Mini 896 - Jekyll Mafia - Game Over

[kikuchiyo]

vote: kikuchiyo

how on earth am I supposed to pronounce that name?

key-coo-chee-o

Vote: PHANTOM

for failing at phonics.

[kikuchiyo]

I'm here. Just thoroughly disinterested in this conversation. Less quote walls please. I think xvart is the only one with a valid point as of yet. Would like to hear Raider's response.

[kikuchiyo]

Sorry. I must have missed that. I think we need a better conversation.

Everyone please answer:

1. What is your experience level?
2. Do you prefer scum roles or town roles?
3. Favorite color.
4. How many players in this lineup have you played with before?

[kikuchiyo]

Why did you pick those four questions? Why you think it's more beneficial to throw up a prearranged set of talking points than allowing the conversation to naturally flow?

No particular reason.

I don't.

Just trying to stimulate something. Finding out everyones experience level and familiarity with other players can be helpful. At the very least it helps us find out whose going to be helpful and polite and whose going to be assholes.

That said:

unvote, Vote: Nachomamma8

[kikuchiyo]

What do you mean, raider? Are you saying that either Nacho or 5cvum has to be mafia?

[kikuchiyo]

As long as I am not missing something it seems pretty straight forward.

I think you're missing the point that 5cvm might just be an asshole.

[kikuchiyo]

I am voting Nacho for his decision to not answer my questions. You have claimed "role information" which leads you to believe Nacho is 80-90% scum. Raider has voted Nacho based on the "false dilemma" that one of you two must be scum.

Out of those three reasons for a vote, mine is the least ridiculous. Also, if you are now backtracking and saying you don't think Nacho is scum, why are you leaving him at L-1? (btw: he's not at L-1)

Are you saying that your "role information" statement was some sort of gambit?

If so, why am I scum, but Unity isn't?

[kikuchiyo]

5cvm: Are you being deliberately obtuse here? If what Raider said is not a false dilemma, then that means that either you or he is scum. Do you believe that I am partnered with Nacho?

You say you have role information that states that Nacho is 80-90% scum.

How does that translate into either Nacho or 5cvm is scum? In my opinion you could both be scum, or you could both be town. Therefore the statement "Either Nacho or 5cvm is mafia" is, in fact, a false dilemma. I don't believe anyone said anything about dichotomies being scummy. I was simply pointing out to Raider that his reasoning was illogical.

Also, you say Unity's post is town, but you scoff at the idea of L-1 on page 4. If Unity's vote actually counted(which it shouldn't), then he would be the player who put Nacho at L-1 on page 4.

Hm, why would you simply assume that?

I assumed nothing. I am asking you to clarify your statement.

Wasn't my soft-claimed role information with all its context plausible enough for you?

What context? Your statement was vague at best. I don't know of any role which would not have a day power but still give you information regarding another players role.

Unvote, Vote: 5cvm

Your attempts to twist what I am saying into anything other than questions is noted. Your inability to clarify your stance is noted. Your skirting of questions is noted. Explain yourself.

[kikuchiyo]

Sorry, Nacho. Perhaps I could have used some smilies or something. I was just pointing out that my questions

would

differentiate people pertaining to their willingness to cooperate. I didn't mean to offend, I was just trying to be funny.

You asked a bunch of useless questions, including my favorite color. You can figure out who I've played with by everyone else's responses, and you will get through the night without knowing what role I'm comfortable in playing in.

See. I can tell you're a grumpy Gus from the way you ansered.

I agree that Raider's thought process is skewed, but I'm not sure if I can determine alignment from it. He could just be confused. I am more concerned now with dealing with our resident spammer. Any thoughts in that direction?

[kikuchiyo]

*Facepalm*

5cvm: Please show where I "seemed to know this right away"?

You said you had definitive information that Nacho was mafia. You encouraged players to vote Nacho. Then you called me scum for questioning Raider's "false dilemma". Therefore I asked you to clarify what you were talking about. I questioned your motives because your logic was bad. You brought your own "role info" into question with your actions of attacking me when you had this "supposed" information regarding Nacho's alignment.

What raider said was 100% a correct dilemma at the time.

No. Raider embraced a "false dilemma". You had not(and have not since) clarified your supposed role info(which you now admit is false). The either/or deduction of you or Nacho being scum was inherently bad logic.

You claimed you were town. You claimed 80-90% Nacho being scum. Even if your statistics hadn't been pulled entirely out of your ass, that leaves a 10-20% chance that Nacho could be town. Therefore the statement "Based on this information either 5cvm or Nacho is mafia" is a false dilemma. Google it. Its basic logic.

[kikuchiyo]

This is interesting.

