Mini 1186: Repo! The Genetic Mafia - Game Over!

[Green Crayons]

A little blue vial?

vote: Magua

.

[Green Crayons]

I promise not to daykill you today.

Serious post?

---

Glad to see Yos was just in the spirit and isn't going to be quoting the movie with every post in some sort of annoying role quirk. (Decaf?

I will shoot you in THE FACE

.) Okay, well. I'll admit that it is fun.

---

Anyway, TripMyWire was on around the same time I was earlier this morning and didn't post in the thread despite the fact that the mod sent PMs to everyone saying that the game had started. I thought it was a good choice for a vote as a result.

Do you still hold this to be suspicious even though he posted about an hour and a half after you? Not posting at the beginning of the game

is

suspicious. I don't find a 90 minute gap to be as damning.

---

and

VOTE: MAGUA

THis is a grudge-vote, strictly.

What grudge?

[Green Crayons]

Very serious.

Then I propose that you day kill first person to five votes (so as to not chance anything with a person at six votes) today to replace what would (potentially) become our first D1 lynch. This will give us an "extra" lynch round in not having to go to night, using your day kill as a stand in for the first lynch.

vote: BattleMage

.

[Green Crayons]

fos:green crayons

I definitely felt like Magua's post was clear about what was serious. Seems like Crayons was digging for gold where there was none.

And I definitely feel like my post was clear about what I was asking Magua. I selectively quoted the portion of Magua's post that focused on the ability, not the context of using it if camn didn't vote for someone. Also, between those two portions of Magua's post, there's one which is much more important as a threshold matter (hint: the ability, not the vote pressure). I had no reason to ask about one (vote pressure) before the other (daykill ability).


Also, what does "digging for gold when there was none" even mean in this context? He had put out a "joke" post of a daykill ability. I wanted to double check that it was actually a joke and not him wanting to breadcrumb or hint at an ability. Otherwise, it was a poorly done breadcrumb and we might as well use the power to the town's benefit if he was going to actively strive to get the scum's attention. He confirmed that he was serious, but apparently was using some sort of weird rationale that made his confirmation a negation. Not being clued into this "yes means no" response, I wanted him to then at least use the perceived ability for the benefit of the town before he successfully got himself dead.

Please explain how your commentary about this situation, decorated with an empty-calorie FOS cherry on top, is not a substance-empty attempt to look conversational contributor.



Regardless of my misunderstanding (for lack of a better word), I'm content with my vote switch for the time being.

[Green Crayons]

I'm especially curious to know how bvoigt feels about Trip's explanation.

[Green Crayons]

Incog:

- Please explain or contextualize links. A single sentence will suffice. I would like to evaluate your expressly made explanations without filling in the gaps on my own.
- How do you feel about Trip's explanation? Does it fit into your "one reservation?"

---

camn:

- I vote no on mass name claims generally.
- I vote no on mass name claims at this time.
- How can you qualify a 39-post game, a little over 24 hours as having begun, as lacking action?
- How is a mass name claim at this point in time supposed to help the town?

---

bvoight:

- Why did you vote Trip in the first place? I'm not asking for the underlying reason (Incog's observation) but for what was your motivation in voting Trip.

[Green Crayons]

I'm surprised that this is an issue at all. How exactly would it be a 'scumtell' anyway? I don't see how posting immediately makes someone seem more town.

It is the delayed posting that is the scummy tell. It doesn't go the other way for a town read as you're suggesting. At least not for me. Speaking purely from personal experience (so thus of limited use), being their own biggest critics, scum second guess their posts. So scum will delay posting for the "best time" to interject into the conversation as to avoid suspicion.

I'm sure other players play scum differently, but I find the timing of posts as being one of the most difficult aspects when playing scum. Delayed posting is a frequent tactic to pace myself so as to help diffuse the conversation and potentially open up a strategic avenue (topic, timing, vote, etc.). Regardless, my own interest behind Incog's vote in principle has cooled significantly considering the explanation and context.

---

Most well-presented meta case based on other games I've seen in a while.

Unvote.
Vote:Haylen

I actually think Incog's "meta case" on Haylen is weak. Relative to the camn case, I think it's the weaker of the two. I'm willing to explain why (I don't think it's necessary at this point, especially before Haylen has said anything on the matter), but I'm curious about why you think the exact opposite. Why do you think that it's one of the most well presented meta cases you've seen in some time?

---

Speaking of incogs link: I had something to hide in that game.
I was lying in the very post you linked.
This game is much different ...

Please explain what you had to hide and what you were lying about. You don't have to go into great detail, just some context for your comments, please. Otherwise I don't know what the hell you two are talking about so I have no basis to make any sort of judgment. I'm sure others are in the same position. I spent two minutes looking at the beginning and end page of that game and there was no master player/role list that I saw. I really don't enjoy searching through other games to figure out the context of accusations/defenses in the game I'm playing. /grumpy

[Green Crayons]

After ruminating over camn's suggestion of a mass name claim (and the subsequent explanation of the meta sideshow), I find it to have been distracting and unhelpful, but not something to warrant my vote. I'm still happy with where that is.

---

How do these two match up?

Because at this point in time (1) I had a semi-formed basis to evaluate the camn claim because I understood the basis of your meta claim against camn (per your contextualization). But I still had no idea about what was being hidden, lied about, etc. per my bolded comment. Thus I had a semi-formed notion of the value of your camn argument. Simultaneously, (2) I fully understood your accusation against Haylen and found it entirely unconvincing.

Putting these two points together, I found the not-understood-but-with-potential case against camn stronger than the entirely-unconvincing case against Haylen.

---

I don't care if you did it as Town. Mass nameclaiming at this point in the day is an anti-Town suggestion. Don't ever do that as Town again.

Am I reading this correctly: you are admitting that this tell isn't really an indicator of camn's alignment but you are voting for her nonetheless?

[Green Crayons]

Suggesting a mass name claim for no reason is pretty anti-town here. There are a pretty limited number of named characters in Repo!, and they ones that are town are probably all power roles.

I've been going back and forth on this post of yours. I think I'm landing on the "not liking" side of the fence. It's just a very, very bland post. Apart from stating the obvious, it's stating the obvious to a question that was not directed at you, as well as stating the obvious that has already been put into the thread by the person to whom the question was asked (post 60). It feels like an attempt to look active and engaged but is actually a very bad attempt at doing so.

What exactly was this post supposed to contribute to the thread?

---

PE: Again, what part of calling her anti-Town and voting for her was confusing? By no means do I have certainty of her alignment (I'm not a daycop) but I feel it is the best lead we have right now, IMO. Jumping on bvoigt's lame-but-probably-honest accusation before I had a chance to respond is pretty scummy of

you

though.

I think this is directed at me? What does PE stand for?

[Green Crayons]

I thought it was directed at me. But you didn't answer bvoigt's question and so it wasn't entirely clear to me to who you were directing your comments. Anyways.


I found your quoted statements needing explanation. It looks like you admit that camn's suggestion (mass name claim) in this game isn't actually indicative of her alignment. You acknowledge that she has made this suggestion before. When she made this suggestion in the past, camn was town. You don't comment about why this isn't the case in this game: why camn isn't just town using her previous suggestion strategy. You don't even suggest that her actions are scummy. But you do vote her because it is an anti-town suggestion.

So, with all of this together, it looks like you're more interested in finding an excuse to vote (for an anti-town suggestion), rather than a reason (for someone who is acting scummy). There is, of course, a difference between playing bad ("anti-town") and playing scummy, though actions can move from one category to the other. But you've only qualified camn's actions as just bad play. You appear to be willfully voting someone for making a "playing bad" suggestion and not a "scummy" suggestion.

The "confusing" part was that after having all of this flash into my brain after reading your post, I wanted to hear your explanation of my reading. Funny enough, all you've really given on this point is a flippant comment about not having a day-cop role. Do you not vote based on your perception of another player's alignment? Certainly this does not require a day cop ability.

