Open 231: My Name is Earl (Game Over)

[AurorusVox]

Vote Col.Cathart

for not being Col. Mustard from the popular whodunnit game, Cluedo.

[AurorusVox]

Yeah, I'd like to point out you've spelt my name wrong.

d3x, trying to buddy up already? Coo'

[AurorusVox]

Hi XS!

Vote: XScorpion!

for trying to bring us out of RVS brfore I got my randomvote
Budja, explain
Aurorus , I see no buddying up, just him saying something random in RVS

Yeah, it is very (very) minor, but I think that so early on, saying things like "I tend to agree with the good colonel", shows a hint of pairing up.

I'm put at L-2 with no reasons? Fantastic.

RVS are good for generating discussions, so I think that even with an RV you should provide a random reason. If you just make the vote, it stunts any discussion. I may have been voted because of my RV reason - but that's good. Otherwise, we'd all have nothing to say.

[AurorusVox]

I'm put at L-2 with no reasons? Fantastic.

Random wagon is good in RVS, and in 9 people game, going at L-2 is not that hard either. But since it's a random wagon, it has about 1% of ending with an actual lynch, and yet you are concerned already. Why is that? Something to hide?

Your questions are founded on a misinterpretation. I hardly think you can say I'm concerned. You'll notice that I'm not really posting much of a defence because it

is

RVS stage and at this point, there isn't any reason for anyone to get worried yet; you'll also notice I said it was

good

that votes are being formed due to RVS-generated discussion (and those votes are on me - hardly me being concerned when I'm commending the votes, is it?)

[AurorusVox]

I could have generated a random reason but why bother.
Slightly uncomfortable with Aurorus now anyway, so consider my vote non-random. (yes, gut, but gut trumps random.)

Before you posted that, I had said:

RVS are good for generating discussions, so I think that even with an RV you should provide a random reason. If you just make the vote, it stunts any discussion. I may have been voted because of my RV reason - but that's good. Otherwise, we'd all have nothing to say.

How can you ask "why bother?" when someone has already given a reason? In your post, why didn't you respond to the reason offered, rather than asking for a reason (which had already been given)? Unless you didn't read my post, in which case, how can you have a gut read on me if you're not reading my posts?

Budja, I'll ask directly; what do you think of the idea that RVS can generate discussion?

[AurorusVox]

This might be something to do with the fact that it's the first non-newbie game I've played and its a lot more active than what I'm used to in the newbie games xD I admit I was initially a little nervous that I went to L-2 in less than a day. But I know that it's nothing to be concerned about, because it's RVS and someone needs to get voted in order to get the game rolling, and so I didn't want to explicitly show my immediate reaction in my posts (head over heart). Perhaps it still filtered through, which is why I look shifty?

[AurorusVox]

AV27- You're contending that not putting a reason stalls discussion, yet Budja not listing a reason

is

a main focus of the discussion. Plz clarify.

I think there is a difference between the discussion generated from reasons, and that generated from a lack of reasons. The discussion of whether or not to put a reason along with a RV is a meta, game theory one, and can always be explained away as matter of a player's preference. By putting a reason along with a vote, it generates discussion about what a player has actually said, rather than their meta actions. You could say that the reactions to Budja's actions provide decent discussion topics; but then, this is discussion about other people, not about Budja or what he has said himself.

[AurorusVox]

Unexplained votes have more pressure at this early stage where cases are quite scanty.

Though this is true, do you feel that there are no legitimate cases that we can make along with our votes at the moment? (Clearly not, since you provided reasons afterwards.)

Do you feel withholding reasons for votes aids the town and hurts the scum?

[AurorusVox]

Also, you call that WIFOM? That doesn't make sense.

Probably referring that we would have to assume you are town in your post.

Not really WIFOM though, is it?

[AurorusVox]

To be fair to budja, you can vote someone for minor reasons to provide pressure, and build your case off of the resulting responses. Offering no reasons is...odd, since it doesn't allow the person to defend themselves. I guess it could cause them to get nervous. Also, notice that Beefster has voted budja without actually giving all of his reasons yet (this isn't necessarily a bad thing).

However, I too am uncomfortable with budja's voting pattern. Not convinced he's scum yet, but to me, his play is definitely worth paying close attention to.

[AurorusVox]

I mean that it might not be a legitimate scumtell because

isn't unheard of

to use minor reasons to vote for someone to gauge their reactions (I've also done this in the past as town; as have other members of town in my previous games). But not providing any reasons is different, of course; it looks far scummier.