The biggest scum tell I see here is Mr. Suave not knowing if it was L-1, and staying on the wagon anyway even though he explicitly stated he didn't want the lynch to go through any time soon.

Essentially, 5cvm did the same thing.

[kikuchiyo]

Mod: Can we get a vote count?

I dont want to lose because Im too willing to lynch stupid.

Words of wisdom. I get the feeling there might be quite a bit "stupid" floating around this thread.

[kikuchiyo]

Thank you!

Can someone summarize the case against Mr.Suave?

[kikuchiyo]

My reading-powers are telling me the Kiku is scum. "False dilemma" arguement = huge fail, scum trying to find reasons to vote but failing (happens sometimes, not often.)

A) Raider embraced a "false dilemma". That is not a huge fail. It is fact.

B) Who tried to find a reason to vote? Pointing out another players failed logic is not akin to making an attack. Where did I vote Raider, attempt to vote Raider, or even accuse Raider of anything other than embracing fail logic?

Also, I have already explained that I did not warm to your soft claim and I did not base my vote on it. If you follow the exchange between myself and the players responding to my questions, you will see that I simply asked a few questions and voted the least cooperative responder. If you choose to see more "coincidence" then you are welcome to it. Its called "circumstantial evidence" if I'm not mistaken and it wouldn't be admissable in a court of law.

Gerhard Krause's play also makes me think he's scum. Regarding his second post: town, unless they're very insecure town, wouldn't be worried about that kind of thing!

Please expand on this.

How do you feel about Raider's recent 180?

[kikuchiyo]

Unvote, Vote: Mr. Suave

We seem to have two good candidates here. Lets see who wants to lynch who. Nothing like day 1 competing wagons.

[kikuchiyo]

Unvote, Vote: Mr. Suave

We seem to have two good candidates here. Lets see who wants to lynch who. Nothing like day 1 competing wagons.

so what, you're just jumping on my wagon just because? or do you have a reason?

I like ecto and Gerhard's reasoning. Competing wagons are good for town. They generate discussion and force more analysis and content imo.

[kikuchiyo]

kikuchiyo: Scum. I do not like the fact that she feels the need to call people assholes, not really necessary imo. Also her vote on Nacho seemed more opportunistic then anything. She claims it was because he did not answer her questions she put out there, but lets take a look at who did not answer them, which would be nacho, Unity, Phantom, Suave, and Green Crayons, yet out of all those apparently Nacho is the scummy one out of those five names for not answering you? Of course that just happens to be after 5cvm says he has info on Nacho that makes him scum.

I am not sure why this one was so difficult to understand. I asked questions. A couple players answered. I voted the one who asnwered uncooperatively. Conversation went in a different direction, with 5cvm "gambitting" with his supposed role information, there was really no need for me to drag discussion back to my questions. Btw, your vote on 5cvm doesn't read well. Why is he scum, and not just poor town? I only ask because your vote happened to land on the lead wagon. Maybe do some meta research. Did you read xvart's post on 5cvm? Please explain, in your own words, xvart's case on 5cvm. No looking back now...

[kikuchiyo]

I believe 5cvm to be scum and not poor town because of the fact that there was no need to state he was both town and had a power role, I do not see even a poor town player doing that right off the bat, it feels more like a scum player trying to protect himself from the gambit he was going to do. And I do not mind that my vote has landed on the "lead wagon." I am not going to not vote someone just because of that. I feel that 5cvm is the scummiest right now, with you following soon after.

Fair enough.

And as far as your vote against Nacho Kik, you said:

I am voting Nacho for his decision to not answer my questions.

And now you say:

I voted the one who asnwered uncooperatively.

Which is two separate things btw.

Also can you point out where Nacho gave you this uncooperative answer compared the the others that did not answer and the differences between them

?

Kind of an inconsequential difference here. Its not two separate things unless you actively try to make them seperate things, as you are doing. If you've read the thread then you should be able to find Nacho's "uncooperative answer". But for shits and giggles:

Kikuchiyo: Random questions annoy me, so... no.

Nacho then got lambasted for asking questions other players found irrelevant. End result: I don't have a problem with Nacho atm. Like my earlier post, I would like to point out that my vote on Nacho was way more sensical than the other two(5cvm and his "gambit" vote, Raider and his false dilemma vote.)

You and I probably aren't going to agree much. You seem to think Raider's vote was based off of good logic. It wasn't. Raider embraced a false dilemma, ignoring possibilities that existed. I really don't want to have this conversation again.

I like your vote on 5cvm, so I'm not going to press this issue. Thank you for posting and taking a stand. If 5cvm flips mafia I'm glad to deal with the heat tomorrow.

