Newbie 937 ~ Mafia Lite [Game Over]

[Exilon]

hello everyone! =D
/confirm

Oh, and err.... Strawberry?
I lol'd.

[Exilon]

yahoo, and we're off. Nice flavor text there, by the way xD I just found the ethics thread which I had no idea existed O_o On a side note, this thread was opened on my birthday 8D I am happy.

Ahoda, the deadlines are usually 3 weeks games of mafia do take quite the long time before they're finished. Most of the time, though, the deadlines aren't reached.

So, is this RVS time?

Vote: horrordude0215

'Cause I'm a scaredy-cat << (plus his avatar kills people.)

[Exilon]

Kelikar:
So they don't know which setup they're playing in immediately (as it would throw the game off-balance)... For example, if only the first setup was the only setup with a roleblocker, if the scum were to start with a roleblocker, they would know that there were 2 power roles right off the bat. Conversely, if they started with 2 goons, they wouldn't be able to know if there were any power roles, and if so, which one. So, balance purposes, I guess. xD

That's the way I see it, though. I'm probably not the best person to talk about it since my experience on site is limited Would popsofctown tell us more about it?

Here's some mafiawiki articles you might want to check as well, in case you like reading:

About the C9 Setup - http://mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=C9
About the F11 (Current) Setup - http://mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=F11

[Exilon]

Skerterg: I'll be sure to congratulate you. xD

Horrodude: popsofctown voted for you too D:
Why me and not him?

[Exilon]

Skerterg: I'll be sure to congratulate you. xD

Horrodude: popsofctown voted for you too D:
Why me and not him?

Hmm... Maybe he thought that if he thought that if he OMGUS'd the IC, he would call unnecessary attention to himself, so he went for a newer player so that no one would think anything of it?

Definitely far fetched, but it's something to get us out of the RVS.

Or they're both scum! =D
Far fetched or not, getting out of RVS is good, so I approve of anything that leads us that way (well, most stuff, at least.).

Moving along... I believe that, if the objective was to not call attention, he could've just as easily voted someone entirely different.
Anyway, there isn't much one can pick up from a vote in the supposedly random voting stage xD

Your name was first

See? xD
Horrordude, since you like RQS, anything you'd like to ask everyone?

[Exilon]

iPot, lol. I don't even want to know where that came from

Answering the questions:
My experience in mafia can be resumed to one gama here in mafiascum. I had also played the game IRL once, so I knew the basics xD As for town or scum: Meh, I don't really have a preference (yet) for one or the other, since I haven't played many games. Being town has been cool, but I'd also like to know how it is like to be behind the scenes

Lynch all Liars: Yes or No?

Hum, generally speaking, yes, totally. But I guess it depends on the case? For example, I remember seeing some time ago a certain game where it was advised (after it had ended) that one of the pro-town players lied about his claim so as to protect the town (if my memory doesn't fail me, he had a role that made him kill whoever tried to kill him during the night).

[Exilon]

In sincerity though, why was I given a softball? Why don't I get a theory question like everyone else?

Skerterg's wasn't a theory question either D:

Now here's some of my questions, for everyone:


1. Do you prefer a faster paced game or a slower game with discussion?

2. Do you think online mafia is more a psychological game or a logic game?

3. On day 1, do you think that a random lynch is better than no lynch?

4. Do you think that WIFOM is a scumtell?

5. Do you think that OMGUS is a scumtell?

6. Would you classify your playstyle as aggresive, analytical, passive or other (if so, state what).

Lots of questions
1. I have this thing with fast-paced games - they rub me in a very wrong way. I feel that when things are fast, they're rushed - and when they're rushed, they're generally wrong. So I prefer slower games with more discussion, instead of just going for the heck of it. The more, the merrier, as they say.

2. Online AND offline mafia is based on a lot of logic. There's the difference that you can't see the people you are playing with on online mafia, so that gives the logic a great bump when comparing with offline. In my opinion, online mafia is more of a logical game, but there's still a lot of psychology involved. Gauging people's reactions through what they post is in itself more psychology than logic, for example. And personality is a crucial factor one has to consider when analyzing posts.

3. I can't really say because I don't think I will ever random lynch or no-lynch on day 1 (aside obvious exceptions), but for the sake of it, hypothetically speaking, if we had to choose between totally random lynch or no-lynch on the F11 (this game) setup? I'd go for no-lynch, because, even if we have a 2/9 chance of catching scum, we also have 1/9 or 2/9 (depending on the setup) chance of catching a power role, if there is one. Furthermore, we also have a 7/9 chance of catching a pro-town role. The odds aren't favorable to the town. Even if the death of a townie can give us some information, it doesn't give us as much information as he would give us by contributing to the discussion were he alive the next day. Besides, we're sure that someone is going to get night killed (if it doesn't, it's better, nothing changes except for the fact that we know we avoided the 1/9 chance of hitting the doctor, or the mafia is setting up a fakeclaim which could be risky for them)(and don't forget that since we have a 50% chance of having a cop, we can get a free night of investigations), and that by itself will give us death-related information to go with. We don't get much information for a randomly lynched townie - after all, it was a RANDOM lynch. I know many people say to never "no-lynch" on the first day, but they had the choice of having a justified and discussed lynch.

4. WIFOM? Well, not really. Most of the arguments on a mafia game are a little WIFOM'ish, because there's many things you can't comprove (for example, nature and intention of nightkills). Unless we're talking about blatant and useless WIFOM which doesn't have any other purpose and effect other than confuse the townsfolk or defend /attack desperatly... but I haven't seen someone do that, really.

5. Assuming that OMGUS is the sole act of voting for a person who voted you, then I don't think it can be considered a scum-tell. If a person's OMGUS is consistent, justified and / or reasoned, then I don't think one could consider it a scumtell. If there isn't any reasoning, it becomes a little more suspicious, but this can be applied to any vote after RVS, I believe; so the issue isn't really OMGUS as much as the reasons for the vote are.

6. On my last game, I was classified as "not being convicing / forceful enough to be the necessary town leader". I agree with that, even if I'll try to change it a little bit (always learning, right? ) I'm kind of a passive player, but I'm very analytical.

Hum, did I write too much? I do tend to get engrossed in what I write :s

[Exilon]

Red Star, he did answer horrordude's question (partially?). He didn't quote any part of your posts, though :s

you know i'm nopt going for that whole role fishing plan like they did i'm smart enough to see past that.

Why is it rolefishing? :s All he did was pose some questions pertaining game theory( aside from the other cases)... The most he's probably going to get is information about people's personality...

[Exilon]

we also have 1/9 or 2/9 (depending on the setup) chance of catching a power role,

if there is one

.

That possibility (0/9) was there from the start, pops xD

well i think any one that ask's about roles happen's to fall under role fishing. and that is just not how i play the game no matter how bad it may make me look what horrordude0215 wrote: back there was scummy enough to put themself on my radar. for give me if i seem diffrent in my play style then all of you but it's just the way i do thing's.

You seem a little quick to point your finger at horrordude. His question about which faction you prefer seemed like a scumhunting technique to me. Maybe it was to gauge how certain people feel toward playing a specific faction and compare it to how they're playing this game? Even if he was scum, he knows who town is, so asking which one they prefer isn't going to help them find the power roles if there are any. They'll just get information they already know.

Hum, I think they always get information they don't know; asking where they like to play looks like an icebreaking question to me, though.

Refusing to answer is one reaction which can give us lots of information, actually - maybe more than actually one or other answer he could have given to a question about game theory (but he did answer his question about scumhunting, even if there was one or two grains of salt). He pointed out what he thought - that he saw those questions as rolefishing. I don't really agree that it was rolefishing rather than an attempt to start discussion (and yey, it worked), but that's beside the point.

I guess this is a little WIFOM, but let's see: (just my quick analysis of it)
If he wanted to lay low (in case he was a power role), he could have just answered the question without giving away anything that could be revealing. If he was scum, rolefishing is favorable to them and therefore he could have, just as easily, answered the question, and no one would look at him for it, since everyone is doing the same thing.

Sure, he pointed a finger, but I guess it wasn't unreasoned, at least from his point of view.

It's late here, so if there's anything a little less coherent tell me and I'll try to address it when I'm a little fresher in the morning xD (I probably shouldn't write when I'm half-asleep, but I couldn't resist; addiction is terrible (addiction to mafiascum? Really? Is that even possible?))

[Exilon]

Happy birthday, by the way, skerterg =D

Exilon, how much information do you think you can get on day 1? Enough for a justified lynch? At least enough to generate some information about each of the player's suspicions and reasons for such?

I hope I understood this the right way.
There's always a lynch on Day 1, so for at least 3 people the lynch is justified, otherwise they wouldn't have voted... Right? (Assuming "justified lynch" is any lynch whose votes had (good) reasoning behind it). And we can always generate information, be it enough or not (but what is enough for each person depends on themselves).

Apart from that, what you said is nice and all (and I do agree with the explanation you gave for the no-lynch, note) but I think you're missing some points, which I addressed in the original post.

If you're going to say "your statement seems like a slightly scummy thing to say", let it be known that selective quoting, which is what you did, is grounds for much more suspicion, not to mention it invalidates any reason you have for saying what you said. Let me explain this better:

I can tell that you were aware that this is the commonly-held view because you acknowledged that "many people say to never 'no-lynch' on the first day," and since no-lynching benefits the mafia, your statement seems like a slightly scummy thing to say.

Your reasoning, as stated in this post - is the following:
Exilon supports no-lynch --> Supporting no-lynch is scummy --> Exilon is scummy.

But that's not what I said, or rather, you're missing the context. I didn't say "I support no-lynch period". The original sentence read "I know many people say to never "no-lynch" on the first day,

but they had the choice of having a justified and discussed lynch.

". You purposedly left that last part untouched, paying attention to only the other. In the context provided, and I

stated this

, if we had to choose between a

TOTALLY RANDOM

lynch, (as in: "let's just spin a roulette with our names and whoever gets choosen dies, no questions asked") and a no-lynch, I'd go for a no-lynch. In this exact (and hypothetical context), we don't get any kind of information either way, so I'd go for no-lynch (and I explained why thorougly in the post, I believe).

It's like you only grabbed one half-sentence from that excerpt, even though you quoted the whole answer, and used it to point a finger and enter a full-fledged dissertation about why no-lynch is bad - but not in the same context that I used to answer my question.

I don't really like giving names to stuff (because I'm awful with definitions, it seems), but could you call this... strawmanning?

[Exilon]

RVS, ended? aww, cool! Now we can ask Kranix to have a justified vote instead of a contenteless vote which could be excused as RVS (maybe he got in late, who knows, internet lag these days is such a wonder...)
Ok, here we go.

Unvote

Now seriously. As for Kranix, I'd like to know what motivates him to pop up and vote, only. To answer a prod? :s that isn't very productive, really. Can't say much more when there isn't anything to talk about, though...

Razorback, I remember seeing something a while back - I can't remember if it was a newbie game or not, but searching a bit of his username on the search I did come up with a game where he was modkilled. I didn't have much time so I quickly skimmed through it, but it seems he was modkilled for talking about an ongoing game, or something. Razorback, is this accurate? Anyways, you don't have to be afraid Providing links about completed games isn't going to get you modkilled, as it has already been said.

@Ahoda: In my last game (my first game, actually), there was a player which wasn't really posting because he thought he wouldn't add anything to the discussion. You seem to be going through the same thing - don't be afraid to post your thoughts! You might think there is no reason to post but player's posts are always welcomed - because when a person posts, there's information worth analyzing And also, if you don't post, you'll most likely end up being called on it for lurking, which isn't really good anyway xD

And.. what else? Oh, yes!
Skerterg --' Why didn't you just ask what I meant BEFORE pointing the finger, if you hadn't really understood what that meant? :S

Doesn't everyone have the choice for a justified and discussed lynch, and therefore no-lynch won't occur?

I don't know if I understood this question right, so if this answer seems weird, I'd ask of you to please explain it in another way

Generally speaking, yes, everyone has that choice and that's why no-lynch is a bad idea. However, in that context, (and hypothetically speaking, which means it's an imaginary situation which doesn't really correspond to the general reality) from the way I saw the question, we didn't have the choice of discussing the lynch. In reality and in all current newbie games, we do obviously have that choice.

NOW that is all xD

[Exilon]

Ugh, slow discussion. Scum, do something stupid so that we can identify you!

I find it amusing (and possibly slightly suspicious) that two of the most active players have their vote on horrordude.

What, me and popsofctown? I unvoted on Ps80. D: And why would it be possibly suspicious?

Have you noticed there's another person with two votes on them?

Basically, my question is why even say no-lynch is better than a situation that will never occur (i.e. no discussion)?

Because that's what the original question was about xD

On day 1, do you think that a random lynch is better than no lynch?

I interpreted random lynch as a random lynch (roulette-like).
And my answer (the first part, which is what is important right now) was:

I can't really say because I don't think I will ever random lynch or no-lynch on day 1 (aside obvious exceptions), but for the sake of it, hypothetically speaking, if we had to choose between totally random lynch or no-lynch on the F11 (this game) setup?

[Exilon]

Exilon, it was a joke intended to get discussion going, seeing as no-one wants to post here due to there being no activity of any positive description.

Err... ok? I find that slightly wrong... but...

Don't worry, you have 17 days to figure it all out. lol

Oh, gee. That's great.
Anything else you'd like to add, Ahoda?

[Exilon]

I second Skerterg, (concerning Ahoda) as I feel he pretty much pointed out EVERYTHING I wanted to address, but he posted before me.

Aside from that, the initial "you"; "we" thing... I initially believed the "you" was directed at Red Star since he was the one who was worrying that "there was no activity of any positive description" going on (paraphrased from PS89); and Ahoda, on the other side, has stated in the beginning something in the lines of "we have lots of time" (the original sentence read: "Deadline is April 28? Wow, this game may take awhile. lol " ).

So I was reading it as Ahoda making a sarcastic comment because Red Star was stressing / worrying for something that, in his (Ahoda's) perspective, wasn't reason to worry.

But after the second and third post answering points addressed by HorrorDude and Red Star... Well, I'm not so sure.

He tries to dismiss the issue as being pointless, as if having pressure put on him is something which shouldn't be happening - or rather, that he doesn't want to happen. For me, this reaction is understandable from both alignements (scum doesn't want to be supsected, but a townie doesn't want as well, since for them, the role PM they got is enough proof that they should be off the hook. But not for everyone else...), but trying to dismiss the issue, even more with justifications such as "joke" and "senseless" is unnecessary and bad play.

lol. The players on this site just don't make any sense. You post 1 thing and everyone "thats scummy". lol. Makes no sense. I joke and say we have 17 days to lynch someone and all of a sudden its "scummy". lol

What a joke.

It's day 1 and not 1 single person has posted anything that is revealing. Without any night action to do anything its a random lynch vote.

So I'm not changing my vote and I don't really care if you vote me. I understand how this game works.

You know what is a joke? That you seem to be expecting scum confess who they are, and give themselves to the town in a silver platter.

You know what is a joke? You say you understand how this game works and still manage to say that, just one sentence before.

You know what is a joke and clogs up the thread? People having to post to clear some misunderstandings that could be cleared were people paying more attention to what they were reading. In this case, it was crystal clear what horrordude was talking about when he posted his case, and he has repeated the same thing for what, 3 times now? Not only himself, but red star and Skerterg, too. And what's even worse, you aren't even aknowledging / addressing the issue.

You know what is a joke and is pointless? People giving up on Day 1, before even being voted. "I don't care who votes for me, I'm keeping my vote where it is?" Discussion is not pointless, and is not a joke. Suspicions, when justified, are not a joke and should be taken seriously, because to the person posting them, they make sense (unless they're scum, but it's up to us to figure that out.) Not seeing anything revelaing on Day 1 is not pointless, nor a joke. It's the beginning of the game.