Also, I think it's worth duly noting your offense-as-defense tactic in construing my observation as jumping on another player's accusation. This not only implies that bvoigt's observation was so incorrect that nobody could have also had a similar reaction, but simultaneously pushes the attention away from you (and onto the questioner) when you still haven't really provided a substantive response.

[Green Crayons]

"Answering a question not directed at me" is a really silly accusation, considering Incog already answered the question; it's not like I'm preventing anyone from answering anything. If it's "stating the obvious" that a name-claim is incredibly anti-town, then why are we talking about a name-claim?

As for "what it's supposed to contribute"; don't you want to know if Camn is being deliberately anti-town or if she somehow thinks that suggesting that was a pro-town thing to do? For that matter, just killing the suggestion before something stupid happens like people just starting to claim (which happens ALL the bloody TIME these days) is itself pretty damn pro-town, thank you very much.

Seriously, what the hell? Person A makes an anti-town suggestion, person B says "no, we're not doing that, it's anti-town", and you attack person B for that? That makes zero sense.

All the criticisms really fold onto themselves.

1. The fact that you're stating the obvious is bad because what you have added to the conversation is fluff. It's fluff because the very narrow point that you're making - that name claiming at this point in the game is a bad idea - had already been made to some degree by numerous other players at the time of your post (see 3. below). It's an attempt to look like you're contributing when you are not. Your question about "why are we talking about name-claim" appears diversionary. We're talking about a name-claim because camn made a really bad suggestion. There's nothing more to say about that, so I'm not sure what your point is.

2. The fact that you're answering a question that wasn't directed at you is bad because there's no reason for you to answer it. You're not preempting anyone from responding, that's true. But your response is unnecessary. The question has been answered. Exactly on the points that you have provided. Once again, this makes your post look like filler.

3. Your post in no way contributes what you are suggesting it does in the quote above. (a) Your original post did not attempt to discern if camn was being purposefully anti-town or genuinely believe what she was doing is good. That would actually be a useful thing for a post to attempt to coax from camn. Your post did not do this. (b) Your original post was not killing the suggestion before someone else had started claiming. It came after Incog, Haylen , bvoight, myself, Medicated Lain, and Pine all voiced/voted in a negative reaction to the suggestion before your post. Your post wasn't going to "kill" the idea because plenty of other players had already jumped on that wagon. In fact, the notion that you were afraid that people were going to start claiming after so many negative responses and no positive affirmations of camn's suggestion looks like you just now pulled it out of the air to justify your post.


Finally, the fact that you're qualifying (what I believe to be) a fairly benign, "intro-suspicion" inquiry post (#79) as an attack is interesting. Heck, I even undercut the force of any suspicion I had by suggesting in that very post about how wishy-washy I was to even post my suspicion. But to you, this is an attack? I've spent pretty much the entire game spattering similar questions around to other players to judge reactions and answers. Do you think all of my posts with an observation/question or those just containing questions have been "attacks?"

---

I'm pretty sure I didn't stutter. I voted because Camn's actions are anti-Town. (Note for the stupid: "anti-Town" is a synonym for "scummy".)

Your unwarranted belligerence is unnecessary. It is also anti-town. It is anti-town because it rubs people the wrong way and makes them want to kneejerk vote for you. If you're town, you're basically daring people to not vote you. Which is bad for the town and amounts to playing bad. Note how this has nothing to do with the player being scummy.

However, this could be considered scummy play. I can qualify the unwarranted belligerence as the (scum) player playing in a blatantly bad fashion. This would be to purposefully cause town to second guess their kneejerk reaction (WIFOM, I guess). Firmly establishing that the scum plays poorly, the scum is able to use this as a cover for future scum play and delay lynching.

Please note the distinction. It is possible for the same action to be categorized as either based on the rationale being used. But reasoning is generally used. You have used no reasoning to make any distinction.

In fact, this whole semantic issue of what is "anti-town" and if it includes scummy play can be shelved.

The fact is, is that your camn vote post was framed to look like you were voting camn for having a poor play style and not for being scummy. When this was pointed out and questioned, you've been real great on throwing insults. But you have been quite mum until just now (post 89) on suggesting that, no, you think she's scummy for making her suggestion. But you have still failed to explain why you think it does not denote the fact that she just plays poorly (evidence: camn making the same suggestion in previous mini theme games) but does show that her alignment is scummy (evidence: here's where you would provide an explanation).

[Green Crayons]

3. The thing that stood out to me the most so far this game, however, was Pine's opening post.

I don't care if you did it as Town. Mass nameclaiming at this point in the day is an anti-Town suggestion. Don't ever do that as Town again.

When I first read it I thought I caught a whiff of scum due to the content as well as the tone. The last sentence initially struck me as some kind of a slip... and it just doesn't sit right with me. The more I think about it, however, the less scummy I feel with it... mostly because of the way that quote started saying "IF you did it as Town." It's just kind of a gut thing at the moment.

This here makes me feel like Trip is the most probable town player because the description of his reaction to Pine describes my own almost to a T.

--

The fact that Pine refuses to explain why camn's actions are scummy instead of poor play (ugh, even still) is unfortunate and indicative of his overwhelming (apparently) uncooperative personality. But I'm not struck with my same initial chord of suspicion.

We get it, Pine. You think it was a scummy action. But that's a conclusion. You have to back that up with the reasons as to why it is a scummy action

and not just bad play

.

--

Sup

Battle Mage

want to post? (Oh hey MOD prod, too.)

[Green Crayons]

Yos, have you even looked at the entirety of page three (posts 50 - 74) of this thread? Your 104 and 105 read as if you've only made a cursory glance to that page.

Page three contains:
- Lain's post 60 of which your post 76 is a replica.
- All of camn's posts containing a back-and-forth about why she posted her suggestion. So, no, your post wasn't some great new insight just on the cusp of figuring it all out. Also, you post 76 was a dead end. Taking post 76 alone, it was not constructed in any manner to illicit some sort of reaction from camn. You know: the kind of reaction and explanation that is seen in camn's page three posts. From her responding to questions and prodding on the issue (which is not what post 76 is). The fact that you're now claiming that I have messed up the impending alignment read is mind boggling.
- All of the negative responses to camn's bad suggestion, showing a general town consensus that it was a bad idea. It also contains camn herself backing away from people actually claiming. It does not contain a hint of anyone agreeing with her idea.
- camn's post 66, showing her prior two mini theme games where she suggested a mass name claim in the early stages of the game. This is evidence that camn's suggestion is her new pet bad play style.


I don't really know what else to say. Several of your points are simply refuted by looking at page three. Apart from that, I think you've poorly addressed my issues. I don't think a quote-wall war would be productive so I guess I'll just leave them for the time being. 104 and 105 come across as scatterbrained and defensive, which doesn't jive with my understanding (generalized and not well formed as it may be) of your usual posting/play style.

[Green Crayons]

I would like other player's input on my Yos suspicions. I've only seen Haylen "commenting" (in a warped understanding of the word) on it. I would like third party input on my suspicions because I thought they were fairly decent but nobody's said a damned thing. A thumbs up or down will suffice.

---

Camn

:

- In the prior two games where you suggested mass name claims, you actually suggested claiming. This game, you only asked what people

thought

about mass name claims. There is a distinction. What was the reason behind this shift?

I actually feel bad about Haylen and my last game together, which is why I have cut her some slack so far.

But you're not willing to cut slack for Pine because of his reg date?

Not that Pine needs or should be given slack for his abrasive posting. But the fact that you're putting out this double standard is pretty glaring.

---

Haylen

:

@ Incog - your meta doesn't stand anymore. I've become increasingly paranoid in games

to the point of refusing to believe power roles aren't scum pretending to be power roles and cop results

because YOU NEVER KNOW WHO'S TRYING TO SCREW YOU OVER.

Can you restate bolded or explain to a less degree of double negatives or something? Because I can't make sense of it. I've attempted while both sober and inebriated. Please help a brother out.

