Newbie 1052 - Endgame

[Stels]

@Workdawg: I don't think I got an answer to the other half of the question. So, does that mean you still think that Ty is scum/scummy like he was before?

[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.

[Ty]

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.

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.

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…

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.

VOTE: Workdawg

Please respond to my reasons as you feel appropriate.

[Neuky]

So, Stels ISO:

Post 3 - RQS theory discussion. Finds Mute a bit scummy. Votes Ty, presumably to put pressure on him to get reason off him as to why he asked others why Stels is scum.

4 - More game theory and chat.
To Workdawg - Interesting here: Is this SE advice or coaching his scum buddy? Basically don't try to look townie as you look scummy and can get lynched.
Here's the piece:

@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.

Unvotes Ty - just to be safe for the night.

If that was indeed coaching - then the line "trying to appear to be something you are not, isn't helpful at all" - is a scum slip.

5. - Some chat with Nacho and Mute, then a sizeable piece on Ty. It's quite an emotional few paragraphs defending why he hasn't posted much in the way of substance, and attack's Ty's lack of voting, and the fact that he thinks Ty was posting emotionally. The whoel post is large but does not contain any definite analysis.

6 - Accuses Mute of being scummy for trying to get Dawg lynched - "@Mute: Your last post was scummy as hell. You're just trying too damn hard to get Workdawg onto the noose."

Same post has another piece of SE advice for Dawg - but could also easily be coaching: @Workdawg: You don't seem to get the concept of bussing. Bussing is the scum-art of trying to lynch your partner, or try to at least in order to get town points when your partner gets lynched and he flips scum. What the glossary is saying by "distancing" is probably that you make yourself seem like you don't know that your partner actually is scum until the flip happens, while being one of the people on his wagon. Scum lynching Scum (AKA bussing) is performed in a vast amount of games here. I even remember a game where a Mafia Godfather was forced to lynch his entire team and he won. (Nacho might know who I'm referring to...)"

7. - VLA announcement, more game theory, will be doing cases at weekend. (I've got a lot of sympathy for Stels about the lack of time to play this game tbh - as I'm finding it hard to keep up as well.)

9. The WOT - Ok, very nicely presented - big ups for that. I'll address the issues you put up about me in a seperate post. (I'm sure the others will probably be doing the same).

My conclusions: Well there is a distinct possiblility of coaching Dawg here, although I know stels would argue that he was just providing SE advice, although I did sense anger/frustration at Mute for continuing to attack Dawg. I've got things to say about his comments on me in his latest post - but outta time for tonight. Will post them tomorrow.

[Stels]

@Neuky: The "trying to appear to be something you are not, isn't helpful at all". This is SE advice for not just dawg, but for everyone here (my advice isn't just for everyone to see that I'm supporting just one player, it's meant for everyone to look at). Town wouldn't be concerned at appearing scummy, since they are town. That's the general gist of it. If he still cares about trying to appear town, I'll hop onto his wagon.

[Mute]

Okay, finally not busy with other video games/women/home BS to be able to post...

Warning, possible Wall of Text incoming

And for starters I see Stels placed a vote on me. *shrug* If my math's right that puts me now at L-2.

FoS: Stels

for not announcing this.
---
I don't feel much like formatting this so I'll just quote the things I am going to address and by whom they are said.

Ok in the first part of this post, I looked at Mute (my biggest suspect) ISO, so I may be backtracking a lot.

That said i am sure that this table is useful to you and maybe it has been sucessful in the past but it just feels too unscientific for my liking and a bit random to say the least. Out of curiousity i would be interested where i fall on the table being a newbie and therefore an unknown quantity.

Actually, according to Mute, this is his first time using it.

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.

As I'm looking back, the bolded part seems suspicious. He seems to be defending the table before any comments were made about it. Earlier in the same post:

Everyone starts out at 60, because it is a nice enough a number to prove my point in that

I have as much reason to think of everyone as scum as much as they are town.

This is to, for me, keep track of how everyone acts, and the scores are rather arbitrary.