I guess I was wrong about my initial thoughts about you :s

Ahoda, you pointed out that you felt no need to post because there was nothing you found interesting enough. But right now, even when put under pressure, your posts lack anything substantial. You don't even accuse or try to fight back anything that was pointed at you, going as far as stating that you don't care who votes for you.
So, for now, I'm confident enough to do this.

Vote: Ahoda

Maybe I was a bit harsh, and I don't really like doing this or speaking like I did, but if it makes you change your so-far attitude, then it won't be in vain.

[Exilon]

I didn't remember that.

Unvote

If you don't want to play, Ahoda, please ask to replace out.

[Exilon]

That's why I unvoted. There's no reason to lynch someone who isn't willing to play if we have a better option, as Pops pointed out.

@Kelikar: No one can expect a new player to know what his predecessor was thinking, so the most we can ask is if he/she could have any idea or speculation regarding it, having in mind that they know what their role PM is (which could affect the way someone answers).

...*sigh* I don't like this at all.

[Exilon]

Oh, God. I just lost a huge post. Damn it. Anyway, let's try this again.

I didn't have much time today so I'll use tomorrow to catch up as much as I can. So if I missed something, that's why.

I've seen a game where a scum (and he was the IC; albeit a bad one, as he himself admitted) self-hammered to prevent any more discussion. But that's just one case. Anyway, I don't think there's much one can conclude pertaining Ahoda's alignement from his self-vote...

Moving on, Pops later actions have rubbing me in the wrong way :/ For one or two things: first, his choice for a word to describe why he didn't want to unvote. I don't see anything wrong with him leaving his vote there, since Ahoda is no longer in L1 and there's no real danger of a quicklynch anymore, but his reasoning for it - it seemed kind of weird, because he seemed to strive to find a word other than suspicious to describe why he didn't unvote. Let me get the exact sentences so I can explain this better:

And I didn't unvote because I don't expect himm to replace out, and it would be lots of effort to unvote him and revote him. Someone who would self vote probably doesn't have the decency to give his faction a chance by replacing out either.

(...After Horror posted, asking why would it be an effort to unvote and vote again)

Town. Most players are town, so go figure.

Perhaps effort isn't the word. It's not that I don't want to hit the keys, it's just that I don't like to move my vote around unnecessarily. It's noise.

First, everyone knows it isn't really an effort to unvote and vote again on someone, so the fact that he used that word right in the first post already seemed a little off. And then, on his second post, he tries to find another way to describe it - and it seemed to me like he was deliberately avoiding another, simpler word that would fit in as well - suspicious. This might be a bit of a reach, but I felt this strongly mainly because of that last sentence:
“I don't like to move my vote around unnecessarily. It's noise. “
I’m not exactly sure as to what “noise” means in this context (I have a general idea but it’s probably a little off), so until someone gives me a correct definition of him, I can’t really incorporate it. Anyway, if we assume that “moving the vote around unnecessarily” = action that arouses suspicion, as it usually is, then “suspicious” fits nicely in there – but Pops never uses it. That, in itself, looks like an action from someone who’s trying not to gather attention.

Also, there’s the fact that Pops seems to write (at least once) like he’s certain of what’s going to happen, and what’s not going to happen; and attributes that to his experience. Quote:

My vote's on the scummiest slot in the game. I don't treat the L-1 vote like it's the hammer, because it's not. It's a vote.

Policy lynch is a mischaracterization. I'm lynching a player because he is scummy and promises inactivity (meaning less additional info on alignment)

And I didn't unvote because I don't expect himm to replace out, and it would be lots of effort to unvote him and revote him. Someone who would self vote probably doesn't have the decency to give his faction a chance by replacing out either.

It's not going to improve unless he replaces out. I've seen players implode a lot more than you have. Selfvoting is when they've just lost it. You can't coax them out of it. Greater players have tried.

(Before I forget, Kelikar has addressed "I've seen players implode a lot more than you have" and asked Pops for clarification which never came even though he has posted one or two times after it.)

On the first quote, which was after he suggested the replace, he still has the idea that Ahoda should be lynched, believing that he won't replace out, because, as he says, "players who self-vote doesn't usually replace out out of decency". Nothing bad so far, of course, except that Ahoda hasn't commented on anything since or has shown any desire to stay in the game. (it is the very opposite, in fact).

And on the second quote, he throws this series of connected and certain sentences which discourage the players from doing anything aside from... nothing (or voting him). The spine of the argument goes something like this: "No use talking to him because I know and I have that experience and so I'm SURE of this. Anything you do will not work, unless he replaces out, because I know he has lost it since he has self-voted and I KNOW that when players self-vote they've lost it."
Pops fails to consider that even though it seems so certain, there's a slight possibility that Ahoda will change. I don't really believe that will happen; though, but it's like he's saying "I talk experience no use in arguing with me".

That isn't too much to pick on as well, but it seems a little forceful, too certain; which I don't think it is really right for someone to have. In fact, my first game had a player who actually self-voted because he was giving up; as Pops said, "imploding on himself". BUT he didn't lose it, he regained his composure and came back to play.

So, Pops, do you still think Ahoda should be lynched? (in the current situation)

[Exilon]

This is kind of a stupid question, then... but I still feel it should be asked.

No, he shouldn't be lynched until he says whether or not he'll have himself be replaced.

Then why are you voting him, if you don't want him lynched yet?

[Exilon]

This is kind of a stupid question, then... but I still feel it should be asked.

No, he shouldn't be lynched until he says whether or not he'll have himself be replaced.

Then why are you voting him, if you don't want him lynched yet?

You voted horrordude on the first page, and I presume you didn't want him lynched yet.

Anyway, I've already basically answered this question. The vote is standing as a symbol of my intentions, I'm most suspicious of ahoda. Votes aren't hammers.

I voted him on RVS. Are you telling me your vote of Ahoda is random? So sorry, I can't really take that argument as valid.
The only problem I had with the vote, and it isn't anything much, which is why the question was kinda stupid (aka pointless), is that everyone knows you have the intention of voting, and so it wouldn't confuse any players at all if you unvoted; still you made all that fuss about "effort" and "noise"... So, yeah. Meh. This alone doesn't warrant anything else.

Skerterg, I lol'd; you "finally" understood what I meant XD Great post there! If you do maintain your promise and do one of these every week, then I feel our chances will rise significantly (it sure helps in transparency matters).

Kelikar : I speak for myself, but the fact is that Kranix didn't say really anything, so there isn't really anything to talk about.

With two players seemingly replacing out, this seems to have slowed down considerably. 7 players are still alot to create discussion, though.
I haven't heard from Red Star in a while.

[Exilon]

I haven't really had too many motives to post, either. Fact is there are many people who are absent. (were). I don't know what to think of this,(if it's normal, or not) but it's big demotivation to play :s Anyway, better to get a slow discussion now than later, so I hope the next players can be more active.

So let's see if there's anything to spark this up.

Good Evening Gentlemen.
Just a few reminders that anyone voting me will be instantly mod killed. KittyMo can confirm this.
I'll start reading up now. And thanks again for letting me replace in Kitten. <3

...For some reason, I just want to try that out, but... Maybe we can get Ahoda to vote you, instead? =D (JOKE JOKE JOKE I want him out, not dead; UNLESS HE'S SCUM).

Mask Man, what to do you think about your predecessor and the reactions sparked by his (lack of) activity?

You should probably also answer all of the questions posted by both HorrorDude and Red Star, once you have settled in. =)

And here comes Pops again =D Hum.

Why is there an unvote here without a vote to Kranix? I think it could be one of those too-good-to-be-true D1 pairings or a scum player who voted Red Star because he thought he needed to look like he was doing something but doesn't really have a heart for pulling lurkerscum into light.

I do like this, and it makes sense. I though about it when I read it, but I think there was something there that... ah, yes! Here:

I think I saw Red Star log in sometime earlier, but he didn't post in this thread while posting in another. Enough suspicion for a vote from me.

This is from the post when Red Star was voted. I assumed the vote wasn't purely out of the fact that Red Star was lurking, but rather actively lurking.
So while Kranix had zero activity, at least he wasn't logging in (or no one noticed); while Red Star had logged in to post on another thread.

Though there is something that strikes me as odd - didn't skerterg consider the possibility that maybe Red Star didn't have enough time to post in both threads? If we see it that way, the justification for the vote becomes a little less proeminent while making the absence of a Kranix vote something that could use some light.

There's also the possible excuse that he did a quick post and didn't have time to check up further because, as he says, he was going to head off to another place.

On the other hand, this was exactly before Ahoda kicked in, and I think some stuff got diverted by him. For example, Red Star and Skerterg kinda left points from last page untouched (in other words, things that even if indirectly were never again addressed by them), except for Skerterg, which briefly mentioned it in his "weekly review" (can I call it that?). A convenient leeway, perhaps?

As for Skerterg, there's that "not-voting Kranix thing" even though he had voted for a lurking player. He doesn't get called on it, and the next time he posts, he addresses Ahoda fully.
In his "weekly review", he simply... states he can't rank Kranix. Anyway, I've stated everything about this situation above already.

As for Redstar,

Ugh, slow discussion. Scum, do something stupid so that we can identify you!

I find it amusing (and possibly slightly suspicious) that two of the most active players have their vote on horrordude.

What, me and popsofctown? I unvoted on Ps80. D: And why would it be possibly suspicious?

Have you noticed there's another person with two votes on them?

Exilon, it was a joke intended to get discussion going, seeing as no-one wants to post here due to there being no activity of any positive description.

Now, let's see here. To remind, pops adressed Red Star's posts after and commented, "I think Red Star is pot-stirring while trying not to stick his neck out. I've got my eye on him.", FoS'ing him; Red Star does answer that that is because he's not trying to raise suspicions, but rather get discussion going.
But why would a person who wants to get discussion going retract upon my comment about his initial " possible suspicion"? Sure, it was a joke - but how does "maybe you are suspicious" "why?" "it was a joke, nevermind" contribute to get discussion going? Simply put, it doesn't; and that doesn't make much sense. It's like, if we follow what he said, he was trying to start discussion with the REST of the players but himself. Also, to notice, is that he didn't answer anything I posted after his first quote.
Not "why is it suspicious?" nor "have you noticed there's someone else with two people on them?". I do point that out briefly after it (Ps91:"Err... ok? I find that slightly wrong... but... "), but that's when Ahoda comes in, and suddenly that's where the focus is.

I'll be looking at Razor's meta soon... in the meantime, we should get some posting happening here people!

And I took the liberty of reading up a little bit as well.
And, hum... Razorback gets a little one too many policy lynches ( asides from his ... peculiar writing style. I actually laughed alot at one point in one of the games where Razorback just couldn't get in right while trying to vote someone (first he misses the code, then he misses the word vote, the he misses the code again.. Aww, I shouldn't be laughing about it! <<) Which... doesn't really leave us with much information about meta to go on, since he behaves generally the same way.
His actions so far... not much I can say about it; yet.
Horror, you never stated any conclusions you could have got from reading Razor’s meta (IIRC). Anything you want to say about it?

[Exilon]

Ok, sorry I didn't come here before. Suddenly Razorback is at L1, and, well... I can't say I don't agree with it. Although his past experiences (meta) show that he hasn't indeed survived past day 2 (mostly because of policy lynches, which I don't really like; since they can take away from valuable discussion and give a great excuse for scum to not discuss and just lay low), I can't let a player just sit by and do nothing, like he has been doing.

To tell the truth, I don't think Razorback is being overdefensive - each person has its own method of defending themselves. There has been, however, at one or two points, one or two comments from him that didn't fit quite well - and I figured, as he stated, that this could be in part caused to his cautiosness and past experiences. But nothing of the sort seems like being overdefensive - unless I'm getting the meaning of the word wrong.

as for the case of red start i believe he is with out doubt scum. it has been my experience that scum love to twist others words around on them. and this is generally one of the biggest scum tell in the game...

as for myself i'm far from paranoid scum i'm simply trying make to lylo. i have never seen the end of day two as scum or town.. so my goal is get to the end of the game.

Many people quoted this (and I specially liked Leafsnail's reply, which I'd like to second.). Thing is: by stating this, Razorback seems to be stating he doesn't know how to keep himself alive, and really wants to. The first part looks like a weak attempt to contribute to the discussion - but the lack of a vote, as leafsnail stated, is something that sparked my attention.

If he had voted.... it would have shown he was serious about what he said. Since he didn't, it seems blatant that this "without doubt" is bad wording. It comes off as a weak attempt to divert suspicion away.

Just a quick note to Horror's reply. (and his behaviour in general). When replying to Razorback, he said:

How was he twisting your words around?

Kelikar posts a very interesting post after, which provides an example of when Red Star twisted some words around to make Razorback's words sound a little different. In that same post, he points out how horror also twisted what was "obviously" a joke (Ahoda) into what appeared to be a scum slip-up. Interesting part? Horror never addresses any part of that post, still manages to say he hadn't noticed he was putting him at L1 and hasn't even unvoted.

Hum, indeed.

Back to Razorback, just wanted to address this one post which further defies my beliefs Razorback's behaviour is something I can tolerate:

just because i'm trying too get lylo doesn't mean i'm not scum hunting. i'm working fing lurking player's to help question that is a scummy assessment to made. you think i'm doing you pay so litte attention to what i have been working on..........

Razorback, give us one post where you analyzed one player and tried to evaluate his scumminess. Just that is enough for me to believe that what you are saying is true. You can be doing all the scumhunting in the world, but if you don't post it, then it's the same as nothing. You can't accuse someone of paying you little attention without giving one example.

Furthermore, Leafsnail has posed a question which I'd like to second and you haven't even answered.

If you found Red Star scum without a doubt, why didn't you vote him?

Fos: Razorback

And I am aware you are close to L1. Anyway, if you can't respond to what people are asking or defend yourself properly, you'll never be able to get to Lylo, as you say you want.

There's also a quick note I'd like to make to a certain player.
@Red Star:

Unvote
The last thing that I want is for someone to be lynched before the deadline.

Of all the reasons you could have given to unvote, this is your reason?
....Well.... could you please clarify it? As it is right now, I can't help but read it as: "I want for people to be lynched because of the deadline".

Also, I remind you that there's some points you still haven't discussed and that me and Pops have brought up. Even if it was a while I ago, I'd like to mention that you never touched them; while keeping your attention focused on Ahoda.

[Exilon]

WHAT THE-- MS LOGGED ME OFF AND I LOST THIS GREAT POST OMGFFFFFFFFF-

.... Ok, now I am annoyed.

At the moment, it is almost a week before the deadline. I do not want a player to be lynched while there is still discussion possible; the more information, the better. Had I not unvoted, someone may have come in with a hammer, and ended discussion prematurely. That's why I unvoted.

Which points are these, sorry? I must have missed them, could you quote them for me?

Thanks, it's clearer now.
As for the points; my PS169 and the next two replies by Razorback and Pops:

ow, let's see here. To remind, pops adressed Red Star's posts after and commented, "I think Red Star is pot-stirring while trying not to stick his neck out. I've got my eye on him.", FoS'ing him; Red Star does answer that that is because he's not trying to raise suspicions, but rather get discussion going.
But why would a person who wants to get discussion going retract upon my comment about his initial " possible suspicion"? Sure, it was a joke - but how does "maybe you are suspicious" "why?" "it was a joke, nevermind" contribute to get discussion going? Simply put, it doesn't; and that doesn't make much sense. It's like, if we follow what he said, he was trying to start discussion with the REST of the players but himself. Also, to notice, is that he didn't answer anything I posted after his first quote.
Not "why is it suspicious?" nor "have you noticed there's someone else with two people on them?". I do point that out briefly after it (Ps91:"Err... ok? I find that slightly wrong... but... "), but that's when Ahoda comes in, and suddenly that's where the focus is.

@ EXILON of all our players redstar has been avoids many things. and of course i know i have as we but somthings just can't be answered.

unvote, vote Red Star

For what he originally got an FoS for.

