Newbie 940 - Game over

[AurorusVox]

Hello, this is my second game, and I look forwards to playing with you all >:D

Vote: [no]

because I like the square brackets and I think it will cloud my judgement later in the game

[AurorusVox]

Can someone please clarify something for me? Does "5 to lynch" mean we

have

to get five votes on someone to lynch them? Or is it just the number of votes that

guarantees

that someone gets lynched? I.e. can someone be lynched with the highest number of votes, even if its not >50%?

Answer is in the rules post:

# A simple majority of all living members must agree on one person for a Lynch to occur (simple majority = ½ # of living players +1, rounded down).

This means that for Day 1 you need 5 votes on one person to lynch them.

# At deadline, ½ the original number of votes will be required for a lynch. In the case of a tie, the person who first received the required number of votes will be lynched. If this number is not met, a No Lynch will occur. There will be no reduced number of votes in LyLo.

If the deadline rolls around and no one has 5 votes, you only need 3 votes. If two or more people have 3 votes, the first person to 3 gets the noose. If no one has 3 votes, a No Lynch occurs.

[AurorusVox]

Besides, what do you think about someone that votes just because the name of the other?

I was under the impression that this was the Random Voting Stage. Surely I don't need real reasons for voting someone at this point? >_>

[AurorusVox]

I have to learn to stop answering questions aimed at other people. I did that at the start of my previous game too

[AurorusVox]

You don't need "real reasons" but your reasons are real (if you catch the difference) and I am content to hold you to what you said. Are you suggesting we shouldn't hold players accountable for what they say?

No, of course not. Players should always be held accountable for what they say. You can still hold me to my statement that I like the punctuation, namely the square brackets "[" and "]", for as long as you like. I prefer BB code to HTML for this very reason.

[AurorusVox]

I am holding you to the implied statement that you believe you should lynch players whom you might look positively upon for reasons other then their actions. Clearly you prefer certain punctuation - do you also perhaps prefer certain avatar types, or maybe certain font color?

I am an Aquarius, my favourite colour is currently orange, and I like romantic walks on the beach.

Do you believe you will have difficulty lynching someone if they have certain traits you enjoy even though they are the more obvious scummy player?

The fact that I said it "might cloud my judgement" was intended as a joke, as evidenced by the " " emoticon that I inserted following this statement. If you wish to take the message as a whole, please take it as a

whole

whole.

If not, why vote [no] over it? If so, I think the rest of the players ought to know about this difficulty of yours.

It is not so, I will have no difficulty in voting someone who is scummy just because they use punctuation marks like [square brackets].

Since we're dealing with the "If not" segment, I'll say this: because we're at the random vote stage. It was a random vote. I wanted to flower it up a bit, and so I inserted some light-hearted banter into the mix. It has stimulated discussion, so I am glad that I did it.

What is your read of Pulindar hopping in to defend you from answering a question meant for someone else? Clearly since you apologized for it you accept answering other people's questions to be at least scummy or improper on some level. Do you think he was defending you to get you to like him more, or to attack Die's in an off-hand manner, or to simply be a player who is offering his read on the scumtell?

Pulindar said it was his opinion that answering other peoples' questions was not necessarily a bad thing and it is my read that he is entitled to his opinion. You have set out some good arguments for why this is not how you view it (I am referring to your post prior to this one). I must say that I agree with what you are saying to an extent (but more on that below).

As for Pulindar trying to buddy up to me, I don't think this is the case. In all honesty I think that since he is an SE, he was giving us an example that not everyone has to think the same.

Do you still believe answering others' questions is bad for town?

I think anything that gives us information or a read on scum is good for the town. The answer in itself is problematic for the town, because, like you said, it stops the person to whom the question was addressed from giving an original answer. However, problematic does not mean the same as unhelpful. The context in which the answer was given, and who jumps in front of what sort of question, is surely rich in information that will give us more to analyse.

[AurorusVox]

You have set out some good arguments for why this is not how you view it (I am referring to your post prior to this one).

should have read: (I am referring to your post prior to this one [that I am quoting])

[AurorusVox]

"Die Prediger" is at L-1 now, right? This is an unnerving situation, made even more unnerving by the fact that [no] hasn't even given the illusion of (even a random) reason...

Should someone take their vote off him just in case he's a townie and the mafia quick-hammers on him?

[AurorusVox]

Should someone take their vote off him just in case he's a townie and the mafia quick-hammers on him?

Right, why didnt you?[/quote]

Because I haven't voted for you. So it would be hard for me to retract a vote on you that I haven't placed...

Both Mafia had already voted in me, so they couldnt give the final vote? And not giving it, assuming the one that could've give it was the mafia???

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here...

[AurorusVox]

^

Sorry that my quote stack above is all messed up...the first quoted text is from me, the one next to [/quote] is from Preacher Man (Die Prediger)

[AurorusVox]

Why do you think [no] didn't even give an "illusion of a reason?" He stated what he voted Die over - what makes you feel that doesn't even count as an RVS vote?

Eh, I'll withdraw this - he clarified after you had asked him to clarify. I blame Vel-Rahn because he's not likely to defend himself.

I'll rephrase the question to asking you to offer your opinions of [no]'s stated logic now that you've heard it.

In general, I have no problem with someone voting for the person who has given the biggest scumtell in their opinion. My issue was with him putting someone to L-1 so soon.

As for the reason itself, I personally don't think that someone wanting to avoid L-3 is the biggest problem in the world. I also don't quite see the logic in the scum having to be one of those already voted for...all in all, I find his reasons unconvincing, and they're definitely not good enough in my opinion to warrant putting someone one vote away from a lynch.

[AurorusVox]

Both Mafia had already voted in me, so they couldnt give the final vote? And not giving it, assuming the one that could've give it was the mafia???

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here...

he's asking if you thought of the four people on him two were mafia.

Die Prediger probably (though I won't say for sure) thought your vote was on him.

I have no idea if one, two, or even none of the mafia, were members of the "four votes on the Preacher" brigade. What I do know is that I didn't like the fact that he was L-1 with the

possibility

of a mafia not being part of the vote. I mean, there are some people who haven't even had the chance to post yet.

[AurorusVox]

Jerako, I'm a he, but I find it funny when people call me a she. I don't know why, but it happens a lot on mafia ._."

I won't answer the question about "my" last game since you were there too ^^

[AurorusVox]

Thor actually unvoted first...

[AurorusVox]

Jerako, I'm a he, but I find it funny when people call me a she. I don't know why, but it happens a lot on mafia ._."

I won't answer the question about "my" last game since you were there too ^^

Hey AV!

We werent there. Would you mind to tell us about it?

Our game got ruined by a replacement-newbie vanilla townie fake-claiming a guilty report on another vanilla-townie on D2 (turned out there were no PRs). The next day we lynched the fake cop claim, and it was gg mafia.

I had suspected one of the mafia. The other was Jerako, who I hadn't suspected. So I feel like I had a good game, though it was cut short.

[AurorusVox]

[joke]FoS Nacho for having a nice avatar[/joke]

So we're just waiting on HipHop to speak up now, eh?

Thor, I get that [no] might just be a new player, and not have realised he was putting someone at L-1 and not realised that he needed to give his reasons for his vote.

Except...well, I'm not getting a totally newbie vibe from [no] - after all, he said that he's "played elsewhere, though this is his first time on this site" (I paraphrased). His posts seem more intelligent/knowledgeable of the game than his first actions do...

How far does someone's "newbie" status affect your interaction with them in this game? By interaction, I mean not only your direct and indirect conversational interaction with them, but also your willingness to suspect them and so on.

[AurorusVox]

Pulindar, care to explain your reasons for your vote? I called [no] out on voting without saying anything, so it would be hypocritical of me to not extend you the same courtesy.