Town on Yos ~ He would know better than to create a connection between himself and another player (camn) so early in the game if he was scum. It wouldn't make sense if they were scum together. If Yos was scum, he would be hoping that he himself would be lynched first in order for the town to pick up on this connection so they can mislynch camn - however, I would predict that camn would get lynched before Yos which would make the connection useless and he'd possibly get accused of buddying.

This is so very convoluted. And weird. I mean: (1) why do you know he would know better as scum? (2) why would scum not want to connect to someone else (that you seem to believe is town-leaning) so as to "know better?" (3) Why do you think Yos' single post creates this kind of connection (what is this connection, anyways)? (4) what in the world are you talking about about "if Yos was scum" he would want to be lynched -- why are you concluding that Yos would want to be lynched in the first place? (5) Why would camn get lynched first? (6) The first part of your post speaks as if Yos is scum buddying with a town-camn. The last half of your post speaks as if camn is town and Yos would want to be buddying with her (at the risk of getting caught upon her death). Which is it?

---

Incog

:

I'm stunned that Green Crayons apparently has a town read on Trip; Trip seems flat-out neutral maybe even leaning slightly scummy if anything.

When I said Trip voiced my reaction to Pine to a T, I meant literally. As in, literally the words he typed were the words that went through my head when assessing Pine. It struck me quite profoundly, because either he's a similar thinking town or he's a scum who knows how to ape a town reaction perfectly.

That said, it's not something that will convince me until the end of the game that Trip is obvtown. But for now it's sufficient for me to move on to greener pastures. By way of example, bvoigt's note on Trip's lack of a strong stance is interesting - and may eventually be just another point in a long list against Trip - but for now it doesn't do anything for me.

Yo, GC, since nobody else asked, what's up with the Battle Mage vote anyway?

At first it was because of his weird Yos joke (being second after Magua) and because of his strange posting. My vote started out as a early-D1 thought of it being a scum putting on an attempt to look super Loose And Crazy! (Apparently he just posts... that... way.) Then it became a lurker vote. Now it's a meh vote, because I can't get a read off of that type of posting. I mean, seriously -- he's even done the "joke about being a scum" on page six, which is something for which I always vote (and it's even done on page six!). That's just frustrating.

---

Pere

:

Camn is doing an outstanding job of scumhunting and presenting her cases as they arise.
I find both equally capable players, and as of yet do not find either to be candidates for the mafia team.

Up until this point camn's big push has been on Pine, who you believe to be town. Prior that, it was camn voting bvoigt because "someone needs to have his own opinion." That was the extent of camn's scumhunting against bvoigt. Prior to that it was asking about mass role claim. Prior to that it was a grudge/random Magua vote.

My point being, where along this line has camn done an outstanding job of "scumhunting and presenting her cases" from your perspective?

[Green Crayons]

I'm basically saying that I never fully believe power role claims or claimed cop results because there's always something, somewhere that could make it false ie godfather, scum fakeclaim ect.

So what does that have to do with the section of the game that Incog linked to for a meta argument?

On the 'convulated' thing you quoted. I was trying to explain things from various yos-pov's and concluded that from a scum point of view, what he was doing didn't make sense. Scum wouldn't want to connect with their partner because it's likely to backfire later in the game when everyone starts looking for relationships, Yos has played enough games to know that. If you want a simple explanation: Yos is ancient, ancient people are wise and know what not to do.

This still doesn't make any sense. At this point you believe camn is town. You're trying to explain things from a Yos POV, but you're doing it as if camn is scum.

---

I disagree with the above quote. I will explain on Day 3 if i am alive then and anyone cares to ask.

What is this supposed to mean?

---

If the town was overwhelmingly FOR it, I would have gone for it. But meh otherwise.

So how do you feel about name claims in general?

---

@Green- Umm, there is a reason all the crossed out crap was crossed out. That was a semi-sarcastic response to Magua.

A "semi-sarcastic" response -- alright. So which parts were not sarcastic in how you feel about Pine and camn?

---

about green crayons: I think he is scum. The more I look, the more I wonder about you, crayons.
question: Why did you wait so long, over a day and multiple posts in between talking about trip at all? You made no mention of him, and then suddenly bring it up and kind of bash on it for a few posts, and move away again.
Looking at crayons over all trend, this is what happens, he seems to be making a point of addressing folk as much as possible... Magua, trip, me, Yos, pine, haylen, camn, pere. I guess to me, it feels like attempts at seeming active and keeping in touch with the town, without actually doing anything.
I understand not throwing a vote around, but you sure do question, interrogate, suspect people quite a lot for not having moved your vote from the very first one of the game.

- "Waiting" denotes that I was expecting to talk about Trip at some point. I was interested in Trip's back and forth with Incog re: his delayed post, lost interest in him after that, and spoke up again only when he posted my very thoughts re: Pine. At what point does it look like I'm "waiting" to talk about Trip?
- Do you think my questions have been fruitless? I know they have helped me. I like to think others are at least getting some sort of benefit from my questions just like I'm benefiting from other players' questions/answers. Is this doing nothing?
- My vote has moved. It went from Magua to BM. Post 157 explains why I voted for and why I kept my vote on BM. I'm keeping my vote on BM because something about his posting really strikes me the wrong way (still trying to come down on this). I may move my vote, but I don't see a reason as of yet.


---

Huh. Are you claiming that your "yos suspicions" were intended to be serious now?

Really not liking this, gc. First you attack me for a really silly reason (which was basically "Yos said something that someone else had already said"), but fine, it was early day 1, I figured you were just trying to get a reaction and get something going, so I responded to you. Then you denied that you'd been attacking me at all, while attacking me further, and then after spinning up three attack posts on me out of nothing, you attacked me for defending myself against your attack posts ("104 and 105 come across as scatterbrained and defensive"). Now you're trying to get support for this attack by asking other people about it.

Whole thing looks like a textbook example of "how to push a bad lynch against someone when you don't have a case against them".

Heh.

- I claimed my first "exploratory" post (here) was not an attack. The fact that you're throwing out a one-liner to bloat that single comment into my subsequently filled-out suspicions (here and here) is sloppy re-envisioning of what happened. I also never claimed my suspicions weren't serious, just that it wasn't an attack -- but here you are re-imagining what I said so as to apparently provide yourself with easy ammo to shoot down legitimate suspicions.
- I originally questioned you for providing filler in an attempt to look like you were contributing. You then tried to defend it as if you were adding something entirely new to the conversation (even though it wasn't), that it was getting you the "inside scoop" re: camn's intentions (even though it was a dead-end post), and that it was preemptively killing name claims (even though 6 folks had responded negatively to the idea and there was no reason to believe that this was going to happen). That's when my suspicions really ramped up, and this is the bulk of what I wanted people to comment upon.
- Posts 104 and 105 come across as scatterbrained and defensive because

all of your defenses are answered by page 3 posts

. It looks like you didn't even read page three when 104 and 105 came around. The fact that you apparently think your 104 and 105 are legitimate in the face of page 3 directly countering your points is astounding.
- My asking other people's input is because I'm my own worst critic. I want other's input that

isn't

from the person I find suspicious. That is, to make sure that my suspicions aren't entirely off-base. I'm not finding your criticism of me failing to be cocksure all that convincing.

[Green Crayons]

"You're trying to toss out ideas to see what will stick" is a terrible argument to make against someone early on day 1.

For reference, this is part of your criticism re: Trip's vote on Incog. In rereading the thread, the Trip portion quoted above reminded me of Pine's criticism of Incog in Post 111. Not a mirror image, but certainly within the same field of criticism.

With that in mind, would you agree or disagree that their criticisms of Incog are comparable? If they are comparable, do you find Pine's observation better than/worse than/equal to Trip's?

[Green Crayons]

I feel i've been doing pretty well here so far, so i'm not particularly sympathetic to a self diagnosed "meh vote" that is entirely based on my personality...

I think that this is fair and I will summarize my cause for your continued vote within the next day or so depending upon how my weekend goes.

