Mini 999 - Isolated Mafia (Game Over)

[AWA]

Why hallo thar. My name is AWA (Glenn if you prefer). Let's have a great game!

[AWA]

And by the way, nice Code Geass avatar, chauchau.

It's sexy. ;D

[AWA]

Sorry for the triple post, but quick confirmation question: By lynch requires half plus one, does that mean that a 50% majority does not lynch? So, for example, on Day One, six would not lynch?

Correct. It takes seven to lynch for day one.

[AWA]

AWA: I'm a bit confused. According to your title and joindate, you've played a number of mafia games on this forum. Surely you've run into the "half number of living players, rounded down, +1" rule before?

It's been a while since I've played online. If I had played that way before, I don't remember, and if it's a recent standard, then I would have missed it. =(

[AWA]

I hate to V/LA so soon, but from June 29 to July 5, I will have limited Internet access. I will try to get on as much as possible, but no guarantees of activity. Sorry =(

Noted. Thanks for the heads up.

[AWA]

Vote: MichelSableheart

'cause Bandwagons are hawt.

Vote: TheButtonmen

Bandwagoning so soon? And under the pretense of joking? I think not.

[AWA]

Vote: MichelSableheart

'cause Bandwagons are hawt.

Vote: TheButtonmen

Bandwagoning so soon? And under the pretense of joking? I think not.

Worried about a buddy?

Nope. I just think that bandwagoning is dumb. This particular one sounds suspicious to me.

[AWA]

Vote: MichelSableheart

'cause Bandwagons are hawt.

Vote: TheButtonmen

Bandwagoning so soon? And under the pretense of joking? I think not.

Worried about a buddy?

Nope. I just think that bandwagoning is dumb. This particular one sounds suspicious to me.

So do you propose we just twiddle our thumbs around and not lynch anyone and let scum pick us off one by one then? Bandwagoning is how a lynch comes 'round.

No, I propose that we use reasoned argument instead of random jumping-on-wagons. Bandwagoning is how rushed kills come along.

[AWA]

No, I propose that we use reasoned argument instead of random jumping-on-wagons. Bandwagoning is how rushed kills come along.

Bandwagoning also pulls scum out of hiding, establishes reads on players and often can lead to a telling scumslip. So your view on bandwagons is flawed and distorted.

Besides, it's the early game. If you can use "reasoned argument" to find scum after one or two posts by players, then you go right ahead and do that. In the meantime, while you look like an ass, I'm gonna move my vote, because your fear of a bandwagon mislynching someone in the early game is really scummy.

VOTE: AWA

Whether my view on bandwagons is flawed or not, it is my view of them; they're an extraordinarily easy way for scum to hide behind a wall.

your fear of a bandwagon mislynching someone in the early game is really scummy.

I don't quite get this. My caution in rushing into a potential mislynch (which, by definition, is accidentally lynching a pro-town) is scummy? I don't follow.

[AWA]

Besides, it's the early game. If you can use "reasoned argument" to find scum after one or two posts by players, then you go right ahead and do that.

Forgot to address this part. I don't intend to use reasoned argument after one or two posts; we have nineteen days of discussion with which to analyze. Just because there are only one or two posts

now

doesn't mean that there will only be one or two posts

then

. I used my vote to emphasize my disapproval of bandwagons.

If it will make you feel better,

Unvote

. No reason to keep a vote which was used for an emphasis more than a threat.

[AWA]

'cause it's a worthless question that adds nothing to the game other then noise.

Your concern over me voting you is noted and dismissed.

Aaand back to

Vote: TheButtonmen.

Why?

No question is worthless. If there is really a simple, innocent answer, then provide it. Do not attempt to handwave interrogatives by claiming them to be insignificant. You have not had a valid reason for a single one of your actions this game, yet you have voted for two players, each of which already had votes on them. To me, this looks like a scum trying too hard to start a bandwagon. At best you are a severe liability to the town.

AGar, you play

really

suspiciously to me... I want to say that the fact that you seem to want to use RVS as an excuse for building crap arguments and denying the utilization of logic and reasoning is a scumtell. That said, I still feel that TheButtonmen is more of a liability, though if it came time to hammer I would not hesitate.

Similarly to AGar, I'm suspicious of DavidParker's denial of analysis and reasoning. RVS is not a required stage, people.

I'm reserving opinions on MichelSableheart. So far, all he(?)'s really done is call AGar on his refusal to abandon RVS, which I support. This isn't a town-tell, though.

[AWA]

I've seen people "ignore" or acknowledge questions and not answer them because of their redundancy/worthlessness in some of my earlier games, and have to agree that not every question has to be answered. How you interpret that is up to your own discretion.

The fallacies here are that a.) Prior events are not necessarily correct, and b.) No, there is no question too insignificant to be answered. If it really is a dumb question, then answer it and move on; if the person presses, it might be a scumtell, so it's still advantageous. By refusing to answer questions, you deny the town information and act anti-town, if not directly pro-scum.