If you disagree with me, please provide the posts [no] has made that suggests his knowledgable status about Mafia.

That isn't a retraction of my weak FoS. I'm wondering why he thought it was suspicious to answer a question intended for someone else. It seems it was a lame attempt to get people to jump on that bandwagon.

I'm basing my read of him as having

more experience than a newbie who would make mistakes like he has done

from his use of terminology; I paid particular attention to the fact that he has said "weak FoS" instead of just simply "FoS", which indicates at least some degree of competence and experience with the game.

I'm not saying he's not a newbie, but I don't think he's newbie

enough

to legitimately make a mistake like putting someone at L-1 so soon into the game, especially considering the experience he

does

have is from another forum (my personal experience of forum mafia is that things go a lot slower in that format than in chat or real-time, for example).

My reasons are therefore twofold, taking some evidence from his own post, and some evidence from my own interaction with forum mafia. That said, I do get your point about not knowing how mafia is played on the specific forum he has had experience with, and this is a point which I happily and readily concede.

[AurorusVox]

here's the link to day one. my previous name was "0x00000" and then i had a mod change it to "kalii", which is shown i think in day 3 or something in the quotes

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=24351

Okay, with this, I retract my FoS and my vote. I see that the style you had experience with was vastly different from what I had expected, and can forgive you for voting in the style that you did.

Unvote [no]

[AurorusVox]

i think it can be a bad idea especially since not everyone has posted, the game hasn't been on for very long, and a quicklynch is simply unnecessary since there isn't much of a time limit

...so why exactly did you vote for the Preacherman then, if by your own admission, quicklynches are bad? O_O"

[AurorusVox]

Okay, so, at first, you didn't think quicklynches were bad, but now you do. I get it what you're saying now ^^

[AurorusVox]

Pulindar, care to explain your reasons for your vote? I called [no] out on voting without saying anything, so it would be hypocritical of me to not extend you the same courtesy.

^my question still stands (it was about your vote on Jerako)

Also, don't you have to unvote before you can place a new vote...? In our previous game, there was quite a big deal made of the fact that someone didn't unvote properly before they voted someone else...O_O"

[AurorusVox]

Ugh, so many slight deviations on the rules with different mods Sorrrry >_<

Ok, but I'm watching you, super-owl.

[AurorusVox]

Nacho: You asked who my FoS currently lies on a fair few posts back, but it seems a lot was said whilst I was sleeping so sorry that this is coming late...

At the moment, I'm going through a process of elimination. I'm not entirely convinced that any one person is scum just yet. But there are a number of people that I think are town.

As for FoSes in this sense, I have a few, because some people I'm finding hard to read/don't know quite how to treat them. I have a very low-level scum read on the following person, so I'll vote for him and see what happens ^^

Vote: silverbullet999

[AurorusVox]

I was the one that started the [no] wagon as a RV, and have since jumped off of it. I've been convinced by the arguments going on around here that he is making newbie mistakes, and moreover, since looking at his previous experience with mafia, I'm not even sure that they can be considered "mistakes", but rather a misunderstanding. Like you, I'd rather get more of a read on him through the "newbie-cloud" than lynch him right now.

My second FoS along with silverbullet999 is indeed the Preacher. But I want to try to get more of a read on sb999 before putting a vote on DP, since DP's in a situation where he could get lynched pretty soon, and even sooner if I vote for him. Something about sb999 seems off to me, but I can't quite put my finger on it yet. And when the time comes, if I want to, I can always change by vote to DP. In effect, I'm watching the Preacher bandwagon, but I'm not yet ready to hitch a ride on it.

[AurorusVox]

I think your FoSes and setting up of lynches (through your "If x, then y" statements) is a little scummy. It's what is putting a thorn in my side with you. Can you tell me what your opinion is on setting up lynches and what drawbacks you see with setting up multiple FoSes?

[AurorusVox]

EBWOP: I should have added that I don't find lighthearted joking scummy at all, so that isn't what's giving me a problem. Though, perhaps, the joking is helping you to maintain a middle-ground. Doesn't look like you want to make a stand; this is bolstered by the fact that you've given FoSes in pairs. Do you think this is a fair criticism?

[AurorusVox]

Unvote

I'm satisfied with silverbullet999's responses to my vote and question


In other news, Jerako is building a very good case against [no], but I'm finding it hard to distinguish between a newbie scum contradicting himself, and a newbie townie contradicting himself.

This is partly complicated by my prior experience with the game, where the two most suspicious players (in a cruel twist of fate, one actually replaced the other) had simply been newbies making horrendous mistakes, whilst the (newbie) mafia had

not

been overtly suspicious...

Preacher, what's your read on [no] at the moment? If I were to vote [no] now and put him at L-1, would you still keep your vote on him? What do you make of Jerako and his case?

[no], likewise, what's your read on the Preacher? Is there a particular reason that you haven't voted for him? Who do you think Nachomamma is going to vote for?

[AurorusVox]

Oh [no]! How comes? Did he decide he didn't want to play any more or is it the intervention of IRL issues?

[AurorusVox]

I dunno, my gut instinct was that SB was trying to sit on the fence (=scum tell), but I kinda think there's a little leeway - his responses seem like he's showing that he's willing to learn to be more aggressive, and I see him more as being newbie-town than newbie-scum. If we (and in particular, Thor)* are allowing [no] the space to be a newb, to not rush to confuse newbie-ness and scumminess, I think that the same could be said of SB. I do think he responded to my questions, and Thor's, in a good manner...and I'm not even sure he's been sitting on the fence so much the last few posts.

So

, I like the pressure on him, but it's coming across as townie-under-pressure to me.

*Thor - it seems you think that SB is giving you scum-tells than a newb-tells; what has he done, that [no] hasn't, to convince you of this?


In other news, I'm quite upset that my questions for [no] are not going to be answered by him; and that my questions for the preacher have gone unanswered still

--------as for the replacement debate...I think its a null-tell. In my last game, we had three replacements, one mafia, two town...its an irritating situation when one of them is the player under pressure, but we'll have to see through that :\

[AurorusVox]

Preacher, can you also try to answer my questions in your next post? The questions are in post 171 ^^

[AurorusVox]

This sudden outburst of CAPITAL ANGER is uncalled for, and I can certainly see why Thor thinks it's false. It really looks like someone's doing a bit of acting there. Notice how earlier he asked if cussing/getting angry was allowed --- and then, out of the blue, gets really angry...

The reason I was leaning to you being townie, SB, was your calm and mature responses to the questions - "I'm happy to answer any questions you have, whatever will help clear anything up about me" - even when you were pressed by Thor, you maintained this reaction. But...wow...that changed pretty dramatically, eh?

Sauron, hi, nice to have you here; when you're back for your larger post, do you think you could try to answer the questions I asked of [no] to the best of your ability, i.e. in ways in which are still relevant to you? If you'd like me to reformulate them specifically for you, I'm happy to do so

Also, Pulindar, I feel like I want to ask you a question. What do you make of hiphop's two posts so far and their capacity to stir up virulent responses?

[AurorusVox]

[useless post] *gives cookie*

I also want a cookie [/useless post]

[AurorusVox]

SB, either you anger was legitimate, or it was put on (=a method of scumhunting). I don't think you can say its authentic, and also say there was a purpose to it.

[AurorusVox]

I'm satisfied with silverbullet999's responses to my vote and question Wink

1.) What makes you so satisfied?

I would not necessarily be so satisfied were I in your position, though I suppose I might be...

At first, he had responded coolly, saying he would gladly answer my questions. He had then provided answers to my questions. At first I was suspicious because I thought he was sitting on the fence; but he has often said "These are my FoSes" so I don't think he has

really

been sitting on the fence. That said, his reasons aren't the most solid, but I still think he's been forthright about them.

