Mini 988 - Small Town Mafia GAME OVER

[Exilon]

/Confirm.
Let's all do this as soon as possible so mafia won't have time to night talk.

I predict one of the last players to confirm is scum.

Btw, nice to meet you all . =)

[Exilon]

Go wagon go

Vote: Exilon

OH WAIT SNAP, I want a right to my RVS vote, complete with its one-liner.

Unvote

Vote: SSBF

'Cause he lied last game and we lost. He claimed VT instead of Cop, even forgot to consider there was a doc on the setup (and there was <<).

With that said, I approve of my wagon. Keep going, please. Just don't let me die, that'd be bad.

[Exilon]

EDBWOP: Tag fail.

Lobster, would you pretty please fix that bold tag? Thanks =)

[Exilon]

Ah, please --'

Unvote, Vote: SSBF

Problem solved, let's eat burger.

how did the cow die?
do we have a burger place here or something??

I thought that first, but turns out the Cow isn't dead, she's just sleeping.

Sleeping in the quaint cemetery

See? Now the other two, those are most likely dead. Yeah.

Who else thinks this cow is important to the flavour, raise your hand.
*raises* Let's investigate.

[Exilon]

Fixed

[Exilon]

There's a perfectly nice situation here which you can use to gain town points, Nacho.

Not voting on RVS = drawing attention.
It is contradictory that you do not want to RVS because you don't want to draw attention, when RVS'ing is the only true way to blend in.
So you're lying about being mafia. Good job.

Now that we have found our Third Party let's look for mafia.

[hr] 99 [/hr]

Vote: 0x1de

because of this:

Vote: Exilon

because of this:

Let's all do this as soon as possible so mafia won't have time to night talk.

I predict one of the last players to confirm is scum.

Clearly scum eagerly hunting after town points.

Clearly scum eagerly hunting after town points.

Clearly scum eagerly hunting after town points.

Let's get this WIFOM pyramid bigger.

---

Also, I would like everyone to judge my honesty by the following sentence:

This sentence is false because I am lying.

.

When you have succesfully reached a conclusion, call me.

[Exilon]

got ninja'd by hundreds of people-

I will not be voting this Random Voting Stage. I am far too afraid that my participation will out both me and my mafia buddies.

Instead, I will active lurk until I can find something that I can easily jump on and gain town points for.

I have considered and reconsidered my original thoughts regarding this post.

Unvote

,

Vote: Nachomamma8

Scum roleclaim.

I approve of this. Also Nacho's latest posts clearly contradict his initial statement.

Unvote, Vote: Nachomamma8

---

RVS died in near record time in this game.

pff that means no more random jokes? T_T Noes!!!1one

[Exilon]

Oh, Foo. You have risen 4,5565 points in my considertion for keeping the pyramid alive.

Question to everyone before I respond to this post ... do we have any information about the specific game type used for this game? Sorry if it has been explicitly mentioned, I must have missed it.

Unless the presence of a sleeping cow and two dead bodies means anything, no.

Simpost with Ex in my last.... have i missed something? 3rd party? how do you know there is one in this game? I had another look at the write up and nothing I can see leads me to think (yet) there is a 3rd party.

Slip???

Are you seriously considering a slip at RVS based on a statement like that? Nice reaction, I like it.

Sarcasm (and hence confusion) is anti-town.

Not voting on RVS = drawing attention.
It is contradictory that you do not want to RVS because you don't want to draw attention, when RVS'ing is the only true way to blend in.
So you're lying about being mafia. Good job.

Now that we have found our Third Party let's look for mafia.

My point being that he's scum, but he's lying about being mafia. Therefore he is third party. Foobert agrees that it is anti-town.

Make sense?

[Exilon]

I think he was doubtful of that just like you were when you said you had read the whole thing but found no indication of the setup, Jason.

Page 3 lead on Exilon: overanxious townie.

Don't worry, the anxiety will die out soon enough. This is just new game excitement flowing around.

It's the best time to get reactions, though.

How so? I'm done with my RVS, and I've found something I'm willing to jump on.

Pursue that objective, then. You're still scum for saying you didn't want to participate as it would out your mafia buddies, and then doing so in that same and following posts.

By the way, you didn't have a RVS to be able to say you were over with it. Nice catch.

[Exilon]

Warning, fluff post.

Jason is no one.

Butterfly... I suspect you, because

no one suspects

the Butterfly as you say!!

A really big lol. You practically stole my line. (that I was planning to use at an oportunate moment)
I was actually gonna say:

Well,

I

suspect The Butterfly.

(imagine a slow, dramatic voice)

How do you end up both tired and hyper?

There's like a million ways to do that. I, for one, can get like that when I haven't slept for 24 hours but I'm doing something so interesting that it deprives me of my sleep. And when you don't sleep, your concentration, cognitive hability and such just gets screwed.

On a side-note, I like everyone's avatars. I believe this is going to be an enjoyable game.

-- /fluff post --

[Exilon]

Explain please.

In other words: Congratulations, your read is correct and the beginning of the game is the best time for reactions.

---

I never said I wouldn't be participating. I said I wouldn't be participating in the RVS.

But you never said RVS was over when you jumped on Jason, only later did you clarify.

How can you tell me if I've had an RVS or not? Words rarely betray intent; otherwise, the game of Mafia wouldn't be as fun as it is, no?

I'm not telling you, you were the one that told us. Here:

How so? I'm done with my RVS, and I've found something I'm willing to jump on.

Besides, RVS implies voting, which you refused to do because it would draw attention.

Keep talking, I'm loving your responses.

---

RVS is not the only choice for starting out the game. For example, if I was up early enough, I would have done some RQS questions. That's another way to blend in.

What's keeping you? By the way, are you gonna fakeclaim in this game as well?

This is an obvious lie. You've made words, therefore, it is a sentence. Each time you say something and make an extremely brief end to talk, you create a sentence. Not sure how this is suppose to contribute to the game, thought.