[AurorusVox]

That's what I was referring to when I said:

But not providing any reasons is different, of course; it looks far scummier.

[AurorusVox]

You've bolded two parts that come either side of a full-stop, so of course it's going to look like a contradiction, because they're talking about different things. The "to be fair to budja" part is referring to the rest of the sentence that follows immediately after it, about using minor reasons (which he did in his post after the vote). The "offering no reasons" part refers to the post in which he voted without offering his reason. They were separate posts (the vote and the explanation) and thus have been dealt with in two separate sentences.

[AurorusVox]

He has posted reasons:

Here's a case for you:
1. assuming I am town. #20 (minor)
2.

d3x: It doesn't really matter how arbitrary a reason is, as long as it's there. I suppose there's no real risk in the vote itself, but when combined with not even caring for even an arbitrary reason, it just doesn't seem townie to me.

^ wishy-washy statement. Says "Doesn't seem townie" but fails to vote me. Also, contradicts above.

To be clear, I'm not defending posting votes without reasons. I'm defending pressure votes accompanied by minor reasons because if people start moaning about using such lesser reasons, it lowers the chances of pressure votes providing a read on the player in question (when you explain its a pressure vote, the pressure tends to drop)

[AurorusVox]

EBWOP: To clarify, however, I do think Beefster's case on Budja is better than the reverse. I'm not ready to jump onto any easy bandwagons just yet, though.

[AurorusVox]

I don't know what you want me to say. I've agreed that in general, votes without reasons are scummy. I've also agreed that in specific, his case is relatively weak. But I'm not going to vote for him until I decide that

I

want to, regardless of how much

you

] want me to.

[AurorusVox]

When re-reading, I came across this;

Wagon go!

unvote
Vote: Budja

XScorpion, if you thought he was scummy (#50), why did you wait for someone else to vote Budja before you voted him yourself? Is it because you want to blend in with other people's votes?

Vote: XScorpion

[AurorusVox]

And why exactly do you suspect d3x? You've said that voting without a reason is scummy - and yet, your vote on d3x took place in the RVS stage. You've yet to provide a solid reason for why you want to lynch him.

If you suspect both, you could easily have switched your votes earlier, when you insinuated that you suspected budja for voting . But you didn't. You waited until someone else had voted before changing.

[AurorusVox]

Re: Earl's claiming - no.

@D3x - I know something that would make them claiming help me to catch scum. I'm actually fairly certain of the setup at the moment. Actually, the best way to catch scum would be a full role-claim in my opinion, because we know that there are only X amount of ways everything works. And if we do it now, scum have no way of having planned out how they were going to claim in the first place. I think if we did, we can win in 2 days easily.

Re: massclaiming - again...no. Massclaiming on page 5, on d1? I really don't see how this would help anyone but scum. Sorely tempted to switch my vote to you, but I still have outstanding questions of XS.

[AurorusVox]

I'm just saying that given possible outcomes, it would be near impossible for scum to claim anything (aside from VT) without giving themselves away. They do that and they're lynched, they don't and no counterclaims happen, we assume that power roles are legit, and can focus mainly on VTs to find scum.

I dunno, seems like a good plan to me, but I understand, you guys prefer the more... conventional way

We don't have to, I'm just saying that if we use our heads, that might be the best way to catch scum

In your scenario, scum claims VT, we don't know who they are because other people also claim VT, our PRs are outed, and now scum know who to night kill.

I dunno, seems like an

awful

plan to me

[AurorusVox]

Think about Cop having innocent result on someone.

Blah blah blah more PR discussion. Yes, it makes sense for cops/docs to hide themselves. Now explain why it makes any sense for Xite to withhold information from town, without suggesting that he is a PR. What benefit could town possibly have from less information? I do not share the belief that a regular townie should know anything other than what the rest of town knows. Good townies should be as open as possible. Secrecy is scummy.

I think people are being pedants about this whole thing. XS is talking about withholding your reasons for a vote, not withholding inno results and things like that. That said, I can understand that you might want to delay revealing your reads (town reads, for example), and I can understand wanting to see if other people pick up on why you think someone is scum - but it can turn around and bite the town in the ass if everyone votes without reasons, right? But by the same token, XS, remember that people haven't been withholding their reasons indefinitely.

Anyway,

Unvote

[AurorusVox]

so aurorus, who are you fosing now?