One question: Do you believe that the scum team is "kikuchiyo, Mr. Suave, and 5cvm"? Or are your suspicions of each player independent?

[kikuchiyo]

One question: Do you believe that the scum team is "kikuchiyo, Mr. Suave, and 5cvm"? Or are your suspicions of each player independent?

That's an interesting question. Kikuchiyo - are you looking for potential scum pairings right now?

No. I agree with post 175's reasoning for

not

looking for pairs.

[kikuchiyo]

If 5cvm flips mafia I'm glad to deal with the heat tomorrow.

Ehh... what? Nonono, see, if 5cvm flips mafia, that's a good thing

Exactly my point. Not sure how you are intepreting what I said to mean anything else.

[kikuchiyo]

Nacho, I don't think you are reading my comment in the correct context, but whatever.

5cvm and Mr. Suave need to contribute.

Mod: Can we have a vote count, please?

[kikuchiyo]

Reading through and 5cvm is at L-2, not L-1. I don't see a need to claim right now. I would like both of 5cvm and Mr. Suave to post some more thoughts. Both cases are not terribly strong it seems and we are only 8 pages in. There are some among us who seem not to be contributing much at all and that should change.

I don't completely agree with GC's analysis of the "doomed gambit", but much like xvart pointed out early on, some players just fuck around. Saying "scum wouldn't do that" is also wifom(but then again, what isn't?). I'd like to see more participation from the rest of the player list. Its not fair to expect the same five people to keep contributing. I have no issues with policy lynching on day 1. I'm going to do a few iso's and see if it turns up anything...

[kikuchiyo]

Kiku is a possibility to me. I'd have to go back and do a reread on him, but his recent comment on the competing wagons - while true - seems a little out of place as a reason for his wagon. I'm also a little leery of his last post where he's talking about a policy lynch.

The thread was dead for almost 48 hrs. Neither case seems to be anything more than "these two players aren't helpful". Competing wagons are

always

good for town, especially on day 1.

Mr. Suave: Policy lynching isn't a "shenanigan". It is an attempt to force players to participate at a more acceptable level to avoid becoming a detriment to their respective team.

Both PHANTOM and UNITY have six posts in eight pages. Both are on the 5cvm wagon, and both have pretty much only been involved in that one particular discussion, not really adding much to it themselves.

PHANTOM did ask a couple of questions which 5cvm has not answered, so I guess we're waiting on those, but neither PHANTOM nor Unity have chimed in since with any analysis of other players.

Its possible that they could simply be satisfied with lynching 5cvm, but with xvart's testimony and 5cvm's weak response to pressure isn't this basically a policy lynch? There's no hard evidence against 5cvm other than a "failed gambit" and a couple of unanswered questions (which may as well be rhetorical), and the case on Mr. Suave seems just as weak, if not weaker imo. My hope was that these cases would be bolstered as we go, but all we've had are weak votes. Wolf chimed in with some good points, but ultimately voted 5cvm for "Too many things don't seem to fit here for me."

Don't get me wrong. 5cvm isn't a bad day 1 lynch. I'm just saying we're 8 pages in and it probably wouldn't hurt to explore other options and wait for 5cvm and co. to participate a bit more.

[kikuchiyo]

I do find it odd that someone who is trying to avoid the random voting aspect of the game places a slightly less random vote based on a poor response to non-game related questions. Since it isn't (as far as I can tell) any kind of scumtell to not answer your questions, it's similar to voting for someone who chooses not to partake in random voting.

Not sure what you are getting at here. Perhaps you could clarify. Who exactly was "trying to avoid the random voting aspect of the game"? Seeing as how I didn't push a Nacho wagon very hard, or agree with any of the other crap reasons people were voting for him, I am not sure why you are choosing to attack said vote. It almost seems like you are implying some sort of hypocrisy on my part, but I fail to see it. What is wrong with voting someone who chooses not to partake in random voting? As far as I can tell, that happens all the time.

OK, so you've basically admitted that Gerhard's reasoning also applies to 5cvm. You unvoted 5vcm to vote for Mr. Suave, so what exactly tipped the scales towards Mr. Suave?

Nothing "tipped the scales". I noticed the wagon on 5cvm growing quick. Its page 8. Competing bandwagons are good for town. Hypothetically speaking, if one of the lynches goes through and flips town, and lets say the other player gets vigged and flips scum, then we can focus on the players who jumped from the scum wagon to the town wagon. Its kind of "Scumhunting 101", not sure why that's not obvious. Neither case is all that good, however, both seem to be better than anything else. So why rush to lynch one when we can put heat on both and force all of the lurker non-voters to make a choice for possible future use in scumhunting?

