Open 289 - Hard Boiled - Game over.

[Vordark]

Vote: ConSpiracy

for being 1st.

[Vordark]

Hi, everyone. Time for some obligatory opening questions--

What time zone are you in?

RVS or RQS? Why?

What is your experience level with Mafia?

How active can we expect you to be?

America/New_York (technically New Hampshire)

I think RVS is harmless and RQS is interesting. I don't think either is particularly useful as a rule, but then I'm new at this.

One Newbie game under way, one game completed on another site. I'm fascinated by it though and have been reading these forums and wiki voraciously.

I should be very active. I have a lot of screen time so I'll be keeping up with the thread and likely posting more than once a day.

[Vordark]

Catching up on the thread. Moving IRL and it

sucks

. Here's the stream of consciousness as I read.

13 - From iamusername. Something about this vote bugs me. RVS of someone with a vote already on them seems strange.

14 - Krazy's call for "policy lynch", to which I can only respond "Huh?".

16 - This is obviously trying to get a bandwagon going on the most viable person. It's a null tell for me on page one, but at least it gets people talking.

17 - I don't like DarthYoshi's vote at all here. There's nothing inherently "sketch" about ConSpiracy's vote in #16. You might not find scum on page one, but getting people talking sooner rather than later is always a good thing.

19 - OMGUS vote from Umbrage.

21 - From Ablecain. The first part of this post seems pro-town to me.

24 - Yeah, well that's just, like, your opinion man.

26 - Umbrage defends his OMGUS vote, then uses a lot of words to put suspicion on Xtoxm for going with RQS.

30 - Hmmm...

32 - I like this post and vote.

33 - ConSpiracy highlights the issue in #26. This post seems pro-town to me.

34 - Snake Eyes noting he finds Xtoxm's lack of real discussion strange. It's only post #34 which seems a bit early to me to point out activity patterns as tells of any kind.

35 - Umbrage again. Don't agree with most of this. Not actively moving to get us out of RVS might not be a scum tell, but people doing so are more pro-town. The last paragraph of this post seems strange to me.

36 - From Abelcain. I like most of this post. I don't like the reasoning of "saying something outrageous and making it sound serious" in order to "get a reaction". That seems like an easy way to backpedal on something you've been called on.

39 - Another OMGUS vote from Umbrage.

41 - I like very little of Umbrage's post here. The first part is trying to flip a fair question, the second continues to focus on ConSpiracy, etc.

42 - I agree with Snake Eyes here.

43, 44 - Krazy certainly doesn't seem to like Ythan.

45 - Great post from Abelcain.

46 - Umbrage continues what I think is turning into a downward spiral.

47 - DarthYoshi post. Why wouldn't we want to move out of RVS and into meaningful discussion? Not seeing a lot of what I'd call "defense" from Snake Eyes. That smells a bit like a chainsaw to me, but eh. I agree with the rest.

48 - Krazy post. To DarthYoshi: "What gave you the impression I don't like Ythan?" Gee, I wonder. The last paragraph is an obvious deflection.

50 - I like all of Snake Eyes's post here.

52 - Umbrage post. "I was setting myself up as bait and you [Snake Eyes] bit." There's a lot of "I'm going to do scummy things so that I can find the scum" reasoning going around. That doesn't seem helpful.

53 - Krazy: "I'm not Ythan's best friend, for sure, but I don't particularly dislike him either." Yes you do.

56 - Very little of Umbrage's post here makes any sense to me.

58 - I like all of Abelcain's post here.

60 - Krazy asking for mod-prod of Ythan. I think either a puppy was kicked or a girlfriend was stolen.

To sum up:

Unvote: ConSpiracy
Vote: Umbrage

Right now I'm leaning town on Snake Eyes and ConSpiracy, neutral on Abelcain given the "act scummy" tactic use. Umbrage seems to be doing a lot of OMGUS voting and a whole lot of flipping out for a relatively painless page one, three-vote, get us out of RVS bandwagon. And the whole act scummy to see who bites thing is just silly. DarthYoshi's jumping on ConSpiracy and then Snake Eyes for "defending" him seems odd as well. And I think Krazy needs to focus on

this

game.

Oh, and knock-knock Ythan, TheBigLebowski and Quaroath. Not a lot of verbiage coming from the three of you.

[Vordark]

Grrpsrtrts!

Unvote: ConSpiracy
Vote: Umbrage

[Vordark]

I don't really like Umbrage's 39 either, but people are just ignoring my questions about Ythan. I don't like Xtoxm and Ythan doing nothing, the less they participate the easier it is for them to become free night-kill targets for the scum, or even worse be cruising scum themselves. Even if Umbrage is scum, which I'm still not sure of, he certainly has to have allies. I am not just filled with overpowering rage, Ythan has no relational tells whatsoever and at least Xtoxm was discussed by a few people. I am fine with my vote until Ythan comes back or is replaced.

You have failed to mention either TheBigLebowski or Quaroath. Is there a reason their lack of activity is less worthy of note? TheBigLebowski also posted last before Ythan, yet he was the only one you asked the mod to prod. Can you explain why that is?

[Vordark]

Umbrage seems to be doing a lot of OMGUS voting and a whole lot of flipping out for a relatively painless page one, three-vote, get us out of RVS bandwagon. And the whole act scummy to see who bites thing is just silly.

OH I'M SORRY FOR SCUMHUNTING WHILE YOU'VE BEEN PICKING YOUR NOSE. You clearly don't understand what you are talking about, because the very nature of the gambit I pulled means that I will have to attack the people who attack me. It is only OMGUS if you do not provide reasoning for your votes. I've provided reasoning every step of the way. The only reasoning you've provided is that I'm 'silly'.

a relatively painless page one, three-vote, get us out of RVS bandwagon.

NO!!!!!!! WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! SNAKE EYES SAID THAT HE FOUND ME SCUMMY!!!!!!!!! I HAVE PROVEN IT WAS NOT A GET-OUT-OF-RVS BANDWAGON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN FUCKING READING THE FUCKING THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have to go lie down...

Your insights are fascinating. I can tell because you are using all caps, superfluous exclamation points and swearing. Are you going to settle down and be civilized after your nap?

[Vordark]

I'm not going to make a response to Umbrage because if I'm lucky town will just lynch him quickly and nobody will notice I'm not reading anything!

If you wish a different response from me than what you received, you might have better luck by being civil and stating your questions or concerns in a manner consist with rational adults. Now, do you have a point to make or question to ask, or are you just going to continue deflecting by being rude?

[Vordark]

36 - From Abelcain. I like most of this post. I don't like the reasoning of "saying something outrageous and making it sound serious" in order to "get a reaction". That seems like an easy way to backpedal on something you've been called on.

You do realize you're thinking that I'm backpedaling about my attack on someone's

signature

right? I admit, I was hoping to see Krazy get nervous because his signature happened to contain the name of someone in this game completely by accident and it looked like I was taking it seriously. But at least in my next post I admitted that my comment was just a ploy and not in any way serious, unlike someone who assured us that he was really serious and told us much later that he was setting himself up as bait.

I was commenting on the general reasoning. The basic idea of doing something most would consider scummy as some sort of ploy or gambit is as likely to confuse and distract the town as it is to gain any real insight. If such a tactic is accepted by the town as legit, then it opens the door for anyone to say "Oh, that was just a gambit" when called on something scummy. True, your specific case, in isolation, is almost certainly harmless, but any time that reasoning is employed, I think it should be attacked.

I noted that I'm neutral toward you right now because you chose to employ that reasoning. The rest of your posts all seem good to me.

13 - From iamusername. Something about this vote bugs me. RVS of someone with a vote already on them seems strange.

16 - This is obviously trying to get a bandwagon going on the most viable person. It's a null tell for me on page one, but at least it gets people talking.

These two comments, in one post, seem to contradict each other. Additionally this is a long ass post with a poor way of referring to the posts in question. Please use quotes, and if you could do so to clarify the points you're still holding onto at this point in the game I would like that.

This is very strange. Care to explain Vordark?

There is nothing strange here. iamusername represented his vote as an RVS. His vote landed on someone who already had a vote on them. It seems odd that someone would chose to RVS someone with an existing vote. CS did not attempt to represent his vote as an RVS vote at all, instead he asked Umbrage his thoughts on people in the same text, making it clear that he meant to get a bandwagon going.

@Ythan: I have seen this manner of playing thread catch-up used in many games in the archive. If ever the exact text of the post I'm referring to is important (such as when I am making a direct reply), I will use quotes.

[Vordark]

Vordark:

The basic idea of doing something most would consider scummy as some sort of ploy or gambit is as likely to confuse and distract the town as it is to gain any real insight. If such a tactic is accepted by the town as legit, then it opens the door for anyone to say "Oh, that was just a gambit" when called on something scummy. True, your specific case, in isolation, is almost certainly harmless, but any time that reasoning is employed, I think it should be attacked.

You do realize there has already been a fair amount of people explaining away potentially odd actions and votes with, "Oh, it was a ploy to get a reaction?"

Yes. In fact, I believe I have already said just that.

Vordark:

Vordark: Why wouldn't we want to move out of RVS and into meaningful discussion?

Hadn’t heard from a number of players at that point, but I think this is a more fast-paced game than I was either feeling or anticipating, so at this point, I don’t really care. Also—what exactly are you seeing as a chainsaw? You’re saying my behavior is ‘odd’ and not really saying anything as to why.

I have seen nothing as definitively chainsaw. The actual statement I made is as follows:

47 - DarthYoshi post. Why wouldn't we want to move out of RVS and into meaningful discussion? Not seeing a lot of what I'd call "defense" from Snake Eyes. That smells a bit like a chainsaw to me, but eh. I agree with the rest.

You jumped on Snake Eyes when he wrote what you deemed a "defense" of ConSpiracy. That "smells a bit like a chainsaw to me, but eh". Attacking someone who supports another player, purely on the basis that they are supporting them, seems fishy. The closest example in my mind to that type of behavior is the chainsaw defense.