Now look at his previous post:

I'm going to play with the mindset of "

scum with medium probability until highly suspected/proven town.

"

Bolded hypocrisy.

It's not hypocrisy. I have every reason to play as if everyone is scum, and am doing so, and only by their play will I feel whether it's a town vibe or a scum vibe I'm picking up from them. e.g. a person posts and I get serious town-vibes from them, then I feel they're more likely than not town, but I won't discredit that they could be scum who are presenting themselves to be town very well.

Mute:

About your table... Sure, it's nice to keep the track of everyone, but what's the reason of revealing that table to us? If you'll be posting the entire table regularly, you're pretty much giving your neutral and town reads all the time, and that helps scum pick their targets at night.

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.

Mute seems to be very concerned about how the scum will specifically target him.

If the scum were to actually consistently attack him for bad reasons, wouldn't they get lynched?

As I've argued before, good scum will use logical arguments to get someone lynched. If the table gets attacked, then it's probably for good reason.

Look at my first game, and that will back up this next statement: I am good at out-WIFOMing the scum. This is how I have always played here, and have been playing off-site. Yes I will worry about what scum will think, so as to find them better. D1 is terrible for it because we rely solely on a person's posts to decide if they're scum or not. It's when an NK is made that the real battle of wits begins. This is the part I look forward to.

and about the bold: not if they can convince town that X is more scummy than themselves.
Which ties into:

The Ol' Wall-O-Text

Thank you for the warning at least.

---

Mute

ISO #5, creates table.
One part I don't like about the table is that

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

I just don't like what he said here.

So, instead of just scum-hunting and putting his findings into that table, he also lets our playing-style get in the way

... I just don't like that. Or would you like to clear this misunderstanding?

So... wait, lemme see if I have this right now: both you and Dawg are operating with the thought that play-style isn't the things a person posts in the game? See, to me, play-style is a persons posting/posts and how they are interpreted by others. So, with the mindset I'm using, which is that, how is my using a person's style of play

not

scum hunting?
So, what of the whole ordeal isn't clear yet? I've said what I feel is enough about the table.

ISO #7 addresses that there is a flaw in the table, says that he will fix that when someone thinks of something, so far, he has denied everything related to the table. Also just noticed that the table is pretty much useless after reading this post again. Why not just go about and use the good old

FoS

and

HoS

? Same thing, less work.

I have been using FoS/HoS this game. Several times in fact.

ISO # 12. Not much to say about this post, but until this point, all he has been doing is calling my name. Nothing wrong with that,

it just feels like you're trying to buddy up to me.

You say you were replying to something that I asked, which you did, yet you referred to him in the same post and talking about how his hammer felt scummy, which it did, yet in post #12 he refers to me yet again in reply to Workdawg, making an excuse for something that no one asked him, etc...

Pardon me a moment...

I would like to see where in ISO #12 I seem to be "buddying up" with you. I say your name

once

, only to tell Dawg I was answering a question you posed to me. Suddenly answering questions is "buddying up?" Trying to over-inflate a miniscule point and twisting it to suit your wants/intentions is highly scummy.
And before you say it, yes at that time I felt Ty was scummy. Right now though, you and dawg are my top suspects.

ISO #14: Responds to Ty. Generally, he is downright opposes Ty, well in fact, yet he yet again, mentions me, and even defends me. Thanks for that, but again, buddying up.

-sigh-
Ty outright in ISO #0 flat-out asks three people why you are "the scum." I have already confronted Ty about this, and though I haven't gotten anything back regarding it yet, I did find something from a post of Ty's, directed towards Neuky, that I thoroughly enjoy and will post later.

ISO #18: Only thing I can find here is him contradicting himself:

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.

with

Fifth bolded part: Pure speculation on your part, which I find misleading to the town.