---

More on green crayons: Everything about the situation with Magua sits so wrong with me. If Magua hadn't of been referencing an old game, would it really make sense to pull someone with a day kill ability out on day one? They're obviously not scum, because giving scum a day kill ability in this game.. I just don't see that happening. Does it make sense to direct someone with a day kill on day one? I'm thinking about an argument that came up in the other game I'm playing now, about how day one is the worse day for the town. We're in day one, there was no night one first, which means the only people that have information on other people in the game are the mafia, and I guess if there's a mason group... but the only one we can be certain on, is the mafia. That means they hold a higher amount of information than everyone else, and thus have a higher ability of manipulating the town. So why is it, that it makes sense for you to direct someone who you think is a day killer to make an extra kill on the day that we are most blind in our abilities to judge the information we see?

All this being said, the only person you've voted for this whole game is Magua himself, yet you throw questions and comments in every direction. You talk about other players pretending to contribute, while not actually. But I think you are more guilty of this than any others here.

- No it wouldn't make sense to put a day kill ability out on D1, that's why I first asked if he was serious because it was a stupid thing to claim/hint at/breadcrumb.

- Yes it would make much more sense for a day kill to be a town ability in the abstract, and it would make much more sense to be a town ability in this specific situation because Magua was seeming to breadcrumb the ability. Although possible a scum with a day kill ability might breadcrumb, that seems like a strange risk of attention to make early on in the game and doesn't fit. Regardless, I never suggested that his ability was linked to any alignment.

- I was wanting clarification because if he had a day kill ability and was breadcrumbing it, he was doing it poorly and was painted a target on his back -- and, as such, we might as well benefit from his ability (if he had it) prior to his death. I in fact explained all this in Post 37, which was in response to your first round of questioning my Magua interaction.

- I wanted him to use his ability prior to the scum killing him (also explained in Post 37). Any time that the town can skip the night phase is a benefit to the town. It doesn't matter if that night skip is on D1 or D4 -- although there are varying degrees of helpfulness, depending upon the individual circumstances (usually the day of the day kill). Your post boils down to D1 being least effective for a town day kill because of the knowledge disparity. That's true, but the fact of the matter is, is that we are going to lynch someone today regardless of any player's abilities. If we can effectively "lynch" this most suspected player already slotted for D1 lynching (via day kill ability) and skip the night phase to go into (what is effectively) day two, that is a good thing. While it would be better to hold this ability off, the player with the day kill ability basically asks to be nightkilled upon revealing this ability because the longer the wait the more powerful the ability becomes (and thus more dangerous to scum). Therefore, IF Magua had the ability it appeared to me he said that he did, at the time he had revealed it, it was the best strategic move to day kill the preferred lynch option for D1, effectively skip N1, and move on to our next suspect in the extended D1 (which would now be acting akin to a D2). Otherwise, the likelihood of Magua being killed because of his ability was real, if not readily calculable. I felt like it was best to definitely use the ability when it was helpful instead of maybe using the ability when it was more helpful.

- I've voted for Magua and Battle Mage. I've pointed out to you that I've voted Battle Mage. I've explained to you why I did, have been, and still am voting for Battle Mage. Battle Mage is actually complaining that I'm still voting for him. Stop saying I've only voted for Magua.

- "You talk about other players pretending to contribute, while not actually. But I think you are more guilty of this than any others here." Misleading and unsupported. Misleading because I've "talked" only about Yos providing fluff and later trying to prop it up as something more. That's a singular other player, not "players." A minor but important distinction because your comment alone may lead the uncritical reader to believe that it is this accusation that I have flippantly thrown around against several others. This is not the case. Unsupported because your statement that I am "more guilty of this" is only a conclusion. There is no supporting reasoning or rationale. As such it is not something to which I can respond. Well, I can respond with my own conclusion: nope, that is not true. Yay, conclusion-battle!

---

I figure I should throw out how I'm feeling. If it isn't helpful, at least it's notice that at least I'm reaping benefit from my play style:
- I am most comfortable with not lynching Pine or Trip.
- I am comfortable with not lynching camn, Magua, or Lain.
- I have no idea about MehPlus because he's lurking and I would love a replacement for his slack ass.
- I am middle of the road for Pere, bvoigt, and Incog. Other players have made points I caught in various read-throughs that were good but which I did not follow up on. So I may be persuaded upon further review.
- I am comfortable with a Yos, Haylen, or Battle Mage lynch. I don't think that there is any current order of preference, but I think that my position is more developed for some more than others. If need be I can either point to where I have voiced my suspicions (Yos, obviously; Haylen to a lesser extent of obviousness) or do so for the first time if I have not made myself clear (BM, coming up over the weekend; Incog, I don't think I have voiced to any real degree). As an aside, I think the Incog-suspicion is the most out of the four where my personal suspicion is just a mere nugget that has been cultivated by others' observations and criticisms.

[Green Crayons]

Correction note for that post above:

I moved Incog from the "comfortable" to "middle of the road" category right before I posted. That's why he's mentioned in the "comfortable" category's explanation text but actually listed in the "middle of the road" group. I realized that my suspicions for him were mostly from my own initial anxiety regarding being absolute shit at reading him, which was exacerbated by other player's suspicions throughout the game. I didn't think that this was sufficient for me to be "comfortable" with a lynch, so thus the move. It's late and I'm tired and I therefore didn't correct the explanation text.

[Green Crayons]

Will be posting on Tuesday.

[Green Crayons]

So my vote on BM is split up into three parts: (1) my initial vote, (2) my continued vote, and (3) my current vote. Please note that this has been literally the same vote in that it has not moved. Each part is split based on the reasons behind the vote being put on (or maintained) BM.

(1) My Initial Vote

My initial vote came after my shift away from voting Magua. I originally voted Magua early on without explanation. My cause for this vote was because he made a bad joke. No, honestly. I think telling bad jokes is scummy because its a conscious attempt to make yourself look relaxed. I removed my vote because of the mix-up about Magua's "claim." Actually, in making this review I see that I shunted Magua off into the "comfortable with not lynching" category. I find that this categorization is actually baseless and I feel neutral about him at this point (absent a full review of the thread).

Anyways. I shifted my vote to BM because he was the next person to have done exactly the same as Magua. Bad jokes are scummy. That was sufficient for a page two vote.

(2) My Continued Vote

After switching my vote, my attention was focused on the more lively topics of discussion. Camn's requested name claim, Incog's meta reads, Pine's defensive posting, etc. I left my vote on BM because through this all he was failing to post but had already shown that he was aware the game had started. There was a four day gap between BM's last post before my vote and first post after my vote. During this time (about five pages) I was content with merely discussing the topics without need of moving my vote. The first indication of the cause (at the time) for my vote was not until right after the mod mentioned prodding, but I had already typed up my own bolded prod when I saw the Mod's prod notice. I purposefully left my vote not fully explained (though probably easily discernible) because I was curious as to what BM's reaction would be when he finally returned.

(3) My Current Vote

I have described my current vote as "meh." This is not because I don't think it's a worthwhile vote, but because it has more to do with gut than "reason." Maybe "reason" if we want to qualify it as me using whatever bullshit I remember from Psychology 101. So mostly gut about what I feel is a suspect play style.

First is his rapid succession posting. There's the four back-to-back posts upon his return on June 14th. A double post on June 15. A triple post on June 16th. A triple post on June 16th. And then a double post on June 20th. This only lists those posts which were made almost back-to-back, as there were several postings (June 16th

[Green Crayons]

Well that's neat. I hit submit. In the middle of things.

[Green Crayons]

So my vote on BM is split up into three parts: (1) my initial vote, (2) my continued vote, and (3) my current vote. Please note that this has been literally the same vote in that it has not moved. Each part is split based on the reasons behind the vote being put on (or maintained) BM.

(1) My Initial Vote

My initial vote came after my shift away from voting Magua. I originally voted Magua early on without explanation. My cause for this vote was because he made a bad joke. No, honestly. I think telling bad jokes is scummy because its a conscious attempt to make yourself look relaxed. I removed my vote because of the mix-up about Magua's "claim." Actually, in making this review I see that I shunted Magua off into the "comfortable with not lynching" category. I find that this categorization is actually baseless and I feel neutral about him at this point (absent a full review of the thread).