[AWA]

Back from V/LA. Thanks for bearing with me; college searches suck.

Dear lord people; conciseness is protown.

Enough with the wall spam.

I'll construct a broader post in a bit, but I find this offensive. Conciseness is decidedly

anti

-town. It allows scum to hide behind strawman arguments, and forces protown players to defends themselves in as few words as possible, when more would be more effective. Just because you're too lazy to read a large post, don't claim that smaller posts are "protown". This is at least the second time you've claimed this. Man up and start playing.

[AWA]

Now, about this whole conciseness is pro-town argument. First of all, DP and AWA... you guys are boneheads. However, TBM is taking this to the complete other end of the spectrum. Conciseness is very much pro-town. Getting your point across in as few words as possible allows for less chances to muddy the waters and gives scum less opportunities to either break your argument or hide their argument's flaws. Walls of text can often lead to confusion and easy ways for scum to get by because of the amount of material needed to cover. However, TBM's posts are beyond concise. There is a difference between getting your point across in a few words and not posting enough to actually get a point across. If you think a few paragraphs is too much to get a point across, then you're stretching your argument.

I actually agree here completely; when I said that conciseness was anti-town, I meant that "conciseness", on the far end of the sliding scale, was anti-town. Naturally, one should make one's point in a few words as possible; here I simply defend the fact that non-conciseness is not necessarily anti-town, as TBM appears to postulate.

I'm extremely sorry for not posting (a recap) today, but settling down after the trip was more hectic than I thought. I will get a post in tomorrow.

[AWA]

I apologize for dodging a post for yet another day, but I spent an hour on this post and it's still not done, and I have to go to bed. I'll wrap up my final analysis tomorrow and post; only one more person to analyze and a conclusion to compose.

[AWA]

So here's my long-awaited post. As it comprises the content of a week's worth of posts, it's going to be long. If you don't like that, get over it.

The format will be as follows: I will go down the list of players in the order they appear in the OP, and I will do a rough PBPA of each. I will analyze each player pseudo-chronologically, that is, if I analyze an earlier post, any later amendments excepting EBWOP's will not be regarded in my analysis. Actual analysis will look like this:

Post ###: Analysis goes here.

Also, I will only address the parts of each which I feel warrant attention; if you want me to address a specific part of a post which i have neglected, please tell me and I will be glad to do so.

I'll try to not include as much theory in this post as possible to keep it as clear as possible.

When I address different parts of the same post, I will separate them with slashes, like so: "Analysis A/Analysis B/Analysis C" etc.

Ok? Ok.

In the interests of fairness, I will

Unvote

before I analyze.

-----

AWA

I'm not even going to comment on this piece of trash.

remussaidow

Post #54: (We seem to have moved past the RVS discussion of the first few pages, so I'll give it little space here).
Post #105: I like the fact that rem is willing to unvote when there becomes no purpose for a vote.

Merlin

Merlin has requested replacement. Besides this, no posts of interest, though it is important to remember that this role

does

still exist.

Copper

Post #86: I agree that for the most part, the RVS bickering was just noise./I also agree that, in general, I was focusing too much on the logical aspects of the game, and not so much the socio-psychological aspects. This is a flaw of mine; I will attempt to rectify it./I agree that AGar, in general, seems very haphazard with his attacks; they seem to be to be analagous to a person blindly attacking anyone who has a reasonable chance of becoming a target.
Post #115: I would like to reinforce the point of how AGar's attacks seem random until they latch on.
Post #132: My Post #131 amends my point to couch against extremism.

DavidParker

Post #48: RVS and RBS are, in my opinion, extremely unproductive, and should last no longer than absolutely necessary to get discussion started./My views on bandwagons have already been expressed. I am suspicious of this particular bandwagon vote, as it was made extremely cavalierly and in ignorance of the rather large amount of activity above it.
Post #52: Every question that would be answered ina courtroom should be answered here, that is, suggestive, leading, or loaded questions are exempt. Purposefully avoiding "redundant" questions, in my opinion, throws suspicion on the avoider, as they could be answered easily and dismissed.
Post #73: I find it difficult to believe that suspecting three people, but not to the point of voteworthiness, is a scumtell. That you would place a vote simply for this reason smells of trying to start a wagon on a flimsy premise.
Post #80: Someone town-aligned would, I think, naturally be dispositioned to find suspicion in everyone else, you know, being part of the uninformed majority. One analytical post is worth any number of worthless posts. However, I will analyze screl later.
Post #82: The interesting thing I find about this post is the timestamp. The post came roughly one minute after TBM's vote; I feel like David was trying to scramble. I know the feeling, but it's still mildly suspicious.
Post #84: I completely agree; i will discuss TBM more in-depth later, but I dislike his emphasis on what he calls "conciseness" and his rather pronounced tunnel-vision.
Post #93: I feel like the entire Michel/AGar thing was simply noise, but from other points of discussion i am inclined to believe that AGar, not Michel, is slightly scummier. I disagree with the backpedalling claim./I agree that Copper seems slightly pro-town./I fail to see how it's scummy for me to use my vote in a context other than that of a serious vote. I would imagine that, psychologically, an attack punctuated by a vote would carry more weight than a simple attack.
Post #103: Having seen how quickly bandwagon votes can pile up, and not knowing how many scum there are, I can attest that L-5 isn't necessarily as safe as it would initially seem, especially with people constructing arguments against him behind which scum can hide and wagon.
Post #117: Pointless votehop to pressure Merlin; I'm curious if this might have been a thinly disguised attempt at a quicklynch wagon. Mildly suspicious as his vote is

