Newbie 1052 - Endgame

[Workdawg]

Zomg hi.

I am a full on newbie... never played a game before, but I did plenty of reading while waiting for my account to be activated.

Hooray!

[Workdawg]

Does it work like this?

VOTE: Stels

<.<

>.>

[Workdawg]

Workdawg

Hello Workdawg, welcome to MafiaScum. I’m glad you brushed up on your reading.

1) Have you played Mafia outside of MafiaScum (including real life)?
2) Name something important pertaining to scumhunting that you learned from reading. What’s the most important thing you learned in general?
3) If you did a lot of reading then you should know most people begin by voting someone in the so-called Random Voting Stage. Why didn’t you vote someone in your first post?

1) Never played it anywhere before. I actually discovered it browsing the XKCD forums (zomg theplague has a link in his sig, and a related avatar), and searched around to find this place.
2) Most of the reading I did revolved around the basic games, rather than the theme games. I spent a lot of my time just reading pages and pages of actual games and trying to follow the logic of the various players and seeing if my reads on their roles were accurate or not. I figured for my first few games, that info would be the most relevant and as I get more comfortable with the game, I can try and learn more complex roles. More on-point: I guess you just have to read everything very carefully. It seems like one of the things people look for is regurgitating the same info other people have said rather than pointing out new thoughts. I suppose this makes sense, but it also seems like an easy thing to avoid if it really is a tell.
3) I realize that RVS takes place, but as this is only my first game, I didn't want to paint a target on myself for OMGUS or otherwise. My first post was only the third in the thread. If you notice, I still tossed out and RVS vote, I just didn't want to draw attention without at least a silly reason to do so, and the others had already gone after people for their names.

=======================

On topic of the game at hand:

I'm a bit concerned about Mute's table as well. You say

this is a grid I am using for MYSELF, and this does not and should not influence anyone

but it WILL influence other people in one way or another. Is it scummy to attempt to draw attention to everyone else in a fancy looking list?

FOS: Mute

also
UNVOTE: Stels

[Workdawg]

I just didn't want to draw attention without at least a silly reason to do so, and the others had already gone after people for their names.

So you don't want to RV without a silly reason, then you mention people voting for silly reasons? Huh... I don't quite get this part. Care to elaborate?

Just because people like jumping off bridges for silly reasons, doesn't mean I want to jump of a bridge for that reason...

I RVS'd when I had a different silly reason to do so.


In RE Mute's table and Nacho being 55 while the rest of us our at 60...

Nacho is the exception at 55, as our last game together he was scum, and while I don't discredit the possibility of it I would find it hard to believe he'd get scum twice in a row.

.....

The point of the table was more to get a concrete view of my stance out there.

To say "oh yeah, I'm gonna play as everyone is more likely scum than town and gameplay will prove innocence" is nice and all, but it can easily be twisted by scum to be used for whatever bussing/WIFOM reasons against me later on.

I aim to avoid that.
With it out here, then there's a solid "this guy will be scum hunting everyone," so everyone can see that until I find a reason to see you as undeniably town, then I will think you're scum. Is there a flaw with that? Yes. What is it? I don't know at present. I'm sure someone will think of something eventually, and I'll address it then.

As one scientist to another, it's an experiment I'm undertaking... Hopefully the results yield towards my hypothesis.

...

This doesn't jive with me. If you really are a scientist then you should know that, as Stels points out, your chances of being Scum are the same game after game unless the mod isn't bring truly random. That makes your argument invalid.

Another point from above is that your POV that "everyone is more likely scum than town" is a poor one. There is only a 2/9 (22%) chance of any person being scum. (78% they are town). If you're simply taking a pessimistic approach to the game and being extra suspicious of people, that's fine... but hiding under the guise of "science" is suspicious IMO.

I suppose I'm playing right in to your suggestion that scum will try and use your table against you, but maybe that's your plan all along. This is my first game, but it seems to me that a scum player would be a lot more successful if they had a gameplan going in to the game; where that really wouldn't benefit a townie. Part of that game plan would be to consider what people will think of it, and to call out possible town reactions to it.

It just seems pretty self-serving to me to throw up the table and have your defense all laid out in advance in case someone calls you out on it.


I'm jumping in.
VOTE: Mute

[Workdawg]

@Stels/Dawg:

The scientist comment was made in jest towards Angry. That my using a table this game and that I've never used a numerical system to find scum before (here and off-site) is true.

However, to try and clarify, my stance is that of the military: Guilty until proven innocent. Everyone is liable to cases for them being scum, as they are of being town. The point is to track those out who slip up and reveal themselves to be scum.

It's my stance to look for tells for scum-ness and town-ness. If out of 9, I can deduce that at least 3 people are not scum then that gives me a wider margin to find scum from. What this means, however, is that I don't
and won't discredit anyone as being town or scum fully as I won't know until a flip.
I can understand if my reasoning is not easy to follow. I prefer to let my actions speak for themselves.

I'm new, but it seems to me this is the opposite of the way you should be playing this game (at least from a town standpoint). Certainly you have to analyze everything everyone says, but looking for evidence of someone's town-ness is a lot more work than looking for evidence of someone's scum-ness. You're trying to decide that 7 people are town, and using only the 2 that haven't proven they are town as the scum by default... rather than looking more closely at the 2 people you might suspect are scum.

Within the first day are you more likely to get an accurate read on a couple of people, or 7?

Zomg hi.

I am a full on newbie... never played a game before, but I did plenty of reading while waiting for my account to be activated.

Hooray!

Does it work like this?

VOTE: Stels

<.<

>.>

Your first two posts come off as a bit too innocent. Like, you're trying to not attract too much attention to yourself during the RVS. I won't and cannot hold that you placed a vote during then against you, but I am holding you to only placing a vote after an SE explains the vote-tag, without any given reason otherwise

FoS: Workdawg

I was trying to act innocent in my first two posts. Like I said, this is my first game and I certainly don't want to be saying anything stupid that people might interpret as a "scum tell."

If you mean that it's bad that I didn't give a reason for my RVS, then isn't that the point? You just pick a random person and vote against them for no real reason. I simply voted for Stels because I thought it would be funny to test the vote tags against the person who was explaining them. That seems just as good of a reason as voting for Angry Scientist because his name says he is angry.

I suppose I'm playing right in to your suggestion that scum will try and use your table against you, but maybe that's your plan all along.

This is my first game, but it seems to me that a scum player would be a lot more successful if they had a gameplan going in to the game; where that really wouldn't benefit a townie. Part of that game plan would be to consider what people will think of it, and to call out possible town reactions to it.

It just seems pretty self-serving to me to throw up the table and have your defense all laid out in advance in case someone calls you out on it.

*Yes, that is my plan, to use a table with which to hunt scum using the aid of. The table alone is meaningless, but paired with a case against someone it'd be enough for me to vote for them.
A lesson I learned from last game: get better at developing arguments. I am going to try to do so this game. This is how I am going to go about it. My only "plan" so far is to use it to keep track of scum-reads.
*I'd like to avoid repeating what happened my last newbie game and get caught with the only way to defend myself is to let myself be lynched and have my claim be verified.

I have no problem using whatever means you want to keep track of how scummy you think someone is or who to vote for. You can flip a coin, draw straws or play darts to choose who to vote for. The fact that you posted the chart is suspicious to me. There's no reason to post the chart or reveal how you are choosing who to vote for. Your numbers are completely arbitrary and mean nothing without a logical argument to back them up. Even then, they don't really mean anything to anyone but you because the argument is the only part people should be paying attention to. It seems like throwing up the chart is just adding clutter and potentially misinformation to the thread.

[Workdawg]

I'm new, but it seems to me this is the opposite of the way you should be playing this game (at least from a town standpoint). Certainly you have to analyze everything everyone says, but looking for evidence of someone's town-ness is a lot more work than looking for evidence of someone's scum-ness. You're trying to decide that 7 people are town, and using only the 2 that haven't proven they are town as the scum by default... rather than looking more closely at the 2 people you might suspect are scum.
Within the first day are you more likely to get an accurate read on a couple of people, or 7?

This unsettles me. Two things -

1. Why not look for town? I'm doing both - looking for scum, and trying to suss out who is town. Town will be doing both - scum are different, they're looking for scuminess alone, so they can mislynch as they already know who town is.

2. Workdawg is assuming a player should be looking for 2 scum or 7 town (that should be 6 by the way, unless you are scum ) - I'm looking for anyone scummy and anyone town.

1. I'm pretty optimistic and believe the opposite of Mute, innocent until proven guilty (or suspected guilty in this case, I suppose). So, while I know there are two scum out there, I'm just assuming everyone is town until I can find a reason to think otherwise. I'm not actively looking for "town-ness" because everyone is going to be displaying that, or at least trying. Town will because it's in their best interest, and scum will because they need to blend in. In theory at least, everyone should be acting town, and you need to catch someone in a lie or acting suspicious to see any "scum-ness."

2. Yeah, I got the number wrong, I forgot to consider that a player won't be looking at themselves. Oh well. My response to "looking for anyone scum or town" is pretty much covered above. Everyone is going to try to look town, so looking for it isn't really hard. It's looking for scum that's tricky.

I have no problem using whatever means you want to keep track of how scummy you think someone is or who to vote for. You can flip a coin, draw straws or play darts to choose who to vote for. The fact that you posted the chart is suspicious to me. There's no reason to post the chart or reveal how you are choosing who to vote for. Your numbers are completely arbitrary and mean nothing without a logical argument to back them up. Even then, they don't really mean anything to anyone but you because the argument is the only part people should be paying attention to. It seems like throwing up the chart is just adding clutter and potentially misinformation to the thread.

Again, this just seems a bit off, (I mean the aggression/emotion in it) and I don't think the comment about not caring how someone comes to a voting decision is pro town at all. I accept he may be a bit exasperrated by Mute (though I don't know why) - but it justifies my vote.

VOTE: Workdawg

Ty encouraged me to speak my mind, and that's what I've done. I felt that I laid out my argument's logically, and if there's a problem there, then point it out. Mute and I have gone back and forth and it seems to me like all you've done is decide you don't care about the table anymore (maybe he swayed you with his post) and now you're jumping on me for apparently showing emotion in my posts? Should I put some [logic] or [non-emotional] tags around my stuff from now on? lol

[Workdawg]

@Nacho:

If you notice the timestamps on Mute's post #25 and my post #26, they are only 3 minutes apart. I was writing my post while he posted. Post #29 was really in response to #25 and it was enough to push me from FOS to vote. There really hadn't been too much else going besides Mute insufficiently (at least IMO) responding to my logic.

@Mute:

So, I'm curious... what's my number after all that?

[Workdawg]

After reading, and rereading everything posted about Ty up until now, I'm finding him to be pretty suspicious too. Mute and his table still rub me the wrong way, but in the interest moving things along I'm throwing down the hammer.

VOTE: Ty

[Workdawg]

EBWOP: I suppose hopping on the bandwagon with the hammer looks scummy. My reasoning is that both his posts have been long on words, but short on anything helpful. There's a lot of junk in there and it seems to me like he's trying to avoid being a lurker, but also avoid suspicion by diverting to Nacho and Stels, the two other experienced players... is he trying to get them lynched so he can take advantage of all of us poor newbies?!?!?

[Workdawg]

Woah, Nacho slipped in while I was posting again...

@Nacho:

The timestamp on #25 is only 3 minutes before my timestamp of #26, 8am and 8:03am on my time.

And it looks like Mute has slipped in while I was posting this, jeebus.

@Mute from Preview

As far as throwing down the hammer... I guess I'm a little bit anxious since it's my first game. As you can tell, I'm pretty active online and the idea of waiting 2 weeks to learn any concrete information as craziness to me. If I set myself up as a target for Day2, then I guess we'll see what happens.

[Workdawg]

Ahh dang, you guys are right. I was reviewing all the posts about Ty and I noticed the postcount the mod had posted showing one vote for him, and then counted 4 more... I missed the unvote.

/facepalm and EPIC FAIL indeed. Terribly sorry about that.

Preview edit @tp42:

I would hardly call that a challenge, at the time I thought it was twilight and there was nothing I could do about it then. I agree that it looks pretty bad, a rookie mistake of epic proportions. If the wagon comes for me, the I deserve it and there's nothing I can do to stop it.

@Nacho:

I'm absolutely concerned with looking scummy, isn't everyone one, both scum and town? I knew I was throwing the hammer, and I really only regret being wrong about the vote count. I still think he's scum, and I'll stand by that. I fully admit that the scenario makes me look scummy, but again... it's happened so I just have to deal with that. The only reason I added the EBWOP was because in my swiftness to vote, I forgot to explain my reasoning and I wanted to make sure I got that out there.

@Mute:

I'm confused about how trying (and failing miserably) hammer Ty makes you think him AND I are scum. I certainly understand that I painted a big target on myself with my haste, but what would the point of drawing attention to either of us if we were in it together? It seems imminent that either one of us will be lynched now, and certainly that's not good if we are in it together.

Also, can you elaborate on what a "flip" is?


Hopefully I've covered all the other posts with preview edits now...

[Workdawg]

I've been F5ing this page every few minutes since my last post trying to let everyone get in here without interrupting, and now I see this:

END NOTE: Looks like an entire page of posts sprouted while I was posting. I'll try and get another post up tonight.

And I lol'd. If he posted all that and doesn't realize what just happened. I can only imagine the look on his face as he is reading it.

To respond to a few things that have stuck in my mind.

@Everyone who told me not to give up

: Thanks for that, believe me I won't. Up until now there really wasn't much else to say because every post revolved around how scummy I look from that single move. I posted my response to that and I stick by it.

@Mute:

Mute, why do you think Workdawg would try to hammer his scumbuddy?

Bad newbie-scum play.

I would like people to believe that I'm not THAT bad, and hopefully my reply to you above about that is sufficient. However, after the recent events, I wouldn't blame anyone for thinking I am that dumb.

@TP42:

Posting from mobile so this could take awhile.
@Mute
My "can't count" is referring to how some hammerers will claim they miscounted the number of votes. I've seen it alot with newbies, scum or not. I just think that it's too early to have been an honest mistake, especially since there was a vote count not too long ago.

There was a post count, and that's what I referred to when I counted votes. Your vote was listed on that count, and there were four more after it. Ironically your post immediately after the postcount is the one in which you unvoted. Obviously I have to be more careful when counting votes. The whole Unvote without a name thing is throwing me off. Reflecting on the votecount situation, I also realized that in my haste, I failed to unvote before casting my vote against Ty, so that makes it even worse.

[q="TP42"]@Workdawg
"Flip" refers to a person's role being revealed when they die. Comes from the MeatWorld tradition of playing cards used to symbolize roles, and a players card was physically flipped to reveal the role.

Wolfdawg's "newness" is piquing my interest. He claims this is his first game, but he has read alot. He seems familiar enough with terminology and hammering, yet has no idea what "flip" means? It's a null tell to me, but it's still interesting.[/quote]

I assure you that this is indeed my first game. It took the admin staff about a week to approve my account, then another few days for this game to start up. I've been really excited since I first discovered "mafia"
As for my knowledge of terminology, I've had the mafiascum wiki's glossary page open making sure I get my acronyms and stuff right. Flip isn't listed there. And "hammer" reminds me of the banhammer, which is simply internet pop culture.

@The Entire situation:

I still think that Ty looks a bit scummy, and if he really hasn't seen what happened yet, then we'll have to wait to see what he says when he does read it. Post #64 seems to be more general scum hunting logic, which is certainly appreciated from a newbie standpoint, but it doesn't seem to help advance THIS game any. The only things I've seen that he's really posted that are relevant to THIS game are the things he says about Nacho, and whether it's misguided or not, I get a town vibe from Nacho.

[Workdawg]

Ahh crap... it looks like I broke the quote around something TP42 said above.
If the above post confuses you, then see here...

For everything past the discussion of my vote counting failure, see below:

@Workdawg
"Flip" refers to a person's role being revealed when they die. Comes from the MeatWorld tradition of playing cards used to symbolize roles, and a players card was physically flipped to reveal the role.

Wolfdawg's "newness" is piquing my interest. He claims this is his first game, but he has read alot. He seems familiar enough with terminology and hammering, yet has no idea what "flip" means? It's a null tell to me, but it's still interesting.

I assure you that this is indeed my first game. It took the admin staff about a week to approve my account, then another few days for this game to start up. I've been really excited since I first discovered "mafia"
As for my knowledge of terminology, I've had the mafiascum wiki's glossary page open making sure I get my acronyms and stuff right. Flip isn't listed there. And "hammer" reminds me of the banhammer, which is simply internet pop culture.

@The Entire situation:

I still think that Ty looks a bit scummy, and if he really hasn't seen what happened yet, then we'll have to wait to see what he says when he does read it. Post #64 seems to be more general scum hunting logic, which is certainly appreciated from a newbie standpoint, but it doesn't seem to help advance THIS game any. The only things I've seen that he's really posted that are relevant to THIS game are the things he says about Nacho, and whether it's misguided or not, I get a town vibe from Nacho.

[Workdawg]

@Workdawg
It is indeed in the glossary page. Maybe you're confusing it with the abbreviations page. And your lack of an unvote isn't bad per se, just ironic. Perfect example of why they're used.

I would disagree with your view of Ty. He is deinitely acting more as a teacher than a player right now, but that's half of his job. He's using general logic and techniques to crticize and/or support specific arguments/statements (right words?) in this game. There really isn't

that much

stuff to attack people with examples from just this game.

You're right, I was confusing the Acronyms page with the glossary. In any case, thanks for the info. I figured that was probably what a flip was, but I wasn't sure if it was more complicated, possibly something along the lines of they are revealed to be the opposite of what was suspected.


As far as Ty is concerned, I can see that the information he is providing is generally useful, but it seems suspicious to me that he seems so focused on Nacho, but won't cast a vote.

I can see that he seems to be focused more on being the teacher than the player, and I guess I'm not really sure what to make of that, especially when compounded with his tunnelvision on nacho. Is it really altruistic, or is it a mechanism to look town since he is trying to help the newbies. His two big posts can be summed up pretty accurately like this:

@Player: Minor thing that I sort of care about.

@New Player: Remember to tell the truth because that's the best thing for town to do, and the more you say, the more information the town has.

@Nacho: Zomg you are scummy because of X.

As I mentioned before, I definitely appreciate his thoughts on how to play the game, it just looks suspicious to me for previously mentioned reasons. His reaction to the near-lynch seems extremely calm, which also has me mildly concerned. I guess we'll see what his reaction is in his next post.

@Ty:

I don't think anyone is "anti-literacy" around here, I don't mind reading wall posts so much, it just seems to me like you are saying the same thing over and over.

[Workdawg]

I'm a bit bored and have been reviewing the thread... so this is something of a brain dump for my thoughts on each player so far (in order the are posted in the start of this thread):

TP42

FoS: Mute

because he didn't RVS in his first post and placed the second vote on me afterward. I would vote for you but I don't want to be yelled at for OMGUS. Happpened to me in my first game.

2+3. I've read some games where people have been attacked harshly for "being defensive" in the RVS. And my FoS was pointing out something suspicious, not a die-hard scumtell. I am not going to cause myself to get attacked this early without a solid reason for voting.

First he claims he would vote but is scared of OMGUS vote retaliation, then backtracks to just pointing out something suspicious. This is all during RVS, so it's taken with a grain of salt, but I'm chalking it up to being a newbie (like me) and trying to stay off peoples radar.

That's really the only thing I've found interesting, otherwise it's been general banter.

Neuky

He hasn't been quite as active as some of us, so there's really not much to go on yet. He seemes suspicious of Mute's table still a little bit, but not as much as me.

Mute

We went at it over the table for a while. He's responded decently, but I guess I get a funky vibe off how he claims to be playing the game (scum until proven town) and the table in general. I honestly still can't see how the table benefits anyone but scum... ESPECIALLY when everyone starts out as scum in the table. If the idea of scumhunting is to press specific people until you find someone who is scum, then that table seems quite backwards to me. You press them and their number goes down until you decide they are town. If you press them and just get a bunch of null reads, then they are still going to be scum. Or do you consider a null read to be in town favor based on the chances of them being town > being scum.

Another issue I have with the table, and I've expressed it before, is that it seems to just add a bunch of clutter to the thread rather than just saying "I think x and y are scummy, and here is why" If you post the table, I feel like you'd need to post a reason for every single persons standing in the table. I think it would be too easy to manipulate the table to scum advantage.

Lastly, you never told me what my rating is in your table after the events of last night :p

Angry Scientist

Another person who hasn't really posted that much. He hasn't really revealed anything about himself. I noticed that his registration date is about the same as mine, but he hasn't indicated if he has ever played this before. He seems to talk as though he has, but who knows.

@Angry:

Have you played mafia before? If so, where? etc

Naben

He hasn't even confirmed yet, so yeah...

Stels

I get a townie vibe from him for his encouragement, but that could easily just be the SE trying to help me out.

Ty

I think my thoughts about Ty are fairly clear. He says a lot of stuff, but the content isn't really there. Someone else pointed out that he might just be taking on the role of teacher more than player, but I'm not buying it totally. If he's still playing to win, then I think his words against Nacho speak volumes compared to his general thoughts on gameplay. Certainly he's sharing some good general tips for town, but he's had tunnel vision on nacho from the beginning. He's pointed out some minor stuff with other players logic, but it hasn't been worth mentioning really. Is his tunnel vision because he is scum and wants to oust nacho because he (as the IC) is the one most likely to catch on to his games?

Nacho

I feel like he's really playing his IC role more than the game. He's definitely tossing out good thoughts and make people question eachother. He's also defended himself well against Ty. No one else has really questioned him though.

This thought just crossed my mind....

Are Nacho AND Ty scum?

This thought is definitely interesting to me now though. Nacho unvoted pretty quickly after we realized I missed the unvote and Ty wasn't gone. If the day really shouldn't end that's something a more experienced player would be better able to decide, but I would think that if you were confident enough to throw down a vote for someone and they almost get lynched, you'd want to stick to it and see if you can get the lynch there.

I also noticed the fact that despite calling out Nacho in every post, Ty hasn't voted for him yet.

Maybe it's a ploy between the two of them (both scum) to try and draw someone out to NK. (If so, I'm probably screwed now, lol) It seems like it'd be pretty safe for a scum to vote for his buddy up to L-2 and the find some reason to unvote at L-1. (I gave him a pretty good one, in this case). Meanwhile, you get to learn what the other players are picking up on and who is most likely a threat to your evil plot to destroy the town.

@Ty:

Vote: Ty

You've failed to explain in your post why not answering your questions has any scum intent behind it. You also failed to answer my question. Instead, you posted a case on me which is concluded with a question: why shouldn't you lynch me? Well, if you're town you don't feel confident enough to put a vote with that case, so you'll only end up making yourself look like scum. But if you ARE scum, then go ahead. I'd love to see you try to lynch me.

In only his second post, Nacho voted for Ty simply because he didn't answer one post well enough.

Didn't two other people says that it's scummy to challenge others to form a wagon against youself?
Isn't that what Nacho just did above?
Is this one of those risky gambits you were talking about before nacho?


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

It occurs to me now that the scum is probably already submitting their NK with my name on it... and whether that happens or not I suppose doesn't really mean anything. If I get NKd, it'll make Nacho and Ty look extra suspicious, even though the real scum might simply be using that as a cover for themselves.

/end brain dump

[Workdawg]

Well, like I said, I got anxious to get things rolling. I'm online all day at work and the idea of waiting 2 weeks for the first day to be over sounds insane to me. I felt like there was ample evidence against Ty to make a lynch happen. Clearly some people disagree with that. Like I said before, I don't regret voting for him, that's why my vote is still on him. It's unfortunate that I miscounted the votes, but it is what it is. An innocent mistake.

[Workdawg]

@Workdawg

More suspicious behavior. Why would they NK you? The only way I could see that happening is 1. you did actually hammer, and 2. Ty was scum. Unless you were ultra-early bussing your partner. If a player gets enough suspicion, he's probably going to be left alive as a scapegoat. Or left alive to create WIFOM confusion.

I felt like a target because I stirred up a lot of crap and it seems like that would make me an easy target, but you make a good point that leaving me out there as a scapegoat is also a likely play. I guess I feel better about that, lol.

Nacho

I feel like he's really playing his IC role more than the game. He's definitely tossing out good thoughts and make people question eachother. He's also defended himself well against Ty. No one else has really questioned him though.

I would rather have an IC play more teacher than player than the other way around. Why would anyone believe he is scum if he is tossing out good thoughts, asking questions, and defending himself well? Isn't that what town is supposed to do?

And why is nacho voting ty suspicious? It was still RVS, so any and every possible scumtell is worthy of suspicion, considering there isn't much else to go on. How can you accuse Ty of tunneling on Nacho? In post 77, you comment on every player in the game, excluding yourself of course. Yet you only post real evidence/quotes for the argument against me and Nacho. The difference is that you are agreeing (?) with me. I'm not sure what word to use, but your conclusion is that my response was not scummy. Your attack on Nacho was by far the longest out of any of them. Then you throw out the possibility of Ty/Nacho scumteam. The point that I agree with on that is the "suspicion, but no vote" on Ty's part towards Nacho. The unvote by Nacho isn't suspicious at all by itself. He already gave a perfectly good reason for it, avoiding "crazed newbies" such as yourself. However, I will again point out the lack of emotion on Nacho's part. The "if it were a normal game" logic seems silly. There are ways to express your anger without scaring people off. But I think this points to Nacho as scum, while not really saying anything about Ty. Hopefully this is clear, as I'm just going by order that I remember.

That's true, but he explicitly said he was going to do whatever it takes to win. If he REALLY thought Ty was scum, then it seems like the right move would have been to stick to his guns on that. If he's going the IC route and trying to prolong day one as he says, then that's fine. Maybe there's just not enough evidence against Ty yet and his vote was simply to stir the pot and try to get a reaction out of Ty. I can't comment on his intent, just my analysis of it. I didn't really intend for that to be an attack on Nacho. The first line of my statement is how I feel about him... his actions surrounding Ty have me suspicious and I stated that suspicion.

Am I supposed to keep my crazy thoughts to myself and then start yelling I KNEW IT when it happens, or throw them out there and let people shoot holes in them? You've said you agree with parts of it (at least the scumminess of some of Nacho's actions), so obviously I'm not completely off my rocker.

Also, am I supposed to analyze myself? I thought that was everyone else's job. I guess if you want that, here it is.

Workdawg

Silly newb making a ton of mistakes, but he is more town than the mayor of townsvilleland..

@Neuky

I think aggression is more of a towntell than a scumtell in a newbie games. SEs and ICs are supposed to play at their best, as that would teach us newbies more than if they intentionally played badly, which would probably be very difficult to do anyways.

