Mini 380: Artifacts- Game over

[GreenLiquid]

Perfect's thing does seem a little odd but I think he's new... still worth an

FOS

in my book, simply because even if you are new you should know that's bad logic.

[GreenLiquid]

I'm not sure if I've been replaced, but I am here if I'm not.

[GreenLiquid]

You two are looking so scummy, it's not even funny. There's practically no logic in your arguments and its lasted like, what, 7 pages? I mean, there's so little reason for this that I seriously consider it being a scum tactic.

[GreenLiquid]

I could see Jules' ignoring of his switched vote during the crash as hoping that nobody remembered it (possibly not knowing that scum players can be pretty observant). However, my problem is that if he is in fact scum, it doesn't make much sense to immediately fold on that argument, since that pretty much does nothing than admit you 'lied' to the opposition.

If I had to vote for someone else, that person would be Nai. Over the course of his debate with Coron, he hasn't used very sound logic (most of the arguments stem from Coron being overconfident, which isn't enough of an argument IMO to deserve over 6 pages).

For now,

Vote: Jules

. No more votes on Jules till we get a defense/claim.

[GreenLiquid]

Just for the record - I have only completed 1 game on here, in which I was town

This statement makes me even more happy to be voting Jules.

[GreenLiquid]

I could see Jules' ignoring of his switched vote during the crash as hoping that nobody remembered it (possibly not knowing that scum players can be pretty observant). However, my problem is that if he is in fact scum, it doesn't make much sense to immediately fold on that argument, since that pretty much does nothing than admit you 'lied' to the opposition.

If I had to vote for someone else, that person would be Nai. Over the course of his debate with Coron, he hasn't used very sound logic (most of the arguments stem from Coron being overconfident, which isn't enough of an argument IMO to deserve over 6 pages).

For now,

Vote: Jules

. No more votes on Jules till we get a defense/claim.

I'm not sure what your argument is

Exactly what I outlined in the first paragraph. I could quite easily take your forgetfulness of the vote switch as a 'hope they don't remember' kind of thing. This is further supported by the fact that you yielded on the argument, essentially meaning that you admitted that you did remember those posts. I wouldn't exactly see attempting to hide actions like this pro-town.

Also, additional evidence embodied in the 'I was protown in that game' comment.

[GreenLiquid]

I have never said that I remember them because I don't

If this is the case, why did you suddenly brake on the argument when you were challenged?

Also, one more thing, can you stop responding to posts in seperate posts? No offense or anything, but it's kind of annoying.

[GreenLiquid]

I have never said that I remember them because I don't

If this is the case, why did you suddenly brake on the argument when you were challenged?

Also, one more thing, can you stop responding to posts in seperate posts? No offense or anything, but it's kind of annoying.

Which post are you referring to when you say I break on my argument?

In post 289 you say that you don't remember if you did or did not switch votes during the crash. The way it is worded seems weak and I don't like the response because it attempts to close the argument completely. The thing isn't whether or not you said you don't remember, it's whether or not I believe you in fact did forget.

Also, might be a bad idea to quote the artifact word for word, such an action could be considered modkill grounds by our mod...

[GreenLiquid]

I understood exactly what he was saying when he said that.

One other thing I forgot to adress is that I don't understand what you mean be 'he' or what 'he' said. Can you clarify?

[GreenLiquid]

That's odd... We have 11 people, we should have 7 to lynch. Regardless, when his vote came on, I was lynch -4, so I wasn't particularly concerned.

It should be six. Half of 11 is 5.5, so 6 is correct number.

[GreenLiquid]

I understood exactly what he was saying when he said that.

One other thing I forgot to adress is that I don't understand what you mean be 'he' or what 'he' said. Can you clarify?

the quote that you seemingly misunderstood. To me right now it seems like you are pulling things out of your rear end now.

I'm not saying that he meant something else, because I understand fully what he meant, for the third time I'll say: I'm not sure I believe that he actually in fact forgot it.

[GreenLiquid]

If Jules is in fact telling the truth, then it wouldn't surprize me if someone had the ear of the diviner.

That's a given, do you mean the mouth of the diviner maybe?

That's kind of what I though too, but if a person does have it, they need to keep their mouth shut (pardon the pun ) for the time being, since it sounds like a pretty powerful ability.

[GreenLiquid]

I'll reread things but I'm pretty sure I still don't trust HH. If you look at HH's comments on Coron it's like too easy to say they're scum together.

Can you give more detail about why you feel this way? I don't see the connection.

[GreenLiquid]

I too do not understand what you mean by it misleading the town. If the mouth exists (keep in mind please that the mouth is pure specualation), I see it as a ask-a-question to the mod role, only another person gets the result (like say if one artifact allowed its owner to pick someone to investigate and another artifact gets the result). I really don't see how a townie with it will mislead the town, the only person who can misuse it is the person with the ear.

[GreenLiquid]

If someone had a Mouth of the Diviner and sent answers to the questions the Ear asked, which I said I don't think is the case then A) The answers would potentially mislead the town as how is the holder of the Mouth of the Diviner supposed to know and B) The scum have no incentive to kill the person holding it because it's that person's opinion.

Wait, are you saying that if scum hold the ear, then they will mislead the town by saying they asked a question they didn't?

Even if this is the case, the odds of scum having it is not particularly good, and if we do get a bogus result we could simply lynch the ear's holder. That's still a really bad reason for the mouth to claim.

[GreenLiquid]

Ummm, then have the person with the mouth claim answer before person with the ear claims question. Then, if the question ends up falsified later on, the person who had the mouth gets lynched. Not hard.

[GreenLiquid]

AFAIR

As far as I recall

[GreenLiquid]

Yeah, we do need a lot more activity.

Unvote: Jules

for a reread.

[GreenLiquid]

As I reread, here's some strikes I noticed against various people.

First, Coron's 'slip' (post 21):

I got all three scum voting me this quick? Man I'm good.

On it's own, I really wouldn't have cared. But what strikes me as odd is that coron posts to defend himself twice, which seems like a hasty effort to get the heat off of him, in posts 23 & 24:

What I meant was all three mafia, my bad. In a mini it is usually fairly safe to assume 3 mafia, though there are some corner cases that have 2 sets of 2 or mountainous with just 2.

Guys, what's taking you so long we have all 3 mafia caught you just need to vote them.

I find this a bit forgivable, though, as there's about 8 or 9 hours between them. I find it as perhaps an act to defend himself while he still has momentum (in other words, nobody's responded yet). Still suspicious, though.

Here's the first of many things Jules does that I find suspicious (post 30):

Ha bad mistake coron, baaaaaaaad mistake

unvote nai, vote coron

This is the FOURTH vote on Coron, a mere 6 posts from his latest transgression, over a minor freudan slip and hasty defense. Although I agree that Coron's actions were scummy, they were nowhere near as much to deserve this.

Let's now skip back to post 19, where perfect62834 says this:

Vote:Coron

for above mentioned reasons.