This feeling increased with his back-and-forth with Thor. However, his overreaction to HipH0p looks scummy to me.

In other news, Jerako is building a very good case against [no], but I'm finding it hard to distinguish between a newbie scum contradicting himself, and a newbie townie contradicting himself.

Good point! I also like how you have questions to ask, yet I find it disturbing that you ask nothing of Jerako. That reminds me that you also protected Jerako earlier in the day...

2.) Why, when you are not certain of the case, do you not ask Jerako any questions?
3.) why did you not press Jerako about the possibility of pushing against newbie town.

2) I had nothing to ask Jerako at that point. He's provided reasons for much of what he has said.

3) I am more interested on Thor's interactions with newbies, since he has said that it affects his reads 100%. Since Jerako is himself a new player, I don't find him pushing on other new players is problematic.

Oh [no]! How comes? Did he decide he didn't want to play any more or is it the intervention of IRL issues?

hehe I enjoyed the pun. [/area]

Thanks B)

And now, could you answer the question that I asked of you too?

[AurorusVox]

Okay, so...no one has been pushing on Jerako that much at all.

So, Jerako...

Pulindar asked me why I hadn't asked you this before, and I don't necessarily think it was a pertinent question to ask at the time. But I want to ask it now. How do you react to the fact that [no] was possible one of the most "newbie"-locked player we've got in the group? Do you think I, or anyone else, should have asked this sooner?

Do you think that SB is also scummy for his contradictions (my anger is authentic/my anger is for a purpose)?

In our last game, I didn't read you as scum. Are you worried that our previous play together is going to make me more wary of you in this game?

Who do

you

think Nachomamma is going to vote for?

[AurorusVox]

[quote=Pulindar]AV Interesting, but nothing new.

[quote=AurorusVox]
Notice how earlier he asked if cussing/getting angry was allowed --- and then, out of the blue, gets really angry...[/quote]

That's a good point. Are you going to follow up on it?[/quote]

I'm willing to see the (alleged) fruits of his "method" before I do anything specific. I don't think that voting him now (I think this is what you're asking about) will give me any more information at this present time.

[AurorusVox]

First off, apologies that this is a lengthy post. I was at a theme park yesterday and just travelled home from staying at my GFs so I’ve not been on the internet much the last few days. Here’s some things I’d like to pick up on.

Secondly, that voting history chart thing is amazing, and right up my alley. I like charts in general. I'm a bit OCD about charts. I love this chart. I'm using it below.

From SB:

As I stated, my method has been fruitless. Do you find yourself agreeing with thor and/or hiphop as each post is made?

At first my gut-reaction to you was that I felt there was something scummy about you. You allayed my fears initially, and your willingness to engage with others’ questions shows a fearlessness with regards to slipping up. That said, your overreaction, and passing it off as real anger/faked method, is somewhat scummy in my mind. I understand what you were (perhaps) attempting to do; but I’m not sure whether to believe that this was actually what you were doing.

Do you feel that thor has been doing a good job with pressure on me?

I think he engaged you directly quite well. Your back-and-forth with him was interesting to read, and I think I gleaned some information from it. Thor is very hard to read, though, and I’m more interested in trying to get stuff on him than you through the little debates.

Do you feel that hiphop has been doing a good job with pressure on me?

HipH0p’s focus has been interesting, and again, I’m trying to use it to get a read on him. I’m less convinced with his arguments, because he seems to be somewhat like a thor-lite. Similar style, similar votes. More on my reaction to hiphop below...



I looked at the vote history, and then this post made me laugh from Thor:

I see some evidence that Aurorus seems agreeable to a lot of my expressed opinions

I see some evidence that Thor has been following my votes. After I suggested someone unvoted Preacher, he changed his vote to [no], who I had RV’d on previously. He later focused on Silver after I’d voted him. Could it be that I’m agreeing with your opinions because...I already had similar opinions? I don’t think this in itself is as clear cut as making you seem scummy. But bringing it up makes it look like I’m blindly following and agreeing, which isn’t the case at all.


From hiph0p:

Av- you currently are voting for no one. Who is your the most suspicious to you right now?

At the moment, I'm suspicious of you, as I’ll explain (at great length) below.

TLdr version is bolded at the bottom of my post

Also you unvoted sb because he responded calmly, do you believe that overeaction is the best scumtell, and if someone doesn't overeact than they are town?

This whole issue has been complicated in untold directions. I’m going to break it down in pieces because I think it’s quite a complex knot that needs undoing. I don’t mean to sound condescending here, so please forgive me for that, but I do work better breaking things down in this way...

SB’s reactions

[*] Responding to my vote (a)
[*] Responding to Thor’s questions (b)
[*] Responding to your (hiphop’s) allegations (c)

How did he react?

First I’d like to note that “over” reaction is a relative term

[*] Calmly; most importantly, he was willing to answer any questions I had, putting the power firmly in my hands (a)
[*] This was maintained through his conversation with Thor. He gave answers to everything he was asked about. (b)
[*] He overreacted; moreover, it was an intentional overreaction. (c)

How do “we” as the group take this?

[*] I took this as very towny – Pulindar initially agreed with me, then said he might have responded differently in my situation (strange?) (a)
[*] I still thought he seemed towny – but Thor obviously disagrees since he is still voting for him. (b)
[*] I took this as very scummy. So did you (hiphop) and Thor. Nachomamma thought it was a townie reaction. (c)

Relate all of that to the question you asked

[*] First off I’ve never said that because calm reactions seem towny, that overreactions are scummy. But I’ll be taking your willingness to make these black and white two-fold assumptions into account when I discuss your relation to these questions...
[*] Your tone in the question, and the fact that you have been FoSing SB since before his “over”reaction, suggests that you don’t take calm reactions to be a towntell. By the method of making assumptions that I have discussed above, I have formulated this as what you appear to be hinting at: calmness =/= town (therefore) calmness = scum; (therefore) overreaction = town.
[*] Plug that into how people reacted to the overreaction, and there’s my problem: you took his overreaction to be scummy, since you didn’t revoke your FoS on him. Furthermore, when nachomamma raised it as a townie-tell, you disagreed.

THE KEY POINT IS THIS

I don't believe in black and white distinctions, but you seem willing to push clear cut b&w distinctions when questioning others, then stay in grey areas when making your own statements. I'm going to be using your own preference for black-and-white attacks to grill you.

You say that calm reactions aren’t town-tells; and then are willing to think of overreactions as scum-tells – the very same (apparent) belief of mine (that I didn’t even have) that you questioned.

Vote: hiph0p

A lot is being made of contradictions. Do you think that you have contradicted yourself on either of these counts:
(i) Your belief of scum/town tells through (over)reactions?
(ii) Your method of offence/defence in scumhunting?

[AurorusVox]

I'll clarify that to followed in a temporal sense ^^

I agreed with you on the [no]-newbish points

only

when I followed the link to his previous game experience. I see it more as agreeing in the face of evidence rather than agreeing with you per-se.

I'd like to ask you questions to try to get more of a read on you, but I'm enjoying watching from afar, seeing how you interact with others. At the moment, like almost everyone else, I'm getting strong townie-reads off of you. But I am often suspicious of anyone who seems townie, because I think scum can play a better town game than town sometimes.

In my previous post, I said that I've found aspects of hiph0p similar to your own. Are you worried that he seems to be shadowing you, or following your arguments too? What about play style? I notice that you've made some leeway into considering his tone with regards to SB; what about in general?

Earlier in the game, silver fos'd you and Preacher and you because he thought you didn't unvote [no] in time. Then he changed to Pulindar when I pointed out you unvoted first. Do you think he's followed up on his FoSes?