[Vordark]

So are you going to ever address any player other than me or is this just going to be a quote war?

I would like us all to take a moment and address how ironic this post is.

VOTE: TheBigLebowski

You're obviously not lurking, so what the hell are you doing?

Actually I just came back to the game now.

The reason the post was ironic was that for the last 2 pages krazy was attacking Ythil, then accuses him of only attacking him. Therefore I thought it was ironic.

TheBigLebowski -> werewolf555? It'd be nice if alts could be kept straight if this is the case.

[Vordark]

Post #122...

ONE LAST NOTE: I'm leaning toward Krazy and Ythan being scum together, and doing this shit to try and distract the town from any actual real scumhunting. I haven't read all of their back and forth, and I don't plan on doing so. They are making this thread almost impossible to read. I will say again: KEEP YOUR PERSONAL SHIT OUT OF THIS GOD-DAMNED THREAD!

Then in #147...

Ythan's last two posts sum up my attitude toward Krazy perfectly.

@ Krazy: Either let your pissing match with Ythan drop or replace out of this game now. I'm considering a policy lynch on you at this point. If Ythan does something scummy, we will notice it. You don't have to yell at us to focus on him. I don't know what happened in your past with him, and I don't care. Keep it OUT OF THIS THREAD.

For reference, the posts Umbrage refers to...

You disagree with the reasoning and yet support the suspicion. Because you're an intense tunneler.

Your capacity to detect sarcasm never ceases to astound me. And are you still mad about the prod or what? "shitfit" = me asking you to post "content" and not just informing us that you're reading the isos of the V/LA players?

inb4qqaboutrespondingtoYthan.

Calling it sarcasm now. Yeah okay. And no, you cannot begin to hope to characterize your focus on me as an attempt to produce content. You're a horrible, shitty, tunneling VI, and you're doing nothing but creating noise. Obnoxious, terrible noise.

Krazy, you're not doing anything with Lebowski. You just picked out an arbitrary lurker to shift your vote to so you could pretend you're not tunneling. But moving your vote alone doesn't change anything. You're still a tunneling idiot.

vote Umbrage

Do you believe Krazy and Ythan to be scum, deliberately staging this spat so as to distract the town? Your subsequent post indicates that you believe as Ythan says, that Krazy is "a horrible, shitty, tunneling VI".

@Krazy: Do you have any real thoughts or analysis to share about any player here that is

not

Ythan,

and

that does not involve their reactions (or lack thereof) to Ythan and what you have said about him?

@TBL: I'd like to hear your thoughts on the conversations concerning Umbrage, Snake Eyes and Abelcain?

[Vordark]

See the end of #131.

Okay. The end of #131...

The reason the post was ironic was that for the last 2 pages krazy was attacking Ythil, then accuses him of only attacking him. Therefore I thought it was ironic.

Please try to keep players straight. Ythil and Ythan are different players. Very different.

I'm getting mostly town vibes from the more active players, with the sole exception of Ythan, whose reactions to the assault from Krazy look a bit too complacent for what I would expect from a townie.

Although I always approve of suspicion of Ythan... "complacent"... really? That is not really how I would characterize his last 10 posts toward me.

YES THAT WAS MY FUCKING MASTER PLAN I NEEDED AN EXCUSE TO OMGUS PEOPLE SO I CREATED THIS GAMBIT BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW HOW WELL OMGUS WORKS AND IT IS SUCH A GOOD THING TO DO AS SCUM.

ONE LAST NOTE: I'm leaning toward Krazy and Ythan being scum together, and doing this shit to try and distract the town from any actual real scumhunting. I haven't read all of their back and forth, and I don't plan on doing so. They are making this thread almost impossible to read.

Umbrage, I would like you to look at these two points from the same post and compare them to each other; and then think about how people react to your rage-caps posts.

TBL seems to want to snipe at me without saying anything of substance while Xtoxm seems to want to come off as reading Ythan's posts while not actually doing so. Both just graduated a step above Quaroth in my list. Umbrage continues to strike me as flailtown, although it's interesting that he continues with the rage-caps the next day, after I mentioned it.

I would say DarthYoshi was +1 for pulling a tl;dr attack, except I know from experience that tl;dr is a common town reaction to exchanges with Ythan. How about this Darth: Instead of QQing about my quote war with him, why don't you ask him a few more questions yourself? Again, both you and Ythan can QQ about me "tunneling" on him, but that doesn't excuse you from not engaging him at all.

So, do you have any real thoughts or analysis to share about any player here that is

not

Ythan,

and

that does not involve their reactions (or lack thereof) to Ythan and what you have said about him?

[Vordark]

Umbrage seems to be losing it but I still fail to see how his hysterics translates into scumplay. Insofar as he has been hysterical, it's difficult saying one player has been scummier than another in joining the wagon on him, since most are making good criticisms of him. However, it seems probable that at least one person on the Umbrage wagon is scum. Even if Umbrage is scum himself, his position in this game could lead to early wagoning, however I do not currently believe that to be the case. But since there so much room to make compelling criticism of Umbrage, I don't think any scum player has needed to stretch themselves to join the wagon. I will probably re-read the wagon on him once more people have caught up on the game or there is a flip. Continuing to grill Umbrage only makes it easier for lurkers to join the wagon on him when they do return to the game.

So, are you saying that you believe Umbrage is town?

But since there so much room to make compelling criticism of Umbrage, I don't think any scum player has needed to stretch themselves to join the wagon. I will probably re-read the wagon on him once more people have caught up on the game or there is a flip. Continuing to grill Umbrage only makes it easier for lurkers to join the wagon on him when they do return to the game.

This bit seems to be saying that a bandwagon on a player for which there is "so much room to make compelling criticism" is bad, and that the more they are pressed the worse off we are. This appears to run contrary to the idea of scum hunting. Can you elaborate on your thought process here?

[Vordark]

I don't understand why you would immediately assume ConSpiracy had some ulterior motives, as asking questions in early game can only help move the game forward.

Well, my questioning ConSpiracy's motives could only help move the game forward, so what's the problem?

I think Snake's question here was valid, but no answer.

I read this as an answer. What sort of answer were you looking for here?

When I voted ConSpiracy, I made sure to let everyone know it was a serious vote. I was setting myself up as bait, and you bit.

I threw out that bit about xtoxm because I wanted to see who would either attack him, or come to his aid. Snake did the latter. Same basic principle with the vote on you.

Two explanatory posts for the xtoxm comment, I want these to be easy to find so I'm including them here. I find it odd that you say you wanted to see who would attack or defend him when you said you didn't find his behavior scummy in the first place. Also, the vote on Con was the same thing? That seemed different. It was an actual attack, wasn't it?

This seems to indicate that who attacks or defends a person showing non-scummy behavior isn't useful. Can you explain what you meant by this?

[Vordark]

@vordark: Would you mind sharing your thoughts on Darth Yoshi as well? I’m curious about what you think. Of all the active people he’s the one you’ve had the least involvement/interaction with in my eyes.

He's on my list to ISO this morning, so I'll do him first. His first post brings us a pretty typical RQS and a random vote, as well as notes he'll generally be active. Nothing really stands out there.

@ConSpiracy: Voting a player who already has two RVS votes on them, but without giving a reason for the vote (RVS or otherwise)? Sketch.

Unvote. Vote: ConSpiracy.

@Krazy: I've never played a game with Ythan. Why should we be policy lynching him?

@Quaraoth: The Blazers suck, but Portland rules (I lived there for four years before moving to Bezerkeley). (Cue Fred Armisen singing, "The dream of the '90s is alive in Portland...")

DY's second post (above) starts with the declaration that CS's vote on Umbrage didn't include a reason for the vote and is "sketch". I disagree. Getting a three or four vote wagon on someone early helps us get out of the RVS and into some meaningful discussion. With the "any thoughts" comment CS dropped along with the vote, he's not trying to put suspicion on Umbrage, but rather to get a conversation going. That doesn't seem "sketch" to me, so DY's comment here seems strange.

@Conspiracy--first, why the need to exit us out of RVS? Second, why the need to do so with an unexplained bandwagon vote?

@Snake Eyes--why are you defending Conspiracy so hard?

@Umbrage--do you plan on making a vote at some point that doesn't look like an OMGUS vote?

@Krazy--so you're going to change your reasons for a vote just to keep a vote on a person you don't like? Lamesauce.

@Abelcain--not sure I liked your tactic, but I agree with your assessment of Krazy in #36.

I don't like this post very much. The question "why the need to exit us out of RVS" doesn't vibe as town at all to me. The sooner we're out of RVS and into discussion and debate, the better. Anything that moves us along in that regard is better and I can't think why someone town would disagree. He also reiterates his statement that CS's vote was unexplained.

The next comment, directed at Snake Eyes, accuses him of defending CS. There was nothing in SE's posts that struck me as a "defense" of CS.

The last two comments are both critical of Krazy. Something about the attention DY is giving Krazy rubs me the wrong way. I'll comment on it further as I move through his posts here.

Snake Eyes defends Conspiracy:

I don't understand why you would immediately assume ConSpiracy had some ulterior motives, as asking questions in early game can only help move the game forward.

Snake Eyes sez:

Not so much defending Conspiracy.

Um, right.

Snake Eyes:

The whole idea of a premature bandwagon is a fallacy.

How so?

More Snake Eyes:

There's definitely an unnatural player relation there, and should Umbrage flip scum, I'd start looking for his scumbuddies in xtoxm

Hunting for scumpairs before there have been any flips is junk science.

Also, why do you have a town read on Conspiracy?

This post is longer, so I'll take it in chunks here and below. The first part is DY's case that SE is defending CS. Two quotes and an "Um, right". Again, not a defense. The "Hunting for scumpairs before there have been any flips is junk science" comment is strange as well. SE is talking about what happens "should Umbrage flip scum". It is also natural, and necessary, to look for relationships between the players as early as possible. All in all, it's a suspicious sentence.