Yes, point 5 was proven to be said by TP42, yet at the time he posted, he thought it was Workdawg who said that, which he was referring to, thus contradicting himself when he tried to build a case against WD.
Nitpicks Workdawg's "talking in confirmation is stated in the rules/sample role pm's". Believe strongly that Workdawg is scum, yet doesn't present a solid case on him as well as the badhammer on Ty being his only real evidence which at the time he didn't think was enough to warrant a vote. AKA, he doesn't have enough evidence as it stood from ISO #22.
ISO #23: Proceeds to give Workdawg his imaginary numbers. Sorry if I offend you by saying that.
ISO # 26 & 24: He says that he won't use the table to see someone as scum, simply to augment his current standing (26) yet before that he says that because of his number from his table, he is intent on Workdawg being scum (24); the number from that table is basically the only thing that is keeping his vote on him.
BTW, you said prob two times, not one. Just an FYI.

Scummy.

Sorry I saw you accuse me of knit-picking and not having a bad case, and my hypocrisy sensors went off which just further cements a Stels/Dawg team.
Only Dawg has been knit-picky about it. Plague raised some concerns and noted them, and everyone else has dismissed it as a null-tell.
Not having a bad case... from a single post out of many... Of which yes most of those points were bad, though I should let you know that I already addressed that those two posts were made by plague, and not Dawg.
Also no offense to be taken as technically all numbers are imaginary, but that's just semantics.
Also also thank you for pointing out I mis-said prod twice.


---
Breaking up my post to avoid eye-sore
---

[Mute]

Now then:
Stels votes for me on the grounds that I am knit-picking and am a hypocrite, when that is exactly what he is.
I feel that Stels has been more knit-picky than I am, and over the table I am using this game.

@Mute: I know how pro-town Nacho can be, but that is no reason at all to give him privileges and making him an exception. How are you certain that Nacho isn't as likely scum as us? He may be scum last game, what's stopping him from being scum again? If you had a different mod, which I'm sure you did, then he has the same chance to start out at 60? as any of us. I've been scum in the game before this as well, so why not start me out on 55 as well? Exactly.

and

@Mute: Can I have the details of the game that you played with Nacho? The mod name specifically interests me. I just want to prove that 1 part of your table wrong. Although this has been said already, all the mods, choose the roles of people at random.
Also, finding you a bit scummy, since you refer to me and Workdawg towards something you're answering, yet I didn't quite ask. Plus you keep referring to the more experienced players more often. We're not the only ones here.
One last thing:

Guilty until proven innocent.

This basically means that everyone here is scum, even you. You can't prove anything until a flip occurs, or pretty much late game, when someone slips and their gamble crumbles. I got lynched for this in my first newbie game here.

It's a number arbitrarily given by me. Why was it such a huge deal that my rating on someone was different from everyone else? What is the big deal when the numbers I give on the table don't amount to anything by themselves, are dictated by the reads and vibes I get from the players? What reason is there for you to have not just discarded it as needless fluff, what purpose do you have in bringing it up, what motivation could there be?
I speculate the same reason why Dawg is so knit-picky about it; finding an easy town-lynch so you two can proceed to spread confusion and win the game for yourselves as scum.

And I noticed that I am not alone in this assumption of a stels/dawg scum-team.
Neuky in ISO #6 makes that statement.
To save you a click, here is that post:

Just want to add - yes I'm thinking currently of a Dawg / Stels partnership

- and I've just seen Dawg's post 77 -

Stels

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

Had to whoop when I saw this! "Yep Stels a townie, except if he flips scum, he could just have been helping me out as SE"...

I now feel that Dawg and Stels are scum this game. That Stels voted for Ty, followed by the failhammer by Dawg, Dawg shifts his focus to me. Now seemingly mimicking Dawg, Stels uses those same arguments of his reworded and votes for me, accusing me of scum. Stels states flat-out

@Neuky: The "trying to appear to be something you are not, isn't helpful at all". This is SE advice for not just dawg, but for everyone here (my advice isn't just for everyone to see that I'm supporting just one player, it's meant for everyone to look at).

Town wouldn't be concerned at appearing scummy, since they are town. That's the general gist of it. If he still cares about trying to appear town, I'll hop onto his wagon.