Now, Razorback.

dam it i can't get my iso system to run... on my computer i can't prove my case what good is that. the town if at all any good to myself hepling the town.

This whole sentence is really unclear, but oh well.
So, we ask why you haven't voted for your top suspect and instead of justifiying yourself, you vote. Without any kind of added content.

I ask for a PAST POST where you have scumhunted to verify your claim that it was being missed because of lack of attention, and you tell me "there's no way to prove my case on Red Star because the iso system isn't working"?

Ok, let me get this straight. By not giving me any example of what I asked, you're proving my point, which means your previous accusation of someone not paying enough attention is wrong.

And now your words read as if you didn't have any notes on Red Star - which means, no case. Even if you had the notes, it would be a matter of Copy / Paste. There would be no need to ISO - but you're saying you need to do so, so that leaves me to believe you were going to build something.

It's like you're trying to excuse yourself over and over again, but not being able to provide decent reasoning - because it's not there. And it seems to show.
If I'm wrong, explain yourself. (and please clarify that quote)

Oh, and in case you don't know how to ISO someone:
At the bottom of the page, there's this thing that reads "Display posts from previous: [all posts] by [all users] [oldest first] Go is not implemented yet."
If you click on All Users, a dropdown menu will appear which lets you choose to view all the posts from a single player. (Don't forget to click "go" afterwards.)

If something seems a little off or incoherent, it's possible I missed it because I had to write the post from scratch. As always, if you find anything, please point it out

[Exilon]

Seriously? Razorback is not helping. At all. And although it (his playstyle) doesn't really confuse me, it leaves me hanging a little too close to the edge.

What should I think from a player who doesn't try to defend himself from the accusation that he is lying, votes a player after being asked why he hadn't voted when he had said "I believe he is without doubt scum" and then admits he has no case and that he is going to build one, and provides absolutely no support for his vote? (and never addresses my point, even after I asked)

That's inconsistency all over... Razorback, as I stated before, if you don't even defend yourself, how are we supposed to believe you are not scum?

the only reason I'm not voting yet is because I want to hear from you on that matter (if you don't say anything, fine), and because Red Star only unvoted to prevent a quicklynch; which is a situation I don't want to risk as well, specially not before hearing everyone's thoughts.

[Exilon]

sorry, got ninja'd. My point still stands, but I'm going to ask the following then:

@Razorback: Tell us what games have you checked and what made you see that. Show us, to help us see what you see.

[Exilon]

Ok, that is enough for me.
I'm ready to vote.

Does anyone have anything they want to say?

[Exilon]

Exilon, before you vote for him, consider other people at first. Please give your views on them. It is easy to pick on someone who doesn't defend himself very well.

Don't worry- I'm not willing to hammer anyone until everyone has got their say. In my last post, I didn't say much, mainly because I wanted to see Red Star's reaction. I didn't lie - I am willing and ready to hammer Razorback, and I think I made it clear why: it's not because of his playstyle, or that he doesn't write very well, but that he really didn't address anything of what I specifically asked him to answer (apart from one or two cases, IIRC, but even that was a little vague), and because I believed he lied.

Anyway, it seems kinda weird for Red Star to just freak out like that and just go for the vote - he was the first one to state he didn't want anyone dead before the deadline because of a quickhammer, and suddenly votes again out of pure frustration? That doesn't really make sense - as for his analysis, it was there, Razorback just didn't really address it or try to defend himself. there was that series of quotes which individually do seem to point somewhere, but when all are taken into context (and even some don't need this) they don't sound that bad.

Besides, we have this very nicely placed "lurker" (again?) which could suddenly appear and hammer a potential townie. Knowing this, and according to what red star has stated about his playstyle, it's a conflicting that he'd vote.

I don't know if I should state all my views - I tend to not be very vocal about my early suspicions because they take a while to grow, and scum can use most information about the player's views against them. (and it isn't viable to lie about reads just to confuse scum as that confuses town much more).

Anyway, besides from Red Star, I got a very weird vibe from LeafSnail post 257.

I don't think we should hold off. I think anyone who feels sure razorback is scum should hammer. Discussion is always easier with one dead scum.

You might say it would reduce the info we get, but seeing who is prepared to hammer and who isn't provides a lot of info, especially if razorback flips scum. Certainly, I find it interesting when someone accuses someone of being definate scum and yet holds the hammer off them.

First part he says "discussion is always easier with one dead scum.". Was I the only one who picked up on this and noticed Leafsnail does not even consider Razorback being town? Even if what he means is that he believes Razorback is scum (and notice how he doesn't really make any mention of his stance on him), then accoridng to what he said, he SHOULD HAVE VOTED ON HIM, and he didn't - so there seems to be some kind of contradiction here.

And on that second part - I don't know if he's addressing me or Red Star. If it's me, then it seems a litle iffy because I think I have explained myself and I didn't really say "Razorback is obviously scum", if I recall corectly, at least.

If it's Red Star, then it's interesting when in his next post Red Star votes. Could that be seen as some kind of message / taunt that Red Star picked up on?

And that's all, for now. Rest of peeps, any thoughts?

[Exilon]

Exilon - I can't hammer someone I'm already voting for. I've stated my stance on Razorback several times (scum).

Gah you're right sorry sorry sorry << I missed you were actually the very first vote. And it was a little late at night, so... Anyway, my point was that, if Razorback ends up flipping town, that's something worth looking at (he voting after what you said).

[Exilon]

Okay, someone else hammered before I could get here. Hummm... Pops? What? You say you like your vote on Red Star and in your immediate next post you hammer Razorback? What gives?

(Sorry for not writing anything else, I'm kinda V/LA because of a school project I have.)

[Exilon]

I'm happy we nailed scum. I was nervous that he might just flip town and prove my instinct and reasoning wrong (like last game... bah --') but it seems this time I wasn't barking at the wrong tree. =D

Anyway, there's still one scum left.

But first things first: Red Star claiming doc and the nightkill analysis. At first, I was a little bit at a loss, so I had to write a little bit in order to organize my thoughts and reach a decent conclusion. Let me formulate this:

- Since Red Star claimed, why wasn't he killed?
There could be some reasons for this:
One, because scum found another player being a bigger threat, which doesn't really work since Leafsnail didn't seem like a threat (there were other players who could be considered "more threatening");
Two, being roleblocked and therefore left alive easily, which could make sense in this situation - for example, RB the doc and kill a potential cop (Leafsnail).
Three, obvious one, because he's scum. This one is what is giving me a little trouble. Gulping a claim is always a hard thing to do, but it's even harder in this situation. His explanation post seems consistent with his behaviour so far, but he's basically telling us he was controlling his scumminess. Which... doesn't really seem right. A player who had been controlling his scumminess so "perfectly", to suddenly lose grasp of it and only realize it after the deed had been done (Razorback's wagon was on the way), doesn't make much sense, when put toghether. Countering this is the fact that there has been no counter claim thus far, and it seems a little unlikely to me that scum would risk being counterclaimed, specially when he's the only reamainng one.

@Red Star: For clarification:

Exilon and skerterg were congratulating each other, with both saying that the other had a high chance of being town.

Could you please give me at least one or two examples of this situation? Because I don't really remember commenting that Skerteg had a high chance of being town. (Although I do recall seeing the opposite)

If I die tonight due to being roleblocked

....Huh?

- Why was Leafsnail killed?
Well, questioning the natures of night kills is something that is almost impossible to do, but it's always worth the effort and we have nothing to lose in doing so.
- Scum could be PR hunting;
- Scum wanted to confuse the town ( unlikely because... well... how could Leafsnail's death help in confusing the town?)
- Scum thought he was dangerous. (looking at his ISO, his two suspects were Red Star and Razorback... but Red Star-scum didn't really have a reason to kill him, because he stated "a red star/razorback scumteam seems unlikely."; or rather, there were other people who could be more attractive nightkills.)

All in all, there isn't much here that can help in finding the WHO behind the WHY. That doesn't mean this information is meaningless, though- far from it. Thoughts, anyone?

For now, I'm still waiting for Popsofctown to respond to what has been addressed, (voting Razorback one post after saying "my vote rests on red star") but I'm not really liking the aura around him.

Now...

Why are you scared of someone hammering a potential townie? It wasn't lylo.

Me? I was talking about Red Star. It's even deprehendable from what you quoted. I do admit, I wasn't really believing the "lurker" would pop up and quickhammer, but we have to consider that possibility.

Town can use a player's views against them as well. Aside from that, since day was nearly over, weren't you worried that you'd be nightkilled and town would lose your point of view?

My WHOLE point of view ends up as not being as solid and as needed in Day 1 as it would be, say, on later days. Also, it's not like I had been quiet all day long - far from it. I believe I made my view pretty clear during the course of the day, even. So why are you implying I haven't been stating my views?
By what you're saying, you believe that everyone should post ALL OF THEIR views at twilight because their point of views might be lost during the night. And this... well, it just isn't right.

Finally, it's strange that you were willing to hammer Razorback because he didn't answer questions, not because you thought that behavior meant he was likely scum.

This is untrue, as Horrodude pointed out as well.

And look at the last few words... "Because I believe he lied." Now, I'm not sure if I know exactly what razor lied about, but last time I checked, the only people that really benefit from lying are scum...

Check my ISOPs20 and 21. They should be enough to understand my main motivations for finding Razorback scum.

just because i'm trying too get lylo doesn't mean i'm not scum hunting. i'm working fing lurking player's to help question that is a scummy assessment to made. you think i'm doing you pay so litte attention to what i have been working on..........

Razorback, give us one post where you analyzed one player and tried to evaluate his scumminess. Just that is enough for me to believe that what you are saying is true. You can be doing all the scumhunting in the world, but if you don't post it, then it's the same as nothing. You can't accuse someone of paying you little attention without giving one example.

This is when I accused him of lying unless he gave me an example that he wasn't doing so. The fact is that he didn't, and therefore, I believed he lied.

I hope it's clear =)

[Exilon]

So, everyone has posted, and no one so far has counterclaimed or claimed cop. What I can assume from this is that we are playing on a double-goon and doc setup. Anyone disagree?

I do disagree. A cop claim would throw things haywire. For reasons Pops stated, and because there's a high chance that it is a fakeclaim. If there is a cop, it is best if he stayed covered for now. We're on Day 2 and there's only one scum left. Only reason I can think of someone to claim would be L1.

As Excedrin stated, that's kinda rolefishing. Tell us: how can we benefit, right now, from a cop claim?
Also, there was this one thing you haven't addressed it. Why did you say "If I die due to being roleblocked"?

Excedrin addressed none of my answers to his questions, and his vote still remains on me. I don't like it - please respond, excedrin.

As for Pops, it even had been stated in the thread that a no-lynch was impossible at deadline. Leafsnail said it, I reckon. Didn't you read that? Or the rules?

[Exilon]

.... Hum... ok?

He thinks that he could have protected himself, but he could still die if he was blocked and killed.

How do you know that's what he thought? He never stated anywhere that he thought of protecting himself, and that isn't even possible.

I don't know what "deprehendable" means, but why do you apparently care if someone popped in and hammered? If the hammered player is town or scum, you get some solid info in either case.

I'm sorry, my bad. The correct word is "Deprehensible"; it basically meant that from reading only what you quoted, one could understand / graps / deduce / deprehend that I was talking about Red Star, not me.
I do care if someone suddenly pops up and hammers, because that's cutting the day and the discussion short. What if that person is just outright stupid and hammered because he / she didn't notice that the person was at L1? Then we'd waste the next day and lynch a townie because he was stupid. Best to play it safe- nothing is harmed if a person holds the L1 vote. Of course, as I've stated, it isn't very likely, but it is a possiblity that has to be considered.

Also, does this imply that you thought Red Star was town before razorback's flip OR only that now you think Red Star is town?

How can you ask this from what I've written? I didn't imply neither of those, neither was that sentence about whether or not I suspected Red Star before or after the flip. I don't see where you're coming from here.

My WHOLE point of view ends up as not being as solid and as needed in Day 1 as it would be, say, on later days. Also, it's not like I had been quiet all day long - far from it. I believe I made my view pretty clear during the course of the day, even. So why are you implying I haven't been stating my views?

That's your interpretation. To answer your question I'd have to agree that I'm implying something.

You could answer my question with "no, that's not what I'm implying", and then explain yourself. Instead, you state that if you were to answer, you'd have to agree with the fact that you're implying "something".

So let's see. My point was that you were implying I hadn't been stating my views, which isn't true. So my point ends up being that you were accusing me of something which isn't true.
You refuse to answer, because if you had to answer, you'd have to agree with me that you're implying "something". So, by what you're saying, you answer, in case it existed, wouldn't be a "no", it would be a "yes, I'm implying you haven't been stating your views" - which translates to "yes, I'm implying a fact that isn't true".

I'm confused. Some clarification would be most welcome.

By what you're saying, you believe that everyone should post ALL OF THEIR views at twilight because their point of views might be lost during the night. And this... well, it just isn't right.

Eh, you can disagree about "how to play mafia" all day long, it does nothing to find scum. It's a great way to active lurk though.

Whoa... Another one?! I find it hard to believe that I am reading this the right way, but I have tried to read this from other ways and it just doesn't work...

By saying that "I disagree" with you, it means you believe, in fact, that EVERYONE should post their views at twilight because that same view might be lost during the night. Yet, you're contradicintg yourself - unless I missed your twilight post which contained all of your views. ...Wait. No, I didn't miss it. It's not there.
And by your logic, you should be asking that question ("werten't you afraid you'd be killed during the night"?) to the majority of the players here, since they also didn't post their whole views during twilight...

just because i'm trying too get lylo doesn't mean i'm not scum hunting. i'm working fing lurking player's to help question that is a scummy assessment to made. you think i'm doing you pay so litte attention to what i have been working on..........

Razorback, give us one post where you analyzed one player and tried to evaluate his scumminess. Just that is enough for me to believe that what you are saying is true. You can be doing all the scumhunting in the world, but if you don't post it, then it's the same as nothing. You can't accuse someone of paying you little attention without giving one example.

This is when I accused him of lying unless he gave me an example that he wasn't doing so. The fact is that he didn't, and therefore, I believed he lied.

I hope it's clear =)

The context and content of those posts look like you're razorback's scumbuddy, coaching him to improve his play.

Example:

Fos: Razorback
And I am aware you are close to L1. Anyway, if you can't respond to what people are asking or defend yourself properly, you'll never be able to get to Lylo, as you say you want.

razorback's self-preservation and concern with survival is scummy, but here you're saying "well, if you want to survive you have to defend yourself better."

For me, his self-preservation and concern with survival wasn't THAT scummy, for reasons I posted. his lack of defense, on the other hand, is pretty much reason for me to suspect him. Coaching him? I was stating a fact. And am I the only one who told Razorback "that's not the way to go if you want to survive"?. I can see how you can consider that coaching, but really now, would I really just say "you're not defending, that's scummy, die scum" and vote him? This is a newbie game. People are learning. I'm not going to ignore the possibility he is just a midless, helpless townie who is frustrated with the fact he gets killed early every time. Which, by the way, was a very strong possibility at the time.

The example you included from post #204 reads the same way. I noted it in my first post, except that now it looks like a subtle defense of your scumbuddy rather than scum trying to avoid suspicion after a mislynch.

But explain to me, how does accusing a player of lying (razorback), pressuring him, and showing that same quote to another player (Horrordude) can be considered "avoiding attention from a mislynch" or even "defending his scumbuddy"?

The points I brought up in my first post are much stronger

now that you're attempting to say that you did think that razorback was scum, despite the closest thing in any of your posts to that effect are your "FoS: Razorback".

Do you need reading glasses or skipped a fourth of my Day 1 posts? You're saying I never stated that I thought Razorback was scum except for my FoS post, which is a blatant lie.

I checked the posts where you mention razorback, there's a definite connection here.
#58 "Why is it rolefishing?"