Would you say the same about hiph0p, who has fos'd Preacher and SB? Do you think that the Preacher is making things difficult, and do you think this is intentional?

Do you think FoSing in pairs is helpful? What do you make of people who rapidly change their votes like Pulindar? Does it make a difference if you consider that the Preacher has also done this?

[AurorusVox]

Die, do you want me to ask my questions for you again?

This goes to Sauron too, though I'm more understandable since you replaced in.

[AurorusVox]

At the moment, like almost everyone else, I'm getting strong townie-reads off of you. But I am often suspicious of anyone who seems townie, because I think scum can play a better town game than town sometimes.

I've been hearing slight variations on this thought throughout my playing time here on Mafiascum. This probably best sums up my opinion of the thought.

"You're so townie, you must be scum" isn't what I think of you, by the way. It's just that I tend to like paying extra attention to the people who appear to be the most townie because I don't want to be fooled by a very-good scum player

In my previous post, I said that I've found aspects of hiph0p similar to your own. [1] Are you worried that he seems to be shadowing you, or following your arguments too? [2] What about play style? I notice that you've made some leeway into considering his tone with regards to SB; what about in general?

[1] Am I worried he seems to agree with certain of my thoughts? Not right now. I think it was Pulindar who brought up the 'following' question, I've had no worries in that regard yet. It's quite possible we're both correct and SB is scum, in which case it's more worrisome that other people don't agree with us. It's Schrodinger's Cat right at the moment in any case.

[2] I don't have issues with his playstyle. As to the rest, I'm not sure what you're asking me here. I don't think I've made 'leeway' for hiphop's tone because I'm currently pressuring him as regards his chosen tone and method towards SB, so you've lost me here. Could you re-phrase and I'll try to clarify once I get your meaning.

Sorry, by leeway I meant...progress. As in, you've made a start on questioning him about his tone re: SB, but I was wondering what you thought about the rest of his posts.

Earlier in the game, silver fos'd you and Preacher and you because he thought you didn't unvote [no] in time. Then he changed to Pulindar when I pointed out you unvoted first. Do you think he's followed up on his FoSes?

No - that's why I was accusing him of not enough scumhunting earlier.
Did he FoS Pulindar? I recall you challenging him on that but I recall his vote staying on me at that time.

He said that Pulindar replaced you, I believe. But he hasn't made much of an effort with regards to Pulindar.

Would you say the same about hiph0p, who has fos'd Preacher and SB? Do you think that the Preacher is making things difficult, and do you think this is intentional?

I don't think hiphop has posted enough for me to comment on how well he's followed up his FOSes.
I do not think any difficulty coming from Die is intentional as neither town nor scum wish to be intentionally difficult. I also don't think he's being difficult - do you? Why?

I think its been difficult for people to figure Preacher out over the last few days because he's not responded to questions asked of him. Obviously this has changed since I posted, because he has come back and started answering.* My main concern was how Preacher is giving hiph0p a reason to keep his vote off of SB. I doubt its a bus/distancing attempt between the two (SB and hiph0p), but it was an interesting thought I had - hiph0p banking on the Preacher not responding quickly enough, giving him the chance to set up a scenario in which he foses, but doesn't vote for, his mafia partner.

*Most of my experience with mafia before is on IM mafia chat-sites, where if someone doesn't respond to suspicions for a while and then appears with answers when they are called out on it, it looks pretty scummy, i.e. they were lurking until someone pointed out that they were lurking. I don't think the same argument can be applied here as easily due to the difference in format, but I do find it twigs my interest how Preacher comes back after not posting for a few days when there are a fair few questions aimed at him.

Do you think FoSing in pairs is helpful? What do you make of people who rapidly change their votes like Pulindar? Does it make a difference if you consider that the Preacher has also done this?

Do all these questions count as the answer to my question of you as to why aren't you questioning me?

FOSing in and of itself is part of the game I'm indifferent about. I've never done an FOS and prefer to make my thoughts known through simply stating who I find suspicious and/or voting. I'm always bemused by the people who actually bold their FOSes and present them like a vote. i see nothing inherently pro or con about FOSing either singly, in pairs, or in triplicate. All it does is express suspicion.

People who rapidly change their votes do not concern me depending on how/why they rapidly change their votes. Speed of change and number of changes is not inherently scummy. The *reasons* behind the changes are what is or is not scummy.

Yeah, you caught me out there, this is because I want to at least try to ask everyone something. When I've asked people questions, I've tried to mix up specific and general questions, just to keep it varied, it's interesting to read the responses, even if they're not directly helpful

I find it strange that you don't see any obvious downfalls in FoSing in groups. In my opinion, if everyone were to post their suspicions, it gives the mafia tons of information to play with during the night phase. At the moment, I think that FoSes (more specifically grouped FoSes) help the mafia more than the town. To me, it sits on a similar shelf to "if x then y" statements.

[AurorusVox]

Nacho, I like your post above. Here's something for you, though; a lot of the experienced players are referring to anecdotal evidence. Not necessarily you as specifically the paragon of this, but I'm interested in your opinion of the fact that a fair few players have said "In this game, this happened" as examples. I don't necessarily find this a bad thing, but in my previous game (I am very aware of the irony of me saying this) our IC (Cliquey) called out these kinds of anecdotes as scummy. Is it a kind of appeal to experience in itself, referring to personal experience? If not, why not? Or if so, what do you make of it?

[AurorusVox]

Thor:

1) What's my read of hiphop - I think he's something scummy. I haven't liked his posts that much. They seem to be too over the place. He entered with a bang, that's for sure, but I kind of feel that they're consciously trying to elicit reactions. I found similar attempts scummy from SB's CAPSLOCK post, though his was done far less subtly. This isn't to say that SB is my second FoS (more on this below)

2) Who are my main FoSes - I'm not sure if you're trying to trick me here. Are you hoping I'll back down from my suspicion of group FoSes under pressure to provide them? Or am I just being paranoid? Suffice to say, hiphop is on my scumdar at the moment.

On the subject of group FoSes, I suppose you're right in saying that unless a particular relationship is stipulated between them (through and/or) dual-FoSes are less dangerous. I'll consider telling you my second suspect after some more thought on this matter.

[AurorusVox]

Also, about the SB/Pulindar thing, wow, I made a mistake there. I had misread/assumed that because he FoS'd you for reasons that actually applied to Pulindar, the FoS transferred over to Pulindar. Very strange that this didn't happen, but hard to glean much from it now since it was quite some time ago.

[AurorusVox]

Extraneous Post that has nothing to do with the game alert

Wikis

I made wikis for a few of our players following my personal setup. I did not make a wiki for anyone who had one, nor did I edit their wikis

I made wiki's for SB, Die, Jerako, and Sauron. Those were the only ones that needed them. I hope you guys enjoy.

Do you think you could edit my layout to make it much sexier, a'la the style you've used here? Mine is plain Jane Although I like my little introduction

[AurorusVox]

Alas, I see that most people have been giving FoSes in groups. I'll try to refrain from giving a particular and/or relationship to them to maintain my edginess and bitter aftertaste, but, for reasons I think will become apparent below, this is proving to be quite the difficulty.

Other than hiphop, I'm finding different things scummy about different people. There are crazy crazy Xanatos gambits* that I'd love to imagine were being played out, but I am prone to overcomplicating things, so I'm trying to keep it basic here.

Problem with basics is this: Preacher threw out a lot of scumminess upon his return to the fray, and so would be my natural second-FoS. However, hiphop has been voting Preacher since he turned up. Do I believe it could be a bus attempt this early? I'm not convinced hiphop would have any need to do that so soon, but then again, this could be the plan. I understand it could be as straightforward as Preacher being scum, and hiphop not being scum, or vice versa. Which is what I'm trying to figure out.