The two most recent posts actually give me a little more concern. Post 190 is just a defence of 5cvm and a request for him not to claim. This last one is yet again an attempt at pushing off of the 5cvm wagon, while admitting that his case on Mr. Suave is pretty weak.

I didn't make a case on Suave, and I am a "her/she". Both cases are weak. Both players happen to be responding poorly, which in my experience means that either they are caught scum, or "deer in the headlights" townies who suck(no offense). My "defense" is more about the claim than about protecting 5cvm. 5cvm needs to show up and represent himself. However, it is not in town's best interest to get multiple claims out in the open on day 1 as this only benefits scum. Therefore, town needs to be absolutely certain on who they are going to lynch before they call for a claim so as not to risk exposing power roles.

I'd also like to know why she didn't vote for Raider for using the false dilemma she called out.

The "false dilemma" fallacy is used just as often by townies as it is by scum. In fact, its one of the easiest fallacies to point out which makes it a horrible tool for scum. The only reason I've considered voting for Raider is because he did say that he was experienced in the game of mafia, and that does not coincide with embracing such an obvious false dilemma. In any case, its not something he pushed strongly imo and I see no reason to vote there.

I don't see a 5cvm lynch as a policy lynch - or at least no one has said as much for their reasoning.

No. Noone has said that as their reasoning, but if you actually look at the reasoning, it seems as though the case is built around his poor playstyle and his weak ass gambit. Granted, he seemed to be convinced that I was scum, but he has been unable to present any coherent reasoning for anything he's done. It certainly feels like its a policy lynch to me.

I would like to see phantom actually do something except for reminding 5cvm that he has unanswered questions. We've got more than one scum, so it never hurts to look under a few more rocks.

So I take it that you are convinced that 5cvm is mafia aligned?

Gerhard: Post 197 contains no questions for me to answer. If you are confused about something I have done or reasoning I have applied, please ask. All you've done here is piggyback Hackerhuck's post with a vote.

[kikuchiyo]

I'm looking at Kiku's posts, and I can't imagine that reasoning coming

from town

, but it makes perfect sense

as scum

.

Kiku, how do you feel about how Gerhard worded that?

Not sure what to think about it. I would like to know what "that reasoning" is.

[kikuchiyo]

Following your logic, you are setting yourself up as scum if 5cvm is scum, and Mr. Suave is town. That would imply that either you don't mind throwing unwarranted suspicion on yourself (anti-town) or that you actually think Mr. Suave is scummier - which you said wasn't the case.

This is a bit fuzzy. I have already stated that if 5cvm were to flip mafia that I would be willing to deal with the heat tomorrow. Competing wagons are good for town and if I have to put myself out there to make it happen then so be it. Suave flipping town wouldn't necessarily make me scum. My scumminess in this situation seems to be more less dependent on 5cvm flipping mafia. If both players are town, then there is little scum motivation for me to move from one wagon to the other. Regardless, I am not afraid to be scrutinized if it helps us lynch scum in the long run.

I guess you could consider it "policy" to always vote for someone who looks scummy.

Yes. Its basically lynching someone on a meta case on day 1 based on their playstyle. No different to me than lynching the player with the least posts. i.e. you have a set of expectations(in this case, "stop acting like you always do!") and if said player refuses to live up to those expectations, you lynch them. However, 5cvm's absence and avoidance

is going to be

admissable as evidence. No reason to speed ourselves to a lynch regardless.

I'm pretty sure this is my quote. My whole point is that Phantom shouldn't just sit on his hands waiting for 5cvm to reply. When we have more than one scum left, it's not good scumhunting to just do nothing while waiting for someone to answer a question that they may never get around to answering. That is just the appearance of scumhunting and is itself scummy. And yes, I believe 5cvm is scum, which should be pretty apparent from my vote and justification for my vote.

Okay.

I am actually leaning towards scum on Gerhard at this time. He needs to flesh out his reason for voting me as from what I can tell, it is fundamentally flawed. However, my train of suspicion of him includes 5cvm being mafia aligned, so if Gerhards response is what I think it will be, I would most likely move back to the 5cvm wagon.

Unvote

, for now.

[kikuchiyo]

Kiku has been playing around with the two competing wagons, without committing to either of them, setting her up to pick one reasonable later based on what puts her in the best position. Yes this can be explained from a town perspective, but I feel it less likely.

The 5cvm wagon was already reached by consensus. 5cvm was asked to claim. What benefit do I have as mafia to halting that wagon and promoting discussion?

This is not a new pattern though. Earlier she voted Nachomamma8 for not answering her questions. Later she changed that to because he refused, but again, this feels strongly of fabricated reasoning.