OMG, I can't believe you actually answered it xD

---

sorry if that stikes you as odd but im a fairly odd person with odd stagities in any game...
in most games i like going for long shots but im not really sure what im doing here...
anyway if you want to vote for me go for it... i dont mind to much everyone has there opinions

This is so gonna get you killed. everyone has their opinions? What happens when you get killed because of it?

Fos: Butterfly

before i get in any more trouble

Nevermind that FoS, this line changes everything.

Unvote, Vote: The butterfly

I am willing to pursue this wagon.

[Exilon]

Do you want me to answer the second question as well?

As long as it is an honest answer, yes.

Re: your case on Butterfly: Relax, it's only page 4, nothing that warrants "your play in this game has been terrible" xD
Now, where was it?

Vote: The Butterfly
Your play has been absolutely terrible in this game. As this isn't a newbie game, I'm not going to excuse your mistakes that you've made. You don't explain why you find people suspicious, you have been rolefishing, you've made post that blew my mind in a really bad way (ISO: 3), and I see no substance in your posts. You also seem like you want to go back to RVS with a vote on me, and then unvote me without explaining why.

Now you're at L-2. Improve yourself or die.

@Concerned: I understand that he's a newbie, but I'm not going to play the newbie card here. Plus I have seen newbies play a lot better then this, so this isn't excused at all.

Clearly scum eagerly hunting after town points.

You have now been encased in the "WIFOM" pyramid as well. Feel honored.
(Sorry, I just had to. I'm not really joking though - that post seems to be a little impulse driven.)

[Exilon]

i plaid about 4 games on different forums and just whanted to see how i did in a small game in this forum

Interesting, I have two completed games on this site and only one on another. I guess that excuses me from playing badly.

I'm sticking with Exilon right now.

That was quite scummy.

To clarify, you're voting for me, therefore I'm your supposed top suspect.

"That"=? In your ISO I can only find my initial statement and my missed tags. Are you saying that alone is scummier than everything else you've seen in the thread?

Interesting.

Butterfly, meh. I don't see it. Plus Cueti and David have yet to post. Soemone is too eager...

I've gotta say that Zach is looking bad. Some good comments mixed in, but: bandwagoning, being pedantic, asking questions without adding anything, etc.

What is it that you don't agree with Butterfly's case?
Who's that someone you are talking about?
Why is Cueti and David not posting relevant to an ongoing wagon and the information we get from it?
By the way, why is bandwagoning a reason for suspicion on Zach?
Am I scummy for asking these questions without adding anything?

[Exilon]

Zach took the words out of my mouth.

I meant that I don't think Butterfly is scum.
Zach and Concerned seem eager for an early lynch.
I'm just concened that we might lynch someone whilst the lurkers go unquestioned. Scum want a quick lynch...

I was talking about the case on Buterfly - sorry. I thought it was clear :s

No, true scum want a quick mislynch, but do you think that's dangerous on Day 1? If someone speedlynches, then it's actually good for us as they'll be dead the next day. Not only that, but do you think conscious town would let a quicklynch happen?

I can't really see your concern on that post, actually. And it's been, what, half-a-day since the game began and you're already calling people lurkers?

Needed question:

Where / When do Zach and Concerned show eagerness for a quicklynch?

'Cause I don't really see it and I find it funny how you say that and Concerned is one of the few people who are not supporting a Butterfly wagon.

[Exilon]

Phew, SSBF. You have no idea how that relieves me.

The case? I already have one on The Butterfly, do you want me to dig it up?

Huh? No, you got my sentence wrong. "Now, where was it?" was me talking to myself while looking for the "pyramid" thing.

[Exilon]

Achmm.

I guess I'm not used to the number of posts. Page 5 and I'm calling lurkers, but so...

Seems like wagons are fine for scumhunting.

Just a bit worried when Ex got to L-2 or L-1, whatever.

Ok, so I had a power-out which killed my post, thankfully it didn't kill my notes.

I don't really know how to comment on this post. So this is basically.. an apology? How nice. Yet you don't change your vote or answer what you've been asked.

Namely:

Where / When do Zach and Concerned show eagerness for a quicklynch?

Worried when I got to L2 or L1? Worried about me, which you believe is scum? Or did you switch names and you're talking about Butterfly, which is at L2? Either way, yeah, your post totally reeks of worry of a quicklynch. (not)

Fos: Ox1de

because I can't vote for two people at the same time and I want to get more juice out of Butterfly's wagon.

Btw, I believe concision is pro-town. Not only that, but forcing myself to be concise helps me grow as an individual because concision often gets your point across much better than wall posting. And it takes less time to write.

[Exilon]

Looks to me that David's vote on Jason has little justification. This being because David specifically stated that he was voting due to Jason's persistency on certain points which makes his gut feeling grow.

I don't find Jason scummy for that (if he repeats stuff it is my understanding that he had to, which isn't his fault). However, I admit Jason's defense isn't a very good one. David votes Jason based on his persistency/ repeating of the same argument, Jason defends himself by making use of a little misrep, saying David basically finds scumhunting to be unnecessary, which wasn't exactly his point.

tl;dr: David's vote isn't very strong in substance, but Jason's defense to it also isn't a very strong one. Although David is in a worse position than Jason, the way I see it.

---

Ox1de, why are you still voting for me?

[Exilon]

Exilon's logic is sound. Mafia can chat until eveyone confirms. BUT this is self-evident, it's part of the game. Why reinforce it? Why say that the last player to confirm is scum? Why not actually follow through with a vote or something?

Scum will seek to muddy the waters. A townie wouldn't.

Because I was joking. You really think that was a serious comment? If it was, I would have brought it up again and voted one of the last people to confirm, or something in that sense. Nothing of that happened. Do you really want to still hold on to that?

LOL Lobster xD The game really moved quickly. At least we're getting content xD

[hr] 99 [/hr]

Where's your participation, Antonio? Why aren't you voting anyone? I want to hear a little more from you. (= ALOT ). I also noticed your game posts total amount to 3, 2 of which are on this game, the first one confirming and the next one this one. are an alt or never played on site?

Let's get some pressure going.