Anyways. I shifted my vote to BM because he was the next person to have done exactly the same as Magua. Bad jokes are scummy. That was sufficient for a page two vote.

(2) My Continued Vote

After switching my vote, my attention was focused on the more lively topics of discussion. Camn's requested name claim, Incog's meta reads, Pine's defensive posting, etc. I left my vote on BM because through this all he was failing to post but had already shown that he was aware the game had started. There was a four day gap between BM's last post before my vote and first post after my vote. During this time (about five pages) I was content with merely discussing the topics without need of moving my vote. The first indication of the cause (at the time) for my vote was not until right after the mod mentioned prodding, but I had already typed up my own bolded prod when I saw the Mod's prod notice. I purposefully left my vote not fully explained (though probably easily discernible) because I was curious as to what BM's reaction would be when he finally returned.

(3) My Current Vote

I have described my current vote as "meh." This is not because I don't think it's a worthwhile vote, but because it has more to do with gut than "reason." Maybe "reason" if we want to qualify it as me using whatever bullshit I remember from Psychology 101. So mostly gut about what I feel is a suspect play.


First is his rapid succession posting. There's the four back-to-back posts upon his return on June 14th. A double post on June 15. A triple post on June 16th. A triple post on June 16th. And then a double post on June 20th. This only lists those posts which were made almost back-to-back, but there were several postings (June 16th-17th, particularly) made within the same general time period.

So why is this suspicious? Because it looks like to me he's attempting to throw whatever his initial thoughts are about a situation without giving it much thought. Apart from being potentially unhelpful to the town, this also helps alleviates the detriment of being scum: worrying about what signals your posting gives off. His posts come across as a stream of consciousness flow of thoughts. This style circumvents the process by which a scum slips up (by over-thinking a situation or being caught lurking). It's worth noting that he's actively acknowledged that the "laying low" playstyle is when he's scum, so the fact that it appears that he's consciously taken the exact opposite tact (instead of something less extreme) is suspicious. It's like his posting style is screaming "I'M NOT SCUM GUYS."


Second are his gestures to show that he's comfortable with people looking at him with an eye of suspicion. This would give the air of him having nothing to hide and thus is an affectation of being town. There's his throwaway line about reading the scum quicktopic. Then there is his asking another player to PBPA him (as opposed to questioning me -- but that's addressed below). This is suspicious because it appears to be a constructed effort to look town by appearing calm about being put under suspicion. If this sounds akin to my initial reason for voting him, then that is because I believe the underlying reason is closely related if not altogether the same.


Third is his willingness to delay explanations.
- Seen with his Pere vote, which he puts off explaining and as far as I can tell failed to ever give a reason. There was no cause to delay this reason, especially when it was asked for, and he managed to get a free pass at voting someone.
- He also threw out there that he disagreed about scum tactics but said he wouldn't explain until Day 3 if he was alive and anyone cared to ask. This specifically looks like a smug scum who thinks by D3 they might be in the win (at least after a D3 town-lynch) so he's planting it to gloat later on.


Fourth is his buddying up with me. I'm leery of anyone who finds me to be so town on D1 that I feel like they're trying to really let me know of how town they think I am. Or who is this buddy-buddy with me. Examples of his buddying include:
- He addresses my vote with a friendly joke.
- He called the one player who found me suspicious on her own (as opposed to Yos finding me suspicious as a defense) scum.
- He says that he likes me.
- Also in this post he states that another player - Lain - should get in my "good books" without any seeming rhyme or reason.
- Also in this post he makes the gesture of requesting Lain to do a PBPA on him instead of me. Blatant attempt at "shielding" me from Lain's suspicion.
- He doesn't buy people hating on me.
- Also in this post he's nitpicking the person suspecting me.
- He's also throwing me softballs to support his vote against someone who I already find suspicious (Yos).


----


And that's why I'm voting BM and support a BM lynch. I have briefly skimmed over the posts since Friday or whatever I posted last. At all times I was more than slightly intoxicated so I can't comment upon the past three or so days' worth of conversation. But I'm saving that for later because it's already past my bed time.

[Green Crayons]

Pine, can you please explain the reasoning behind your Incog vote? Has it developed beyond what you stated back in the middle of D1?



Still need to do a reread. Based off of my memory, Yos and Lain are most suspicious from BM interactions alone. Will develop this further.

[Green Crayons]

So Green Crayons, Medicated Lain, Incognito, and Yosarian2 are likely town due to interactions with BM.

Please actually put reasoning behind this conclusion.

[Green Crayons]

That is, "due to interactions with BM" is not reasoning, it's an empty phrase that could be easily applied as-is to any player. Please explain how these four player's interactions are likely town because of their BM interactions.

[Green Crayons]

My apologies on not being more active on Day 2. I have been busy with work and actually spending time with the family. I'm afraid that I will be heading out of town for this upcoming weekend, but I will have my computer with me so I will be checking in.

When you're distancing, you want to make a lot of obvious sound and noise to create fake hostility between you and your buddy. You don't want to try to undermine a third person making a defense to your scumbuddy, because you don't actually want your buddy to get lynched, you just want it to look like he's not your buddy.

This is pretty amusing since it describes how Yos and BM acted towards one another.

Yos/BM D1 Conduct:
- 06/16 12:49pm: BM "courtesy votes" Yos for being inconsistent in failing to attack both him and Trip on the same grounds. BM throws out the possibility of a Yos lynch without actually laying out why. The only thing that is any real fodder for this claim is the inconsistency argument (for which he has merely asked clarification). Pretty vacuous of a threat and FOS.
- 06/16 5:55pm: Yos duly responds to BM's post. Nothing spectacular.
- 06/16 5:59pm: BM merely acknowledges Yos' post.
- 06/16 6:22pm: BM addresses in full Yos' post. BM seems to be pulling his punches throughout the entire post. e.g. "I do hope you weren't fake-scumhunting and trying to plant a vote with no real reason... haha" is used to telegraph BM's point in attacking Yos (the message being: come up with a reason why Trip is scummy). It's important to note that at time BM is "comfortable" in considering Yos is "likely scum."
- 06/16 7:01pm: BM talks to camn about a Yos-lynch. Once again reiterates that he "just can't see" Yos as town.
- 06/16 8:48pm: Yos details extensively why he finds BM's Incog attack less scummy than Trip's Incog attack (feel free to lol). BM's telegraphing at work.
- 06/16 9:33pm: BM realizes the error of his ways. Because Yos has merely explained himself, the "likely scum" and "can't be see[n as town]" Yos gets unvoted.

So, in the span of nine hours, BM progressively finds Yos FOS-worthy, vote-worthy, likely scum, unable to be town, and then - contrary to the entire buildup of suspicion - worthy of an unvote (with no immediately new suspicions). In those nine hours, BM ramped up his suspicion on Yos for being inconsistent in his reasons for voting Trip but not BM, BM telegraphed that he wanted Yos to explain why Yos thought Trip was scummy, and then BM deflated his short-lived train of suspicion because Yos was merely typing out words.

BM had a burst of suspicion that went from 0 to lynch in 60 seconds. Then this suspicion was instantaneously deflated. The basis of that suspicion was one thing (inconsistency), but BM was willing to unvote the "likely scum" (Yos) because of another thing (responding). What more would you want for "a lot of obvious sound and noise to create fake hostility between you and your buddy?"

I don't think that was an overreaction at all. GC was acting really suspicious in his early attack on me; he really seemed to be trying to make me look bad while pretending that he wasn't, to the point of actually denying he was attacking me at one point while continuing to attack me, and then to attack me for defending myself. The whole thing was just really shifty. I don't see why me pointing out scummy behavior on the part of GC is an "overreaction".

Hey, look. You're still recreating history.