Explain to me how asking for clarification on something someone said and which I found wrong, specifically that question, translate to me being Razorback's scumbuddy.

#65 defending razorback from kelikar / explaining razorback POV
#80 razorback has been modkilled in the past and has a genuine non-scummy reason
to be concerned with his self-preservation

Explain to me how trying to consider all possibilities and the player's town / scum reasons and motivations translates to me being his scum partner.

#169 Razorback is just a floundering townie lol he can't vote

Did I really say this?

#204 "Suddenly Razorback is at L1" reads "Oh shit, my scumbuddy!"
"..., and, well... I can't say I don't agree with it." reads "I can't defend him without appearing to be scum, gotta go along with it"

Not really. I'm not worried I look scum or not, what I'm worried about is that he's going to flip town (even more if that happened due to some quickhammer). At the time, there was the possibility he was town, which progressively went down as he failed to give me anything pro-town. And that "suddenly" was indeed because it was "suddenly".

Bolded mine for the sake of simplicity.

I'm finnaly over with this. Anyway, Excedrin, it's a

FoS: Excedrin

from me until you are able to explain yourself properly. There were so many things I found wrong about your post it wasn't even funny.

[Exilon]

What was that I was sure I had put a /b at the end and now look it's all BIG and O_o and- Kitty, would you be as kind as to please correct that for me? just bold the fos :3 Thank yuuu

Fixed. The issue was that you didn't close a different bold tag in the quote tag. You remembered the [/b] after the FOS. ~Kitty

[Exilon]

EBWOP: I just noticed I didn't change one thing which is hugely wrong and I thought it was right up there. In the oyramid of quotes, this is what should actualy be there:

Finally, it's strange that you were willing to hammer Razorback because he didn't answer questions, not because you thought that behavior meant he was likely scum.

This is untrue, as Horrodude pointed out as well.

And look at the last few words... "Because I believe he lied." Now, I'm not sure if I know exactly what razor lied about, but last time I checked, the only people that really benefit from lying are scum...

Check my ISOPs20 and 21. They should be enough to understand my main motivations for finding Razorback scum.

The context and content of those posts look like you're razorback's scumbuddy, coaching him to improve his play.

Sorry about that :s But since they're quotes from the same post and are both addressed with the same point, it shouldn't make too much of a difference :s Again, sorry.

[Exilon]

Blue is mine.

Are you interested in arguing this? Why?
It makes sense if you read it the way I did. It doesn't otherwise. I explained how I read it and now you're asking me how I knew what he thought? Weird.

I’m not very interested in arguing it, I just found it weird how you can affirm so confidently that that’s what Red Star was thinking when you’re not him and there aren’t elements in his post that could help into inducing that explanation. Which is why I asked him. If you think that’s weird, then there’s nothing I can do for you.

1. What if the hammerer is stupid? Then their stupidity lets you get reads on other players based on reactions on the next day, who's pushing for their lynch etc. 2. Playing it safe is scummy.

If the hammerer is stupid, as I stated in WHAT YOU QUOTED, then we can also lose Day 2 arguing with a mindless townie. If you want further details, read what you quoted again. It’s there.

Playing it safe is scummy?
1) Explain to me how playing it safe can be suspicious, specifically on this situation.
2) Explain to me why, if you believe in that, haven’t questioned other players in this same game that did the same thing as I did.
3) That’s mafia theory, and saying that is ‘discussing mafia theory’. As you stated in your post, that’s also something you consider scummy. You’re contradicting yourself.

I didn't say anything about twilight. I'm saying that your views on who was scum or town on day 1 are pretty much unknown, but if you were town you'd have an interest in making sure that your thoughts were known before the day ended. Yes, at the least, everyone should post who they think is scum. Forcing scum to take a stand on some position prevents them from slipping under the radar. Reluctance to do so is scummy. Posting lots of "this is how you should play mafia" stuff, arguing about theory is scummy.

If I recall correctly, I have stated once or twice that my suspicions take a while to grow, specially on Day 1. Even so, I have stated my suspicions and thoughts on as much as I could, or that I found relevant. Furthermore, you seem to be using the words “views” and “scum reads” as THE SAME THING, and they aren’t. First, you said “point of view”, now, you said “view on who is scum”. Your first post on this matter does not make any reference that the “point of view” is “view on who is scum” exclusively.

Even further: my most relevant thoughts ( as in, thoughts that mattered, since a person can have a million thoughts about different things at the same time) were known at the end of the day, and my views on who was scum were pretty much clear through the whole day. So how can you say what you said?

It’s interesting how you quote the whole thing but your answer doesn’t really address all the points in it, and you never really say how my interpretation is flawed. Only thing you say about it is “I didn’t say anything about twilight”.

You write huge posts without clearly saying, "I think X is scum (for 1.2.3) (and Y is town)." Example:
I think Exilon is scum because he posts big posts that don't say much (see #111, #138, #169).
Did you post who you thought was scum on day 1 somewhere, which post? I see your ahoda vote (your only non-random vote, where you didn't specifically say that you thought he was scum) and an extremely wishywashy "maybe razorback is scum" post.

I try to be concise, but sometimes I write a little too much. I’ve stated this too. You can say that my big posts don’t say much, but that’s your opinion and there’s nothing I can say about it. I did state my suspicions on who was scum several times. Red Star, Pops, Ahoda to a lesser degree, and of course, Razorback. Of course, I can’t go as far as say “this person must be scum” – one person can never be sure, unless he/she is the cop, or some other similar case. Granted, I never posted anything as blatant as “this is my list of suspicions 1.x, 2.y”… but why do I need to do that when I’ve been consistently stating my opinion on what I’ve seen?

That wishy washy post was the first post where I stated my initial suspicion, then I FoS’d him, and as my suspicion grew, I voted him. And of course it is wishy washy – if I were sure in my belief that he was scum, I would have voted him! Why are you implying that was the only time I stated I suspected Razorback? Seriously, did you miss a fourth of my posts or do you need reading glasses? (again.)

Have you heard of LaL? LaL is short for Lynch All Liars. LaL is a policy lynch. Policy lynches are not because you think someone is scum. The reasons you listed are:
1. he didn't answer my questions
2. he lied

That is effectively a policy lynch.

Those were part of the reasoning for me to vote him. But you can’t simplify that so much, unless you didn’t read my posts Day 1. You can say Lynch all liars is a policy lynch, but the fact Razorback lied made me believe that his defense (which was what he lied about) was nothing more than an attempt to avoid attention. And that was suspicious to me. There was also the vote after being pressured issue, which I believe I also addressed. Now, you mention how LaL is a policy lynch (without, note, applying it to the context, which is unarguably mafia theory) but don’t mention how your stated point 1 is a policy lynch.

Do you need reading glasses or skipped a fourth of my Day 1 posts? You're saying I never stated that I thought Razorback was scum except for my FoS post, which is a blatant lie.

Where else did you post that you thought anyone was scum on day 1?

Why are you twisting my/your words around? Read what I said. What is a blatant lie is you saying I never stated that I thought

Razorback was scum except for my FoS.

Not “anyone”; “Razorback”. And that’s what you stated in the original words I quoted. Now you’re asking that question as if what you said was that “You didn’t state your thoughts on who was scum except for Razorback”, which isn’t true. You’re twisting words around and you’re lying (or misrepping, if that word is better suited).

And as I’ve said, there wasn’t anything as blatant as a “list of major suspicions”, but my suspicions take a while to grow and I do tend to have the possibility of someone being town pretty demarked on my mind. As in, there’s always a strong feeling of ‘this person might just be town’… anyway, I asked and stated and pointed to many things I didn’t agree with or found suspicions through Day 1…

Anyway, here’s the answer to that new question.
My Ps16 on Day 1, I disserted about Pops. My bad feeling didn’t really go away and I still have it, specially because of his hammer, which I addressed and now his answer that he “forgot the rules”… even though he’s the IC. This isn’t a very good argument, though, and that’s why I’ve been holding a bit with it.
I also talked about Red Star at several points – just before Ahoda and then afterwards as well.
And also Ahoda, to a lesser degree, since he then “kindly” replaced out.

If razorback could have answered your question, how would it reveal his alignment?

Does every question one makes have to have the objective of understanding one’s alignment? Let me explain this for you: before a person can start understanding one’s alignment, he/ she/he has to try and understand what the person IS SAYING. And I’m going to repeat myself since your answer simply has simply nothing to do with what I stated: explain to me how asking for clarification on something someone said and which I found wrong translate to me being a scumbuddy of that person.

Because you're attempting to persuade town that your scumbuddy's obvious scum behavior is excusable.

By trying to reason out how town would act in that certain way, instead of throwing a mindless vote or adding pressure in the same spot, welcoming the town to tunnel on a player without as so much considering other possibilities, I’m scum? I was trying to be fair, and explain my reasoning for why I believed that, at that moment, it seemed more likely for Razorback to be town. And if exposing your reasoning is also scummy, then I must be in the wrong game.

It's paraphrased, that's how it reads to me.

Tell me which words exactly have you used to paraphrase one sentence to the other.

In the end, there seems to be some things haunting your words that don’t click with me: how you seem to be twisting stuff around, or accusing me of stuff which isn’t exactly true.
Therefore, I will do this:

Vote: Excedrin

Also, I would ask for

a prod on Kelikar

. suddenly this thread has no activity except for me and Excedrin (and horror which didn’t add too much). Also, it’s nice how Excedrin didn’t address anything of what he said.

[Exilon]

Because playing it safe avoids attention.

.... what? How does that work?
I'm going to repeat myself. "Specifically in this situation" - please respond to everything, don't quote the whole sentences and just answer to one or two points.

Because they haven't done the other things that you've done that lead me to think that you deserve the most attention since you're the most likely scum. Obvious right.

That's not the point. I'm asking why you didn't call upon them for what I did, if we did the same thing. If I didn't post my views at the end of the day, why weren't others, who did so as well, get called on it too.

There's no contradiction, at best I'd be doing something that's scummy. I don't think that I said anywhere that I never did anything scummy. Are you saying there's some other contradiction?

There is contradiction in the sense that you're basing some of your reasoning on some things you are guilty of as well.

You may think that your views were clear, but they were not. Most of your views had to do with picking on small mistakes or trying to assign some meaning to barely relevant stuff. You asked razorback to post one instance where he scumhunted, but most of your posts and questions seem to be talking about meaning or theory, neither of these topics or "clearing up misunderstandings" help find scum. So by my criteria, you are failing the test that you proposed for razorback.

I'm going to repeat myself yet again: VIEWS and VIEWS on WHO IS SCUM are different things, yet you're using them like they're the same thing.

My "views", so to speak, were clear, I think. My "views on who is scum", were also there; but no one can expect me to be completely sure, not on Day 1, and not with little information, as you seem to be expecting.
You might say those things "don't help find scum"... but I believe they do, and I seriously don't know why I shouldn't say what I think.

Concision is pro-town. Posting a clear list of players who you think is scum (and optionally briefly why) is extremely helpful. Most of the bulk of your posts seems to be commenting on other people's cases and not making your own case or attacking someone.

Another thing is that you're picking a lot on my playstyle. I've also stated that I am a passive and analytical player, and I have acted upon it. And I have made my own cases and attacked people, more than once, in fact. Stop saying I don't do things I did.

This is a lie. You have only voted 3 times in this game, first for horrodude, second for Ahoda, third for me. You certainly never voted for razorback. Apparently, up to now, your only non-random vote in the game was for Ahoda, who you thought was scum "to a lesser degree."

Sorry, my bad. I didn't in fact vote for him, I did, however, promised to hammer him as soon as everyone had said what they had to say. Only reason I didn't is that Pops voted first.

And really now, since when do I have to vote for someone if I suspect him? I don't. In my view, I should vote for someone if I want them lynched, or pressured. If I suspect someone, I don't have to vote right away. Although I know now, as someone explained to me, that voting is helpful in the fact that later on it's easy to see who was suspecting who. However, I still find that a little prone to failure as sometimes, some votes aren't very well reasoned (due to bandwagons), and looking at the votes alone isn't going to help find scum.

My question had nothing to do with razorback. There's no twisting or misrepping.

Your question followed a quote of mine relating to Razorback. If it had nothing to do with it, why the heck was it after the quote?

That seems like an excuse to fly under the radar. Also interesting that everyone apparently seems town to you.

What? How did you read what I've written as "everyone apparently seems town to you"? What I mean is that, while you can suspect someone to be scum, you can't ignore that there's always a possibility that person is town.

Post #138 (your post 16) says a lot of stuff about popsofctown's voting or unwillingness to move his vote. Applying the same criteria to your voting history leads to a more fruitful line of inquiry. The most obvious thing is, why weren't you voting for anyone for most of day 1?
You're suspicious of popsofctown for hammering scum on day 1?

I don't know how you applied that criteria or if it was well applied, but...
I voted two times, which is actually the number of times I voted the WHOLE game on my first newbie game, INCLUDING the RVS. Anyway, why do I have to vote on someone? Last time I checked, I'm not forced to have a vote on someone at all times.

And to end, thanks for pointing out what you saw in that post. I can see it now.

[Exilon]

Ok, I had a good night's sleep xD

Thanks Excedrin, for your answer. I feel most of the things are pretty clear now. I am still suspicious of you due to some unclarity in your posts and apparent sudden change of words - which I pointed at one or two times.
Anyway, it isn't the first time I get called on for not being very clear as to who I find scum. And by reading your reasonings, I can agree with you. For me, it's obviously easier to keep track of my suspicions, but not being downright clear with them (as posting, for example, a suspicion list), so I was a little inconsiderate. Don't worry, though- point taken. I will try to be more clear and concise, from now on. Also on the voting issue - hum. I've tried to be a little less insecure about my voting (withholding the vote) since my first newbie game... So, okay.

And great replacement by Kage Lord, thanks =)

"Playing it safe" is a sort of general behavior that applies in this situation.

Accidentally lynching a townie isn't a horrible result (unless it was lylo). Even if you accidentally lynch town, you typically get a lot of info based on who was on the wagon and why.

I'll drop this subject since you have stated by now what you mean with "playing it safe" on this situation. I still don't agree with it, though; and can't see how the second part of your sentence (bolded) is related to what I asked.

What's the point of "views" that don't include what you think of someone's alignment? How you interpreted someone's sentence in some post is really irrelevant unless you say, "I think this is what he meant, and I think he'd have a clear scum/town motivation to express this." tl;dr, "views on who is scum/town" count, other stuff doesn't.

I don't think one should be THAT much objective with their views. I do agree, sometimes it's hard for myself to keep focused on the aspect of "why could it be scummy" and digress a little further, but it could be helpful later on and also serve as a footnote. (aka basis for some other case).

It's not about "the end of the day" I'm not sure where you're getting that.

Here's your quote: "

since day was nearly over

, weren't you worried that you'd be nightkilled and town would lose your point of view? "

You asked me "weren't you scared town would lose your point of view during the night?" for not posting my views on who was scum clearly. Some others were also guilty of this, yet you asked none of them.

You FoS'd razorback, I asked "aside from that, where ELSE have you expressed suspicion?" obviously it's not related.

"The points I brought up in my first post are much stronger now that you're attempting to say that you did think that razorback was scum, despite the closest thing in any of your posts

to that effect

(razorback being scum, as stated in this same sentence)

are your "FoS: Razorback". "
"Where else did you post that you thought

anyone was scum

on day 1?"
"

Aside from that

, where ELSE have you expressed suspicion?"

Bolded what's different since the previous one.
See how this sentence keeps changing each time I answer to it?

Nope, you don't have to, but using your vote is extremely protown for reasons I went into above.

Noted, and answered at the top.

Contrast saying "I'm not moving my Red Star vote" and quickly hammering razorback to "I'm going to vote you soon! Guys, is it OK if I hammer now?"