Unvote, Vote: Antonio

[Exilon]

"Alt" is short for "alternative account", which is something like this:
You have a main account in which you play, but for some reason, you'd like to "refresh" your status, so you create an Alternate account where you play.

There's many reasons for one to create an alt account.
I'll wait for your comment on what you've read, then xD

[Exilon]

It's supposed to be an horizontal line.

---

see, this one worked. I think the problem was that I added spaces, and apparently they're not supposed there.

I just recently discovered this forum's amazing post features, which help alot when you're writing your posts.

---

Ox1de, why didn't you consider it was a joke or ask for clarification?
Since you unvoted me, are you planning to vote on someone else?

[Exilon]

For some reason I have Zach down as town because someone said his play is consistent with his meta. I have to lok into that too.

That would have been Jason.

---

i dont really suspect anyone quite yet.... i have not gathered enough information quite yet...

anyone quite yet (...) information quite yet...

quite yet (...)quite yet...

I lol'd.

[Exilon]

hey im a mafia

...
This game is now my favorite game of mafia to date.
I mean... JUST LOOK.

---

@Nacho:
Why did you stop responding to me, Nacho?
Why is Zach scummy?
Why is Butterfly not scummy?
Is Zach an easy target? Why?

[Exilon]

Because he's pushing a lynch without making a case.

You are kinda faulty of the same thing as well.

This is a stupid question.

I never said Butterfly wasn't scummy. I said Butterfly was an easy target. Why? Because he's a VI type character. Because he doesn't even have enough onsite posts to be a goon.

Stupid questions often get interesting/useful answers.
Yours, for example, was blissfully full of clarification you didn't bother to use in your initial post.

No. Why would he be?

Why isn't he an easy target? You're missteping the question.

[Exilon]

EDBWOP:

Also:

Did you miss that Butterfly just claimed scum?

Did you miss it was his brother who did it?

[Exilon]

Ox1de suddenly makes a very good question.

Working on a more comprehensive post right now but it seems like Butterfly might become too much of a liability to keep in this game in all honesty. Like others have already mentioned, at this point, it's not whether or not his actions are scummy (they are), it's whether or not he's serious about the game or if he understands how it even works.

"bad" players ( no offense intended) are often simply bad. We never really know if he should be lynched (better yet, when), but it's certain that'll take away from discussion. Personally, I'd advocate for more discussion and give Butterfly a little reprieve for now until later today, when there's also other things to talk about.

That said, I'm still waiting for Antonio to post.

[Exilon]

Problem is that it was his supposed brother who did that (claim scum). And I am really keen on believeing him (which would make it a null statement.).

I agree with your second paragraph, I have a similar opinion.

Speaking of Antonio, has Cuetlachtli even made a post in this game?

The ISO shows one post to confirm into the game.

[Exilon]

Hypocrisy thy name is Nacho.

I'm pretty sure I can't eat Hypocrisy, but I admit it would be funny.

Jason, Zach: Why should we lynch Butterfly right away?
Deadline isn't even close, many players still need more attention, heck, some players haven't even posted.

[Exilon]

see my last post and zachs iso

I don't like this justification. You mean "butterfly's scum, let's just lynch him?" (if not, please elaborate.)

Problem with that is the day would end prematurely, which means it will end when there was productive discussion to be had and many players left to analyze. this point still stands strong even if butterfly is scum. And if he's town, then things only get worse, because then we'd have little discussion + 2 dead townies (supposedly).

So please, you're going to have to give me better than that.

[Exilon]

If I fail to find a better lynch I'm perfectly happy to vote butterfly simply because he's the type of player who will need to die eventually anyway, and we might as well get it over with on day 1.

This sums up my thoughts.

I oppose of a butterfly lynch so early in the day. Even if he's scum, we'd be trading discussion and a townie (NK) for a newbie scum. Now imagine that he's an actual townie.

Jason: I asked further elaboration from you, yet you haven't given me anything. Is what you stated to my question about Butterfly the only reason why you support Butterfly's lynch?

[Exilon]

Jason:
Sorry I didn't make it too clear. I can understand why you see him as being scum, obviosuly - I share your views on that.
What I wanted was the reason to lynch him right away, which you and Zack seem to advocate. Have this in mind:

Problem with that is the day would end prematurely, which means it will end when there was productive discussion to be had and many players left to analyze. this point still stands strong even if butterfly is scum. And if he's town, then things only get worse, because then we'd have little discussion + 2 dead townies (supposedly).

My question was:
Asides from the reason that Butterfly is scummy, what other reasons do you have for supporting his lynch right away?

---

Offtopic:
Lobstermania has a nice sense of humour. I'm actually tempted to build a Butterfly's brother wagon just to see what happens if we lynch him.
Does that mean we can vote anyone?

[Exilon]

Can someone explain the logic behind scumclaim = scummy. After all Nacho did it too.

Problem with that claim is that I was able to prove it was a lie using only the info presented in that post, following a line of questioning, which, I might remind you, was dropped by him later on.

Buttefly's claim, on the other hand, cannot be proven to be a lie by resorting to that singles post.

Either way, I'm seeing people give too much credit into Butterfly's claim and I'm not seeing anyone considering why would butterfly claim scum as scum or as town unless the string of events that led to it can explain it. I'm finding it too null to be able to dub it.

Summing it up: It worries me that some players are ignoring Butterfly's justification for the claim or dubbing it as "invalid" when it is a perfectly good explanation given the context.

[Exilon]

@Ex: Butterfly is an easy target because Butterfly has lots of votes on him? Because he's the only bandwagon we have right now?

I think you're in dire need of quotes so we can understand what you are answering to. 'Cause, if I'm not mistaken, then your misrepping something here.

I understood why Butterfly is an easy wagon, I think the question you are supposed to be answering here is "why isn't Zach an easy target?"

Also, if you believe other players need more attention, then why aren't you giving them the attention they so dearly need?

What makes you think I am not giving them that attention? If you read the thread, you'll see that I've been the player who has addressed the most players so far. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Nice of you to say that, it certainly denotes how attentive you are playing towards catching scum. /sarcasm

Where did I say Butterfly was scummy, again ?