Actually, thanks for asking. I've been working on figuring that out.

I still have suspicions of XScorpion, but I agree some of what he's saying in his batch of posts about it being anti-town to hide voting reasons, so for now, I'm getting a slight townie vibe from him. Xite outwardly worries me the most, but I can't tell if that's just how he plays or if he's actually kamikaze scum ><

I don't really get why so many people find Beefster scummy. Well, at least that was true until his most recent post. I ISO'd him, and up until his most recent post, I had a neutral vibe from him, but I've now come across this;

After he voted for Budja, he said;

There's a difference between anti-town and scummy.

After d3x voted for XScorpion, he said;

The line between scummy and anti-town is sketchy at best and the fact that you're attacking him over such a small semantic bothers me.

FoS: d3x

So the line is distinct enough to warrant a vote on Budja, but the line is not distinct enough to warrant a vote on XScorpion?

Major FoS: Beefster

I'm aware that if I vote for Beefster, he will be at L-1, and I'm also aware that I'm going to be inactive for a few days. I think it would be best if I left my vote off until I come back. (What's the general policy on voting before V/LA's? I've never really gone V/LA before...)

(On that point:

Mod, I might be V/LA until Sunday

: well, I'm definitely not going to be posting on Wedensday, Friday or most of Saturday. I might get on Thursday, so I don't know if that's enough to warrant a V/LA but I wanted to mention it in case I can't actually get on til Sunday.)

Ok noted.

[AurorusVox]

this post is funny. remind me to come back to it later if we hit the doldrums.

My post is funny? Care to expand on that?

[AurorusVox]

D:< Why vote for someone who isn't my top suspect at the moment?

[AurorusVox]

I am reading.
He hasn't given a clear answer.

Wasn't my bolded major FoS enough for you? My top suspect is Beefster for his willingness to change how important he thinks the anti-town/scum distinction is dependent on whether he is attacking or defending.

Oh, hey, I just realised. d3x unvoted Beefster, so if I vote him, he'll be at L-2, not L-1.

Vote: Beefster

[AurorusVox]

Eh, you probably, you big meanie.

No, it's not you. I'm torn whether I think Xite or XScorpion are scum. I think Xite's play is far too dangerous for scum, but it is anti-town, and like I said before, he could just be kamikaze...whereas I'm even less sure about XScorpion. He struck me as pro-town when he was arguing about what was good for town. But apart from that I don't find him particularly townie. So for now I'd say it's a tied place for #2 \o/

[AurorusVox]

I might be able to get on a little tonight after all.

I'm happy with a Beefy Lynch or with an XS Lynch from this point forward. They're interchangably on top of my ScumList.

^this

XScorpion's most recent post was...well, let's just say, when he said "why should I bother caring about whether Beefster lives or dies", my scum sense was tingling. Town aligned players should care about other town aligned players dying.

[AurorusVox]

xscorpion, what do you think of what i just quoted?

I think AdrienC is getting other people to scumhunt for him.

XScorpion's most recent post was...well, let's just say, when he said "why should I bother caring about whether Beefster lives or dies", my scum sense was tingling. Town aligned players should care about other town aligned players dying.

I'm sorry to inform you that I haven't got a chance to investigate Beefster so I don't know if he's scum or not, because you seem to be under the impression that I'm a cop who got to investigate beefster before the day began.

Beefster is one of the operational wagons at the moment. You said to save us from a mislynch, vote Xite. Therefore you imply that the Beefster vote is a mislynch. Therefore I am not under the impression that you believe him to be a townie, since a mislynch is the lynching of a townie. Therefore when you say "I don't care if he lives or dies" it suggests that you don't care if a townie lives or dies. Therefore you are scum.

[AurorusVox]

EBWOP: should have read; "Therefore I am under the impression that you believe him to be a townie, since a mislynch is the lynching of a townie."

The "not" was left in there from when I was going to say that I was not under the impression that you were a cop who got to investigate beefster before the day began.

[AurorusVox]

I am not, so your logic sucks.

Try your analysis of my bad logic with the correction I made in the post immediately following the one you quoted.

[AurorusVox]

You went on to say that I hadn't offered a reason for thinking that I thought you thought that Beefster was town. There is my reason. Do you not think it's a strong one? Do you really have absolutely no read on him? Or is he your scumbuddy and you're just trying to derail his lynching?