Aside from that, I agree with the newb-scum possibility (bad word, but I can't think of the one I want to use; starts with a "c"...) and the dawg/stels team idea. He makes a lukewarm comment about Stel's encouragement, which pales in comparison to the amount of advice Ty has given (his towniness/scuminess is irrelevant for this). The fact that you took the time to post out the wagon is really pro-town and just plain helpful IMO.

Preview edit: Yet another disturbing lack of emotion. AFAIK newb-town are more likely to freak out, while newb-scum are more likely to just sit there. Also, as I was reading over my post (finally previewing to avoid errors:)), I had a thought about the tunneling on Nacho. By this point, Workdawg seems to have more suspicion on Nacho than Ty, judging by his summary post above. Then why keep your vote on Ty instead of Nacho?

As far as the "dawg/stels" team idea, that's an interesting suggestion I suppose. What was the great and wonderful plan? Pick the first person to get two votes and attempt to wagon them, and then F up the vote count (or I suppose run it up to 4 and then hope someone else hammers)? Didn't Nacho say that the usual scum hammer move is to pretend you didn't realize it and then try to act innocent when you get caught laying down the hammer? IIRC, Scum can only communicate at night (and apparently during confirmation according to the rules) so it's not like we would have had time to talk about who we want to target. My comments about Stels are simply because he specifically encouraged me to keep going after most everyone turned on me.

@Workdawg: If a wagon comes onto, there is always something that you can do to redeem yourself or at least be helpful to town by scumhunting even if you are lynched. Don't. Give. Up.
Just to point out something: Don't be concerned with looks, just don't bother with it. The only thing I can see in that is more of a scum-tell than a town-tell, since scum have more reason for wanting to look good than town. Sure you don't want to be lynched for looking scummy, but trying to appear to be something you are not, isn't helpful at all. Just be yourself and do what you got to do. I think I got lynched as that being part of the reason in my first Newbie Game as well.

I would call that encouragement. While certainly Ty has provided useful help, he hasn't really provided encouragement like that. Ty still hasn't even really posted a response to what happened yet. He acknowledged reading it, but not there was no response.

About the second part here:
First Neuky gets on my case about showing emotion in my posts, and now you get on my case about not doing so. What do you guys want from me? lol

[Workdawg]

@Workdawg

More suspicious behavior. Why would they NK you? The only way I could see that happening is 1. you did actually hammer, and 2. Ty was scum. Unless you were ultra-early bussing your partner. If a player gets enough suspicion, he's probably going to be left alive as a scapegoat. Or left alive to create WIFOM confusion.

I felt like a target because I stirred up a lot of crap and it seems like that would make me an easy target, but you make a good point that leaving me out there as a scapegoat is also a likely play. I guess I feel better about that, lol.

Nacho

I feel like he's really playing his IC role more than the game. He's definitely tossing out good thoughts and make people question eachother. He's also defended himself well against Ty. No one else has really questioned him though.

I would rather have an IC play more teacher than player than the other way around. Why would anyone believe he is scum if he is tossing out good thoughts, asking questions, and defending himself well? Isn't that what town is supposed to do?

And why is nacho voting ty suspicious? It was still RVS, so any and every possible scumtell is worthy of suspicion, considering there isn't much else to go on. How can you accuse Ty of tunneling on Nacho? In post 77, you comment on every player in the game, excluding yourself of course. Yet you only post real evidence/quotes for the argument against me and Nacho. The difference is that you are agreeing (?) with me. I'm not sure what word to use, but your conclusion is that my response was not scummy. Your attack on Nacho was by far the longest out of any of them. Then you throw out the possibility of Ty/Nacho scumteam. The point that I agree with on that is the "suspicion, but no vote" on Ty's part towards Nacho. The unvote by Nacho isn't suspicious at all by itself. He already gave a perfectly good reason for it, avoiding "crazed newbies" such as yourself. However, I will again point out the lack of emotion on Nacho's part. The "if it were a normal game" logic seems silly. There are ways to express your anger without scaring people off. But I think this points to Nacho as scum, while not really saying anything about Ty. Hopefully this is clear, as I'm just going by order that I remember.

That's true, but he explicitly said he was going to do whatever it takes to win. If he REALLY thought Ty was scum, then it seems like the right move would have been to stick to his guns on that. If he's going the IC route and trying to prolong day one as he says, then that's fine. Maybe there's just not enough evidence against Ty yet and his vote was simply to stir the pot and try to get a reaction out of Ty. I can't comment on his intent, just my analysis of it. I didn't really intend for that to be an attack on Nacho. The first line of my statement is how I feel about him... his actions surrounding Ty have me suspicious and I stated that suspicion.

(1)Am I supposed to keep my crazy thoughts to myself and then start yelling I KNEW IT when it happens, or throw them out there and let people shoot holes in them?

You've said you agree with parts of it (at least the scumminess of some of Nacho's actions), so obviously I'm not completely off my rocker.

(2)Also, am I supposed to analyze myself?

I thought that was everyone else's job. I guess if you want that, here it is.

Workdawg

Silly newb making a ton of mistakes,

(3)but he is more town than the mayor of townsvilleland

..

@Neuky

I think aggression is more of a towntell than a scumtell in a newbie games. SEs and ICs are supposed to play at their best, as that would teach us newbies more than if they intentionally played badly, which would probably be very difficult to do anyways.

(4)Aside from that, I agree with the newb-scum possibility (bad word, but I can't think of the one I want to use; starts with a "c"...) and the dawg/stels team idea.

He makes a lukewarm comment about Stel's encouragement, which pales in comparison to the amount of advice Ty has given (his towniness/scuminess is irrelevant for this). The fact that you took the time to post out the wagon is really pro-town and just plain helpful IMO.

Preview edit: Yet another disturbing lack of emotion.

(5)AFAIK newb-town are more likely to freak out, while newb-scum are more likely to just sit there.

Also, as I was reading over my post (finally previewing to avoid errors:)), I had a thought about the tunneling on Nacho. By this point, Workdawg seems to have more suspicion on Nacho than Ty, judging by his summary post above. Then why keep your vote on Ty instead of Nacho?

(6)As far as the "dawg/stels" team idea, that's an interesting suggestion I suppose. What was the great and wonderful plan? Pick the first person to get two votes and attempt to wagon them, and then F up the vote count (or I suppose run it up to 4 and then hope someone else hammers)?

Didn't Nacho say that the usual scum hammer move is to pretend you didn't realize it and then try to act innocent when you get caught laying down the hammer?

(7)IIRC, Scum can only communicate at night (and apparently during confirmation according to the rules)

so it's not like we would have had time to talk about who we want to target. My comments about Stels are simply because he specifically encouraged me to keep going after most everyone turned on me.

@Workdawg: If a wagon comes onto, there is always something that you can do to redeem yourself or at least be helpful to town by scumhunting even if you are lynched. Don't. Give. Up.
Just to point out something: Don't be concerned with looks, just don't bother with it. The only thing I can see in that is more of a scum-tell than a town-tell, since scum have more reason for wanting to look good than town. Sure you don't want to be lynched for looking scummy, but trying to appear to be something you are not, isn't helpful at all. Just be yourself and do what you got to do. I think I got lynched as that being part of the reason in my first Newbie Game as well.

I would call that encouragement. While certainly Ty has provided useful help, he hasn't really provided encouragement like that. Ty still hasn't even really posted a response to what happened yet. He acknowledged reading it, but not there was no response.

About the second part here:
First Neuky gets on my case about showing emotion in my posts, and now you get on my case about not doing so. What do you guys want from me? lol

...oh wow...
Yeah, I'll explain myself in a second, but for now:

Unvote; Vote: Workdawg

You're trying really hard, too hard in fact, to come off as town to make up from your mistaken attempt at a quick-hammer earlier.

First bolded segment: Yes, that is what you're supposed to do, throw your ideas out to let people shoot holes in them. If your logic/reasoning is flawed it hurts town to both keep it secret, and to keep that flawed logic in the game.
Second and third bolded segments: You're really trying hard to come off as newb-town, which frankly makes me see you as newb-scum slipping up.
Fourth bolded segment: Did you just acknowledge/oust yourself as scum by saying you can agree to the likelihood of a scum-team of you and stels?
Fifth bolded part: Pure speculation on your part, which I find misleading to the town.
*Worthy of note: the 4th and 5th bolded segments are all within his self-analysis.
Sixth and Seventh bolded segments: both are scum-slips, with the 7th being the most severe. There is nothing in the rules what so ever about scum being able to talk during the confirmation phase. Nothing at all. You'd only be able to know this if you were scum.

And for the sake of ease, I've numbered each bolded segment.
Everyone, let's lynch this scum.

Wow... so you've made a lot of mistakes in your analysis...

I'll just acknowledge everything you said.

1. No real need to say anything about this.
2/3. Apparently my sarcasm/joking is lost on you.
4/5. As TP42 pointed out, those are HIS WORDS, not mine.
6/7. I got that information from the sample role PMs that are posted in post #2 in this thread. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to quote the Mods stuff or not (it says no to PMs for sure, but no mention I see of quoting his posts). But if you read the very first mafia sample role PM, it says very clearly that scum are allowed to talk to eachother at night and during the confirmation stages of the game. I guess if you want to see that as a tell, be my guest. But it's HEAVILY implied in the very rules of this game that it's allowed.

[Workdawg]

I know neither of your are SE or IC players, but jeez, maybe peruse the rules. Literally every standard game I read allowed the scum to communicate at night.

[Workdawg]

I mean both, they are both listed explicitly in the Role PMs.

[Workdawg]

I guess I'll have go back and take a look at Mute. I've never been really comfortable with any of his answers. I don't hold it against him for misreading pretty much my entire post.

@TP42

I am no alt. I just read the rules... lol

Would you like to share your reasons for voting for him (information is town's power, remember) :p

[Workdawg]

Here are my thoughts on Mute (aside from all the crap about the table):

@Mute from Preview

As far as throwing down the hammer... I guess I'm a little bit anxious since it's my first game. As you can tell, I'm pretty active online and the idea of waiting 2 weeks to learn any concrete information as craziness to me. If I set myself up as a target for Day2, then I guess we'll see what happens.

To be fair I was posting a response to Stels when you and nacho ninja'd in. =P
Now then on topic:
I understand being anxious and wanting the game to progress. It would do so on it's own. Being in a rush like that is not helpful. Frankly, I feel that you are scum and were bussing your partner. If Ty turns up mafia that suspicion will be furthered by me. If Ty flips town you will still look scummy for being an eager-beaver.

This was addressed by Nacho already, partially... see below:

[quote="Mute in #61]EDIT::

Mute, why do you think Workdawg would try to hammer his scumbuddy?

Bad newbie-scum play.[/quote]

I mean, seriously? I'm bussing my partner (which according to the glossary mean's that I'm trying to distance myself from him so that if he flips scum, people don't think I am scum because I'm his buddy) by actually trying to lynch him? As I mentioned before, I've made a pretty bad mistake in this game, but holy cow scum lynching scum would be something even more epic.

I seriously hate RQS, since they can basically be used against you, plus you're the only one who benefits from it, although it doesn't help you determine alignment in any way. I see no reason not to answer though so:

Anything you say can and will be used against you, RQS or not. My question to Stels is, why exactly do you care if something is used against you (unless you’re mafia, of course)?

The fact that it allows everyone the chance to write a solid post provides the game and its players with more information.

People saying more things gives others the opportunity to analyze and reason, implying that it actually helps everyone (except the scum), not just me.

It only doesn’t help determine alignment if you don’t want it to. Taking the time to analyze how people respond to the questions or being questioned generally can yield some interesting information which can be used to set a baseline or stored for later.

I would be interested to hear why you think a RVS random vote gleans more useful information than what I have done? It’s expected, it provides almost no information to other players other than who is bad at humor, and generally newbie mistakes render it pointless anyways. Your response would probably be “but Ty, it applies pressure!” Pressure can be applied without silly voting and because it’s so standard any hollow threats are immediately seen through.

However you’ll notice I didn’t say it’s completely worthless because it does have its uses.

For example, you’ll notice that Nachomamma8 voted Naben. This vote is intended to look like

s

he’s involved while actually doing little to further the game. Naben hasn’t confirmed and will most likely be replaced, meaning he isn’t a participant in the game. At first glance this may look like a standard lurker vote, however Neuky had actually confirmed into the game and also hadn’t posted. What would make more sense, voting for someone that has fallen off the face of the planet or voting someone who is in the game but hasn’t posted yet?

As it stands, Nachomamma8 has posted in a manner that raises alarm bells over being suspicious and possibly having ulterior motives, and has not helped the town in anyway whatsoever in her post (besides an unrelated technical issue) with her vote or question. My question to Nachomamma8 would be is there a reason I shouldn’t push for your lynch today based on the various reasons listed above?

I do not like this post.
Firstly, it's long. Needlessly long.
Second, this is in relation to the first segment of bolded text. The entire thing (the bolded portion) is hypocritical. Any information that the town has, the scum has as well. Specifically, the underlined text. This can be used by scum to find people to eliminate during the night to be able to further spread confusion and cause mislynches.
And you're right, questioning does reveal a great deal of information, both of the ones being asked and the ones asking the questions.

Followed by Mute's Response, to Ty's response to him:

Mute

I do not like this post.
Firstly, it's long. Needlessly long.
Second, this is in relation to the first segment of bolded text. The entire thing (the bolded portion) is hypocritical. Any information that the town has, the scum has as well. Specifically, the underlined text. This can be used by scum to find people to eliminate during the night to be able to further spread confusion and cause mislynches.
And you're right, questioning does reveal a great deal of information, both of the ones being asked and the ones asking the questions.

First, I don’t like your post. It’s short, needlessly short.

Let's start with this. There is never a post that can be considered "needlessly short." There's too long which gives plenty of room for ambiguity. Second, the best posts I feel are the ones that are short, sweet, and to the point. The acronym K.I.S.S. (keep it simple, stupid!) is an acronym I apply to my daily life.

See, I can post useless information too!

...wait, am I being attacked with this? Is the information I'm using against you useless, really? To you, perhaps, but to others? I am not at all liking the passive-aggressive and high-and-mighty tone in your posts thus far in-game. Whether or not it's a scum-tell depends on context but I personally hate people who act this way unjustifiably.

Anyways, we’re finally getting to some of the good stuff. This is a continuation of Workdawg’s paragraph from above, and it’s important that everyone read this. Mute, your train of thought in regards to your second statement is very misguided. INFORMATION HELPS THE TOWN. Now repeat that to yourself one hundred times.

I don't like condescension. Not by

anyone

.
I know that, and it's common sense.

In the first quote, Mute expresses concern that TOO much info will be used by the scum to try and pick a lynch target that will cause the most confusion.

In the second quote the bold specifically, he contradicts himself. He claims that it's common sense that information helps the town. If it's common sense, why did he protest it before?

==============

@TP42:

I'm a software developer and we are currently in QA. I've already got my next release scheduled and documents written, right now I don't really have much work to do aside from supporting QA in their efforts. So I sit on my computer and surf the internet.

@Mute:

If you browse the newbie thread, the rules and role PMs are all nearly identical (as far as functionality is concerned). Dredge even credits stealing them from another mod.

[Workdawg]

@TP42

I looked back at your vote for Mute and it was WAY early, it seems like your reasoning back them was that you didn't like the table, is that still the reason?

@Mute

Do you really want to argue the semantics of the rules vs the sample role PMs, which immediately follow the rules? I'm obviously no expert, but splitting hairs in something so irrelevant just to try and reinforce your failed accusation on me seems pretty scumming in itself.

UNVOTE: Ty

VOTE: Mute

[Workdawg]

Triple post... EBWOP...

FFS, I didn't even say the information you are caught up on is in the rules. I did say it's in the sample PMs...

@Dawg: That is still no excuse. You state that scum can post during confirmation, via the rules. That was not found in the rules, it was found in the sample role PM's. You've still slipped up and stated that it was in the rules that you may talk to your scum partner during the confirmation stage. You are without a doubt in my mind scum and are now trying to cover up your mistake in whatever way possible.

6/7. I got that information from the sample role PMs that are posted in post #2 in this thread. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to quote the Mods stuff or not (it says no to PMs for sure, but no mention I see of quoting his posts). But if you read the very first mafia sample role PM, it says very clearly that scum are allowed to talk to eachother at night and during the confirmation stages of the game. I guess if you want to see that as a tell, be my guest. But it's HEAVILY implied in the very rules of this game that it's allowed.

Unless you are referring to the very last sentence, then I guess you can read that as I'm saying it's in the rules, even though I clearly said it was in the sample role PMs.

You are just looking more and more scum to me.

[Workdawg]

@Nacho]

Like I said, I was just throwing some crazy thoughts out there.

As far as my vote for Mute, he was my first vote... I changed from him in my anxious "crackmonkey" attempt to hammer Ty. After looking at the rest of his posts since then, I still feel like he's scum, and the evidence has only been mounting against him as far as I'm concerned.

@Mute

You think I'm super scum now, so what's my number? This is the third time I've asked you and you've never given it to me. The first time, I'll assume you didn't notice me ask.

The second time is after the failhammer last night... you said :

Wow dude.
This is the single scummiest thing I've seen from you, so as for your question about where you lie, this post gives me nothing but a scum-vibe.
You say a table which holds no threat to town-aligned scares you, you proceed to hammer a person without giving them a chance to defend themselves (scum opportunistic bussing?), and give no reasons

why

you feel he's suspicious.

EDIT::

EBWOP: I suppose hopping on the bandwagon with the hammer looks scummy. My reasoning is that both his posts have been long on words, but short on anything helpful. There's a lot of junk in there and it seems to me like he's trying to avoid being a lurker, but also avoid suspicion by diverting to Nacho and Stels, the two other experienced players...

is he trying to get them lynched so he can take advantage of all of us poor newbies?!?!?

It looks scummy because it

is

scummy.

But when I asked you about it... you claimed not a single person had gained or lost a point in the standings?

Mute

We went at it over the table for a while. He's responded decently, but I guess I get a funky vibe off how he claims to be playing the game (scum until proven town) and the table in general. I honestly still can't see how the table benefits anyone but scum... ESPECIALLY when everyone starts out as scum in the table. If the idea of scumhunting is to press specific people until you find someone who is scum, then that table seems quite backwards to me. You press them and their number goes down until you decide they are town. If you press them and just get a bunch of null reads, then they are still going to be scum. Or do you consider a null read to be in town favor based on the chances of them being town > being scum.

Another issue I have with the table, and I've expressed it before, is that it seems to just add a bunch of clutter to the thread rather than just saying "I think x and y are scummy, and here is why" If you post the table, I feel like you'd need to post a reason for every single persons standing in the table. I think it would be too easy to manipulate the table to scum advantage.

Lastly, you never told me what my rating is in your table after the events of last night :p

I'll address you points in quick.
>I posted a list of what i felt each number to be. It's the post immediately after I first posted the list. This is pertaining to what numbers I give a person.
>If I post just the person's standing on the table, without saying anything else, I feel I don't have to explain myself. If I am questioned why X is #, I'll respond, as will I do if I present a case to justify X's # on it.
Hopefully we can move past this concern about the table. It does nothing but bog down on scum-hunting.

>As of now the results you see on the table at present are what they are now. After re-thinking, I feel that you were honest in you making a mistake, but I don't discredit the chance of you being scum either. I feel it is less likely in hindsight, but I don't dismiss it.

So what's the story, am I the scummiest of the scum, or am I still on par with every else (except Nacho).

============

Preview Edit:

@Stels

Thanks for the clarification on bussing... not really what I got out of the glossary at all I guess.

[Workdawg]

In hindsight, yes it is. I still have no doubt that dawg is scum. I dismissed his accidental near-hammer as a small newbie slip-up with a chance of being a scum-slip. His post which I drilled was a huge alarm for me to find him scummy enough to take my vote off of Ty, my then highest scum-suspect, to him.

Is my post, which you "drilled" still a huge tell even though I clearly refuted every point you made? Especially the ones that were my "single greatest scum-tell, slip and exposure" I've made?

@Mute

Do you really want to argue the semantics of the rules vs the sample role PMs, which immediately follow the rules? I'm obviously no expert, but splitting hairs in something so irrelevant just to try and reinforce your failed accusation on me seems pretty scumming in itself.
UNVOTE: Ty

VOTE: Mute

and

As far as my vote for Mute, he was my first vote... I changed from him in my anxious "crackmonkey" attempt to hammer Ty. After looking at the rest of his posts since then, I still feel like he's scum, and the evidence has only been mounting against him as far as I'm concerned.

@Mute

You think I'm super scum now, so what's my number? This is the third time I've asked you and you've never given it to me. The first time, I'll assume you didn't notice me ask.

---
So what's the story, am I the scummiest of the scum, or am I still on par with every else (except Nacho).

I fail to see the irrelevance, so please enlighten me to it.
You said that it is within the rules that scum may contact one another during the night and confirmation stages. I concede you were right in that that is stated within the sample role-PM's. However that does not change I feel you are the scummiest person so far.

About the "scum-tell"

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the entire situation was irrelevant, though I can see how you might read it that way. What I meant by that was; the difference between the rules and the sample role PMs being irrelevant.

If you break down my statements, I think that becomes clear.

@Mute

Do you really want to argue the semantics of the rules vs the sample role PMs, which immediately follow the rules? I'm obviously no expert, but splitting hairs in something so irrelevant just to try and reinforce your failed accusation on me seems pretty scumming in itself.

The first sentence is regarding the difference between the rules and the sample role PMs. That is the subject of the sentence.

The second sentence above is clearly in reference to the first sentence, of which the subject was the difference between those two things. In that statement, no where did I even mention my "scum-tell" or the fact that scum "may be" allowed to communicate with eachother.

I'll agree with you that if that information was not clearly presented in the rules/sample role PMs, that it would be a huge scum-tell... but it very clearly was.

I find the fact that you are still on my case about this and haven't just admitted that you were wrong here to be suspicious. I refuted your entire post, and you are focusing on a tiny detail which you were wrong about in the first place.

As for your rating? Remember when I said both that tunneling on the table, itself a neutral thing as both town and scum can and have used it across this site would bog down on scum hunting, and that "The only reason I can ever see anyone ever asking where they stand to me is if I am accusing them of being scum, using the number I give them as an augment to counter my argument, and do w/e else they would plan to do"?

If you truly wish to see where you fall onto my list so bad:
During my tunnel on you, I rated you a 90, and you were above everyone by a good margin.
Now? 79. Remember that I am not going to post it regularly, nor even give any warning as to when people go up or down it. The points are given by gut feeling, and corrected by evidence used in the game. My gut alone would give you an 84, just in case you're curious.

Am I aware of how scummy this is? Yes. I'm also aware of how this can potentially be used to either A) paint me to be scum by actions alone, or B) to give scum ammunition to push for me to be lynched.

As to whom I feel is dawg's partner? No clue as of yet.

On the topic of my rating/the table

The reason I keep persuing this is because I disagree with you on whether the table is neutral. Just because it's been used by both scum and town before doesn't mean ANYTHING in this game. All it serves to do is prove that it can be a scum tool. It can be a town tool as well, but as far as I'm concerned, you haven't defended it well enough at all to make me think that.

I disagree with your statement that tunneling on the table will bog down scum hunting. Obviously I'm suspicious of you, so this is my scum-hunting. Pressing you until you break on it, or at least put up some kind of decent defense to it.

Why do I keep asking for my rating? Simply because you've said a few times that if anyone asked, you would be glad to tell them their rating... yet when I asked, you just dodged the question up until now.

Specifically on your above comments

This seems just like another case of you claiming the scum will try and use it against you. Why do you keep using that as your defense? If the only thing the table is doing for you is giving scum something to use against you, then why did you/are you using it.

Maybe you can outline for me what exactly your grid has done so far that is pro-town.

The more discussion there is about this, the more it just seems to me that all you've done is try and tell people what they want to hear about the table.

[Workdawg]

You're doing nothing to help your case as far as I'm concerned. You constantly regurgitate the same junk arguments over it. I never said you were scum for using the table.

I'm a bit concerned about Mute's table as well. You say

this is a grid I am using for MYSELF, and this does not and should not influence anyone

but it WILL influence other people in one way or another. Is it scummy to attempt to draw attention to everyone else in a fancy looking list?

I asked if posting a bunch of useless information in a fancy list to attempt to distract people could be considered scummy. Once again, my reply quoted above was the post #25/#26 situation that I addressed with Nacho before. In post 25, you decided to tell us that you weren't going to post it that often. When I posted #26, I had not yet read your post, as I was still writing from before. The questioning of the scummyness was based on the thought that you would be posting the table frequently, but my vote was not. If you read post #29, which is my actual reaction to your further comments about the table (post 25), you will see my logic behind that original vote (and notice a distinct lack of me saying the table in and of itself, is scummy).

My original vote on you was based on your responses to inquiries about the table.

I'm over the table, you've proven nothing but the ability to say the same thing a few different ways.

The fact that you feel my current vote for you is an OMGUS reaction is just laughable, though. I cast what is arguably the first non-RVS vote in the entire game against you. I changed my vote to Ty in "the failhammer incident (TM)" and based on the discussion that resulted from that, and both his and your responses since then, I've decided that you look more scummy then him. That's why I changed my vote back to you.

[Workdawg]

tl,dr: The table is fine, but I don't like how Mute claims he will be using it. Without regular explanations, it seems like it would be an excellent way to throw suspicion on someone without real reasons.

This is what I've been saying all along. I really don't have an issue with him using the table for his own purposes. It's if he posts the whole thing without any explanation that I have a problem with. He's said he wouldn't do this (after being asked about it, maybe that was his plan, maybe he's just saying that because of the negative reaction to it), but posting it AT ALL seems to be a complete waste of time.

I have no problem using whatever means you want to keep track of how scummy you think someone is or who to vote for. You can flip a coin, draw straws or play darts to choose who to vote for. The fact that you posted the chart is suspicious to me. There's no reason to post the chart or reveal how you are choosing who to vote for. Your numbers are completely arbitrary and mean nothing without a logical argument to back them up. Even then, they don't really mean anything to anyone but you because the argument is the only part people should be paying attention to. It seems like throwing up the chart is just adding clutter and potentially misinformation to the thread.

My opinion since then has changed some, simply because he hasn't mounted any sort of defense other than "the table is neutral! scum are only trying to use it against me to make me look bad!"

[quote="Mute in #5]This is in all honesty an experiment on my part on using a number-based system to keep track of scum suspicions. I do not expect it to be perfect and the amounts will fluctuate with my whim. I will not rely on it alone to lynch anyone I feel is scum, merely as a way to keep track and augment my arguments and such. If at all you'd like to see where you fall at any time, just ask.[/quote]

So the number are going to fluctuate on a whim (I certainly hope you don't eat any taco bell that makes you sick before you update my score), and you won't rely on them alone to vote.

If I post just the person's standing on the table, without saying anything else, I feel I don't have to explain myself. If I am questioned why X is #, I'll respond, as will I do if I present a case to justify X's # on it.
Hopefully we can move past this concern about the table. It does nothing but bog down on scum-hunting.