Krazy:

What gave you the impression I don't like Ythan?

Your ISO, brief though it is, certainly gives the impression that you don't particularly care for him. If my characterization was inaccurate, my heartiest apologies.

Krazy:

Do you have a problem with my current vote on Ythan?

Yes.

Krazy:

You have no problem with him not voting?

Not as much as you apparently do.

Krazy:

Are you now ignoring both non-votes or being selective?

Neither. Commenting on every single thing is something I have neither the time or inclination to do. Tell me why him not RVSing is scummy. If you want me to hop onto that wagon, convince me.

More about Krazy. The one word or single sentence replies don't really give us anything and have the feel like it's spurring Krazy on. He also notes "Commenting on every single thing is something I have neither the time or inclination to do", but he ends up spending much more time engaging Krazy that I think is reasonable. As in...

@Krazy: Right now, your vote just looks like an attempt to make it look like you weren’t tunneling on Ythan. Which you were. I completely agree that the town should be pressing lurkers to participate, but you still seem to really only care about one lurker.

Krazy:

He completely ignored my query about Ythan, which makes him tunneling already if nothing else

Pot, kettle, black, yada yada yada. Also, I’m basically ignoring posts #84-117, because I don’t care remotely enough about your’s and Ythan’s schoolyard screaming match to read those walls.

I think at this point in the thread, the better course of action was to encourage Krazy to get off the Ythan kick by asking him other questions. This part of the post just strikes me as egging him on. He also "[doesn't] care remotely enough about your's and Ythan's schoolyeard screaming match to read those walls", but he does keep engaging Krazy.

Snake Eyes:

Votes and bandwagons give the discussion context. You'd never get anywhere without votes. Do you not agree?

With votes, sure. There’s a reason RVS exists. But there is also a reason why it is called RVS and not RBS.

Snake Eyes:

Just a slight townie vibe, from his initial questioning of Umbrage.

What specifically about his questioning of Umbrage gave you a townie vibe?

Vordark:

Vordark: Why wouldn't we want to move out of RVS and into meaningful discussion?

Hadn’t heard from a number of players at that point, but I think this is a more fast-paced game than I was either feeling or anticipating, so at this point, I don’t really care. Also—what exactly are you seeing as a chainsaw? You’re saying my behavior is ‘odd’ and not really saying anything as to why.

The first part of this snippet and the first sentence of the last paragraph strike me as odd when taken together. The first bit remains critical of CS's early bandwagon vote on Umbrage, but the sentence I indicated appears to back off that opinion with "I think this is a more fast-paced game than I was either feeling or anticipating". I'm wondering which it is.

Anway, later in the same post...

@Town as a whole--though I was uneasy with CS’s vote on Umbrage, he hasn’t done anything after that to really set off my scumdar, so my read on him is mostly neutral. My vote is better served elsewhere atm.

Unvote. Vote: Krazy.

Your play so far has been hellaciously anti-town, regardless of your alignment.

I think any vote outside of the RVS needs at least a few words of explanation as to why you are voting

for

someone, but I find it suspicious when someone makes a show of why they are taking it

off

of someone when they move it. It's worrying about appearances and that's something more likely to come from scum than town.

Next up...

Wow, you people talk a lot.

Krazy:

AKA: ur a hypocrite, but also tl;dr. Usually you can make one criticism or the other, Darth, not both

Why not both?

Krazy:

but I also encourage you to actually back up your accusation.

Do you really want me to compile a list of every single player who saw the irony in you making a tunneling accusation?

Krazy:

tl;dr is anti-town too.

Tl:dr had less to do with it. I didn’t read those posts because I like feeling happy about life.

Krazy:

Should we have a "who can be more anti-town" contest?

No. I’m pretty sure you’d kick my ass.

Krazy:

but is your case ever going to be anything other than tl;dr?

My motives for voting you also included the tunneling on Ythan (including, at that point, no desire to scumhunt on anyone else) as well as suggesting a policy lynch for no reason at the outset of D1. All in all, very anti-town play.

Krazy:

How about this Darth: Instead of QQing about my quote war with him, why don't you ask him a few more questions yourself? Again, both you and Ythan can QQ about me "tunneling" on him, but that doesn't excuse you from not engaging him at all.

I did. I asked him when we could expect non-Krazy related content from him, and he basically shrugged off the question. Which I didn’t like. I’m paying attention to everyone, not just you.

All of that being said—I actually am liking your attempts to scumhunt on the lurkers, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if there is a scum or two there, just hanging out while the town points fingers at one another. Your responses to me are such that I am fine with my vote remaining where it is for the time being, however.

This is a lot of Krazy-baiting. Krazy has actually started to settle down and contribute something. DY's reply was unnecessary and I think anyone that really wanted to focus the town would have let Krazy's comments slide, or at least tried more to defuse the situation than to egg him on, which this appears to do. He drops a sentence as props on Krazy's hunting of the lurkers, but makes sure he explains that his vote is staying on Krazy because of his responses. I read that last sentence as encouraging Krazy to keep engaging.

To summarize: Some of what DY is critical of I actually read as pro-town (moving us out of RVS, looking for relationships between players), he spent too much time FoSing CS's bandwagon on Umbrage while saying CS gave no reason for it, appeared to backtrack on that in the same post he continued to defend it and looks like he's trying to keep the Krazy train running. I also don't like how he felt the need to tell us why he moved his vote off Umbrage when he voted for Krazy.

So, I'm suspicious of DarthYoshi at this point.

[Vordark]

I don't like this post very much. The question "why the need to exit us out of RVS" doesn't vibe as town at all to me. The sooner we're out of RVS and into discussion and debate, the better. Anything that moves us along in that regard is better and I can't think why someone town would disagree.

I already explained my reasoning—that we hadn’t heard from much of the town when we exited RVS. Do you actually want to respond to that, as opposed to openly supposing why someone would ask about the need to exit RVS?

I already responded and pointed out the contradiction I see. You even quote my response below. It is disingenuous to claim that I have not.

The first part is DY's case that SE is defending CS. Two quotes and an "Um, right". Again, not a defense.

You say it isn’t without explaining why. I say it is without explaining why (although I feel like a sentence that attempts to attribute town motive to a person kinda constitutes defending them…odd, I know). Looks like we’re tied.

I have already explained this too. Interesting.

The "Hunting for scumpairs before there have been any flips is junk science" comment is strange as well. SE is talking about what happens "should Umbrage flip scum". It is also natural, and necessary, to look for relationships between the players as early as possible. All in all, it's a suspicious sentence.

Yeah, there totally is not any scum motivation in insinuating relationships between players. Totally not a way to tee up future (mis)lynches.

I personally think that hypothesizing about relationships so early in the game needs to be taken with a few grains of salt. Associative tells only become tells usually when flips have occurred. Meta me, and you’ll see I hold to this belief as town.

Your first bit is obviously committing the fallacy of the excluded middle. Also your comment that looking at relationships so early in the game "needs to be taken with a few grains of salt" is backing off your earlier, much stronger statement that it is "junk science". Discussing associative tells before a flip is useful, if for no other reason than making it easier to pick out after a flip.

I would also like to point out that your noting SE's "defense" of CS is no different. You are trying to put a focus on the relationship there every time you call it a "defense", and every time you press SE on the point. Why is it scum hunting when you do it, junk science when others do it?

He also notes "Commenting on every single thing is something I have neither the time or inclination to do", but he ends up spending much more time engaging Krazy that I think is reasonable.

If my vote is on someone because I’m scumhunting them, I’m probably going to spend a little more time replying to their posts, no?

That defense only works if we believe your motive is scum hunting. I am unconvinced at this point.

Also, this is just fluff. What is “reasonable” is often completely subjective. I’m clearly engaging other players as well, if you want to accuse me of tunneling, then just come out and say it.

I am not accusing you of tunneling. I am questioning whether your engaging of Krazy is an attempt to keep the distraction going. I believe I made that clear. It is interesting that you are trying to re-frame it as an accusation of tunneling.

This part of the post just strikes me as egging him on.

So why aren’t you calling out the other umpteen players who pointed out said irony?

My pointing out your behavior now does not preclude my pointing out the behavior of others if I see the need once I have ISO'd them. It is interesting that you are asking this question as a defense when I've made it clear that you are my first ISO of the day, not my only.

but he does keep engaging Krazy.

So…what you’re saying is, putting concerted pressure on a player who has been behaving anti-town is bad? Because that’s sure what it looks like you’re saying.

Again, this statement only works if we assume you have a town motive. An equally viable explanation for the events is that you are attempting to keep the Krazy train running as a distraction.

The first part of this snippet and the first sentence of the last paragraph strike me as odd when taken together. The first bit remains critical of CS's early bandwagon vote on Umbrage, but the sentence I indicated appears to back off that opinion with "I think this is a more fast-paced game than I was either feeling or anticipating". I'm wondering which it is.

How exactly are those sentiments mutually exclusive?

I believe that is self-evident. Can you explain your reasoning in that post more fully?

I think any vote outside of the RVS needs at least a few words of explanation as to why you are voting forsomeone, but I find it suspicious when someone makes a show of why they are taking it off of someone when they move it. It's worrying about appearances and that's something more likely to come from scum than town.

So, when I don’t think someone is as scummy as I originally thought, I should just not mention that to the town? That’s just bad play right there. Especially if you think it is important for players to be looking for relationships and connections (which you clearly do). If that’s the case, then the town needs to know where I stand on the guy I just had my vote on.

Scum worry more about appearances than town, and are much more likely to feel the need to explain the "little things" than town is.

[Vordark]

Just out of interest, Vordark, why are you voting Umbrage over Yoshi again? Do try to keep your answer as brief as you can, if you don't mind.

cuz

[Vordark]

Hi, everyone. Time for some obligatory opening questions--

What time zone are you in?