Why isn't Butterfly scummy?

I never said Butterfly wasn't scummy.

= Butterfly is scummy. If you thought otherwise, why the heck would you answer like that? To confuse us?

Yeah, how nice.

MFoS: Nacho

[Exilon]

Exilon, I think you're misrepresenting Nacho a bit, when you put the above in context it makes slightly more sense.

Please, show me where. What makes sense in context, and why? If you're talking about the first point, it's explained. I can't see anything else I'm misrepping.

[Exilon]

I have already said everything about butterfly lynch, the facts are there....no one else is as scummy as he is and thus I see him as the optimal lynch with the highest chance of hitting scum.

No one else has had the chance to act as scummy.

[Exilon]

Also, an extra note.
I support a Butterfly lynch, even more after Zach's points. However, I'm not voting before I see Antonio and Cuet post. We have time, so le's use it.

[Exilon]

Yeah.. you guys still seem to be ignoring my point. Of course Butterfly himself wouldn't have done it. His brother, on the other hand, would.
Thanks SSBF and everyone else for pointing that out. /sarcasm

On to interesting things.

Butterfly's play in general > "I am scum" claim

Perfect.

---

Jason's pushing for both lynches doesn't rub me in the right way. Also his answer for "why lynch Butter now" wasn't very satisfying.

[Exilon]

Ok, let's recap!
We all have mostly agreed that Butterfly would be a good policy lynch. I'm not really minding that for reasons I'll probably be explaining Day 2. I'll be chaning my vote to Butterfly, but before that, I'd like Antonio to post and people to voice their final thoughts for the day.

[Exilon]

If Butter turns town, I'll be looking at Jason, Ox1de and Nacho.

Read: I don't agree with lynching my partner. But am resigned to it anyway.

I agree to this. I seriously want Antonio + lurkers I've missed to post so we can all lynch Butterfly.

[Exilon]

Butterfly's play is hard for me to read mainly because I don't know what to make of it, hence why I don't really have any prediction on how Butter will flip. In fact, probabilities suggest I should be expecting a town flip, but maths are overrated.

But not Concerned eh, because he took the same stance as you? And did Dave and Cueti slip under you radar?

I will need to get my notes (on the old forum) but I remember adding concerned as a potential suspect. anyway, the people mentioned where the top 3 people I'd be looking at for a butter town-flip. Once I get my notes back, though, I'll be able to tell you exactly who I suspected. Anyway, I don't feel like giving out too much yet.

[Exilon]

I agree with SSBF and with Zach. I didn't like that post by Concerned which seems to be a little fake. He's putting "discussion", but isn't moving the vote to show he wants to pressure a certain player.

Also this

Eh, look back to my previous posts, I was awaiting the town's go-ahead to hammer as well as some input from antonio, as far as I'm concerned we aren't quite done discussing day 1.

I am for the butterfly wagon and I am willing to hammer, I was just letting discussion take it's course. How Jason and Zach found that scummy is really beyond me.

Your post felt fake.

Also felt like you're putting pressure on another player to hammer while supporting a different lynch with your vote.

Your spidey-sense is way off.
My vote was on antonio from way back didn't mean anything, there was hardly any reason to unvote when he was in no danger of being lynched. I hadn't even thought about where my vote was, as it was going to be on butterfly in any case.

You're really stretching with this and I'm trying to figure out why, what's your motivation for suddenly backing off butterfly hmmm?

Is shitty defense. He's strawmanning and his last line is, to put it simply, wrong.To start, he isn't really reaching for the case on concerned, and where did he show signs of backing off from Butterfly? He never said Butterfly was acting townish, he changed his vote to reflect his thoughts and he did so with very good reasoning, in my opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

UNVOTE: AntonioVOTE: Concerned

I want to see how you do with a little bit more pressure.

---

I don't see the problem in proposing scumteams Day 1. Apart from being succint, it's also a way to show where your top suspicions lie.

Originally giving him a n00bie town read, he quickly changed that to a scum read. This is scummy and I don't like it.

SSBF, could you please show some evidence of this?

[Exilon]

Firstly I've addressed Zach's point, I did want to see butterfly lynched I was just waiting for more discussion, I wasn't going to put my vote on him when I was the hammer and I wanted more information. The fact that YOU of all people are making this point agaisnt me is ridiculous and sets of alarm bells for me, because you have the benefit of being in the the other game I am playing in, where I threw a little hissy fit when someone hammered before enough information was gathered from the lynch
Game linked here in case anyone is interested - viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14234

I think this against the rules and warrants a modkill, Concerned. Also, stupid defense. I don't think the main issue Zach had with you was the fact you were refraining to hammer, yet you talk like that's the issue. Personally, I saw the first post of this argument as very blatant teaching while "keeping appearances". None of what you said so far as shattered that belief.

My first reaction to this forming wagon was that it has to be scum fueled but I suppose that's a bit of an overreaction, I wouldn't be surprised however if either Exilon or SMBF are being opportunistic, but I'm not quite sure it's worthy of a FoS just yet.

Lol No Concerned. I've expressed some "itches" I had with you from a while back. I'm not being opportunistic, if I wanted to, I would have hammered Butterfly a while ago. That would be being opportunistic. However, you started off bad and you're only getting worse. Not helping your case.

Also what's straw manning? I also have a big problem with lines like "this post felt fake" please outline exactly why you find it fake so I can argue my point, making a point like "player x is acting fake" just subtly paints me as scum with no argument which I can argue agaisnt.

Straw manning is basically taking a piece of an argument or change it a little bit so it becomes easy to defend, also sometimes using it as a reason to invalidate the rest of the case. It's bad in the sense that you're not actually arguing against the point made against you, but rather a side-point which seems to be the right one; but isn't.

The post FELT fake to me. The POST. Zach addressed what he thought you were really doing with that post, which basically shows how the post could be seen as fake-concern.