But you want us to?
This is exactly the issue I have with the table (see my quote above, I outlined that specifically). What's the point in throwing out the numbers? Either you expect us to either trust your numbers completely, or you have to explain your number. I just don't get why you wouldn't simply keep the numbers to yourself and just rely on arguments (the ones you would presumably make if someone asked you why you gave someone such a rating). Maybe posting just the number and hoping no one calls you out on it is your plan? Or it gives you extra time to come up with an argument for that score. The latter seems highly unlikely as it would leave you WIDE open to get caught in your game.

If you truly wish to see where you fall onto my list so bad:
During my tunnel on you, I rated you a 90, and you were above everyone by a good margin.
Now? 79. Remember that I am not going to post it regularly, nor even give any warning as to when people go up or down it. The points are given by gut feeling, and corrected by evidence used in the game. My gut alone would give you an 84, just in case you're curious.

Am I aware of how scummy this is? Yes. I'm also aware of how this can potentially be used to either A) paint me to be scum by actions alone, or B) to give scum ammunition to push for me to be lynched.

I'm going to take you up on A from right above. Can you elaborate on how "your gut" gets me to 84? (was it that damned taco bell I mentioned above?) And what evidence do you have the drops me down to a 79. It sounds to me like your gut (no evidence) is telling you I'm pretty scummy, but the evidence says I'm town, so my number goes down?

Joking aside, I'm genuinely interested in what the evidence is that puts me to 79 on your charts.

Quite frankly, I am tired of having it brought up. I have yet to say in my argument against you "you have a score of # on my table, so I feel you're scum," I've only used your posts this game. I held off giving you your score for that fact. It is not the basis of my argument, nor will it be, as I said when I first posted the table this game.
Specifically:

If you do not like where you fall on my grid, remember that A) this is a grid I am using for MYSELF, and this does not and should not influence anyone; if you feel someone is scum vote for them on the basis of

your

own reads, and B) I feel your play is worthy of either a high or a low score.

This is in all honesty an experiment on my part on using a number-based system to keep track of scum suspicions. I do not expect it to be perfect and the amounts will fluctuate with my whim.

I will not rely on it alone to lynch anyone I feel is scum, merely as a way to keep track and augment my arguments and such.

If at all you'd like to see where you fall at any time, just ask.

That I have seen fit to give you that number based on your play is why I am so set on you being scum.

So, I'm scum because you gave me a number... isn't it supposed to work the other way around? You find enough evidence against someone that the number climbs high enough that you call them scum. I guess I'll have to wait and see what the evidence is.

[Workdawg]

Son of a ...

That 3rd quote up there is broken... my comment is in the middle... looks like I missed a quote. For that section of the post see below:

This is in all honesty an experiment on my part on using a number-based system to keep track of scum suspicions. I do not expect it to be perfect and the amounts will fluctuate with my whim. I will not rely on it alone to lynch anyone I feel is scum, merely as a way to keep track and augment my arguments and such. If at all you'd like to see where you fall at any time, just ask.

So the number are going to fluctuate on a whim (I certainly hope you don't eat any taco bell that makes you sick before you update my score), and you won't rely on them alone to vote.

If I post just the person's standing on the table, without saying anything else, I feel I don't have to explain myself. If I am questioned why X is #, I'll respond, as will I do if I present a case to justify X's # on it.
Hopefully we can move past this concern about the table. It does nothing but bog down on scum-hunting.

[Workdawg]

I previewed it a few times, but didn't catch the fail quote. I was looking to make sure no one jumped in since it took me quite a while to find all the quotes I was looking for. And I didn't expect it to work out I would accidentally merge two quotes... lol

[Workdawg]

So, I'm scum because you gave me a number... isn't it supposed to work the other way around? You find enough evidence against someone that the number climbs high enough that you call them scum. I guess I'll have to wait and see what the evidence is.

Best argument I've seen against the table so far. The initial sentence is fuzzy, but the second half is great.

Workdawg, it seems like your first sentence isn't really coinciding with the second part. I would say this is more an issue of writing your summary before your details, rather than inconsistency.

Anyways, I would say that Mute's reasoning is more "you give me a huge number, which implies I'm scum, which means I deserve a high number." (I'm saying this from workdawg's POV) Mute's using circular logic to try to prove his point.

It is a flaw in my writing style, but yeah.

The second sentence I was simply trying to explain how I feel it should work, rather than what the first sentence explains as how Mute made it sound like it works. I guess to say it better would be something like...

"So, I'm scum because you game me a number, isn't it supposed to work the other way around? Shouldn't you have to find enough evidence to justify the number getting high enough to call someone scum?"

[Workdawg]

@Neuky

I think what Mute means is that we (Mute, TP42 and I) have been doing most of the posting in here. Of course, he's just quoting himself a lot... <.<

[Workdawg]

Wow... nice post Stels. Woot!

First of all, this made me lol:

ISO #22: Makes a wall, containing something that looks like a case against Mute.

Second, in reply to your question quoted below...

In between this character profile thing, I have come up with a question that I don't think I have asked and feel like it should be asked now than later. What specifically in Ty that made you "Hammer" him? And do you still think that Ty deserves to be lynched? Or has your viewpoint on him changed?

At the time, I felt like Ty was just posting a ton of fluff into the thread and not really contributing much to the actual game. Certainly he was posting long messages, but they consisted of general theory and teaching type of stuff, rather than scumhunting. I realize that he is an SE, and someone else I believe pointed out that he IS supposed to try and teach us how to play the game, but I felt like a lot of it was just trying to distract us from the fact that he wasn't doing anything constructive except for tunneling on nacho. It seemed like an easy way to lurk in the thread without committing himself too much to the game, but still look like he was participating. And it seems like EVERYONE says lurking is bad for town.

I felt like Nacho had more than thoroughly defended himself and Ty had failed to reply to Nacho's counter arguments.

Between those two things (posting a lot, but saying very little relevant to THIS game, and tunneling on Nacho but not really defending himself), I felt like there was a high enough chance that Ty was scum.

This was compounded by the fact that I'm super impatient and spend a lot of time on the internet... and resulted in "the failhammer incident (TM)". (Yes, I'm totally coining that phrase and calling it that from now on)

=========================

This is something that's been rubbing me the wrong way for a while.

I hope my use of ISO is correct... I looked it up in the wiki and it says something like "to look at in isolation"... so I used the fancy menu at the bottom to only show one persons posts, and then used ISO #x to indicate which of their posts I'm talking about.

@Workdawg: I unvoted because it was late and you guys are a bunch of crackmonkeys. And if you find this to be valid reasoning, then there's no reason to push the thought of me as scum (because chances are, I'm not). If you don't see that as a valid reason, then bring it up. Making connections this early is a bit of a futile excercise, though. Chances are, you'll be wrong and you might be taking away credibility from an otherwise valid case.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned this in my analysis of you... but my thoughts on the Unvote are like this...

You've stated that while you are IC, and you are more than happy to dispense "side neutral" advice, you'll still be playing 100% to your goal to win. If that's the case, then I'm a little bit confused about why you would unvote when we were so close to lynching someone that you felt was scum. You made a case against him, at least enough to vote yourself, but then decided at the last minute that you didn't want him lynched. If you are playing 100% then it seems to me that you'd want to push to get that last vote, rather than save him.

I can see a couple of arguments about why you might have done this, but you failed to state your reason for doing it, other than "we are crackmonkeys" and you didn't want the day to end just yet. I'm interested to hear exactly what your reason was and if it is one of the ones I have come up with. (Trying to gauge my newbieness)

Also, something just rubs me the wrong way about your statements.

Your "if that's a valid reason, then don't say I'm scum, otherwise bring it up" seems almost condescending to me. It's almost like you are threatening me that if I say you're scum, something is going to happen to me. It just rubs me the wrong way.

You give off a pretty town vibe to me, I'm just trying to understand where you were coming from on the unvote.

[Workdawg]

While I'm still weary of him, I think his latest post at least addressed the issues I've had with him. He addressed Nacho's posts and all the other things that people have said about him. This makes me feel a little bit more comfortable with him.

At this point, I'm just more concerned with Mute. His last two posts haven't addressed anything he's been asked, he's only said that he will reply eventually.

[Workdawg]

Wall o' Text incoming...

This is simply in reply to Ty, I'll get to the rest in a bit

Continued from my previous post, it sure was a long day, wasn’t it?

Workdawg

Up until Post #47 I had a newbie-town reading on you. You began tunneling Mute for his table (which is a definite null-tell) and I felt you were trying to scumhunt, albeit in a very misguided manner.

After reading, and rereading everything posted about Ty up until now, I'm finding him to be pretty suspicious too. Mute and his table still rub me the wrong way, but in the interest moving things along I'm throwing down the hammer.

VOTE: Ty

Then I read this post. I think a few others have mentioned this is just you being a newbie town who didn’t realize what he was doing, but I’m inclined to disagree for the following reasons:

Well, like I said, I got anxious to get things rolling. I'm online all day at work and the idea of waiting 2 weeks for the first day to be over sounds insane to me.

1)

Initial Reason for voting Ty #1: Time.

He mentions it in ISO #7 where he votes me as well as the above ISO #15 where he’s trying to defend his vote. This should raise red flags for everyone because “speeding things up” is NOT a valid reason to be casting a hammer on someone (unless the town only has a few more hours/days to night, but since Workdawg tried to quick-hammer on the second day of the game this point is invalid).

In fact, discussing issues of time in order to speed things up is a fairly consistent scum-tell. In the numerous games of mafia I’ve played, it’s almost exclusively the scum who worry about the time to keep things moving. It makes sense the scum want the days to pass quickly considering 1) they get to talk less and 2) they get to kill another townie quicker.

Did you conveniently miss my post (ISO#8), where I explained my reasoning for voting for you? It was right after I voted (though Nacho managed to ninja in between) If clearly gives my reason; which was NOT time. Certainly my anxiousness/excitableness played a part in jumping the gun there... and that's why I needed an EBWOP to explain the vote... but I didn't just see you at L-1 and pull the trigger for no reason at all.

This might be played off as simply an over-anxious newbie. After all, how should Workdawg know days generally last weeks?

I am a full on newbie... never played a game before, but I did plenty of reading while waiting for my account to be activated.

Oh, yeah, that’s right. He’s read through games and he knew exactly what he was doing.

2) Initial Reason for voting Ty #2: I looked suspicious. No really, that’s his entire reasoning as seen by the relevant part of his ISO #7 below.

After reading, and rereading everything posted about Ty up until now, I'm finding him to be pretty suspicious too.

The two main problems with this are that 1) If you’re going to quick-hammer someone two days into the game you better have a damn good reason and 2) you simply were parroting what others were saying at the time about my posts. I hope I’m not the only one that notices how weak this is for an excuse to hammer. Workdawg attempts to say exactly why my posts were suspicious, however I believe I refuted all of his points at the beginning of my previous post.

Again, no mention at all of IOS#8, my actual reason for voting. Feel free to look that up.

Did I mimic other peoples thought's of you. Let's analyze the posts in which people cast their vote on you...

Mute in post #40: Pretty much says you are a hypocrite.
Nacho in post #43: Called you out for not answering his questions (also hypocritical it seems, since you were on his case about him not answering your RQS). Has a problem with you targeting him, but not voting.
Stels in post #46: Doesn't like your RQS or your reasoning for doing it. Also has a problem with you targeting him and not voting.

So, in summary (pretty general summary). People think you are a hypocrite and don't like that you won't vote for them if you think they are scum.

My vote in post #47, and EBWOP #49: You post a lot of information without a lot of substance all the while trying to draw suspicion onto Stels and Nacho (the other two experienced players). I accuse you of trying to avoid lurking by providing useless information and drawing suspicious on to the other two experienced players. It seems to me this would be the ideal situation for any SE or IC that ends up scum in a newbie game. Target the other experienced players and get them out of the way before the newbs know what hit them. I mean, geez. If you managed to get either one of them mislynched, then you NK the other one, you'd be the only experienced player in a game full of newbs and it'd be 5-2 town to scum. Sounds like the best case scenario for scum.

Now that I think about it, the whole "lurk by way of posting useless information" seems like it would be pretty convenient considering your "faster than you can say I-didn’t-realize-lurking-is-anti-town-play." lurker lynching policy.

3) Response after realization Ty is still alive. I think others have briefly touched on this point but let me add my perspective. Like Workdawg, I think most newbie-town would not regret their decision initially. However, in ISO #15 he continue to express that he was doing the right thing, after being informed by others what a bad decision it was. I’m taking a slight trip into WIFOMland, but at that point a truly-innocent townie would be regretting/apologizing for having almost hurt the town with a quick-hammer like that.

And I can guarantee a truly-innocent townie would not still be joking around about his mistake with lame humor. Even as late as ISO #32 Workdawg continues to joke around about what he did. A townie would feel bad and move on, a scum would try to play it off as a joke so as not to appear overtly suspicious. Guess which one Workdawg is trying hard to do…

I've already said that I don't regret voting for you. You can draw whatever conclusion you want from that. I felt that you were the most likely person to be scum at the time and I'm still a little suspicious of you. Is it a bad choice to end day one after only two days, maybe so... but if you are scum, then we'd all be pretty happy about that. I wasn't the only person who thought you were scummy enough to deserve a vote, so can you really lay all the blame on me?

It's interesting that you "guarantee" a truly innocent townie would not be joking around about this. I guess we'll see what your guarantee is worth when I flip town.


In summary, even though I now realize that ending the day so quickly could have some bad effects on the town (less time to gather information), do I feel bad for trying to lynch someone that I feel has a good chance of being scum; no.

4) Gratuitous wagon-hopping. Reading through Workdawg’s ISO it’s apparent all he’s done in the game is hop on whichever wagon is closest to getting a lynch. Around Page 2 Neuky and Angry Scientist were getting on Mute’s case and Workdawg immediately jumps onto the wagon and votes for Mute.

Of course at ISO #7 he votes me, thinking he just hammered. However by ISO #12 Workdawg states that “I still think that Ty looks a bit scummy.” He just went from trying to hammer me to saying I look a “bit” scummy. Notice he does that after the wagon stalled and others had unvoted me.

By ISO #22, Workdawg is once again voting Mute, apparently the wagon for my lynch wasn’t going well-enough for Workdawg. To me, there’s a clear distinction on how you’ve been voting. Instead of trying to hunt for scum, you’re trying to find the easiest way to get someone lynched. This is playing for the win condition of the scum, not the town.

I hardly call what I've done "gratuitous wagon-hopping." I admit that I hopped on your wagon, sure... but that's only because I thought we had a chance to lynch us a scum. The others had brought up some good points that made me look closer at your posts. When I did, I found that you were at the top of my list of potential scum; with Mute. Are you saying it's a bad move to hop on a wagon to lynch someone; even if you feel they are scum? I can see hopping on for no reason at all, or even when you're only mimicking the other people's reasons as being potentially scummy, but I had my own reasons. (Though it seems as though you may have not seen that post at all, since you never mentioned that above).

As for saying you still look "a bit" scummy. Yes, I said that; yes, I do still feel you look "a bit" scummy. Since then, you've contributed more to the game than before... but that could easily be because you almost got lynched and you decided you better step it up. You actually addressed nacho's posts (which you hadn't before) and posted something that was relevant to this game... which was my main reason for voting you.

Was I seeing through your ruse and now you're scared so you are bringing it up a notch?

As for Mute's wagon, if you want to call it that, I was the first person to cast a vote against him, and I raised issues with him the get-go. At first, it was simply an FoS on him because of the table and his "guilty until proven innocent" play-style. After that, it's been his complete inability to respond to my questions and comments.

Allow me to go back and ISO his "wagon" for you.

Post #13: TP42

FoSs him

because he didn't RVS.
Post #23: Angry Scientist asks Mute why he is revealing the table to us and raises the concern that it would help scum pick their targets for NKs. (no vote or FoS)
Post #24:

Neuky votes for him

saying "tables schmables.... "

Mute L-4

(Note that in #38, Neuky decides the table is a null-tell and unvotes anyway)
Post #26:

I FoS Mute

for the table because he doesn't think it will influence people and I disagree. I also suggest that his table could be a scum tell because it's adding useless information to the thread.
Post #27: Stels questions why Nacho is only 55 and everyone else is 60. (no vote or FoS)
Post #28: Angry Scientist seems content with Mute's answer to his question from Post #23 (still no vote or FoS)
Post #29: I nitpick his calling himself a scientist even though his actions clearly indicate otherwise. I say that his WIFOM suggestions are a bit too convenient for my liking and

I vote for him. Mute L-3

I could continue this this, but I think my point is clear.

Before I voted for him, no one really brought up any serious concerns about him. He gets FoS'd for not RVSing, a couple people question him about the table, but really there's nothing serious going on until I vote for him and start pressing the issue.

[Workdawg]

@Mute:

You've still managed to completely avoid talking about my thoughts on you (aside from mentioning that I'm "nitpicking") Are you going to defend yourself at all or are you going to simply stick to speculating about my scum team with Stels?

If you aren't going to defend yourself, could you at least take a look at the quote below and answer that one question?

From post #128...

If you truly wish to see where you fall onto my list so bad:
During my tunnel on you, I rated you a 90, and you were above everyone by a good margin.
Now? 79. Remember that I am not going to post it regularly, nor even give any warning as to when people go up or down it. The points are given by gut feeling, and corrected by evidence used in the game. My gut alone would give you an 84, just in case you're curious.

Am I aware of how scummy this is? Yes. I'm also aware of how this can potentially be used to either A) paint me to be scum by actions alone, or B) to give scum ammunition to push for me to be lynched.

I'm going to take you up on A from right above. Can you elaborate on how "your gut" gets me to 84? (was it that damned taco bell I mentioned above?) And what evidence do you have the drops me down to a 79. It sounds to me like your gut (no evidence) is telling you I'm pretty scummy, but the evidence says I'm town, so my number goes down?

Joking aside, I'm genuinely interested in what the evidence is that puts me to 79 on your charts.

[Workdawg]

@Mute:

LOL, thank you for addressing the taco bell issue.

On topic, I guess my interpretation of "gut" is simply your overall feeling disregarding any conclusions backed up by logic. When you say your gut gives me an 84, I would have considered both things your head and your gut say. Thoughts based on logical arguments would augment the score from there, but it's your system I suppose.

@asano234

I'm very curious about your reason for voting for Mute. Obviously I've been on his case for a while, but I have my case laid out all over the place. Your comment about just being sick of the argument doesn't do it for me, and saying that the table is swinging you from me to him doesn't either. You did put him at L-1, and while I don't mind the fact that you didn't announce this, I would say that's a pretty serious vote to throw out there without justification. I'm guilty of doing the same thing, but at least I followed up my vote with my reasons immediately.

I'm not really sure what to think about this. Your last sentence says that you will outline your thoughts later, so obviously you have some, but you can't be bothered to post them at the time of the vote? It strike me as rather suspicious to go to L-1 on someone and then leave the thread for who knows how long. It would be mighty convienient if someone else swept in and laid down the hammer on him while you are gone so that he doesn't have a chance to defend himself (though he doesn't really do this much anyone, in my experience).

(Yes, I realize the above is pretty hypocritical. I did the same thing before, but at least I gave my reasons for doing so.)

[Workdawg]

@anaso

Here's the thing anaso. You voted for mute for pretty much no reason and then left for work. You say that you will give your reason when you get back, and that there is more to that reason than your mistrust of the table.

When you got back around to posting, your only real reason for the vote was because of the table. You also claim to have hopped on the wagon to "see if that caused a stir."

It seems very much like you either a) didn't have a real reason for voting for him, or b) your reason was pretty much just to stir the pot.

In either case, voting for someone up to L-1 allows any random player to hammer that person. Any other player could have logged on and lynched him. If he's town, the scum would know this and they could have forced a mislynch. If you vote without a real reason to suspect they are scum, then you are opening the door for that.

The fact that you came back and immediately unvoted for him only reinforces the fact that you probably didn't have a solid reason for voting for him. ESPECIALLY not to L-1.

In the future, just make sure you know what the votecount is before you vote. I've made that mistake already. I would also highly suggest laying out all your reasoning behind any vote you make up front so that everyone knows why you vote. It's much less suspicious that way.

@Stels

Another unvote... I just don't know how to feel about that. It's the experienced players who keep doing it. I can see the argument for keeping the day from ending prematurely, but I just don't like the idea that you're putting your vote out there if you aren't confident enough to see that person lynched. Especially a second time.

[Workdawg]

Workdawg

In the future, just make sure you know what the votecount is before you vote. I've made that mistake already. I would also highly suggest laying out all your reasoning behind any vote you make up front so that everyone knows why you vote. It's much less suspicious that way.

As I remember it, your reason for trying to hammer Ty was to move the game along, not a miscount.

That was only a small part of it. I jumped the gun because I was anxious, but I also posted my reason for casting the vote in the EBWOP post after that.

Also, I didn't mean to say that my mistake was voting "to move the game along", but that my mistake was not getting the vote count right before posting.

[Workdawg]

@Ty:

I have to admit, it certainly seems like you've got a strong case against me. You've obviously got quite a bit of experience hunting scum and analyzing posts. At this point, I'm not sure what I can even say to you that will convince you I'm town.

I will straight up say it, I am a townie. Any actions that you think are scum-tells are simply my ignorance at how this game is properly played. I feel like I made one major mistake and have been unable to adequately defend myself from the inquisition that's been imposed on me as a result.

I'll just reply to your points again and hope for the best.

About time being a factor in my vote against you

You said yourself above that ISO#7

is a giddy over-eager scum trying to hammer and putting up a poor excuse in order to do so

Is it not at all possible that it was simply a giddy, over-eager town player thinking he just hit a home run for his team?

You point out how ISO #7, #9, and #15 all talk about whether time was a factor in the vote. I said I wanted to move things along in #7, and that I was anxious in #9 and #15. I don't think making any of those statements clearly indicates that I voted for you for no reason other than because I could have given you the hammer.

While I suppose it's a rather ridiculous request, if you were to analyze ISO 7 and 8 as if they had been posted in one post, at the time of the vote, would that make you feel any differently about the situation? I agree that it can easily look like I'm just trying to cover my tracks, but if you give me the benefit of the doubt and just chalk it up to a rookie mistake that I left off my reason due to my anxiousness, maybe it looks less scummy. I'd like to think that if I were newb-scum, I would have been more careful not to look too scummy, rather than to just jump in head first without concern for how it appears to everyone else. Didn't you say that it's typically the scum players who are concerned with how they appear? Though clearly I have much to learn about playing this game.

About my reasons for voting against you

Once again, time really played no role in my vote against you other than that I was simply anxious to do something good for the team. The evidence against you I felt was strong enough. Considering both of the other experienced players also placed a vote against you for their own reasons, I don't see how it's unreasonable to assume that a newb town see's some things he doesn't like and then jumps on the band wagon as well; especially considering that the two experienced players are already on board.

It's my first game here, the two experienced players both make points against you which leads me to reread your posts and analyze them more carefully. I come to the conclusion that I also feel you are likely scum, and then I cast my vote. Maybe I was being "led by sheep", but they had made better arguments than you at that time.

Challenge 1

As far as concrete examples of your useless information. I don't really have any. At that time, I felt that your generic advice wasn't really that helpful. It was overshadowed by your focus on Nacho and Stels. Looking back I see that it is generally useful information, but at the time, I was looking for more scum hunting and less for advice. (seems pretty ironic now)

Challenge 2

Nachomamma8

Ty, how does my answer to any of those questions allow you to get a gauge on my alignment?

There’s no one-size-fits-all answer, it depends on the unique response (or non-response as it may be) given by the player. Let’s take your response for example. What you just did is a deflection, meaning you ignored the question and instead attempted to talk about something else. Why do people deflect? Often times it means they are trying to hide something or they don’t feel comfortable with how they would have responded. Based on win conditions, the only people who have an incentive to be careful about how others perceive them are the scum who are trying to fit in with the town (it should be noted however that newbies will often times do this, as demonstrated by theplague42, however this point is irrelevant to Nachomamma8).

It’s important to differentiate Nachomamma8’s non-answering of the question from others who disliked my questioning (Angry Scientist, Stels). Both AS and Stels voiced annoyance over being questioned, but both did so regardless.

Your first sentence is really the only one that addresses his question directly. You segue directly in to an analysis of his reply, rather than actually answering his question.

This is really the only one relevant because it's your only post before my vote.

My current thoughts on you

Even though you've posted less frequently than you did before, it seems clear that the content of your posts is much more relevant to this game. You've moved off of the advice giving and on to the scum hunting (I only wish I weren't your target). I have to say, after the failhammer incident, you're posts have been almost exclusively scumhunting, rather than advice giving. As I mentioned before, and you pointed out numerous times above, I only find this a bit scummy because it seems like you switched pretty distinctly at that time. While you seem to be scumhunting pretty hard, I'm not sure if that's simply because there hasn't been any real GOOD scumhunting going on, or if it's because you've found a juicy target for a mislynch (me).

Like I said at the very beginning of this post, you've obviously got a lot more experience than I do at this. I probably won't be able to convince you that I'm town, but I won't roll over and get lynched without a fight either.

The table/Mute

I already stated that I'm over the table. I don't give a <bleep> about it anymore. I have been unsatisfied with Mute's responses to my questions (it took me 3 requests to get him to tell me my number, ffs), and THAT is the reason that my vote has been on him from the very beginning. I'll spend some time tomorrow analyzing that more carefully, again, if you like.

Other thoughts

I've already said that I don't regret voting for you. You can draw whatever conclusion you want from that.

Sure, I think I will. It’s incredibly anti-town play and with an attitude like that I would be afraid to have you on my townie team, nevermind being the scum.

Is it "incredibly anti-town" to vote for you, or to not regret voting for someone you felt, at the time, was the most likely person to be scum?

You decide to prominently place this WIFOM statement in your defense? This reeks of a scum making a last-ditch effort to stir feelings of doubt in a potential lynch, something that is consistent with the rest of your post.

Should I just roll over and accept defeat now that "one of the most vocal scumhunter in the game" is on my case? As opposed to simply a scum making a last-ditch effort to save himself, maybe it's just a newb doing the same? I don't see how this is specifically a scum-tell? You, and others, have said that I shouldn't be concerned with being lynched because as long as the town wins, I win... but I'll be damned if I don't go down without a fight. I'd rather contribute everything I can until the end then roll over, and have to watch from the sidelines.

I hardly call what I've done "gratuitous wagon-hopping." I admit that I hopped on your wagon, sure... but that's only because I thought we had a chance to lynch us a scum. The others had brought up some good points that made me look closer at your posts. When I did, I found that you were at the top of my list of potential scum; with Mute. Are you saying it's a bad move to hop on a wagon to lynch someone; even if you feel they are scum?