RVS or RQS? Why?

What is your experience level with Mafia?

How active can we expect you to be?

I am in GMT. I care not for RVS, and I have not heard of RQS, thought if it's what I think it is I have no problem with that. I am have several years of experience, 30+ games. My activity levels vary considerably, but you can probably expect a post once every couple days.

I'm getting mostly town vibes from the more active players, with the sole exception of Ythan, whose reactions to the assault from Krazy look a bit too complacent for what I would expect from a townie.

I can understand RL only allowing activity here "once every couple of days", but these are the only posts from Xtoxm.

@Xtoxm—what about Ythan’s exchange looked complacent for him? I don’t know what ‘complacent’ Ythan looks like versus ‘not complacent’ Ythan. Also, thoughts on the Umbrage wagon, pleeze.

@Xtoxm - when next you return can you answer this question? Can you also highlight for us a few posts or statements that have lead to your remark "I'm getting mostly town vibes from the more active players"?

[Vordark]

Here I'll do it again in case you didn't see it the first time:

Unvote; Vote: TheBigLebowski

Contribute something.

The reason the post was ironic was that for the last 2 pages krazy was attacking Ythil, then accuses him of only attacking him. Therefore I thought it was ironic.

Please try to keep players straight. Ythil and Ythan are different players. Very different.

1. Is that all you have to say about my comments on irony.
2. Why are you only voting me and not a lurker like iamausername who has only posted twice. This makes it look like you are trying to distance yourself from Ythan

Krazy has one vote and there are several lurkers. Naturally someone has to get the "short straw". Your item #2 is attempting to characterize this mathematical certainty as scummy.

Can you give us your thoughts on some of the players here?

[Vordark]

@ Vordark:

So, let me get this straight.

You think DarthYoshi is scum.

You keep your vote on me.

DarthYoshi votes Xtoxm.

You immediately make a post that quotes Xtoxm, and asks for more content from him.

I smell bussing buddies.

FoS: DarthYoshi and Vordark

You smell me doing several ISOs today (as I have already mentioned), posting as I complete them. I am not finished for today. Perhaps waiting until I

am

before attempting to analyze my posts would be a more productive use of your time?

[Vordark]

The last two comments are both critical of Krazy. Something about the attention DY is giving Krazy rubs me the wrong way. I'll comment on it further as I move through his posts here.

The attention of two references instead of one?

My use of the present tense in the second sentence is to describe an ongoing action, as my third sentence above reinforces.

[Vordark]

Quaroath's ISO is limited due to early lurking, but he's asking many questions I like.

@iamausername

Krazy and I are of like mind, that is the next question I was going to ask and one I would also like to hear the answer to.

Count me on this as well, what in particular about DarthYoshi's posting doesn’t seem town to you? I get a decently town vibe from him. You’ve posted 4 times and have clearly stated you think Darth doesn’t look town in his posts. Why?

On that note, RVS vote needs to come off.

unvote

Now to apply some plz answer pressure

vote: iamausername

@Quaroath: Can you highlight where your "decently town vibe from [DarthYoshi]" is coming from?

[Vordark]

That's my ISOs done for the day. I'll look at the Umbrage/Snake Eyes and Ythan/Krazy interchanges tomorrow.

Unvote
Vote: DarthYoshi

I would like to hear other people's thoughts on DarthYoshi, Quaroath and iamausername.

I also think the lurkers need to question their levels of involvement here. It looks like this will be one of those games that requires a lot of time and effort to read the thread and play properly. If you don't think you can contribute effectively, please ask to be replaced out now. Getting replaced on Day 2 or 3 because you flaked is much harder on everyone, and posting only to avoid modprods will make it easy for one or more scum to hide behind you.

[Vordark]

Iamusername is letting Vordark do all the heavy lifting for him in actually trying to paint me as scummy (and apparently, I'm not the only one to notice). As such, I'll be replying almost entirely to Vordark here. All quotes are from him unless otherwise noted.

I already responded and pointed out the contradiction I see. You even quote my response below. It is disingenuous to claim that I have not.

Yeah, and then you, in so many words, repeated your original line to my response.

I have already explained this too. Interesting.

Dude, I can't explain it any other way--ascribing town motive to someone who is being accused is, in fact, defending them, because noting town motive (at a minimum implicitly) says you don't think they're scummy. That's simply true, let this one go.

You are using a definition of the word "defense" that covers every single person who ever says anything that approaches "I'm leaning town on so-and-so". That's not a particularly useful definition.

Your first bit is obviously committing the fallacy of the excluded middle.

I am unfamiliar with this fallacy. Please explain.

There's an article on the wiki and I'm sure the Googles can help you.

Also your comment that looking at relationships so early in the game "needs to be taken with a few grains of salt" is backing off your earlier, much stronger statement that it is "junk science". Discussing associative tells before a flip is useful, if for no other reason than making it easier to pick out after a flip.

Not really. The idiom is "take it with a grain of salt" in order to express skepticism. By saying a few grains of salt, I am indicating substantial amounts of skepticism. One may view junk science with substantial amounts of skepticism. This is a red herring at best.

I note your lack of a comment concerning the second sentence you quote.

I would also like to point out that your noting SE's "defense" of CS is no different. You are trying to put a focus on the relationship there every time you call it a "defense", and every time you press SE on the point. Why is it scum hunting when you do it, junk science when others do it?

I never implied the existence of a scumpair.

This would be a strawman. You are arguing against something I am not stating. You are attempting to establish a relationship between SE and CS every time you repeat the "defense" remarks. By your own reasoning, SE "defending" CS tells us nothing, so why continue to make the statement? If it

does

tell us something, why call it junk science?

That defense only works if we believe your motive is scum hunting. I am unconvinced at this point.

Nah-uh!

FTFY.

Ah, the good old appeal to emotion and personal attack. No actual remarks as to why you must be scum hunting or an attempt to show by a pattern of your actions that you are. Just this.

I am not accusing you of tunneling. I am questioning whether your engaging of Krazy is an attempt to keep the distraction going. I believe I made that clear. It is interesting that you are trying to re-frame it as an accusation of tunneling.

You accused me of "engaging" Krazy far more than is "reasonable." Last time I checked, that would constitute "tunneling." What I don't understand is how it is pro-town to characterize pressing an at-the-time anti-town player as a "distraction." As Krazy's play picked up, my focus began to shift.

Tunneling is to focus on one player to the exclusion of others. You mentioned others. You also tried to keep Krazy posting by egging him on. Trying to characterize my statements as an accusation of tunneling is attempting to change the debate. Your statement "As Krazy's play picked up, my focus began to shift" is no more viable than "When I got called on my fueling the Krazy train, my focus began to shift". The timing fits just as well.

My pointing out your behavior now does not preclude my pointing out the behavior of others if I see the need once I have ISO'd them. It is interesting that you are asking this question as a defense when I've made it clear that you are my first ISO of the day, not my only.

I'm calling shenanigans here. You did two ISOs, and the other was of one of the least active players in the game. So, if you're using "you aren't the only one I ISOed" as a defense, then yeah, I think my question is a legitimate one. Besides, you're posting frequently enough in real time that I assume you caught all the other players pointing out Krazy's ironic tunneling accusation--why didn't you just call it out then? At this point, your case on me is really contrived and mostly grasping for straws.

I did four ISOs, not two. So there's one problem. "Why didn't you just call it out then?" is more redirection. There are many people in this game. We're at page 11. There are many walls of back and forth discussion. I will get to all of it eventually, that I haven't done so yet or haven't ISO'd someone's pet suspect is not information. That you are trying to push it as such continues to be interesting.

Again, this statement only works if we assume you have a town motive. An equally viable explanation for the events is that you are attempting to keep the Krazy train running as a distraction.

I think I've already addressed this.

Yes you have, with a personal attack.

I believe that is self-evident.

Not to me.

Interesting. You chose not to include the second sentence there. That's the first part of a two sentence paragraph, the entirety of which is:

I believe that is self-evident. Can you explain your reasoning in that post more fully?

Can you answer my question now? Can you also tell us why you chose to deliberately avoid addressing that question to begin with?

Scum worry more about appearances than town, and are much more likely to feel the need to explain the "little things" than town is.

Votes aren't "little things." This is a catch-22--it looks bad if one doesn't explain their vote (see also: Iamusername), but it looks bad if one does explain their vote too?

Another attempt to misrepresent what I said, and I've already explained the point twice. This is also bordering on argument through repetition.

You are not arguing my case like a townie would. Town would not have to misquote, misrepresent and ignore questions or statements in favor of personal attacks in order to make a defense. I also note you don't quote in context, that is you do not include the original statements that mine are in reference to. It's a isolation tactic that makes it easier to misrepresent statements.

[Vordark]

Today's ISO of Snake Eyes...

OK, so my vote on ConSpiracy is about as serious as you can get for page 1 reads. Xtoxm stands out as odd to me, he didn't random vote, he didn't really say hello or anything, he just answered the questions. I'm not saying it's scum or town, it just looks odd.

Why is ConSpiracy asking you specifically a question a somewhat serious scumtell? What about it is more scummy than a person who is arguably not doing much to get the game out of RVS, and why point it out if it's not scummy?

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Umbrage

This is the first post that has content, and it's also part of the ongoing statements by DarthYoshi and Umbrage that SE is defending CS. In this post, SE asks Umbrage a direct question, that being "Why is ConSpiracy asking you specifically a question a somewhat serious scumtell?" That is not a defense, it is asking Umbrage a question as a reaction to Umbrage saying he was "serious" on his vote. In the quote from Umbrage, he also mentions Xtoxm as being "odd to [him]", states he just answered the questions (implying a lack of contribution) then he gives us a null tell with a pinch of suspicion. SE's second sentence asks why Umbrage feels what CS did was more scummy than Xtoxm.

It's a really simple post to break down and doesn't constitute a "defense" of CS any more than asking anyone their reasoning on another player constitutes a defense.