The reasoning was not "changed". You are now arguing semantics. Seriously, what is the big difference between "his decision to not answer" and "his refusal to answer"?

She doesn't seem clear about the reasons for the two larger wagons, and is flip flopping between them with little or no reasoning of her own.

Have I not made it clear how I feel?

I think you're missing the point that 5cvm might just be an asshole.

Your attempts to twist what I am saying into anything other than questions is noted. Your inability to clarify your stance is noted. Your skirting of questions is noted. Explain yourself.

This is interesting.

The biggest scum tell I see here is Mr. Suave not knowing if it was L-1, and staying on the wagon anyway even though he explicitly stated he didn't want the lynch to go through any time soon.

Essentially, 5cvm did the same thing

.

I dont want to lose because Im too willing to lynch stupid.

Words of wisdom. I get the feeling there might be quite a bit of "stupid" floating around this thread.

Reading through and 5cvm is at L-2, not L-1. I don't see a need to claim right now. I would like both of 5cvm and Mr. Suave to post some more thoughts. Both cases are not terribly strong it seems and we are only 8 pages in. There are some among us who seem not to be contributing much at all and that should change.

Saying, "Both look like good lynch candidates." does not conflict with not wanting to quicklynch and wanting more participation from other players. I stated how I felt the cases were similar. After further review and seeing how the wagons built, I found it beneficial to even the wagons and promote more discussion.

All you have done is point your finger and say "Her behavior is scummy." You have failed to say how. Please explain the

scum motivation

for my behavior and why said behavior seems scummy to you.

The issue is that she is not establishing a position, while she is writing enough, and well enough to appear as though she is.

It is beneficial to scum to behave this way. Not to town.

This makes little sense. How is it not beneficial to town to ask questions of suspects, ask for lurkers to contribute, hold back a lynch wagon, and prolong the day? Is it more protown to "policy lynch" a player with a weak case without even cracking ten pages on day 1?

[kikuchiyo]

Half of your post doesn't even make sense to me, and the other half seems to have ignored anserwing the question I asked. I never said you "alluded" to a policy lynch. Not sure where you get that. You accuse me of being scummy becuase I have taken the stand of "don't quicklynch, more conversation." So I asked you:

How is it not beneficial to town to ask questions of suspects, ask for lurkers to contribute, hold back a lynch wagon, and prolong the day? Is it more protown to "policy lynch" a player with a weak case without even cracking ten pages on day 1?

To rephrase the question I can put it in multiple choice format:

Please select which of the following situations you find to be more protown than the other:

A) Asking lurkers to contribute, holding back a lynch wagon, and prolonging the day.

or

B) "policy lynching" a player with a weak case without even cracking ten pages on day 1.

Hint: the answer is A. Yet for some reason, when I fell into the category of situation B, you viewed me as more protown. Now that I have enacted situation A, I am scum. It doesn't make sense. Especially since you are pushing the idea that both 5cvm

and

Mr. Suave are town. They both pulled the "oh he's at L-1, oh no!" bullshit and neither unvoted. Yet for some reason, you avoided voting for 5cvm.

1) You get to stay off the mislynch wagon, and get townie points for prolonging discussion, while actually doing next to nothing to derail the wagon.

^^ Here you base my scumminess off of the assumption that both 5cvm and Mr. Suave are town. If they both are town, then I am actually doing town a favor. How am I "doing next to nothing to derail the wagon"? And why would I completely "derail" the wagon when neither player has put forth any pro town posting yet whatsoever?

2) The difference is that one is passive, the other is active. It makes a world of difference regarding your actual vote. In one case there are several viable candidates for your vote. In the other there is one. First you chose the first one, then the second. Yes, it is semantics, but it is still a discrepancy.

This makes no sense. The question put to you was: "Seriously, what is the big difference between "his decision to not answer" and "his refusal to answer"?" There is no discrepancy in my vote on Nacho. It was what it was.

3) No you haven't AT ALL. "He might be scum, but he's probably just an asshole, but wait he could be scum, but no he's just an asshole, but maybe he's scum..."

This is a bit of misrep. How am I supposed to know his alignment? He might be scum. He might be an "asshole". What he needs to do is show up and scumhunt. I can't do that for him.

Your case is based wholly on the assumption that 5cvm and Mr. Suave are town and that I am going out of my way to look town on day 1 when I simply could have let either one of them be lynched without much fuss in under ten pages. Its very far fetched scum motivation.

[kikuchiyo]

Ebwop: To amend my stance here, your logic is not "faulty" as I thought. I just disagree with your conclusion and think its a reach at best. I'm off to New Year's Eve festivities and plan on finishing my isos when things calm back down.