Two days into the game? Yes, yes I do. Note, you weren’t just hopping onto a wagon as you so eloquently put it, you were delivering the hammer. This is a serious no-no, and as has been mentioned earlier it’s a serious newbie tell. Based on your posting, I believe it’s newbie-scum tell.

It may only be two days into the game, but A LOT has occured. I suppose for someone who's only posted all of 7 times it might not seem like much, but there are nearly 200 posts in this thread. (There were over 100 by the time I switched my vote from you back on to Mute). I already admitted above that I hopped on your wagon. It was with good intentions that I did it. Aside from that, I've been pretty much driving Mute's wagon the entire game.

[Workdawg]

@Mute

I would hardly say the wagon against Ty was redirected to me. Only a single person who voted for Ty is now voting for me (it's you, actually). I think you'd need more than just one person to call it the same wagon.

[Workdawg]

You are right veridis; but It seems like every time Mute mentions my name, its some sort of jab or attack on me and so I feel the need to defend myself.

I would say we are both guilty of that, but in any case, I'll try and cut back on it.

[Workdawg]

I'm still catching up here, but I wanted to point out that TP42 put me at L-1 in post #207. So yeah...

[Workdawg]

Preview edit

@Mute

that bolded statement sounds very much to me like he is saying I'm NOT at L-1. If he were putting me at L-1, he would have just said so. Instead he says I'm NOT at L-1, and I won't be after his vote.

You are nowhere close to L-1, even with my soon-to-be vote.

"You are not L-1, even with my vote."

Why do I keep asking for my rating? Simply because you've said a few times that if anyone asked, you would be glad to tell them their rating... yet when I asked, you just dodged the question up until now.

But why did you ask for the rating in the first place?

Because I wanted to if he was going to construct a reasonable argument for whatever my rating was. I didn't really care (and still don't) what the number is, but getting the information out of him would tell us a great deal about how he's really using the table.

If he posted up a number and said "you are 79, and here is why... reason 1.... +x points, reason 2.... -x points" etc, that would have gone a long way to defending his position in my mind.

Instead, we get his gut feeling about everyone "as corrected by evidence". This statement leads me still to believe that he's pretty scummy. Other people seem to have also found his reply interesting. Whether we are misguided in our thoughts on it or not, the information is out there because I asked, and information is power for town.

If you are playing 100% then it seems to me that you'd want to push to get that last vote, rather than save him.

Even if I was a daycop with a guilty result on him, I STILL wouldn't push that lynch through. Firstly, you have to understand that as an IC I'm kind of expecting to get NK'ed, especially if I do my job. So a lynch, especially a lynch on scum, means my immediate death. As a result, I'd much rather stay in the game a bit longer and peg BOTH scum as opposed to just hitting one and then leaving you all to your own devices.

That makes sense to me.

I can see a couple of arguments about why you might have done this,

What were the arguments you were thinking of?

I hadn't really thought about you getting NK'd right away. My main thought was just to get as much information as we could out of day 1. If the pressure had remained on Ty, we might have been able to discern any potential scum partner from that pressure.

"if that's a valid reason, then don't say I'm scum, otherwise bring it up"

What statement are you talking about here?

You said this in #108, in response to me when I asked for your reason for unvoting Ty.

(Yes, I realize the above is pretty hypocritical. I did the same thing before, but at least I gave my reasons for doing so.)

Why do you think that asano's vote had scum intent while yours clearly didn't, even though you essentially did the same thing?

His post does not seem to have been made in haste, like mine was. He took the time to address Stels and to explain that he had to leave, but he couldn't be bothered to post up to say that he didn't like the table and he wanted to cause a stir?

I didn't run off for nearly 12 hours to let my vote simmer without a reason.

I also never said I thought his vote had scum intent, only that I was a bit suspicious about the circumstances surrounding his vote. I'm not denying what we did was similar (I wouldn't have made mention of it if I were), but the circumstances are quite different as well.

Another unvote... I just don't know how to feel about that. It's the experienced players who keep doing it. I can see the argument for keeping the day from ending prematurely, but I just don't like the idea that you're putting your vote out there if you aren't confident enough to see that person lynched. Especially a second time.

There are more uses of a vote than lynching. Occasionally, pressure is the only way to actually be confident enough to lynch someone. I hate lynching someone, seeing a town flip, and going "meh, not surprised". Seeing reactions to pressure is a good way for me to prevent that from happening, ever.

I can see this reasoning, but as Ty has so successfully demonstrated, you can also apply pressure without a vote.

I have to admit, it certainly seems like you've got a strong case against me. You've obviously got quite a bit of experience hunting scum and analyzing posts.

Shouldn't these two sentences contradict one another if you're town? Why would you call him a good scumhunter if he's voting town?

I guess I don't really see the difference between scumhunting in the manner he is doing it, and building a case for a mislynch against town. Whether you are looking scum tells to prove someone is scum, or you are looking for null tells or mistakes to build a case for a mislynch, it's pretty much the same thing. In both cases, you are analyzing your targets posts and looking for inconsistencies and tells that indicate the designation you are looking for.

[Workdawg]

Workdawg

Once again, time really played no role in my vote against you other than that I was simply anxious to do something good for the team. The evidence against you I felt was strong enough.

Considering both of the other experienced players also placed a vote against you for their own reasons, I don't see how it's unreasonable to assume that a newb town see's some things he doesn't like and then jumps on the band wagon as well; especially considering that the two experienced players are already on board.

I do not believe you for a second on this. You specifically stated that time was the main reason for voting Ty. You later frantically defended that by saying that you couldn't stand waiting two more weeks for the day to be over. Later, you switch track by saying that you have other "evidence" for voting Ty. Yet you never once give a concrete example (parroting Ty a little here) of why you voted him.

Before you voted, you said that you thought Mute was scummy. Yet you tried to hammer Ty two days into the day. Therefore:

Unvote

Vote: Workdawg

I'm gunna pull a Mute here: Link Link 2, etc.

If we end up lynching him and he flips scum, I'm beginning to change my mind and to think that Mute could be his partner. The sheer amount of time that they are putting in to constantly attack one another is mindboggling. That, combined with the immediate back-down after veridis pointed it out, could indicate bussing/distancing.

Although if Workdawg is town, then I still think Mute could be scum, but my suspicion would be greater than if Workdawg is scum. Now that I say this, I'm not exactly sure why I want Workdawg lynched before Mute. But I do, if just to eliminate all chance of another "miscount" and pseudo-hammer. Lynch all Liars! Yes, by that statement I mean that I believe that Workdawg lied.

You aren't sure if you want me lynched before Mute, and your only reason for that is to avoid another miscount and hammer? Come on now, I've obviously played pretty badly here, but if I were to make that mistake again, I would be gone in a heartbeat even if I lynched a scum player.

[Workdawg]

If we end up lynching him and he flips scum, I'm beginning to change my mind and to think that Mute could be his partner. The sheer amount of time that they are putting in to constantly attack one another is mindboggling. That, combined with the immediate back-down after veridis pointed it out, could indicate bussing/distancing.

I don't intend to back off of Mute, I simply meant that I would try to cut back on the petty jabs.

[Workdawg]

Oh crap... sorry... that was TP42.

[Workdawg]

Prepare for counter-wall.

First of all, you seem pretty hung up on the act of proposing a WIFOM scenario being a solid scum tell. (Interestingly, you do this in post #25) I admit that my grasp on WIFOM scenarios is a little bit shaky, but I don't see how they make up 100% scum tells just by proposing them. From my understanding the act of WIFOM is certainly misleading but the trick to it is that you don't really know when someone is making a play that is WIFOM. A WIFOM play is one in which one player will do the opposite of what they might normally do because they assume their opponents will assume they would do that. It's just a loop of circular logic.

Accepting the proposition that it is the best interest of the town to always tell the truth and be straight forward, then the act of making a WIFOM play is scummy, yes. However, I don't see how simply proposing a WIFOM scenario is scummy in and of itself. It's been said numerous times by the experienced players around here that putting all your thoughts on the table is better than sitting by idle and saying "I KNEW IT!" when it occurs. If my thoughts include a potential scenario where someone makes a WIFOM play, then I put it out there.

All that aside, here are my thoughts on your case against me.

ISO #3: He uses a WIFOM argument to justify a vote placed on me.

I used the argument that YOU proposed the WIFOM as part of my justification to vote for you. Is it more scummy to point out a potential WIFOM scenario and hide behind it because you're the one who brought it up, or to agree to the possibility that the one who brought it up in the first place is scum. Also, it was not my only reason for voting for you.

ISO #4: States that he is worried about how he will be perceived by the town. Only scum would make that statement/assessment.

You're really going to call that a scum tell instead of a newbie tell in my FOURTH post?

ISO #7: the infamous "FailHammer." No I am not putting the (TM) thing there; that is a silly thing. I've addressed this earlier as a newb-scum slip, which is exactly what it is. He claims me to be suspect but insists on placing a vote on Ty to advance to N1. This is something only scum will want to do.
ISO #8: I read this post as "Yeah guys I messed up but look at this other guy!!" Scum diversion.

Or I was simply providing my reason for voting since I failed to do that the first time.

ISO #9: Makes the assumption he'll live to D2, and uses an excuse of "anxiety" to justify his failed hammer. Still not buying that excuse.

Consider we all thought it was already twilight, I don't think it's unreasonable to guess that I'd make it through the night. Especially considering the only scum left at the point would have more likely NKd someone who had done more significant scum hunting than I had.

ISO #14: ... Also calls everyone BUT STELS into question.
...
He also paints a portrait of Nacho/Ty scum-team, and spreads a layer of WIFOM within that argument to do so. I found this scummy to accuse two players of scum via a WIFOM argument.
...

Not exactly, Angry, Neuky, and TP42 got generally null thoughts as well... so that's half the people with null/town, naben being AWOL and the 3 people with more thoughts on them.

More WIFOM talk... see above. I don't see where I actually accused Nacho of being scum. Did i say "ZOMG NACHO AND TY ARE SCUM!" ? No. I had a thought and I threw it out there for people to think about. If that result in people shooting holes in it with a minigun, then that's fine. This again goes back to posting my thoughts instead of keeping them to myself. Not a scum tell.

ISO #15: Now he brushes off his miss-hammer as "an innocent mistake." He undermines the arguments about his vote against Ty by dismissing it as a non-serious point. It is not and him just sweeping a mistake he made away like that I find scummy.

I've always said the failhammer was an innocent mistake. I don't see how I'm undermining my own arguments either. Is saying that other people disagree with them undermining them? Clearly not everyone is going to agree with everyone all the time.

ISO #16: Now we get to the single most comical attempt at pushing the pro-town thing into our faces. I'll quote it.

Also, am I supposed to analyze myself? I thought that was everyone else's job. I guess if you want that, here it is.

Workdawg Silly newb making a ton of mistakes, but he is more town than the mayor of townsvilleland..

This is his

self analysis

. That he put such a concern as trying to tell everyone he is town with this is laughable. This along with the miss-hammer are serious flags for being scum.
Then within this post he jokingly brushes aside a notion of a team of him/Stels, and uses a WIFOM argument therein, and redirects suspicion to Nacho. Really trying to spread around the suspicion to push for mislynches, eh scum?

You're right, that is a terrible self analysis, because it was 100% a joke. I don't see anyone else doing a self analysis, so I didn't feel it necessary to do one on myself. I was simply displaying my contempt at the suggestion that I should have done so. If you are seriously calling that a scumtell, then I think you need to get your sarcasm meter calibrated.

You can see my thoughts on WIFOM above.

Also, I don't really see where I am attempting to divert suspicious to Nacho in this post.

ISO #17: In this post he brushes aside my calling him out for trying incredibly hard to appear as town within my points of 2 and 3. The rest of this post, as well as ISO's 18 and 19, I made the mistake. (See I own up to my mistakes (eventually...))

I don't even know what you mean by this. Like I said, your points 2 and 3 are attacking a joke that I made. If you don't believe that is a joke, then I don't even know what to tell you.

ISO #20: States that my answers were never "comfortable" enough for him. Look back up at ISO #14. This is a contradiction. Scum-move. What changed between ISO 14 where you were satisfied with my responses, and ISO 20 where they were no longer good enough for you?

Answering decently <> answering well. If you had answered them well, I would not have stayed suspicious of you this entire game and I would be "comfortable" with you. This is not a contradiction, this is simply you attempting to twist my words to make me look like scum.

ISO #21: In this post he mis-correctly defines bussing. If you'll note in ISO 13, he states to plague that he had mixed up the glossary pages and acronyms pages within the wiki. Do I believe he would make the same mistake twice? No, I do not. This is simply an error in continuity, and frankly I felt this to be a mix of a scum-tell, and a null-tell. I cannot pinpoint where exactly it lies for me but I mention it as an in-depth analysis was requested of me. Interpret this however you wish.

I did incorrectly define buss, but it was based on what the glossary says. In ISO#13, I did mix up the glossary and the acronyms page, but I have not made that mistake since. There IS an entry for bussing in the glossary, and I did read it. If you take the time to do the same, you will notice that my wording is accurate with what the wiki page says about bussing. No where in the wiki does it indicating that bussing includes actually lynching the scum partner. It says plenty about attempting to get that player lynched, but not about actually laying down the hammer on them. I had not seeing any cases where one scum bussed another by actually following through with a lynch.

There is no continuity error here, simply you again looking for anything you can find to pile on to my case.

ISO #24: states "evidence has only been mounting and mounting against me," but neglects to provide any evidence of this (see ISO 23). Scum spreading a weak case and pushing for a mislynch is my read on this post.
Also, asks for the third time (I never saw a second time before this ISO post.) for his rating on my table. Seriously scummy for wanting to know something that, by everyone, has been argued as useless fluff, a null-tell, and/or unimportant and not worth discussing any more. Useful later. (Okay I lied about the comment becoming a trend within this post. Sorry. )

In most of my posts after the failhammer incident (TM) had settled down I raised a couple points against you. Sorry I haven't had 4 hours of my time to nitpick every word you've posted. As of late, I've had to spend all my free time digging my way out from under you and Ty.

As for wanting to know my rating, I addressed this before when Nacho asked me about it. This just sounds to me like you are avoiding talking about it now. Why were you so afraid to post it if it's a null tell? I thought information was good for the town. How could posting my number possibly be bad? Even if my intent was to use it against you, if you were truly town you should have happily post it up and then torn apart my argument against it.

ISO #25:
Here in this ISO, he states I haven't defended my table well enough. Once again, this is in conflict with ISO 14. Seriously, how many times can one get caught in a lie? Next up (and this is how I have it written in my notebook), he states that his questioning of my table is him scum-hunting, yet in the same sentence says that he disagrees with me about the table bogging down on real scum-hunting... So focusing on the table is scum-hunting? Hypocrisy here, scum.
Also in this ISO states that I have been feeding the town lies regarding the table when questioned about it... Once again this is in contradiction to ISO 14, and also worth pointing out is he is the most vocal against it. So, he's using his disagreement with the table to try and mislead everyone into thinking that I'm scum and using his disagreement with it as his case... Is this the case he meant in ISO 23? That he doesn't like nor agree with my table so therefore I am scum? I've never heard such a weak case.

See above for my response about how well you defended

the table

yourself.

What? If I am using your responses to the table as scum hunting, then OF COURSE I disagree that the table is bogging down scum hunting. That's not hypocrisy at all. Why the heck would I say that my own scumhunting is worthless?

I did not ever use the word "lies" in that post. Ignoring the questions or simply quoting your own inadequate answers are things you have done though.

I've said numerous times that I am more concerned about your responses than the table. It initially put my suspiciouns on you, but your inadequate response to my questions is what has made me thing you are scum for the rest of the game. I guess you can simply ignore that as well.

ISO #27: Here he contradicts his previous post by saying he is over the table and attacks the table again and pushes it again as his sole-evidence against me. He keeps pushing a weak argument against me to get me lynched, and this I see as scummy.

ISO #30: More arguments against the table... you really like beating that dead horse eh Mr. Scum?

Fine, I'm not over the table completely, I'm just sick of having to bring it up over and over because you can't defend it. Does that make you happy? The only reason I brought up those arguments again is because TP42 said pretty much what I had been saying all along.

And #30 is simply in response to TP42 to clarify what I said before, there is no new argument there. Way to try and add fluff to your case.

ISO #32:

Now then, where do we start? Oh yeah.

Wow... nice post Stels. Woot!

The second instance of buddying. Now you may be asking yourselves "Wait a second Mute, why is this a case of buddying?"
Well boys and girls, please read that post by Stels which prompted that response from Dawg. Now, look at how Stels rated everyone. Of everyone, Only Dawg received a straight-town vibe from Stels. His exact words on his impression?

Appears scummy, but I get a newb-townish vibe from him.

Now, the rest of Stels reads? Either a null, or a town/null read... Except for me, whom Stels calls scummy, and proceeds to vote for me.
Now this is why I feel they are buddying up. Dawg is given a "scum but newb-town" read by Stels, I am given a "scummy" read. Dawg and I have been going back and forth, and here Stels comes along and joins in with Dawg and votes for me. If nothing else this is the greatest example of their buddying this game, and does so as a stand-alone post. Used in unison with ISO 14, the second case of a Dawg/Stels scum-team seems much more likely.

So simply complimenting him for putting together a good analysis of everyone is considered buddying up to him? People got all over Neuky for isolating the wagon against Ty, there's probably a 4-way buddy-fest going on over there. Maybe you're just mad that he pegged you as scum as well?

As for his read on me, Nacho pegged me as a misguided newb-town as well. Maybe they are on to something and Ty is simply on my case because I'm the easy target now. (Proposed WIFOM, not actual WIFOM play, FYI)

About the scumteam. So your argument (at least in the above) for the scum team is because he agreed with me? If you notice, he was V/LA for 2 days, he came back and read the post, then built his own case against you.

---
Still within this ISO (see I told you I enjoyed this post), gives yet

another

justification for the failed-hammer, and presents a case against Ty and Nacho.
Now, two things. One- why are you still trying to justify what you did? It happened, and any townie would move on from it. You really want to not make yourself seem scum by trying to justify things you said in the past. This backfired to me.

Second,

didn't Stels just say you seemed scummy?

Why are you not addressing this and simply accepting the "newb-town" vibe? Any townie would argue why they are perceived as scum and want a person's justification of it. You do no such thing and simply congratulate Stels then go on your merry way.

I guess you missed the quote in this post where Stels SPECIFICALLY ASKED ME ABOUT THE HAMMER.

Also you mention looking in the wiki for the definition of ISO. Couldn't do that for the definition of bussing?

Addressed this above as well.

ISO #33: In this post he says he is satisfied by the response Ty gives him, and returns his "focus" towards me. Yes those two posts of mine before then lacked much real content, I had things going on in real life. Bad excuse, but your case against me is a bad excuse for a case as well.

Again, I'm simply answering a question posed by someone else. They asked me if I still felt Ty was as scummy as I felt before.

Maybe you should get at least some context to the posts before you attack them.

Note that I didn't actually bring up anything about those two posts where you say you were busy.

ISO #34: OH GOD THE WALLS THEY KEEP GETTING COMING CLOSER! (Yes, I read this entire post. I said I only read them if I'm looking for stuff. Sorry Ty, but I do skip walls if they don't specifically address me unless I need to read them. I digress.)

IMO, this is terrible play as it only compounds the problem of tunneling. If you aren't reading information you find relevant, then how do you even know I'm the most scummy player in here? For all you know, someone else has already claimed scum and just didn't tell you.

This ISO he presents a post against Ty... wait didn't you just say you were fine with him and were focusing more on me? Anyways, he posts a post targeting Ty. He uses the "I wasn't the only one to vote for you, so look at these other guys!" scum-tactic to defend himself. Diverting attention away from you and shifting the blame to the wagon as a whole I see as only something a scum would do. Specifically, he mentions mine, Stels, and Nacho's votes on Ty.

Okay, check that... you REALLY need to get context on these posts. This was a response to Ty's wall post against me. Those are all simply replies to his post. I'm defending myself by attempting to point out flaws in his case.

Wait, why are you even reading this? It's a wall that isn't addressed to you.

Also here in ISO 34 he states that he was always against my table and my stance on how I am viewing this game, which is hypocritical to ISO 14; and my inability to respond to questions, which is a lie. The only thing about this that holds any water is that he has repeatedly said he isn't satisfied with my answers.

That's not what I said at all. Your case is falling apart as we go here, maybe you should have taken a coffee break or something. THIS is what I said:

As for Mute's wagon, if you want to call it that, I was the first person to cast a vote against him, and I raised issues with him the get-go. At first, it was simply an FoS on him because of the table and his "guilty until proven innocent" play-style. After that, it's been his complete inability to respond to my questions and comments.

Now, why is he, in post 164, only referring to posts 13, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, and 29 regarding questions about the table? What town-motivation is there for omitting so many posts just to prove a point; why use such a weak case to try and yet again make everyone think I am scum? There is none.

I could continue this this, but I think my point is clear.

I'd like you to please go on as from my stance, your entire case against me is "I don't like your answers to my questions because I want to see you lynched and I don't like your table because I don't like it." This is a weak case in every sense of the word.

Everyone (if you're even reading this far, which I say kudos to you for), can't we just lynch this scum and be done with it already? =_=

I included those posts because they are the only ones in which anyone posts anything about the table or you up until I voted for you. The intent was to show that I did not jump on your wagon as Ty implied. And it proves that pretty well IMO.

I've raised valid arguments against you and the table. I would be more than happy to build myself a wall post to encapsulate my arguments against you, but like I said, I haven't had time yet with constantly needing to defend myself.

At the bolded, you better watch yourself there, getting anxious for a lynch looks pretty scummy. I know someone who's made that mistake before.

ISO #36: Now, in this post he questions why Asano (the replacement for Angry Scientist) placed a vote onto me. Now, what I found worthy of note is Dawg stating this:

Obviously I've been on his case for a while, but I have my case laid out all over the place. Your comment about just being sick of the argument doesn't do it for me, and saying that the table is swinging you from me to him doesn't either.

Erm... Where have you presented your "case" against me that

isn't

about the table and how you just don't like it? Also, if your case is "all over the place," why not present it in this post? Why haven't you presented it yet? What are you building your case out of that isn't the table and your lack of approval to the answers I've given to your various inquiries? Also, you say that him being sick of the table doesn't "do it" for you... Erm, weren't you done with the table back in ISO 26? Hypocritical post here.

Like I said, my case is laid out all over the place. When I have time, I'll try and build a wall for you.

As for being "sick of the table", yes... but not reason enough to put someone at L-1 and then leave.

ISO #37: Here, he chastises Asano for a vote on me that was basically for no reason... wait a second, wasn't Dawg's vote in ISO #7 for no reason? Oh no wait you attempted to

hammer

Ty, just to advance the game, whereas Asano put me into L-1 to get a reaction from it. His vote is as much a town-placed vote as your vote then is a scum-placed one. He didn't intend to hammer, nor proceed to the next game-phase, he wanted information. I find you talking to him about placing a "pointless vote" to be a hypocritical argument and laugh at how disingenuous that was.

I wasn't chastising him at all, I was explaining the situation to him. If you read his post immediately after mine #188, you can see that he felt the same way about my post. You are just trying to twist my post and take it out of context to turn it into some kind of scum move.

ISO #38: and now he starts to come undone. *cue the song by Korn of the same name*
Plague calls him out on his lecturing Ty. He parrots his past defenses and completely

lies

for the original reason for it.

I did not lie. My intentions behind the vote were genuine town. I wanted to lynch I played I felt was scum and in my haste to make the post I forgot to include my reasoning, which was EBWOP shortly after. Clearly you don't believe me, but that does not mean that I lied.

The truth will be revealed eventually.

ISO #39: Here, he outright claims to be town... and yet he isn't in L-1 at the time of this post. There is NO town-motivation to claim ANY role when not in an L-1 motivation unless you are doing so to oust a scum member by claiming a PR. (PR = power role)
This is right after, in the same sentence that he claimed to be a townie:

Any actions that you think are scum-tells are simply my ignorance at how this game is properly played.

Remember that opening post of his? He is not ignorant to the ways of this game. Even in his opening post, and throughout the rest of his posts, he's shown he's aware of the material in the wiki, and has observed the goings-on of the game itself. Flat-out saying he's read through games and played along on the sidelines, trying to see if his reads matched up with the players in the game. He is lying through his teeth with this to appear town.
And I'm not even done yet!

Is there some mysterious reason to NOT claim to be town? Does it seem disingenuous or something? Isn't everyone pretty much claiming to be town by NOT saying they are scum. I suppose if you play the game assuming everyone is scum, you don't see it that way though.

As for my experience and knowledge. I did read a few games, I did browse the wiki. I never said I was able to follow the logic of other players, and I never said I read every word on the wiki. I read a few articles here and there and read a few games here and there. I never read through an entire game. Usually one or two days at most.

This post is filled with more appeal than Bill Clinton

! He flatout appeals to emotion here:

While I suppose it's a rather ridiculous request, if you were to analyze ISO 7 and 8 as if they had been posted in one post, at the time of the vote, would that make you feel any differently about the situation? I agree that it can easily look like I'm just trying to cover my tracks,

but if you give me the benefit of the doubt and just chalk it up to a rookie mistake that I left off my reason due to my anxiousness, maybe it looks less scummy.

I'd like to think that if I were newb-scum, I would have been more careful not to look too scummy, rather than to just jump in head first without concern for how it appears to everyone else. Didn't you say that it's typically the scum players who are concerned with how they appear? Though clearly I have much to learn about playing this game.

If that ain't appeal to emotion then I don't know what is. This is a sign he's finally caved under pressure. And immediately he uses a WIFOM argument to try and defend himself!

Still on the WIFOM boat I see. In any case, you seemed pretty concerned about my appealing to people emotions... so what? Just because it's something scum will do to try and save themselves doesn't mean that it's a 100% scum tell. You already said that you went down and your only defense was to let yourself get lynched. Maybe you should have tried appealing to emotion. Why would anyone about to be lynched NOT try to stay in the game? If there is some sort of secret town move in which going and getting themselves lynched, then that's fine... but that's not the case here.

Next up is the part of his post underneath "About my reasons for voting against you."
This is made ENTIRELY OUT OF

Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Majority

:
"I was simply anxious to do something good for the team," "Considering both of the other experienced players also placed a vote against you for their own reasons," "I don't see how it's unreasonable to assume that a

newb town

see's some things he doesn't like and then jumps on the band wagon as well; especially considering that the two experienced players are already on board."

There he goes again claiming to be a newb town!
"It's my first game here, the two experienced players both make points against you which leads me to reread your posts and analyze them more carefully. I come to the conclusion that I also feel you are likely scum, and then I cast my vote. Maybe I was being "led by sheep", but they had made better arguments than you at that time."
I swear when I read those paragraphs I felt like I was seeing him groveling on his knees and begging everyone to accept he is town, which he is not.

So, you are saying that those things don't seem like reasonable plays for a newb-town?