[Exilon]

Woo, hang on - You're reading it wrong. How is "I think this is against the rules and warrants a modkill" = "modkill this player"? I'm stating a fact, a violation of the game's rules, and a possible consequence of it - that by the way I have seen happening.

Pointing out rules and blatant disrepect for the rules isn't in poor spirit, what is in poor spirit is violating and disrepecting those same rules, furthermore attempting to use it as a viable defense.

Thanks for misrepping it, though. By the way, if you feel that was an extremely scummy play, (which is obviously scummier than what butterfly as been doing), why the hell didn't you move your vote? Right.

[Exilon]

you could have let it slide or maybe said

im pretty sure you are not allowed to do this

... but you spacifically said this warrents a mod kill... no misrepping ffom me about it. it is your own words..

"I think this is against the rules and warrants a mod kill" = "you're not allowed to do this".
I fail to see how they're different.

I never REQUESTED OR ASKED FOR A MODKILL WHICH IS WHAT YOU SAID. THAT IS EFFECTIVELY A MISREP.
I did not address the mod, I did not "suggest a modkill", I mentioned a fact based on my own experiences, proven by the usage of the particle "I think". Modkill is a grave consequence, but bringing it up is a way to denote how bad I believe his assessment was.

Also,
It is very bad for a player to just ignore another player's explanation in detriment of his own subjective evaluation.

Regardless of what way you meant it....

it seemed suggestive and something you wanted to happen... your even bringing it up shows that to me.

= Whatever, dude. You're still scummy to me.
AMAZING reasoning there.

[Exilon]

aaah, I see it. Thanks. Well then, here:

I think

I believe, according to my general experience, that doing this is against the rules and therefore

generally

warrants

results in / gets the player rewarded with a modkill

the 'generally' is a term that often gets supressed in sentences.
you're reading it like this

I think that doing this is against the rules and

warrants

therefore you should get modkilled.

In my defense, I didn't refer that

you

should get modkilled or specifically asked for it. I apologize for any confusion as well.

anyway, back on topic,
UNVOTE: .

[Exilon]

= Whatever, dude. You're still scummy to me.
AMAZING reasoning there.

What are your reasons for finding me scummy again, sorry with no ISO available atm... I can not find them.

Also, if I am still scummy to you, why is your vote on Concerned (Mod has it listed as Antonio).

The "=" there is expressive that the sentence was how what you said actually reads as. I meant to say that, even though I've explained myself and gave proper reasoning, your post expressed the idea that you still find me scummy regardless of what I said. which is, in all efectivty equal to saying "whatever, dude. you're still scummy to me."

What I found interesting now is that, as soon as Zach posted, you start backing off a little. His explanation is basically the same as mine- the difference is that you took it to heart. Is this an Appealed Authority back-pedalling I see?
How nice.
+1 on Jason scum.

Right now I'm not voting anyone because I'm waiting for Antonio to post something substantial. I found concerned's explanation to be fairly good, and therefore do not think it needs a vote. If by tomorrow or in two days Antonio/other lurker hasn't posted, then I'll hammer Butterfly so the replacement can read through the night.

[Exilon]

lurkers are lurking too much << never have I been in a game with so many unresponsive players <<

[Exilon]

VI = Village Idiot, from what I know =)

[Exilon]

Wait up, Zach. At least until Antonio posts.

[Exilon]

STILL WAITING FOR ANTONIO TO POST.
We could always lynch Antonio first and wait for Butterfly to keep spilling stuff.

Now seriously: yeah. I'll just wait one more day and then I'll hammer, no worries.
also, I don't really see the connection between Butterfly and Antonio. Butterfly also did the same thing when he voted me (Trying to make some excuses.).
Does that make me scum?

[Exilon]

Ok, enough.

UNVOTE: Antonio,VOTE: Butterfly

I think we got lots of good information to go into Day 2.

[Exilon]

Oh, right. You unvoted once then Concerned got your L1 spot. Sorry, didn't really count it correctly. Anyway, what _I said still stands, so... yeah.

[Exilon]

Sorry for not posting yet. I was here and reading, but was trying to settle my thoughts. Right now, though, I'm leaning Ox1de. For essentialy the same reasons that would warrant him a vote day 1 + his very "meh" posts today. I can provide quotes if needed, but I think it suffices to say his general tone seems more of a scum trying to lay low while contributing to the discussion than a townie who was on the wrong track.

VOTE: Ox1de

---

I never said Butterfly wasn't scummy.

I said Butterfly was an easy target. Why? Because he's a VI type character. Because he doesn't

even have enough onsite posts to be a goon

.

Bold + Underlined contridict this

@0x: Where did I say Butterfly was scummy, again?

and this

Butterfly is a null read. Why? Because he hasn't been on the site very long, because his logic doesn't make that much sense to me.

Bold and blue is interesting given the flip.... why spifically GOON? Why not just mafia, or scum? you make the role spacific to goon.

That's something I had already pointed out about Nacho, actually. Apart from the "goon" part, which is referring to his title, Nacho's overal reluctance in stating just what he thought Butter was (scummy / not scummy) is very anti-town.

[Exilon]

Yes, I'd like to see the quotes too.

Also, why did you quote jason's massive (and misguided) post instead of quoting me:

Regarding Butters, he was really non-committal, only coming out with a null-tell after repeated questions.

'Cause what I said applies to Jason's post, not your statement.

---

Well I'm very pleased with the kills. We lynched scum (well you guys did) and they took out my prime suspect.

Sounds a little weird. "I'm very pleased with the kills. We lynched scum (well, you guys did)" sounds like someone trying to avoid some attention by "apologizing".

Also "and they" instead of "and mafia". Highly unusual choice of words. Specially considering David could be a vig kill, like suggested by Zach (and I, too, am too used to newb games).

Also there isn't really a mention to a "next" suspect, just an overall "apology" and saying something along the lines of "oh, town should be looking at the busses instead". He is content with sitting back, even though he failed Day 1, which should motivate him to be more pro-active as to avoid a town mislynch.