[kikuchiyo]

Nacho: I actually think its kind of odd that Gerhard

hasn't

voted 5cvm, or really seemed to pressure him. The cases against both 5cvm and Mr. Suave were similar imo, and Gerhard hopped on Suave while the 5cvm wagon was building. Then, when the 5cvm wagon peaked and a claim requested, Gerhard turned and attacked me for slowing the wagon down. Yet he has never voiced any strong support of the wagon in the first place. It doesn't make Gerhard necessarily scummy as I think the most likely scenario would be Gerhardscum protecting his mafia buddy 5cvm. That case is dependent on 5cvm actually flipping mafia, however, so I think it is best left for another day. At this time, Gerhard is prompting discussion and moving his vote enough to be protown. His avoidance of the 5cvm wagon will be a liability to him in the future(as will my claim defense) if 5cvm flips mafia.

To my detractors: You can say I haven't been scumhunting all you want, but you would be ignoring not only the quantity of my content, but its quality. I have been making observations and publishing them, responding to questions, and asking some of my own. I have also pointed out the fact that Phantom and Unity are riding the popular wagon with little contribution, and I have iso analysis' on the way. Interpret it as you like, but I feel my contributions have been solid.

Can we get some sort of mass prod and/or replacements as necessary?

[kikuchiyo]

Ebwop: "It doesn't make Gerhard necessarily scummy "

Change "necessarily" to "independently". It should read closer to what I mean.

[kikuchiyo]

Guys, did you read the mod's note? 5cvm is V/LA until the 5th of January.

Nobody hammer until we get a response/claim at the very least.

@Nacho - I'm sorry I lost you. The whole case boils down to the fact that you did not have reasons for your vote until after you placed it.

The only way that is possible

, since you didn't have any other reasons, is that you fabricated those reasons after you placed the vote itself.

Town have no reason to do this

, since they are actually trying to find scum, ergo you are scum.

*grumbles* I have bold texted your huge logic failures. Another plausible explanation for Nacho's actions include the possibility that he simply could not articulate his suspicions at the time of the vote and wanted to put some pressure on someone he suspected in order to guage reactions from both his suspect and other players. You are speaking in absolutes here, but you failed to apply the same theory when it came to 5cvm's gambit. You are not applying your reasoning in a universal fashion. The more cases you make like this, the less you are going to be able to convince anyone of your beliefs. There are town motivations to vote without posting reasons. Can it backfire and appear scummy or anti-town? Yes, but that doesn't negate the value of things like "pressure votes" and "gambits".

@Kiku - I never advocated the 5cvm wagon, and I still don't. I think the wagon is stupid.

Yes. You are repeating what I said.

I did not vote you for slowing the wagon. If that were the reason, I'd be voting 5cvm, don't you think?

Yes. That is what I was referring to earlier. Since you seem to not suspect 5cvm, it makes your suspicion of me all the more odd imo.

I voted you for avoiding establishing a position, as that is inherently scummy. Not because I think 5cvm is scum and I think you might be protecting him. Please get it straight before you attack me for the wrong reasons.

I haven't attacked you for anything. I laid out my opinions of your failed logic.

As you are inevitably going to question me about why I think the wagon is stupid, I don't see it as doing anything more than lynching a lurker. He just isn't paying attention to the game, hence the vague scum tells that have arisen.

What are these "vague scum tells", and how do you compare them to Nacho's "concrete scum tell"?

I said I could be convinced, and that would take some legitimate scummy behavior to add to his anti-town behavior. Then I would vote for him.

This is another logic failure. How is this position any different than mine? And don't argue semantics. What you are doing here is setting yourself up to hop the most popular wagon. Its okay, but don't be a hypocrite. I would like you to explain what is "not scummy" about 5cvm. Then explain why Nacho, kiku, and Mr. Suave are scum. Try to do it in as few words as possible and in as organized a format as you can. I am already kicking myself for the quote walls in this game.

[kikuchiyo]

Please respond in full to my post. Btw, your odds are a bit off.

[kikuchiyo]

This game is limping. I agree with the sentiment of 261. It is odd for a post to be solely addressed to the mod, especially concerning a replacement search. Asking for a votecounbt is one thing, but it seems a bit pestering to ask the mod to update on a replacement search barely 24 hours old. Could be nothing, but could easily fit the guise of a post feigning contribution. Right now its null, but I understand HH noting it.

I'm going to start iso's later tonight as I finally have the time. I'll start with Mr. Suave, but I'll move on to a few players I think haven't had any pressure today.

[kikuchiyo]

Do you think 5cvm is scum?