You are stating with an absolute that I am not town. Better watch yourself there. I think there was someone else in here rallying for "Lynch all Liars" (besides you)

"As far as concrete examples of your useless information. I don't really have any."
Aha! He, Dawg, has no examples against you, Ty, and yet suspected you on and off the ENTIRE GAME so far.

Way to leave out the actually relevant part of that paragraph. If that doesn't reek of twisting my words to fit your case, then I don't know what does.

Even though you've posted less frequently than you did before, it seems clear that the content of your posts is much more relevant to this game. You've moved off of the advice giving and on to the scum hunting (I only wish I weren't your target).

My take on this? "I concede to you Ty and give you the recognition that you have beaten me" The instant a person accepts defeat that is crystal-clear they are scum and accept that they have been outed. The instant you give up you lose.

Just because that is your take on my statement does not make it the meaning behind my statement. My take on your statement about is "I am scum", clearly it must be true!

I stated exactly what he has done. He is scum hunting. Am I conceding defeat here? No. I would have just stopped posted, or hammered myself by now. Cause after all, if I were scum and about to go down, don't I want to prevent any more information from coming out of D1?

I have been unsatisfied with Mute's responses to my questions (it took me 3 requests to get him to tell me my number, ffs), and

THAT is the reason that my vote has been on him from the very beginning.

I'll spend some time tomorrow analyzing that more carefully, again, if you like.

AND NOW WE FINALLY GET TO WHY HE VOTED FOR ME. His vote is centered ENTIRELY ON THE FACT THAT I DIDN'T GIVE HIM HIS ARBITRARY NUMBER WHEN HE WANTED IT. THIS IS SO WEAK I AM LAUGHING SO MUCH IT HURTS. Not only that, his

entire case

was built on his dissatisfaction with my table/the answers I've given him. I suspected it earlier on but THIS just confirms it. His entire case against me isn't because he thinks I'm scum, he just doesn't like those things. This is pure scum-pushing for a mislynch.

Your capitalized words up there are completely misguided and ridiclulous, they don't even make sense. You are claiming that my vote from the beginning of the game is because you didn't give me my number?

1) I didn't even ask for my number from you until after I was on your case.
2) Maybe you don't have a strong grasp of english, but my statement in parenthesis above is just and example of your lack or responses.

It may only be two days into the game, but A LOT has occured.

And we're only here because you failed to hammer Ty early on and prevent the town to lynch you. We're only this far because we've had the opportunity to, something scum wouldn't want.

I suppose for someone who's only posted all of 7 times it might not seem like much, but there are nearly 200 posts in this thread.

Quality > Quantity, anytime and every time.

I won't argue that... his posts have been full of information, but that's irrelevant to the point of my statement, and thus irrelevant for your case against me. My point was that he hasn't been here that much and how long this game has gone on is going to seem relative to how often you check this thread.

[Workdawg]

@Stels: I haven't lied yet, and I don't intend to start now. Certainly not to claim to scum for no reason.

[Workdawg]

@asano

Are there parts of my counter-wall that you didn't like in particular that you would like me to address further?

[Workdawg]

Since it seems imminent that I will be lynched, I'll try to put together a post with my thoughts on everyone again. Note that I'm pretty much skimming ISOs to jog my memory about each persons play throughout the game. I don't indend to build a wall against anyone at this point, just give an overview and some thoughts on their play.

My top two picks for scum right now:

Mute

I did spend a lot of time relooking at him, and my conclusion is that he's still scummy, but for other reasons. Allow me to explain:

In his RQS answers, he said the main thing he needed to work on was developing arguments. He also mentioned that in his last game, he got lynched and the only defense he was able to mount was to get lynched and let the truth come out. This seems to still be the case in this thread, IMO. I initially jumped on his case about the table and I feel like he simply failed to answer the questions I posed to him adequatly. When I look back at our argument, I'm not sure there was really much scumminess in his posting. When I consider that he already said he is bad at defending himself, I don't see that much reason to think he's scum. I tried pressuring him into making a mistake with my vote, and I got too caught up in it that I sort of lost track of where it was going.

HOWEVER, I still think he looks scummy for other reasons. This may sound petty or a desperate attempt to distract from my lynching, but here are my reasons.

He has said on multiple occasions that he simply does not read other people's wall posts unless he is directly addressed in them or he is looking for something specific. This comes across as extremely scummy to me. If we have all acknowledged that information is power to a town player, then why would you EVER ignore the posts with the most information in them?

The only reason I can see for anyone to skip reading parts of the thread is if that person is scum. Scum don't need information at all; they already have it all in their role PMs (who the other scum is). The scum's job is simply to build a case for a mislynch without drawing too much attention to themselves. They don't need to read every single word in this game to do this, they only need to find specific points within a post and pick them apart to build a case. This seems to be EXACTLY what Mute has acknowledged doing. IMO, this is probably the biggest scum-tell in the game so far.

In his case against me, he took quotes completely out of context, twisted things and straight up misread/interpretted things I said. He also made a huge deal out of minor things that aren't really scum tells at all. All these things seem like attempts to simply buffer his case against me. If he had a really strong case, he wouldn't need to buffer it in those ways.

Overall, I think he's come across as pretty scummy based on the things I mentioned above. His inability to put up a defense against my scumhunting (regardless of whether it was misguided or not) is something that I'm willing to chalk up to being newb considering he straight up admitted his deficiencies in those areas at the beginning of the game.

Ty

I think right now he looks a little scummy as well.

First of all, I still think that his actions at the beginning of the game were slightly scummy. He provided generic advice about scum hunting and stuff like that, and he focused on Nacho and Stels right off the bat. I will acknowledge that it makes sense for the experienced players to target each other right away, but he didn't seem to really defend himself as well.

Like I mentioned before, he seems to almost dodge Nacho's first question in post #35. His first sentence addresses it, but he quickly turns it around to an attack on Nacho. It isn't until after the failhammer incident(TM) that he really turns on the scumhunting, and who is his target? Me, the newb who nearly lynched him. Most of the players already got an extremely scummy vibe from that, so it seems like I would be a natural target for a mislynch right out of the gate.

The other thing I find suspicious about him is his activity. In one of his first couple posts, he says he's got a strict "Lynch all Lurkers" policy, but I'm inclined to call him a lurker almost. We are currently on day 11, and he's posted 8 times (note that the last one was simply to say that he saw Mute and I were currently browsing the forum and that he was hoping we would reply to him, so the count is really 7). That's very infrequently, nacho is the only person of the original players with even close to that low of a post count, and he was V/LA for 2 days (and he's got 12 posts; 2 for saying he's -V/LA)

I fully acknowledge that his posts are big and contain a lot of information, but so far, those posts are fairly suspect to me. Before the failhammer, they were light on content, but afterward, he started focusing on me. It seems to me as though he was attempting to lurk until he found a good target to build a case against, and once he found one, he started putting real posts together. Whether they are on a legit target or not is for everyone else to decide, I suppose.

I guess it's really one thing I find scummy about him, but the two things mentioned above are combined within it.

======

I guess those two kind of turned out to be a mini wall, but those will likely be the longest two... so yeah.

[Workdawg]

This post will be about the two replacements.

veridis

Not much to go on so far, only 4 posts. I like his initial analysis of "the top three wagons" so far (and not just because he pegged me as newb instead of scum, lol). However, I don't like his excuse for posting the top three wagons instead of his top suspects (from ISO #3). He says the three wagons include 2 of his top 3. He says he doesn't want to tip off his number 2 (implying that his #1 and #3 or either myself, Mute or Ty and that #2 is someone else). My issue with this is that I don't really seem the harm in "tipping off" your suspects. As we've discussed before, information is power to town and it can only help town to tell us who he thinks is scum. If nothing else, maybe it applies a little bit of pressure to that person.

Only very slightly suspicious to me, his infrequent posting makes it harder to get a better read.

Null to me.

asano

He's posted quite a bit, but all I really get from him is a newb vibe. He's made some newb mistake, just like me, so I certainly can't hold that against him.

I don't really buy his reason for voting for Mute and I think it was a bad play to put an L-1 vote on someone with a reason up front. (Again, I did the same thing, but this is not about me). I'm still willing to chalk this up to a newb mistake, so whatever.

Newb-town vibe for me.

[Workdawg]

The two experienced players I haven't yet addressed:

Nacho

He's really turned on the analysis engine since he got back from V/LA over the weekend, and I like it. He's bringing up A LOT of good points in a fairly simple to read format. Him and Ty are still going back and forth a little bit. I'm not totally sure who I side with when I simply look at the most recent volley in that case. It doesn't really seem like Nacho is going after him anymore, but simply defending himself. I guess we'll just have to see where that goes.

I'm still not 100% convinced by Nacho's unvote against Ty from way back. I agree with his arguments for doing it, but it just doesn't sit right with me. I'm not totally sure what it is about them, but oh well.

Town vibe to me.

Stels

Has been doing some pretty good scum hunting throughout the game.

I noticed in ISO that he tends to get on whatever bandwagon is currently warming up (3rd vote onto both wagons), but then jumps off when the wagon reaches full speed. In both cases, he's provided adequate reasons for unvoting, but I expressed my feelings about unvoting above.

I also noticed that in the case of Mute's wagon. He builds a pretty solid cased for voting for Mute, for "for hypocrisy/nitpicking/buddying/trying too hard to lynch one idividual" and casts his vote. Then when asano puts Mute to L-1, he unvotes. The next day (ISO #13) he posts another mini-wall against Mute. In this very same post, he explains that he unvoted for Mute because he hadn't had a chance to read Mute's response to his case. This mini-wall is mostly his response to that, and it seems pretty negative to me, but he doesn't put his vote back on?

It seems a little bit suspicious to me that he seems to make more of a case for Mute, but doesn't put a vote back on him.

Mostly null with just the slightest hunt of scum, IMO.

[Workdawg]

Let's see... I guess that leaves Neuky and TP42.

Neuky

I don't really have many thoughts on Neuky, he's posting with a fair amount of regularity and he's spreading his attention to most players. He's done ISO analysis on the wagon for Ty, Stels and Nacho. I find it interesting that he hasn't done an ISO on anyone who's really come under fire yet (Myself, Mute, Ty), but maybe he felt like he should focus on the people who are sliding under the radar. He himself has been sliding under the radar this far from what I can tell.

I guess I'd like to know his thoughts on everyone else as well. Not necessarily an ISO on every single player (though I think one of the 3 mentioned above might be nice), but just a post telling us where he's at.

Null tell so far.

TP42

He kinda reminds me of myself, and I'm not really sure why. We seemed to pick up on the same stuff at the beginning of the game I guess. He seems to be doing a pretty good job hunting and looking at all the players, which is a plus. Seems to have some good theories and analysis of people's posts. Hasn't done anything that is suspicious that I can think of.

Town vibe to me.

[Workdawg]

@Mute

I look forward to your response to the rest, I guess.

As for what you've got above... I'm quite aware that as long as town wins, it counts as a win for me even if I get mislynched. That does not, however, mean that I should just flop over and get lynched for no reason. If I get NKd, then there's nothing I can do about that. If I get mislynched because I just roll over and die, then there is something I can do about that. In fact, if I just roll over and let myself get lynched without saying anything else, I would feel that I would be letting the town down by not giving them everything I've got.

About your "appeal to emotion" stuff: I meant to say that in your last game, maybe you should have tried it.

On this subject, while rereading your case against me, I noticed that you started throwing out various "Appeal to xxxx" arguments against me. Appeal to Emotion, Authority, and even Majority. I have a few thoughts about this.

Did you just go through the wiki category of logical fallacies and look for everything you could find to throw at me? This section sorta makes it look like that was the case. I think I shall address each individually. (Note: I dont see anything in the rules against quoting the wiki, but I won't do it just in case. I might paraphrase though)

Also, I'm going to quote the parts of my ISO that I think you are probably referring to, just so I can make sure we are on the same page.

Appeal to Emotion:

While I suppose it's a rather ridiculous request, if you were to analyze ISO 7 and 8 as if they had been posted in one post, at the time of the vote, would that make you feel any differently about the situation? I agree that it can easily look like I'm just trying to cover my tracks, but if you give me the benefit of the doubt and just chalk it up to a rookie mistake that I left off my reason due to my anxiousness, maybe it looks less scummy.

Did I do this? Your bet your ass I did. I admitted it in my response to you. But my question is, so what? As I pointed out before, there is NO reason at all to want to be lynched. To steal a move from Ty:

CHALLENGE:

Give me an example of a time when a townie should want to be lynched, and explain how it does any good for the town. For bonus points, explain how that same townie can benefit the town by rolling over and not posting any more in the game before the hammer comes down.

Aside from that, if you had actually read the article on this in the wiki, you might have noticed that it says that appealing to emotion is done by both sides in mafia, not just by scum.

Appeal to Authority:

Once again, time really played no role in my vote against you other than that I was simply anxious to do something good for the team. The evidence against you I felt was strong enough. Considering both of the other experienced players also placed a vote against you for their own reasons, I don't see how it's unreasonable to assume that a newb town see's some things he doesn't like and then jumps on the band wagon as well; especially considering that the two experienced players are already on board.

It's my first game here, the two experienced players both make points against you which leads me to reread your posts and analyze them more carefully. I come to the conclusion that I also feel you are likely scum, and then I cast my vote. Maybe I was being "led by sheep", but they had made better arguments than you at that time.

I'm not sure you are even accurate in saying I did this. I think maybe you misinterpreted what this means. According to the wiki, "Appealing to Authority" is "relying too much on the experienced players." Did I even do this when I voted for Ty? No. I don't see anywhere in my post where I said "Nacho and Stels thought Ty was scum, so I voted for him." I see where I say that their comments led me to further investigate him and draw my own conclusions though.

Appeal to Majority:

....

I don't even know what part of my post you think has anything to do with this to be honest. I don't see anywhere where I mentioned any other players in the game besides Nacho and Stels having any influence on my vote, and that was covered above.


If you did browse the wiki looking for buzz phrases to use against me, did you actually read what they mean, or just guess based on their names?

Also, is there a particular reason you didn't include any that are actually ones that point exclusively to a scum player? Appeal to emotion is used by both sides, Authority is even mentioned to be appropriate to do sometimes and the wiki specifically mentions newbies doing this when they are unsure of their scumhunting skill (page two of my first game, maybe I was, but I still posted my own arguments). Majority is the only one that is truly a fallacy that is worthy of being a scum tell, and I didn't even do that.

===============

As for the leopard comment... ahh crap. I had some sort of witty reply, but it seems to have slipped my mind. I dunno, maybe it'll come to me later.

[Workdawg]

They all are. If you search the wiki for "appeal" there are four articles that come up. And from any of them, you can hit the 'Logical Fallacies' category and see them all there as well.

[Workdawg]

lol... You are quite welcome sir. I was actually an admin on the heroes of newerth wiki back when that game was in beta, so I got plenty of experience dealing with wikis run on mediawiki. Its search features leave much to be desired.

Also, I'm about halfway through the hbo miniseries, I have to get back to watching that, thanks for the reminder!

[Workdawg]

Haha, I got it!

[quote"Mute"]That is all for now. I needed to say this as I laughed when I read it. I understand seeing his latest posts makes people want to unvote him as "he seems to have changed," but even if a leopard somehow does manage to change it's spots it will still be a leopard.[/quote]

As for the leopard comment... ahh crap. I had some sort of witty reply, but it seems to have slipped my mind. I dunno, maybe it'll come to me later.

Don't forget also, even if you paint spots on a nice fluffy bunny, that does not make it a leopard.

Bazinga!

[Workdawg]

ahhh, quote fail above... but it's still readable. oh well

[Workdawg]

Sorry, i was extremely busy yesterday. I'll post up again his afternoon.

[Workdawg]

@All

Regarding my recent wall posts, I'm sorry for that. I know they are pain to read, but it doesn't seem as I had much choice at the time. I was presented with three separate wall posts building a case against me and I couldn't really go along ignoring them or making a short reply to any. Especially in the case of Mute's ISO case against me, the walls attacked specific things, and I felt like if I didn't address each thing, I would only be hurting my case. So to reply in kind was the only way to do it.

Also, about my seeming absence. FWIW, I was online pretty much all day Friday, but no one else posted. If you take the timestamp of Stel's post after mine and then look at the time of the prod, I was really only gone for 1 day, and there had only been 9 posts.

Anyway...

veridis seems to be on the right track to me. I guess we'll have to see what Ty has to say when he finally shows back up. It's been a week since he's posted anything substantial, but his profile shows he "Last Visited" today.

[Workdawg]

WAT?!

[Workdawg]

I guess I'm not really sure what to say about Stels. I think the previous advice he has dispensed has been pretty generic stuff, even if it's been directed at me because of my obvious newbiness. I don't think anyone would argue that I appear to need it the most, lol.

The last comment that has people so curious does seem to be extremely specific though, I suppose; though if you take the quote in context it doesn't seem quite as bad...

@Stels: I haven't lied yet, and I don't intend to start now. Certainly not to claim to scum for no reason.

With this, you can't claim a PR anymore, if there are any. Just saying.

I honestly hadn't even considered the possibility of claiming a power role, so when I read it initially I just sort of brushed it off as a "Oh yeah, I suppose that's right" type of comment.

[Workdawg]

I meant to do this before... but anyway:

UNVOTE: Mute

@Drench

Did Nacho and veridis request replacement as well?

Oh... that's WAY better... lol

[Workdawg]

@TP42

I was going to pick apart your argument about Naben's delayed confirmation too. I probably wouldn't have gone crazy on it like Stels did, but I was going to point out the same things he did. I don't have a problem with posting it, cause I'm all for hair-brained ideas, but it was flawed.

@All

Veridis is not being replaced, he's being prodded. Drench posted that in error and has corrected it since. I'm not opposed to lynching a lurker, but since we have a week, we'll have to see what he comes up with. I think asano might be a better "default" target if he doesn't pick up his game as well. As others have mentioned, pretty much all he's contributed so far was the L-1 vote and fluff.

[Workdawg]

A couple people have brought up the common thought that there might be a scum-team between Stels and me. I want to express some thoughts about that.

Do I feel like he's been giving ME advice? Not really.

If you ISO the advice he's given, I think this becomes a bit more clear. (I skimmed his ISO, but hopefully I didn't miss anything)

ISO #04 ... @Workdawg: Don't give up. Don't be concerned with how you look.
ISO #06 ... @Workdawg: Explains the concept of bussing (since the wiki led me a bit astray) (also, not really "advice")
ISO #07 ... @TP42: Don't try to seek out the PRs
ISO #13 ... @asano: Don't post fluff, if you've got nothing to add, then don't post.
ISO #16 ... @Workdawg: You can't claim a PR anymore. (not really advice)

He only seems to really comment on things that are generally pretty good scumtells. Being concerned with looking town, seeking out the PRs, posting fluff.

Really, I don't think ISO 6 is advice at all since he was just clarifiying something that I misunderstood.

ISO 16 is more of a warning than advice I would say. Is it scummy to warning another player of a potential mistake, maybe. Do I think it's a stone-cold scumtell, no... and certainly not as an SE in a newbie game where that player has made a substantial number of newbie moves. If this was a game of veteran player, I would put much more weight on it, but Stels has a track record of providing advice to other people as well.

He certainly seems to be getting annoyed/upset about the arguments being made against him, but I know how that goes…

I guess that’s pretty much how I feel about that one post.

================

@Mute

As for you dawg, I've got some things to reconsider. Starting going back over this game in my head while I was out driving and an idea occured to me.

I have to ask, what was the idea that caused you to get off my wagon like someone lit it on fire? There was certainly quite a bit of posting going on between your previous post and the one above, but you were 100% convinced that I was scum before, and you haven’t yet said what it was that changed your mind.

Ty’s Exit Post

Seems very town to me, but since he’s leaving, I don’t really think that means anything at all. It really depends on how he looks at his leaving. I think the fact that he took the time to post some final thoughts implies that he cares about the game. If this is the case, then he probably hopes whoever takes his place is successful.

I think this is the right move whether he is town or scum. If he’s town, then it is exactly what it looks like. If he’s scum, he could just be posting that to throw us off his replacement’s trail.

I don’t really think we can draw any conclusions from what he’s specifically what he’s posted. It might be worthwhile to analyze the post for inconsistencies or missing information rather than take it at it’s face value. I’ll try and do that next time I get the chance.

[Workdawg]

@Stels

I'm not really sure what you are referring to above with the, "Ok, NM, he just did what I said." thing.

@Mute

There's still a week left to simply lynch the "most detrimental player" in the game. We can all agree that either asano or veridis has provided little to no content for the thread and either of them would be a legitimate target for a last minute choice, but I don't think either of them are "the most detrimental". Certainly someone we can identify as likely scum would be better, and hopefully a week will be an adequate amount of time to find that person.

You still didn't answer my question about what has occurred that has taken me down from 100% scum to "less scum than a lurker." Certainly I

should

be a better target than either of them, unless something has changed.

Quick and dirty analysis of Ty

I'm going to try and avoid talking about his case against me as much as a I can, as I've already posted my defense against it. Unfortunately, a fair amount of the content he has provided in the game is that case against me, so it's hard to avoid it.

The first thing that jumped out to me was in ISO #5, point 4). He accuses me of wagon hopping and states the following:

By ISO #22, Workdawg is once again voting Mute, apparently the wagon for my lynch wasn’t going well-enough for Workdawg. To me, there’s a clear distinction on how you’ve been voting.

Instead of trying to hunt for scum, you’re trying to find the easiest way to get someone lynched. This is playing for the win condition of the scum, not the town.

Reading through his ISO, it looks like he's been doing the same thing. He was 3rd onto my wagon, and I don't necessarily blame him for that. I think I was the obvious target for a wagon at that point. But the reason for hopping on my wagon is what concerns me. Did he really feel that I was scum, or did he simply see me as a soft target? Both Nacho and Stels had expressed that they thought my play was just terrible newb town, but he didn't feel the same. I obviously can't comment on why he got on my case, but I can speculate.

I feel like he probably targeted me because I looked like an easy mislynch rather than an extra scummy player. He seemed to have a much bigger issue with Nacho than he did with me at the time, but he still came after me.

I think his statement holds more scumminess now though. He voted for Stels when all the heat was already on. He was only 2nd to vote, but it certainly seemed like it was warming up.

Up until Ty hopped on me, he hadn't yet voted for anyone. Now, in his exit post, he casts a vote for someone whom he "has mixed feeling about". He has said before that he doesn't feel the need to use his vote to apply pressure, but then what is he doing right now? He didn't build anything even close to resembling a case against Stels, he simply suggested that one of the experienced players is probably scum. With the typo from Drench saying Nacho is being replaced, the only other experienced player to vote for would have been Stels. It seems wholely contradictory to his play style before.

I feel like if his exit post was genuine, he would have stuck to his playstyle and attempted to build a case against the player he felt was most scummy, instead of completely switching it up and casting what can only be described as a "pressure vote." Did he see that my profiles went over so well that he thought he'd try the same thing to get heat off his replacement?

The other thing that I noticed is that he really didn't do a very good job of defending himself against the initial concerns with his posts.

In ISO #4 he attempts to address the issues of; long posts, too much of a teacher, and tunneling nacho. An analysis of his defense for each follows:

1) Long Posts
He says, generally... Sorry. I don't understand how this is a scum tell. Please explain how long posts would be used to lurk.

He doesn't even really defend himself here. He just kind of dodges this, IMO. It was explained that his long posts were easier to hide misinformation in and that longer posts would look less like lurking than short quips. The argument at that point was that his posts were just filled with general advice and not anything directly useful to the game. I've already said that I don't feel like this was really scummy anymore, but he didn't bother to address it when it was an issue.

2) Being a Teacher
He'd feel bad about not teaching as an SE.

This is reasonable, but again, it doesn't really defend his actions from the issues at the time. It's easy to say that he was teaching, but for the reasons outlined above, it didn't seem like he was doing it in the best interests of the town. Again, he doesn't really address the issue. Just kind of dodges it.

3) Tunneling Nacho
This one I don't really have any issues with. Interestingly, it's also "the most reasonable response" he saw to why he was voted for.

===========

Sorry if this post seems a bit disconnected. I typed up half of it earlier today and finished off the last part just now.

PEdit @Mute

Nacho and Veridis were prodded, not being replaced... Drench typoed and corrected this yesterday.

[Workdawg]

@Mute:

So... either you never thought I was scum and was just setting up a case at me for a mislynch, or you still think I'm scum and you want to lynch a lurker for fun?

[Workdawg]

Neither... or rather, the latter in partial.
I don't rule out a possibility you could be town but I won't drop my suspicion on you yet. I want to lynch a slot whose occupants thus far have done little to advance the town. Call it over-aggressive if you must, I stand by that.

Frankly I want to advance the game to D2 so we can start using more than just speculation based on words to find someone to lynch.

...

There's no rush in throwing down the hammer this early in the game. The game will move along at its own pace,

which normally is two weeks or so per day. Please keep this in mind while playing other games, or you will be a fantastic Day 2 prospect lynch. Regardless of Ty's alignment, you have taken away all of the information we can possibily get out of Day 1, and have thus seriously hurt the Town's chances of winning this game...

I understand being anxious and wanting the game to progress. It would do so on it's own. Being in a rush like that is not helpful.

Frankly, I feel that you are scum and were bussing your partner. If Ty turns up mafia that suspicion will be furthered by me. If Ty flips town you will still look scummy for being an eager-beaver.

While I share your level of activity more or less, and the mindset of "waiting 2 weeks to learn any concrete information," (which, first off, only a flip will give concrete info, everything else is speculation, hunches, educated guesses, and so on) that's no excuse.

[Workdawg]

But that's an entire week to pick a better target.

[Workdawg]

I've been trying to figure that out, what have you been doing? Let's have a look:

Since my wagon fell apart... Roughly around ISO #51... through ISO 68 (18 posts)

Posts about the Stels or the Stels/Workdawg team: 3.5 (ISO #57 is only half about this)
Posts about lynching one of the lurkers: 7-ish.
Posts scumhunting anyone else: 0
Posts about other stuff: 8

[Workdawg]

Don't make me turn this thread around young man!

[Workdawg]

I think it's a little bit scummy, but what puts me off the most is that he brushes me off pretty much every time I ask him a question. It annoys me A LOT when I'm ignored, so when he does it and it just makes me want to get on his case more; and I'm finding that very hard to resist. It feels scummy to me that he doesn't answer me, or only half answers. If he's town, then he should be willing to answer all my questions, not just brush him off.

If no one else thinks that's scummy though, then I really just need to try harder to drop it I guess.

[Workdawg]

grumble...

EBWOP: The end of that last paragraph should read: "If he's town, then he should be willing to answer all my questions, not just brush

them

off."

[Workdawg]

Woot, welcome Sundy, and welcome back Ty!

[Workdawg]

So, Sundy...

What's your experience level with mafia games?
Also, are you a paranoid person?