Umm, excuse me, WHAT here? Note that this is prior to the 'slip,' and is also the third vote on Coron. I encourage everyone to take a look back there and try to figure out what exactly he's agreeing with. Unfortunately, he's been replaced so he can't be questioned on that, but I find that his replacement should still be held accountable for this rabid move.

FOS: Kelly

On post 36 he unvotes, saying:

oops, I read something incorrectly. unvoteI'm going to hold off my serious vote for now.

Read something incorrectly? Oh, I see, you mistook 'Random Vote: Coron' for 'I'm a cop and Coron's guilty.' I don't see that happening. IN ADDITION, note that this is after Coron's slip, so there's actually something to be suspicious of now. This looks so much like a desperate attempt to avoid looking scummy it's not even funny. I respond with an FOS in the next post, but he doesn't explain himself. Nightfall requests clarification in the post after mine.

Post #44 is by Nai:

I think Coron should probably start claiming right about now.

Before I respond to this,

NAI

: is this post a joke?

Let's return to post 43, where luna (who has been replaced by SL) places the fifth (yes, I said fifth) vote on Coron:

Lol. Anyway unvote, vote Coron because he seems to be acting a bit scummy and too sure of himself.

This is just sad if luna is in fact town. I'll place the 5th vote because he's acting a bit scummy, and

is too sure of himself

? That is the worst logic for a lynch -1 vote I've seen in a long time. No clarification, no nothing? Just that he's

a bit

scummy? What's worse, these arguments are copied by Nai later, practically word-for-word. SL probably can't explain why luna did this, but as I said before is still held accountable.

SL:

can you think of any reason luna might have done this? (if it has to do with a power role or artifact though, don't say anything about it)

That wraps up page two. I'll continue this summary over the next few days. Out of these pages, Luna (SL) and Perfect (Kelly) come off as very suspicious, with Coron being slightly suspicious.

[GreenLiquid]

One other thing I thought to add before stopping my reread for the time being. It has to do with perfect's accusitory post (#30). Back when I was a newbie, a lot of times when I tried to put suspicion one someone as scum, I noticed quite a few things about the tone of my posts, one of which was that I came off as kind of 'lecturer-ish' or mockingly, if you catch my drift. And I'm not sure if it's just me, but the way he says 'baaaaaaaad mistake' really hits my scumdar in a bad way.

[GreenLiquid]

Whoops, replace 'perfect' in the second sentence with 'Jules.'

[GreenLiquid]

Regarding Coron, what I'm talking about is 417's "I of course know I'm scum." That, and the fact that Coron hasn't struck me as so helpful he's more likely to be town.

If this is the case, why are you voting for him?

[GreenLiquid]

Wait a sec... can you rephrase that sentence On the first readthrough I saw it as he was likely to be town, but now that doesn't seem right.

[GreenLiquid]

I understand what you're getting at SL, but one important thing about mafia is that you just

can't

chalk everything down to newbness. It's just not something that works, because otherwise a newbie could defend every single one of his actions by saying he was new. However, there's one thing about it that I think would be a scum mistake, new or not:

A lot of times as scum, it can be a good idea to tag onto a bandwagon in order to avoid suspicion. Notice that luna doesn't have much enthusiasm as the vote is placed, in fact, she just quickly throws out two weak 'arguments' and votes. The way she does it makes me feel that the vote was less based on her personal suspicions, but on what others were doing (otherwise, she'd certainly have something to add herself). Giving reasons for your votes in mafia is very important, as it can be revisited later, especially if you turn up town, to give the rest of the town reasons to why you did what you did. It is crucial in mafia to have a good picture of people's stances on issues. The reason for this, simply put, to get a better understanding of

where you're coming from

, and, if in fact, you are simply following the crowd.

But I digress. All in all, I find luna's vote suspicious mainly because it seems like sheep behavior, but I find your defense at least convincing enough to give a little wiggle room (although I don't think it is wise to dismiss the concern altogether). And, uh, sorry if my post seems like a big wall o' text.

[GreenLiquid]

I read the game SL mentioned, but there's a difference between not posting anything of value and placing the 5th vote on someone for crap reasons.

Sorry, but I doubt I'll have time today to continue the reread, so I'll keep going on Monday.

[GreenLiquid]

Mod:

I think we need some prods, esp. on Nai who hasn't posted since the 23rd.

[GreenLiquid]

I continued my readtrough today. Let's begin by this post by luna (#51):

Well, I didn't realize he was lynch -1 but I really feel that he's scummy here are the posts that led me to think so:

Vote: Nightfall

isn't it too early in the game for you to start trying to distance from Nai, your scum partner? It's not really good plausible denyability if it's an FoS this early.

Right... And FOS and a Vote on me. Fantastic.

Vote: Coron

for an obvious scum tactic of throwing suscpicion on people for an FOS and... Well, nothing.

You're just mad because I have already caught 2 scum.

I don't have any partners and I'm not scum, so turns out that that's not the case, scum.

I got all three scum voting me this quick? Man I'm good.

Guys, what's taking you so long we have all 3 mafia caught you just need to vote them.

What I meant was all three mafia, my bad. In a mini it is usually fairly safe to assume 3 mafia, though there are some corner cases that have 2 sets of 2 or mountainous with just 2.

More like a slip of the scum- um I mean tongue...

Did I say something that didn't make sense or are you just trying to make me seem bad to get a town player lynched? If it's the first could you please explain instead of being stupid. K, thnx bai.

-Coron

What kind of player but scum would constantly be "I'm town don't vote fore me"? It's the weakest argument possible, and I really don't have any doubts that he's scum right now.

This post by luna essentially quotes almost every post Coron has made, then offers a weak argument, with the strong conclusion of "I really don't have any doubts that he's scum right now." Adds nothing to the Coron-wagon. This post is most certainly scummy.

Next is this gem by Nai (#52):

My main argument is that he's far too sure of himself, and I really don't see, in any way, how he can be like that. I mean, I can see how it would be a joke to begin with that he calls me and Nightfall scum buddies (me included ONLY because Nightfall voted for me), but he hasn't let it go. That suggests to me that he has some sort of outside information here. And there's no way he would have given an item so broken as to say "You have a one-shot chance to find a scum and all his buddies", or any such thing. To hold onto a belief is playing like Fritzler, and I find that Fritz is often wrong. So...

I made a long post about this earlier that may have been lost to the crash. Remember, if you will, this post:

Lol. Anyway unvote, vote Coron because he seems to be acting a bit scummy

and too sure of himself

.

Refer again to Nai's post:

My main argument is that

he's far too sure of himself

, and I really don't see, in any way, how he can be like that. I mean, I can see how it would be a joke to begin with that he calls me and Nightfall scum buddies (me included ONLY because Nightfall voted for me), but he hasn't let it go. That suggests to me that he has some sort of outside information here. And there's no way he would have given an item so broken as to say "You have a one-shot chance to find a scum and all his buddies", or any such thing. To hold onto a belief is playing like Fritzler, and I find that Fritz is often wrong. So...

In fact, allow me to disect this post:
- - - -

"My main argument is that he's far too sure of himself, and I really don't see, in any way, how he can be like that."