That's the difference between town (inconsistent, spazzy, attracting attention) and scum (avoiding attention, avoiding suspicion).

Being incosistent is town? O_o That's... something I can't believe in. Asking for permission to hammer isn't scummy, it's an act of civism. If people are still discussing something, taking away from them that privilege can even lead to losing their point of view since they might be nightkilled. (yes, I kinda stealed half of the word on this phrase from you)This is something I did - and you're accusing it of being scummy behaviour and avoiding suspicion?

So, my top 3 scum reads:
Excedrin - for seemingly changing words around, and apparent tunneling. Also he wasn't present during Day 1 which adds to the fact there is little information known about him.
Popsofctown - For reasons stated, for his general behaviour on Day 1, his hammer vote, and not much content. Still, countering this is that most of my reasoning and questions were answered by him, albeit not very sactisfatorly.
Horrordude - Not much content, and his behaviour at the end of Day 1 which didn't strike me right.

Is this good?

[Exilon]

I'm a little bit more interested with the fact you didn't try to comment on those suspicions. Any reason why you would do so?

[Exilon]

Is that so?

You seem very apologetic, but also "forgetting" stuff.

Seems like you're kinda giving up on this game. That's consistent with the fact you're the remaining scum. Also, your stand on Razorback from Day 1 only adds up to this.

Therefore,

Unvote

,

Vote: Popsofctown

[Exilon]

Now I'm way less convinced for him, but he did seem pretty quick to jump on the pops wagon right there. I mean, skert and I had expressed suspicion already, but we hadn't even voted.

You should remember I've been asking him stuff ever since Day 1 and never really got totally satisfied with it. His last post made me want to put some pressure, see if that helps with the "laziness". Also, what wagon? If there's no votes there is no wagon for me to jump aboard of.

[Exilon]

Congratulations, horror! That was a great performance =)

@Pops: What do you have to say about Skerterg's post, aka your top suspicion? Is there a reason why you aren't pressing Red Star for further information?

I'd personally like for Red Star to delve a little deeper in the game as well. His last two posts were to state he'd post his thoughts in a day (which never came) and to say he'll be V/LA.

[Exilon]

That's not what I mean XD You're voting Skerterg because of his vote, right?
What do you have to say about what he responded to that?

[Exilon]

Sorry, everyone. I'm going to be

V/LA'ish

until Monday afternoon. I will still be able to post, but not much.

Sekerterg brought up a very good case. I, for one, saw Kelikar and his posts as a newbie who was trying to pick up on something - but when put toghether, if he was indeed "coaching" Razorback, (being "smart") that isn't much consistent with his attacks which were a little poor. Even if I agree with you, I still believe Pops is more probably scum.

[Exilon]

EBWOP:

Also, KittyMo, wasn't Pops at L1?

Right. I got mixed up because I accidentally editted this vote count into the last one originally. :/ Thanks. ~KittyMo

[Exilon]

Ok, "quick" quotes here.

Yes, skerteg, I'll be gone for a while. I have an exam on Monday and I have to focus on it.. alot. So I won't be able to focus much on the game. Still:

Yeah, I would have to say my next suspicion would be Exilon. I explained why in my last or second last post, I think. After that... no real suspicions. Though, I would still keep an eye on Red Star.

After Pops, Kage's next suspicion is me. The explanation he mentions is, in fact, there; but it's interesting how I responded to it and it was never addressed after, yet it still stands to base Kagelord's suspicion. Are you trying to make it look like you've been paying atention and have solid stances?

(Exilon, don't think you're off the hook, consider this a temporary reprieve)

I don't know why this reads like "After Kagelord is dead, you're next", which seems to transpire with certainty of Kagelord's alignment (and mine.). And if that is so, why are you voting him? Also to note I can't find any reason for your vote in that post.

I'm tied in my suspicions for both Kagelord and Pops, for reasons stated. (Besides agreeing with Skert's case, although to a lesser degree, since I can see Kelikar, as Kagelord pointed out, a newbie trying hard to be helpful). Next is Excedrin and Horror - Horror on 372 did not comment about Kagelord's case, instead pursuing Skerterg for LACK of a case on him. Skerterg explains his reasons (which I find to be perfectly acceptable, agreeing with them or not), but the discussion continues. Besides...

Wouldn't you think ["dropping the case"] that was suspicious as well?

And why would it be suspicious? This question doesn't seem much relevant.

[Exilon]

Can't you at least sum it up?
Not that I don't believe you, but I'm kinda voting you :s

(My math exam got postponed to Thursday)

I didn't read into Red Star's case in detail, but Horror made his point knows and I do have to agree with him a little bit. Unless Red Star doesn't really understand the concept of Fluff, half or so of his ISO analysis doesn't really work. Besides that, he hasn't really been posting :s

[Exilon]

I'm still V/LA, so sorry if I can't be here much <<

I'm on Red Star's side here. Although some of the posts he labeled as "fluff" weren't really, I don't think he was trying to misrep. Instead, I think that he was just brushing over posts that he didn't feel were important. It...focuses the attack against the person in question. Although you can argue whether ignoring certain posts because they don't support your argument is bad or not, I don't think Red Star was intentionally manipulating words.

This.

Alhtough I wouldn't excuse Red Star so fast for calling some of Horror's points fluff, but I kinda believe that by "fluff" he meant they weren't important for his case. Still, a little bad usage for the word, in my opinion.

Excedrin gains some town points for his (slightly) contentful posts. Some good points addressed, but I don't really like his justification for only bringing up Skerterg's case now. Possibly it's only his playstyle, though.

@Excedrin: Was there anything else that kept you from saying what you thought about Skert's case?

Right now I'd prefer a Pops lynch over Horror, as I don't find him really scummy. Although his answers to Excedrin's case (or semi case) are lacking a little. Horror, would you elaborate?

My list, as of now, has Pops on top, Excedrin tied with KageLord, and Horror next.

[Exilon]

Yes exam is over - I'll just post this up (started this yesterday but didn't finish) real quick and will re-read when I can to make up my mind about Horror. Since there's two days to deadline, I should have my mind made up until tomorrow at most.

I just don't want this day to be wasted with a no-lynch.

I thought we had a majority on Pops. There's no danger of a no-lynch in this game, I even discussed this with Pops. I think enough times for you to know this.
Am I reading you wrong? :S

Why place Excedrin so highly on your scum list, Exilon? Personally, I believe that he has made some very good points. After I reread my imaginary scenario about the night kill, I found it to be pretty ludicrous. Also, his keeping silent on his views on my case is good, as it allows us to get a better reaction from KageLord. If Excedrin had said that my case was poor earlier, then KageLord would not feel as much pressure. Instead, he voted against KageLord to force him to defend himself. We can then use this information, as well as reactions from others (such as popsofctown's post 388, as Ex noted).

"high" is a relative term. XD He's one of the most suspicious, but when taking into account the "amount of suspicion", let's say, it ends up as not being that "massive" as it might seem at first glance. He's tied with Kage and I don't find Kagelord ALL that scummy, if that explains anything.

Other reasons that I have for ranking Excedrin that high:
- Tl;dr on my last post which contains big evidence of him flipping around his own words. It's one of the things that's bugging me most about Excedrin, so since he has admitted to that I'll just voice my wish for him to answer this:

"The points I brought up in my first post are much stronger now that you're attempting to say that you did think that razorback was scum, despite the closest thing in any of your posts

to that effect

(

razorback being scum, as stated in this same sentence

)are your "FoS: Razorback". "
"Where else did you post that you thought

anyone

was scum on day 1?"
"

Aside from that,

where ELSE have you expressed suspicion?"

Bolded what's different since the previous one.
See how this sentence keeps changing each time I answer to it?

[the sentences he wrote are all supposed to be the same as the first one (paraphrased or not). Still, they're not the same and don't even read the same idea.]

- I can't precisely pinpoint it, but he has accused me of a policy lynch and that was part of the discussion. Now he's being accused of following it and he retorts with "Aside from that, as I've said, it's not policy, you're scum. If I didn't think you were scum then it would be a policy lynch.", which I don't really like as the definition of "policy lynch". Policy lynch involves, on its own, reasons to lynch someone. This sentence reads as " you can't policy lynch scum" - yet he accused me of doing it with Razorback. Doesn't read right, in my opinion. :s

- As Horror pointed as well, he seems to be contradicting himself a little - first, he thinks I'm the only one capable of being scum because everyone else as strong town post. Votes for Horror to press him, also addressing that, even if he's town, he's a "liability", so to speak. Then I'm guessing that Horror's next answer completely turns Excedrin's view around as he starts seeing Horror as scum?

- I can easily see how Excedrin would say what he has been saying as scum, a little more easily than I can see other player's posting what they've been posting. For example, it starts by attacking me, after I defend myself, since no one is voting for me he changes his focus, comments on the Pop's wagon (without jumping on the wagon), then votes Kagelord in a post that I commented about (and got no answer to, although I know now what that vote came from)... The fact that he didn't immedeitly point out flaws in a "strong-town player" can be seen as scum hoping for a safe wagon with a secondary plan in case it doesn't go through... But this end up as being quite the null-tell. Maybe with more information (aka posts) it'll be easier to see.

So you can see my mind is a little split on Excedrin. I guess I can postpone him for now.

My vote is remaining on Pops until I read Horror a little better.

[Exilon]

This game will have 3 week deadlines. At deadline, the player (or No Lynch) with the most votes will be lynched. In the case of a tie, the tie breaker will be the player who has the first active vote on them. Should there be no active votes at deadline no one will be lynched.

This is the one you should be reading, Kagelord.
It was a little lazy of you to ask instead of search for the answer, Horror XD

[Exilon]

Horror, address ALL the points asked of you.
Excedrin, address ALL the points asked of you.

You're both missing something.
It would help alot into building my reads on you just enough for me to decide if I should move my vote or not.

Skerterg:

Also, a note: I'm pretty sure Excedrin was just pressuring you. Lots of his arguments did seem to contradict themselves; I'm sure even he will admit to it. Now, it may be because he was posting all his thoughts at once and didn't have time to reorganize them...

Does this make your view of Excedrin waver in any way? How can contradictions help to make a solid / consistent "case"? I do have an idea of why/how you'd say this, just want to see if it matches.

[Exilon]

That was... unexpected.
I didn't think Horror would die. I'm not too willing to go into nightkill analysis because it might be a little too much WIFOM, but I'm open for discussion. Skerterg?

Anyway, my top suspicions for now are Excedrin and Kagelord. For starters, Excedrin, would you answer my questions?

I feel that Red Star is indeed the Doc and that the remaining scum is doing a conscious effort to avoid his protection. Then again, fakeclaim is also a possibility - but it still seems unlinkely to me that Red Star is a fakeclaiming scum. The odds and the risk just don't fit. :s
Red Star should post way more, though. I want to hear from him, specially now that he's main target Day 2 isn't around anymore..

[Exilon]

Sorry for not posting yesterday. What I said still stands on my last post.

Cop claim / Doc thing, etc. : I also think the cop should claim. Although I don't really believe there is one at the moment (due to the nightkills being on people one could predict would not be protected), it'd surely help alot, specially if we can confirm a townie. At this point, any help one can get is good. Of course, it's also possible we HAVE a cop and that Red Star is lying. That'd actually be consistent with the nightkills (Red star covering up that fact). but assuming Red Star is fakeclaiming in a cop2maf setup, he'd still have to pretend he's the roleblocker, and then again the deaths don't make as much sense as before.

I don't know if it'll be relevant or not if the cop claims before or after Red star shows who he protected.

Exilon: What do you think about horror's death? I have my suspicions; I just want to compare them to yours. Also, between Excedrin and KageLord, who is your top choice and why?

Well, my top suspicion is still up, actually. On my first post of today I said what I thought about Horror's death - I couldn't make much of it, and what I can is a little fuzzy.

I tried to place myself on scum's shoes. Assuming that Red Star is Town, then one of the four of us is scum. Leafsnail was killed Day 1 and Horror Day 2.

The main road to analyze this would be to look at his suspicions:
Leafsnail was suspecting Skerterg (and the rest of the players in his suspicion are now dead.)
Horror suspected Kagelord and Excedrin.

Skert-mafia moves up a little. But now, there's also another way to look at this. An intentional frame. (That's what nightkill analysis text I read somewhere refers to as Level 2 Nightkill).
Assume Skerterg is town, and is protected during the night. Best course of action is to kill the only person that suspected him and use it as a starting argument to get him lynched.

The only person now that openly suspects Skerterg is Red Star... attacking the best town player while still mantaining the appearance that he is the doc is indeed mighty convenient, I'd say.

Now - why would skerterg kill Horror? We can assume that the first night he wanted to avoid suspicion and the second night was intentional framing. Kagelord is skert's top suspicion, that death would only add to the motives to lynch Kagelord. Problem with this is, there's already enough pressure on Kagelord, enough to get him lynched, (as much as I can see), and there's also Horror which is a good target. So it is inconsistent that Skerterg wouldn't kill me or Excedrin or even Red Star instead during the night.

Kagelord was the person who replaced Kelikar, and that happened on Day 2. therefore, if he's scum, then Kelikar would be the one killing Leafsnail. USing reasoning above, I don't know if Kelikar would pull killing Leafsnail to frame skerterg, but I can see Kagelord killing Horror, with a small "if". First, it avoids a suspicion on him - next, he can use WIFOM and say that he was the next in line for a lynch. But that doesn't make sense. He could just kill one of the remaining three, or even Red Star, and Horror would still have some pressure on him.

Finally, there's Excedrin. He's my top choice between him and Kagelord, for various reasons, including my suspicion on him from Day 2 (and part of the counter-argument I presented to his case that still stands), and both nightkills are consistent with him.

First, a quick ISO reveals right from the get go that Excedrin had known Leafsnail before this game; he was also the one that pointed that one of the reasons to kill Leafsnail could have been because "he was a good player" (correct me if I'm wrong). For Horror, it seems safe for him to kill him, even if it's his top suspicion - first, he doesn't have to bother pressuring any more, second - Kagelord is still a little hanging for a lynch, and he begins the day by pointing out Red Star. And if all else fails, there's still me, which is (still) in temporary reprieve.

I can expand upon Excedrin's suspicion if need be, as I believe I have some points against him.

[Exilon]

You should sleep and get back to it tomorrow D: sometimes gut feelings are bad <<

I don't know if that's enough to warrant a vote on Red Star, (I still believe he's the doc, after all) but... if he keeps answering the way he's been answering, then maybe lynching him won't be a bad idea.

Anyway, Excedrin, please comment this:

It's one of the things that's bugging me most about Excedrin, so since he has admitted to that I'll just voice my wish for him to answer this:

"The points I brought up in my first post are much stronger now that you're attempting to say that you did think that razorback was scum, despite the closest thing in any of your posts

to that effect

(

razorback being scum, as stated in this same sentence

)are your "FoS: Razorback". "
"Where else did you post that you thought

anyone

was scum on day 1?"
"

Aside from that,

where ELSE have you expressed suspicion?"

Bolded what's different since the previous one.
See how this sentence keeps changing each time I answer to it?

[the sentences he wrote are all supposed to be the same as the first one (paraphrased or not). Still, they're not the same and don't even read the same idea.]

It's like the third time I'm bringing it up and I never got an answer to it.

Also, thanks for correcting horror's suspicions. I assumed he was suspecting Kagelord from the quote you posted, but that effectively removes him.

I also thought you could also be framed, and that would give you town points, but that's WIFOM all around, as you said. If I summarize all the points that give me grounds to suspect you, NK analysis would be the weakest of them all.

*waits for people to post*
SPECIALLY RED STAR.

[Exilon]

I will answer your contentions in general, skerterg. I can go into specific points if needed, but for clarity's sake, it is better if I do so.

As for the first contention, and also the first part of your post:

Looking at Exilon in isolation, I saw attempts at teaching razorback.