[Workdawg]

@Nacho

YAY, you're back!

The last comment that has people so curious does seem to be extremely specific though, I suppose; though if you take the quote in context it doesn't seem quite as bad...

What do you mean by this?

The last part of that post was my explanation. It doesn't really do much, since it's only explaining it from my POV, yeah. I hadn't even considered a power role (which I think is implied by my saying to lie would mean I would claim scum), so it didn't seem bad to me.

I think it's a little bit scummy, but what puts me off the most is that he brushes me off pretty much every time I ask him a question. It annoys me A LOT when I'm ignored, so when he does it and it just makes me want to get on his case more; and I'm finding that very hard to resist. It feels scummy to me that he doesn't answer me, or only half answers. If he's town, then he should be willing to answer all my questions, not just brush him off.

If no one else thinks that's scummy though, then I really just need to try harder to drop it I guess.

Scum have the same incentive as town to answer questions. Why do you think scum would ignore you in this situation?

Unless he has a specific reason to ignore me, then why do it? If he does have a reason, then the very least he could do would be to tell me why he is ignoring me.

I'm asking questions that I feel are relevant to the game, and his answers would help me (and others) get a feel for if he is town or scum. If he is town, then answering the questions should lead the rest of us to that conclusion. Therefore, if he's scum I could see him being reluctant to answer those questions. Or he answers the question and its just a null tell. The only reason I can see to not answer the question is if you are afraid of screwing up.

It seems to me, the more a scum player posts, the more they have a chance to screw up (isn't that the idea behind lynch all lurkers?)

Do you have other insight into why a player would ignore questions, from an IC point of view?

[Workdawg]

I can see missing the questions, especially since Mute has already said he only reads parts of the game, but I've referred back to the questions multiple times and they still go unanswered. Even when he replies to the very post the question is in.

[Workdawg]

@Mute

#252 - You never responded to the rest of my counter case, but I'll give you that since you decided to reconsider your thoughts against me instead of keeping up with the case.

I have to ask, what was the idea that caused you to get off my wagon like someone lit it on fire? There was certainly quite a bit of posting going on between your previous post and the one above, but you were 100% convinced that I was scum before, and you haven’t yet said what it was that changed your mind.

Right now, I say that to progress the game, it'd be better to lynch the single most detrimental player, the one who did nothing, and the replacement that was forced to enter and provided little as well. That slot is doing nothing this game, and if it's a scum-slot then more the better reason to add to lynch it.

@Mute

There's still a week left to simply lynch the "most detrimental player" in the game. We can all agree that either asano or veridis has provided little to no content for the thread and either of them would be a legitimate target for a last minute choice, but I don't think either of them are "the most detrimental". Certainly someone we can identify as likely scum would be better, and hopefully a week will be an adequate amount of time to find that person.

You still didn't answer my question about what has occurred that has taken me down from 100% scum to "less scum than a lurker." Certainly I

should

be a better target than either of them, unless something has changed.

Dawg: I grew tired of our back and forths that led nowhere.

@Mute:

So... either you never thought I was scum and was just setting up a case at me for a mislynch, or you still think I'm scum and you want to lynch a lurker for fun?

Neither... or rather, the latter in partial.
I don't rule out a possibility you could be town but I won't drop my suspicion on you yet. I want to lynch a slot whose occupants thus far have done little to advance the town. Call it over-aggressive if you must, I stand by that.

Frankly I want to advance the game to D2 so we can start using more than just speculation based on words to find someone to lynch.

======
So, I guess you did reply to my questions, but is there really an answer in there?
Is it neither or the latter.
Is it lynching a lurker better than lynching scum?

[Workdawg]

@Mute

If it was "the latter in partial", than you are referring the bolded part of my question, correct?

So... either you never thought I was scum and was just setting up a case at me for a mislynch, or

you still think I'm scum and you want to lynch a lurker for fun?

Which part of that is the "partial" that has defined your actions?

When I said lynching scum I meant someone who was 100% scum. So the proper investigation, guesswork and luck are not a factor. And for purposes of the question, it's not an open-ended thing. It's the first lynch in this game, the end is when the 5th vote is cast for one player.

[Workdawg]

Ahh, Nacho ninja'd in on me again! I'll read that in the morning.

[Workdawg]

@Nacho

I'm not letting anything "slide through." I've been paying attention to the argument going on around Stels, and I'm not impressed by it. You, Ty and TP42 have all voted for him, but haven't provided any good reason to do so as far as I can tell. Neuky is suspicious, but won't put him at L-1, and hasn't provided a good reason either. None of you have actually built a case against him, it just looks like pressure voting to me.

@Mute

Firstly, the original question is: What happened to drop me from 100% scum to lower on your list than a random lurker? Maybe it's me misreading your posts, but I don't see an actual answer to this in any of your posts yet.

To your most recent post: Do you have some sort of magical ability to misinterpret my posts? I thought it was clear that it was a hypothetical situation in which you were 100% certain that a person was scum. If that is the case, THEN you don't need to bother with investigation, etc. I guess you can twist around my post to turn it back into an FOS though.

[Workdawg]

@Dawg:

The other thing is this - @Dawg, you posted directly after seven posts about Stels warning/advice to you, but you didn't comment on it at all. Care to share your thoughts?

I know you have now shared your thoughts on what Stels said, but I maybe worded it badly, what I actually meant was did you have an explanation for not joining in the discussion at the time?

Sorry, looks like I forgot to answer this one...

I didn't think (and still don't) it was that big of a deal. I chose to let you guys have the chance to dig and Stels defend himself rather than clutter the discussion with simply saying that. Not to say that my commenting would have stopped you, as I certainly hope it wouldn't have, but I don't feel the need to defend other people when I'm not a part of the discussion.

[Workdawg]

Not that I know of, but there is a gender tag in your profile that displays under your avatar... are you a girl?

[Workdawg]

@Ty

I've been reading through the thread and ISOs slowly looking for a better target, but I'm having a hard time picking out anyone worthy of voting for. You said yourself above that the time for pressure voting is over (ironic, since it seems like that's what you did when you voted for Stels), so I'm reserving my vote until I see a good reason for casting it against someone.

Right now you and Mute are still my top two picks. I posted my thoughts on you already and no one commented on them at all. I'm not sure if that's because people think I'm bananas, or if they are just too focused on Stels to bother with it.

Mute has been responding, but I still have questions, so I keep asking them.

[Workdawg]

@Nacho

I'm curious about what reads you are getting from all of the questioning you've been doing. I notice most of your questioning seems to be focused on TP42 and Neuky; are they your top suspects right now?

[Workdawg]

@Mute

Yes, you said why you dropped your vote, to progress the game (a week early?), to focus on lynching a lurker instead of me (easier target to get a mislynch on?), "you grew tired of our back and forths that led no where" (curious, your 5-hour-to-write wall post against me and tiny response to my defense led no-where?), and you "decided it was better to go after a slot that's provided nothing this game." (what's the town motivation for doing this instead of lynching scum, I'll get to that at the end...)

It's interesting that once I connect the dots for you, you start refuting my points. In two of my previous posts, I said that you thought I was 100% scum, and you never argued that. (Feel free to refer to the post above where I laid out our argument in ISO... Post #356)

But once I actually narrow in on the point I'm trying to make, you refute it.

Did you ever say "Workdawg is 100% scum"? No.
Did you deny you thought I was 100% scum when I brought it up? No.
Is non-denial an acknowledgement? Also no... but it is something. I could go through your previous posts and point out a couple of times where you seem absolutely convinced I am scum, and not denying it when I bring it up says a lot, I think.

Also, you seem confused on the definition of a hypothetical situation. By very definition, a hypothetical situation is one based on something imaginary rather than fact. In reality, it is D1 and there is no way for anyone to know 100% who scum is (except for the scum themselves, of course). But in my hypothetical situation, it is possible, simply because I said so.

I am confused about your role-fishy-ness proposal. While I'd be happy to have you "take that part of me out behind the mental shed in my imaginary back yard and put it down" (lol, btw), I'm not really sure I follow... does my explanation of hypotheticals make it more clear?

============

I already posed this question before, a bit differently (post 323), and your response was (post 324):
You still think I'm scum, but want to lynch a lurker

for fun

.

A copout answer if I've ever seen one, so now... to be direct:

Can you elaborate on one of these:

A) Why you are unsure I am scum now?
OR
B) What motivation a town player has to lynch a lurker instead of someone whom you are sure is scum?

Now, the above may look like a False Dilema, but I would be more than happy to entertain an option C if you can come up with one. I can't, so I am presenting only those options.

[Workdawg]

ZOMG

[Workdawg]

I.... I don't even know what to say here.

I've been drinking (Sailor Jerry is SOOOO delicious), and part of me wants to just sit here wait for others to get on this... but I know I'm supposed to speak my mind, so here it is.

I read Mute's ISO and I don't see him mention of Stels really at all. Either positive or negative... holy crap. It's going to sound gloriously hypocritical, but W T F. Is this not incredibly scummy? He was just talking about lynching a lurker instead of someone (me) that he was convinced was scum... now he shows up and drops the hammer on Stels? Come on now, NO reason at all given. I made the newbie mistake at the beginning of the game doing this and nearly got lynched for it. Mute was on driving that wagon, and then he does the same thing? I cannot believe it.

I'm going to throw this out there.... Mute/Sundy scum team? They see someone at L-2 and both lay their votes down? It seems like it'd be a stupid move to me, but hey.

=======

@PEdit: Mute is still here, I'm waiting with bated breath for his reason.

[Workdawg]

LOL... BUT COACH! ALL THE COOL KIDS ARE DOIN' IT!

[Workdawg]

And so it begins, I suppose.


First of all, I’m honestly surprised to see Stels flip scum. I didn’t get that from him very much.

But this post is not about him.

Second, I have a case to post against Mute, but it seems I have to defend myself first.

Could you at least do me the service of providing a reason, or specific case, that I could attempt to refute? I've already shown that Stels had provided other people with advice too. Voting for me based on the play of someone else who flips scum is a pretty weak argument if you ask me. Especially when the idea of the team was proposed so early that it would be extremely easy for that scum player to buddy up to me to draw attention away from his partner. I guess I understand why Nacho said not to deal in scumteams...

===================

I’ve read Mute’s ISO completely. I think he’s come across as EXTREMELY scummy recently. I looked at other people’s ISOs, but no one looks nearly as scummy to me. I typed up about 1.5 pages in M$ Word, narrow margins, 10 pt font with the intent to post the whole thing. Instead, I’ve decided just to do a quick overview to save you all from the wall. If anyone wants me to elaborate on parts of it, I would be more than happy to. If you want to avoid the semi-wall below… then here ya go.

Tl;dr: I think Mute is probably scum and he bussed Stels to try and get suspicion on me for the Stels/Workdawg scumteam idea that’s been floating about.

(When I refer to post numbers below, it’s the post #/ISO #)

Mute posts a huge wall against me. I refute it, post my character profiles, and talk my way out of a mislynch. Mute disputes ONE part of my counter wall, and a weak one, then pretty much forgets it even exists. He decides he needs to “reconsider some things.” (267/51)

He posts a couple times during the Stels debate, answering questions defending Stels (why would he do this? 278/53, 281/54), agrees with TP42 about possible Stels/Workdawg scumteam (286/55) and even appears to be buddying up with Stels a little bit (300/57). Not once does he say anything about Stels being suspicious during that entire argument.

At 296/56, he mentions that Neuky and Ty have proposed one of the lurkers could be scum, but says that it “only makes weak sense,” but then he gets on the Lynch a Lurker wagon because those slots have provided little to no content. This piques my interest and I try (unsuccessfully) to get him to tell me why lynching a lurker is better than lynching someone that he feels is scum (me). He avoids giving a straight answer the entire time (see

One final note

below for thoughts on that)

Sundy finally gets caught up and posts his case against Stels and casts the L-1 vote. Then, out of nowhere, Mute shows up and hammers him with the reason, (added after the fact) “Making the case I’m not afraid to hammer someone… I had my suspicions of my own on him so yeah.”

It’s important to note here that Neuky already said he would be willing to vote for Stels but wanted to wait to see what Sundy had to say in case one of the replacements was a newb and came in with a quick hammer. With Sundy making a legitimate case against Stels, it seems imminent that Neuky would have come in to lay down the hammer. Instead of letting Neuky do it, Mute jumps on the wagon, out of nowhere, and hammers with no reason provided.

One final note

In his hammer post, he also seems to reply to the question in #373. But his answer doesn’t make any sense. If you read my post where I lay out option A and B, A is “A) Why you are unsure I am scum now?” When he replies though, he says “A” and something completely contrary to what A says.

A) I'm not unsure of you being scum dawg. Now however everyone is focusing on a second target.

Is he “Appealing to Majority” here? Is he trying to justify his vote with that statement, saying everyone else is doing it? Or is he just admitting that other people don’t really think I’m scum any more so he thinks he must be wrong? I don’t know what to make of it.

VOTE: Mute

[Workdawg]

WTF... the quote above, right in the middle of the laswt paragraph is broken... :/

@Drench

can you fix that up for me? I can't even tell what the issue is.

Done.

[Workdawg]

You need quotes around the name of the person... I think it might be an issue of ascii chars. Those quotes don't look quote right compared to these... " " " "

I wrote all that up in word in preparation for the start of Day 2... so yeah.

[Workdawg]

@Mute

You seem to contradict yourself here. The very first line says I'm not your top suspect anymore... but the last paragraph is pretty much all about how I talked my way out of getting lynched and you "aren't buying" my claims of being town. Either I'm town or I'm not, there is no other option. You can't "not buy it" and think someone else is scum, especially now that there is only one scum left. Before Stels got lynched, there was a legit reason to focus on someone else. You could ignore me and build your case for a lynch against another player. Now you have to choose one person.

I think Nacho got NKd simply because he was the IC. The choice of NKing an experienced player seems obvious, even to me, and Ty has barely been around at all. Nacho and Stels have both said that the game, and their own scum hunting, really starts to pick up after the first day. That would mean the experienced players become a greater threat at that time. I don't think it had anything to do with anything nacho said.

According to your list above, Neuky, Ty and you are town (3/9), Stels and Nacho are out (5/9), and I'm not your top suspect (6/9).
That leaves Sundy, veridis, and TP42.
TP42 has been acknowledged by others as pretty much the most town player in here so far, and I agree.
Sundy has come on pretty strong to me and appears town. He got the correct read on Stels, but then he picks a less likely second suspect in Mute? Everyone else was saying that I would look super scummy if Stels flipped scum. It seems like if Sundy was coming in to the game in that situation as scum, it would be SUPER easy to jump on that band wagon and get Stels lynched and then me mislynched D2.
veridis is AWOL again, so who knows. Again, just picking on a lurker for an easy lynch target.

Your reasoning for lynching Stels is still extremely weak to me(You even said so above!), despite him actually flipping scum. His conversation with Nacho simply seems like genuine friendly banter between two people who know each other to me. After the failhammer incident, I would expect everyone in this thread (myself included) to have a solid reason for laying down the hammer, but nope. You just come in swinging with an admittedly weak argument.

Lastly, according to the wiki... F11 setups with a cop are either 6 town, 1 cop, 2 goons or 5 town, 1 cop, 1 doc, 1 goon and 1 mafia RB. So either we are left with a goon and 6 town, or a doc, an RB and 5 town.

@Neuky

Don't forget the possibilty of scum bussing Stels. That would reduce the number of genuine votes by one. I already said that I didn't think he was that scummy and that the people who voted for him didn't really provide any good reasons. I would have been happy to vote for him if people had done so... but they didn't. I'd love to read some posts where there are solid reasons people provide for Stels to be lynched that didn't revolve around coincidence and the Stels/Dawg team.

It's also worth mentioning I think, I was caught in a terrible catch-22. If I had voted for Stels and he flipped scum, then everyone would simply accuse me of bussing him. I had already stated numerous times that I didn't see any good reason posted... If I vote for him and he flips town, then I'm simply "that guy" who jumped on the wagon for no reason and getting in on an easy mislynch, scum again.

As for your considerations in the middle. I think you are presenting a false dilema here. You present the following:
1. Stels is coaching his scum buddy.
2. Stels is casting suspicion on a town player.

I would propose 3. Stels was simply playing the SE role. Of course, this is just going to sound like I'm trying to hide behind that defense, but it's the truth. Like I said above, I never saw a GOOD reason to consider Stels scum posted.

[Workdawg]

I've been going over Stels posts looking at the clues. The thing that sticks out to me the most is how worked up he gets about the nitpicking at his PR comment that ultimately leads to his lynch. It looks, to me at least, like he's just pissed off because playing the SE role has messed up his game, and who wouldn't be pissed off about that? That's something that's sort of unrelated to his game play. He was taking the time to help out newbies, and all he gets for it in return is lynched and leaving his partner hanging. If I really was his partner, I don't think he would have reacted the same. I think he would have kept his calm and tried to save himself more reasonably. The reason for this is simply that he had messed up the game himself. He made the stupid moves that lead to his demise out of attempts to win the game.

I would equate it, sort of, to being captain of a team of some sort. As a captain, you play two roles. You are both leader and player. If you take the leader role to seriously and the other team wins because you were focusing too much on leading the team, then you'd be mad at yourself for not just taking the reigns and winning the game by playing harder. If you lost the game despite trying your hardest, then there really isn't much more you could have done and the mental impact is less... IMO.

Maybe he was also pissed at you guys for getting on his wagon with weak reasons, who knows. Obviously I didn't read him correctly.

[Workdawg]

Rather then more quotes, I'll just address your points in order.

1. I concede that it works based on your "scum until proven town" methodology, as silly as that way of thinking seems to me.
2. I look forward to your analysis. In the mean time, would you care to comment on my analysis of your top 3 choices?
3. What difference does it make if I point out that you had a weak reason for hammering or if someone else does? If Sundy quoted me and asked you to reply, would you answer him? Are you just ignoring anything I bring up that you don't have a good answer to, like you have the entire game?

[Workdawg]

Wow yeah... disjointed seems like an understatement almost.

Requesting stuff to refute? Little suspicious to me.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for you to present your case. As far as I can remember, the last thing you said about me was something like "if Stels is scum, I think workdawg is scum too" and vice versa. That's a pretty weak case. If you have real reasons, why wouldn't you want to share them?

The first half is a good theory. I don't particularly understand the part about suspicion. How did bussing Stels throw suspicion on you?

You're the one who said if Stels flipped scum, I would look more scummy... so you tell me. Assuming Mute is scum, he would have known that Stels would flip scum, and that you and others would look at me as extra scummy because of the flip.

Looks like there is some quote fail in there, so I pulled that whole chunk out and fixed it here (i think)...

According to your list above, Neuky, Ty and you are town (3/9), Stels and Nacho are out (5/9), and I'm not your top suspect (6/9).
That leaves Sundy, veridis, and TP42.
TP42 has been acknowledged by others as pretty much the most town player in here so far, and I agree.
Sundy has come on pretty strong to me and appears town. He got the correct read on Stels, but then he picks a less likely second suspect in Mute? Everyone else was saying that I would look super scummy if Stels flipped scum. It seems like if Sundy was coming in to the game in that situation as scum, it would be SUPER easy to jump on that band wagon and get Stels lynched and then me mislynched D2.
veridis is AWOL again, so who knows. Again, just picking on a lurker for an easy lynch target.

Workdawg, I may be falling in love with you. (no homo!) Now that you say this, killing Nacho instead of me (if I'm really considered the most towny) may have been a weak attempt at WIFOM. Sundy's unfortunate that he hasn't really been around that long, and so would make an easy target. You would be scummy if Stels flipped scum because of the advice thing. But your recent spat of posts makes the original advice look like just SE-talk. Veridis would indeed be an easy lynch. It's funny that Mute flipped on his view of lurkers.

Mute implying that either Sundy or veridis is his suspect is really scummy. Veridis is just a simple lurker IMO, and Sundy hasn't been around enough to get a good read. I will say that the immediate jump on the bandwagon seems funny, but wagons happen for a reason. It could be that he just thought Stels was indeed the scummiest. In that case, Mute completely fell for it.

I don't really have much to say about it, but I missed the quote fail the first time, so thought I'd fix it so people can actually read it.
My thoughts, I agree.

And here is the second part of the quote fail:

As for your considerations in the middle. I think you are presenting a false dilema here. You present the following:
1. Stels is coaching his scum buddy.
2. Stels is casting suspicion on a town player.

I would propose 3. Stels was simply playing the SE role. Of course, this is just going to sound like I'm trying to hide behind that defense, but it's the truth. Like I said above, I never saw a GOOD reason to consider Stels scum posted.

Something like this is hard to figure out. In retrospect, it will seem obvious what it was. I agree that it was a false dilemma, but your third choice is also a false dilemma. It could definitely be 1 under the guise of 3. But I don't particularly think 2 could be combined with 3.

I think 3 is a completely separate choice. I think when 1 was proposed originally by Neuky, he intended for it to be implied that Stels was trying to "hide the coaching" under SE talk. I know that he wasn't trying to scum-coach me, so unless it was some weird attempt to communicate with whoever else is scum, then it was just straight up SE talk.

Other than that, I generally agree with your statements. Maybe I love you too... (no homo)

====
Sorry for the wall, requoting the quote failure is the main cause... <.< >.>

[Workdawg]

Woah, I suppose it is 4 votes to lynch... and by my count, Sundy, Me and you = 3... so L-1 indeed.

[Workdawg]

@Mute

You aren't voting for TP42 because it could be played off as OMGUS? That seems like a really lame attempt to cover up not having a case against him. The only way that your vote could be played off as an OMGUS vote is if that is indeed the case. If you can back up your vote with a reasonable case, then the people who claim OMGUS would look more suspicious, IMO.

In regards to the bolded statement on Sundy. I was offering justification on my read of him being town. I feel that if Sundy was scum subbing into the game in the state it was in at the time, he would have more likely picked Stels and I as his primary targets. There is plenty of ammo out there for no one to question his argument to pick me as his #2 choice. He could bus Stels and then start reguritating all the old junk about me and the Stels/Dawg team to push for a mislynch against me. Instead, he choose a less popular choice for his #2 and he backed it up with his own arguments, supported by quotes (proving he actually read the thread and has his own theories, IMO). This seems a lot more town to me than just jumping on whatever wagons are currently in motion... which would be the scum play.

Sundy points out your failed math/logic again (this is the same thing as the Nacho at 55, from the start of the game). Every player has an exactly equal chance of being scum, and as such, every pair of people has an exactly equal chance of being scum-buddies. Your argument for TP42, as far as I can tell, is simply that he was the last person left when you cleared everyone else and that his posts have "felt too waxy".

Could you elaborate on what you mean by that (the "felt too waxy" part)? Examples would be awesome

You claim to have "a great deal of talent" reading people, and you quote your hammer on Stels and your last game? I haven't read your last game, but I'd point out that you were certain I was scum already this game, so at BEST you are 1 for 2 this game... and the idea that you bussed your scum partner in Stels would pretty much nullify any read that you've made this game.

For #3 from our previous discussion (quoted completely below) maybe you forgot the context of this question... because I was the only person in the equation to begin with.

Your reasoning for lynching Stels is still extremely weak to me(You even said so above!), despite him actually flipping scum. His conversation with Nacho simply seems like genuine friendly banter between two people who know each other to me. After the failhammer incident, I would expect everyone in this thread (myself included) to have a solid reason for laying down the hammer, but nope. You just come in swinging with an admittedly weak argument.

"Friendly banter," or needless fluff by scum to appear as town as possible to a friend?
After your failed attempt at prematurely ending the day, yeah, people would expect a solid reason..

but coming from you I don't take that as seriously as if from others.

Also, even if it was a weak case, I was right with everyone else that voted, that Stels was scum.

3. What difference does it make if I point out that you had a weak reason for hammering or if someone else does? If Sundy quoted me and asked you to reply, would you answer him? Are you just ignoring anything I bring up that you don't have a good answer to, like you have the entire game?

3) If I am posed a question by Sundy, I'll answer it. Don't see why you had to include yourself into that equation but okay.
The difference? I made sure of the vote count. My vote for Stels was because I had enough reason to vote for him. You voted and attempted to hammer Ty simply because you were eager to advance the game and thought he was already at L-1 incorrectly. That's the difference between our two "hammer" votes.
And I ignore your questions which are either ambiguous, or have no real way of being answered, or I have already answered. Mainly because it seems no matter what answers I give you, you're hardly ever satisfied with them.

You are pretty much just saying that you don't care what I think about you (see bold in the quote). I picked Sundy because you have been answering his questions.

I feel like I should also mention that people keep implying that the only reason I voted Ty was because I wanted to advance game. That's not true and I've said it countless times. I wouldn't have to keep saying it if people would stop bringing it up. You can quote some psychology BS (that you can't even think of the name of, lol) all you want, but I'm not the one bringing it up. You MIGHT have an argument that I'm trying to trick people by saying the same thing over and over again without any reason to do so... but you and Ty are the ones who keep saying it. Maybe it's you that is trying to manipulate people by saying the same thing over and over again.

Back to #3 from above:
My question was neither ambiguous nor already answered. Maybe "there's no real way to answer it" I suppose... but since I was pretty much asking you why you voted for Stels, you should absolutely have an answer for that.

Maybe it's a flaw in my style, that I lay out too much information that my questions aren't very direct.
In the interest of being as unambiguous as I can:

You say that you were suspicious of Stels, but didn't want to get to L-1 and have the wagon get spooked off.

Before hammering Stels, why were you so set on lynching a lurker?

Do you have any other reasons for voting for Stels besides what you've already posted?

Why didn't you lay out your evidence and try to encourage the town to lynch him?

Now that Stels has flipped scum:

What is your evidence against TP42 for being your top scum target?

[Workdawg]

Angry scum is angry?

FoS: Mute for putting himself at L-1 and not announcing it...

<.<
>.>

[Workdawg]

Honestly, I was considering inviting you just to see if you came back with any decent answers to my straight forward questions. I guess I'm actually surprised for some reason that you didn't, again.

I'm going to toss this out quick,

what do you mean by waxy?

Other than that, you've managed to, once again not provide me with any useful information.

I'll write more when I get home in an hour or so, but WTF.

@drench: we seriously need some info on Ty and veridis. It's been a week and two weeks, respectvely, since either posted.

[Workdawg]

Okay, I've had some more time to properly read Mute's response and digest it, here are my thoughts:

1. He "answers" two of the 4 questions, unless we assume he had no other reasons for hammering Stels, but even then, his answers are woefully insufficient.
1a.

Before hammering Stels, why were you so set on lynching a lurker?

No answer
1b.

Do you have any other reasons for voting for Stels besides what you've already posted?

No answer.
1c.

Why didn't you lay out your evidence and try to encourage the town to lynch him?

His information would hurt the town.
1d.

What is your evidence against TP42 for being your top scum target?