[AurorusVox]

Well since my vote is on Beefster, I'd like to see him lynched. But I'm not going to enter an agreement about who to vote for tomorrow, before I've seen what the rest of the day, flip, night, and next day hold. Did you expect me to agree to that?

Regarding beefster, why haven't you paid attention to him? And I think it's suspect that you'd willingly vote for him if you have no read on him.

[AurorusVox]

I would vote for Xite if I thought he was scum. Why else would I vote for him?

I don't expect you to do all the scumhunting, but you should pay attention to every player. Right?
Suspect as in, why would you vote for someone, if you didn't think that they were scum? (neutral = not thinking they're scum, because you don't think they're anything at the moment)

You seem obsessed with getting Xite lynched. Would you sacrifice yourself to achieve this?

[AurorusVox]

Yes.

If you're town, that's stupid. You didn't mind getting rid of beefster to get Xite killed because he "has the same probability as everyone else of being scum." But if you're town, then getting rid of you doesn't have that equal chance. It has zero chance. You'd happily deplete the town's numbers by one.

On the other hand, if you're scum, you're peacocking and showing how noble you are for the town's cause. You're hoping we wouldn't take you up on your "brave offer". And if you're so certain that Xite is scum, perhaps you're hoping such a display of confidence will sway us into voting for him instead of you.

Vote: XScorpion

[AurorusVox]

You realise even if you were to get lynched and flip town, I still wouldn't vote for Xite unless I felt he was scum?

[AurorusVox]

I'd just decided to ask "probing questions" of Adrien too

><

[AurorusVox]

Fuck it. I'll post my read and ask one of the questions anyway. The replacement can always answer it...

---

My vote on Budja isn't looking so hot anymore, though there's no real content to clear him yet.
UNVOTE: Buja

I'm looking towards XScorpion and Beefster, but not sure which yet.

To me, this read;

"No one else seems to want to vote Budja anymore, though I can't be bothered to build a case for or against him.

[Unjustified unvote]

I'm looking towards the popular scumreads, but want to see which one I can blend into easier."


@Adrien; / replacement
Have you come any closer to making your mind up?

[AurorusVox]

also, i can't decide whether that last post by beef was scummy or not. i'm really torn.

I've been wavering between XS and Beefeater for the last few pages. But I think his last post was okay. Though I'm still wondering if there's a Beefeater/XS team and that's why he voted for you (to allow him to simply FoS XS rather than place a vote down on him)

[AurorusVox]

The exchange between AV and Xite about votes without reasons bores me to tears.

Also, I think XScorpion is Town.

Based on what? I think I could do with hearing some "XS is town" reasoning to balance out my brainload of "XS is scum" reads.

[AurorusVox]

Lololol, another thing about this post that strikes me as funny;

My vote on Budja isn't looking so hot anymore, though there's no real content to clear him yet.
UNVOTE: Buja

Adrien C has never actually voted for Budja.

He earlier said that Budja's actions were the scummiest thing he had seen, but never voted for him. Has he posted this unvote of Budja by mistake, just because he was playing too many games? Or was he trying to blend with the town, by misrepresenting his vote?

Vote: Adrien C

[AurorusVox]

I think playing too many games could have affected his performance as scum, i.e. he slipped up here.

[AurorusVox]

EBWOP: Although it could equally be a townie slip up, the rest of that post also struck me as odd. We'll see. I'm happy with the vote there for now.

[AurorusVox]

Also, not liking how

four

people converged on Adrien (XScorpion, nocase, Budja, AV) within the same time frame. Smells a little fishy.

Are you suggesting there are actually four scum in this setup? (of course you aren't, I jest) How many scum do you think are in that list of four that you've identified?

But seriously, I don't think it's odd that we've all started picking up on AC. After all, due to his somewhat-lurky behaviour, I had been getting a neutral vibe from him because he hadn't really been posting much, in the way of townie or scummy posts. But his recent post with the unvoting was a tad suspect, and that caused me to pay more attention to him. I understand that you think my vote might be harsh based on his unvoting of Budja, but as I said to XS, it was that combined with an uneasy feeling from the rest of his post (especially his desire to vote for one of Beefster or XScorpion, without actually making an effort to get any reads on them)

Also, yes, I acknowledge that it can just be a mistake on his part, in which he thought that he had already voted, but even given this, why did he feel the need to clarify who he was unvoting? It seemed like he wanted to point out who he was allegedly voting, as though, perhaps, he had realised that he hadn't voted Budja and wanted to pull the wool over our eyes. I know that I didn't realise his vote was elsewhere until I ISO'd him recently.

