Newbie 937 ~ Mafia Lite [Game Over]

[Excedrin]

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.

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 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.

Dictionary Deprehensible I'm not sure if you're using it correctly, but that's not really important.

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.

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.

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.

I asked, "why are you scared of hammering a potential townie?"
You said, "I was talking about Red Star"
I interpreted this to mean you were worried about Red Star's lynch. I see now you were worried about Red Star hammering razorback.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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"?

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.

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?

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.

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

#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.

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

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

Did I really say this?

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

[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.

[Excedrin]

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.

I wasn't asking, I was answering your question.

Playing it safe is scummy?

Yes.

1) Explain to me how playing it safe can be suspicious, specifically on this situation.

Because playing it safe avoids attention.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.)

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."

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.

Point one is probably a null tell or sometimes anti-town. Lynching for anti-town reasons tend to lean towards policy.

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).

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

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…

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

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.

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?

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.

#169
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! <<)

[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.

[KittyMo]

[2] Excedrin - (horrordude0215, Exilon)

[1] popsofctown - (Red Star)
[1] Exilon - (Excedrin)

[0] horrordude0215 - ()
[0] kelikar - ()
[0] Red Star - ()
[0] skerterg - ()

[3]

Not Voting

- ( kelikar, popsofctown, skerterg)

With

7

alive, it's

4

to lynch!

Deadline is at Friday, May 21, 2010 at 8:00:00 AM (San Francisco time).

Prods & Replacements

Kelikar has requested replacement. Replacement search is on!

Red Star & skerterg are proddable.

“Sometimes I'm confused by what I think is really obvious. But what I think is really obvious obviously isn't obvious...” ~ Michael Stipe

[Excedrin]

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.

"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.

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.

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

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.

Ok, fair enough. I believe that the sum of this scummy behavior and the other scummy things makes you the most likely remaining scum. That others (including myself) have done one of the same scummy things that you've done doesn't change that and is not inconsistent.

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.

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.

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.

Nobody's saying you must have extremely strong reads on day 1. Note that I've called out Red Star for his day 1 weak/neutral reads as well.

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.

I didn't say that you haven't. I said that you spend most of your words doing other stuff.

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.

voting someone is a good way to pressure them. Also you have to provide reasoning for a vote, which is an excellent way to find scum later on.

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?

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

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.

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

[KittyMo]

KageLord replaces kelikar.

[KageLord]

Hello all. Glad to see I replaced into a game with a town that has a chance this time. My first game was... not ideal to put it lightly.

Anywaaaaaaay... I read through the posts so far and to tell you the truth, I can't think of much that hasn't already been said. Though I don't have much experience with it, Red Star's survival really does seem like a WIFOM. The only thing that makes me suspicious of him though is his asking who the cop was. It's obvious what the scum would have to gain from the cop being revealed (if there even is one), but the gains to the town seem minuscule in comparison. If the remaining scum is a Roleblocker, he would basically have control over the PRs. If he's not, he would be less safe, but he would then probably take out Red Star then the cop (unless he wants to play an increasingly risky WIFOM). If there is a cop, he does well to stay hidden. If there isn't one... well the scum probably has a very strong guess about that already doesn't he? But, that's definitely not enough to FoS Red Star since I'm sure he could give a satisfactory explanation for why he asked.

Other than that, I have no strong hints that haven't been said. Though I would like other people to give opinions since the last few long posts have all been Excedrin and Exilon.

[skerterg]

Nice to meet you, KageLord! Thanks for the prompt replacement, KittyMo.

Some good points made above; here are my thoughts on them:

I agree that playing it safe is scummy, or at the very least not pro-town. By giving our opinions (especially in the solid form of rankings or lists) then we offer proof of our thoughts that can be referred to later on. I don't know how useful it will be to catch scum, but it definitely serves the purpose of identifying the reasons you think for something and whether the reasoning is good. If the reasoning is very vague or fluffly, then we may begin suspecting. I kinda agree with Excedrin in that Exilon's views sometimes seemed unimportant, but I don't think that they were "barely relevant." I think that both the "views" and "views on who is scum" should be there; Exilon definitely had the first, but seemed to be weak in the second. Then again, he may just be the person who doesn't want to press hard on something that he isn't completely sure of. I think that it's his style, but yes, I would like him to commit more to set-in-stone opinions, even if they are wrong.

I feel that Exilon did say a lot of useful information. In fact, much of what he said was what I thought before I read his post (e.g. the one at the beginning of day 1). Now, you could argue that he could be more aggresive with posting his exact views on each individual person, but the claim that "he posts big posts that don't say much" is unfounded.