Flimsy, flimsy statement, not to mention that this is terrible grounds for an argument. If that's your main argument, everyone might as well discount the rest of your post.

"I mean, I can see how it would be a joke to begin with that he calls me and Nightfall scum buddies (me included ONLY because Nightfall voted for me), but he hasn't let it go."

WHAT? The only time at all he says that is in his very first, obviously random post. No further use of that argument is utilized at all.

"That suggests to me that he has some sort of outside information here."

Throwing an implausible scenario out there and fishing all at once. Bravo...

"And there's no way he would have given an item so broken as to say "You have a one-shot chance to find a scum and all his buddies", or any such thing."

Suggesting yet another implausible scenario, in an attempt to further the argument. This would be like me saying "Nai's attacking Coron right now because Nai and Coron are probably siblings" and expecting that to further my argument.

"To hold onto a belief is playing like Fritzler, and I find that Fritz is often wrong. So"

And a dash of crappy metagaming to finish it off.
- - - -

The last thing I would like to say about the post is that you should read over it several times. It seems very very wishy-washy in the way it was written. So what have we here? A HUGE

FoS: Nai

for this 'winner.'

Coron's post #55 also caught my attention:

You're reactions, especially Nai's have buried the needle so to speak on my scumdar.
In early game I often play for reactions, if I see something worth pursuing I go for it.
And I take offense to the playing like Fritzer comment.
unvote Vote: Nai

Don't like this response, either. Nai's reaction isn't really scum reaction, it's stupid reaction. I don't consider it played as a reaction more as a 'let's try to start a bandwagon' ploy as scum. I suppose this post could be explained, so I'd like to ask

Coron:

Was the initial 'all three scum are voting for me' post made exclusively and entirely to get reactions? Once this is answered I can continue this comment.

HackerHuck adds this (post 58 ):

If I only had two votes. Instead, Im going to put the finger of suspicion on coron and nightfall for blatant misuse of the apostrophe!

Um, ok, nothing to add to what just took place? This post leaves me scratching my head, but I find it slightly suspicious, since it seems like it could be a distancing tactic from two scumbuddies coron and nightfall, though I somewhat doubt this. I find it fishy that Huck didn't stick a vote on one and an FoS on another. I'll keep an eye on his posts more as we proceed.

NOW, this is where the crash occurs, so a lot of material is lost here. Although there are some things I do remember, I'll ignore them for the purposes of the re-read since it opens up the possibility of scum fabricating evidence.

I for one in in favor of forgetting what happened in the crash. With that in mind, note post 68 by Jules:

I'm back on the site unvote Coron

FOS Nai - I can't remember the reasons for voting you before and I think it would be unfair to vote without any evidence, but I know you looked suspicious

It is possible that Jules fabricated this. It's possible he's telling the truth. We do not want to blindly take what people say happened as truth (note that this is an example post, so I don't think this makes Jules particularly suspicious).

However, further on, Jules does change that FOS to a vote. After some people ask what the reasons are for the vote (reasons that were lost in the crash), Jules posts soon after (post 79) with this explaination:

I put FOS in all my games on the person I had voted on because all the evidence was lost. We're not going to get anywhere if we don't start putting pressure on again though so I the vote went on

Way to avoid the question of why exactly you were voting Nai. This post is not very pro-town.

Now, even more people (Nai and conflux, it seems) post asking what was so suspicious. Jules' response in post 86 is:

The evidence was all destroyed in the crash

Way to avoid the question of why exactly you were voting Nai... again!

Fos: Jules

. He really should've answered the damn question by now.

Stewie posts some good logic in #89, saying:

I put FOS in all my games on the person I had voted on because all the evidence was lost. We're not going to get anywhere if we don't start putting pressure on again though so I the vote went on

Putting pressure? What are you pressuring him to say or do? There's nothing for him to defend against.

Coron responds to this by saying:

I put FOS in all my games on the person I had voted on because all the evidence was lost. We're not going to get anywhere if we don't start putting pressure on again though so I the vote went on

Putting pressure? What are you pressuring him to say or do? There's nothing for him to defend against.

Your defense of Nai is noted.

This is yet another continuation of Coron's vendetta against Nai. This time, though, it uses CrapLogic (TM) to accuse another player who wasn't even defending Nai! It's quite obvious that Stewie was attacking Jules, not defending Nai. Bad logic here, so Coron scores a few ScumPoints (TM).

From post 93 by Coron:

FoI: conflux (finger of idiocy)

<snip>

Ad Hominem noted...

It wasn't so much of a defense on Nai, but rather an attack on Jules. But I don't really think Nai did anything voteworthy. You can make a note of that if you want.

And here's Stewie pointing out that it was, in fact, an attack against Jules.

Here's a post by HackerHuck (#98):

We've had this discussion in the lost days, as far as I can remember. HackerHuck and I voted Jules for casting that vote, and Jules provided a good defense.

Something about that post rubs me the wrong way. It's a little too dismissive and relies on lost discussion.

Let's try and refrain from too much referencing of what we did pre crash, especially now that so much time has passed. I don't seem to recall placing a vote on Jules, but I can't really rule it out.

If this scenario did play out as Zindaras remembers, it would be nice if Jules could "re-explain" his vote.

This gets the :goodposting: award. It not only points out, correctly, that Jules needs to explain his vote again, but also points out something that got me thinking: the fact that Zindaras posted that Jules provided a good defense may have been an attempt to lower heat on him. Not major but something to look back at if either turns up scum.

Post #100 by Zindaras:

Something about that post rubs me the wrong way. It's a little too dismissive and relies on lost discussion.

Let's try and refrain from too much referencing of what we did pre crash, especially now that so much time has passed. I don't seem to recall placing a vote on Jules, but I can't really rule it out.

If this scenario did play out as Zindaras remembers, it would be nice if Jules could "re-explain" his vote.

Well, to be honest, with the second crash, I want a re-explanation as well, because my memory of what happened pre-crash has completely failed by now.

I do not consider Jules scummy, but a re-explanation would be useful for later.

If my above hypothesis about a hidden defense of Jules is true, this supports it. Zindaras suddenly, having been called on his bluff, turns around and concedes the issue. Again, this is only important if my hypothesis is correct.

Jules post:

I'm back

Ok, my vote for Nai...

The evidence I had gathered and had posted was lost in the first crash. I had gathered enough evidence to come to my own conclusions that Nai looked the scummiest out of what we had seen so far. I don't expect others to follow me in voting because I don't have any reasons I can show you, but just now we are lacking in anything concrete to go on. Thats as deep as my explanation goes I'm afraid

The response from others has been interesting though...

This post reeks. FOR THE THIRD TIME, our friend Jules fails to provide any reasoning for his votes. Quite interestingly, though, he keeps his vote. That last sentence seems like the perfect setup to attack someone based on reactions later on, or a possible defense that his vote was solely to cause reactions, so I'll keep a mental note of it.