still

on Merlin two (IRL) days later.

MichelSableheart

Post #33: The "scum lengthening Night 0" conjecture seems flimsy. I don't remember the breakdown of when everyone confirmed, so I can't check this, but it still seems quite unlikely, seeing as there are people who (essentially)

still

haven't responded.
Post #41: I want to bring as little of the old RVS argument into this as possible, but I want to laud Michel's defense of reasoning.
Post #45: Michel is so far doing admirably in deflecting AGar's rather ad hominem attacks.
Post #47: I'm not happy with the "I make up scumtells" bit of this post, but it would certainly explain the logical underpinnings behind random voting. I'm willing to dismiss it.
Post #60: I am slightly suspicious of your 3 scum claim, though with 11 players 3 scum is logical.
Post #77: I completely disagree with your TBM read, as I will explain later on./I'm a bit confused by the language you used to address me. Can you please clarify?
Post #91: The only thing I have to say to this post is WIFOM. I understand the inherent fallacy in this, but there it is.
Post #116: I'm much less suspicious of this vote on Merlin than David's because it was made first, and was backed up with sound reasoning (though it was slightly non sequitur).
Post #125: I think you confuse the terms "game relevant" and "game related". Some of the posts to which you refer are related, but not relevant, to the discussion at hand, and thus you confuse them for usefulness.
Post #134: Again, I am appreciative of the ability to unvote when the vote becomes unfounded./As I will later outline, I believe that TBM's "game relevant" content is actually simply "game related" content, and therefore worthless taken at face value.

My Milked Eek

Post #75: I feel that yes, some of David and screl's interations might be construed as scummy. At the same time, when you feel strongly enough about them to vote, it is up to YOU to provide the argument, and not everyone else. The burden of proof is on the voter, not the voted, and certainly not the people to whom the voter is trying to convince.

screl1

Post #56: I'm not particularly impressed with your FOS'ing everywhere, though I understand it; in this game, everybody is intially perceived as more guilty than innocent. At the same time, no one is either until proven so./Yes, I am worried about votes. Perhaps this is a gameplay flaw of mine, but I feel that a vote is an extremely powerful tool, and should be used as a tool, not as a cudgel. When I saw AGar throwing cotes around like candy, I naturally got worried about his free usage of this most powerful tool. I was "quiet for a while" because I did not get the chance to check mafiascum.net for the remainder of the day; check the timestamps before making time-related posts. While I did target AGar, I did not target Michel. I question the validity of this FOS, especially as the reasoning is "There is nothing concrete here". When why FOS?/I don't understand the FOS on Michel, either. What I got from this "analysis" is that he confused you, so he's suspicious. I'm not buying it./TBM garners the most questions, yet does not receive an FOS. Interesting./This is your only slightly valid FOS, and even then I thihnk it's flimsy. yes, AGar's been unwieldy with his attacks, but you construct your "argument" based on his clout.
Post #69: I refuse to allow you to force anything, be it alcohol, a movie, or whatever, take responsibility for your actions. This isn't a scumtell

yet

, but it's definitely worth keeping an eye on.
Post #99: I'm quite amused at this post; first you claim that David's vote was the only OMGUS vote (not strictly true if you count RVS), and then you OMGUS. The only good part of this post is that you defend the right to post whenever one pleases. Still, there is a lot of emotion in this post, and I feel that this fact, combined with the OMGUS vote, is a mild scumtell. On the other hand, screl is ostensibly a newbie.
Post #106: Here you seem a bit too intent on building a case on Michel, apparently due to the earlier theory discussion. Not sure what to make of this, but I think that you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Your intent behind this is anyone's guess; mine is that you're trying to shrug attention off of yourself and onto Michel.
Post #107: Don't get too used to the "new to Mafia" argument. It won't hold water for long.
Post #113: An OMGUS vote is inherently

not

random, but has a rather unconvincing reason.

Guthrie

Oso

Hasn't posted much (if anything).

