither was a provable lie, would you still think that the fact that he is the only one claiming fishy?

[Scien]

You're forgetting that one of his results is a track on a vanilla townie.

A

claimed

vanilla townie. But I know what you are saying.

[Scien]

Crypto, did you ever claim your first role?

[Scien]

Zorblag too.

[Scien]

I agree with Crypto (I think). Coming up with a lie about items that were only present yesterday seems overly risky, and really doesn't introduce anything into the current setup.

I don't see how it makes Charlatan look bad. I don't see how it would further PapaZ's goals if he is scum.

I am inclined to believe PapaZ had an item yesterday, even though that doesn't tell us anything about today.

[Scien]

@Scien, said you had leads to share as well. Have you shared them?

Eh, no not really. It would have/will be continuing my discussion with VP from yesterday. He had a rebutted close to day end, and day ended before I brought up counterpoints. I did say that this was what I was talking about already today.

Right now though I am just struggling between Charlatan, and PapaZ. As well as fighting something else.

Could someone enlighten me on something though? Why all the speculation on setup? Does it actually help scum hunt? If we don't know if there are power roles dead, we can't know that there are no power roles. Everything is speculation. How can such baseless speculation help scum hunt.

Could someone please inform me? I am being honest here. I don't see the benefit of everyone bringing up setup... am I missing something?

[Scien]

Sigh... I am going to get hell for this one...

- [1] Another thing that i should have stressed, was specifically to Scien and SerialClergyman, neither of them recognized that they had additional power roles until I mentioned it in the "green zone" QT, and when I pm'd Scien to see if he understood his role.
- [2] And at first I thought Scien was just being greedy with his vest.
- [3] Scum played a very good game, Charlatan did fantastic, his town points really helped with his claim.
- [4] I would not have ended the game earlier if scum had not targeted Scien as their roleblock. He was the only chance of survival, if he had passed it off to Crypto without being role blocked, there would have been another day.

1) Ya this sucked and I am sorry guys. I got the original PM, which was normal VT. I got the replacement role and read to the part that said VT, then I guess I shut my brain off. I totally didn't know that I had a vest until after BigBear showed up to tell PapaZ that he could answer the role question (after the claim), that's when he fixed my mind. I probably would have told you guys I had it in the claim if I knew. Instead I was stuck in a position where I was weighing pros and cons. In the end I was gambling that we hit the correct scum in that PapaZ/Charlatan pair and I could spring something on the scum that night. It was wreaking my world view because I wanted to say something about PapaZ's claim, but was pretty sure he was the scum. I handled the situation badly, even after I was told about my mistake it seems. You can give me crap for it now... I need to learn from it anyway, and it was my first power role.
[2] Secondly, even if I knew I had this vest I would have likely held onto it anyways. Listen to this vest guys... it seems overpowered to me. Protects me from both NKs and Lynches, would end the day if I got lynched with a no-lynch, could be passed to anyone during the night, and it would save them that night, after they got it they too could pass it around. If I happened to give that vest to a scum... game over. I couldn't risk that . I would have held onto it last night anyway due to the confusion of not knowing who was scum that night, or who the likely target would be. Meh I guess I suck at power roles. (Yes I realize that I had the game on me at that point. Just didn't know what to do.)
[3] Ya, Charlatan in particular. Only played with Ojenan once, and he was scary then. I bet the game would have been different with him more active. Dunno about ABR, kept hearing about him, and he occasionally had awesome posts here too, but I think he suffered from a case of the aways. Won't stop me being afraid due to reputation, but this might have made it so that I will be a tad less scared around him.
[4] Meh.

Bigbear - it was my fault for not reading the role PM more closely, but in future I'd definitely not make the first two lines of the role PM identical to the vanilla PM. When you hear you are town and have two abilities, your voice and your vote, you tend to switch off. It's still my fault, but you know, for the sake of clarity I think saying 'You are a 1-shot vig' might grab the attention a little more Very Happy

QFT, both the my fault part, and the ways to potentially avoid it in the future. Even if you are trying to make it more vague I would put the tool on the same sentence: "You have two very important abilities - your voice and your vote... Oh and you have one extra tool. You are able to choose one player during the night to send to the grave. You may only use this ability once."

Heh just a suggestion. I am no mod.

In retrospect the Vest was swingier than I initially thought - if it actually blocked a kill and was then claimed, the two-person scumteam was in trouble. So perhaps the revised setup was more balanced. That and it precluded ABR from... etc.

Is it not feasible for a more liberal person to end the game night 1 by passing it to scum? If the scum team gets their hands on it, it ends the game no? I never heard that it didn't work for scum. Woah if it didn't work for scum, you could even use it in a type of cop ploy. Heh, pass it around and see if the matched recipients say they got it. Either the scum get it eventually and pass it to their scum buddies, or start breaking the tradition of moving it to a new person every night. Would have to think about that.

Scien, stop tunneling the shit out of me! I was pretty certain you were town, but I could not get you to look anywhere else. lol. I think you were still harboring reads from our last game.

Nah, I can assure you that I was not. I 'turned on' around this time, because I was honestly curious about your motives, and thought I should pressure you a bit more to figure them out. I wasn't bringing in a grudge or anything, really I wasn't. Also I wouldn't call it a tunnel... just a pursuit. Anyway, sorry about that heh.

I'll read more later. Meh I hate this vest...

[Scien]

I would be /in unless you guys are tired of me.

[Scien]

Scien, are you gonna be more decisive and step it up this time?

Honestly? Apparently that depends on the game... if I don't have things to be decisive about, then I'm typically not very decisive. Sometimes I am better, sometimes worse. I don't think I have much control over it.

Tell me if you have a problem with that. I wouldn't take it personally.

[Scien]

I was recently NKed in a Night Watch game. I personally would like to try something new.

I wouldn't mind Friends and Enemies. That would be a new one for me, and I am all about novelty.

[Scien]

Er... confusing my games again...

I was lynched in that Night Watch game. Scum pulled it off even if I personally think that the town has a ton of power there.