Why isn't there more talk about popsofctown's actions at the end of day 1? Something feels horribly wrong with it. I understand that no lynch is bad, but a few points:

1. I think majority wins by deadline. Semi-understandable that he missed it, but I believe it was mentioned previously.
2. Someone would have voted anyway. Even I would have voted razorback if the only other option was no lynch. Besides, it was only Tuesday; the deadline was Wednesday, and I'm sure there would have been another person to vote for razorback.
3. You just stated in your previous post that Red Star was your final vote. Seems strange to suddenly change.

Popsofctown also didn't really have anything to say after Night 1. His first post dealt with his wrong read of razor and about how lynch is better than no lynch. His second post dealt with his belief that there is roleblocker and cop, and how it would be bad for cop to reveal himself. The main question for me is, "Why did he suddenly switch his vote to razorback?" Excedrin had just voted for Red Star, putting him at L-2. I had indicated that I would vote for him also, effectively making him L-1. Exilon at that point would hammer whichever he chose, and he had indicated that he would hammer razorback. I am pretty sure razorback would have been lynched anyway. I'm not exactly sure what the motive was; doesn't seem to be mafia play. But it is suspicious, which is why I want to press it.

Top suspect is now popsofctown, with horrordude0215 second. I don't feel Excedrin is scum; neither Exilon, really. For me, horrordude0215 was quick to turn ahoda's words against him. There wasn't really anything to be too suspicious of, yet horror managed to get him to L-1 (admittedly, ahoda self-hammered). His vote on razorback put him at L-1. He is quick to vote for Excedrin, and I don't feel he has enough good reason to do so. I mean, one sentence from Excedrin seemed to be enough to generate a vote. It didn't really sound like a misrep to me, it's just discussion. If that was a misrep, then you could say that all the following arguments are misreps (for both sides, even). Only by talking do we come to understand each other.

My rankings now:

---Scummiest---

popsofctown
horrordude0215
KageLord
Exilon
Excedrin
Red Star

---Cleanest---

[KageLord]

Hm... interesting points there. I was considering pops as my top suspect as well because of the questions raised about his Day 1 end actions earlier on. Now that you bring them back up, he will probably have to give a good explanation. I suspect though that he will just bring up the possible no lynch thing again, which could very well be his real reason. I mean, I personally would have waited until closer to the deadline and just continued discussion but if he was just being a bit impatient then we are just wasting our time here when our doctor could be killed on this night.

And lol what's the reasoning behind me as your 3rd guess?

[Excedrin]

Good post skerterg.

popsofctown could be scum who bussed razorback, but I find it extremely unlikley. If we lynch everyone else who seems likely scum and popsofctown was alive in the final 3 it'd make sense to reconsider that, but really it's extremely unlikely that he'd hammer a scumbuddy in that situation.

Also, if you accept the idea that popsofctown thought that since Red Star claimed doc (which was too early), he's not going to be lynched on day 1, then removing the most useless player is a perfectly reasonable action. That we got lucky and hit scum is a nice bonus. (note, I think he said as much already).

Being suspicious of popsofctown's d1 actions near deadline is slightly scummy, but since at least two players have said the same thing, it's obviously not enough to reveal someone's align.

disclaimer: yea, I know it's WIFOM, I don't care, 95% pops is town, 5% he bussed.

Finally, it would be better if he posted that himself, but whatever.

[skerterg]

Certainly I agree that it is a strange case. I guess your scenario makes sense. However, for him to hammer in the post right afterwards without any shred of doubting Red Star's claim doesn't make sense to me. One idea I had is that pops knew Red Star must be townie and thus doctor (since fake-claiming as townie is bad) because pops is mafia. I thought Red Star was acting

very

suspiciously, and would have had a hard time swallowing his claim at the time. After all, scum has nothing to lose for false-claiming near lynch.

So, question to pops: Did you believe Red Star's claim of doctor at the time you hammered razorback? If so, why, and if not, why not?

However, remember the other actions before from pops that was strange and not only what happened at the end of day 1. I believe he put the L-1 vote on ahoda. Admittedly, I stated that I understood his decision not to change his vote immediately (changing votes is just a distraction), but the fact remains that he put a townie close to lynch. Also, having looked at his ISO, I remember a series of posts that also seemed out of place...Ah! Here. Three consecutive posts (p.30-32 ISO):

I think Razorback might actually be too scummy to be scum. Some people don't believe in that, but I'm starting to.

Tbh I find razorback hilarious and wish we could not lynch him just so I could watch him post more.