Equinox

Hasn't posted anything of interest (yet). I look forward to their wallpost.

TheButtonmen

Post #26: See Post #29 for my views on this post.
Post #40: No reasoning, no logic, just presupposed self-evidence. Nothing in this game is self-evident. The almost brutal terseness of this post screams scum at me.
Post #43: See Post #50 for my views on this post.
Post #61: A) No, but they are extremely inefficient and decidedly anti-town, as they promote mob mentality. B) You voted me with no reasoning at all. You have yet to provide any such reasoning. C) There is an ostensible contradiction there, yes, but the answer is simple: Answer the question satisfactorily, we collectively move on. Ignore it or deflect it, and we get suspicious. D) Irrelevant. E) Elaborate? Oh right, "conciseness is protown".
Post #66: See Post 127 for my views on this matter.
Post #81: Tunneling + promotion of mob mentality. Anti-town at best.
Post #85: Arrogance is anti-town; if you are a protown alignment, it estranges the town, and if you are an anti-town alignment, it makes people resentful.
Post #124: See Post 127 for my views on this matter.

AGar

Post #22: OMGUS is not a scumtell. I'm tired of people claiming that it is. Yes, sometimes scum will use it as an excuse. It still is an extremely unreliable "tell", unreliable enough to discount it as a reasonable premise for lynching.
Post #31: Your mastery of leading questions is admirable. Stop using them; they're misleading and anti-town.
Post #37: Your defense of bandwagons is flawed for the reason that it come from the perspective of a person who is dead-set on only seeing the perceived positives of the activity (bandwagoning), and to hell with the negative. By this logic, we should push someone to L-1 to "lead to a telling scumslip", while in the meantime a scum can hammer under the pretense of simply "joining the wagon" and forgetting that it was L-1. I counterclaim that

your

view on bandwagons is flawed and distorted, and I might take it so far as to call this a slip./Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem. Enough with the fallacious play, and try to hunt scum instead of falsely asserting yourself as hunting.
Post #44: [1] Enough with the ad hominem. [2] No, they shouldn't; the point is that they

can

, and that's what Michel was worried about. [3] IIRC, your "reasoning" for voting David was that, essentially, you felt like it. You retroactivtely justified it when he OMGUS'd. Don't claim to have sound "reasoning" when this is clearly not the case. [4] You seem to think that reasoning cannot be employed in the early stages of the game. RVS is not the only way to begin discussion; when someone attempts to use reasoning, flawed or not,

that

is a discussion point./You're awful liberal with your vote. I'm inclined to think that you're a bit too eager to get suspicion off of yourself by accusing others first.
Post #46: [1] Hyprocrisy. You did the exact same thing with David. [2] While I agree with your argument, I (still) disagree with your attitude. Enough with the personal attacks, and stop clouding the waters of discussion with emotion.
Post #49: Your supposed "reasoning" toward the end of this post is not grounds for "believing [Michel] to be scum." You correctly point out inaccuracies in his own logic, and that's all. Additionally, the little "QED" at the end is unnecessary and counterproductive, as it psychologically denies a strong rebuttal.
Post #55: I rather think that, instead of your random votes/questions, it is your inflammatory language that draws reactions. It certainly did here./Let's take a second here to actually analyze the Chainsaw Defense. The key to the defense is that the player utilizing the defense is, well,

defending

another player. I was not defending Michel; I was attacking you, and it so happened that you were, at the time, attacking Michel. By your logic, any person who attacks someone who isn't directly attacking them is using the Chainsaw Defense. I think not.
Post #63: Thus far, you have pointed fingers at no less than four people. Does this mean that you want all of these people lynched? It is a poor moderator who chooses that many scum in a 12 person setup. This indicates, to me, that you are willing to kill as long as the scum (or rather, the people you personally believe are scum) get killed as well. I don't like this./Please elaborate on why you feel my hesitation on bandwagons is scummy. You never answered my question in Post #38: "[why is] my caution in rushing into a potential mislynch (which, by definition, is accidentally lynching a pro-town) scummy?"
Post #65: More ad hominem. I'm beginning to think that your "playstyle" is of the "attack attack attack and if I don't have a sound argument attack the person" variety. I have seen very little reasoning out of you thus far (though, admittedly, what I have seen is mostly accurate).
Post #78: THIS is finally a good post! Legitimate scumhunting with very little to no emotion involved. I agree with this analysis of the interaction between David and screl, though outside of this specific instance, I have not seen much more interaction between them.
Post #94: Screl's post came in the middle of your battle with Michel, yes; a battle which occurred in the span of one IRL day, during which it is entire plausible that screl could only get on once. That said, screl hadn't exactly been inactive between the analysis post to which you refer and this one.
Post #100: You yourself have pointed fingers at no less than four people. For the sake of argument, let's suppose that all four were scum. If all four wagoned onto screl (which, as stated before, you would have no problem with), he would be at L-1 *snap* like that. Implausible, yes. But not impossible. Particularly as a new player, though I hesitate to bring this into the discussion, he would be more jumpy than others when a case, and a flimsy, ad hominem one at that, was being built against him.
Post #110: "When I think someone is scum, I pressure them until they break." This has never occurred to you to be a poor way to play? It completely rules out the possibility that you might be