No answer, unless you count his "vibe" about the "waxiness" of TP42s posts.

I won't really go into much detail about his non-answers, because I've already laid out my thoughts on that. The rest of his post though... hmm.

About putting himself at L-1 as a test

He was at L-1 for about 12 hours this morning. (posts 406-414) So what could he prove by doing that? Is it a ploy to try and get sympathy from us? Certainly a town player wouldn't do that, because then he's just letting his team down. As the sole surviving scum though, it's either a way to end the game quicker so he can start a new one, or a gambit to try and look innocent.

About his information hurting the town

It's been the generally accepted theory that information helps the town. I honestly cannot think of a single instance in which a piece of information would hurt the town so much, a town player would keep it to themselves rather than give it up... and that's the circumstance we are dealing with. Mute would rather be lynched than give up whatever secret he is holding. I can see the argument of keeping his suspicions close to his chest and not revealing them; if he weren't a suspect... but he is. He was at L-1 twice now, and he would rather get lynched and take his secret to the grave? What possible reason is there for that? So he can come back after the game is over and say "I knew it, but you lynched me!" ? I seriously think this is just a cover for not having any good answers to our questions.

I particularly like this post.

Seriously, though, it doesn't bother me. People wanna lynch me, their choice. If they feel it's right then I can do but give what I've got and hope people listen to it, whether I'm alive or dead.

The problem is, you AREN'T giving what you've got. You're keeping it all a secret for some reason.

Let's try this again...

Before hammering Stels, why were you so set on lynching a lurker?
Do you have any other reasons for voting for Stels besides what you've already posted?
Why didn't you lay out your evidence and try to encourage the town to lynch him?
What is your evidence against TP42 for being your top scum target? / What does "waxy" mean in reference to his posts?

and a new one:

Can you provide me with an example of a time when a town player would take a piece of information to the grave with them, and it would benefit the town?

[Workdawg]

EBWOP:

@Mute

If you started simply answering questions and fessing up, it would actually win a lot of points with me. At this point, we have plenty of time to discuss a new target and build a case for a lynch against them. The problem I have is that every single post you make just makes you look more scummy to me, and I cannot ignore that.

[Workdawg]

I will concede that maybe my previous questions weren't clear enough, but I have now presented them in a way, I feel, is as clear ad possible. I would be happy to further clarify them if need be.

Maybe others can comment on your answers to my questioning, but for the last few posts, I don't really see any answers.

[Workdawg]

As for the last chunk there that's bold, if all you've got is the "waxy feeling" then that's fine. I don't know what that means, so I was trying to understand. I was hoping you could just tell me what it means.

[Workdawg]

@Ty

Sorry, you're right... I forgot about the 4 day night we had. I was just looking at the time stamps on your last post and noticed it had been a long time.

@Neuky

The posts since #370 have been almost exclusively Mute, TP42, Sundy, you and me. Oh those picks, Mute is the only one who really looks Scummy at all to me. I don't discount the fact that one of the people who hasn't been as active could be scum. I do have a problem looking past Mute's posts though. Like I mentioned before, every time he posts he fails to supply sufficient answer my questions and he does other things that just make him look more scummy to me. I would be willing to consider another potential scum target, but no one else has provided any information to do that either. Mute is the only one to propose anyone else is scum, and his only reason is TP42's posts give him a "waxy" vibe. If you have another potential suspect, then let's hear it.

As for Mute being at L-1, I didn't put him there, but I wouldn't be too concerned if we lynched him. As you pointed out, we can mislynch 2 times before we get to lynch or lose. Do I want that to be the scenario? No. But if he got lynched, then we at least get some more information. I have a strong feeling that the game would be over though.

So, I guess to reply to your point. I don't have a problem either way. Obviously I'd rather not lose all the time we would if he got lynched, but we are just spinning our tires here. It's probably my fault for focusing so much on Mute, but no one else is proposing anything with any real substance either.

@Mute

I'm sorry if you feel like it's personal or something like that. I assure you it's not... but I don't understand why you continue to not answer the questions, even when I lay them out as simply as I can. The ones where you provide the answer, the answer seems very scummy to me. I want town to win, and until you dispute all issues I propose, I will continue to think you are scum.

[Workdawg]

FWIW, I'm going back again looking for some specific things to see if there's another person or two that look suspicious. I'll post up later today with the results.

[Workdawg]

Mother F'er. I hit backspace but wasn't on the textbox apparently so my browser went back. Why won't IE keep textbox content if you mess things up like that! Now I gotta type this again :/

======

In an attempt to give Mute the benefit of a doubt, I've gone through TP42's ISO completely, a couple times. I've also looked at Sundy's slot, and veridis. Here are my thoughts/reads.

veridis

Seems to do good analysis of everyone... makes it look like he's actually read the thread (too bad he's disappeared). Tries to swing focus back onto Ty WAY after the fact. His analysis of Ty is thorough though and I think it's a reasonable move to Vote him at that point. He provides another type of scumhunting, but it turns out to be pointless because he's gone now. I get a town-vibe because of his good analysis in that one post, but nothing concrete because there's been so few posts out of this slot.

---

Angry Scientist/asano234/Sundy

Angry Scientist

- He spreads his scumhunting out pretty evenly, sorta looks like nacho a bit with the little comments to most players. Initially suspicious of TP42 for referring to his previous game to attempt to justify his moves and for trying to blame his moves on newbieness but AS isn't buying it. It's quite unfortunate that he drops out right after the failhammer and never gets a chance to chime in on it.

asano234

- Just a WTF from him. It just gives huge newbie tells to me. 90% of his posts were fluff, so yeah.

Sundy

- I've already commented on him in my other posts. I get a pretty strong town vibe from him, and right now he's providing a much needed SE voice. He's questioning everyone and just generally seems like a good player.

That said... I get an overall town vibe from this slot as well.

[Workdawg]

Now, on to TP42...

Vote analysis

ISO 01. RVS Ty - null
ISO 03. Votes Mute (L-2) for switching his vote to TP42 during RVS and for table related reasons. (Later in ISO 22 he claims his vote here is because Angry Scientist essentially told him not to worry about OMGUS)
ISO 06. Votes Workdawg(L-3) for the failhammer incident (TM)
ISO 18. Votes Mute (L-4) for "being swayed by other's logic" (Again in ISO 22 he claims he's back to Mute because he didn't think I was scum anymore, then throws some table suspicions on for good measure. He also discusses the numbers Mute provided in the table and how they seem suspicious)
ISO 38. Votes Workdawg (L-1) because he doesn't beleive my justification for the failhammer vote and he believes in the Stels/Dawg scumteam. He also mentions that he still thinks Mute is scum, but would rather see me lynched to avoid further quickhammers.
ISO 43. Unvotes after I post up my character profiles. He mentions holding off on voting back to Mute to not "quick-change" vote again like he has in the past. At this point, he also proposes Mute as a target for a deadline lynch if it comes down to it (2 weeks left at this point).
ISO 48. Votes Ty (L-3) he hops on veridis' idea of mixing it up a little bit and he's getting tired of Mute and I.
ISO 51. Votes Stels (L-2) because Ty's exit post looks town and Stels is his number two suspect. He claims he was mainly concerned with Mute because of the war Mute and I were having at the time, and since we dropped it, he didn't think Mute was as suspicious anymore. He also mentions the Stels/Dawg team here as throwing some potential scuminess on Stels. (This is right in the middle of the Stels warning/advice thing)
ISO 59. Votes Workdawg (L-3) immediately at the start of D2 because of the Scumteam suspicions. Note, he also FOS Mute here for potential bussing.
ISO 60. Votes Mute (L-1) after my giant case against Mute. He pretty much agrees with my argument against Mute and picks on his own things that mute posted in defense of my post.

----
I'm not sure there is really anything in here. He flips back and forth between Mute and I most of the game. He gets on Stels wagon along with everyone else, but he was in the argument about that just as much, so I wouldn't say he was just following with the group on that one.

I guess there are really only 2 votes in there that pique my interest.
1). ISO 38 when he puts me at L-1. His reason for doing so is pretty weak, especially for going to L-1 on someone with so much time left to deadline (2.5 weeks-ish).
2). ISO 43 when he Unvotes. His reason for doing so is just, but why is he all the sudden concerned about flipping back and forth? Did he just realize that it looks suspicious to do so? Also, at this point he proposes that Mute would make a good target for a lynch if we come down to the deadline. We have around 2 weeks left at this point and already he's looking that far ahead? Curious.

Aside from flopping back and forth between Mute and I based on how the debate is going, his votes just don't really seem suspicious to me. I don't really even consider that suspcious. If we are his top two targets, then it only makes sense to me that he would swing back and forth depending on who he feels is winning the debate.

His posts in general

During my ISO, I noticed that he seems to agree with my logic a lot. I can't say I blame him, because it's my logic so of course I believe it, lol... but he rarely questions it. He does provide his own thoughts too though, so it's not like he's usually just saying "You are right Workdawg" the entire time.

Honestly, the only thing I find really suspicious out of all of his posts is in ISO 20 where he says

If you feel the need, put out a request to the possible cop to investigate him. The cop may or may not listen, but it's better than accusing him of being scum when most of your argument fell through the floorboards.

That could MAYBE be interpretted as rolefishing. I don't really see it that way. I'm more inclined to see it as an attempt to bait Mute into rolefishing. I suppose that's a little bit scummy in-and-of itself, but one little thing isn't enough to sway me.

[Workdawg]

Damn it, I knew hitting backspace I'd forget to include something when I rewrote it all...

There is one other thing I find a little bit suspicious about TP42. He IMMEDIATELY writes off Nacho's NK as scum targetting him for being IC. When I was rereading the thread, I noticed that Nacho had taken quite the interest in TP42 right at the end of D1. By my count, during that period Nacho quoted 24 comments various people made , and 11 of them were TP42's posts. Not all of them are questions, and not all of them seemed to indicate any kind of scum hunting. Just an interesting though that if TP42 is scum, he would seem to have a reason to off Nacho. playing it off as "IC killing" is convenient, though I think that's probably all it was.

FWIW, Nacho seemed to be a lot more suspicious of Neuky at the end of D1 than anyone else. To follow the same pattern as TP42 from above, 8/24 statements he made were to Neuky, and he seemed to be a bit more agressive with them.

[Workdawg]

Welcome! There is much catching up to do! I'll be very interested to hear your thoughts.

[Workdawg]

Excellent analysis Sundy. I'm really liking your play so far. I feel like I'm learning a lot from you. I know Nacho said he doesn't really start hunting scum until D2-3, but I felt like I wasn't really able to glean much information from him about good scumhunting. His style seems to contradict mine, I guess. Stels gave general advice, but not really about scum hunting. Ty, well... I think the jury is out on him for me still.

You original case for your top two suspects included links to specific things and reasons why, which makes it really easy to follow your logic. Your latest post says a lot too. While I have gone through D1 ISOs looking at stuff, I never really looked at people the way you did, in regards to Stels. I looked for potential buddying and signs up scumteam type stuff, but I guess I didn't analyze it quite the same way. I didn't really look at the overall picture I guess.

[Workdawg]

@sordos

Woah... I didn't even notice that before. I suppose Stels is calling Ty a goon (mafia goon?) right here, but Stels didn't flip RB, which would be something to be jealous of. I dunno. It's definitely interesting.

As for Ty... I posted a pretty extensive analysis of his later play here, but it went all but ignored. Would either of you mind reading it and commenting on it? It seems like the only stuff anyone really cares about when I post is the stuff against Mute, and really only TP42 comments on it. It's hard to tell if I'm doing the right things when I scum hunt if I don't get any feedback. :/

[Workdawg]

lol. Ty is still around and I'd love to hear what he's got to say about the two replacements catching up and voting for him. Mute and Ty have always been my top two suspects, so I'd be happy to lynch either... but we still have plenty of time before the D2 deadline.

[Workdawg]

I've just conceded to the fact that, while I would be happy to lynch either right now, it only hurts the town to rush things along.

[Workdawg]

I agree, Mute has been absent for a while. Perusing his profile, it looks like he's posted a couple times in another game over the weekend, but not here?

[Workdawg]

Welcome Concerned. Thanks for replacing in. We've been plagued with replacements so far, unfortunately... but what can ya do.

I look forward to hearing what you have to say.

[Workdawg]

I can read it.

[Workdawg]

Just copy/paste text into another textbox and it should show up full size...

anyway... anyone else have any thoughts here?

[Workdawg]

That's the impression I've been getting from him too, Neuky. As the game has progressed, he's definitely seemed to become a lot more apathetic. If he's got a lot going on in his life, then that's understandable, but he also just mentioned playing a couple other games too...

:/

[Workdawg]

Agreed with sordos... would definitely like to hear some reasons NOT to lynch Mute, since he doesn't seem to be interested in providing them himself.

[Workdawg]

It's been over 2 days since he last showed up, and a week since he's actually posted anything related to the game.

I'd like to wait to see what concerned has to say first, but I wouldn't be opposed to lynching Mute before he comes back if it takes him much longer.

[Workdawg]

EBWOP: The first sentence there is about Mute, in reply to sordos... if that's not clear.

[Workdawg]

@Concerned

I'm rather torn on what I think about your posts. I agree that it seems like a copout to accuse the replacement slots of being scum. I recently posted my thoughts about those slots. I feel like Sundy is town, but I'm still not really what to say about sordos. veridis gave a town vibe with his couple posts, but sordos hasn't really provided much content to speak of.

I don't feel like the CURRENT arguments against Mute are weak at all. Can you elaborate on why you feel that way?

I'm also curious about what you think about Ty's play up until you subbed in. You provided analysis of every other player but Ty. You mentioned his play, but didn't really say very much about it.

I think an analysis of his play would be most relevant from you. You know his role and would know the motivations behind his play. I'm not trying to get you to claim here, but you're in a unique position. You have a perspective we don't have on a slot that is currently under much scrutiny.

Maybe you can provide some thoughts on the things that have been said against him more recently. Maybe how you feel about this post: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 0#p2766940

[Workdawg]

EBWOP: Also, you said something I find pretty suspicious above, but I want to see your response to my post before I show my hand.

[Workdawg]

@Sundy

Your first quote there is the part that stuck out to me...

For what it's worth I think Ty did a very good job, the only marginally scummy thing he did was go for nacho early in the game...

It sounds VERY much to me like he is saying Ty did a good job of NOT acting scummy, which would imply that his slot is scum. He didn't say "Ty did a good job of scum hunting" or something else that would indicate town.

I was going to mention it in my post, but felt maybe I'd try the "let the bad guy lead me to his hideout" manuever this time.

As for the second quote, I'm not really sure he is accurate in saying he was a founding member of Stels' wagon. Many people were already all over Stels about the advice issue and Ty was simply the first person to vote him after all that started rolling. As I mentioned before, I found this suspicious because Ty had previously said he didn't feel the need to use his vote for pressure, but it seemed like he was doing it in this case.

[Workdawg]

If Ty was scum, the Concerned is scum, which is one of your conditions for it making sense...

[Workdawg]

EBWOP:
bah...
then* Concerned is scum...

I read it over and over again and it just doesn't really make sense any other way, to me.

[Workdawg]

Just raw, uncut Mute screaming into his webcam PLZ! lol

[Workdawg]

ZOMG, we should lynch TP42 for using a mac!

[Workdawg]

Well, I'm still here. <.<

[Workdawg]

I'm still here again. I'm just really conflicted on what to think.

I sort of feel like concerned has done a decent job of defending Ty's actions, but I'm not totally sure.

I still feel like hasn't really contributed much either. I think at this point, my top three are Mute, Sordros, and Ty, but I really don't know who I think is more scummy. I think sordros is probably a little more suspicious to me at this point.

[Workdawg]

Woah.... sorry. Tired posting ftl...

I still feel like sodros hasn't contributed very much. I'll probably take another look at that slot tomorrow and see if I can come up with anything.

[Workdawg]

Woah.

Well, I can't say I'm sad about this, but I guess we'll see what we get.

[Workdawg]

Actually... the person being lynched is NOT supposed to post during twilight from what I gather from the rules.

[Workdawg]

I agree that Sordros seems like the most likely target at this point, but I have to say... Concerned's willingness to lynch him immediately is bit off-putting.

[Workdawg]

@Neuky

Concerned would be my number 2 choice, but sordros' suspiciousness exceeds his by a wide margin. He's the only one who's commented on specific things I've said while scumhunting (because I asked him to) and he pretty much tore me apart. I see his logic, but it's tainted by the fact that I asked him to analyze my case against his slot. I'm inclined to think he's right about my failure at scum hunting, but I can't be 100% sure because he could just be defending himself.

Going back over the naben/veridis/sordros slot... they've really contributed very little to the game. That has me very concerned.

[Workdawg]

@Sundy

Concerned tore apart my case against Ty. That's tainted by the fact that it's his slot the case was against, but it his arguments make enough sense to not just write it off.

As for the current status: I'm eagerly awaiting Neuky's analysis of sordros. I tend to agree with his thoughts on Sundy. Asano seemed very newbie to me, but I'm not really sure if it was newb town or newb scum. Sundy, though, seems pretty town to me.

sordros just really hasn't done much good for the town from what I can tell.

[Workdawg]

Sorry, I've been busy at work recently. I'll try to take a closer look at your case later today.

[Workdawg]

Hey Guys... just checking in again. Sorry for my lack of content recently. I'm on vacation the next few days and have been trying to finish up my work so I can leave on good terms, lol.

I'll have my laptop with me over the next few days and weekend, but probably won't be on very much except in the evenings. I'll do my best to check in at least once a day, but I can't guarantee it. So I guess we'll go with this:

@Drench V/LA Mar 4-6

Before I head out, I will say that I agree with Neuky and Concerned. I think we have our target, but the day is young yet.

[Workdawg]

I've had the chance to review sordros, and like I said, I agree with pretty much what Neuky has said. We know my scumhunting isn't that great, but here are a couple things that stuck out to me that I don't think have been mentioned.

Interesting to see that Mute is still not around. I'm tempted to hammer just to get the game going.

Ok, I think this game needs is a little more energy. Considering we lynched scum day 1, we have the luxury to be a little reckless.

In the hopes of re-activating this game, I'm ready to jump to my next scum candidate and jump-start this game again.

VOTE: Mute

I bet we will have plenty of discussion from here on.

In both of these posts he talks about hammering to get more action going in the game. Now, we've already talked about how this is generally a bad thing. When he hammered, the deadline was still over a week away, so there really wasn't much of a hurry. This isn't really a big deal IMO, cause the game was really stagnant, however something else about this bothers me.

Since we already lynched Stels, if we did lynch scum, the game would simply be over, we wouldn't be "re-activating it." So, was he lynching a townie who had been inactive to do that? Lynch a lurker isn't the greatest plan at this point, but I wouldn't call it a super scummy move.

But then I noticed this...

May I remind you guys that I was the last one to vote for Mute? And that was after quite a long time had passed too. Why would anyone vote for someone if they didn't think they were not scum? So I was not the one to lynch a townie, the majority did.

My point is. Most of us thought Mute was a good scum candidate, now we know we missed. It is just fare to jump to the next candidate. In my case it would be Concerned. He has done nothing but OMGUS me all the time.

...

All right. I was reckless I admit it. I actually stated that before I hammered. I had a scum vibe coming from Mute and considering we still had some room to get other shots at our remaining mafia slot.

...

So he is saying that he thought Mute was scum (after the fact, in his own defense)... but before that, when he was still under the radar, he was just trying to get the game going again?

How would he know that the game would be "reactivated" instead of just end?

--------

With that said, I think I'm ready to cast my vote for him (still) but I don't want to jump so early in the game when it only takes one more vote to lynch. If everyone else agrees that we have our target, then I'll go with the group.

[Workdawg]

@Neuky

I reread the past few pages and sordros ISO to come to my conclusions. As I said, I didn't really see anything that wasn't already mentioned against sordros. I did pay special attention to the hammer post at your recommendation though, and that is when I noticed the discrepancy I mentioned above.

@Sundy

1. I don't see this as damning evidence. Ty threw out a lot of stuff in an attempt to apply pressure, and I can see this as simply another mechanism to do it. I don't really see an SE player calling out his scumbuddy D1, even in passing.
2. Circumstantial indeed.
3. Does seem suspicious. If he's simply basing it on the ISO, then there really isn't much there. However, rereading Stels' ISO, I don't see where he writes "paragraphs about how [Ty] is suspicious." Stels ISO #3 he votes for Ty in what seems simply like an OMGUS reaction to Ty accusing him of being scum. In ISO #5 he writes a pretty long paragraph addressing Ty, but I don't really see it as a case against Ty, and he never voted for Ty based on it.
4. I agree.
5. I agree.
6. I agree, and now that you mention it... it seems as though Concerned has done the same thing sordros did. He wants to lynch sordros because "He's certainly not worth bringing into lylo." If he's scum, then there wouldn't be a lylo scenario. I don't see this as a slip like sordros' was, simply because he doesn't carry on about it. It could easily be an "if he does flip town, we don't want someone who doesn't contribute much" type of statement.
7. I sort of agree here. I don't think you necessarily need to vote to be "on the wagon." Certainly if you vote for someone you are on their wagon, but I would argue that if you are making a case against someone and just haven't voted yet, you could be considered on that wagon. However, I do agree that he seemed more interested in taking down Nacho than Stels, and I've always found that suspicious.

[Workdawg]

lolz.

I've been watching the thread all day waiting for someone to post. Sadly, we really just need action from sordros and concerned to reply to the cases against them... and they are the ones who've been AWOL

[Workdawg]

It's always been a bit of a tossup for me between sordros and Concerned. Sordros' lack of content was what had been swaying me his way, but I think he's put up a good defense here.

Concerned hasn't posted any real content in the past week, despite his last two posts saying he would (575 on March 4 - he says he wants to hear from others, who have now posted, 585 on March 5 - saying he's been drinking and will respond later)

Maybe we should take a more indepth look back at Ty/Concerned's slot. It doesn't look like anyone has really taken a close look at that slot in a long time. I asked him to rebutt my case against Ty, and he did in post 585. I'm still not totally sure how I feel about that. I'll see if I can find the time today to take a closer look.

[Workdawg]

DOH! Sorry Sundy. I thought for sure I had read something about that, but it must have been hidden under your first part about sordros when I went back to look for it. I guess I was just thinking there should be more out there than that.

[Workdawg]

Yeah, I did... not sure how I got 503 and 585 mixed up... but thanks. I've been working on an analysis post which I should be posting up in a few mins.

[Workdawg]

I did a re-read of Stels ISO today and tried to look for clues that would indicate who his scumbuddy is. I didn't really find much of interest except an analysis of his reads... so that's what I'm posting.

Stels reads 1: Jan 22 - ISO #9

- in the middle of Mute and my arguments

Stels reads 2: Jan 28 - ISO #17

- this is right after I manage to get myself out of the noose

Player	Alignment	Read 1	Read 2
Sundy slot	unknown	Null tell ATM	Null-read
Mute	town	Scummy	Mixed read. Not a null-read, but it's either aggresive town, or arrogant scum.
Nacho	town	Null-tell, with a bit of a townish vibe	Townish-vibe.
Neuky	unknown	Generally a null-to-town vibe. Flying a bit under the radar...	Townish-vibe, weird gut feeling though
TP42	town	Pro-town, with certain hypocritical elements which he seems as scummy in other people	Town. Probably one of my most solid reads into the game so far
Ty	unknown	Null-tell	Townish-Null
sordros slot	unknown	none because no player yet	Null
Workdawg	unknown	Appears scummy, but I get a newb-townish vibe from him	Newb-town + scummy

Interestingly, his reads seem to be both accurate and aligned with our current suspicions.

The only place where we KNOW he was wrong is his read on Mute, and I think this can be explained simply by finding a good mislynch target and going with it. His first read is when TP42, Mute and I were all bickering over the table and related content. I would guess that he read the argument and picked a horse to try and get mislynched. At the time of his second read, I had just weaseled my way out of the noose and he's still not sure.

He "correctly identified" both nacho and TP42. But has straight up null-tells on Sundy's slot, Ty, and Sordros (with the exception of a "townish-null" for Ty in the second read). Further analysis of his reads on those 3 slots.

Angry Scientist/Asano (Sundy) Read 1:

He gives a "townish vibe" to Angry Scientist but is skeptical if asano had read the whole thread. Gives him a null tell.

Asano (Sundy) Read 2:

Says he can't get a read from asano when 80% of his posts are fluff.

My Comments

His second read was AFTER asano put Mute at L-1 though... I wonder how you end up not getting ANY read on him after that. Suspicious I would say.

Ty Read 1:

Lists his ISO but doesn't comment on any read at all.

Ty Read 2:

Says he's under the radar a bit and acknowldges that he has been having IRL issues and hasn't been posting much. "Sort of builds cases in his character profiles" Somehow ends up with townish-null (see below)

My Comments

I don't know if there is anything really interesting here, but I noticed that Ty had only posted 4 times between the first and second read. His two wall posts against me (ISO 5-6), and two posts of no value (ISO 7-8). What could have changed to make him appear more town? He's doing more scumhunting, and that's why? I suppose that's a possible reason, but I don't know. Stels himself seems to not be impressed by that (based on his comment "sort of builds cases") so I don't know if I buy that as a reason for changing his read.

Also, Ty is the only person who had been posting regularly, infrequently but LOTS of content, who got a null read. Is it a definite link between Stels and Ty, no, but I certainly think it's suspicious that Stels was willing to commit to a read one way or the other (or elaborate on a mixed read in the case of Mute and I) for everyone but Ty and the two vacant spots.

Stels addresses his null reads in ISO 18 when Nacho asks about it and he claims he lumped Ty in with the people who don't post much. He also claims he's just not really sure who scum are.

Naben (sordros) Read 1:

none

veridis (sordros) Read 2:

Says that only 4 posts isn't enough to get a read on him, but finds his position on Ty to be "curious."

My Comments

Nothing to really say about this, I agree that there really wasn't much to go on. I guess he could have elaborated more on what was curious about it, but oh well.

Overall

It seems like "the right" thing to do as scum to give your scum buddy a null, or at least non-committed, read. If something happens and they get lynched, I think you'd want to have the record show that you weren't sure on him. Giving a town read could look suspicious if others disagree and giving a scum read would put unwanted pressure on your buddy while he's still alive.

Thoughts?

[Workdawg]

Your disagreement is absolutely valid. It certainly depends on how he was playing, and it could be nothing. At the time, neither of them were really under much scrutiny though, so I think it would have been a foolish play to draw attention to his scum buddy.

[Workdawg]

Are you joking Drench?! WAT?

[Workdawg]

Also, Welcome back Ty!

[Workdawg]

@Ty

Sundy brought up the WIFOM nature of the comment you made above, and I fully acknowledge that's what it is. (Posts 604-605)

The rest of that post was really just an attempt to spark some discussion. I agree that there isn't really any substantial information there, but I had hoped it would spark some discussion.