A wee bit later...

Secondly, I already said why it struck me as kind of scummy, it was really out of the blue, I have no idea why he would ask me that unless he knew that I wouldn't give a straight answer and he wanted to make me look bad. That was my reasoning. Unless you happen to know that he had a better reason, why dispute my logic there?

I really do doubt ConSpiracy's motives in asking me that question, but my vote on him was mainly to see how you reacted to a serious vote early in RVS. Just my little way of getting to know you.

I don't understand why you would immediately assume ConSpiracy had some ulterior motives, as asking questions in early game can only help move the game forward. In the quotes above you show such remarkable self-consciousness that I'm starting to think my vote is in the right place.

This is more evidence of the "defense". Again, I'm not seeing it. Umbrage says he doubt's CS's motives and SE is asking him why. If person A says "I think person B is scummy" and person C asks them why, is person C defending B? No.

Agreed, which is why I struggled to understand why you pointed out xtoxm's actions in particular. Well, agreed apart from him trying to skip it. Trying to skip it would mean actively trying to get something going in the game.

I pointed it out to see what the rest of you thought. What do you think of him, exactly? You said he was "a person who is arguably not doing much to get the game out of RVS", which you obviously regard as a scumtell. But instead of going after him, you go after me, why?

I don't think anything of him. You're the one who brought him up. As for why I said he was a person who is arguably not doing much to get the game out of RVS, I said it to see if you would suddenly find it scummy after I said it, or back off of conspiracy. I don't obviously regard it as a scumtell, and I never said I did.

Well, my questioning ConSpiracy's motives could only help move the game forward, so what's the problem?

Haha, is this a serious post? Do I need to explain to you the difference between a guy who is asking questions to get reads off of people, and a guy who thinks that when he's asked a question, he's being set up to look bad?

You mean the quotes that explain that I did what I did to get us out of RVS. You've said that it's bad to prolong RVS, and yet you say I'm scummy. Interesting.

I genuinely think it's scummy that you're paranoid of ulterior motives when someone asks you a fairly innocuous question, yes. If you're truly acting like this out of desire to end the RVS, good job I guess, because we're officially out of RVS now.

@everyone: Stuff is happening. Any thoughts?

This is post #42 in the thread. The only thing I'll note here is that Umbrage is trying to get SE's reasoning for his comment about Xtoxm (which was actually SE asking why Umbrage brought him up). Is this Umbrage defending Xtoxm?

@Snake Eyes--why are you defending Conspiracy so hard?

Not so much defending Conspiracy as I am attacking Umbrage. Here's my thought process on Umbrage in a nutshell:
His #26 set off my scumdar, saying that he had a serious vote on Conspiracy, and then pointing out something unrelated in another player that wasn't even a scumtell. I wanted him to set the record straight on xtoxm, since him pointing xtoxm out as odd was so out of the blue. There's definitely an unnatural player relation there, and should Umbrage flip scum, I'd start looking for his scumbuddies in xtoxm. I also wanted to pressure him on Conspiracy to see if he still found him scummy after some pressure and also to get him to clarify why he found Conspiracy scummy.

However, it's his reaction to my attack that really makes me think he's scum. He's attacking his attacker, which isn't a scumtell, but neither is it a fantastically townie response. There's the whole paranoia about Conspiracy trying to make him look bad with a question. He finds me scummy for trying to move out of RVS, while he admits himself he does it and even uses that to defend himself.

So yeah. Umbrage wagon is a good wagon.

I like all of post #50, but the above part deserves special attention. This is the first time we get DarthYoshi calling out SE for his "defense" of CS. Note that I have quoted everything CS-related that SE had written up to that point. There is nothing there that can be called a "defense". There is no "strongly implying a town motive", yet the quote from DY is "why are you defending Conspiracy so hard?"

Now, in this

same

post, SE does write "I'm leaning slightly town on Conspiracy", but obviously this statement comes after DY's accusation of "defense". Of course, even if it came before it still wouldn't be a "defense" as I've already explained.

Sill, SE offers his thought process and presents an explanation for his remarks. DY's reply to this is:

Snake Eyes defends Conspiracy:

I don't understand why you would immediately assume ConSpiracy had some ulterior motives, as asking questions in early game can only help move the game forward.

Snake Eyes sez:

Not so much defending Conspiracy.

Um, right.

No actual response to what SE wrote. DY copies only the first sentence of a much larger thought, combines it with a quote he isolates and tags "Snake Eyes defense Conspiracy", then offers up nothing but "Um, right".

So now, with the "defense" crap behind us, let's move on to post #57...

If you think a bandwagon is the best way to get out of RVS, then why not vote ConSpiracy with me? Even if you think he's town, it doesn't matter. It's just a wagon, and it gets us out of RVS. Unless you think that your page 2 reads are going to hold for the rest of the game, I see no reason why you wouldn't want to bandwagon him. It'd be a hell of a lot easier than wagoning me. But you weren't interested in a wagon to leave RVS, you wanted a wagon that would grow, and maybe turn into a lynch. And that is scummy.

It's less scummy to join a bandwagon on someone I don't have a scumread on, than it is to pressure you after you've made a questionable post, and then push a wagon on you when I do have a scumread on you? Also, it's hard to wagon you, yet I want a wagon that would grow to a lynch? How does this make any sense?

This is another SE quote that has been isolated and misrepresented. As in...

It's less scummy to join a bandwagon

on someone I don't have a scumread on

, than it is to pressure you after you've made a questionable post, and then push a wagon on you when I do have a scumread on you?

^ the technical psychological term for the bolded is A SCUM SLIP.

His posts in #134 and #191 are just more fielding the accusations of defense and whatnot because of the argument by repetition tactic being thrown at him. His last post in #241 (his ninth total) is just a "Hey I've been sick and am catching up" post, so nothing really there.

Nine posts isn't usually a lot to go on, but I like his responses to what's being thrown at him, he's stayed on point and has not deviated from his well-explained thoughts. That gives me a town read.

[Vordark]

@DarthYoshi: I'm not seeing much in your post that I feel the need to respond to. Also, please use the quoting features of the board correctly. Making it

harder

to see the context of your remarks isn't helpful.

I'll make a note here though:

I guess I don't see ISOing a player with one post as really an ISO. In any case, all your ISOs were of nearly inactive players, so yeah, I still think my quesetion is legit. Other players are replying to material in real time--not all are posting ISOs like you--so it isn't redirection, especially when what you're calling me out for is something that a ton of other players have done, and surely you must have seen it, as not all of it came in walls either.

This is yet more criticism based solely on what I've posted and who I've chosen to post about. I will continue to post when I see the need and when I have time. There's no information there, other than I sometimes sleep and do things outside of this thread. Your continuing to assert there

is

information to be found there is yet more scummery.

[Vordark]

ConSpiracy's ISO is only eight posts long, the last of which looks a pre-flake. Hopefully he's able to catch up and lend us his thoughts now that the thread seems to have settled down a bit. To be sure, CS is a big null read to me. BW's on page one or two are common to roll out of RVS, so could be town or could be scum trying to look town. The people jumping on it, though, that's interesting to me.

Going out into the big room for a number of hours, just in case some of you start to get nervous.

[Vordark]

This is more evidence of the "defense". Again, I'm not seeing it. Umbrage says he doubt's CS's motives and SE is asking him why. If person A says "I think person B is scummy" and person C asks them why, is person C defending B? No.

Except that I explained why I considered CS' question to be scummy. Snake Eyes STILL hasn't given me a solid reason as to why he thought CS was town. If he said "Your argument is flawed, ergo you are scum, die!" then that would've been a valid attack. But "CS is town, ergo you are scum, die!" is a chainsaw defence.

This is another SE quote that has been isolated and misrepresented.

Mind explaining HOW it has been misrepresented? I didn't take anything out of context. I didn't change any wording. Point still stands until it is PROPERLY disproven.

Except that SE never said that CS was town. He said "I'm leaning slightly town on Conspiracy", which is a completely different statement. He also said this after you and DY had already started accusing him of defending CS, so trying to use it as part of your case at this point is absurd.

As to your second bit, you did not include include your original statement in the quote, you bolded one phrase and pointed at it calling it a scumslip. I'll also note that "not having a scumread on someone" is not the same thing as calling them town. As examples of taking a statement out of context and misrepresenting it, that's damned near perfect.

[Vordark]

Anyways, no I still feel you are town. The argument, if you want to call it that, between you and vordark has only reinforced that belief. You’ve answered to the questions posed to you reasonably). As the walls have grown you haven’t strayed or circled back to contradict yourself. I think that you are on firm ground on your position. I consider the lack of waffling a pro-town tell. Scum go with the wind, something you haven’t done. I don’t agree with some of what you’ve said (I’m really not getting some of the back and forth with you and vordak) but you don’t feel particularly scummy to me.

I agree with none of this here. Particularly that DY has answered the questions posed to him "reasonably". I also wouldn't put too much stock in a lack of waffling and not going "with the wind" as town-tells. Scum don't waffle as much as you seem to think they do.

@ Vordak #262, While I understand there isn’t an *implicit* defense of CS by SE, I read an implied defense. Maybe we are just reading the posts and getting deferent things out of them.

There isn't an "implicit" defense but you read an "implied" defense? And no, there is no defense there at all. It is not a question of getting different things out of the posts, it is a matter that the definition being used for "defense" here is too broad to be useful and also covers things that Umbrage and DY have both been doing.

In the end, Vordark brings up a fallacy that doesn’t apply to the situation, Yoshi points this out, and abel implies that by pointing out that the fallacy doesn’t apply, Darth is scumy. When I read this, (and I had to look up the fallacy) it didn’t read that the fallacy applied only to the first sentence, but the first portion of the post, which was the first two sentances in the nest. I'm not sure you aren't misrepresenting the conversation yourself.