wrong

, and it lets real scum wagon on your attack.
Post #118; 1) FOS, to

me

, is simply a way of indicating that you are mildly suspicious of a person, but not the point of voting. Fence-sitting, to me, is having no strong opinions either way, and thus not warranting an FOS./I didn't notice David's voting habits; this was an excellent observation. Still, correlation does not imply causation, but it's something to keep an eye on.
Post #130: See Post #131 for my response to this. I only include this because Copper seems to have ignored it, and I wanted to make sure people read it.

-----
Conclusions:

AWA- Me.

remussaidow- Not much to get a read on. His willingness to unvote is laudable. Mildly protown, but keep in mind that there's not much to go on here.

Merlin- Nothing. No posts of interest.

Copper- Not much of a read. Very few posts on interest, though Post #86 was good. Still, no read.

DavidParker- Slight scum read. I don't particularly like how he overreacts to provocation, though as I outlined above, it's understandable. A lot of his posts were directly catalyzed by AGar's attacks, however.

FOS: DavidParker

MichelSableheart- Much of his posts were lacking in relevance, but the ones that weren't seemed to give me a very slight scum vibe. I'm not happy with his buddying up with TBM, however, and as I find TBM the scummiest player so far, this naturally throws suspicion on Michel. Not enough to FOS, but

IGMEOY

.

My Milked Eek- Little to go on. No read.

screl1- A lot of his reactions can be chalked up to newbishness, but I want to stay away from that. That said, his reactions, when viewed objectively, are fairly natural. Not willing to say protown, however.

Oso- Nothing.

Equinox- Nothing of interest.

TheButtonmen- Currently my candidate for the scummiest player in the game. I believe that his terse attitude, combined with his blunt posts can be called a scumtell. He has provide zero reasoning behind any of his actions thus far in the game, and is promoting mob mentality and therefore directly anti-town.

Vote: TheButtonmen

AGar- Not a fan of his penchant for ad hominem and insults. They frankly muddy the posts of relevance by steeping them in emotion, which in turn allows players to interpret facts differently when there should be a single truth for a given fact. The feeling I get is that you are trying to throw suspicion off of yourself by suspecting others first, and then when they suspect you in turn, it is a "scumtell". Not buying it.

FOS: AGar

-----

Hopefully this makes up for my V/LA; sorry again for the inactivity.

[AWA]

Good post, will comment on some points at a later point, but first thing to come to mind: You voted on TBM saying how he is anti-town, but do you find him scummy? While maybe anti-town at times, I don't find TBM as being overly scummy.

I said anti-town in conjunction to being scummy. While I do find him scummy, I feel that anti-towniness is a valid enough reason for a vote; even if someone is a protown alignment, anti-town attitude is ultimately counterproductive.

[AWA]

At this point, I think that a TBM kill is pretty much not going to happen. I also think that an AGar kill will likely not happen. My third choice (as outlined in Post #143 would be DavidParker. I'm hesitant to vote, as that would put him at L-1, and that's just asking for a quicklynch-- either a scum looking for a kill or a misguided townie who rushes into a mislynch. However, we seem inexorably drawn toward a David lynch.

Reading through, "my" argument is essentially an amalgamation of Copper, AGar, and MME's arguments. No real point in rehashing.

I'll hold off on voting so that we can get some of the less active players time to talk (still have 8 IRL days, remember), but

Unvote

and consider my theoretical vote on David.

[AWA]

At this point, I think that a TBM kill is pretty much not going to happen. I also think that an AGar kill will likely not happen. My third choice (as outlined in Post #143 would be DavidParker. I'm hesitant to vote, as that would put him at L-1, and that's just asking for a quicklynch-- either a scum looking for a kill or a misguided townie who rushes into a mislynch. However, we seem inexorably drawn toward a David lynch.

Reading through, "my" argument is essentially an amalgamation of Copper, AGar, and MME's arguments. No real point in rehashing.

I'll hold off on voting so that we can get some of the less active players time to talk (still have 8 IRL days, remember), but

Unvote

and consider my theoretical vote on David.

Well then.....

I suppose if you tried you could be more scummy, like claim scum or something.

Well then.....

I suppose if you tried you could actually explain yourself for once, like, talk or something, instead of putting out a statement of "suspicion" and hoping it starts a wagon.

The only reason I unvoted you is because keeping my vote on you is a pointless gesture. The only reason I'm not currently (truly) voting for David right now is so that we might allow people who are inactive at the moment time to talk, so that we might glean some information from them.