As I have already stated: "I claimed my first "exploratory" post (here) was not an attack. The fact that you're throwing out a one-liner to bloat that single comment into my subsequently filled-out suspicions (here and here) is sloppy re-envisioning of what happened. I also never claimed my suspicions weren't serious, just that it wasn't an attack -- but here you are re-imagining what I said so as to apparently provide yourself with easy ammo to shoot down legitimate suspicions."

I first made a comment that I found a post of yours strange and suspicious. You took a weirdly defensive stance in reaction, calling my initial passing commentary an "attack." I then further developed my suspicions, which you responded to very poorly. There isn't this "shifty" muddled history. I at first found your post something to comment on (not an attack). Your reaction to that led me to develop my suspicions. These subsequently developed suspicions could be considered an attack because I basically found your excuses to be lacking merit and I explained why in detail. There is an obvious progression in my approach to your posting, where at the beginning it was just a comment and then later it was an attack. Your willful misrepresentation of the situation only underscores my suspicions regarding the matter.

[Green Crayons]

vote: Yos

. Left that out. In reviewing D1 I think he's BM's most likely scum partner.

---

- bvoigt really hasn't pinged my scumdar so far.

On both D1 and D2 bvoigt was accused of following your lead. Thoughts?

---

And if you could daykill right now, who would it be?

How exactly is this productive?

[Green Crayons]

Reading through GC's case against Yos2, I'm not really moved by it. Even though BM did move his vote off of Yos rather quickly, it seemed to me like BM-scum didn't really have a choice there; Yos' responses to BM's "case" were pretty solid, and I think BM realized he'd probably have a harder time getting Yos (mis)lynched than he thought he would since the very first person to respond to his case against Yos immediately put it down.

There were also two separate posts made by BM that looked like he was still trying to rile support against Yos after the unvote: one was towards GC here and another was towards me here. I just don't see why a BM-scum would twice feel the need to try and keep up some level of paranoia against a hypothetical Yos-scumbuddy when it really wouldn't be that necessary there with a mislynch chance presenting itself in Peregrine the way it did.

Yos2 isn't someone I'd worry about right now.

- BM created "a lot of obvious noise and sound to create fake hostility" (Yos own words). This comes in the form of bad arguments that are easily defeated.

- Yos was able to deftly respond to BM's "case" because that "case" was a really bad argument to make a lot of obvious noise and sound to create fake hostility.

- The first person to respond to BM's case v. Yos was camn, who used a horrible reg date semi-joke without any commentary on the substance of BM's allegations against Yos. The BM-Yos interaction was entirely between the two of them. BM backed down because Yos typed words (thus was "making progress in talking). I find your suggestion that camn's commentary changes the dynamics of BM's distancing of Yos unconvincing.

- BM's post trying to rile support from me against Yos in asking me about my opinion about the "emotiveness" of Yos was a fluff scum question that didn't have any teeth against Yos. Any real weight behind it was undercut by him once again pulling his punches by admitting that he wasn't getting into new territory (with "flogging a dead horse"). Thus it wasn't asking for much in the way of providing real content. Also, I have no idea what "emotiveness" means in regards to a mafia game. But to any extent it was him asking for commentary on his bad distancing argument against Yos, he had already admitted 12 hours prior that his Yos-"suspicions" weren't actually vote worthy (despite Yos having been so obviously scum).

I find his "riling" of me to be a substance-lacking attempt to get me distracted from my BM suspicions (the focus of his post) by trying to put up a neon sign around the bad distancing argument he made against Yos.

- BM's post trying to rile support from Incog was even more worthless. He reduced his argument against Yos by this point to "Yos is participating at a reasonable level." That's a far cry from an attempt to "rile" support. This bookend to his Yos suspicion is the icing on the distancing cake. Of course at this time he's lukewarm about Yos participating at a reasonable level. That's a worthless suspicion "hook" that nobody can argue against that BM consciously decided to focus on. It's an empty argument that allows BM to maintain that arm's length distance from Yos. It's obvious noise and fake hostility.

[Green Crayons]

It doesn't cost you anything to call BM's case on Incognito bad now, GC. It would have given you a lot more town credit if you'd said something about it yesterday. Can you explain why you didn't, if you think it was 'obviously a bad case"?

At no point have I commented on BM's argument against Incog. Every reference to BM's argument that I have made has been made in reference to his 9-hour siege-and-retreat, shifting-goalpost suspicion against you. Your entire post here is based on (yet another) misconstruction of my posts.


My whole case against you is the "obvious noise and sound to create fake hostility" BM made in your direction.

[Green Crayons]

"Yet another"? Seriously? You're still pissed at me calling you out on that stuff early day 1, huh?

Anyway, if that wasn't what you meant, then your post was even weaker. There wasn't "a lot of obvious noise" at all from BM; your idea to call that "distancing" is pretty absurdly thin. He attacked me briefly when I got in the way of the mislynch he was going for, then he backed off when I stood my ground. That would be pretty crappy distancing, and I don't get why you think that's any more likely to be distancing then anything else. Whole thing just looks like BM faking scumhunting in general if anything.

I really can't believe that this "BM briefly attacked Yos so they must be scum together" WIFOM logic is all you've got out of this game so far.

- Glad to see you're still willing to admit that you focused on a pointless derail (attacking v. suspicion) - despite the fact that you're wrong - to gravitate the conversation away from the initial suspicion against you (providing empty postings).

- I'm comfortable that my Post 378 shows BM's conduct towards you not only was a formulated charge-then-retreat (9 hours for someone to go from obv-scum to no vote) based on shifting goalposts of what constitutes Yos-suspicion (willing to vote for Yos' inconsistency and willing to unvote because Yos typed a post). That's distancing. You know: a lot of obvious noise intended to create fake hostility. And it worked.

- I can't believe you're criticizing me for using the one definite piece of fact (BM = scum) that really helps us figure out who are the remaining scum. Actually, I take that back. I

can

believe you're criticizing me for using BM's interaction as a basis to finding others suspicious. It's another suspicion tally to chalk up under your name. Your lobbed WIFOM accusation, thrown out as a loaded term to derail the general tactic of finding suspicion by studying BM's conduct, is another suspicion tally.

[Green Crayons]

I think BM was doing something that I have actually been enjoying doing lately. I think he was trying to be as truthful as he could be, as scum.

Lets be serious... Incog is right, I would totally have grudgekilled Magua.

Oh yeah?

[Green Crayons]

It strikes me that a player (and replacements) would be more invested the more "fun" of a role they have -- where "fun" includes night actions, which would tend to draw a player into being more active. I think this would hold more true for newer players, to whom night actions are icing on the cake of the game. My initial reaction is therefore vanilla town slots are more likely to be inactive. Incog's point on the difficultly in manufacturing suspicions is valid, but the reverse could also be true: it may be hard for a vanilla townie to identify the suspicious players and their relatively minor power (a single vote amongst 12 or so) can be frustrating. So I find the whole thing less than persuasive, and am not willing at this point to lynch a slot based solely upon lackluster players who have occupied it in the past. It seems like an all too easy lynch in the scum's favor.

But I am willing to place that slot's perpetual "lurking"/inactive status at Thor's feet, so that if he fails to produce activity despite knowing of this issue it is a definite mark against him.

---

What does the rest of the town think?

In re: camn's assertion that one of BM's vote "must" be scum.

I don't think it's suspicious to look at a dead scum's players actions and glean from their play who is likely to be suspicious. (By the by, labeling this strategy "complete WIFOM" like Yos did

is

suspicious.) I do find it strange that camn is convinced that one of BM's voted-for players "must" be a buddy. It's an assumption that she plainly states in 395 and attributes to me. But neither does she explain why she thinks this is the case nor did I prior to that post argue that one of the players voted by BM must be scum (merely that BM's interaction with Yos looks like scum distancing).

Although camn has answered why she made this assumption, I would still like to know why she attributed coming to it to me.

---

No, I don't think I will elaborate. I talked about Incog a while back, and he's done nothing either way to sway me. I believe in sticking with early reads and not second- and third- and fourth-guessing them unless there's a compelling reason to do so.