Which was addressed by Excedrin right on the beginning of Day 2, and discussed in pretty much detail by me and him for a while. All of my defense is there, if you still want to pick up on it, grab quotes, and something new to add to the attack. also:

Also, it may just be me, but I felt razorback particularly responded quickly to you.

Razorback didn't answer quickly to me, or even if he did, he never addressed what I wanted him to address, so is that really motive for suspicion?
Worthy of note: I accused him of lying more than once and he never responded to it.

Your contention 2 is wrong.

Exilon had a motive in killing Leafsnail, who had stated, "Certainly, I find it interesting when someone accuses someone of being definate scum and yet holds the hammer off them." (his post 257; context is that Exilon had posted that he was ready to vote, in post 249).

"Certainly, I find it interesting when someone accuses someone of being definate scum and yet holds the hammer off them."

He wasn't talking about me, he was talking about Red Star. Check the context. I remember this sentence and at first also thought it was directed at me, but that wasn't the case. (As shown in your quote of me.)

Seems the reasoning is a bit wispy here. I read that Exilon is suggesting that Leafsnail could be razor's buddy, because he "does not even consider Razorback being town." This doesn't seem to be a substantial reason. Exilon also states that he never said razorback was obviously scum. Something doesn't feel right. Of course Exilon will respond that no, he wasn't sure. But before he was leading us all to believe that he had made up his decision to vote for razorback. I think Leafsnail was referring to the fact that if you decide that you will vote for razorback, then you should vote for him. Finally, the last portion is even crazier; is Exilon now suggesting a Red Star-Leafsnail scum team?

This is off. What happened for me to make that post is that I actually forgot Leafsnail had already stated who he was suspecting. I later ISO'd him and confirmed I was wrong - here:

(Iso post 26) Gah you're right sorry sorry sorry << I missed you were actually the very first vote. And it was a little late at night, so... Anyway, my point was that, if Razorback ends up flipping town, that's something worth looking at (he voting after what you said).

why would a Red Star-Leafsnail team be a crazy thing to consider?

Contention 3 is, of course, not very refutable. NK analysis is NK analysis, but if it serves as anything, I would have killed you Night 1 right off the bat. It would have given me some town points because you never suspected me Day 1 so I would have interest in keeping you alive. People could also just deduce you were killed because you were threatening.

Also, you never addressed why would I be interested in keeping Red Star alive. In fact, your paragraph supports that, were I scum, my life would have been easier had I killed him already.

However, I am alive and horror is dead. Now I want to talk a bit about horror. He was one of the three players who seemed to have the highest likelihood of being scum. Why in the world would scum choose to kill him? It only eliminates one option for the town to lynch and forces us to look at other options. I think that quite a few of us would have wanted to look at horror in depth and possibly lynch him. Therefore there must have been another motive in killing him. I can think of several. First, because he was highly suspected, he would have a much lower (I'd say negligible) chance of being chosen by the doctor. This would make it safe for mafia to kill him and assume that their murder will be accomplished successfully.

And this is exactly what I stated when I analyzed Horror's nightkill. so how does that translate into me being scum? That is a motive ANYONE could have had to kill Horror, not only me. So why should it be used as a viable argument into accusing me?
Furthermore, and I also know this is WIFOM (but to WIFOM attacks WIFOM defenses), but Kagelord would also be the optimal (better) target were I scum. First, Horror was being much more pressured, so there'd be an easier mislynch, two, me and Horror are Excedrin's main suspects. By killing Horror, I'm practically asking Excedrin to come after me instead. Three, I'd also be avoiding Red Star's protection!

He is specifically judging me to see if I would be willing to push Excedrin. Indeed, if I didn't say that my view would waver, then I would stand a much higher chance of being taken out, perhaps.

I wasn't. I saw something on Excedrin which I found to be suspicious, specially by placing myself on your shoes, "since we think alike", (remember how you stated this Day 1?). I tried to reason how you wouldn't see it as suspicious, and therefore asked the question to see if it was consistent by what I generally thought of you.

Exilon tries to piggy back/prod me to post at the very start of day 3; etc.

When your Nightkill analysis is full of WIFOM as mine was (and you read it), it doesn't really justify to go into in-depth if no one else is willing to participate. It happens that you and I were the only people Day 2 who tried to analyze the nightkill into great depth.

There are other times I feel he just agrees with me. At the beginning of the day, he said he suspected KageLord and Excedrin, both of whom I made seem like I suspected (I really did suspect KageLord, and I just made it seem like I suspect Excedrin). Note also that he thinks Red Star's claim is correct, like me. He also agreed with me when I made my case against pops, and KageLord. When I made that case against ahoda, he essentially mimicked me, except he actually voted.

what? I don't "just" agree with you, why are you trying to make me look like a parrot? I've been suspecting excedrin ever since Day 2, and I thorougly justified myself whenever prompted (And even when not prompted). How is that agreeing with you? I've been saying I believe Red Star's claim ever since the beginning of Day 2 and I also justified myself, how is that "just" agreeing with you? Also mind, Day 3 I immediatly stated what I felt about everyone wITHOUT "WAITING" to see your views and how they had changed overnight.
I didn't essentialy mimick you on Ahoda, that's being pretensious. I made up my own justification and I don't see there any stolen words, reasoning or anything of the such. I didn't vote because of you, I voted based on the confidence that Ahoda should be lynched.

How is that "just" agreeing with you? Only time I can say I essentially "just" agreed with you was on Kagelord, because I thought your case wasn't bad, but that didn't make him my top suspect.


@excedrin: I'll post my answer to you on a different post as soon as I get back. Also, to Red Star: why did you protect someone you are suspecting?

[Exilon]

Exilon, your question seems to be... "why are you explaining what you meant?" I'm not sure how to answer that. Communication happens based on meaning being translated into words. Then, when someone replies in a way that indicates they don't understand the meaning behind the words, words get rearranged and replaced with other words that attempt to convey the meaning in a more clear way.

Along those lines, you say that you think I'm scum, but you're not voting me. Is there any reason for that?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, I've said this before but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. There's no reason for anyone to be waiting for someone else to post. Go read the thread, find something that you have an opinion about and post it. If there's nothing in the thread that you have an opinion about then why are you playing? Be more proactive! This applies to everyone.

Ok, noted. My point is that you kept changing the initial sentence so your attack would still work on me; problem is, they aren't the same nor are they a rearrange of the sentence before it; they actually convey different ideas.

As for the vote... I forgot, actually. I sometimes start writing thinking "should I vote at the beginning or the end" and the end the post and it completely went past me.

vote: Excedrin

Fixed now xD

When I said *waits for people to answer* I wasn't being THAT literal. I posted my thoughts and there isn't much else I can say, so waiting for people to post is essentially expressing the wish to hear other people's thoughts.

[Exilon]

Yes, Skerterg, I read the whole post. If you feel I missed something you are free to point it out. I could have missed something but I tried to address everything as clearly as possible.

Do you mind restating some of the arguments you made in your defense? I only found one, and I included that in my SOAP.

I think that point pretty much sums up all the feelings and general behaviour I had towards Razorback pretty well. You didn't really break the argument down anyway (only the point that I wasn't the only one telling Razorback to be produtive - and the only reason I asked more than others was because he kept ignoring my request for him to show me he wasn't lying).

For clarity's sake, I think it suffices until more specific quotes are required.

Now, how can you be so sure that it was Red Star Leafsnail was talking about?

Because he said so?

What I am saying is that if anyone has razorback as scum they should go ahead and hammer him. We get more info about who's prepared to hammer who that way.

Red Star's reluctance to vote someone he had marked as guarenteed scum a few pages ago is very interesting, and he never gave an adequate answer why he unvoted his prime suspicion. And almost all his posts give off this strange active-lurkery feel.

This was after Red Star voted after that post you quoted from Leafsnail. He could have ben talking about me as well, but I had justified myself of why I was holding the hammer. Besides, I believe Red Star was much more certain that Razorback was scum than I was.

Also, you never addressed why would I be interested in keeping Red Star alive. In fact, your paragraph supports that, were I scum, my life would have been easier had I killed him already.

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I wrote this after I read the paragraph I mention on the second sentence and didn't rectify it once I read your comment about Red Star. It still stands that your paragraph supports Exilon-scum to kill him, even if he doesn't suspect me. Truth be told, there's also other people he doesn't really suspect.

There is a very good reason I feel that a Leafsnail-Red Star scum team would be improbable. Leafsnail stated that he did not believe razor and Red Star could both be scum. Red Star was indeed acting very suspiciously, as stated by me, Excedrin, and maybe some others. So if razor flipped town, then he would be forced to go after Red Star, the assumed scumbuddy. Doesn't seem right to me.

Yeah, improbable is the right word; not "crazy", as you said. And still, it wasn't inconceivable, SPECIALLY AT THE TIME OF THE QUOTE. A bus like that wouldn't be surprising, and I believe Leafsnail could even slip Red Star's fake suspicion under the rug if something more useful came up. Also, in one of his later quotes, he wavers a bit on his suspicion of Red Star. Do you still wanna call my thought then "crazy"?

[Exilon]

Sorry I'm kinda busy and therefore won't be able to post much.

because horrordude wasn't suspected as much as KageLord/Red Star previous day

I don't think I'd kill the easier mislynch target :s

Now Exilon specifically addresses razorback and basically tries to force him to post his case, from what I feel. Also to note: razorback posts shortly afterwards that huge block of Red Star quotes. I feel he is following Exilon's instructions--actually, he is following his instructions. Whether it's because they are scum buddies or because he actually listens for a change I don't know; I suspect it's the former.

If I remember correctly, I'd been asking for an earlier postof his where had made a case against Red Star. Yes, I did ask him to be productive (several times), just like I'd ask anyone who showed signs of disinterest, like Ahoda. I wasn't really the "only" guy he listened too. I just got the feeling Razorback was kind of a lost case, really. Still, no biggie in trying to make him post. If it wasn't a newbie game, I'd probably have another kind of behaviour.

Post 20: Read the post; I feel he is trying to defend razor while still seeming like he is attacking him. He starts "Suddenly Razorback is at L1, and, well... I can't say I don't agree with it" but then states Although his past experiences (meta) show that he hasn't indeed survived past day 2 (mostly because of policy lynches, which I don't really like; since they can take away from valuable discussion and give a great excuse for scum to not discuss and just lay low)" which is basically a defense of razor. He explains in his next paragraph that he doesn't think Razorback is overdefensive. There there is a bit of an attack on Red Star.

I was very indecisive about Razorback. For reasons stated: because of his meta, his overall playstyle, and because of people ganging up on him. He seemed like a very good mislynch target and although it'd probably be for the best if he was out the game (so, a policy lynch), it wouldn't be a very productive day. Specially when there are no associative tells to get from NKills.

About me being Mainstream... hum, I don't reallly agree with that. I do tend to comment on what's hapenning, but generally I'm not really that much of a follower. If you look at the people still alive, it's pretty impossible not to share your views with other players. Most of the time, only one or two will be different from everyone else's. the problem kinda seems that I usually post after someone has done so first. IS that what you mean?

[Exilon]

I'd say you, actually. It's been my initial suspicion and now my strongest one, and I don't think and Exilon lynch would be a good way to go. I've said eariler that I have several points about you, most if not all of them have been stated (and real life, joined with a little demotivation from low activity in the thread, has kept me from summing it all up in a single post).

No one has commented on my vote of you. I'd like to have people speaking up soon on this matter.

Problem is, if you're the one who's scum, then it seems fairly obvious you can get Skerterg to follow you into lynching Kagelord if by any chance you can't lynch Red Star instead (I'm believing Red Star will be killed tonight, if he's indeed the doc, furthering your "distancing"). Right now, I don't think town can afford a mislynch (specially not mine), as it'll leave very doubtful players remaining.

If Kagelord is town, then he can be a "easy" mislynch target. (Assuming the remaining players are you and skerterg, who seem to have town reads on each other.).

If it is the three of us, instead, then we can probably go all out without fear of a mislynch. I guess that what I'm suggesting is, if we have to choose a lynch just for a lynch, then Kagelord would be the best option. First, he has the motive for killing Horror, and lynching him would clear up any doubts we have about him. Or Skerterg as he is the best town player and it clears up many "doubts", besides making Red Star a useful doc by providing unclear protection during the night - which will most likely lead to his death, clearing up that he's the doc, or, in case he doesn't get killed, we get a confirmed townie.

What I'm getting at is - Let's lynch scum instead.
tl; dr: I didn't like your suggestion for the pure fact that you only want to lynch me to thin down numbers, at least from what's readable from your post.

I'd like to know, first - what is your impression of my defense from Skerterg? You fail to mention it in your "I want activity post" or how it affects your suspicions.

Though I do agree that this thread is awfully quiet.

[Exilon]

EDBWOP: s- I read your post a little too fast. My comment still stands - Red Star seems to be too much of a WIFOM weapon to make me a reliable lynch, specially since my main suspicion right now is you.

[Exilon]

skerterg mentioned the "Was I the only one who picked up on this and noticed Leafsnail does not even consider Razorback being town?" comment by Exilon. I think that scum often says stuff like this. It's similar to "... can never be sure, unless he/she is the cop." If someone pushes a case against town the reaction is typically "why?/you're wrong/idiot/that doesn't make sense" wheras "you can't know that I'm scum" is an extremely scummy reaction that never comes from town.

I agree with the part that the "you can't know I'm scum", on his own, gives a very bad vibe, but it's a normal answer I'd expect to hear from someone who's been accused of being "definite scum", for example, when the arguments supporting that are not enough.

1. What makes you think that with skerterg, Excedrin, and yourself, there will be no fear of a mislynch?

2. You acknowledge skerterg as the best town player but suggest him as a possible alternative "lynch just for a lynch"?

1. We go all out with theories without fear that scum is actually someone who's sitting a little back on the corner "unnoticed" because he can be an "easy" target for a mislynch.

2. That part of the post was a little "irony" (albeit a serious one). I wanted to show how "lynch for a lynch" would be a bad idea, and why.

What I'm saying is, it all depends according to the context. If I recall correctly, Leafsnail didn't even give Razor the benefit of the doubt, which is why I commented like that. It's also not the first time I defend using the argument "How can you be so sure?"

I'll get back to you all soon , and excedrin, I'll probably have that post (complete with links and everything =D) by tomorrow or Monday.

Also, great post by Damien. Welcome! =D
Quick question: Didn't you see any instances of Kelikar teaching Razorback as well, as Skerterg pointed in his Day 2 case? what is your opinion on them?

[Exilon]

EDBWOP: "What I'm saying is .... How can you be so sure"? paragraph was supposed to be before the kagelord's quote. Sorry, I'm in some hurry ^^;

[Exilon]

...but assuming Red Star is fakeclaiming in a cop2maf setup, he'd still have to pretend he's the roleblocker, and then again the deaths don't make as much sense as before.
This is weird, scumslip? Why would scum have to pretend to be anything other than townie (or doctor in Red Star's case)?

Assuming Red Star is fakeclaiming doc in that setup, that means the reamining scum has to be the roleblocker. Which means, if he's scum fakeclaiming doc, during the night he has to act like he's the roleblocker when in fact he isn't.

[Exilon]

I think KageLord would have a pretty high chance of being a mislynch target, or so it seemed at the time. KageLord was my top suspect, so if you were hoping that I would push for his lynch then you might keep horror alive. To note: I've got quite a few town reads on KageLord. So, I don't suspect him as much now. Ever since my SOAP analysis, he hasn't given much of a scum read. I think Exilon is just trying to extend his time alive.

So, to note: you don't think Kagelord is an easy mislynch target. and you're kinda going in circles here. Why aren't you considering the opposite as well, that Excedrin would have pushed for Horror's lynch? Because, at the time, it seemed fairly obvious Horror was having much more of the "spotlight" than Kagelord.
Also, why would me stating an opinion about my supposed nightkill = trying to stay alive?