But like I say, Preacher is an easy target and an easy FoS. In the same way that I voted and considered SB rather than hitching a ride on the Preacher BW, I'm considering other options first here too. I'm keeping my eyes open on my joint-third places. It's pretty tight at the top and might change around at any given moment :\

*Not an official mafia term, but I'm familar with it through TV Tropes - be warned, you might lose days of your life suffering from Tab Explosion on this site.

[AurorusVox]

Conclusion: I dont see (or i cant see) Thor revealing too much of himself. But...
1. He attacks people, asks a lot of questions (even some of them are not that useful)
2. In a part of this game, he asks a lot about the bandwagoning to some players. Here at this point i think he was fishing scum – Who would be interested on one of these lynches? This is the question i think he made for himself.

And this is the point that makes me think that Thor is town.

I can have missed other fish questions, though it would just compliment what I am saying.

This seems like a pair of weak arguments.
1. Strikes me as good town play
2. There is asking about bandwagons in a way that is basically "Hey, this dude's a good lynch, you wanna go ahead and lynch? I will if you will", and then there's Thor that reads far more like "I have my positions, and I think they're clear. Please clarify yours, and here's a springboard."

If you want to convince us Thor is scum, ya gotta do better than that. Of course, I don't expect the scum to make any better of an argument, so I'm not holding my breath in this regard.

Sauron, he's saying that he thinks Thor is town here. Bolded the relevant part.

What do you think of other, more subtle possible scum? I'm thinking here of Jerako and Pulindar?

Jerako - I still have some questions for you outstanding, but I want to add this to the equation. Your original scumhunt was based on [no]'s contradictions, but do you feel that HipHop has contradicted himself in any way? Of Sauron/[no], hiphop and silverbullet999, who do you think has contradicted himself the most, and whose contradiction do you find scummiest/newbiest?

Pulindar - Why do I find myself suspecting you? I wonder what your read on nachomamma is at the moment, and what his read on you is...How much useful meta have you used this game on nacho, and on any other players? Earlier, Nacho said he was made uncomfortable by lurking, do you think that you have lurked at all in this game?

Nacho - you made a pretty bold statement earlier in the game. "Silverbullet is town". How convinced of this are you? Do you believe you can ever truly "know" who town is, unless you're scum? Also, what do you make of the way that SB went about his gambit? Below is what I saw happening:

"Can you get angry and cuss?" / "I'm gonna get angry" / (he tried it on Thor and it didn't work here / "Now I'm REALLY ANGRY" / (CAPSLOCK ANGER post) / "It was legit" / "It was fake" / "It didn't work because I told you it was fake"

Do you think this could ever have worked, if we revoked the last two parts? Hiphop says it wouldn't have made him angry. But do you think if it came from a more experienced player, it would have worked?

SB - Do you think that with such obvious signposts, and with your anger-lite on Thor, it was ever going to work, even if you hadn't told us it was fake? It seems more like a newbie (perhaps mafia) setting out his boundaries of what's acceptable and then trying to look townie. I'm not sure whether to take this as scummy or as townie (the initial outburst and contradiction I find scummy, but I can see where Nacho is coming from to call it a townish gambit...I just am not convinced that this is the gambit you were trying)

[AurorusVox]

Pulindar, I just skim-read through all of your posts, and I see that you're playing a pretty good game. I'm not saying you're scum (see my talking with Thor on this same question), but, in the same way as Thor, I like to keep my eye on the more townie players.

Have you been satisfied with peoples' responses to your questions so far? You voted Jerako earlier in the game I believe, without stating your reasons, and I called you out on it. At that point you said you didn't want to reveal your reasons, then unvoted him and have since placed your vote back. Are the same reasons still applying now as to then?

Who would you like to see more pressure on out of everyone here? Who, if anyone, do you think needs less pressure?

[AurorusVox]

The contradiction is in you telling us that your anger was your legitimate feelings, but also that it was made up (or at the very least, exaggerated) for a particular purpose. A feeling (in this case of anger) can't be true and false at the same time.

[AurorusVox]

A lot is being made of contradictions. Do you think that you have contradicted yourself on either of these counts:
(i) Your belief of scum/town tells through (over)reactions?
(ii) Your method of offence/defence in scumhunting?

I believe you are making way too many assumptions. I never said that calmness=scumminess. I did have a problem however with you believing that calmness=towniness as you state in post 204 and here is the quote in question:

The reason I was leaning to you being townie, SB, was your calm and mature responses to the questions - "I'm happy to answer any questions you have, whatever will help clear anything up about me" - even when you were pressed by Thor, you maintained this reaction. But...wow...that changed pretty dramatically, eh?

Meaning calmness equals towniness, not true. Scum and town both do it. It does not mean he is town because he is calm. My reasons for fos are because of his actual scumtells not his calmness that he puts out. So it was you who made them black and white not me.

As for the second question, where is there a contradiction?

I'd have thought if I was voting for you, you might have made more of an effort to answer my questions. I'll put it in a simpler way:

Do you think overreactions are scumtells?

In the quote of mine that you quoted, I don't only talk about his calmness. I also talk about his maturity in being willing to answer any and all questions that anyone may have of him. A maturity that I see you seem to be lacking since you swerved around my questions.

I accept that the second of my questions may be irrelevant to you if you think that it is ME who made the "black and white" distinctions in your voice, but why do you then also ask where the contradiction lies? I asked what your opinion was on the POTENTIAL for contradiction - why have you not tackled that directly rather than asking me ? By directly, I mean, you've implied the answer in what you've said - but you have also reacted to the question as though you don't have an answer.

[AurorusVox]

I don't know how the above got posted. Sorry, I'm drinking cider, so I might not make much sense. Umm. I am upset that Jerako has replaced out. I had questions to ask him.

One of the major reasons I was suspicious of Jerako was because he wasn't posting responses to the questions earlier. But now it seems he might have just gone AWOL

[AurorusVox]

@HipHop

I think under-reactions are scumtells, perhaps. Overreactions can be townish. Faked overreactions are scummy, imo. I'm weighing that in my judgement of SB. At first I thought he was scummy, and I didn't know why. Now I think he's townie, and I'm not quite sure why. But I'll allow my gut free reign in the question of SB for now, while I wait to see what happens next.

When I talk of potential, I mean, the potential to contradict that existed in posts you had already made. I.e., when I asked "do you think you have contradicted yourself" I'm not asking you to comment on any assumed or given or acknowledged contradictions, but instead to comment on the idea or concept of you contradicting yourself (i.e. the potential that contradiction existed in your posts. I expect t. I see why the word potential has confused you, so I take full responsibility and apologise for not clarifying myself better.

Anyway, I don't think my own reasons for voting you were very solid. It was mostly linguistic, which isn't the best way to catch scum, but can yield results. In all honesty, I was more interested in how you reacted my vote and questions. I'm happy to leave my vote where it is, for now.

[AurorusVox]

EBWOP

fudsihfsdgfdsgfd I don't know why my posts are posting before I've typed them all out...

Where I've said "(i.e. the potential that contradiction existed in your posts. I expect t" I should have said

" (i.e. the potential that contradiction existed in your posts. I expect that "possibility" would have been a better word.) "

[AurorusVox]

@HipHop

I think under-reactions are scumtells, perhaps. Overreactions can be townish. Faked overreactions are scummy, imo. I'm weighing that in my judgement of SB. At first I thought he was scummy, and I didn't know why. Now I think he's townie, and I'm not quite sure why. But I'll allow my gut free reign in the question of SB for now, while I wait to see what happens next.