If I learned anything from my first newbie game, reluctance to suspect a person when others are already suspicious of a person for pretty solid reasons makes that first person scum. Stels says that if dawg is worried about appearing as town and continues to be so, he'll jump to his wagon.

Dawg's done that a great deal this entire game, and I'm not the only one to pick up on it.

This is what made me say that Dawg/Stels scum is a likelihood.

[Mute]

EBWOP:

@ Mod: vote count s'il vous plait?

If my math's right, both Dawg and I are at L-2, as it stands with Ty's and Stel's latest votes.

[Mute]

Also EBWOP:
post 155... substitute any instances of "bad case," or any variations of such, with "good case."

See this is why you should proofread thoroughly guys/gals. =|

[Nachomamma8]

V/LA lasting longer than expected, but I will make a post in here tomorrow.

[theplague42]

EBWOP:

@ Mod: vote count s'il vous plait?

If my math's right, both Dawg and I are at L-2, as it stands with Ty's and Stel's latest votes.

You FoS'd Stels because he didn't announce that his vote put Workdawg at L-2. Why exactly is that scummy? There isn't much difference between L-2 and L-3, so should people be forced to announce at L-3? Following that logic, L-3 and L-4 aren't that different of situations, either. So should we announce that we're putting the

second

vote on someone? No, we shouldn't. It's one of those things where if you try to use it as a scumtell, there's nowhere to draw the line that says "beneath this is not a scumtell." Not announcing L-1 is definitely suspicious, but even that isn't a cut-and-dry scumtell. Anything below that, YMMD. Following this, why didn't you say anything about Ty putting Workdawg at L-2 w/o saying anythings? I don't agree that he should have to, but your views are inconsistent. Basically, what I'm getting from this is that people should announce that they are putting

you

within a half lightyear of a lynch, but anyone else is fair game? Seems like you're awfully nervous about getting even remotely close to a lynch.

[Mute]

EBWOP:

@ Mod: vote count s'il vous plait?

If my math's right, both Dawg and I are at L-2, as it stands with Ty's and Stel's latest votes.

You FoS'd Stels because he didn't announce that his vote put Workdawg at L-2. Why exactly is that scummy? There isn't much difference between L-2 and L-3, so should people be forced to announce at L-3? Following that logic, L-3 and L-4 aren't that different of situations, either. So should we announce that we're putting the

second

vote on someone? No, we shouldn't. It's one of those things where if you try to use it as a scumtell, there's nowhere to draw the line that says "beneath this is not a scumtell." Not announcing L-1 is definitely suspicious, but even that isn't a cut-and-dry scumtell. Anything below that, YMMD. Following this, why didn't you say anything about Ty putting Workdawg at L-2 w/o saying anythings? I don't agree that he should have to, but your views are inconsistent. Basically, what I'm getting from this is that people should announce that they are putting

you

within a half lightyear of a lynch, but anyone else is fair game? Seems like you're awfully nervous about getting even remotely close to a lynch.

In a game I started to play in another forum I was attacked left and right for not proclaiming that the person I was voting for was at L-2 when I voted for them. I'm not sure if I'd be allowed to talk about it more than that as I had to sub out of it, but suffice to say I got chewed out by nearly everyone there, so whenever someone's gonna be at L-2 or L-1, I'm gonna announce it regardless.

[Mute]

...EBWOP
****ing shift key.

By another forum, I meant within MS. It's in the Little Italy forum and is still going on now, which is why I'm not sure on whether I can say more about it.

[theplague42]

You probably shouldn't have even said that much. I'm not entirely sure what counts as "discussing ongoing games," so we'll have to wait for Drench for a ruling.

[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.

[asano234]

hey all sorry for my absence. I have had rubbish internet connection all weekend. I will catch up and post today.

[asano234]

Vote Mute

Purely on the basis that i am sick of the arguments about the table. I am torn between workdawg and mute but the table issue is swinging it for me.