[kikuchiyo]

Iso'd Mr. Suave and find him an acceptable lynch. He contradicts himself early on with this:

if by chance you had gone to L-2/1 I would have gotten off, and stated that there was something up.

Here he defends putting a player to L-3 by stating that he would hop off at L-1

or

L-2. perfectly acceptable play imo. But then:

why didn't I unvote to be safe? I was pretty sure that the other person was right about it not being L-1, but I was just wanting to be sure; and everyone was pretty much voting, so was betting that no one(more like no ones, because if you were not at L-1 then one person could not hammer) would just randomly hammer someone. that's all.

If you weren't sure it was L-1, then it had to cross your mind that it might have been L-2. You earlier stated that that was where you'd hop off. But you didn't. Its not terribly scummy, but your inability to provide content is what's going to get you hung. Other than these early, contradictory comments, you have done nothing. If you are trying to be a lightning rod for scum by actively lurking, you should realize that that in itself, is anti-town. Yet you persist. If you are town, you are giving us a really shitty bandwagon on day 1.

from my experience, policy lynches are never good. I've been told that many times, from many different people, and in several games. so I am against such shinanigans.

If policy lynches are "never good", then why are you trying to be one? It has been made clear to you by several players that town requires content from your slot and yet you continue to not contribute. Its hard to read anyone hopping on your wagon at this point due to this issue. Do you have opinions on anyone?

[kikuchiyo]

Ok with the extension. I need some more time anyway.

[kikuchiyo]

Vote: Raider

I don't have a problem with the Suave/5cvm wagons.

I do agree with Peanut's assessment of Raider's play not matching his supposed experience. I had mentioned it before, but didn't find it vote worthy. Since then, I don't feel Raider has contributed much at all. Perhaps slinking into the background...

[kikuchiyo]

Has there been a claim?

Slaxx: Please expand on your reads on xvart and Phantom.

[kikuchiyo]

I was responding to kikuchiyo (who i'm now calling kik, if he doesn't mind my laziness) but you're more than welcome to share. We should be talking more anyway before deadline anyway.

Thank you.

She

doesn't mind laziness at all. My suspicion of xvart and Phantom is growing, however, some players contribute less on day 1. I am fine to wait and see as Suave seems intent on being lynched. Raider is one I am leaning scum on. The more I think about his experience/logic discrepancy the more I don't like it. Whats wierd for me is that if Phantom had just contributed anything to the day I would have been able to move past the earlier issue.

I am fine with a hammer. Discussion seems stagnant. If anyone has anything to add, please jump in.

[kikuchiyo]

Unvote, Vote: Mr. Suave

Time to move on...

[kikuchiyo]

You can't quote something and say "This, IMO." Its not your opinion. You're copying it.

Also, I thought you were out til Sunday? If you have time to check back and complain, then you have time to check back and contribute.

Complaining =/= contributing.

Green Crayons' empty promises are his problem. Not mine.

[kikuchiyo]

Complaining =/= contributing.

But you're complaining as we speak.

No. I'm not. I was done discussing. I was done contributing. I hammered. Slaxx and Raider are complaining. Where have you been?

[kikuchiyo]

I already said I didn't have much left to contribute, nor do any of us (hence the silence) but I wouldn't call my post complaining.

Then what were you trying to say by quoting Raider? It read to me like you would have had me wait longer to hammer. As far as I can tell we only had one(possibly empty) promise of incoming content. Theres still time to post. I don't see the problem.

[kikuchiyo]

355: No. I thought they were complaining that they wanted me to wait on the hammer so that we could have more contribution. If they weren't going to contribute then I don't see why they would complain. And I was explaining that complaining=/= contribution. In other words: If you have something to say, say it. Don't complain that you didn't get the chance when you still, quite obviously, have the chance. Are you going to stop the lynch? Of course not. Was there any conceivable scenario where this lynch would have been stopped given Suaves lackluater contribution and vanilla claim? I think not. So speak if you have something to say, otherwise don't whine that you didn't get a chance when you had more than enough time to contribute.

[kikuchiyo]

The lynch yesterday was clearly "steered" from 5cvm to Suave. We should lynch the 5cvm slot today to see if there was a reason. Thoughts?

[kikuchiyo]

Post 392 rather clearly exemplifies why Slaxx needs to be lynched. Am I the only one who noticed it?

Gerhard: Why do you think Slaxx/5cvm is town? This is two days in a row you seem to be defending that player slot.

Waayyyy too "ok" with every viable option. Throughout the day you failed to establish a legitimate and questionable position. Therefore you "rode" the tide during the day in order to avoid suspicion. I wonder what role has motivation to do that?