Ok, I'm going to join the Nacho wagon. There's not much in the way of quotes to support it, but there you go. He's been quite critical of others (defensive, even) whilst generally withholding his own opinion. His vote on Zach was insubstantial and I get the impression that his stance on Concerned was 'going with the flow'. Regarding Butters, he was really non-committal, only coming out with a null-tell after repeated questions (most of which he tried to deflect by implying the questioner was suspect).

This supports what I said earlier that he was content in sitting back a bit. Ox joins a wagon, admits that he doesn't have much quoting to help his case, and also some repeated points. Ox states he's critical / defensive and withholding his opinion, but doesn't exactly give any proper examples of that or how scum would benefit from that behaviour.

---

Therefore, my vote is reamining on Ox for the time being.

[Exilon]

Ox-scum goes up. Poor defense, general speech, not too many valid points.~

Well that was a hell of a post. Must have taken you ages to put that together.

lol, ok, mooooving alooong.. No, actually:
- Ox implicitally states his posts are not going to get (generally speaking) that productive.
- Buddying. (OR AS SOME WOULD CALL IT ASS KISSING WHAT A FOUL WORD) (not a very strong point, though.)

First up your argument is flawed in several places because it depends on Butters being my scumbuddy. That's like saying "if 0x is scum blah blah then 0x is scum".

I don't understand what you're getting at here.
1) Why does the argument depend on butterfly being your scumbuddy? OBV if you're scum then butter is your scumbuddy.
2)

Where

is it flawed?
3) Explain the final sentence: like saying "if 0x is scum blah blah then 0x is scum"

gee, for someone that asked ME quotes and accused people of not being specific and that being bad because they can't defend themselves, this post is terribad.

Second, Butters wasn't eager to lynch, but Zach and Concerned were. Just look at their voting patterns. It's got nothing to do with which wagon you're on.

I still don't get it. How do Zach and Concerned differ from Butterfly and what voting patterns are you referring to?

Why would scum reveal so many town reads? I wasn't in danger of being lynched.

I just find it easier to identify town than mafia. And it's not like I just said x is town. I had some pretty long-running arguments with them.

OMG WIFOM. yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. A total bad one at that. AND YES IT'S SCUMMY.

Oh and regarding your scum case on Nacho and Concerned: how are we supposed to follow that up now? Care to summarise?

Ladies and gentlemen, meet "furbishing". When a player asks another for a summarized or reviewed position of several points they had on a certain player. The important thing here is to note that Ox is voting Nacho, and joining the wagon, so he should be aware of Cuet's overall reasoning for voting him. Not exactly scummy per se, but rings some bells.

[Exilon]

That's great, Zach.
Why?

[Exilon]

Ewww Oxide's is getting more and more awful <<

If it's not a strong point, why shout about it? Looks like you are implying things whilst disowning them.

POINTS ARE POINTS, PERIOD. They are all worth mentioning, strong or not. As such, you can also obviously weight them in terms of what you find stronger or not, because other people are not magical guessing witches. "I found this wrong, but I don't find it as relevant as this one. Still a valid point, so it has some weight."
WHAT DO YOU HAVE SOME KIND OF PROBLEM WITH CAPS LOCK CAUSE I FIND IT COOL. People write in different ways. Some like to add a little comical relief to their sentences. some don't. Bla bla.

First up your argument is flawed in several places because it depends on Butters being my scumbuddy. That's like saying "if 0x is scum blah blah then 0x is scum".

I don't understand what you're getting at here.

When you make any argument, there are some things you take as read. The problem comes when you make assumptions that are false to begin with. The worst thing is when you make an assumption and then use the argument to prove the initial assumption was true. See quotes below:

Ox thinks Zach is looking bad (cuz he is voting his

scum buddy

)

Your

scum buddy

, Butters, put Ex at L-2! Why didn’t you consider him to be “eager to lynch?!”

Backpedaling + Ignoring his

scum buddy

who almost got Ex killed

How do Zach and Concerned differ from Butterfly and what voting patterns are you referring to?

I think Cuet would be the right guy to answer this one

, but on any case, you're saying his argument is flawed because he's assuming you're scum, which

"is obviously"

not true. Is that correct or near what you mean?

That would be a right pain to go through. If you didn't see it, then forget it.

Ah, ok. Thanks for the effort. Or lack thereof.

[Exilon]

WHAT DO YOU HAVE SOME KIND OF PROBLEM WITH CAPS LOCK CAUSE I FIND IT COOL.

Grow up. All caps is shouting.

AND IS THEREFORE "COMICAL". (btw shouting is not exactly = angry / riled up).

you're saying his argument is flawed because he's assuming you're scum, which

"is obviously"

not true. Is that correct or near what you mean?.

You miss the point. If you build a house of cards but the bottom one is wrong, then the whole thing comes tumbling down.

If that's not what you mean, then clarify. I've understood so far that you say his argument is flawed due to a supposed initial assumption that you find to be wrong, what I haven't been able to understand yet is exactly

what assumption is wrong.

I've been asking for clarification for quite a while now. Saying I'm wrong (or that Cuet is wrong) isn't going to help you unless you can state why (and preferably in a way we can understand.). You might have stated it once in your initial defense of Cuet's post, but the message you were trying to convey clearly didn't go through.

That would be a right pain to go through. If you didn't see it, then forget it.

Ah, ok. Thanks for the effort. Or lack thereof.

Tell you what, you go back through all those pages and make your own mind up.[/quote]

Make my mind up? On what?
Tell you what, you tell me what you're seeing in the voting patterns that I'm not seeing (hence me asking), and what supports your opinion. Then I can decide if what you're saying actually has some merit or is garbage reasoning. (like I'm about to do.).

[Exilon]

I think that evidence someone is scum is the same thing as showing 'proof' under the assumption that a person is scum.
In any case, to have an evidence, you have to assume that a certain player is scum, for example.

They are presented in different ways, but they're both effective, in my opinion.

[Exilon]

Quick reply to the thread for something that stroke my gut:
Why am I absent from Nacho's readlist?
How the heck am I jumping to number 2 on Jason's top suspicions without as much as a post address from him Day 2? (correct me if I'm wrong).
Also it'd be great if Zach and Jason could both state thorougly why I am scummy.