BIG HUGE FOS: Jules

Coron post:

Um, it's perfectly reasonable imho. He says "I remember I was voting him, I probably had a good reason FoS" Then he comes back later does a reread to decide what the best lead is and votes

It looks like you're trying to pull stuff out of your rear end.

This post makes me seriously think that there is in fact some mechanic based reason that Coron wants Nai to be killed. Now, he's attacking Stewie, who is attacking a Jules, who is voting for Nai. In the process, he defends the wrong thing. Not liking this.

And he ends with another Ad Hominem. I think at this point I may well have to concede and chalk it up to playstyle.

Here's some craplogic by Nai:

I remember being told, several times, that you should never defend someone unless you are absolutely sure of their role. If they're scum, and you're town, you'll be lynched. If you're scum, you know they're town, and you'll probably be lynched. I can't see a reason you would defend him unless you know something we don't.

Whoever told you, Nai, told you wrong. Think about it. That means that the only time townspeople should ever defend someone is if that person is their mason partner. So any defense, even the most basic, is a scumtell. Riiiight.

HackerHuck adds a very good point in the next post:

Nai sure likes to imply that Coron has inside knowledge of some kind. FoS: Nai

EXCELLENT point, and I strongly agree. That's also another reason why I suspect a mechanic based reason for their vendetta.

Nai says this:

I'm just working off of the advice I was given a long time ago when I started playing. Whenever I have tried defending someone off a hunch, I always get votes on me. I don't see why Coron is able to pull the same stunt and doesn't get the heat. Especially when he defends Jules with craplogic.

FOS: HackerHuck for his post right there. FOSing me after I actually give evidence that Coron defended Jules with craplogic? Amazing.

Yes, whenever you tried to defend someone on a hunch. When you defend someone with logic, or try to defend someone's logic with your own logic, then it actually looks pro-town. Chalking things down to a hunch is OK, but doesn't look pro-town and looks scummy in defensive situations. Hacker's FoS appears to be due to Nai's constant insinuation that Coron's got insider info. Although I'd like a clarification from

HackerHuck

on the issue.

Here's yet another Nai post:

As well, I'm also making a statement on how I was taught to play. I don't know exactly how you can force craplogic out of that, but...

Um, maybe because the way you were taught to play involves craplogic? Still not providing a very solid defense.

- - -

That concludes this section of my reread. I will now proceed by listing how suspicious I am of people at this point:

Coron:

Somewhat Suspicious
Uses Craplogic, continues vendetta vs. Nai.

HackerHuck:

Probably Town
Provides very good reasoning and logic. Kind of lurkerish early on, though.

Nai:

Probably Scum
Constant attacks on Coron; uses flimsly or wishywashy arguments; uses craplogic a lot; insinuations that coron has inside info.

Zindaras:

In the Middle
Nothing much I got a read on. Probably town overall.

Stewie:

Slightly Suspicious
Not much to comment on. Some of his posts I agree with, some I don't. No really scummy posts, but I get a negative vibe from the way he says things. Especially use of minor Ad Hominem.

Lunalovesgood:

Very Suspicious
Early, early lynch -1 vote; poor logic and poor defense of actions.

Jules:

Somewhat Suspicious
Poor logic and not answering questions posed to him while trying to skilfully dance around them.

Conflux:

No Read
Not getting any read whatsoever on Conflux. This isn't a good sign, however.

Nightfall:

In Between
Provides some good posts and some bad, but nothing particularly noticable.

Perfect62834

Somewhat Suspicious
Really fishy random vote, not much else to add.

- - -

And that's it, I think. More reread to come later. And sorry for the excessively long post, I'll try to make 'em smaller in the future.

[GreenLiquid]

I count an attack on the arguement used to attack someone as a defense of that person. It really makes sense to me.

So if I point out craplogic in your accusation of someone, I'm defending them? This is bad play, since if I think the person you're accusing is scum, I would never want to point out the bad logic. Not a pro-town way to think.

This is way more convoluted logic than that used by me to say Stewie was defending Nai.

What I'm saying here is that the ends of almost all your posts is to discredit or attack Nai. I note that you're attacking people who are attacking opponents of Nai.

It's not ad hominem if I'm saying his actions rather than he himself is wrong, correct me if I'm wrong.

The way you're saying it appears somewhat insulting. I wouldn't have noticed anything if you had said it as such: "I think that you may be making up arguments," or at least something to that extent. Not necessarily true ad hominem, but fundamentally similar.

[GreenLiquid]

Also

Coron

: What do you think about my comments on Nai's posts?

In addition Coron, if we've now established that your 'all three scum' post was made to draw reactions, why did you immediately jump to defend it rather than let it run its course and read the reactions later? And why didn't your earlier defense state explicitly that this post in particular was intended to garner reactions?

[GreenLiquid]

I can see why you believe Nai is probably scum, but given your conclusion why is he not worthy of a vote? A lot of words, but no action.

I'm not going to vote for anyone until my reread is finished. Not sure why, just my OCD kicking in.

[GreenLiquid]

I am now contining my reread...

Page 6 opens with an argument between HackerHuck and Nai. I don't like the way Nai's 'advice' involves outside information. I'd like to know exactly what it is with Nai and insinuating people have outside information. I don't know if it's fishing or rolebased, but it's not helping anything and should probably stop.

Here's a post by Luna:

Okay, first of all, Jules vote seemed to be a bit out of nowhere, and you should never vote if you can't state a reason behind it. And I still don't see your reasoning behind your vote. So I

Fos: Jules

for that. And Coron supports this, so I still find him scummy.

Then we have Nai, who says:

I remember being told, several times, that you should never defend someone unless you are absolutely sure of their role.

which is, obviously, idiotic. What if you're town, and you think they're town. That would be a good reason to defend them. Although I don't agree with either Jules's or Coron's reasons for voting for Nai, I think Coron can defend him stupidly if he wants, so

Fos: Nai

And for the record, I'm still

voting Coron

.

Notice the ad hominem in the third paragraph. I agree with these points but they seem to echo what others have said too much. What I don't like, though, is that he's slinging FoS's around but keeps his vote on Coron, without explaining why. Still, for Luna, this is a step in the right direction.

If you're town and their not, and you defend them and they end up scum, chances are you'll be lynched for defending them. That's the reason I've been told not to defend someone unless you know their role. If you're a town, you shouldn't defend someone unless you know their town. If you're scum, you can defend just about anyone, since you know they WON'T be scum. That's why I tend to be on the offensive with anyone that defends another person: Either they are town that know what they are defending (unlikely on day 1), or they're scum that know they are in the clear. See the logic?

Not good logic. Let's say that you attack someone with really crappy logic, and lets say that said someone is too stupid to point it out. That means that if anyone attacks your faulty logic, you could immediately go on the offensive against them when in reality

you're

the one that should be explaining themselves. Also, this kind of logic makes it easy for scum to set up quick double mislynches and is not a pro-town way of thinking.

After some conversation about Stewie's avatar, we get this post (by Stewie):

Haha, I didn't think you were talking about my avatar.

Anyways, I still think that Jules is our better option, but Coron is also a good choice, particulary for the way in which he is defending Jules.