I do not believe this. What a lie. Tell me, did you change you opinion in 20 posts? Or what is the difference between the post above and this one:

The reason I was leaning to you being townie, SB, was your calm and mature responses to the questions - "I'm happy to answer any questions you have, whatever will help clear anything up about me" - even when you were pressed by Thor, you maintained this reaction. But...wow...that changed pretty dramatically, eh?

Now you say calmness is scummy. What do you really mean? Either way your views are changing dramatically to fit the town.

fos

[/quote]

I never said calmness was scummy. I actually said the opposite. I think you're getting confused again due to your willingness to read things in black and white. Watch this closely: I never said calmness was an underreaction. In a previous post I said that "over-reaction" is a relative term (I hope you read this part since I aimed this post at you). This also applies to "under-reactions" (since it is the same concept, just opposite). In a nutshell, my views have not changed, because you're reading and interpreting them wrong. To clarify, he was calm

and mature

in his response (I've bolded that part since you keep ignoring it); I do not think at that point that he had under-reacted.

Also are you now asking me is it possible that i can contradict myself? Let's just say in about ten games I probably will have a different viewpoint from now. So yes it is possible.

Again, you are willfully ignoring what I actually posted. I was asking you to

comment on the possibility that you had contradicted yourself in

PAST POSTS

.

Anyway, I don't think my own reasons for voting you were very solid. It was mostly linguistic, which isn't the best way to catch scum, but can yield results. In all honesty, I was more interested in how you reacted my vote and questions. I'm happy to leave my vote where it is, for now.

Thor are you going to comment on this? This is my opinion- you suspect me because I underreacted, yet you didn't suspect SB because he underreacted? Now you are floundering heavily. Looking for reasons, that you don't even believe to to be true.

I never said that SB underreacted. Read above. Yawn.

Also, as far as I am aware, voting and gauging reactions is a legitimate means of scumhunting. So thanks for trying to patronise me

It is a good thing you don't expect me to answer questions from the future, because otherwise I might ask VRK if he could transfer everything from below the bottom line to my last post. I might as well as try it, in case you bring that argument up again.(

mod: can you transfer everything below the bottom line to my last post.

)

In the above quote: More patronisation (it won't work) and willfull ignoring of what I actually posted (it won't work)

[AurorusVox]

Thor are you going to comment on this? This is my opinion- you suspect me because I underreacted, yet you didn't suspect SB because he underreacted?

I'm sorry, I missed the initial question of what I was being asked to comment upon. If one of you could link me to the initial post I'd be happy to offer my thoughts on what I was asked to.

I think the quote tree has gotten a bit skewed. The quote from "AurorusVox" in your post was actually from hiphop, asking you if you were going to comment on my post (replicated below)

Anyway, I don't think my own reasons for voting you were very solid. It was mostly linguistic, which isn't the best way to catch scum, but can yield results. In all honesty, I was more interested in how you reacted my vote and questions. I'm happy to leave my vote where it is, for now.

Although in my subsequent post I pointed out the flaw in his opinion (that flaw being that nowhere have I said that I thought SB had under-reacted)

[AurorusVox]

Despite what hiphop thinks, there is no such contradiction, since I have never said that I thought SB under-reacted. I'm not even sure hiphop can be considered to have "under-reacted" per se, but rather to have sidestepped my questions. Compare this to SB, who actually answered the questions that I asked him, and all the questions you asked him, willingly and eagerly. This is why I have not read their reactions the same, and so I've not interpreted the "same tell in different ways" - but read different tells from their (different) reactions.

[AurorusVox]

Hiphop, I am curious - since the Preacher returned, do you feel he has answered the questions that you initially asked of him? Below is the post he made in response to your first questions:

--------------------------------
Die

How about a third option? I see half of the players here are, in some way, more experienced than the others. You guys have been nice ICs for us, but at the same time you guys have been quite agressive on 2 newbies. Easy targets.

It would be good to start considering this 3rd option: we can have 2 experienced players in the mafia.

Die, I don't like this. If you think some people are tunneling call them out. Don't make a general statement. I am a person. No different than you. Is it not reasonable to say that newbies will make more slips? So wouldn't than more people attack them? What would happen if we didn't say anything? Do you think that they would not do the same thing again? In my first game, I was hit hard, by scum and town. I have learned that some things make someone scummy, and I prefer to let scum do them. I recommend that you read this post made by vrk(scum)[yes VRk, I am still quoting that quote, one of the best quotes I have ever seen, that applies to a newbie] in one of my first games. Believe me this is something that applies to you.

What do you think of of Thor's case against SB?

What do you think of SB's response?

Why do you think that newbies should not be attacked?

Your opinion is vital in moving the game foward.

Also take into account that Jerako, and SB (Two newbies), are attacking an easy target(also a newbie). Do you have a problem with that, or do you think that sometimes mistakes are because someone is scum?
----------------

Thanks hiphop, Ill try to learn from that.

About Thor and Silver: as you can notice, i already placed my vote on Silver. The reason i did that is because of the anger post. I cant believe that someone gets so angered on that pressure by being townie. He overreacted without reason, i think, because the points Thor raised were not misrepresenting Silver.

Anyway, personally, I really dont apreciate to play a game with that language. I am on pressure since the beggining and i dont have been in anyway not gentle.

I didnt said that newbies should not be attacked. I just said that we need to attack others than only the newbies, which is what happened. That was the reason i came up with the possibility of the 2 scums being experienced. And it is not impossible.

I dont have a problem with Jerako and SB attacking a newbie (and now i see SB is not voting...). I didnt said the mafia are 2 experienced. I said they could be. But attacking newbies is a part of the game. I just thought it was strange that exp. guys did not attacked each other at that point.

I just wondered what your take was on this post.

[AurorusVox]

TL;dr version:

I respond to hiphop's post, question the size of his willy (his experience), his (and his denial of his) wilful ignoral of posts, and his wacky ability to sometimes think everyone must think the same as him, and sometimes not.

AV- I read things in black and white because I don't like vagueness. It is either there or not, no in between. It is why I am so good in math, and horrible in English.

I believe you are making way too many assumptions. [...] So it was you who made them black and white not me.

So, my "assumption" that you like black and white was incorrect? Hmm...looks like I "assumed" correctly after all.

I would take calmness as an underreaction (not a scumtell, but still an underreaction) because he is being accused, not answering a survey. If i think so, I believe others surely must see it.

You made a big deal of how many games you've played. It's even in your signature how valuable and experienced you are. And yet you haven't figured out yet that people all have different opinions and see things differently?

That is how I interpreted your words.

And yet you are aware of interpretations? I.e. the possibility for things to be read in an interpreted (subjective/personal) way.

Either way, you still view him as scummy, because he faked overreacted, or has that changed too?

As I said, his faked overreaction is something I found scummy.

Faked overreactions are scummy, imo. I'm weighing that in my judgement of SB.

Here it is, again, something that was posted that you've chosen to ignore (more on this later).

Again, you are willfully ignoring what I actually posted. I was asking you to

comment on the possibility that you had contradicted yourself in

PAST POSTS

.

The keyword here is willfully. I did not, nor did I ever willfully ignore a question. Just interpreted what I thought it meant. This is the third time you are asking me the same question, and each time I interpreted it different, of what I thought you truly meant by it. So don't blame me for your vagueness. Even the question you give me now can have two different reasons. You could be referring to just this game or in all my games. In regards to the first- no i don't think I have contradicted myself in this game, and I don't think it is possible(which I answered in post 298 4th paragraph, last sentence. If this isn't an answer to your question, I do not know what to tell you), as to the second, yes I have contradicted myself in past games. I have answered you question. This is the third time I have answered your question. I don't know how you can say I haven't.