As for lurking, I've been away a lot in the last couple of weeks, and it's just simply hard to get into games that I don't have a lot invested in.

Finding you to be more pro-town than many other players, I find your willful lack of contribution frustrating. The big two points I recall from your Incog-suspicion is his dice-vote and replacement-vote. Do you want the town to have anything else to go on in trying to be convinced that your suspicions are worthwhile? Do you care to develop these suspicions any further? Do you find any other players suspicious?

[Green Crayons]

I don't find the Trip fencesitting argument to be persuasive. It's been a week or so since I've reviewed the whole thread, so I don't recall how long his posting continued with such tepid input. But unless if Trip continued to excessively fencesit past page six (looking at bvoight's linked Post 128), his initial foray into commenting upon the game looks like - to me - town who is vocally sorting through his opinions on the game.

That said, I think there is something behind BM's vote against Yos because it was horrible and contrived scum play. If it wasn't a distancing tactic, I could see it be somehow related to Trip (chainsaw) or Incog (using a flimsy excuse to get his vote off of a partner).

[Green Crayons]

Here are the things wrong with your post:
- That was not my first vote. I've told you this before. Stop making the same mistake.
- Magua is dead. He was town. So glad he's starting to seem "quite pro town" to you. You're good at this.
- The substance of that post dealt with Magua's commentary. My vote on BM had nothing to do with that (as later explained in my posts against BM). You're trying to group together three players (BM, Magua, GC) and categorize their play ("no possible way" ... we could "be scum together"). It's a baseless grouping.

[Green Crayons]

On another note, I will reread Incog's play this evening. The most I can recall from his substantive input has been the meta-cases and the lynch-the-replacement. And complaining about a lack of activity. I'm curious if I missed something else.

[Green Crayons]

- Glad to see Trip is doing the non-committal dance once again in post 489 (that's sarcasm). Is this is play style or is his vocal back-and-forth new to this game? It's one thing to see or vocalize a conflict in opinion. But to then just leave it there and do nothing - especially at this stage of the game, when there is plenty ability to contribute something substantive and a deadline in coming up - is suspicious.


- I'm inclined to think Pine is town and his less-than-ideal contribution to this game isn't coming from scum. Although I've been burned by a scum being aggressively unhelpful and incorrigible before (Empking, I think), I'm just not feeling it here.


- I'm sympathetic towards Pine's nebulous suspicion towards Incog because I often get that feeling. But I generally want something more before I'm happy with a lynch. camn's 463 sells it to me.

(1) Camn's first point is that Incog uses out-of-game reasons to vote three people. But Incog used that reasoning within the first two pages of the thread. A Page 2 vote generally gets the conversation flowing and the suspicion flaring -- the Page 2 reasoning rarely seals the lynch. So the notion that Incog would have been able to hide behind the fact that these were out-of-game reasons is based on the assumption that the suspicions underlying any of his Page 2 votes would have failed to develop further than this initial kernel of suspicion. I'm not buying it.

(2) In review of Incog's posts, I don't find his posts to be lacking in terms of frequency or substance -- at least, no more so than most in this game. I also feel like he didn't let his Haylen vote simply fester -- he brought it up often enough to justify it's continued placement. (As an aside, I am curious how BM's actions made Incog go from "D1 Haylen is scum" to "D2 Haylen is town"). So I'm not convinced the "hasn't tried to get us lynched" line is accurate. That said, camn doesn't explain what Incog has done that was "slinging mud." I'm assuming this is a loaded phrasing of "voicing suspicion?"


- Since it's coming to a now-or-never time (four days or so until deadline), I can get behind a Yos, camn, or Trip lynch. In that order, I believe. I obviously need to reread to solidify my opinions.

[Green Crayons]

Mod

: I understand the need for finality, but is it possible to move the deadline back until Sunday (or some other time)? For this week each weekday I only have a few hours a night at home which doesn't allow me to devote the proper amount of time and energy for this game -- so at least a single weekend breather day would be nice. I feel like others may be in a similar position as me (Haylen, Pine come to mind based on their recent posts).

---

camn - Care to provide at least a name? Care to provide an explanation as to why that is all you'll give?

Pine - I'm not feeling the reasons camn provided for the Incog lynch. I laid out why I can't get behind the Incog lynch with just her post. Do you find my responses flawed in a way that would make me see my error or any addition reasoning beyond gut?

[Green Crayons]

I see the deadline is tomorrow night. I want to provide something substantive before then, but it won't happen until tomorrow afternoon.

[Green Crayons]

That is, even if the deadline gets pushed back a day or whatever, I still won't have something until tomorrow afternoon.

[Green Crayons]

I did a reread of the thread. I originally was going to comment upon all the players who struck me as suspicious. While there were suspicious things of not regarding other players, Yos definitely led the pack in terms of suspicious posts. This not only cemented my opinion that he's scum, but also meant I trimmed this post down to focus only on him (and why he should be lynched).

I apologize that it’s long. I know people hate reading walls. But I can’t help it if there’s a whole host of stuff I think makes Yos suspicious. I did my best to link so that there aren’t quotes galore.

It’s organized in topical groups as things came to me or as I read. Points (B) and (C) are the meat of the case and showcase Yos’ scummy posting.


And – needless to say – I’m putting my full support behind a Yos-lynch.

Why I’m voting Yosarian2 (and why you should too)

:

(A)

BM “jokingly” says that Yos’ inability to properly use bold tags is a scum slip. Evaluate this comment in the context of my read that BM was using his “joking” persona as a cover combined with camn’s theory that BM was actually attempting to be as truthful as possible. The result is BM “outing” his scum partner because lol! Scum wouldn’t do that! I think this differs from when BM made “real” scum accusations because here we are supposed to not take BM seriously and thus BM is more able to flirt with the truth.

(B)

BM also did that whole distancing thing with Yos. Here’s a follow up post explaining why it makes sense.

(C)

I take issue with Yos’ active lurker status combined with his vacuous/suspicious post content.

(1) After a rousing lack of contribution (five posts in the first two days of no substance), Yos posts a rather uninspiring comment on camn’s name claim suggestion meant to be substantive (it was a mere repetition of what other players had already posted).

- (a) I still stand by my initial criticism of that post.

- (b) Yos’ subsequent defense (here) is suspicious because it showcases Yos’ lack of attention – all of his points are refuted simply by reading the thread (as I noted here). His defense looks like a scum who has been caught lurking and can’t be asked to even look at the thread.

- (c) I also still stand by my suspicion (second part of the post) of the fact that from that all of the criticism I had against Yos, Yos kept coming back to a point of contention (that my initial post was an “attack” and not an “intro-suspicion” post like everything else I had done up to that point) – which Yos

himself

manufactured – that was beside the entire point of my suspicions. He did it here and here. Yos is attempting to shift the focus gleaned from my initial suspicions against him as something they weren’t to detract from the original suspicions.

(2) After letting that simmer for two days, Yos makes some pretty bad arguments against Trip.

- (a) Yos gets “confused” about Trip’s camn-feelings, when they are fairly clear in there explanation.

- (b) Yos faults Trip for “doubting himself,” which is inherent in any town role. Scum, however, can play without doubt.

- (c-1) Yos faults Trip for finding Incog’s Haylen-vote reasoning unpersuasive – apart from the fact that this basis is a legitimate reason to vote someone, this in and of itself is part of a larger white-knighting issue (see (D) below).

- (c-2.1) More suspicious is that Yos then faults Trip for finding Incog his “#1 suspect” even though “stronger points” were made against other players. But these “stronger points” aren’t objectively certified – Yos himself is subjectively qualifying those points as stronger and then declaring Trip scummy for failing to have come to the same conclusion.