The "Hunting for scumpairs before there have been any flips is junk science" comment is strange as well. SE is talking about what happens "should Umbrage flip scum". It is also natural, and necessary, to look for relationships between the players as early as possible. All in all, it's a suspicious sentence.

Yeah, there totally is not any scum motivation in insinuating relationships between players. Totally not a way to tee up future (mis)lynches.

I personally think that hypothesizing about relationships so early in the game needs to be taken with a few grains of salt. Associative tells only become tells usually when flips have occurred. Meta me, and you’ll see I hold to this belief as town.

Your first bit is obviously committing the fallacy of the excluded middle. Also your comment that looking at relationships so early in the game "needs to be taken with a few grains of salt" is backing off your earlier, much stronger statement that it is "junk science". Discussing associative tells before a flip is useful, if for no other reason than making it easier to pick out after a flip.

The fallacy of the excluded middle certainly applies. I state that looking for relationships between the players as early as possible is natural and necessary. DY runs to the far end of the spectrum and claims it has a scum motivation and is a way to tee up future mislynches. There is a wealth of possibilities in there that DY ignores as a debate tactic. This is the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a touch of the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses mixed with sarcasm as an appeal to emotion (which may be the reason for some people's confusion), but the fallacy of the excluded middle is most applicable because DY is ignoring his

earlier

statement that looking for these relationships was simply not useful. Regardless, looked at from any angle, DY's argument here is a scumtell.

[Vordark]

I agree with none of this here. Particularly that DY has answered the questions posed to him "reasonably".

That you aren't giving reasons for either of these claims makes me think that confirmation bias may be affecting your play.

That would be because I've already addressed them at length in other posts. What I didn't address before (the "scum are flip floppers" bit), I addressed in the rest of the paragraph which you chose not to include. Way to keep up the misrepresentation and now outright lies.

I imagine from the tone of it that a touch of sarcasm is evident. I was pointing out the capacity for scum motivation in insinuating connections. I never said that it is scum motivated every time--that would be rushing to the other end of the spectrum and setting up said fallacy. If I didn't argue that it is always scum motivated, then the fallacy, I think, does not really apply.

I think everyone that has seen that interchange knows what you were doing and that your statement "I never said that it is scum motivated every time" is a ridiculous argument based

solely

on word choice. It is clear that you were claiming it has a scum motive, regardless if you used the specific words "every time". That would be you arguing semantics by the way. Of course, even if the fallacy of the excluded middle didn't apply (which it does), that's far from the only problem with that statement, as I have already pointed out.

PS: Don't think I didn't notice that you decided you didn't need to reply to my last wall to you, even when it contained a number of questions and suspicions about your scumhunting on me.

Was it my saying "I don't feel the need to respond to most of it" what gave me away? I gave you two opportunities to provide a well-reasoned post explaining your positions and behavior. Instead you twice made a point-for-point reply wherein you did everything you could misrepresent my questions and observations, used fallacious reasoning, quoted out of context, appealed to emotion and did nothing whatsoever to explain yourself, rather you attempted to attack and change the arguments. I don't feel the need to go through that dance a third time.

And don't think I didn't notice your latest tactic of trying to throw suspicion back on me.

DarthYoshi wagon is a good one.

[Vordark]

Second, yes, you addressed them in earlier posts. That you still think so is making me think if confirmation bias is at work...DY is scum, therefore everything he says is scummy. DY just said something else scummy, so he must be scum.

No, I still think so because you have never satisfactorily addressed my concerns. I do believe I have already made that clear. But let's take the other points in your statement...

1. Claiming I am suffering from confirmation bias (as you have done previously) is attacking the person, not the argument. It is ad hominem. Easily stated, easily applied to everyone that ever voices a suspicion and cannot be disproven by anyone.

2. You use a strawman in claiming that I think "everything he says is scummy". This is not arguing what I have been claiming. I have claimed that some of your behavior and remarks are scummy. Many, actually. I have never claimed that everything you write is scummy. You have said many things I consider to be simply neutral. This is not the first strawman you have used and it is another example of misrepresenting what I have actually said.

3. Your final sentence "DY just said something else scummy, so he must be scum" is not entirely accurate. You have said many things that are scummy. The total of these statements and your behavior have led me to conclude that you are scum. When you make additional scummy statements it would naturally continue to confirm that conclusion. I believe you would find this same result in any rational person.

4. To be clear, it is because of these sorts of debate tactics and your lack of ever putting forth a real defense that does not rely on misrepresentation and error-riddled reasoning that has led me to my conclusion. Perhaps if you put forward an explanation of your behavior that did not rely on these tactics and instead acted at all like you were town, I would revisit this conclusion. Instead, you offer only more of the same and continue to attack your attacker. That's a scumtell.

And I consider calling someone a liar to be a very serious charge. If you're not prepared to back that up, drop it now, because otherwise, that is really offensive.

This is my original quote, complete with yours. I have bolded the remark I was referring to.

I agree with none of this here. Particularly that DY has answered the questions posed to him "reasonably".

That

you aren't giving reasons for either of these claims

makes me think that confirmation bias may be affecting your play.

That would be because I've already addressed them at length in other posts. What I didn't address before (the "scum are flip floppers" bit), I addressed in the rest of the paragraph which you chose not to include. Way to keep up the misrepresentation and now outright lies.

This would be where you are lying.

Note the quote from you at the very beginning of this message? Let me put it here for proper context...

Second, yes, you addressed them in earlier posts.

Here you admit that I did, in fact, address these concerns. This would be where you are admitting to lying.

The entire sentence of your from the previous post, "That you aren't giving reasons for either of these claims makes me think that confirmation bias may be affecting your play" is a lie, followed by an ad hominem as I have already described. It is your repeated use of tactics like this, instead of reasoned debate, that have led me to conclude that you are scum.

[Vordark]

@Vordark: With people getting turned away by our walls, I'm going to do my best to keep this brief. There is misrepping happening on both sides, I apologize for my part in that. The reason I pointed out what you said (and I know you probably won't like this on a semantic level, sorry) is because it is in the present tense--"I agree with none of this here, etc." And you are not giving reasons for your present opinion. You gave reasons in the past, and but now, at this point, it just looked like you were taking it as assumed. Hence my worry about confirmation bias. I wasn't lying. And I don't appreciate it when people say that I do.

No, I'm pretty sure the misrepresenting has been limited to you. I believe I have been able to make a good case without needing to resort to that tactic.

I have already given my reasons. They have not changed and are still valid in the present. Your entire line there is trying to work your way out of the lie you were caught in.

And yes, you were lying as I've already shown. I'm sure you don't appreciate being caught in it.

[Vordark]

I'll give you post another, more thorough reading and just address the portions that addressed me for now.

Unvote: ConSpiracy
Vote: Umbrage

Right now I'm leaning town on Snake Eyes and ConSpiracy, neutral on Abelcain given the "act scummy" tactic use. Umbrage seems to be doing a lot of OMGUS voting and a whole lot of flipping out for a relatively painless page one, three-vote, get us out of RVS bandwagon. And the whole act scummy to see who bites thing is just silly. DarthYoshi's jumping on ConSpiracy and then Snake Eyes for "defending" him seems odd as well. And I think Krazy needs to focus on this game.

Vordark used a catch up post to determine his vote. The reasons were: OMGUS, the going out of the RVS and the bait thing. Although the reason for my vote was strange and scummy, the OMGUS is nothing. On top of that his catch up post has some contradictions and seems like a buddying post to me.

Can you show me where I said the reason for you vote was strange and scummy? I cannot see where you are getting this at all and given in that post I said you seemed more town to me at the time, your remark here seems very out of place. Also, can you show me where I contradict myself in the catch up post? Showing me what you consider "buddying" might be helpful as well.

Vordark

There is one big problem with him, his catch up post. The other things may seem town motivated, but I couldn't find much that made sence.

Can you show me anywhere I appear to have been unclear or did not back up my remarks with reason? I have posted a fair amount, so it should not be difficult to find something that does not make sense, as you believe makes up the bulk of my posts.

His "catch-up" post was buddying, buddying, buddying. All of the things he said were already mentioned in thread and he hasn't put anything at all for himself.

You say "buddying" three times. It would definitely be nice if you presented your reasoning for this. The latter sentence is almost certainly true. At that point, there was very little content in the thread. I am not surprised that others would make similar observations given the same, limited material.

For example:

17 - I don't like DarthYoshi's vote at all here. There's nothing inherently "sketch" about ConSpiracy's vote in #16. You might not find scum on page one, but getting people talking sooner rather than later is always a good thing.

So DarthYoshi's vote isn't good enough to let me talk? He didn't even think of this point, but he just blindly does what seems to be the flow of the game: My vote being right and all others being wrong.

This reply makes very little sense. Your vote being right and all others being wrong?

This is a lot of Krazy-baiting. Krazy has actually started to settle down and contribute something. DY's reply was unnecessary and I think anyone that really wanted to focus the town would have let Krazy's comments slide, or at least tried more to defuse the situation than to egg him on, which this appears to do. He drops a sentence as props on Krazy's hunting of the lurkers, but makes sure he explains that his vote is staying on Krazy because of his responses. I read that last sentence as encouraging Krazy to keep engaging.

To summarize: Some of what DY is critical of I actually read as pro-town (moving us out of RVS, looking for relationships between players), he spent too much time FoSing CS's bandwagon on Umbrage while saying CS gave no reason for it, appeared to backtrack on that in the same post he continued to defend it and looks like he's trying to keep the Krazy train running. I also don't like how he felt the need to tell us why he moved his vote off Umbrage when he voted for Krazy.

At first, the reason he posted why DY is scummy is awful. Town wouldn't unnecessary post? That is the worst reason ever to vote for someone. On top of that the other reasons are bad as well: - Again the mention of my vote being great, - Krazy train (lol Ozzy Osbourne) attack was useless and - DY didn't vote for Umbrage at all.