@stels. Thanks for the welcome though somewhat derogatory, but thanks all the same. For your information i do read the posts very carefully and have not posted much as i have not had anything to contribute of value as still getting a feel. I did like your breakdown of where you are at as it was clear and well defined whereas the table given by mute is random at best.

I will detail my arguments for workdawg and Mute later today as i have to go to work. (it is more than the table).

Take care all

[Drench]

The Fourth Vote Count - replacements!

theplague42
Neuky
Mute - 4 - theplague42, Workdawg, Stels, asano234
Workdawg - 3 - Neuky, Mute, Ty
asano234
veridis
Stels
Ty
Nachomamma8

No Lynch

Not Voting - 2 - veridis, Nachomamma8

With nine alive, it's five to lynch!

Day One's deadline expires on the 8th of February at 11:07am AEDST (GMT+11).

veridis replaces Naben.

[Neuky]

Well Asano - you just put Mute at L-1 without saying so. Strange, considering the recent discussion about announcing an L-2 vote, let along an L-1.

Also welcome to veridis (name rings a bell, so maybe I've read a previous game you were in!)

More to follow...

[Mute]

Welcome and thank you Veridis for coming in.
A side-question about your name: fan of Daft Punk I guess? =P

[Neuky]

OK - some things I have to put right about Stel's nicely presented, but flawed ISO post. I'm sticking to the comments about me.

1.

"Comments on how Mute should write his table: only scum-reads and not town reads. Doesn't object the table, but his demands basically means that Mute's table shouldn't exist anymore, since he needs to show his scum suspects only, defeating the table's purpose. Also is a bit hypocritical here, saying that Mute can't look for town, but he himself is looking for both town and scum..."

OK - Mute said the table was for himself mainly, and that on occasion he might put it up at the start of a day. I have asked him to just post the scummiest people in his table, and keep his impressions on who he thinks is townie to himself. How can you say this means I'm stopping him writing his table any way he wants? The second part is a falsehood or a major misunderstanding. I have never asked him not to look for town. I'm sure even Mute would agree with that.

2.

"Votes Workdawg based on Workdawg's comment that he doesn't like his table. Votes for a person who doesn't like the table by someone who also thinks the table is not needed... That being his sole reason."

Wrong - sole reason? - I voted because he stated he wasn't for looking for town. He was emotional and a bit aggresive in his response to Mute. He said he didn't care how Mute came to a vote. The post is here.

3. Implies my initial vote on Mute in my first post of the game was not random - Completely untrue.
4.

"Please tell me what's wrong with the two quotes above? Thank you."

- Have to disagree with you again - My apology to mute was that I used the geek smiley again. (3rd time in the game!)

5. Thanks for the clarification of your vote - FTR Ty's question seemd tongue in cheek to me.

Nothing here that doesn't at least maintain my suspicions, if not increase them.

[Mute]

Question to all since I've still got the mouth to speak with (lol name pun):
Whenever anyone posts an ISO post of several people, do you read all of it, or just the part that is directed towards you, and (slightly) skim over the rest (if at all)?

I myself am a victim of the latter a lot. I only ever read a persons entire ISO post if I'm really looking for something.

[Mute]

@asano: what exactly is it about the table and the arguments thereof that you feel is worthy of voting and putting me at L-1? Being vague does not but make you seem scummy to place a vote solely because "Purely on the basis that i am sick of the arguments about the table." Am I correct in understanding that you're tired of hearing about the table, and am voting me just to get rid of me to end the arguments altogether?

@workdawg: "Can you elaborate on how "your gut" gets me to 84?" As I said the table serves to try and quantify the suspicions I have of a person. As to the dissonance- ever want to do one thing, but something in your head says "no don't do that?" Same thing here. I

want

to put you at 84 (gut), but from the game I felt that 79 was far more fitting. Either way they both fall into the scum-watch side of the number scale. *shrug*
Also I haven't had taco bell for a few months. I don't enjoy their sauces and their peppers, and the only nearest one is conjoined with a long john silvers... ew.

[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.)