Concerning Nacho's wagon:
My mind has changed a bit regarding Nacho as his defense has been getting a little better. It seems town-genuine so far (aside from a few points which are a little meh, many of which were addressed by SSBF already), which makes me much more content to have an Ox lynch instead of a Nacho lynch.

Also, comparing both player's defenses, Ox's is pretty much behind.

[Exilon]

How the heck am I jumping to number 2 on Jason's top suspicions without as much as a post address from him Day 2?

number 2 on Jason's top suspicions without as much as a post address from him Day 2?

suspicions without as much as a post address from him Day 2?

post address from him Day 2?

Day 2?

2

I hope you get the point. Also, your suspicion on Day 1? Remember that your suspicion "dropped" a bit when zach commented on it?
Guess who had the preceding post to yours when I magically appeared for the first time in your suspicion list, and what did that post contain.

JASON:
Why am I scum?

[Exilon]

I totally knew you'd bring that up xD Though, sorry, bud, that's a null tell.

[Exilon]

I don't really like Nacho has a lynch for today. I'd prefer seeing Ox get the noose instead.

It is a null tell since I've had the same resemblant behaviour and now I'm town. So far, that has happened twice - once in this game and once in that game, the problem being that, as scum, the reluctance was there because I was trying to fake town behaviour. In my defense, in that other game, my suspicion on Razorback was quite wavering and it built up. As for Butterfly, the most I've been saying is that he was a good lynch - not really

that

scummy.

[Exilon]

Why isn't Jason commenting on me? I find it weird that indeed the nightkills have been on scummy players, but I'm thinking the first night's death was a vig kill with a scum-protected NK, which made scum change targets Night 2. I'm leaning towards a one-shot vig (just cause the night actions dont' suggest an 'overpowered' mafia), which means mafia was trying to avoid a doc-protection. Either that or a vig killed both targets and we have a good doc. anyway, enough with NK.

Again, why haven't I been mentioned since the day started? (as possible scum, that is; I think you get the point)
Jason, the player I suspected the most died. what does that make me?

Why is Town tunneling? I don't like DP's vote on Cuet and then SSBF, but I find it more scummy that some people just 'get' into their bandwagon, justified or not. Namely Jason which seems again to be parroting Zach, which is in my mind increasingly scummy. Concerned didn't sound too well on #556, specially by the sentence: "I also had a town read on foobert but I've learned long ago that my reads are extremely fallible.", which seems like scummy-excuse to give L1 to me.
On a side-note, obviously WIFOM defense is terribad and something I wasn't expeting from Cuet.

So, for now:
Top 3 suspects:
Jason
Concerned
DavidParker

Hence, UNVOTE: VOTE: Jason

[Exilon]

That's nice. Also it doesn't prove anything.
Also Butterfly has mentioned me in a similar way, which several people have pointed as being a 'town clue' in my favor.
Yet you're voting me.

[Exilon]

Explain to me what an 'out' is, please.

That's the quote people have been citing, Zach.

[Exilon]

WTF, CONCERNED?!

What bothers me is that you're willing to call me scum because of a post by Butterfly over what I've done so far in the game and over calling someone else scum, when there's lots of posts around.

Zach has explained pretty well why he thinks I could be scum, however, you have done nothing of the sort. Instead, you go grab an old statement of yours, change it, and then support an Exilon wagon without EVEN VOTING.

I am probably going to prefer pressuring someone on the Parker wagon that's not Jason.

There, perfectly good candidate.
UNVOTE: Jason
VOTE: Concerned

---

On a side-note, I don't think parroting is a good way to play a game. Besides, it looks scummy as hell. still, if that's a meta-reference, I'll give it a leeway.

[Exilon]

So, hum, David, why didn't you vote Concerned?

[Exilon]

Will post the rest of my thoughts later on, btw.

[Exilon]

Concerned is looking scummier and scummier. I'll have a bigger post by night (Sorry for the delay, really, got distracted by Persona 4). There's one or two theories I'd like to discuss. They are about the claim (obv) and hypo-scum Concerned. Vig claim can = SK.
gGve it some thought before I bring it out the artillery.

Also, an alternate bandwagon should be built on Millar.

[Exilon]

I think Concerned's reaction to a Busdriver suggestion is much more interesting than the busdriver suggestion itself. In fact, I don't really find a problem with suggesting stuff or Nightkill analysis ideas, if it can help catch scum.

True, doesn't help much, but to me it looks more like curiosity than trying to fish for PR's.

[Exilon]

In my mind I had cleared you for that quote

and

(

instead of but

) I've had second thoughts about that,

especially since it turns out oxide was town and he was the one who said the quote could be taken either way. At the time I thought it might be scum trying to mislead me but clearly it was an unbiased townie opinion.

When you take the fact that I had cleared you in my mind away, I definitely think you could be scum. There are 8 of us left I'm almost certain Zach, Cuet and Jason are town I know I'm town and I'm starting to leaning town for SSBF that only leaves three players: You, DP and the antonio slot, so quite frankly I'm willing to hop a wagon on any of those players, from my view it's a 66% chance of hitting scum.

So Oxide points out my reference from Butterfly was a null tell, which Concerned says it was misleading him (onto what, I have no idea), in case an Ox-scum existed. This on its own is already pretty bad logic, and seems like a bad attempt at faking suspicion. Then he uses Oxide's death as an excuse to stop thinking I'm obv town. this does not make sense - for starters, Oxide pointed it was a null tell (from Concerned's perspective), so it shouldn't be misleading him in any way, therefore making both "events" INDEPENDENT of each other. Oxide's opinion doesn't really need to influence Concerned, yet by the way he writes this quote, it's clear one of the main reasons for Concerned's stance was Oxide's own position.

The second part grows a little more. The 66% chance just seems like weird stuff spatted out of his mouth to emphasize a point which doesn't really need emphasis. Interesting enough, the three players Concerned mentions are scum are the towns "easiest targets", those to which the town is turning to the most. (also the lurker.). He doesn't really provide explanation on how SSBF is now "slowly" leaning town.