Okay, here are my thoughts on this chunk:

(i) Again, you're showing an acute awareness of interpretation and its practical implication. How can you still assume that everyone thinks the same as you?

(ii) You've still shown how you've ignored certain aspects of my posts; the thing about SB, the fact I kept saying "maturity", and even up til now, you were ignoring my clarifications of my vagueness.

(iii) This is interesting, and not what my original aim had been when asking, but, let's roll with it --- When you contradicted yourself in past games, were you townie or scum, and did you get caught in the contradiction or did you admit it yourself?

Also in voting and gauging- people vote because they believe that there is something scummy about certain posts. As in evidence. In which your case of me hiding something and being dodgy is complete BS(considering my brother's initial's are BS, that is what the BS means) i have answered your questions to the best of my ability, whether you like them or not.

False. In voting and gauging, people MAY decide to vote a gut-feel, and then use the reactions to clarify that gut-feel with evidence based on the reaction and the questions that are answered and how they are answered. I could have just asked these questions of you, but they're not as powerful without the backing of a vote. If I do not like the way you answered, or the answers themselves, I will keep my vote on you.

Because sometimes wagon partners are scum and if you're supporting a scum pushed wagon it should concern you. Why wouldn't you be concerned about who else was voting the wagon you were?

I never thought of it that way. It is probably because most of the time I make a push, I believe I am pushing scum. So my wagon partner is either bussing or town. But you do have a point.

Again, you're showing an awareness that people have different opinions. Do you accept that people don't always see things the same way as you, now?

Back off on AV as far as my post goes, this is my accusation on you and I accept it as mine. It's silly and scummy to turn around and throw my actions into the face of another player who had no part in them. Either they make me scummy or they don't, but trying to say my actions are AV's fault is terrible.

As to the rest of your question - I addressed above some of the attitudes of evading and dismissal I found in your reply post here. If you want some more ask and I'll dig them up. I'll accept it may just be your playstyle but my gut is starting to quake, and that quaking says scummy. Also, as long as we're talking AV, I have to point out how in one of your posts above you basically threatened the fruit with how you were thinking of adding them to your scumlist because (as far as I can tell) AV is scumhunting you and debating the merits of your points. That's a scummy threat if ever I heard one.

On regards to the first paragraph. No it was not personal. But it was AV who stated right above your post that I was evading. Coincidence, I think not.

I have no idea if it was a coincidence, but read through the thread, and you'll see that Thor and I seem to share similar views on what makes a player scummy. This is backed up by me agreeing with his views, and him agreeing with my lynches For all I know, he could be scum, so that if he dies, everyone will think I'm his partner and lynch me. But hiphop, maybe if it isn't just me thinking you're evading...maybe, just maybe, that's the impression you're giving out to people :\

As for your comment on me being dismissal- yes the quote of nacho was to help with the proof that your question was indeed invalid, but I did answer your question, did I not? So therefore I didn't dismiss it did I? Or are you saying my answer wasn't valid because I tried to dismiss a question that I didn't believe was true. Either way, how can you say I have been dismissal if i haven't? Again show me some things. Don't make general statements without having something to back it up. That question goes for you too Av. I have not.

Most of what I've said to you has been backed up by evidence, that evidence being your own posts.

Also I believe both votes are guts, so how can I defend? I have proven I am not evasive, for the simple fact that all questions have been answered. Except you guys believe I am hiding something, how can I defend against that?

My vote was gut initially (when I first voted you). Since then it has solidified through your responses and such. Saying "I can't defend against your accusations" looks like a pretty weak argument when you're getting pressured and you don't know how to respond to seem the least scummy.

AV-310

Truth be told, i don't have an opinion on that post. I can see he didn't answer my question regarding Thor's case, but in the post as a whole, I see it as null. I don't have a take on it.

Since your vote is on the Preacher, shouldn't you be pressing his post to get more information out of him? I'm asking you about this on the outside chance that you and SB are scum buddies. I notice that you've attacked SB but haven't voted him because the Preacher hasn't answered your questions...but you haven't pushed this post of his at all, you haven't tried to get to a situation in which you can lift your vote off of the Preacher.

For town, the purpose of the trap would be to evoke emotion in your attacker, causing him to stoop to your level and slip up in the heat of his emotions.

It is a text game. I do not see emotions coming in to play. So no, my reads still stand.

You don't believe that text can elicit emotional responses that then comes through in the textual response? Have you no faith in the power of language?!

My townreads haven't taken away from my scumhunting at all; in fact, in narrowing the pool of candidates to choose from, my scumhunting becomes more effective.

And, you never answered my question. How does it benefit the town, for you to tell who is town in your eyes? Also since yo believe to express yourself, do you believe in lists?

Um. He told you how it benefited town. Wilful ignoral again? Let me quote the part that you skipped over.

But in not sharing town reads, we're also not forcing the scum to address everyone and provide an opinion on anyone, which makes the job infinitely easier on them.

[AurorusVox]

Thor, the "commentary" doesn't exist. Here is everything I've said about SB's "calm and mature" responses (I've left out the bits about his overreaction, because the apparent "contradiction" in my commentary is based on the belief (that I don't have) that SB underreacted):

iso26: I'm satisfied with silverbullet999's responses to my vote and question


iso28: I dunno, my gut instinct was that SB was trying to sit on the fence (=scum tell), but I kinda think there's a little leeway - his responses seem like he's showing that he's willing to learn to be more aggressive, and I see him more as being newbie-town than newbie-scum. [...] I do think he responded to my questions, and Thor's, in a good manner...and I'm not even sure he's been sitting on the fence so much the last few posts. So, I like the pressure on him, but it's coming across as townie-under-pressure to me.


iso30: The reason I was leaning to you being townie, SB, was your calm and mature responses to the questions - "I'm happy to answer any questions you have, whatever will help clear anything up about me" - even when you were pressed by Thor, you maintained this reaction.


iso33: At first, he had responded coolly, saying he would gladly answer my questions. He had then provided answers to my questions. At first I was suspicious because I thought he was sitting on the fence; but he has often said "These are my FoSes" so I don't think he has really been sitting on the fence. That said, his reasons aren't the most solid, but I still think he's been forthright about them. This feeling increased with his back-and-forth with Thor.


iso36: At first my gut-reaction to you [SB] was that I felt there was something scummy about you. You allayed my fears initially, and your willingness to engage with others’ questions shows a fearlessness with regards to slipping up.

[...]

[Talking about how he responded to my question]

Calmly; most importantly, he was willing to answer any questions I had, putting the power firmly in my hands. This was maintained through his conversation with Thor. He gave answers to everything he was asked about.

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

A bit later, I get called out by hiphop on my reads of SB. Here is what I said;

iso52: I never said calmness was an underreaction. In a previous post I said that "over-reaction" is a relative term (I hope you read this part since I aimed this post at you). This also applies to "under-reactions" (since it is the same concept, just opposite). In a nutshell, my views have not changed, because you're reading and interpreting them wrong. To clarify, he was calm and

mature in his response (I've bolded that part since you keep ignoring it); I do not think at that point that he had under-reacted.

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

WARNING: SPOILER ALERT

Below is my analysis of the above. If you wish to iso me before you read my take on it, please

do not read any further[/u]




Please note that in all of this, not once did I say that I felt SB had been underreacting. My reasons for thinking he was townie are clear: the fact that he answered all of the questions, calmly and maturely. Key points are this:

-"Willing to learn"
-"Not sitting on the fence so much" (proof of the above)
-"Calm and mature" (the key phrase; people seem to ignore the second part)
-"Happy to answer any questions"
-"Willingness to engage with others’ questions shows a fearlessness with regards to slipping up"
-"Putting the power firmly in my hands"
-"He gave answers to everything he was asked about."