- (c-2.2) Incidentally, Yos uses this tactic – fabricating the nature of the situation and then attacking Trip based on that fabrication – later on when Yos attempts to distinguish why he didn’t vote for BM-scum but he did vote for Trip. In 205 Yos asserts that Trip’s response to inquiry about his Incog-vote was “downplay[ing] the importance of his vote” and that Trip was “doing everything” he could to imply that the vote was “meaningless and shouldn’t be worried about.” Yos cuts out the entirety of Trip’s response – which went to further explain his issues with Incog’s vote – to help fabricate the nature of the situation. But even taking the portion of Trip’s post that Yos wanted to qualify as suspicion, looking at Incog’s prompt for this response, it is easy to see why Trip responded in this way (without even needing to be explained as Trip does here) -- and, no, it's not because of "downplaying." (But Yos was sure to keep holding on to his fabrication.)

- (c-2.3) And because it’s another showcase of this tactic, Yos does this when discussing my claim that BM was attacking Yos to distance himself from a scum-partner. Yos boils down the specifics of my argument into a highly generalized claim, applies WIFOM to it, and calls it a day. It’s amazing how Yos has all these great arguments when he is able to fabricate an argument to fight against.

- (c-3) Also to be noted is Yos’ lurker-skimming in qualifying Trip’s comments re: camn as an attack when Trip said that he did not find camn scummy.

(3) After this he has a 9 hour distancing-frenzy with BM. See (B) above. Yos throws in a continued argument against Trip which I also take issue with. See (C)(2)(c-2.2) above.

(4) After telling Pere to stop talking about theory (even though the discussion re: the “theory” of D1 scum bussing was why many people were suspecting Pere at this point), Yos comes back after two days and votes Pere based off of unabashed bandwagoning off of Haylen’s reasoning. Yos here fails to – yet again – actually contribute to the conversation and uses Haylen’s reasoning as a cover to get away from his bad Trip vote. Yos acknowledges that Pere has not responded to Haylen’s Pere-criticisms but that there is merit in doing so – Yos thereby acknowledges that he is happy with Pere sitting at L-1 despite there being a potential explanation to sway Yos (or others) to see that Pere isn’t scum.

(5) Yos doesn’t like to outguess the mod. Except for when he’s willing to outguess the mod to excuse his vote.

(6) Yos comes into D2 swinging with not only defending Incog (see (D)(4) below), but using a bad argument (flimsy OMGUS claim) mixed with another player’s reasoning (Incog’s vote-the-replacement reasoning) to vote someone. So this is the worst of both worlds: fluff original contribution and pure repetition of another player’s thoughts.

(7) The remainder of Yos’ posts is defending Incog, defending himself against me, and several multi-day gaps in posting (one of which was, to be fair, July 4th weekend). Oh! And there’s a suggestion that Trip should be lynched as the most likely BM partner. But you guess it! No reasoning as to why this is the case. Where’s the active scumhunting that he chided Pere to start doing? Substance-free lurking at its finest.

(D)

Yos is Incog’s champion and white knight. Yos engages in blatant partnering with Incog that is spread out over the course of the game so not to be obvious. I think this has rubbed off on Incog because he has repeatedly said that Yos is town, and has taken issue with my suspicions of Yos in the past, but never has clearly articulated why (or when he did with my distancing argument he failed to respond to my clarification). FYI, Incog: you said yourself that you’ve been duped by partners in the past, and here (unlike bvoigt) Yos isn’t being “blatant” in terms of repeated vote-following.

(1) Yos ”dislikes” Trip’s reasoning for voting Incog (because Trip found Incog’s reasoning unconvincing). Nevermind the fact that this is a legitimate reason to vote someone on Page 6.

(2) Yos faults Trip for taking issue so early in Day 1 with finding Incog tossing out ideas to “see what will stick.” But Yos hasn’t a thing to say when Incog attacked camn on substantially similar grounds – when Incog criticized camn’s name claim suggestion, he attacked camn for putting something out in the thread to see what reactions would result (incorrectly qualifying it as backtracking and implying an issue with expecting a benefit from throwing something out to the group for reactions).

(3) In defending Incog, Yos conjures up this serving of congealed scumminess plucked from the lush fields of scumdom: “Inconstancy [GC note: “inconsistency”] is a town tell.” Uh… no. Inconsistency is a scum tell. It’s how you catch scum in lies. Oh yeah – he also used “inconsistency” (because it’s suspicious, see?) as one of his reasons to vote Pere. Hey, that’s inconsistent in and of itself! I think we may have entered into the meta-zone.

(4) And then there is Yos being the ever-present champion of BM-and-Incog-Couldn’t-Be-Partners. You can see Yos shining brightly in this role here, here, here, and here.

(5) Yos separately defends Incog against claims that Incog was indecisive/contradictory/(dare I say inconsistent?). The entire previous page was Incog doing just fine in defending himself.

(E)

Yos qualified my suspicions of him as a “textbook example” of trying to push a bad lynch when there is no case. Apart from the fact that this is rhetorical fluff and no substance, it strikes a certain similarity to his claim that my case against BM was “pretty thin.” Never mind the fact that amongst his major issues with my BM-vote was that I took a lot of time to lay out my reasons in a coherent fashion and that I methodically took “every one” of BM’s posts apart.

[Green Crayons]

Points (C) and (D) are the meat of the case, that is. Yay, mistakes.

[Green Crayons]

Yos:

Don't you get what BM was actually doing there? ... It was a pretty skillfull scum manipulation move ... All in all, it was really a brilliant play on BM's part.

Scum praising scum's play. Not like that happens ever.

I've gave reasoning over and over again on that. BM did a mega chainsaw defense of Trip as soon as Trip was attacked. Not only have i already said this, other people have as well. Now I think you're the one who dosn't seem to be reading the thread.

You have said this? That's a laugh. What you must mean is that you - once again - have voiced a "I agree with <player>." You did it with Hayln in voting Pere, you did it with Incog in voting Fugitive, and now you're doing it in voting for Trip. You're playing the game excessively safe by constantly using other player's voting rationales, and it reeks of scumminess.

So, nope, I'm not buying what you're selling. All you have done D2 is repeatedly defend Incog, defend yourself, and filler/"I agree with..." posts. The fact that you chastised Pere for failing to scumhunt, but here you are failing to scumhunt, exposes your scum-induced hypocrisy.

---

bviogt:

For example, it's true that Yos has defended Incognito heavily-- but it's been so blatant that I don't really see the scum motivation for it. If they are scum together, the link between them is far more detrimental than the benefits of defending each other.

The scum motivation is that Yos gets town-points for being a zealous advocate for a player who will flip town. I've done it before as scum, and it's a neat little tactic that scum can use (with mixed results). It's one thing to claim that someone is town, or explain why you think an argument against another player is wrong. But Yos has gone above and beyond this standard in defending Incog, which is suspicious in and of itself. However, this suspicion is compounded by the fact that (a) Incog is one of the most experienced players here (and apparently has a long play-history with Yos) and therefore he is a big threat to scum (particularly a scum-Yos) and (b) Incog has been duped by scum in the past who have buddied up with him. Combining these two points, it makes sense for a scum-Yos to do this above and beyond defense of a town-Incog because, instead of risking a dangerous Incog mislynch, he is able to butter Incog up.

[Green Crayons]

- Bee-tee-dubbs, if there is a SK I would guess camn because of her use of "unusual" tactics (name claim, "who would you daykill") and the fact that she brought it up (and SKs would NEVER do that /commonwisdom). I'll be curious what she'll say when she's

- That's a bad reason to hammer, Pine. Attempting to outguess the mod on role names is fruitless at best, scummy at worst.

- Don't know why nobody (besides Lain) listens to me. First with BM, now with Yos. I know why Lain doesn't listen to me. She doesn't even know who she thinks is scum -- she's had something like three vote changes in just about as many days.

[Green Crayons]

Oh, I didn't finish my first thought. I went to go see if camn promised that she would reveal tomorrow or just suggested that's when she would be willing to spill the beans. My thought was: I'll be curious what she'll say when she's pressured to follow through on that promise.

[Green Crayons]

A bloo bloo bloo.

[Green Crayons]

Well at least I picked out one scum.


That completely absolves me of completely writing off another and being convinced a mason was scum.


Was fun, though.