I didn't mean "follower;" you can be mainstream without being a follower. For example, if you believe player1 is pushing for player2 lynch, then you can post a case against player2. Because you post analysis, that doesn't make you a follower. However, I can see scum doing this; not following but seeing where the town winds blow and adding analysis as necessary. Also, it's very true that some opinions will overlap, but I feel throughout the game that you had the most in general accordance with town feeling. Let's have a look at some major points (feel free to mention any I may have overlooked):

"ahoda affair": In general, I'd say more people were against him. Red Star,

horror

,

myself

, and you posted cases against him; I think kelikar was the only one (maybe there was another) who defended ahoda.

"pops L-1 vote": I think

horror

, kelikar, and Exilon accused pops, with

me

defending him. Horror started this, kelikar FOS'd, and Exilon backed up with a case.

"razorback attack": Red Star, Leafsnail,

horror

, kelikar, and Exilon were for razor lynch; razor,

myself

, and Excedrin were for Red Star lynch. pops had voted for Red Star but switched to razor to hammer, and Exilon stated that would vote for razor. However, I think Exilon was one of the later ones (which wouldn't be that bad just by itself) but even then still seemed wavering and criticized Red Star. (

of course I criticized Red Star, his play was scummy. I had been criticizing him, actually, even before you voted for him, IIRC. It started right before Ahoda's affair. What's the problem in doing so? Expressing my views is scummy?

"Exilon vs. Excedrin": Exilon and

horror

were against Excedrin, and Excedrin against Exilon. This felt more like a 1 vs. 1, with horror (and

others

) chiming in. Not too much to be gained from here just be looking at the sides.

This one actually works in my favor, so interesting you didn't mention it in this post, even using it as part of your final paragraph which is supposed to support the suspicion's of me? The town's wind WAS CLEARLY BLOWING in Excedrin's direction at the time and I followed suit. Right?

"Case against pops": Red Star,

me

, Exilon, and kelikar were against him, and Excedrin (and pops) defended.

This is more or less when Horror was V/LA, IIRC.

"KageLord":

I

started this, Exilon viewed him as scummy but kept vote on pops, pops viewed KageLord as scummy. Excedrin went along at first but revealed that he thought KageLord was town.

Where was Horror at this point? Oh, right.

"horrordude0215": Excedrin and

I

pressured him, horror defended, don't remember too much otherwise.

Well, that's that. I think Exilon

was present in each one of these except for maybe the last one. I don't see anyone else like that.

So me being an active player with original analysis and fresh perspectives on various subjects (except for Kagelord, due to a little period of "busy-ness"), be them attacking or not, makes me scum? This seems a bit of a reach.
You don't see anyone else like that? Check the underlined. Also to note that Horror didn't exactly post much in each of the cases. ... Oh, and he's dead now. He was also not really suspicious of me IIRC, which means he would have defended me. ...Oh, can this be.. a motive, I see?

Oh look, there's yet another player who was also present in ALL of them, except maybe for one, like me. ... so, all in all, three players in the same situation.
You seem to be reaching for a case.

Jeebuz, I've convinced myself pretty well. Let's lynch this remaining scum.

Obviously you have to convice yourself so your position looks genuine.


Re: Red Star's fakeclaim
I have to grab Skertereg's post for this as he pretty much covers up all possibilities.

By Skerterg:
"1. Red Star is VT and fake-claimed.
2. Red Star is doctor and damien is fake-claiming.
3. Red Star/damien is scum and damien is right now "correcting" a fake-claim. "


I agree with Excedrin that number 3 would be purely awesome.But basically, if Red Star was VT, then that means we're back to square zero and we have no idea of what setup we're in. So much for forced wins, eh Skerterg?
In onky one of those cases is Red Star scum (and it would awesome), so as Excedrin said, red Star leans town. However, that doesn't change much as it basically leans the same way Red Star claiming doc did (and which now disappeared). So he's at about the same position.
(I think there's also another thing that one can deduce but for convenience I won't talk about it yet).

Still: Why would 1 or 2 work? What motivation would lead Red Star/Damien to do so?

1- He wanted to avoid a NK on both the real doc (if there was one) and "protect" a strong player. By acting as bait, scum would feel inclined to kill him and therefore rid town of a player who had acted scummy, clearing his slot, and avoiding the death of Skerterg or me. This actually makes lots of sense and I'm inclined to believe in this one.

2- Why would Damien fakeclaim? Essentially, he could be scanning for useful reactions and making tonight's protection unclear so scum would feel inclined to leave him alive and possibly hitting his protection. However, this is a bit of WIFOM interlink with 3.


-------

If there is anything I didn't comment or forgot to adress, tell me.
@Excedrin: Hum... *notes*. Ok.

Quote/URL tag fixed. ~Kitty

[Exilon]

PS: There's also another possibility out of those 3 I just realized, but it just seems to out-of-this town to even consider.

[Exilon]

Skerterg's first post: You've pretty much convinced me that your town. Mainly because your arguements don't have any fallacies in them, and you seem pretty calm.
Scumdar rating:
2.5/10.

How does a person fall 5 points in a rating by answering calmly and having a unflawed argument? That doesn't really make sense.

Also...
So you were fakeclaiming and Red Star was always a doc? Hum, okay. There's not really much I can say other than what I stated (Excedrin's delayed post also reflected what I said earlier about "being able to deduce something else from the fakeclaim.").

Anyway, Damien, why did you 'ruin' your own plan? You could have checked the reactions and still kept quiet about it (even seeing as how there wasn't much suspicion on you, which could have made the gambit more succesful).

Was there any reaction you found useful? And if yes, why?



----

You missed my point. I was saying how you

seemed

to go along with what the majority of the town was feeling. In each of these, I specified what I felt was the majority town feeling; you are on its side

usually

.

No one else was except possibly horror.

Now, horror also was, but he's dead now

"USUALLY on the side of town" is where EVERYONE is, and is quite different from the initial "MOSTLY sided with town feeling so far". Also, you're forgetting someone that I also underlined, and that fits the requisites for your accusation. Care to check it?

And what's the issue here? Is it me not starting enough cases (which doesn't really make me scum - Excedrin also pointed that out Day 2), or just being everywhere "town is"? Either way I'd like to know how that makes me scum.

Otherwise, I probably would have called him out for it; in fact, I did during day 2. He moved his vote/suspicion around quite a bit, which I felt wasn't too good. However, there is a difference: horror initiated a lot. I didn't feel this was town at first, since it seemed like he was just trying to start a bandwagon on often questionable evidence, but I guess it is a town tell, at least for him (his style, perhaps?). Let's look at the events again:

It is a town tell for him to "initiate" something based on little stuff? Interesting of you to say that after he's dead while also adding "I guess".

For me, I always thought reaching for cases was a little scummy.

"ahoda affair": horror was the main fire starter here.

On something a little controversial, which evolved into something more productive, and who were those people who made it productive?

"pops L-1 vote": Again, horror was the first to place his vote here.

And I kept questioning him and calling him up for several things even after that argument had been dropped. Also to note the difference from my case to Horror's case.

"razorback attack": horror was one of the later votes. But so were you, Exilon. So mostly equal here.

And he posted his case (which was very elaborate) and attack on Razorback waaay before I did.

"Exilon vs. Excedrin": Even here, horror was the first to vote Excedrin, on the questionable basis of "misrepping." Your vote was second.

Yes, and Horror was also the one who attacked him first, or Fos'd him. /sarcasm. You're the one who's misrepping. And it wasn't questionable, later on I showed how Excedrin had some blatant misreps in his posts.

"Case against pops":

I don't think horror said much (he was V/LA). You did mention your suspicion throughout, I think; however IIRC it was after I posted a lot of my case against pops that you voted.

I vote on PS349, to apply pressure because Pops behaviour was consitent with him being scum with Razorback . Where was your case then? Before or after the Excedrin vs Exilon? Good to see the IIRC there, it's always a nice excuse to misrep stuff while still looking town. Does this also make me scummier than Horror, which is what you are trying to prove?

"KageLord": horror didn't really say anything about it, and I don't remember exactly what you did. Your suspicion increased, I think. Not too much of a difference between horror and you here.

Oh yeah, he INITIATED a lot, which is what you are trying to show.

"horror": horror voted against Excedrin. Again, I don't exactly remember what you stated.

Thanks for not remebering yet still accusing me on that basis. Oh, and by the way, who initiated here?

Overall, I'd say horror started more than you did.

Like I said, scum can easily offer fresh perspectives. I view this as neither a scum nor town tell.

There are other cases that I made against Exilon; this is just another argument.

"I have this other case / cases about him in case this one fails, just so you know. Reason I don't post it is 1: I want to make it look like it's significant when it is not, or 2) I'm lying, or 3) I recall some stuff which I can use but I have to go seasch for it and don't want to "waste" time."

Is how I am actually reading it. Or is there some reason I am not seeing, like "there's cooler stuff to look at right now, there, there, LOOK!"

-----

Re: Roles
I'm ok with massclaim or anything of the sort.

[Exilon]

Vanilla Townie here.
Excedrin, ACTIVATE!

[Exilon]

Sorry for my language; I'll be forceful if you want. You are ALWAYS on the side which the majority of the town is on, except for possibly one instance. (This is what I meant when I said usually).

Now THAT'S BETTER and gets your point across.

There is no one else like this. I don't know who you are implying. If it's horror, then I addressed it. If it's me, then you are totally not getting it:

Of course I'm not getting it. This is what you actually said, and which is different from what you initially said:

I think Exilon was

present in each one of these [instances] except for maybe the last one. I don't see anyone else like that.

I can be blamed for not getting the point, but only when the person has clearly expressed him/herself. In this case, not really.

Now I can finally see exactly what you're getting at.

And he posted his case (which was very elaborate) and attack on Razorback waaay before I did.

Precisely. Slip-up?

Hum, no. I was being sarcastic. I was the one who actually did post an elaborate case and attacked Razorback before Horror.

Also, out of context / selective quoting. Nice.

How am I misrepping. Horror did vote for him first. Your suspicion of Excedrin seems only to come from the fact that he was attacking you. As I stated before, I didn't feel that Excedrin was misrepping, definitely not intentionally; it was just debate to clarify meaning of writing and intentions.

I Fos'd him before Horror voted him. I would hope that counted for anything, even more because my suspicions were properly voiced. Although, you seem to be casting away my suspicions as invalid because Excedrin was attacking me. Not really the case - what I found scummy was the way he attacked me, there's a difference. Besides, Excedrin didn't have any other contribution to the game to analyze.

Oh yeah, he INITIATED a lot, which is what you are trying to show.

Clarify?

I'm being sarcastic again. Also, again out-of-context. I believe this quote was about Kagelord's case? Basically, I was commenting on the fact from your slew of cases that Horror didn't actually initiate THAT much, and when he did, it didn't really have much evidence. sure, starting cases off of nothing is great for presure, but it's usually more effective to do so with evidence.

Good point, I won't write IIRC in future games. 80% of the time I write it I usually check anyway. In this game, my posts 333 and 336 basically state that we should examine pops more in depth and provides reasons why. In these two posts were all the reasons for my suspicion of pops. Also in 333 is my scumlist with pops at top. horror never really had an opinion (which is scummy); however I think you two are tied here.

IIRC can be a little bad to use, yeah.

Your posts 333 and 336? Good lord, you're talking you're the one who defines the general "town feeling". That supposedly makes my vote on 349 based mainly on Pop's actions from

two or three posts before

placed after your case on Pops scummy?

Let me get this straight: your so-called "case", which wasn't really a case so-to-speak, placed before my argument with Excedrin, is a valid reason for my vote as scum siding with town, even though the reasoning wasn't the same?

Sorry, that does not make sense.

Um, by other stuff I mean my whole case against you--which I've already posted. This includes coaching razorback and defending him while still making it seem like he was your top suspect. Also, the night kill speculation. I've stated these already.

To which I've answered already. So there's really nothing new there.

Errr...while writing the second part, I forgot to come back and finish writing exactly why the razorback case was the most interesting. This should be fairly obvious; basically Exilon never voted. No one seems to mention his statement that he was "ready to vote." He never mentions who, and if need be I suspect he could have changed to Red Star at L-1 and say that "his statement was directed against Red Star" since Exilon did post a lot that indicated he was suspicious of Red Star. There's a bit of other stuff that I could include but it's late, and I'll do it upon request.

Hum... I said "I'm ready to vote" after something Razorback said, I believe. (It was for the dramatic effect, I know, stupid imagination ^^; ) I thought it was pretty obvious I was talking about Razorback. Even if it isn't obvious, rest assured I was indeed talking about Razorback. My suspicion was much stronger on him than Red Star.

[Exilon]

Exilon who's your 2nd choice if (since) you're wrong about me? I ask this because, despite being tired of this game, I'm not going to selfvote, therefore if we're* going to lynch someone, you need to compromise (or reevaluate, or whatever). On the other hand, if you can convince 2 others that I'm scum, that's fine, at least it won't be a mislynch in the final 3.

I don't know if people will feel inclined to vote you at this point. I have the general ideas of my case on you but I don't believe they can be strong enough to get any of the other three players to vote, specially because of the current discussion Anyway, the case is basically a summed up and reviewed version of what I've been calling you for so far, so there isn't really new stuff. Furthermore, your recent posting has dropped you a little on my suspicion list (this can also be due to Skerterg raising a little as well, but you're practically tied).

Right now? I REALLY need to reevaluate because I'm afraid Kagelord-scum is using this whole discussion as a way to stay in the shadows. In fact, I want more posting from him, so I'm going to ask

Kagelord, top suspects, and why? Who should be lynched today, and why?

.

At least Damien is town on my eyes, but that only clears one person.
So, in the end, and since you and Skert are my top suspects, if the need arises, I'd be willing to switch my vote to Skerterg.

[Exilon]

Sorry for taking a while.

By the way:

3. He was also silent during the portion where razorback went from L-4 to L-1.

Of course I was silent. I was sleeping.
How nice of you to use that as an argument that wasn't present in your other posts. (/Sarcasm)

Also, for what you said about "he said he was ready to hammer, but didn't express who":

I am willing and ready to hammer Razorback, and I think I made it clear why: it's not because of his playstyle, or that he doesn't write very well, but that he really didn't address anything of what I specifically asked him to answer (apart from one or two cases, IIRC, but even that was a little vague), and because I believed he lied.

And do you know of whom was the post preceeding that quote? Wanna take a guess?

• Exilon: Ready to vote for razorback.
  
  Exilon, before you vote for him, consider other people at first. Please give your views on them. It is easy to pick on someone who doesn't defend himself very well.

My point being: you're faulty of fabricating invalid arguments to support your case.

---

So here are the cases.

Excedrin:
- Motive to kill Horror and Leafsnail
- An instance of backpedaling
- Argumentative "flaws"

Motive of NK's:

Firstly, nightkills. I think it's been mentioned that Excedrin also had motives to kill Horror and Leafsnail.
First, he already knew Leafsnail from previous games, so he could probably believe Leafsnail would catch on to him in case he was scum. As for Horror, killing his top suspect seems like a good move to "avoid" suspicion the next day. Basics of basic here. That's why I don't think this is a viable road.

Suspicions

:
Excedrin was always very vocal about his suspicions. Day 1 he voiced some suspicion against me, Leafsnail

Excedrin vs Exilon

:
This is a very important moment and this is when I started suspecting Excedrin. Most of the time when people attack me I end up suspecting them, like someone pointed out, but the fact is that isn't exactly true. Most of the times, it's justified. As an example, I'd like to remind Day 1 when Skerterg accused me of something and then I defended myself without accusing him back or suspecting him.

I think the points that sum up what I found wrong in Excedrin's argument are all present in the discussion we had, and a quick rundown would be:
- Misrepping;
- Changing intention and meanings of questions / sentences from one post to the other, without making it clear, so as to support his argument;
-(weak point) Not answering the last post, following the new attention pursuing Pops.