[AurorusVox]

ConfidAnon, XS has barely even mentioned Adrien C in this game so far, let alone voted for him...

[AurorusVox]

Still think there is at least one scum amongst that group of THREE?

Given the individuals in it, yes, although not as likely as before.

-What has made it less likely that there are scum in that group than before?
-You said that you thought there was probably only one, even when the group consisted of four players. This would assume that three players are town who have been convinced to vote for another town aligned player. Isn't it more likely that just two town players would be convinced to mislynch, as opposed to three making this mistake?
-Do you think that the votes on Adrien are because of a particular player's arguments, or because of Adrien's actions themselves?

[AurorusVox]

@Adrien; / replacement
Have you come any closer to making your mind up?

Lol how the hell is a replacement even supposed to attempt to answer this?

Heh, if it was aimed at a replacement, the question was meant to be more about "have you made your mind up who you think is the scummiest player" ^^"

[AurorusVox]

XS gaining townie points for his last post imo...

Where exactly is the Beefster case?

My reasons for thinking he was scum was because he voted Budja for going from "anti-town" to "scummy" and then defended someone by saying that there wasn't much of a difference between anti-town and scum. I value consistency and so such a post set off scumbells in my head.

Oh, Rhinox, fancy giving your reasons why you agree with a Beefster lynch, seeing as you've put him at L-1?

[AurorusVox]

Also, I notice that everybody except ConfidAnon and XScorpion have voted for Beefster at some point (as well as Beefster himself of course). So I reckon there ought to be plenty of answers to ConfidAnon's "Where exactly is the Beefster case?" question - if anyone else cares to share their reasons by this point in the game? :\

[AurorusVox]

Oh, I thought scum might prefer a game where not much is going on and things stagnate because players who are less interested might be less committed to scumhunting and reading posts as carefully. So by venting his frustration that people are allowing the discussion to slow down, I took that as a townie frustration.

[AurorusVox]

Oh haha... yeah forgot about that. But we weren't really jesters, we were still an informed minority scum team.

You were closer to jesters than mafia, given that you had no nightkill and your goal was to purposely get lynched.

Shouldn't this tell you that "not explaining votes" is not a reliable scum tell in this game? maybe you should try scumhunting a different way.

I'm all up for simply killing everyone who doesn't explain their votes. If scum wins this way then I will blame town for sucking.

unvote
Vote: Nocase

Post or die.

Why not d3x post or die?
I wouldn't mind hammering on Beefster but I want to hear his claim first.

[AurorusVox]

I'm not sure I believe the cop claim but I'm glad I waited before hammering in case he is the real cop. Could just be scum looking for a counter claim...

XS, why do you "highly doubt" that he's lying?

[AurorusVox]

XScorp: I understand what you tried to mean by Xite being scum- where PR in its context meant town-aligned power role. It's simply a miscommunication. Your play IS kinda wonky- not that it means anything because I've seen a lot of wonky VTs.

d3x: geez, attacking XS on miscommunication? The line between scummy and anti-town is sketchy at best and the fact that you're attacking him over such a small semantic bothers me.

FoS: d3x

XScorpion openly admits that he's tunnelling... I'm not liking this. He's actually starting to bother me. I thought his play was just plain wonky, before, but now he's looking scummy.

FoS: XScorpion

Aside from that, I see his point on XS.

I think there's an XS/Beefster team;

1) In the first post I quoted, he defends XS by saying he could just be wonky town, then defends him from d3x's anti-town/scummy comment.
2) In the second, he says he thinks he looks scummy, but doesn't vote for him - and this is at the point at which XS is under suspicion from the rest of the town anyway - possibly trying to blend in but not wanting to put his buddy at L-1.
3) In the third, he again agrees that XS is scummy, which a) distances XS from him and b) helps him in the event that XS gets lynched instead of him.
4) XS is also the only player, other than Beefster himself, to have never voted for Beefster.

Vote: XScorpion

[AurorusVox]

XS is also the only player, other than Beefster himself, to have never voted for Beefster.

Why does this make me scummy?

It's not just that. It's that in combination with everything else I said about Beefster's interactions with you.

[AurorusVox]

AV: Early on, sided with beefster over budja when they had cases on each other. (iso 9, 14).