Apparently, this is unacceptable for you. Oh well.

[AWA]

I would be perfectly fine with a David lynch. Let me reiterate,

again

: The only reason I haven't voted (hammered, I guess, now) yet is to give inactives time to post.

[AWA]

The only reason I unvoted you is because keeping my vote on you is a pointless gesture.

This statement is interesting. How was your vote on TheButtonmen "pointless"?

To respond to this:

Think about it from my perspective. I would desire a TBM lynch, but this clearly isn't going to happen. The next person on my list is AGar, but that isn't going to happen either. Next would be David. If I keep my vote on TBM, but switch my sort-of vote to David, then my sort-of vote carries no weight. Simply having my vote on TBM is not pointless;

keeping

it on TBM when there is clearly no chance that he will be lynched is pointless.

[AWA]

The way I see it, I have two options: Hammer, or wait.

Let's analyze each:

Hammer: We discover immediately David's role. The day ends.

Wait: We allow people time to post. The day continues, and David is still a hair's breadth from bring lynched should it become evident that nothing else will be obtained from waiting.

The logical option is to wait; by allowing for more time to pass before ending the chance for discussion, we do nothing except give ourselves more opportunity for gaining information.

I now ask you in turn: Why are you eager to kill David now, when he's so close to being killed anyway?

[AWA]

Sorry I haven't posted guys, I got my wisdom teeth out this week (ouch!) and I've been laid low. I'll read up and post. From what I gather from skimming, David has claimed cop (prompting several unvotes) and screl has been flailing a bit. I'll post a more in-depth post in a bit.

[AWA]

Oso, your argument has merit, but it does seem a

bit

contrived; a so-called "textbook" lynch-a-cop method (which hasn't ever been established), which MS appears to fall into "perfectly"? Your case seems a bit tailored to me, though I will concede that there are some points of interest, which must be examined at some point.

I still would support a David lynch, but as has been pointed out, it everyone sticks to the proverbial guns, that is mathematically impossible.

As for screl, I think that his "newbishness" is being stretched to the limit. He's flailing much more than can be reasonably expected. Addressing his attitude toward voting David, I find that he simply hid behind my already-established reasoning to put off voting for David. His "argument" for putting off the lynch was almost concept-for-concept my own. Now that he's under the microscope, his squirming almost feels like a tell. I'll wait for a claim, but I won't mind hammering.

Welcome, nopointactingup (if you don't mind, I will abbreviate to npau). Question: How do you find my caution "edgy"? I'll be the first to admit that I have a very non-aggressive playstyle, but I fail to see how that labels me as scummy. As for my choice in language, if you read me in iso and use Ctrl+F, you'll find that I use the words "lynch" and "kill' pretty much interchangeably. Not sure if this is poor etiquette, but there it is.

[AWA]

David: It's AWA. Not Away. Each letter is pronounced individually.

And I would hardly call them wagons. Reasonable cases have been made against each of you.

[AWA]

I'm gonna go ahead and say that David is scum. Hammer without a claim? Riiight.

[AWA]

Hmm? I thought that screl was at L-1...

I see, you were one of the initial 6 votes. My fault for not following accurately.

I stand by my stance: I will wait for a claim, but will not hesitate to hammer.

[AWA]

Stop twisting my words. I was saying that I will hold back my vote to give screl a chance to claim. My actions after the claim were not outlined, though I wanted to make it clear that I was not opposed to hammering.

[AWA]

EBWOP: As you yourself say, if I were not inclined to care about the claim, I would have hammered before the claim.

[AWA]

I'm gonna go ahead and say that David is scum. Hammer without a claim? Riiight.

RTFT?

I'm sorry? I already apologized for missing David's quickswitch.

I will wait for a claim, but will not hesitate to hammer.

What's the point of a claim if you are dead set on hammering? You may as well just hammer him and see what he flips then.. This isn't some bastard mod game.

First off, I don't think that's what AWA said. The way I read it, he would wait for a claim, but if there was evidence of lurking or some refusal to claim, he'd drop the hammer. That's what happened.

The point of a claim is to give the target time to make a last-stand defense and to get information. For instance, if we'd gone with your suggestion and just hammered you, well, we could have been SOL. Whatever doubts we have about the claim can wait until after the claim has been made.

This is correct.

As for my opinion about screl's claim?

...meh.

It's absurdly easy to claim VT. Since a PR already got claimed, it's extremely unlikely that he would claim

another

PR. Naturally, he's not going to claim scum. So that leaves VT, and 0 net gain in information.

I'll wait for some last statements and then hammer. In particular I'd like npau to answer my questions, and give TBM time to post.

[AWA]

I would have liked to see a post from npau, but I can't say I'm dissatisfied with the lynch, insofar as I would have preferred others. I

am

a bit puzzled by David's waffling in terms of vote-unvote-vote-unvote...