Cautious? I didn't want to hammer, I've never had any qualms about putting someone on L-1, because I like to get as much information as possible from each day.

Putting someone on L-1 hardly equates to a lynch, that said I also feel more confident about DP at this point than I did about Nacho or Butterfly, both of which I was never quite sure about.

Silly excuses, here. For a hammer to exist, obviously a L1 also NEEDS to exist. concerned, have you ever had trouble for hammmering someone? What are you afraid of? Isn't it common knowledge that, when you vote someone, it's for pressure or to express your desire for a lynch? Problem with L1 is that it is a very dangerous position for someone to be him, usually someone who wants to apply pressure does not L1 someone. Yet not only have you L1'd someone before, you admit to not being very sure on the other two lynches. "In case something goes wrong, you guys know I was never really sure".

DavidParker is clearly obsessed with the night kill, I'm convinced he's scum just based on this. There is simply no reason for someone who wasn't involved in the kills to be so obsessed with them.

If I had to guess I'd say DP is scum, and we do have some sort of power role in play that is effecting the kills and that is causing him to freak out. It's either that or

DP is the PR who is causing the shenanigans and this is his weak attempt at hiding this fact (I hate to bring this up but it's the only other option I would accept).

The bolded part is pure genius. Not only it looks like concerned gets a litle concerned over geting DP lynched, he seems to be reaching at straws. Dubbing DP's interest in the NK's as "obsessive" and dubbing it as "definite scum" seems pretty off to me, considering the fact that DP brought it up because they weren't really being discussed, and because the line immedietly after he says "If I had to guess".

Wait, I was wrong, no. Actually the blue bolded is absolute genius.

Now, we know for a fact that Concerned is the Vig. Let's assume that for the moment. Notice what he says. Why would a vig, who knows he's the one behind the killings, suggest DP as

THE

possible PR that is causing the "sheningans" he's trying to hide? Also, when he claimed Vig, he said that the reason why he wanted to know why DP was "obsessed" was because he, Concerned, was the one making those kills. Let's compare this.

If I had to guess I'd say DP is scum, and we do have some sort of power role in play that is effecting the kills and that is causing him to freak out. It's either that or DP is the PR who is causing the shenanigans and this is his weak attempt at hiding this fact (I hate to bring this up but it's the only other option I would accept).

DP you really need to give me a pro-town reason I can accept for why you are so obsessed with the night kills.

The reason why this is a big issue for me is because I am the vigilante - and both of the night kills have been my doing.
This may seem like quite an unbelievable claim considering we've had one death per night but it's still the truth.

First things first:

1) Being the Vigilante does not mess up the mafia's kills. (redirects, whatever)

There's another PR or a cross-kill, AND if there was a cross-kill, then, according to Concerned's perspective, there would be no need for DP to freak out. "Cross-kill is not a possibility". Hence, according to Concerned, there's a PR who's messing up the kills other than himself. Which means,

the second quote does not make sense according to supposed Concerned's honest perspective. There is NO NEED for him to out himself, as his kills don't affect the mafia kills.

Yet he does out himself and he has two votes on him.

These are Concerned's most important posts, but in fact, almost all of his posts have either something off or rub me wrong, which is very bad.

---

Concerned's Theories at this point:

a) This one is quite easy. Occam's razor at work here. Assume this a 3-scum game and Concerned is with Butterfly and now Millar, which obviously isn't doing much, so he had to carry out the kill by himself. A safe kill would be in order, so scummy players would be good targets. This also sets a good ground for a fake claim.
b) Concerned is the SK. Pretty obvious, a vig fakeclaim when you're SK is pretty good; also look at his claim post and flavour-claim post. Read it like if he's the SK. No mention to SK possibility, "this is the first time playing as Vig", "

playing PRO-TOWN instead of pro-self

", and his flavour curiously ends with "You enjoyed life until...".

---

I have to think about what Zach said. I'm not sure if not-lynching the claimed vig is the way to go, but I'm up to be convinced.

[Exilon]

ALSO PEOPLE SERIOUSLY NEED TO GET GOOD CASES ON ME INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING " YEAH EXI COULD BE SCUM". (everyone can be scum, get it?)
If the best you can come up with is subjective stuff like "butterfly's" ambiguous tells (your own words) and that stuff with the mod from Day 1 or my "indecisiveness" which didn't really exist with butterfly, then you should try WAY harder.

WHERE IS JASON.

[Exilon]

yeah, DP's votes have been one hell of a crazy ride, but I don't really know a good reason for scum to do so except being afraid. His town reasons to do so seem a little stronger.

[Exilon]

I'll be

V/LA until Monday

. I don't exactly know when the deadline is (busy busy), but I don't mind a Millar lynch at all at this point.
therefore:

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Millar

Yes, I've read the answers and everything and I think (for concerned at least) there's no need to comment on it, seeing how my mind didn't really change.

Jason, please answer my questions. (about case on me, etc.)

[Exilon]

Oh nice one Concerned. I was still thinking in general your argument was pretty flawed and the claim seemed like a bad one, but apparently I was wrong. Despite that, I STILL don't get why I was a likely scum. Really, I posted a decent post where I stated the only things I saw sop far that made me scummy, which weren't much, no one answers, and I still get to be killed? It kinda ticks me off <<

Yeah, overpowered for town is pretty true O_o. There wasn't even a SK?
thanks everyone!

[Exilon]

--'
OMG THEY WERE CROSS KILLS
xD

[Exilon]

I forgot to add: that'd be a good strategy SSBF, only that you left the vig alive and by making everyone have town reads, you left yourself wide open. In fact, if you had killed some other players instead, leaving the suspicious ones, you could have left them for town to kill. by killing them yourself, you're losing your right to destroy the most dangerous players to you.

[Exilon]

im not really fussed if u chose to include me as a winner or not
still won

a cup of iced tea to my face.

a cup of boiling coffee down my back.

a couple of hating slaps.

a painful death by lynching.

absolutely nothing.

FTFY.