What I don't like about this post is that it echoes what others have been saying for the last couple of pages, and reflects popular opinion. Not that this is bad, but it seems that every post I see by Stewie seems to be pretty neutral and doesn't throw out any radical ideas or suspicions. People can agree with each other and I have no problem with it, but I think Stewie needs to form a few radical opinions and actually enter the spotlight for a change.

Nai post:

It's funny that HE can say something like that, and he doesn't seem to get nailed. Whereas I give reasons why I think he should be lynched, and everyone gets on my butt about it.

Sounds like an Appeal to Emotion if you ask me, only probably not in a good way.

Coron appears in post 169 and voices his suspicions. I'm not going to quote it since it's got a lot of quotes in it itself, but I think this may be a point in Coron's favor.

Nightfall poses a question:

Nai, I'm curious here, What would you say the one big reason your voting Coron is?

To which Nai responds:

My biggest reason? Being completely overconfident in himself with absolutely no reason to be so, probably, followed by defending Jules with a made up story.

Despite all the other things, your biggest argument is overconfidence? *sigh* Not this again. These poor arguments are not helping my view of Nai at all.

In the next post I point out a possible scenario in which both are scum and the whole thing is in fact a tactic. I could really see it too with all of Nai's wishy-washy lack of arguments and how they both have a continual vendetta against each other. The scenario is simple: one is lynched and ends up scum, so it's concluded that the other is town. This makes sense, but even if one does turn up scum it would be unwise to base the lynch on this logic alone (since that's how scum usually go about setting up double mislynches). I'd rather see how things play out in the Nai/Coron debate some more instead.

Nai continues to debate vs. coron:

First of all, I have absolutely no idea how you are counting posts here.

Second of all, you didn't even random vote ME in your first post. You built a case off of me by the reaction of mine (a humorous reaction) off of an FOS onto me.

And by post 15 of yours, or of anyones, it's probably time to stop random voting. Any vote at that point is not random.

So you based your case off of a humored reaction from me following your FOS, and have been adding crap to it ever since to make a case. And you can't even cite the correct posts.

So yeah. I see a problem with this.

I also see a problem with the fact that Coron and I are the only ones posting any content whatsoever, and the rest of the game is lurking.

For the second paragraph, yes that was a random vote. People put serious sounding reasons behind their random votes to make them sound funny. Sometimes people will use really bad craplogic in their random votes, also in an effort to be funny. Does that make them scum? No.

And for the third paragraph, I'm entirely sure he's reffering to the post subject numbers, not the number of posts by an individual person. I'm not sure how you can screw that one up. In fact, if I go back and spot you citing post numbers any time before this, you may earn my vote by LAL.

Nightfall post:

Zin you think Im scum in everygame.

I would post more but
1- Coron and Nai have sort of taken over the thread with their debate. I dont find either overly scummy.
2- I have been very clear that I want to lynch Con, other than that Im not sure.

I think this is the second time Nightfall has stated he wants to lynch Conflux without explaining why.

Also, the statement that he doesn't find either scummy sounds like a classic scum excuse to lurk ('Nothing interesting/suspicious has happened so I'm not posting'). I'll keep my eye on Nightfall as we proceed, but remind me when I'm done to do a private reread just on nightfall. I think something may be amiss.

Here's Coron:

Nightfall, there you go with your overdefensiveness again, he said he'd like to hear more from you not that you were scum.

Wow. Um, Coron, you seem to like to call everyone out on overdefensiveness. Someone asks Nightfall to post, and then he comes out and defends himself. Granted, the circumstances (30 mins after that post even though he's been lurker) seem a bit scummy, but I'm not sure it's pure overdefensiveness. Then again, the 'you think I'm scum every game' comment seems odd when all Zindaras asked was for him to post more.

Finally, Nightfall explains his vote on Conflux:

Huck, My thoughts on Con came from the fact that when in a rare occurance he would actually post in this game, he would ignore everything that was going on and post something of absolutely no content.

Ie. "this is for the bump"

I got a lurking in plain sight feal from him.

Sounds fair enough, but I don't think a lurker hunt is a good idea in these circumstances. Don't you think luna or perfect or Jules is more scummy that Conflux? Seems like a way to avoid the spotlight.

Jules post:

Just had a reread. I find it slightly ironic how you can come out with this Nai...

Well, there's also this other small thing. See, you built an entire case against me off of absolutely nothing (i.e., the reaction I made to your post in the beginning), and then have been subsequently adding things to it as if they make your argument any more valid. You made stuff up to begin with, and are adding things to it to make it seem like more than a house of cards.

I'm just voting you because you're doing that, and have been doing that, and your overconfidence about absolutely nothing is part of that.

...when you've built up your case against Coron in exactly the same way. Your biggest reason for voting for him is because he is being overconfident haha

My biggest reason? Being completely overconfident in himself with absolutely no reason to be so, probably, followed by defending Jules with a made up story.

Points out something against Nai. Check my post 468 and you'll find that Jules is still posting in the same way and I still don't like it (specifically, the 'haha' comment). Jules is still not redeeming himself in my eyes.

Nai posts this 'gem:'

My case on him has been built on the fact that he is overconfident, and his building a case off of nothing is part of that.

It's worth noting that, when Coron was defending Jules before, Jules is defending him now.

Oh boy, time to set up another double mislynch by trying to link two people again! I'll point this out again: Jules was pointing out the hypocrite-like way that your own argument was worded, and was attacking you, not defending Coron. Actually, Nai, I think this article might be a good read for you. Definite

FOS

for this one.

Coron's next post includes this which I cut out:

And, yes, I suppose that would be interesting to note.

That's in response to the last sentence of Nai's post by the way. So, it looks like Coron is admitting he was defending Jules, although I guess this could be kind of a corner case, so Coron: could you clarify whether or not you were in fact admitting to defending Jules?

Nightfall post:

As time goes on I am starting to see this as more of a town vs town arguement that started over Coron's ussual ...um... agressive.. playstyle.

Well, this was actually a non-requested insight, and he actually took a somewhat novel stance, so I guess this post is a point in his favor.

Kelly, replacing perfect, posts this:

Hey all.

I have not been following very closely but I will get on it yeah?

FOS: Zindaras

Not liking the FOS without reason.

Nai:

You seem to be defending him. I say that because you are attacking my argument which is attacking him. It further seems like defense because he defended you a few pages ago, and it seems like scum returning the favor. Considering the way you've been playing, Jules, up to this point, I'd not hesitate to put my vote on you.

First two sentences are spewing CrapLogic. Third sentence is just plain ignorant. Scum do NOT want noticable links between themselves. Also liking the 'I'd not hesitate to put my vote on you' comment without actually doing so. Classic scumtell.

Ho boy, he's a real winner by Coron:

oh yes actually I remember something I had seen in a reread.
In Nai's fourth post this appears:

My main argument is that he's far too sure of himself, and I really don't see, in any way, how he can be like that. I mean, I can see how it would be a joke to begin with that he calls me and Nightfall scum buddies (me included ONLY because Nightfall voted for me), but he hasn't let it go.