I sided with Beefster because he actually had a case, whereas Budja just voted without reasons.

Iso 21: wishy-washy about beefy - "I didn't get why people found beefy scummy, I had a neutral vibe" followed by "then I found this, Major FOS".

I was saying that

up until that point

I hadn't thought him to be that scummy. My opinion changed; so I don't think you can say it's wishy-washy, because I was expressing that change, not trying to say both at once.

Didn't vote beefy b/c he didn't want to put him at L-1. Iso 24: top suspect is now beefy, voted beefy to put him at L-2 after d3x unvoted.

I didn't want to put him at L-1 because I was going to be V/LA. Would you prefer I had put him at hammer distance and then disappeared for a few days?

Iso: 33 switched vote to Xscorp. Iso 37: more wishywashy-ness on beefster - "I think his last post was ok/I'm still wondering if there's a XS/Beefy scum team". Questioned me about putting beefy at L-1 (iso46).

I questioned your L-1 because you hadn't supplied any reasons. L-1 votes should have at least some evidence to them.

Iso 49: ok with hammering, wanted to hear claim first. Iso 50: Doesn't believe claim. Glad he waited to hammer. Wonder's if he's scum looking for a CC.

Potential scum for being wishy-washy towards beefy on more than 1 occasion. Comments before lynch lead me to believe he could be the scum encouraging a CC: OK with hammering but wanted to hear claim, didn't believe claim but didn't hammer or threaten to hammer or didn't reaffirm whether he would still be willing to hammer. Instead, fencesitting: might be the real cop/might be scum fishing for a CC.

In my experience, it's best to let the L-1 claim. And in my experience it's best to at least give the person in question a chance to back their claim up - i.e., point to breadcrumbing and so on. I am still glad that I didn't hammer him straight away, because

if

he had been cop, that would have been a stupid move to make. I would have hammered, and would have had the chance to prove that, but after Beefster had had a chance to defend himself.

Do you disagree that waiting for a claim, or letting the claim share his reasons, is what should have happened?

[AurorusVox]

Now let's suppose that today ends, I get lynched, and I flip town. Who else do the three of you think could be scum? Rhinox at least gave his top 3 suspects, can you as well, with reasoning (I know the latter might be hard to do, but bear with me)?

I will scumhunt elsewhere, but I wanted to make sure to get my initial suspicions aired at the start of the day. I'm planning on doing a re-read later today or tomorrow when I get some free time.

[AurorusVox]

Re-reading d3x, he did a fair share of scumhunting yesterday, but like Rhinox says, he did keep saying he'd be happy to vote for Beefster without actually doing it. But I'm also interested in something he brought up against XS;

XS had said this - "Beefster got lynched on day 1 in an ongoing game as town for the same reasons you guys are attacking him now."

@XS

XS, you used meta to call him town, and you said you believed his claim. Why do you think he was able to fool you?

[AurorusVox]

Rhinox, Budja, ConfidAnon -

None of you have made any responses to my defence against Rhinox's points. Anyone fancy saying something about that or do you just want to lynch me without even reading my posts?

[AurorusVox]

Because he'd said this before the lynch:

Sure.
Congratulations to town on outing the cop on day 1.

I highly doubt he's lying. Are you seriously suggesting we still lynch him?

Perhaps he was trying to rationalise his reaction to the vote.

[AurorusVox]

EBWOP

*reaction to the claim

[AurorusVox]

Budja, what reasons do you have to believe TheButtonmen is town?

[AurorusVox]

@AV- I'd thank you not to answer for me.

Sorry about that. Because nocase's post was at the top of the new page and he didn't put "d3x" or quote you, I didn't realise he was following up on your post but thought he was asking a general question to everybody ><

[AurorusVox]

why would scorp risk drawing a line like that between himself and his scum buddy?

Is this for d3x or me? ><

[AurorusVox]

@Budja; "Not much I can say"? I disagree, because I've posted my defence, and I feel I said a lot there. Do you feel my defence is feeble? Please point out which parts of it are no good. And you said that thebuttonmen is town because he was the third Beefster vote? But, that was Col.Cathart. I'd like to hear what thebuttonmen has done himself to make you think he's town. Or is it simply based on the Colonel's play? Because would it not have looked suspect if Col. had unvoted on the primary wagon before going V/LA? Since he returned from V/LA he admitted he couldn't get into the game. I'm seeing townie in Colonel, sure, but it's not impossible that he was scum, and thebuttonmen hasn't done much at all since replacing in.