Incoherence is sometimes readable. Razorback seems to have town-aligned incoherence rather than scum-aligned incoherence. He seems to consistently sound like he's coming from a town aligned perspective, and on the most recent pages hasn't been overly concerned with surviving but concerned with getting Red Star lynched instead. Whether he's right on Red Star's alignment, this is a demented form of scumhunting so I think he's demented town.

Was it not you, Excedrin, who said that "playing it safe" or not committing fully is scummy? It feels like here popsofctown is trying to prevent razorback lynch without making himself appear to. The third post is better, as it gives more elaboration, but the first two don't sound good to me at all. Pops didn't contribute much during the discussions on Red Star and razorback. If you individually look at his posts after the ahoda incident (p.25-34), there's not a lot of substance there.


As for your placement, KageLord: not really much suspicion, just I believe that the three below you are more likely town. If you discount Red Star, you are right in the middle. I'll consider you and Exilon to be about equal, if it makes you feel any better. Kelikar had voted for razorback without that good a reason (more because he would not benefit the town rather than be mafia).

I think a possible reason Leafsnail was killed is because he nailed razorback as scum. Maybe mafia thought he would get another one correct.

A second thought on horrordude0215: At least he is consistent in voting quick. It's not his choice that others (Exilon, ahoda, and popsofctown) wagoned on ahoda. Though there isn't as much reasoning as I would like, he does seem to be trying to stir up discussion for scum-hunting.

Excedrin, do you mind posting links to your completed games? Thanks.

[Excedrin]

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).

pops posted a few concise posts with what he thought about people's align, ex #225, #262, maybe #94. Granted, I prefer his style immensely to some other styles, so I'm biased.

I shared popsofctown's read re: razorback. Note my question to Leafsnail in my first post. I would have been fine with lynching razorback based on policy, but I didn't think he was likely scum.

Also, basically the only way Red Star would be lynched on day 1 is if someone else immediately counterclaimed doctor.

I haven't actually been keeping track of completed games, so digging them up was kinda more effort than it should have been. I guess I'll add them to wiki.
Newbie 819 Depressing town loss
Newbie 867 Scum win
Mini 910 Empire Records Kinda feel screwed by the mod here, town loss
Mini 856 Star Control: Zeta Sextantis Town win
Mini 854 Dice Mafia Town win
Newbie 827 Town loss
Open 204 abandoned, was headed towards scum win maybe idk
Mini 825 Hip Hop Mafia Town loss
Newbie 805 My first game of forums mafia on MS, I resigned as scum when town had a forced win

Newbie 819 and Newbie 867 are both reasonable ones to read for meta purposes, not sure if either of them is entertaining.

I think a possible reason Leafsnail was killed is because he nailed razorback as scum. Maybe mafia thought he would get another one correct.

Bingo.

Why was your vote parked on horrordude on day 1?
Also, what do you think about the scum pairings you posted in #208 now that razorback flipped scum and Leafsnail (ahoda) flipped town?

I agree with your D1 view that one of Red Star and razorback was scum but not both. Given that, I'm not sure if some of your reasons for popsofctown suspicion from #297 is still valid (not that you're repeating it).

[Red Star]

I've been unable to post for a while due to some stuff I've had to do, so sorry about that. I'll post my thoughts on what's happened so far tomorrow (real-time, not game time... fool)

[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?

[popsofctown]

I am in too many games right now. Sorry for being a bad IC.


Hopefully I can read the thread and post today.

[horrordude0215]

Okay, I'll try to sort through the massive walls and get a post later today or tomorrow. No guarantees though, because I have a band concert tonight and tomorrow I'm in the school talent show!

[popsofctown]

The walls are so large... hopefully I get into the mood to tackle this soon. Ack.

Can we try to be more brief ITT?

[popsofctown]

Exilon and Excedrin seem bickering town. That's what I'm reading out of the interaction. They foster increasing verbosity when they argue with eachother, which seems like they are both town. If either was scum, the scum side would try to curtail the volume of the discussion IMO.

I think voting record would be a solid way to analyze D1. Since I have a town read on Excedrin, I'd like to

unvote, vote Skertberg

, for the placement of his vote at the end of D1

[KageLord]

... Does anyone else find it suspicious that pops hasn't responded to any of the suspicions against him?

[Red Star]

Hey, sorry guys, but I'll be on V/LA until the 10th or 11th.

Noted! No prods for you til after then! ~Kitty

[popsofctown]

I've already explained my hammer vote. The only other point is me lurking, I didn't think there was any useful way to comment on that.

But maybe you're interested in acknowledgment more than defense. I did notice several people suspicious of me.

[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?

[popsofctown]

i forgot after pushing myself through those walls.

Should have quoted with all the ctrl+c and ctrl+v magic as i went but eh..

[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