That suggests to me that he has some sort of outside information here.

And there's no way he would have given an item so broken as to say "You have a one-shot chance to find a scum and all his buddies", or any such thing. To hold onto a belief is playing like Fritzler, and I find that Fritz is often wrong. So...

Bolding mine.
So, why would she think I have outside information? Guilty concience much?
Also, I don't see why it would be out of the question for me to have been cop/tracker/whatever, and trying to get reactions from people in conjunction with my result. Even without it I don't see how it's at all out of the question for me to be trying to get reactions.
Basically the idea is this: I threw out a completely oddball theory, acted sure of myself and saw how people reacted. Nai reacted EXACTLY like RUH ROH THIS GUY KNOWS SOMETHING BETTER GET RID OF HIM.
Of course you're free to have your own opinions on this, but yeah.

This post deserves a dissection.
- - -

"So, why would she think I have outside information? Guilty concience much?"

Craplogic if I ever heard it. Yeah, lets turn everyone's attacks against them because they have a guilty concience. This =/= Logic.

"Also, I don't see why it would be out of the question for me to have been cop/tracker/whatever, and trying to get reactions from people in conjunction with my result."

Noting that this is the second time Coron has thrown out this scenario.

"Even without it I don't see how it's at all out of the question for me to be trying to get reactions."

Again, this falls under my previous argument of him waiting about until pages later to explain, and his hasty defense which sounds more like a slip and less like fishing for reactions.

"I threw out a completely oddball theory, acted sure of myself and saw how people reacted."

What oddball theory? Your random vote? It's quite clear to me that it was in fact random, and you saying otherwise sounds like a retrospective revision.

"Nai reacted EXACTLY like RUH ROH THIS GUY KNOWS SOMETHING BETTER GET RID OF HIM."

Uh-huh, everyone who Random Votes for someone is a cop with a guilty result.

- - -

Post by Nightfall:

(my opinion)

Basically the idea is this: I threw out a completely oddball theory, acted sure of myself and saw how people reacted. Nai reacted EXACTLY like RUH ROH THIS GUY KNOWS SOMETHING BETTER GET RID OF HIM.

Or it could be a pro town player who is a little annoyed at being labeled as scum for nothing at all by someone who seems so confident in what he is saying. And when someone apears confident enough to voice his opinions in that way, others may get convinced he is right.

Therefore the town player could be just interested in shuting you up or setting you streight so a mistake is not made by the rest of the town.

(This post is hypothetical of course, and comes from a distaste in the Coron/pooky/Fritz/Thesp playstile)

Good post by Nightfall, I'd say he's starting to look a bit more townish now.

Coron:

[sarcasm]Alright! Why don't we play mafia this way? LET'S ALL BE FRIENDS AND NOT ACCUSE ANYONE OF BEING SCUM AND SIT HERE AND STAGNATE FOR 3 MONTHS! Once all that is done the mod will put a 5 day deadline down and productivity will be up 600% for that but we'll still only get about 30 posts in that time and end up lynching someone mostly randomly. I love that style of play man. I wish we had more of that around here.[/sarcasm]

Poor, poor response.

Stewie post:

oh yes actually I remember something I had seen in a reread.
In Nai's fourth post this appears:

My main argument is that he's far too sure of himself, and I really don't see, in any way, how he can be like that. I mean, I can see how it would be a joke to begin with that he calls me and Nightfall scum buddies (me included ONLY because Nightfall voted for me), but he hasn't let it go.

That suggests to me that he has some sort of outside information here.

And there's no way he would have given an item so broken as to say "You have a one-shot chance to find a scum and all his buddies", or any such thing. To hold onto a belief is playing like Fritzler, and I find that Fritz is often wrong. So...

Bolding mine.
So, why would she think I have outside information? Guilty concience much?
Also, I don't see why it would be out of the question for me to have been cop/tracker/whatever, and trying to get reactions from people in conjunction with my result. Even without it I don't see how it's at all out of the question for me to be trying to get reactions.
Basically the idea is this: I threw out a completely oddball theory, acted sure of myself and saw how people reacted. Nai reacted EXACTLY like RUH ROH THIS GUY KNOWS SOMETHING BETTER GET RID OF HIM.
Of course you're free to have your own opinions on this, but yeah.

A few notes:
1. I find it perfectly reasonable to assume that you have some sort of information. If, for no apparent reason, you are sure Nai is scum, then it follows that you have some extra information (either that or you are nuts ). Cop sounds unlikely because, as Nai explained in the very same post you quoted, you didn't just say that Nai was scum, but that Nightfall was scum with him. Furthermore, given that being so confident with no apparent reason, and that it follows that you have extra information, it would not be a smart thing for a cop/tracker/whatever to let the scum know, because scum like to get rid of anyone with any extra information, other than themselves.

Ok, I guess it was one big point.

I don't like this post by Stewie, as it furthers the implication that Coron has outside info but doesn't give any solid evidence. This post screams a link between Nai and Stewie. The addition of the smilies seems against Stewie's playstyle so far, and usually I find the addition of humor to lighten a post up a scumtell.

Alright, that's as much as I have the stamina to do at present, but I'll continue from page 10 later.

- - -

Suspicions List:

Coron:

Probably Scum
Uses Craplogic, continues vendetta vs. Nai, not defending himself in a logical manner.

HackerHuck:

Leaning Towards Town
There is something about HackerHuck that I will talk about when I finish my reread, but I'm not getting into it yet.

Nai:

Probably Scum
Constant attacks on Coron; uses flimsly or wishywashy arguments; uses craplogic a lot; insinuations that coron has inside info; trying to link people by calling attacks defenses.

Zindaras:

In the Middle
Nothing much I got a read on, yet again. Probably town overall, although the more I see no material coming from Zindaras, the more I doubt this.

Stewie:

Suspicious
Starting to not like the connections with Nai, also the attempts to stay out of the spotlight.

Lunalovesgood:

Very Suspicious
Early, early lynch -1 vote; still not liking Luna's lack of logical arguments.

Jules:

Very Suspicious
Poor logic and not answering questions posed to him while trying to skilfully dance around them, not liking ad hominem and mocking tone of arguments

Conflux:

Slightly Suspicious
Still avoiding the spotlight, not posting anything of value.

Nightfall:

In Between, Leaning towards Scum
Not really taking a novel stand, seems to only post when it's requested or when he's being attacked.

Perfect62834/Kelly

Somewhat Suspicious
Really fishy random vote, also some later posts by Kelly I don't agree with.

[GreenLiquid]

Tough crowd. I just saw that he said he was eager to hear from me.

How is that suspicious?

[GreenLiquid]

I have answered the question. I said I didn't know my reasons because they were lost in the crash

If you can't explain yourself, don't vote. Simple as that. If you don't even know what the reasons are, how can you think someone is scummy? This makes absolutely no sense. On top of that, you didn't actually explain that you didn't remember the arguments until just now, when you could've said that a long time ago.

why would he think I have some sort of information that would make him look bad? Probably because he realizes it's a realistic situation. You think about that situation more as scum because you are worried you just got nailed by a cop. In your earlier analysis as I recall you even do mention that he keeps going back to the point that I seemed to have information. Why are you attacking me for pointing out something that it seems that you pointed out yourself?