As for focusing on you for the lynch. That's not the case at all. sordros has been my top pick since he hammered Mute, the paragraph from that post about you is longer just because it seemed more suspicious to me. Your slot has been the runner up still, I won't deny that, but it has never eclipsed sordros for that honor. Everyone had been pretty focused on sordros, and when Sundy posted his wall (583), I noticed Concerned has been flying under the radar for a while (and absent) and thought maybe it'd be worth another look at him. If you read my response to his post (588), you'll see that I don't really find what he says to be very damning.

Your post is definitely swaying me back towards sordros and I am going back to look over his most recent posts right now.

[Workdawg]

My thoughts on sordros

Prior to hammering Mute, he doesn't really contribute much. He agrees with Sundy's thoughts on Ty, which are kind of weak anyway. He adds in his own "slip" which is simply Stels saying "... I think someone's just jealous here, you goon." I seem to recall speculating on that comment about how MAYBE Stels was the roleblocker and Ty was the goon and Stels slipped and said Ty was jealous Stels got the PR, but even that is completely ridiculous and I'm pretty sure I acknowledged that fact before.

There's a little bit more speculation on Ty "fingering" Stels as his scum buddy, but I think we can all agree that it's not a tell.

At this point, it's worth noting that sordros has barely mentioned Mute at all. CTRL+F through his ISO and you can see that he states he doesn't like Mute's self vote and he asks about THE TABLE. Aside from that, he says pretty much nothing. In ISO #7 he starts off with what appears to be his fatal slip, claiming he is "... tempted to hammer just to get the game going." Before he actually hammers Mute, he asks Mute for a brief response to the case against him, but then he doesn't wait around for it and hammers him anyway in ISO 13.

In the hammer post, he once again slips up and seems to know that the game will continue after his vote.

After the hammer, there's a lot of information too. As Ty pointed out, sordros immediately starts deflecting blame. He points out that HE didn't lynch a townie, the majority did. While this is true, he was the one to lay down the hammer, and he did it without giving any reason at all, as demonstrated above. Not only that, but he also accuses Concerned of OMGUSing him and tries to deflect suspicion to him. After reviewing the context of this, I agree again with Ty that Concerned was not OMGUSing sordros. He laid out a case for scum to be either Sundy or sordros, and sordros seemed by far the most likely to be scum.

He seems to just be flailing around trying to deflect attention whereever he can get it to stick.

When Neuky and I finally caught on to sordros' big slip, he never actually gave a good reason for this. He addresses it in ISO 17, but even then he doesn't provide a good reason for his wording. He tries to play it off as no big thing, but I don't feel convinced. Sundy brings it up again, and he makes a slightly better case for it (ISO 18), but the more I think about it, the more I feel like it's an inexcusable slip. As town, you don't think "I'm going to lynch the last scum and the game will be reinvigorated!" You think how lynching that scum will end the game and you'll win.

Not once does he make a case for Mute being scum, he hammers him and slips up saying "its to get the game going" and then he hops on the only other person who has any suspicion cast on them (Concerned) without even making his own case. He's actually never posted any original suspicions himself, but only hopped around on what others have posted (except the ridiculous "jealousy slip"). He's spent the entire time simply trying to deflect suspicion from himself to Concerned by mimicking whatever everyone else is saying.

VOTE: sordros

[Workdawg]

Which puts sordros at L-1... FYI

[Workdawg]

I'm not dead, but I think FUUUUUUUU is appropriate anyway.

[Workdawg]

I'm super swamped at work this week, but I should have time in the evenings. I still think Ty is most likely the scum here as well, but we'll definitely need to be looking at eachother more closely.

[Workdawg]

An Analysis of Stels and Ty

Stels ISO

#2 - Stels answers Ty's RQS. He also posts the comment that someone else brought up as a potential slip.

P.S. At question #2 for Nacho&co: Why am I scum now? I think that someone's just jealous here, you goon.

Now that it's down to just us three, I wonder if that really was some sort of vindictive "you call me out, I'll call you out" thing.
#3 - Replies to Ty's defense of RQS. Essentially follows Nacho's lead with a vote on Ty for not voting Stels even though he Ty claims Stels is scum. Assuming he can count (unlike me), he knew this was only the third vote, so a pretty safe move if he is voting his scum partner.
#4 - unvotes Ty.
#5 - This post seems a little bit interesting, actually. It's in response to Ty's post after the failhammer, but Ty hasn't posted about that yet. He starts out asking Ty not to be so defensive and keeps up the minor bickering they've been doing over RQS. In the second half of this post, he actually gives Ty a little speech about how voting is town's only weapon and he should use it. This segues into telling Ty that he seems to be too concerned about how he looks, which leads to an IGMEOY. So Stels goes from voting Ty for not voting, to IGMEOY for not voting AND trying to appear town?
#9 - This is Stels first set of reads. I've analyzed this already... so yeah. Though having taken a closer look at their interactions just now, this seems extra suspicious considering the above.
#17 - Second set of reads... interestingly this is the next time Stels mentioned Ty. Ty posted his two big wall posts against me in between, but that's it.
#18 - Justifies his reads to Nacho when Nacho asks where is scum reads are. He says he can't pursue the null reads because "they haven't 'said' anything yet." This is interesting, considering Ty has said a lot by this point, and the only other comments Stels has made that indicate any sort of read on Ty are all things that indicate scum. Yet Ty still gets a "Townish-null" read. He also mentions the potential for a "Ty-Dawg" scumteam and Ty is trying to buss me because I'm so horrible... <.< There's a wink smilie at the end though, so it seems as this is in jest.
#20 - (By this point, Ty is getting replaced and the heat is on Stels) There are just a couple sentences here. I think both are rather insignificant though.

Ty's gone, and Stels never addresses Concerned, so that's about it.

[Workdawg]

First off, Post 633 was meant to both break the silence, and to help me gather my thoughts. By the time I was done analyzing the ISO, I was pretty burned out and didn't really feel like giving my overall thoughts on it. That said... I think there are some suspicious things in there. I think the most suspicious part is how Stels manages to maintain a null-to-townish-null read on Ty through the entirety of the game despite posting IGMEOY and votes for him. This is established in ISO posts 5 and 18. I don't see any sure signs of scumbuddying between Stels and Ty, but with two SE players as scum, I would hope they would be smart enough to avoid that. It's pointless IMO to ask what other people think about this, because all that can really be drawn from it is speculation. Stels is gone, so he can't defend himself any longer. I intend to read through the game and do Ty -> Stels, Stels -> Sundy and Sundy -> Stels when I have the time though. Would you prefer I keep those ones to myself? I thought information was good for town.

To answer some of Ty's thoughts more specifically.

About my play/growth/etc

I have learned A LOT this game. I think the fact that I seem to be consistently picking the wrong target is what has caused me to back off the past day. I don't mean that as "I'm picking the wrong person to focus on", but that I'm voting to lynch the wrong person. When I go back and reflect on this though, I've noticed that my main issue seems to be that both Mute and sordros have simply failed to really put up a good defense when they are pressured, and I guess that made me feel that they were guilty.

I've noticed that both you and Concerned have mentioned that I'm very misguided in my scumhunting, but I find it interesting that you both say that when I bring up issues with your own play. In your ISO 9, you told me to be more assertive, but then when I find something suspicious in your actions, it's misguided? In ISO 13, you referring to my post #601, the table of Stels reads. You call it "a fairly interesting post" right off the bat, but then you just start tearing it apart saying that now that Stels is gone his reads have already served their purpose. And then you again mention that I'm misguided. You never actually elaborated on what was interesting about my post.

I'm having a hard time really figuring out if my play is bad, or if I'm just letting you and Concerned bully/"teach" me into submission. I fully admit I've made plenty of mistakes in this game, and the fact that I haven't had a good scum-read yet doesn't help... but you still seem to be the only one who has really been focusing on my playing being "misguided" which makes me not sure if I should be trusting you. I'm going to have to be taking everything you say with a heaping pile of salt now that it's down to the wire.

About the mislynch and NK

Sordros appeared scummy to me, but obviously I'm wrong more than I'm right (which is to say, I'm always wrong, lol).

The NK I suppose brings up some interest thoughts. I think generally, Neuky was the smart choice no matter who the last scum is left. When it comes down to 3, you only have to convince one other person that you're town (or the 3rd person is scum), and leaving the most widely thought town player in the game would seem to spell doom for the scum.

The rest of this is all theorycrafting though, is that OK Ty? You don't seem to like my opinions when they shed some suspicion on you. Of course, it's all subject to WIFOM as well.

Why would Ty NK Neuky?
For the reason above I think. If he NK'd me, he'd have Sundy left, who was already building a case against him, and Neuky. It would simply be a battle between Ty and Sundy to see who can convince Neuky the other is scum. Neuky had already acknowledged he felt almost equally that either sordros or Ty was scum, so it would be an uphill battle to swing Neuky back in his favor. NKing Sundy would be extremely suspicious considering the case Sundy has against Ty, and wouldn't even be an option, IMO. Ty has already proven that he can managed to convince me he's right, so it would be the safest bet to keep me around.

In conclusion, I feel that Neuky was the best option a scum Ty could make for a NK.

Why would Sundy NK Neuky?
NKing Neuky would be silly for a Scum Sundy, IMO. As I mentioned above, Neuky had already agreed with Sundy's case, but just not enough to outweigh the suspicions against sordros. If scum-Sundy chose to NK Ty, then he would be removing an ally.
NKing Ty wouldn't make any sense either though. He already has a case against Ty. If he kept either me or Neuky around, he should have had an easy slide to victory. And between the two of us, I think Neuky would be the obvious choice. Again, because Ty seems to be able to sway me too easily.

In conclusion, I feel that I would have been the best option Sundy could have made for a NK.


For your last point, about finding three reasons why Sundy is scum and three reasons why you are... I've already been accused of "looking for scumminess", by Concerned in fact, and I won't be doing this for you. I'll follow up with the analysis I mentioned at the beginning of this post. But I won't be looking for reasons why both of you are scum.

I look forward to your thoughts on Sundy, though.

[Workdawg]

An analysis of Ty and Stels
Ty's ISO

#0 - RQS - Very likely not significant, but I noticed that Stels got the only question with NO relevance to mafia at all. (His 3rd)
#3 - Bickering over RQS. Tells Stels that he doesn't think Stels is scum.
#9 - This is his exit post. He lumps Stels and Nacho together, as experienced players I suppose. He says Stels has been under the radar and speculates that Stels is trying to give advice to his scum buddy. He suggests that either Nacho or Stels is scum. He also speculates about some possible scum teams, both of which include Stels, and then he votes for Stels. Again, this is after Stels "slips up" with the "you can't claim a power role" advice to me. Neuky, TP42 and Mute have all expressed that they found this to be extremely suspicious even though none of them have voted for him yet.
#11 - He points out the scumminess in Stels' vote for Neuky. Stels made a desperation move and Ty does not approve. He asks what the purpose was.

And that's it. 4 posts out of 12. I don't really see anything significant here... but there it is anyway.

[Workdawg]

WORKDAWG

First off, Post 633 was meant to both break the silence, and to help me gather my thoughts. By the time I was done analyzing the ISO, I was pretty burned out and didn't really feel like giving my overall thoughts on it.

That’s like saying I spent the past month gathering wheat from the field but I’m not going to bother baking it into bread. I respect your initiative to do so many ISO posts, but if you’re taking the time to do them make sure they have a purpose and count for something!

To continue your analogy, maybe I just felt like donating my wheat to the community for their consumption. In any case, I fully intended to give my thoughts on it, and I did.

That said... I think there are some suspicious things in there. I think the most suspicious part is how Stels manages to maintain a null-to-townish-null read on Ty through the entirety of the game despite posting IGMEOY and votes for him. This is established in ISO posts 5 and 18. I don't see any sure signs of scumbuddying between Stels and Ty, but with two SE players as scum, I would hope they would be smart enough to avoid that.

So either I’m an obvious scumbuddy or I don’t appear scummy at all which as an SE makes me scum? I can’t say really agree with this logic at all but I understand the basic idea that you don’t want to trust me just because I wasn’t Stels lover. Fair enough, I would hope that’s the case.

You really seem to have twisted my words here. I can see how you got to "I don't appear scummy at all which makes me scum", but I certainly didn't say that. The "I'm an obvious scumbuddy" part seems to come out of no where though. In fact, no where in the quote you have above did I even mention how you "appeared." I suggest that Stels play doesn't indicate anything for sure. There's also a third option, which you left out, is that you are town and there really was no buddying going on at all. Why would you leave that out? It seems like that would be the first thing going the through the mind of a town player.

I still think Stels reads on your are pretty suspicious. Are you twisting my words around to make it sound like a ridiculous accusation because you can't defend yourself against Stels' actions?

As you no doubt have experienced I’m more than willing to vigorously defend myself. The misguided comment stems from a long history of really missing the target from Mute to me. It’s great you were being more aggressive, but you lashed out at the wrong things, which is part of the learning process but also at times just plain incorrect.

Interesting that you lump yourself in with Mute, confirmed town. How do I know that I'm "missing the target" on you unless I just take your word for it?

[Workdawg]

AN analysis of Stels and Sundy's slot
Stels ISO

#9 - (his first set of reads) Notes that Angry Scientist tunnels on TP42 and calls him out on some mistakes that TP42 blames on newbieness. Townish vibe for AS. Then he questions whether asano actually read the thread or not, because all he's done is parrot others. Gives him a null-tell.
#13 - Apologizes for possibly offending asano. Points out again that asano is posting fluff.
#17 - (the second set of reads) Calls out asano for posting fluff and gives him a null read for it, again. Very early on, asano puts Mute at L-1 and it was a point of dispute at the time. As I wrote this, I immediately reflected on that. Having gone through asano's ISO up until this point though, I'm inclined to agree with Stels read. asano very much does simply parrot others consistently and his vote on Mute seems very newbie to me.
#18 - Justifies his reads to nacho, same as in my ISO looking at Ty. This time though, asano really hasn't done much, so it makes sense.
#19 - Posts a little mini read of asano outlining ONCE AGAIN that he hasn't said anything important. He calls out asano for jumping on Mutes wagon and then right back off at the reaction of everyone else, asking for a reason for that.
#20 - Another comment on asano's fluff

-----

That's it.
Just a ton of mentioning how all asano does it post fluff and a couple null reads. There is a bit of friendly banter in there... welcome, sorry if I offended you, etc, but nothing I would label as buddying. At the end he seems to be a little bit more suspicious of asano's intentions, but he doesn't pursue it at all. He first mentions it in ISO 19, which is on Sunday Jan 30 and he doesn't get lynched until the following Friday. He tries to deflect suspicion onto Neuky at the very end, but doesn't mention asano's play again after ISO 19.

Sundy replaced in Thursday, but Stels never addresses him.

Not much here either, IMO.

[Workdawg]

An analysis of Stels and Sundy's slot
Angry Scientist's ISO

#3 - Notices the quote from Stels where he asks if Ty is jealous, and calls him a goon. Simply asks "What?" in response to it.

That's it... yup.

asano's ISO

#8 - Thanks Stels for the welcome, though it was "derogatory". He says he likes Stels' "breakdown of where he is at" because it is more clear than Mute's table. I think this is a reference to his first set of read in post 148, but I don't know for sure.

...

Sundy's ISO

#2 - Makes his case against Stels and puts the vote at L-1. His case consists of 3 points.
1. Stels rolefishing in Post 109. -- While I agree that rolefishing would be a pretty bad tell, I still don't really see where Stels is doing that. He is replying to TP42's post 103 where TP42 mentions asking the possible cop to investigate someone. I do agree that Stels did misrepresent TP42's claim in implying TP42 "knew" there was a cop, but I don't see Stels as fishing here. It just looks to me like Stels was trying to twist it around and make it look like TP42 was fishing.
2. Something about being inconsistent in regards to his first point, I think. I honestly can't really follow his logic here either. Stels did indeed give two different reactions to TP42's potential rolefishing, but I don't see him referencing any posts past the point he claims to have read to.
3. He links to Stels post 254 and calls it "third time's the charm". Claims that Stels is being further inconsistent in his accusations. Stels says he hasn't read all of page 10, and the post Stels is referring to in his post is about 2/3 the way down the page. It's certainly possible he didn't read the entire page and just stopped there to quote the post and respond. Here's another point that I don't really follow I guess.
#4 - This is after Stels is gone, but it's relevant I think as he discusses some of Stels actions. He asks TP why he voted for for me. He presents two possible options and replies to them. In both, he seems to be almost setting up his case against Mute right away, saying that Stels actions were intended to both protect Mute and get a mislynch on me rather than the other way around.. He also votes for Mute here. First on the wagon even.

---

Overall. The Angry Scientist and asano ISOs don't give me much at all. However, I have to admit that the Sundy ISO looks rather suspicious to me. I wasn't on Stels wagon and was honestly surprised to see him flip scum, but even going back over Sundy's case KNOWING he was right, I don't see it.

@Sundy

Do you think you could go back and try to elaborate on your points for me? Stels got hammered to quickly for me to ask any questions about it, and when he flipped scum I guess I didn't give it another thought.

I also find it pretty suspicious that Sundy immediately voted for Mute at the start of the day (he did say Stels and Mute were his top two picks though). It seems extra suspicious that he set up his post in which he votes for Mute as a sort of "See, Stels was scum and here is how they were scummy together" post under the guise of asking TP42 about his case.

[Workdawg]

I guess I'll post a little update here after thinking about the game for a while. I've reread the back and forth between you and this is where I stand.

I think Ty is our scum. I'm not 100% certain yet, I guess I would say about 80% certain.

One thing that just jumped out at me in Sundy's post above is this quote:

Ty, your entire argument against me sums up to that I'm a) tunneling on you and b) buddying up to Workdawg. It's true that some degree of caution is always good, and I am willing to look back over my reads. However, there's a difference between looking at players carefully and second-guessing yourself, and ignoring the WRITING ON THE WALL in an anti-town manner.

I have to say, this is how I've felt as well. When Ty is pressured, he does seem to attempt to just write off the case as blasphemy and act as though you are crazy for even considering it. Does that make him scum... not really. I say "not really" because it's certainly not a scum tell, and he is defending himself with logic and not just flailing around telling us we are idiots. It still rubs me the wrong way though and it makes me feel like he's getting desperate. Instead of building a case of his own, he's (at least recently) resorted to simply tearing down the cases against him with mediocre success.

@Ty: I know you've acknowledged your "bullying" style before, and I'm not taking it personally... just sharing my thoughts on it now.

Another thing that has been in my mind recently is this quote:

Additionally, I would like you to post three reasons why Sundy is the scum and three reasons why you believe I am scum and be prepared to support them with posts and logic. Don’t use ISOs if they’re going to be a distraction from your reasoning.

I thought it was kind of interesting when he first posted it, but now it seems a lot more so. Ty has said on multiple occasions that he hates "the shotgun approach" to scum hunting. It seems to me like that's what he asked of me above. Not the extend of digging up every little detail and calling it a scum tell, but it just doesn't sit right with me. If I read the whole thread over and can't find a single reason to think Sundy is scum, then what? I just pick the 3 things that seem the least town and pick those? I dunno. It's probably nothing, but it caught my attention.

Other thoughts on Ty.

I think Stels' tells give us the biggest clue. Ty did a lot of posting and scum hunting, but Stels gives him an incredibly neutral read despite all this. He then defends his reads to Nacho by claiming it's because Ty hasn't posted that much. Not a good excuse at all.

The other thing that sticks in my mind about Ty is his previous exit post. I have to go back to my gut on that (My ISO 66). It's full of potential WIFOM and stuff, but I think the important parts are sound.

Here's what I

THINK

happened.
Ty obsesses over Nacho for the first portion of the game. A Stels/Ty (both SEs) scumteam removing the IC would lead to easy victory indeed.
The failhammer incident occurs and people get up in my business (rightfully so).
Despite the other experienced players chalking this up to a newbie mistake, Ty starts a full on charge against me, aiming for what should have been an easy mislynch.
When that falls apart he ends up getting busy and asking to be replaced, so not a lot happens until his exit post.
In his exit post he makes so pretty generic reads I would say. He says that Neuky, TP42, Mute and I are all town. That's consistent among the other experienced players and seems like the safe move. When he gets to Stels and Nacho though, he speculates that one of them is scum. Despite spending the entire first part of the game focusing on Nacho, and even in this post he is still suspicious of him, he casts a vote on Stels whom he only has mixed feelings about rather than vote for Nacho. I think this was an attempt to distance his slot from Stels in case Stels does end up getting lynched before a replacement is found.

[Workdawg]

Lol. And if anyone was going to quickhammer it probably would have been me.

Unfortunately I'm not quite convinced of Ty's guilt.

@Ty rather than tell me why your innocent, convince me Sundy is scum.

[Workdawg]

I figured it would come down to this... oh the pressure.

I think you've got some excellent points here Ty. The fact that Sundy voted first, and so quickly does seems suspicious to me as well. As for your analysis of his votes, I did note (I think) Stels' vote against you D1. Technically you weren't at L-1 after he voted, but because I can't count I thought that was the case. Though maybe he thought so as well, who knows. His unvote after the fact doesn't seem to indicate either way.

There are some fairly interesting arguments for vote analysis being an extremely solid tell, and I've been planning on doing one of Stels/Sundy for a while now. I'll have to go back and confirm your points and take a closer look.

[Workdawg]

Here's an analysis of Sundy's slot's votes:

D1

asano votes for Mute (L-1): newbie mistake I think.
Sundy votes for Stels (L-1): Sundy's clarifications make this more clear to me.

D2

Sundy votes for Mute (L-3): First vote right as the day starts but he unvotes when he gets to L-1 and a few people haven't checked in yet.
Sundy votes for Ty (L-3): First vote against Ty also. His justification is because of Ty's comments about Stels right away. I noticed something else here as well and will comment on it after this analysis.
Sundy votes for Mute again (L-1): Switches back to Mute to apply some much needed (IMO) pressure. He switches from Ty who was L-2 at the time to Mute.

D3

Sundy votes for Ty (L-1): He actually spent a lot of time during the day building a case against Ty. It was over a week from the first time he posted a case against Ty. WIFOM here, but it seems like he could have hopped on the sordros wagon and gotten to the same place.

D4

Sundy votes for Ty (L-1): And here we are. Sundy "cast the first stone" so-to-speak. He's always been suspicious of Ty and he laid it out there. I said before that I don't feel like Ty is really doing a very good job of defending himself and I'm obv town (lol here, btw)... so might as well vote for your target.

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

In conclusion... yes, Sundy has cast a lot of L-1 votes, but I don't think they are as damning as Ty has made them out to be. He's always had some kind of justification for doing so, and he's only been on the wagon of a town lynch once so far (Mute), and that was a result of sordros hammering way early. D1 he could have been bussing Stels, but I think his case is sound now that he's explained where I misinterpretted things. I disagree with your assessment that Sundy has taken a passive role this game as well. Reading his ISO I would say that he is contributing positively.

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

The other thing I mentioned above that I noticed is this:

And yes, Stels is scum.

Based on the game so far, provide me with a reason that would support that statement.

Tied into the comment from before where Ty asks me to come up with reasons why Sundy is scum.

Additionally, I would like you to post three reasons why Sundy is the scum and three reasons why you believe I am scum and be prepared to support them with posts and logic. Don’t use ISOs if they’re going to be a distraction from your reasoning.

I just don't see why a town player would ask someone else to do the scum hunting for them. One of the fundamentals of Mafia is that the Town has truth on their side while Scum have to make up reasons to mislynch a town player, right? So why is a town player asking someone else to do their job for them? This just seems to me like a scum move to try and get a town player on their side. If I give you a reason Sundy is scum, then all you have to do is agree with me and it seems like a genuine reason to lynch someone.


This combined with the other things said before (Stels' reads and other interaction between the two, my analysis of the last NK) have pushed me right up the edge here. Ty hasn't done a very good defending himself in my eyes and his case against Sundy is extremely weak. The evidence against Ty is overwhelming compared to what has been presented against Sundy.

I actually had a vote for Ty typed in here for about 10 minutes considering whether or not I should slick 'Submit' but I decided against it. There's still time, and while I'm nearly convinced of Ty's guilt at this point, I don't quite feel right laying down the final vote if I have to think about it for that long and not come to a conclusion. I feel like I'm dragging the game out unnecessarily, but I'd love to get a win under my belt instead of lose it for the team.

[Workdawg]

I've thought some more about this. I want to give Ty a chance to really make a case. Maybe he's scum and Sundy has just played well enough that there's no chance of that, and if that's the case, then I we'll lynch Ty, but I want to give him a shot. All the other times Ty has felt strongly about the scumminess of a player, he put together well written case, with multiple points and sound arguments. I didn't see that in his case against Sundy above.

[Workdawg]

Something tells me Drench is getting anxious for this one to end... <.<

[Workdawg]

I'm still not convinced. I was honestly hoping Ty would come up with something to change my mind, but that's not the case with his latest post. I don't necessarily agree with Sundy's case against Ty, but the other points that I've raised are the things I'm concerned with. I still feel that Ty's play today has been, not satisfactory I guess. Full of aggression and a lack of significant arguments, IMO.

Case for Sundy

1. His play today
1a. Buddying up to me and tunneling on Ty.
1b. Votes first
2. Vote analysis

Case for Ty

1. Analysis of interactions with Stels
1a. Stels suspicious reads of Ty
1b. The RQS accusation.
2. Analysis of the NK.
3. Ty's actions today.

VOTE: Ty

That's all she wrote.

[Workdawg]

Well crap... sorry town.

I agree that Ty was putting more into the end of the game than Sundy was, and he's right that I was all but convinced he was scum up until the end... but I just didn't see Sundy's actions as very scummy.

[Workdawg]

Ugh, I dunno. I should have just voted against my gut I guess. I managed to misread pretty much every significant event (every lynch and the scum). I did reread Sundy's ISO and last day before voting, but it still didn't seem to me like he was scum. I have to say, I didn't really agree with Sundy's case at the end. I do think Ty managed to point out it's flaws, but I think it was masked by his aggression/anger at my newbie inability to see it. The main things that stuck in my head weren't even Sundy's points though, and that was enough to convince me.

I feel like the emotion that was coming through in your defense clouded the logic, Ty. It made it look like you getting pissed off (rightfully so, it turns out) and I read that as you just being mad you were about to lose. Of course, that was losing for the wrong reason, in my mind.

I'm sad and upset that I messed it up, sorry town.

[Workdawg]

Nah, just the first night. He has it layed out to show the actions, and the actual results.

I would also like to see the QTs, hurry up scum!

[Workdawg]

QT link no worky

[Workdawg]

Oh, nm... was some computer issues...

Only interesting thing is the last comment from Sundy...

I guess I didn't see it as a scum slip, but more the way he pointed it out in the thread. I tricky choice of words trying to make me think that, rather than his actual meaning. :/