[AWA]

Wow, that was fast. L-1 before I ever get a chance to check in.

I'm slightly suspicious of David's "investigation" of Michel, especially as Michel was one of the primary proponents of David's lynch toward the end of D1, and as Michel voted David earlier today (OMGUS?).

That said, Michel's play slipped a bit toward the end of D1... as Oso pointed out, a definite case could be made against Michel, which I would like to examine today.

(Belatedly) welcome, don_johnson!

npau, would you please elaborate on your Post #336?

To sum up:

I have a 5% scum read on David, and a 3% scum read on Michel.

[AWA]

If you've read the thread, you would know that I'm much more cautious with my vote. It's a weapon which can potentially kill, to be used with finesse, not like a cudgel.

[AWA]

I would have thought that I was being fairly straightforward; I am more suspicious of David than Michel. David is trying to twist my words,

yet again

, in an all-out effort to make me look bad. As for the statistics? They mean nothing. All they were supposed to convey were my respective suspicion levels against David and Michel. To be perfectly clear, neutral is 0%, town is -100%, and scum is 100%.

For being consistently hesitant and non-committal without good reasons to be. His disposition against bandwagons reeks of scum trying to avoid being on mislynches, and his wanting to wait on voting Michel has nothing to do with the potential sanity of DP, but rather the fact that he find it suspicious that DP got a guilty on a player who was against him. If DP just lied about a guilty, you ever think that that might be a 1-for-1 type deal?

I'm not sure what you expect me to say to this; you're essentially voting for me because of my playstyle. I have said before, I will say again, and I will not change on this stance, that I am in general a cautious player, unlike you, who apparently wants everybody to attackattackattack without thinking. Is it such a bad thing for me to not vote until I am convinced of, construct, and argue a case?

You seem to be quite convinced that your sanity argument is the

only

argument; I point out that you seem to believe that the only reason that anyone would not vote Michel is that they're concerned about David's sanity. I don't see how being suspicious that David got a guilty result on someone who is targeting him is, in and of itself, suspicious. That said, your unreasonable suspicion of my suspicion is suspicious.

FOS: AGar

-----

Concerning the Michel or David issue, I think that if it came down to it, Michel is the better lynch. If Michel is anything other than scum, as David claims, then David is unreliable (or scum) and can be lynched. If Michel is, in fact, guilty, then David gets the benefit of the doubt for at least one more day, pending his N2 "investigation" (can't rule out the possibility of blind luck, or bussing).

However, if we lynch David, then even if he were correct, and Michel is scum, we'd lynch Michel D3 and have zero information from a potential PR. Slim though the chance may be, assuming David is indeed a cop, and if for some reason the scum let him live, then we'd have another night's worth of information. I admit that this is an unlikely outcome, but its chance is greater than zero, which is what our odds are if we lynch David first.

This is simply the cold, analytical approach. Personally, I would like a David lynch, as I am extremely unconvinced of his claim, and his behavior is unreliable and slightly anti-town (he seems to be the proverbial person lashing out and clinging to whatever he finds, exemplified in posts #357 and #366.

Lingering on #366 for a second, it strikes me as odd that a claimed cop would hesitate to lynch someone they have a guilty verdict on. I understand the implications of sanity...but wouldn't a guilty result, sane or not, be worth lynching? If nothing else, you discover your own sanity and can then report the opposite of what you find, if you are in fact insane.

[AWA]

Mod, please fix my tags.

Fixed.

[AWA]

AWA's OMGUS continues.

Counterargument ≠ OMGUS. Kindly stop asserting things that are not true.

[AWA]

AWA's OMGUS continues.

Counterargument ≠ OMGUS. Kindly stop asserting things that are not true.

Really? Because the only fingers you point (if FoSing can be called that) are at people who seem to suspect you. So I don't think I'm asserting anything that isn't true.

Correlation does not imply causation. Does it not seem natural that I would counter a clearly flawed argument? Your illogical and fallacious pressing of the matter is quite scummy indeed.

[AWA]

Concerning the Michel or David issue, I think that if it came down to it, Michel is the better lynch. If Michel is anything other than scum, as David claims, then David is unreliable (or scum) and can be lynched. If Michel is, in fact, guilty, then David gets the benefit of the doubt for at least one more day, pending his N2 "investigation" (can't rule out the possibility of blind luck, or bussing).

However, if we lynch David, then even if he were correct, and Michel is scum, we'd lynch Michel D3 and have zero information from a potential PR. Slim though the chance may be, assuming David is indeed a cop, and if for some reason the scum let him live, then we'd have another night's worth of information. I admit that this is an unlikely outcome, but its chance is greater than zero, which is what our odds are if we lynch David first.