@ConfidAnon; it does feel like you're not reading it because you have given no indication of having read it. Same question to you as I put to Budja; which parts do you find of my defence to be the least convincing? I stand by my decision to not hammer immediately, because if he had been the cop, we'd be a cop down. I stand by my concern over voting to put Beefster at L-1 before going V/LA, because I wasn't going to be here to change that important vote if need be. Is it these? Or something else?

To both - if you're adding nothing new to the scumhunting of me, then if I get lynched (and therefore flip town), you can just say "Hey, I was convinced by Rhinox's arguments." In the interests of giving town something else to work with, and this is to Budja in particular, what exactly do you find scummiest about me that puts me as a better lynch than someone else?

[AurorusVox]

nocase, are you trying to role-fish me? I've got my answer but I don't know if I should say in case you're looking for something in my response; I'll gladly answer if people think that your post has no malicious intent.

[AurorusVox]

vote: AurorusVox

Very confident about this.

I'm kind of glad you present such awesome arguments that I can sheep off of. Baa.

But seriously, this logic is extremely sound.

Also, sorry that I've been quiet, I'm kind of busy.

Unvote, Vote: AurorusVox

A further question for ConfidAnon; how comes you had earlier voted for d3x, despite Rhinox's "extremely sound logic" already being posted (about six posts previously)? What changed between your d3x vote and your vote for me?

[AurorusVox]

no, vox. answer my question role-related info aside.

But the very notion of being "okay" with getting lynched relies on the role. Anyway, since you've retracted the question, I'll not answer it.

[AurorusVox]

Col. Cathart's play doesn't give very much info onto his alignment. Yes, he supported a Beefster wagon, but that could simply be distancing and he may have planned to unvote later, but never got a chance.

I wondered this too but wasn't sure if it sounded too far fetched. I assumed he'd have made the effort to find a reason to unvote before getting replaced, but perhaps he couldn't get into the game enough to re-read for that reason, or maybe by that point it may have looked more suspicious. It's good to know that I'm not the only one to consider that possibility though.

[AurorusVox]

I agree with much of what d3x is saying, but I don't really see it as accidental (i.e. a slip). After XS had declared that he believed the claim, he had to offer a reason for that belief. This could explain why it came post-claim rather than before the claim itself; backtracking to rationalise the (re)action he had made. It would have looked suspicious if after the hammer he had said, "Oh, no, I think he must have been fake after all."

You don't sound too convinced by d3x's reasons. What is your take on XS's behaviour?

[AurorusVox]

Final thoughts: I think its saying something that Beefy voted, suspected, or questioned everyone in the game at least once, accept for AV. That is noteable because beefy was always demanding reasons or responded whenever someone suspected him or voted him, and beefy didn't even respond at all when AV called him his top suspect and voted. I think that points to a solid connection between the 2, and AV is scum #2.

It is this argument in particular that has led me to vote you.

Okay, that's all I wanted to know. What do you make of XScorpion's lack of vote/scumhunting of Beefy, and his defences of him as townie (meta) and his faith in the claim?

[AurorusVox]

I sided with Beefster because he actually had a case, whereas Budja just voted without reasons.

By the specific posts I pointed out (iso 9, 14), budja had already given reasons for voting beefy.

I see, I thought you were referring to an earlier point. In those posts, I considered both Beefster's and Budja's points (I believe this is quite clear in ISO 9) but found Beefster's to have more substance to it, and thus I was more convinced by his arguments. I didn't mindlessly side with someone, I thought about what both of them were saying.

I didn't want to put him at L-1 because I was going to be V/LA. Would you prefer I had put him at hammer distance and then disappeared for a few days?

Why is it any better to put him at L-2 before going on V/LA vs. L-1? he could be hammered either way while you're gone.

Because L-1 is much closer to hammer than L-2. Putting someone at L-1 is kind of a big deal, at least I think it is, and I wasn't prepared to do that if I wasn't going to be here to (a) Judge his reactions, (b) debate his claim, (c) follow up with questions, or (d) unvote if his defence/claim was sound. Yes, he could still be hammered at L-2, but it requires that extra person. I'm not saying that L-2 is "safe", but it's "safer" than L-1. Because it requires less people to get the hammer, I'd be unhappy if I returned and that one extra person had voted him and he'd been a mislynch.

I questioned your L-1 because you hadn't supplied any reasons. L-1 votes should have at least some evidence to them.