This would have been a most excellent thing to say in that post back there. However, you said absolutely none of this. The only thing you said is that he has a 'guilty concience' (which implies that you think he has info). Unfortunately, I'm not buying it. Had you stated your ideas in a logical way, they would've made sense.

..because it's reasonable

Let me clarify. It's the second time you threw out that argument with almost the exact same wording. Which really sounds like breadcrumbing to me.

you mind clarifying wtf you're talking about?

Alright, I think my wording here isn't the best, so here's the full case:

Coron claims that his 'slip' post (where he claims that there are 3 scum) was in fact intended to fish for reactions. I do not believe this for two reasons:

1) Coron waits until pages later to actually say this. I'm not sure what the purpose of waiting that long would be, since direct reactions to the slip probably stopped around the third or fourth page.

2) Very soon after the 'slip,' Coron hastilly posts two posts (one after another) in his defense, in a very desperate fashion. If you are truly looking for reactions as you claim, then you would not have needed to have defended yourself.

it can't be both? Now you're being closed minded.

If it's actually a serious theory (no matter how strange it is), then it's not a *random* vote. But if it is, in fact, a random vote, then you're not basing it on a theory.

I acted a lot more sure of my random vote than most people and Nai hasn't played with me so Nai did not know that was one of my things that I do, it would be easy to mistake that for an information role with a result.

But if he has never played with you, then why would Nai try metagaming tricks like this? A lot of people act sure with their random votes to add humor.

[pre-post edit] Actually, it looks like Nai did play with you in Kirby Mafia. So that statement is not correct.

It seemed to me Nightfall is arguing against my playstyle of voicing my primary opinions at any point in the game loudly to keep the game from stagnating too much. I feel it is better to have a little bit of bandwagoning that a lot of lurking(even if it is on me, you could definately find better targets though). Most people don't respond to a FoS at that point in the game by getting all hyper and angry and bad about it. It's a page one FoS if you're protown there is no way that he's a cop with information on you or your partner(since unless you're mason you probably don't have one), but if you are scum there is that chance that it's the cop. This is basically why the reaction as scum is different than the reaction as town.

If the scum were that damn paranoid, then this game would be way too easy. Scum are not going to make it apparent when you random vote. Because probability says that you will get random voted by one person during the random vote phase.

*looks* Oh no! I got random voted by Stewie, so he's a cop with a guilty on me! I'm going to place my vote on him and keep it on him all day, and back it up with CrapLogic!

[GreenLiquid]

If you don't know why you find someone scummy, then voting for them is pointless. Plus, no, you never actually clarified anything until just now.

[GreenLiquid]

Continuation of the re-read.

First, a very interesting post by Coron:

Unless you think it's likely that the Nai-Coron thing was a distancing tactic then every % chance Coron is scum is a % chance Nai *isn't*.

I do not like this post, as it ties in almost perfectly with my scum-scum theory. This post is most certainly noted.

Nightfall:

Interesting how Nai no longer has anything to say...

It's been two days, thats hardly enough time to imply that someone has gone quiet.

Responding to questions and statements like these can be classified as lurking in plain sight.

Coron:

Scumminess=likelyhood of being scum.

Makin' generalizations.

Kelly posts next with:

also unvote, vote: Jules

Kelly seems to have a bad, bad habit of voting without giving any explaination.

Nai post:

Interesting how Nai no longer has anything to say...

OMG! Le gasp! Nai actually has a life outside of this game! There's also been a part that I didn't have much to post on so far, though I'm catching up now. Way to jump on a two day absence as if it actually means something.

Nai - he's looking worse in his argument with Coron, IMO, but I could see his play coming from a townie as well. I'd appreciate it if he voiced his opinion on someone other than Coron.

I generally go after one person that I have a feel on until either someone else is lynched, or until that person is lynched, then either stay with them the next day or, when circumstances make need, change my vote.

However, I do tend to voice on other people when asked, and I'll do so now:

The people I think scummiest in this game are as follows:

Coron - For the aforementioned (read; entire argument against him) reasons. As well, he just keeps acting as if no argument can possibly affect him, that he'll be town even when he's scum, that sort of deal.

Jules - He's been playing for Coron most of the game. He's also shown that he's vote-hopped, as well as trying to (in the quoted post at the top of this post) throw suspicion on me for nothing. He has also deliberately defended Coron, after Coron defended him.

Hackerhuck - Not as much of a vibe from him, though he seems to be on Coron's side, and has said a few words for Coron. However, I'd believe he's just a town. I needed a third person on this list, though, since I'm assuming there's a 3 person mafia (given the game size).

Elsewise, there's not much for me to include on. The game, now that a lot of other people are involved, seems to have, against all reason, slowed down. Instead of arguments for scum, we've gone from rushing rapids of rapid accusations and defenses to a Mississippi of a discussion. Odd.

I'd like to snip out this:

I generally go after one person that I have a feel on until either someone else is lynched, or until that person is lynched, then either stay with them the next day or, when circumstances make need, change my vote.

This is bad play. If your suspicion on someone changes, you keep voting them until the end of the day? This strategy is not particularly wise.

As Coron points out in the next post, Nai's comment on being three mafia is almost exactly the same as Coron's slip. However, the way it's worded makes me give a little leeway.

Strikethru is generally used when you're making a joke so pretty much if you read it as "I guess that puts you in the probably scum category" it's funny and joke like, while what he seriously means is what is not struckthru.

Um, can you STOP ANSWERING QUESTIONS FOR OTHER PEOPLE!!??

Haha this must be some kind of joke Nai. Base your argument on fact next time please...

Jules - He's been playing for Coron most of the game. He's also shown that he's vote-hopped, as well as trying to (in the quoted post at the top of this post) throw suspicion on me for nothing. He has also deliberately defended Coron, after Coron defended him.

As for how he's been batting for your team? Really simple. He's sided with you this entire game. His vote has rarely left me. He, very early, voted for you, which might have been a newbie-style (since, I'm not sure, but I think he's a newbie) distancing tactic. After that vote, he's basically argued against me (when he posts anything but "I'm here"), argued for Coron, voted me, and that's just about it. There were a few votes, if I remember correctly, of him voting for someone that was arguing against Coron.

You're not even arguing with me, you're arguing with yourself. One post says Jules is vote hopping. The next says my vote has rarely left you. (I should point out, the second is correct. I initially placed a random vote on you, voted for Coron when it looked like he may have information about the number of mafia, then moved back to you sometime during the crash and have stuck with you). Why should it when I believe you to be scum?

So are you trying to say that when more than one person thinks you're scummy, only one is allowed to argue?

There were a few votes, if I remember correctly, of him voting for someone that was arguing against Coron.