If you are going to compare situations, please compare them fairly. In the analysis above, you do mention the possibility of cop David getting another investigation of (even though that possibility is slim from your PoV and nonexistant from mine), but ignore the fact that if David is lying scum, lynching me first will cost the town a mislynch. Do you seriously believe that the slim chance on something positive outweighs the much larger chance of a negative result?

@Buttonmen: I believe lynching David first isn't a crazy plan at all, but you already knew that.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that you are a vanilla townie in a setup with 9 pro-town and 3 scum players.

One scum player has already died. One protown player has already died. Thus, 8-2.

If we lynch you today (7-2), and at night the scum don't bus, then it would be 6-2 at the beginning of D3.

You having flipped town, we would then lynch David:

SCENARIO ONE: David is scum (6-1).

Night 3 the remaining scum kills a protown. At the beginning of Day 4, it's 5-1. I like these odds.

SCENARIO TWO: David is insane cop (5-2).

-Night 3 the remaining scum kills David. At the beginning of Day 4, it's 4-2. Still

decent

odds.

OR

-Night 3 the remaining scum leaves David alive (unlikely) and don't bus. At the beginning of Day 4, it's 4-2, and we have a result with potentially damning information.

-----
Let us take the same initial assumptions, except you are scum.

We lynch you today (8-1), and at night the remaining scum kills a protown, likely David. 7-1 at the beginning of D3. Quite good odds to me.

However, if David is still alive come D3, it would be likely that David is bussing. If we lynch him D3, then we stand a chance on winning right there. If it turns out that for some reason the scum let him live, then we still have a 5-1 setup after Night 3 when the remaining scum presumably kills another protown.

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

As is clearly evident, the only result which is even mildly dissatisfying for the town is if David is an insane cop, which to me is fairly unlikely anyway. Given this analysis, I'm poised to hammer. I'll wait for any counter-arguments before doing so, however.

-----------

To AGar: OMGUS is voting for somebody for the sole reason that they voted for you. Countering an argument made against oneself does not in and of itself constitute OMGUS. I'm reminded of the scene in Code Geass where Marianne openly suspects Bismarck of being a traitor, even though she herself is the instigator. Her (flawed) logic is that he can't suspect her back, since she suspected him first. I'm getting a very strong feeling from you that this is the case.

[AWA]

My motive for not hammering is that I'm not arrogant enough to assume that I'm automatically correct about everything. I posted an analysis of the situation. I could have hammered right then and there, but I decided to hold off until I got a second opinion on said analysis. Thus far, I have not received one, so I have not hammered. Yet.

[AWA]

Before the day ends, I'd like to address this:

AGar, I

really

don't like how you instantly label counterargument as OMGUS. To me, this is a perfect way for scum to construct fallacious arguments, and then hide behind OMGUS when they're called on it. I notice that no one's actually refuted, or even really addressed,

any

of my counters.

[AWA]

Checking in, be back with a post in a bit.

Did anyone else notice that the scum killed the person who hammered? Dunno if this means anything, I'm not big on meta.

[AWA]

I don't like the roleblocked claim.

Why?

For the sake of argument, let us assume three scum (four is getting to the overpowered range):

There is no logical reason for a pro-town roleblocker to block a claimed cop with a confirmed guilty result.

Thus, the remaining scum would be the roleblocker, and assuming that they also get a kill, then last night, their action(s) must have been to kill Oso and block David.

However, there is no reason for them to have not blocked David on Night 1, as a claimed cop.

Therefore, logic would dictate that there is no roleblocker, and David is a scum who bussed yesterday and for whatever reason doesn't want to point a finger today (perhaps he thinks that we'll WIFOM out of lynching him, and then if his hypothetical result turns negative, we'll lynch him, winning the game).

As such...

Vote: DavidParker

[AWA]

Clarification of my thoughts on David's WIFOM strategy:

If he fingers Alice, then we will lynch either him or Alice.

He's hoping we take it on faith that he's a true cop, we lynch Alice.
-Alice is innocent. Night 3, David kills another innocent, fingers Bob. At this point, it doesn't matter, though; we would lynch David and end it.

However, if he claims roleblocked, then he has no proof against him that he

isn't

the cop, so we have nothing to lynch him on except for policy. He's hoping trying to WIFOM us into not lynching him. Unfortunately, his argument dissolves against logic.

[AWA]

Unvote: DavidParker

I'm beginning to suspect a Jester...

[AWA]

Clarification:

Unvote

[AWA]

Hang on a second... this is beginning to feel a lot like mob mentality. I agree that David looks very suspicious, but should we not attempt to glean more information, perhaps not necessarily on David, on the off chance that David isn't scum? If we cut today short, and David flips town, then we lose two town players due to a rushed lynch. If we continue discussion, we might draw the last scum into a slip.

Though my instincts (and indeed my previous argument) lead me to believe that David is indeed scum. The above paragraph is me being devil's advocate.