Excedrin also leans a bit on Skerterg's attack on Kagelord and also picks up on Red Star's case against Horror. However, we get to know that the suspicion on Kagelord wasn't exactly "truthful".

Later, I get asked why I was placing Excedrin so high on my list. This quote still pretty much sums up my feelings on Excedrin:

- I can't precisely pinpoint it, but he has accused me of a policy lynch and that was part of the discussion. Now he's being accused of following it and he retorts with "Aside from that, as I've said, it's not policy, you're scum. If I didn't think you were scum then it would be a policy lynch.", which I don't really like as the definition of "policy lynch". Policy lynch involves, on its own, reasons to lynch someone. This sentence reads as " you can't policy lynch scum" - yet he accused me of doing it with Razorback. Doesn't read right, in my opinion. :s

- As Horror pointed as well, he seems to be contradicting himself a little - first, he thinks I'm the only one capable of being scum because everyone else as strong town post. Votes for Horror to press him, also addressing that, even if he's town, he's a "liability", so to speak. Then I'm guessing that Horror's next answer completely turns Excedrin's view around as he starts seeing Horror as scum?

- I can easily see how Excedrin would say what he has been saying as scum, a little more easily than I can see other player's posting what they've been posting. For example, it starts by attacking me, after I defend myself, since no one is voting for me he changes his focus, comments on the Pop's wagon (without jumping on the wagon), then votes Kagelord in a post that I commented about (and got no answer to, although I know now what that vote came from)... The fact that he didn't immedeitly point out flaws in a "strong-town player" can be seen as scum hoping for a safe wagon with a secondary plan in case it doesn't go through... But this end up as being quite the null-tell. Maybe with more information (aka posts) it'll be easier to see.

---

Skerterg:
- Motive to kill Horror and Leafsnail
- Cases with some "reached" arguments (exemplified by the first part of the post)
- Buddying with strong players and defending the lynchee while initiating cases against "not-so-present" players; also distancing from Razorback.

Nightkills

As stated, Leafsnail had shown suspicion of Skerterg and the doc's protection was unclear.
As for Horror, a quick ISO shows that Horror was wary / suspicious of Skerterg all through Day 1 and Day 2. (the opposite is also true). Also, he believed I was town. (I didn't go check this, so it's a IIRC here, although it doesn't matter much). Kagelord has shown suspicion of Skerterg as well Day 3, not as much as Horror though. So join that with Red Star's unclear protection and the fect that there'd be two players going for skerterg going into Day 3, and it becomes clear how Horror could be a good target for Skerterg.

Suspicions:

The most interesting and intriguing thing about Skerterg is that he never actually went after Excedrin or me, who could be seen as the other "good" players in the game. On the other hand, Skerterg appears to go after "not-so-present" players. My theory is that Skerterg tried to buddy up with "good" players (because those would be the most potential threats), while going for easier targets (preferrably "unattacked" ones, so he could be merited for being the first to do so). This can be proven by looking into interactions from early Day 1 (a great example is when Skerterg attacked me and then backed off by saying I answered pretty well; threading the waters right from Day 1)and Day 2, one of the most proeminent proofs of this being post 333, where he defends both me and Excedrin and then going after Pops.

Let's sum this up. Day 1 Skerterg essentially distances himself from Razorback, trying to defend him. On one of his posts day 2, he states that his initial plan was to keep his vote on Horror and change it at deadline to Red Star, for the sake of "voting one of the most suspicious". this is of course invalid. At the end of the day, the one with the first active vote is the one who gets lynched so there'd be no danger of this. Notice that Razorback got hammered prematurely, by Pops; which ruined the chance of Skerterg to switch his vote to Red Star, effectively lynching a townie (and if it were the doc, even better!). Also note who's the person that Skerterg goes after Day 2. Not Horror; Pops.

You know, there was something interesting which I remember to have read from Pops:

The town ought to be wary of concluding that the players who post massive posts are autotown. While such total material is correlated with a town alignment, the correlation isn't that strong. I specifically recall one game where one player posted large amounts of content, twice a day, and also broke the setup for everyone, causing one of his teammates to become lynched guaranteed, and everyone concluded he must be town and he won the game, last man standing.

On a little weaker point, there's also this:

I don't like this progression here at all. Skertberg policy votes Red Star for lurking. Another player, kelikar I think, points out that Kranix has zero activity and Red Star at least has a little, then Red Star gives excuses for his activity being low.

To which skerterg answered with this. Not a very good explanation, basically saying that Kranix wasn't voted (even though the actual fact for worry was that Kranix hadn't been addressed) because he was simply not active whilst Red Star could be pressured to post.

Anyway, both of these were posted on Day 1, both show how Pops could be wary of Skerterg. There was probably not much need to kill him Night 1 mainly because he wasn't very active and had something which could be used against him going into Day 2.

So the day basically starts with Excedrin vs Exilon, and Skerterg, when posting, actually goes after another player on post 333, Popsofctown...

A little while later, we also have this:

Two people have brought up my vote on horrordude0215 at the end of day 1. The simplest explanation is that he was the one I was most suspicious of at the time. However, I had already mentioned that since he would likely not be lynched, I would switch my vote to Red Star if necessary. By the deadline I would switch to Red Star, only for the sake of lynching someone suspicious, not the most suspicious (by my thoughts).

As of now, I am less suspicious of him,

because on further thought his vote on ahoda wasn't that suspicious.

Rather, it was the following people who voted for him who should be considered suspicious. Horrordude0215 just seemed to be looking for things to nitpick, confirmed by his vote for Excedrin.

In this same post, he also "buddies" a little with Excedrin, commenting with him about Pops. This could be seen as trying to gain his favor.

On 371, he shifts his atention again, this time to Kagelord. Justification: he "suddenly" thought of Kaglord and started to see "suspicions growing".

I planned to make it seem like I would vote for popsofctown, so that KageLord might feel inclined to vote for pops and allow me to hammer. When I said "my views suddenly change," in fact I was not referring to my views on popsofctown (which is relatively constant and backed by the majority opinion) but to my views on kelikar/KageLord. This was a target that no one else had thought of before. Could I really be correct? Was I just blinding myself? If, by the end of the night, I still felt that way, I would post. Indeed, with KageLord's vote on popsofctown I felt much confirmed and comfortable with my post.

Only scum would feel the need to "suddenly" shift a suspicion like that. For once, this avoids attention from oneself (making town have two targets), buddies with those who are supportive of him, lays some groundwork, and furthermore, if he thought Pops was the remaining scum, why would he feel the need to look up Kagelord instead? At this point, there's also Horror's attack on skerterg, and at one point skerterg answers with this:

First, to horrordude0215: the only thing you commented on about my long post (which really was only meant to deal with KageLord) was about my views on you (refer back to your post; I don't even see the word kelikar or KageLord in there!). I think I already gave my reasoning in an earlier post, and in my long post (if you read it) I mentioned I found nothing really that would tie you to razorback. It's like going to an airport to buy food; clearly that's not the main purpose of the airport. If you had commented more about my entire post instead of a very small, insignificant portion, then I would much less suspicious about your motives; the fact that you only talked about yourself didn't feel right to me.

He dismisses Horror's suspicion and then actually casts some shadow on him, because he did not "comment Kagelord's case". If there's only one scum left, having three suspicions without "sorting" them is something that seems a bit wrong. On 388 Pops votes for Kagelord supporting Skerterg's case. He doesn't seem wary of Skerterg anymore, and Skerterg doesn't really show any more concern for him, instead focusing on Kagelord. Then Red Star pops up and posts a case on Horror, which Excedrin picks up on evolves, while at the same time breaking Skerterg's case on Kagelord apart. And Skerterg eventually follows suit.

427 gives us more of what we've been getting so far, with a nice referal to Pops as an ideal policy lynch. No comment on Kagelord.

Later, he also asks me why is Excedrin so high on my list. Today, skerterg has revealed that this question was in fact part of a plan to see how much I was leaning on skerterg. But I think this is a bit of an excuse. If one looks carefully, he doesn't make much mention of it, and I responded to him in a way that wasn't buddying at all, destroying his argument that part of my suspicion on Excedrin was fueled because he also showed that suspicion.

On 442, we have Skerterg's "closing views" post. He makes a top-THREE suspect list (in a one-scum game)(which intererstingly are on horror, pops, and kagelord) and mentions that Pops isn't that suspicious at all. Still, he supports a lynch on Pops because he hasn't been very useful. The discussion continues and it seems people are more leaning to lynch Horror, which is more suspicious BUT!...

Wait, hasn't the deadline already passed?

I also think this is quite bit of evidence against Skerterg.

---

I was pretty surprised by the amount of things I started finding about Skerterg that made him seem very scummy. That said, my suspicion on Skerterg has grown and he is now my top suspect.

And I just noticed the deadline is tomorrow, and I thought we still had one week! Oh :s sorry, one of my other games has the other deadline.
That said, I don't want Damien to get lynched because I really believe he is the doctor (simply put, nothing can convince me that he'd be so crazy as to fakeclaim Day 1 after having that discussion with his scum partner).

For now,

Vote: Skerterg

and I'll also be looking closely at the thread.

[Exilon]

^same as above.

If Damien is scum, he could easily no-NK to fake a protection.
Specially since everyone else posted, I'm refraining from commenting any further until Damien posts.

[Exilon]

Ok, so Damien really needs to post.

[Exilon]

prod damien

--'
Thanks =)

Damien has been prodded. ~Kitty

[Exilon]

Hi Zach! =)
Since you're a replacement, what are your thoughts on the game so far?
That aside, if doc's action timed out, then either he's faking it or mafia was trying to pull something out of his sleeves. In what situations would mafia no kill (assming he's not Zach)? Either he timed out, or he tried to make it look like he was protected. In any case, we're left with epic WIFOM. Not really helpful.
VOTE: Nolynch

[Exilon]

You didn't read the game during the night? << If you were indeed the doc why would you random protect going into Lylo? <<
Kagelord: Why didn't you give Zach time to read the thread and hammer immediatly?

[Exilon]

Setup 4. 1 roleblocker, 1 goon, 7 townies

(Fear of cop+doc setup is invalid as a scumtell because Redstar scum would lose immediately if that setup was true regardless of whether or not he discovered the identity of the cop.)

From the vanilla townie perspective, only the bottom two setups can be true at this point. Red Star scum automatically loses if setup 3 is true, and only has a hope for victory if setup 4 is true. (Since we already know setup 2 cannot be true, there's nothing for him to gain as scum by rolefishing for a cop.)

If possible, I'd like you to please explain this a bit better. More specifically the bolded part - what does it have to do with Setup 4? One possibility that came to me to what you said (rolefishing for a cop is invalid) is that, like Damien, he could make a "role correction" and say he was actually a Vanilla Townie and that he pretended to be the doctor to net the kill on a 'scummy' player. So, even if the conditions on which the claim was done are overly incompatible with Red Star-scum, the overall scummy actions of both slot's players aren't really helping. For now, zach, would you finish reading the other days and telling us who you think is scum, (And is not scum) and why? Then we can work from there.

[Exilon]

I'm a little busy right now, so I can't post but I will do so as soon as possible, just passing by to say that. Sorry, but keep going.
Also, let me say this since I want to see your answers on this: I think Zach is scum. Discuss.

[Exilon]

Actually, it was a trap to see how Kgelord would react. I still and always retained that it would be practically impossible for Red Star to be scum, and even if he was, I'd be happy to lose to him. But since you voted, I guess we can just end this, right here.

VOTE: Kagelord

[Exilon]

[redacted]

[Exilon]

I'm not scum. <<
Suddenly, I'm totally interested in the outcome of this game and totally unsure of it.

[Exilon]

XD Great game everyone, I really had lots of fun. Day 3 was a major turning point for me, as I really thought I'd finally hit the noose.

Attacking Razorback, (and defending that attack) I confess, was very hard for me to do. I had to try and make it look like I was obviously unsure of what would happen, and try to emulate my town behaviour in that situation as best as I could (which is hard to do when what you really want is just lynch the guy and get it over with, specially because his grammar and meta are just awful). It seemed to work pretty well as Zach pegged me as town, which was all I wanted to jump on Kagelord.

My main objective, create confusion and chaos within the town, was achieved pretty well- I was able to slip through everyone's suspicions. I was able to defend myself from Excedrin's attack Day 2 which I think helped me gain a bit of town cred, and shift the attention to other players. Pops wasn't a hard target to get lynched, because he wasn't playing much and he was also totally off-track. Day 3 I kept with my initial suspicions and kept being a little passive, since I knew Skerterg and Excedrin would be taking the lead. Skerterg attacked me and I was able to defend myself (truth be told, when I made that case against him I was astonished by the amount of juicy stuff I could use against him). Getting him lynched was like tasty strawberries, although I really liked Skerterg.

When Red Star claimed Doc day 1, I didn't totally believe him, but just in case, I decided to kill Leafsnail because he seemed a very strong player which hadn't really shined yet. I also tried to avoid players who were suspecting me (which is why I didn't kill Excedrin Night 1, even though I felt a very dangerous vibe from him.) and that would leave town with lots of options to consider in case of NK analysis, further confusing the town. I tried to make it look like evryone could have a motive for the kill. Also, I left the doctor alive for obvious reasons: first, he had tried to protect me Night 1, which made me come up with the idea of faking a succesful protection (preferably on me). However, that was hard to do since Excedrin and Skerterg were on the game, so I decided to pursue that plan once Skerterg was lynched. I was confident Damien would protect me and I'd gain town cred, but then he just flaked the game and my plan was just devastated. Still, I was able to use the WIFOM to kill without worries (there would be no way of knowing if scum had no-killed or failed the kill). I decided to kill Excedrin because leaving him alive would be bothersome, and killing the doctor would make it too easy for Kagelord to peg me as scum, and in whom I was trying to subtely cast suspicion on ever since Skerterg's case day 2.

Also, I never really lied about my suspicions, and wasn't really noticing I was going along with the town vibe, as Skerterg pointed out. I did lie about Skerterg Day 3, just to get him lynched, but was able to make it sound genuine. I also possibly ommited some stuff I would have liked to say here and there, but that's what scum does xD

Well, I'm not really a great person for feedback, but:

- Skerterg : you're a great player and your reasoning is pretty good, but sometimes overdoing it didn't really help you. You also got a little unlucky when Kagelord suspected you, which was the catalyst for your lynch. (also your attack on me backfired xD)

- Excedrin: You're also a great player (and a more experienced one), but sometimes you make some faulty arguments which don't really work in your favour (the way I see it). Also giving me that "reprieve" and then never getting back up on it was something I never truly understood.

- Kagelord: Gah, sorry, Kagelord, I kinda used you. xD Anyway, I can't say more than Kitty. I think you have a good thought process and with experience you'll make a great player =)

- Red Star : Don't claim doc day 1. It's bad for town and it possibly won't get you nightkilled in case you're a VT. When you claimed doc Day 1 you saved me all the work I would have had finding the doctor. Good job on Razor, though.

- Zach: Too anxious for an endgame. That vote on the end just made my day. Although if I were in your position, I'd do the same thing; but I would have waited a bit for Kagelord.

- Horror: You're also a good player and should become even better with more experience There's really not much I can tell you other than work on making cases.

- Pops: Awwww I was sad you kinda gave up <<
- Leafsnail: Well, you didn't play enough, but you are a VERY good player from what I was able to see, so there's nothing I can say. (just "phew").

- Razorback: You definetly need to work on your grammar, reasoning, defense, and writing abilities. Otherwise you'll NEVER survive.

- KittyMo and Nik: <3 BTW, what was that post about "if you saw something game disrupting, tell me" - I didn't get it xD

I don't know if I've missed someone or not, so hum yeah.
Thanks again and for further information and dramatic effects check the scum QT.
(also thanks for those who liked the flavour (SKERTERG! =D), I had a blast writing it :3)

DEAD QUICKTOPIC OMG XD