How is "Hey guys, let's lynch Slaxx," comfortable with every viable option? Choosing one player out of the remaining number is pretty damn exclusive. How did I "fail" to establish a position? I backed the 5cvm lynch as long as I could. Moving to the popular lynch on day 1 is not a scumtell. Town needs to work together. Suave and 5cvm played questionably. I didn't see a concrete "reason" as to why one was scummier than the other. YOU CLEARLY DID. What made 5cvm scummier than Suave?

Kiku, we should lynch slaxx because there's a chance we might've been steered away from him (i.e. 5cvm) towards Suave?

No. We were rather clearly steered away from his lynch.

And if we're wrong?

Happens all the time. A game starting with two mislynches is not unwinnable. You cannot make an omelette without cracking a few eggs. This is a game of logic and math. To me, you lynch the scummiest players first. When you hit scum, you analyze the actions around the bandwagons.

Are you proposing this, or just trying to get reactions?

Both. I think it is a fine place to start. I am 50/50 on Gerhard, but his irrational and unexplained defense of 5cvm just doesn't sit well.

Now since we've been in day 2 for two days has your opinion on him changed at all?

Yes. I like MacavityLock. His thoughts are in line with my own. Xvart's content and "go with the flow" contribution from day 1 keep him on my short list.

I am awaiting Nacho's opinion on Raider. At this point I am getting the impression that Raider was "playing dumb" day 1. I would like explanation for this. He claimed to have experience and then embraced an obviously false dilemma and then defended it. Now, he seems to be doing a little OMGUS hunting. I don't like the "lightning rod" approach, but I understand it can be effective and if that was his goal, he seems to have attracted a suspicious bandwagon. I don't currently trust

any

of the players on his wagon.

[kikuchiyo]

ebwop: "What made 5cvm scummier than Suave? " should read

What made Suave scummier than 5cvm?

[kikuchiyo]

I will work on providing examples and post asap.

Considering that 5cvm/Slaxx seems to be embracing the defense they are recieving from Gerhard, I think it is scummy. But like I said, I am concrete 50/50 on Gerhard and so I would rather lynch Slaxx first.

[kikuchiyo]

You concede that Raider played in a dumb way (enumerated in your quote above), that he's play now is very OMGUS, and yet you're suspicious of all those who have voted Raider for it.

No. I was suspicious of Gerhard/Slaxx from yesterday. I'm not sure about you.

There is clearly something that doesn't add up. If we don't vote for those who act scummy because they may/claim to be using the "lightning rod" approach, was does the town have left to do.

Hmm. A good question for Gerhard. Why didn't he vote 5cvm? Why Suave over 5cvm? Aren't you the least bit interested?

Kiku, I will offer you a suggestion. Instead of being suspicious of a group of people for different acts (i.e. all those who voted x, or everyone who does y), try building or more solid case on someone in particular. I mean, you were going somewhere with your list of raider's scummy actions, until you threw in "lightning rod" and seemed to absolve him of any suspicion (other than "I want an explanation for this").

I have absolved Raider of nothing. I am simply observing what's happening and commenting. As of now, Raider is not my top choice and it just so happens that my suspects are voting him. Not sure what you mean with the last bit. Should I not be asking Raider to explain himself? Wouldn't that be "absolving" him then? By asking him to explain I am giving him an oppurtunity to defend his actions and further explore his own suspicions. Even if he ends up being lynched, his contribution can be helpful regardless of flip.

[kikuchiyo]

GK: Please don't get your panties in a bunch over a typo. You missed 396. I think its a pertinent question.

Raider: If you are left alive would you consider letting town direct your kill? Would you consider self vigging? If you are town, then lynching you is a mislynch. Both of these options would offer more use of your role. Would you consider them? Why or why not?

Macavity: You seem sure he is scum, do you think this set-up and theme carries the likelihood of a serial killer? In other words, if he doesn't flip scum, we are left with no connections. Do you think it is wise to remove a third party, or bargain as in my questions above? I'd rather not get into a long theory debate, but I would like some opinions on this before we just lynch him.

[kikuchiyo]

Oh well. There was something not right about that claim anyway.

Mac: In general, I think vig is a better fakeclaim for sk than it is for mafia. Whether or not there is one in this game is in the air, but flavor would certainly not exclude it, would it? Moot point now. 434 looks like a slip to me, though.

[kikuchiyo]

Well played scum! I was hoping Macavity was town. Can't believe I blocked the cop both nights, but I felt I had to target the scummiest player, and well, I guess he claimed scum so I'll have a hard time critiquing my own play there. Any tips on how to improve my game are welcome. Why was I nk'd?