The reason I gave was that I agreed with the points brought up against him. Funny how you didn't acknowledge this point of fencesitting on beefy while you were so quick to refute it earlier in the post.

I don't quite get what you're saying with this last sentence, can you explain it to me a bit more? Or, maybe you tell me what/where I've refuted fencesitting? If you're saying I've been inconsistent in calling you out on fencesitting, in my ISO 46 I did call you out on it, so I did acknowledge it and have thus been consistent in it. I'm a bit confused, so I'll try to answer if you can explain it further.

In my experience, it's best to let the L-1 claim. And in my experience it's best to at least give the person in question a chance to back their claim up - i.e., point to breadcrumbing and so on. I am still glad that I didn't hammer him straight away, because if he had been cop, that would have been a stupid move to make. I would have hammered, and would have had the chance to prove that, but after Beefster had had a chance to defend himself.

Do you disagree that waiting for a claim, or letting the claim share his reasons, is what should have happened?

I don't disagree with what you said here, but I disagree with how you went about it when beefy was being lynched. You were fencesitting, and I don't think you would have hammered if there was no CC.

I can't prove that I would have hammered, and it's pointless for me to tell you that I'm telling the truth in saying that I would. As for the accusation of fencesitting, I wasn't; I was saying, quite clearly, that I didn't believe his claim. But I thought it was normal for people discuss claims and such, rather than hammering straight away, which is why I waited. I mean, hypothetically, if he'd been the real cop, then would ConfidAnon have been your top suspect at this point?

Well its unlikely my opinion is going to change regardless of what you say at this point.

What about, regarding what other people say? What I mean is, are you set in your lynch, and will now sit back and wait for the deadline, posting just enough to not get replaced - or will you go out and scumhunt other people too (I guess it'd be between d3x and XS)? What if one of the other players slips up somehow, or a convincing case is brought against them? Will you outright ignore any of those things, if they happen?

Anyone you think is town?

Yep, there is someone I think is town.

[AurorusVox]

Okay. Are you also with Rhinox insofar as you've already decided that there's a pool of players that you're going to choose the lynch from, and you won't shift from that pool?

(you've got that quote attributed to XS by the way)

[AurorusVox]

whoa, somebody stop letting me fail.

unvote.

? What happened in between your posts that convinced you to unvote d3x?

[AurorusVox]

I can definitely agree with XS on that point. TheButtonmen hadn't done much of use at all, and though the Colonel's play looks pro-town in terms of his vote, there could be a scum-sided explanation for it.

[AurorusVox]

Some of this I've already said before so I'm just going to quote parts from that post...

I posit that if Col. was scum, he had to keep his initial vote on Beefster out of necessity; just assuming for a moment that he was scum, he could have voted initially with what he thought was a harmless vote on his scumbuddy for the purposes of distancing. Alas, then he went V/LA.

Would it not have looked suspect if Col. had unvoted on the primary wagon before going V/LA?

He even said in his post "this is a good wagon, no reason to spoil it". Do you think that he would have had to come up with a very good reason to remove this vote? What reason could he have used? He was going V/LA so he couldn't really take the time to compile a good case against someone else. Okay, the vote has to stay for now, but maybe when he comes back he can take it off...

Oh, wait, no.

Since he returned from V/LA he admitted he couldn't get into the game.

It would have looked even more suspicious if he "couldn't get into the game" and yet found a good reason to unvote upon his return. Again, he was unable to take his vote off of Beefster. It could be argued that if he was scum, that he kept this vote there out of necessity.

---

I mean, I did initially read Colonel as townie during D1, mainly due to his consistent voting of Beefster. But TheButtonmen really hurt my read of that slot because he contributed next to nothing. So I've looked for angles from which the Colonel could be scum - and that's my angle. I'm not saying I believe in it wholeheartedly, but I do think it's something worth consideration.

[AurorusVox]

T_T Can I claim in twilight? VT YOU BASTARDS, VT!

DJ how's the temperature of that water looking?

[AurorusVox]

Sorry if I contributed to not winning flawless victory D:<

[AurorusVox]

BUT GO TOWN GO!! <3

I'm actually going V/LA for a week but maybe I'll stop by to talk about the game after that ^^"

[AurorusVox]

This was my first non-newbie game as a townie...

It was interesting, definitely a different pace/style to the others. Much more abrupt. Or is that down to the players in this game in particular?