"Town wouldn't unnecessary post" is not the reason I put forth as to why I was at the time leaning scum on DY (whereas now I have concluded he is scum), nor did I say it was. You say my "other reasons are bad as well" but don't explain yourself. As for "DY didn't vote for Umbrage at all", you are correct and that was a mistake on my part. He had been voting you and overly-explained why he moved it.

DY asks rethorical if continuusly putting pressure on your suspect is scummy (which was on the list of scummy things), Vordark answers this way:

Again, this statement only works if we assume you have a town motive. An equally viable explanation for the events is that you are attempting to keep the Krazy train running as a distraction.

Lol, great answer. "I don't know wether you are scum or not so that is nothing." But you did find him scummy for it.

No, I did not find him scummy for this. I noted only that the manner in which he was defending himself amounted to nothing more than "I'm town, so I must not be doing what you say".

ConSpiracy's ISO is only eight posts long, the last of which looks a pre-flake. Hopefully he's able to catch up and lend us his thoughts now that the thread seems to have settled down a bit. To be sure, CS is a big null read to me. BW's on page one or two are common to roll out of RVS, so could be town or could be scum trying to look town. The people jumping on it, though, that's interesting to me.

Great post, only if you weren't bandwagoning yourself and not even looking at SE and Ythan yourself... Fake town points.

I do not feel the need to move my vote around as much as some other people. I have also since looked at Snake Eyes and will look at Ythan when time permits. I believe some people do not remember there are nearly two weeks left before the deadline.

VOTE: Xtoxm

FoS: Vordark

Most things about DarthYoshi were very null. There are very many circular arguments and most things aren't even scummy. If somebody can post a proper case of Darth I would like to read it, since in my eyes he is by far less scummy than most of the players. He seems like an easy mislynch.

I would like you to clarify and respond to the points I noted above.

[Vordark]

I'm not liking the massclaim on Day 1 idea at all, personally. For the record, here's the actual worst-case scenario, including probabilities.

Assuming 8 VT claims, 3 of which are Mafia:

With three Mafia alive and 8 VT claims, the lynch pick has a 62.5% chance of killing a VT.
If a VT was selected, the vig pick has a 57.1% chance of killing a VT.
There is a 35.6% chance that we will kill two VTs and no Mafia on Day 1/Night 1.

The Mafia kills a power role Night 1. We are 6 Town vs 3 Mafia going into Day 2, with 6 VT claims remaining.

With three Mafia alive and 6 VT claims, the lynch pick has a 50% chance of killing a VT.
If a VT was selected, the vig pick has a 40% chance of killing a VT.
There is a 20% chance that we will kill two VTs and no Mafia on Day 2/Night 2.

The Mafia kills a power role Night 2. We are now 3 Town vs 3 Mafia. Town loses.

To be crystal clear, if we mislynch and misvig on Day 1/Night 1, we actually get into a lylo-like scenario on Day 2, because if neither our lynch nor the vig hit a Mafia then, town loses the game. And of course all of this assumes the Mafia doesn't take out our vig on Night 1, which I haven't seen mentioned as a possibility. Then again, I just woke up so I might have missed it's mention.

It's true that the odds of this scenario (assuming totally random actions based only on claims and flips) is rather low, but when you consider it's only Day One and we already have at least one viable lynch candidate, it seems like a

really

bad decision to just start rolling dice.

[Vordark]

@ConSpiracy:

I found your vote on Umbrage as obviously trying to get a BW going to get us out of RVS because I had just read no less than six games in a row in the archive where that very thing had occurred.

I found Umbrage's vote an OMGUS because of the remark he made in that post:

VOTE: ConSpiracy

You singled me out for a reason, but why would you ask for my thoughts when I said I find RVS meaningless?

The phrase "singled me out" generally rubs me the wrong way. That choice of words implied victimization. Subtle words choices like this tend to jump out at me. I read that he was at least moderately upset by your vote and voted you back.

So I'm still not seeing what you are calling "buddying".

Regarding the rest of your post, I'd like to point out that we're discussing my stream of consciousness catch-up post here from early on. There was next to no content in the thread at that point, but I find it very important for people to weigh in on what is there because it spurs conversation. Regardless, there's been quite a deal more from me since then that you haven't weighed in on, apart to say it all looks null.

I'd like to see more detailed discussion from you regarding the case on DarthYoshi.

[Vordark]

I'll be re-reading the last six or seven pages of the thread over the next day or two and seeing what shakes out. I'll be LA for that time, able to read but unlikely to post anything of substance until Friday night or Saturday.

[Vordark]

...stuff...

FoS: Umbrage

Nearly every one of your posts is useless caps rage, while the few that have a reasonable tone aren't offering much of anything but continuing to tunnel SE for the weakest of reasons and claiming anyone that disagrees with you is "defending SE" and probably scum. And with half of this post looking like a thinly-veiled chainsaw for DY, I'm going with you being scum #2 as opposed to just failtown.

[Vordark]

This xtoxm wagon advanced much faster than I'd expect a wagon on anything but obvscum to go. Coupled with the lurking town vibe I'm getting off him, I'm inclined to believe scum are pushing it. Lurker = easy target, easy vote. And five votes for a lurker when there are more suspicious players is a joke.

CS's posts, in particular his replies to mine regarding DathYoshi, are

serious

chainsaws and pushing an easy wagon. For example, in CS's long post (#299), he offers a chainsaw of Umbrage against myself, SE and Ythan, he offers a chainsaw of DY against me, then finally pushes a vote of xtoxm based on lurking and, wait for it,

another

chainsaw for DY.

I'm calling DarthYoshi, ConSpiracy and Umbrage scum, in order of relative certainty. I think there's an outside chance Umbrage is just tunneling town, but either way I think he deserves a vig shot tonight when DY flips scum.

[Vordark]

Wait, xtoxm claimed VT? Shit. He needs to die now. If he lives, it's just easier for a PR to die. Mafia love keeping claimed VTs alive.

VOTE: xtoxm

I, for one, am shocked.

Shocked

I say.

That's funny. I've been doing caps and focusing on SE for quite a while now, but you only notice it after I make a post on you? Huh. Interesting.

Are you high?

[Vordark]

This xtoxm wagon advanced much faster than I'd expect a wagon on anything but obvscum to go. Coupled with the lurking town vibe I'm getting off him, I'm inclined to believe scum are pushing it. Lurker = easy target, easy vote. And five votes for a lurker when there are more suspicious players is a joke.

CS's posts, in particular his replies to mine regarding DathYoshi, are

serious

chainsaws and pushing an easy wagon. For example, in CS's long post (#299), he offers a chainsaw of Umbrage against myself, SE and Ythan, he offers a chainsaw of DY against me, then finally pushes a vote of xtoxm based on lurking and, wait for it,

another

chainsaw for DY.

I'm calling DarthYoshi, ConSpiracy and Umbrage scum, in order of relative certainty. I think there's an outside chance Umbrage is just tunneling town, but either way I think he deserves a vig shot tonight when DY flips scum.

The first sentence here bothers me... first, how fast, really, was the wagon on Xto? Second, why wouldn't it be that fast after some of the ridiculous posts he's been making? I mean, have you been reading them? For real?

It hit five votes more quickly than wagons I've seen on scum Day One, and certainly had more steam than any of the other wagons on more viable suspects.

Yes, I have been reading his posts. For

real

, dude! He's lazy town.

Now I would just like to make an observation. AbelCain and Vordark never talk *to* each other. Seriously, read their isos, there's like one point where they make one very courteous response to each other and that's it. Neither really characterizes their reads on each other (except briefly in V's massive early wall-post of the entire early-game), neither has put either player up in relation to other players, etc. For two players that have been so relatively active, this actually bothers me quite a bit. I feel like, looking at either player, they talk to every other active player at some length, except each other.

Ablecain reads town to me now. He has for a while. I don't bother scum hunting people I don't believe are scum.

I definitely want to address the relationship (or non-relationship) between these players before nightfall. I will vote

Vordark

right now since some of his posts have bothered me marginally more than AC's, Q's, or SE's.

Can you state a succinct case that doesn't require the implicit assumption that I

am

scum? So far we've only heard that some of my posts have "bothered" you, and that I didn't mention someone. By the way, I haven't spoken "directly" with you, Ythan, xtoxm or SE either. Is there a reason you fixate on Ablecain in particular?

[Vordark]

Can you state a succinct case that doesn't require the implicit assumption that I

am

scum? So far we've only heard that some of my posts have "bothered" you, and that I didn't mention someone. By the way, I haven't spoken "directly" with you, Ythan, xtoxm or SE either. Is there a reason you fixate on Ablecain in particular?

Because with Xtoxm you'd be pushing away from a lynch, and both Ythan and SE I mention are viable third-candidates for a scumteam with you. I mentioned AC first because I noticed it first, and also sometimes got the impression you were either working around each other or mutually supporting each other's positions. You felt more "buddied" than you and Ythan without any buddying having occurred directly in thread. But it would require a very long post to try to show this and I thought it'd be easier to just ask you about it first, since it's still more of an impression than a damning fact. I can't tell if you both just think a lot alike, or if one of you at all thought the other was sheeping positions but trying to make it seem like the positions came from just the obvious impressions of the thread.

Alright. I don't agree, but I can see at least some reason why you'd prioritize AC over the other candidates I've mentioned. One candidate I didn't mention though would be iamusername. There's a much stronger case of "buddying" between him and myself than with any other player, yet the only mention you made of him was once sentence at the end of your scumteam speculation: "Another player I am leaning town on but would not eliminate from a AC/V scumteam is: iamausername." I'm curious as to why you would assert a scum team between myself and AC, when this other pairing appears more viable given your reasoning.

Regardless, your paragraph above still isn't giving me a case as to why I'm scum in the first place. It's speculating on scum teams based on interactions, which I've pointed out requires you to assume I'm scum in order to be damning. Do you have a case for me that does not require we take as a given that I'm scum?