Now, here is the absolute kicker:

iso54: Despite what hiphop thinks, there is no such contradiction, since I have never said that I thought SB under-reacted. I'm not even sure hiphop can be considered to have "under-reacted" per se, but rather to have sidestepped my questions. Compare this to SB, who actually answered the questions that I asked him, and all the questions you asked him, willingly and eagerly. This is why I have not read their reactions the same, and so I've not interpreted the "same tell in different ways" - but read different tells from their (different) reactions.

[AurorusVox]

Sauron:

I understand fully that there are two (or more) ways to read the situation, and it's great that we both can read the same things very differently; but what the point is of Thor's question as I understand it (and the point of my whole previous post) isn't the final assessment in and of itself (i.e. whether or not I or anyone else reads SB as scummy - I've intentionally left out the scummy parts of SB for this very reason), but rather whether or not I've contradicted myself in how I've read SB and Hiphop's (alleged) under-reactions (I say alleged because I've never said SB under-reacted). Do you think that I've read Hiphop to have the same tells as SB, but found them scummy on Hiphop and townie on SB? Or do you think I've perceived them to have different reactions? If the former is true, like Hiphop said, that is very naughty of me. If the latter is true, then that makes Hiphop's representation of me inaccurate.

For general information purposes, I am still suspicious of SB (but that's because of his faked overreaction, which I'm still not entirely sure how to read). I don't think hiphop and SB being scum has to be mutually exclusive. But as of now, I suspect hiphop more, which is why my vote is on him.

[AurorusVox]

Ironic that in a game where someone asked if it is scummy to be replaced out, almost half the original people have replaced out.

Hello Nobody Special and SweenyTodd. Nice to have you here ^^

[AurorusVox]

Don't speak too soon, Thor - Preacherman wants to be replaced out too. There's still a chance that your trio will blossom again.

[AurorusVox]

@AV - What trio are you referring to when talking of thor? (How do they normally act etc.)

I have no idea how they play together normally, I'm referring to Thor saying that he and Nobody Special might get a game without Ythan and how fate often has cruel twists in store for people...

[AurorusVox]

If you were that ready to vote for hiphop, do you have anything to ask Sweeny to help you decide whether or not to vote to lynch him now? I understand the difficulties of judging replacements, but if someone is scummy enough to make you "ready to vote" them, then surely their (predecessors) scumminess outweighs those problems?

That said, I'd like to hear the second half of Sweeny's post before we get to lynching anyone (that goes for Sweeny and SB...)

[AurorusVox]

I understand not seeing the b&w distinctions the way the hiphop does (I don't think I agree with all of his assertions), but would you mind explaining this vote a little better for me? Is it that you think he was pushing in a disingenuous manner?

I told hiphop that I didn't think my reasons for voting him were particularly good, but I wasn't really interested in those reasons per se. I wanted to see how he reacted to my vote and questions, and the more he responded, the scummier he looked.

[AurorusVox]

You said you wanted to wait for his second post before moving any further on the issue of his potential lynching; what's your opinion now? Let me remind you that you did say you were ready to vote hiphop until he became ST...has he had enough time to change your mind?

My problem with replacements is that you get a read for someone after playing with them for two weeks, and then someone comes along and doesn't look so scummy as their predecessor. It happened initially with Sauron, and I fear it could happen again with ST. I am, however, still happy with a hiphop/ST lynch today, though, sorry ST, this is more because of hiphop than you...

[AurorusVox]

I too am uncomfortable with the "opportunistic" vote on ST, but, I would feel less comfortable if my vote wasn't already on him. I do believe that hiphop has given plenty of evidence of being scummy; but I'm not too sure about ST seeming that scummy in his posts.

I mean, I can kind of understand where NS is coming from - if you replace into the nasty position of main bandwagon, it might be expected that you would have much more vigorous attempt to sway votes off of you. In my mind, hiphop's scumminess outweighs ST's at the moment.

NS, I don't really feel you've been that honest with your votes. You said that ST was your main suspect ("I was ready to vote for him"), but voted SB, for being the "scummiest candidate". You said you were waiting for ST to post more. Did his follow-up posts swing you from thinking SB was scummiest, or did you never really think SB was scummiest? Did you realise, after not initially voting for ST, that it might be a good idea to BUS YOUR PARTNER??!!

[AurorusVox]

Do we want ST to claim before someone hammers on him/before the deadline rolls around? I kinda think that it'd be a good idea because if we wait too long, it's gonna get to deadline and he's gonna get lynched anyway, even if two people were to unvote him...

[AurorusVox]

Hohum; whats with the lack of content to your posts?

[AurorusVox]

Nacho. Do you think the time is right for ST to claim?

[AurorusVox]

Sauron, I'm sorry, but at L-1, with stalled conversations, and with the deadline coming soon, I think it's pretty clear that ST is in a fair amount of danger of getting lynched. I agree that we might not get a hammer on him, BUT, the deadline makes that point moot...

[AurorusVox]

I wish he'd claimed PR now because that would have cemented it in my eyes that he was scum There was no way he was doc or cop with his relatively weak "do you want me to claim?" approach at the start...

[AurorusVox]

It's getting tense...

I'm heading to the library to do a mountain of reading for an essay, so I probably won't be posting much before the deadline is reached, unless I get back from the library early enough (unlikely). As well, the day ticks over at 5am for my local time, so I doubt I'll be up for when the countdown finally reaches zero.

But when I get out of bed on Wednesday, I'll rush to the thread and find out what we lynched...

[AurorusVox]

I have returned from the library! And now the accusations are flying around as the deadline draws nearer...

I'd like to hear ST's thoughts before the day ends too...I hope he comes back...

Is it likely he saw he was likely to get lynched, claimed, and then isn't going to return now?

[AurorusVox]

ST could always be purposefully not posting because he's scum and doesn't want to give his partners away.

[AurorusVox]

Wow, why did you hammer right then, Haylen? There was very little chance ST wasn't getting lynched, and he had around 5 hours left to post before the deadline was reached...I know its not really likely he'd post anyway, but surely its better to give him the chance in those five hours? Were you worried he'd crumble under pressure, post, and give you away as his scumbuddy? :O

[AurorusVox]

He has made a countdown for the deadline that clearly states that it will occur at 11:59:59pm Tuesday his time...

As for not reading the rules as to how someone gets lynched, did you also skim over all of the posts from the newbs (myself included) asking for clarification of them? Did you ignore everything slightly related to the ruleset regarding lynches? If so, isn't that a big deal, worth more than a *shrug*?

[AurorusVox]

I accept that replacing in so close to the deadline would mean you wouldn't have time to read the entire thread, so I have no problem with that, especially considering you notified us of VLA, but to not read the rules about how lynch procedure works, especially considering we were very close to the deadline, just seems a tad off...

[AurorusVox]

I am bitter about my death >:(

(VRK, I love the little narrative! <3)

[AurorusVox]

I've been reading along since I was NK'd way back in N1, and I have to say it turned into quite a game towards the end Unlucky position for Thor, and unfortunate that your coin flip came up town, but I don't think there was much in it at the end.

Grats to Nachomamma, I thought he was townie on D1 >:(

THOR I KNEW YOU WERE TOWN (when I died) <3

Secondary grats to Nachomamma for his ballsy cop claim.

[AurorusVox]

So, why was I NK'd n1? Was it because you were bitter about how awesome my avatar was? You probably could have built a nice case about me and Thor being scum together D:<

[AurorusVox]

Nacho!! I love your discussion of whether or not to kill Equinox - "It'd never work" and "It's ridiculous" especially

Should I ever try to be less obv.town to stay alive if, for example, I was a PR? ._."