How about this Vordark, what do you think of AC's vote on Xtoxm? Is it scummy opportunism? I know I could ask this about anyone on the Xtoxm wagon, and if there IS someone on the Xtoxm wagon (other than CS which I think you already mentioned) that you think is opportunistic scum, I'd like to hear about them too.

AC was vote number four on the BW for Xtoxm. I don't think much about it. His stated reason for voting him (which was essentially for lurking) is a null tell for me. I'll note that Quaroath and Umbrage both dropped votes on the wagon after, so Xtoxm is now sitting at L-1. I would consider these later votes to be more "scummy opportunism" than a vote that takes someone to L-3.

And yes, I can tell you the people on the wagon I believe are scum. Because

all three

of the people I've called have shown up there. DY and CS were there before, Umbrage dropped his vote there shortly after I FoSed him (the L-1 vote).

I think Xtoxm is being useless to the town and is probably too willing to go down with the ship to avoid a mislynch today. It's bad for the town, but it's not scummy. I really don't think he's flipping scum.

[Vordark]

So why have I not been lynched yet? I'm sick of skimming the new posts and being called scum all the time. Lynch me and be done with it, and try to get it right next time.

Yeah, that's quite enough fail town for me. You've actually got me agreeing with part of an Umbrage post.

But you STILL could've convinced us to let you live, if you had tried. If you scumhunted. If you did ANYTHING but whine about how we were mislynching you, and complain that we weren't doing it fast enough. But no, you continued to be useless.

I expect this kind of shit from a newbie. Not someone who's been here as long as you have. You haven't even been playing this game, not really. You haven't done a single thing to help the town. I don't know why the hell you even signed up.

Vote: xtoxm

So can we get on with lynching DY and company tomorrow?

[Vordark]

The main points against DY are below. If you are looking for specific instances/quotes check what I've already written in my ISO. There are a couple of posts that contain numerous quotes with point by point commentary.

1. His first vote was against CS for his "sketch" vote against Umbrage. CS's vote there was a null read at worst.

2. He's one of the main proponents (along with Umbrage) of the "SE is defending CS" nonsense. I've already established why this is bullshit.

3. Much of his early posts were involving himself in the Krazy/Ythan dispute and I see a lot of what I consider to be egging Krazy on. That he involved himself so readily in a dispute that didn't directly pertain to him stood out. Keeping people distracted, buddying and looking like you're posting content when you actually aren't are all viable motives for this.

4. He has contradicted himself, claiming that looking for relationships between players before flips is "junk science", while at the same time pushing the idea that CS and SE must be working together.

5. I brought these points up in my posts, along with quotes and details of my reasoning. When DY responded, he repeatedly claimed I didn't give my reasons or explain my thinking. He has written this many, many times and every time it has been wrong. I pointed this out as lying.

6. He used strawman arguments repeatedly. That is, I would accuse him of doing X, he would say "No, I'm not doing Y".

7. DY has not ever given me a satisfactory answer to my questions. Rather, he has used fallacious reasoning or misrepresented my statements, sometimes deliberately mis-quoting what I have written. Again, go through any of the relevant posts in my ISO. I believe I have provided enough examples.

8. Among the "unsatisfactory" answers DY is given is an argument that amounts to nothing more than "I wouldn't do what you are saying because I'm town".

9. Other things I deemed "unsatisfactory" are thinly-veiled ad hominem attacks and attempting to throw suspicion back onto me.

Again, these are what I'd call the main points against DY.

Vote: DarthYoshi

I need to re-read the thread in light of the flips. I am still satisfied with a DY lynch today.

[Vordark]

1 Null

at worst

? Then what do you think it was specifically?

There are a set of possibilities, of which "sketch" is not a member. Of the members of that set, I viewed it as an attempt to get us out of RVS.

2 Don't act like you've

established

anything or we'd have a lynch by now.

I have established it to my satisfaction in post #262.

3 Do you have a reason to say he was distracting or buddying besides the fact that he is neither me nor Krazy?

I have expressed possible scum motives for observed behavior. You are asking me if those motives exist if we ignore the behavior. That is nonsensical.

4 I don't think this is true, is it?

Yes. Here is one example:

Snake Eyes defends Conspiracy:

I don't understand why you would immediately assume ConSpiracy had some ulterior motives, as asking questions in early game can only help move the game forward.

Snake Eyes sez:

Not so much defending Conspiracy.

Um, right.

Snake Eyes:

The whole idea of a premature bandwagon is a fallacy.

How so?

More Snake Eyes:

There's definitely an unnatural player relation there, and should Umbrage flip scum, I'd start looking for his scumbuddies in xtoxm

Hunting for scumpairs before there have been any flips is junk science.

Also, why do you have a town read on Conspiracy?

This post is longer, so I'll take it in chunks here and below. The first part is DY's case that SE is defending CS. Two quotes and an "Um, right". Again, not a defense. The "Hunting for scumpairs before there have been any flips is junk science" comment is strange as well. SE is talking about what happens "should Umbrage flip scum". It is also natural, and necessary, to look for relationships between the players as early as possible. All in all, it's a suspicious sentence.

5 So far today I have not read your iso but I have read his, which contains a great deal of your text. I'll reread yours today, and possibly his again with this specific point in mind, to see if I might have missed it.
6 I remember seeing you use that term at least once and I did not agree with the use, but I will keep this in mind on rereading.
7 I really don't think a statement this broad is valid.
8 Add this to the list of things I don't remember seeing but will keep an eye out for.
9 I don't recall ad hominem. Attacking you, sure.

I believe post #291 covers all of this suitably.

I'm hoping that you'll keep your cool a little better discussing this with a third party.

I am perfectly even-tempered. Why do you believe I have not been?

[Vordark]

Vordark thinks DarthYoshi is scummy.

To be clear, I will be re-reading the thread later today and posting more tonight. I have not seen anything that negates the points I have brought up concerning DY at this time.

[Vordark]

But if the HT claims, then not only will be have a confirmed townie for today's lynch, but the HT will be likely be targeted for the night kill, meaning that the Psych/Det is guaranteed safe another night. If the scum kill someone else, then we have a confirmed townie for tomorrow as well.

I don't understand why the HT would be targeted for an NK. With the hider dead, the HT is a VT for all practical purposes. By targeting them they reduce the chance of hitting a PR to zero.

I think the HT should claim if he has a name that isn't among the dead. I think the HT should

not

claim otherwise. Keeping the HT in the pool means

less

of a chance of the Mafia hitting a PR tonight.

[Vordark]

I have established it to my satisfaction in post #262.

Are you satisfied with nobody believing things you say, because it's really easy to convince yourself of your point of view if that's all you want to do.

I have expressed possible scum motives for observed behavior. You are asking me if those motives exist if we ignore the behavior. That is nonsensical.

This does not even resemble my statement, and you're doing a piss poor job as always of actually supporting statements. The next time I see you say "I already said that", and it's both dubious and lacking in even a specific post number, I'm considering moving my vote.

I believe post #291 covers all of this suitably.

I seriously disagree.

I am perfectly even-tempered. Why do you believe I have not been?

Your chronic problem with actually sharing the support your claim in important posts.

I see no actual discussion of what I wrote, just a lot of inflammatory statements here and a threat to vote for me if I continue pointing to the case I've already made. So, exactly how is this attitude consistent with your earlier statement to me:

I'm hoping that you'll keep your cool a little better discussing this with a third party.

It seems like the very

last

thing you want me to do is keep my cool.

[Vordark]

Looking at Ythan's ISO, Day One he pushed the Umbrage wagon hard (was the only vote on him most of the day) and is doing the same now. I think Umbrage was unlynchable half-way through the day and I think he's fairly obvtown given that Quaroath flip. He also made several stabs at xtoxm, but since half the players here went after that failtown, that doesn't move my meter much.

Ythan has also pretty consistently defended DY, not just against myself but against others. Since DY is still my prime, this strikes me as interesting.

FoS: Ythan

I think people need to take a closer look at him and just ignore Krazy's involvement for a minute. The main points that bother me are Ythan's statements and attitude that I mentioned in my previous post, his continued pushing of an Umbrage lynch and his interactions concerning Quaroath. In particular, post #346 starts a run of Ythan vs. Umbrage when Umbrage votes Quaroath.

[Vordark]

So the investigator has the ability to choose either to be Det or Psych. Psych knows if someone can kill, but gets a negative result if they have. Det knows if someone has killed, but gets a negative result if not. One Mafia is dead, leaving two. Getting a meaningful report now seems possible only in the following ways:

If the investigator chose Detective: He correctly picks the person who kills tonight, or the person who killed last night if last night's killer was not Quaroath. The odds of this seem very low.

If the investigator chose Psych: He correctly picks the person who has not killed. If Quaroath was not the killer last night, the odds of this are very near zero.

I could do out the math, but even without exact numbers this seems like an outside chance. I'm not writing this PR off as useless, but I do think that voting no lynch tonight in favor of waiting for an investigation report does not make any sense. Regardless, is sounds like not scum hunting.

[Vordark]

EBWOP: Rather, the Det/Psy role is randomly determined. The player does not actually choose, but the end result is the same.

[Vordark]

Active again after a rather busy weekend. I'll re-read the thread later today.

[Vordark]

I count 145 posts made since sunrise. Based on a quick run-through, I count about 40 posts that contain actual scum hunting. Everything else is either Ythan snarking/being snarked at, arguments over the HT claiming, arguments about no-lynching and assorted admin/overhead posts.

Absent an explanation as to how Day Three will be any different than Day Two, no-lynch sounds like a terrible idea to me. It gives us no information apart from a single town flip at sun-rise. If that flip isn't the HT, we're right back where we started today.

If it's a choice between no-lynching and doing nothing, versus the HT claiming and giving us a chance of taking out scum, I'd rather see the claim.

[Vordark]

Still here. Waiting with the rest for the uber NL strategy to magically result in a town win.