You made this bit up aswell. I've never voted for anyone apart from you and Coron. Worrying how you claim to be townie and yet you use phrases like "if I remember correctly", when if this is the case, you obviously have the memory of a goldfish. Looks more like a contortion of facts however

Once again, Jules continues the mocking tone and ad hominem while posing a mediocre argument. Keeps on digging his own grave.

And his next post provides this very telling snippet:

Apologies if that's the way you took it. Looks like you're trying to give as good as you got

So now, after being mocking and using ad hominem the entire game, once called out on it, you're suddenly apoligizing and being nice, even including a nice little smiley. Not buying it.

Stewie, no, I don't find that being typical newbie scum play. I see that as a player ACTUALLY MAKING SENSE FOR ONCE.

As for the ad hominem arguement:

Sure, he did mention that you had the memory of a goldfish, but he also presented the reasons that allowed him to come to this conclusion, he told you exactly why what you're saying is wrong and THEN moved on to the personal attacks. That might be unfriendly play(which honestly I might do a bit much of myself) but it's not ad hominem and it's not scummy.

IMHO we have a perfectly reasonable reason for him to change his FOS to a vote if we think instead of not thinking, if you want me to quote the post where I explain it I can, but I feel you are likely capable of finding it yourself.

What is the deal with the connection between Coron and Jules? Coron has gone out of his way to defend Jules twice now, with as far as I can tell no direct benefit to him. If one of them comes up scum, it would be a very good idea to take a very close look at the other.

Coron's defense of Jules continues in this post:

That's fine. But the issue is not whether we'll take it in-game or not. The issue is that he actively denied, then said 'maybe'. It's being wishy-washy about it, in addition to trying to evade my statements about him. He's been trying to discredit the statements BEFORE responding to them.

Yes, it might have happened because HE DOESN'T REMEMBER.

Also it seems your trying to pull me further into defending him and less into attacking your attack. Quit acting like I should defend all his actions (even if many of them are reasonable).

A post by Jules:

Posts 297-299

Not sure what to say to Stewie's. It comes over strongly and it was intended to come over strongly. My reaction was that Nai this was scum trying to make me look like scum. What other reaction do you expect when someone has posted evidence against you and it's completely false?

Just for the record - I have only completed 1 game on here, in which I was town

Discrediting Nai's arguments again in the first paragraph by out and calling them false again with no explaination. Second paragraph looks like it falls under this under 'Gambler's Fallacy.'

Now to do a little jumping. Jules original claim in post 326

I think that, at lynch -1, you should probably be claiming right now. So yeah, I'm requesting a claim.

I am a traveler, with no special abilities

Nobody unvotes though. Later, he is questioned by Coron about whether or not he has/had an Artifact. He responds (in post 349):

Jules, do you have any artifacts? You did not mention that with your claim.

Not any more. I started with one which I used and passed on

Hey! Nice of you to tell us that now! Sounds like a great claim revision. Unfortunately, townies don't suddenly change their claims.

Over the next page, Jules clarifies his claim, but does so over the course of many posts and much prodding by other players. This is very unsound.

The only point he has in his favor is this (from SL who replaced luna):

I can confirm luna receiving that artifact at the end of Night 1.

Which is a pretty big point, too.

I understood exactly what he was saying when he said that.

One other thing I forgot to adress is that I don't understand what you mean be 'he' or what 'he' said. Can you clarify?

the quote that you seemingly misunderstood. To me right now it seems like you are pulling things out of your rear end now.

More ad hominem...

HackerHuck post:

What happened between these two posts? His claim came before the first one.

I see no reason not to lynch this guy.

Unvote

Have to think his claim over.

I find Stewie's request for additional information to be quite scummy.

Jules, do you have any artifacts? You did not mention that with your claim.

Not any more. I started with one which I used and passed on

Ok... what was it, when did you use it, who did you use it on (if applicable), and to who did you pass it on?

FOS: Stewie

I find it odd that HackerHuck misunderstood the obvious fact that now SL had claimed to have recieved the artifact. Also, Jules' claim of possession of an artifact was clearly after the first of these two posts.

A lot of speculation about a potential Mouth of the Diviner is made in the next bunch of posts. I'm going to skip them for the time being, as I think they will warrant a reread later in the game.

Coron:

Can we get back to pressuring Nai?

Stewie in Response:

Who's "we"? You and Jules?

Coron in Response:

Who's "we"? You and Jules?

The town, a subset of which I believe to be Jules and Coron.

Trying to generalize as town and gain people's attention. Also suggesting more links between Jules and himself.

Jules:

I of course know I'm scum and don't think Jules is scum and do think Nai is scum

Ding ding ding

This is so blindly ignorant even a complete newbie would get the gist of it. Jules is looking more scummy by the second.

More speculation about the Mouth follows.

And, actually, we're about roughly back to where we started, so I guess this is a good stopping point. Here's a revised list of suspects, with scum numbers (1-100, 1 being confirmed town):

Coron

: Very Suspicious - 80
Use of craplogic and vendetta against Nai, coupled with use of ad homeinem and constant linking of himself with Jules, who I also find very suspicious.

HackerHuck

: Maybe Town - 50
Acts as the voice of reason early on, but gets a bit more opinionated later. My next reread will possibly be on him as I've spotted a very interesting pattern.

Nai

: Probably Scum - 82
Constant attacks on Coron; uses flimsly or wishywashy arguments; uses craplogic a lot; insinuations that coron has inside info.

Zindaras

: In the Middle - 55
Not really throwing much out there, and using very subjective opinions to attack. Seems to back up a lot of arguments with hunches.

Stewie

: Slightly Suspicious - 58
Can't say much. I don't agree with too much he says. A bit of lurking in plain sight, and some posts I don't like. Posting style overall seems suspicious.

Lunalovesgood/ShadowLurker

: Very Suspicious - 80
Early, early lynch -1 vote; poor logic and poor defense of actions, replacement SL being very agressive.

Jules

: Incredibly Scummy - 95
Has done absolutely nothing to redeem himself and is constantly mocking players, using ad hominem, or using faulty logic. Continues to form incriminating links with himself and Coron.

Conflux/CTD

: Slightly Suspicious - 60
Wasn't able to get much of a read on Conflux due to lurking. CTD continues the lurking in plain sight tradition. These two need to post more so I can get a read.

Nightfall

: Slightly Suspicious - 60
I don't like Nightfall's lurking or middle ground apporach. I suggest that he form a long suspicions list like this one and spend a good deal of time actually saying his opinions on everyone so I can get a read.

Perfect62834/Kelly Chen

: Suspicious - 73
Really fishy random vote by perfect, followed by lurking. Kelly has a nasty habit of not explaining her votes or FoS's unless explicitly told to, and is making posts that I don't agree with.

- - -

So, in conclusion, I think that Jules is our best lynch for today. I will outline the reasons why in a later post, which will come today if I have time, otherwise on Thursday.

[GreenLiquid]

Speaking of Nai, are we still waiting on him to recover from his move or are there plans to replace him?

I would really prefer we wait as I have questions for Nai that a replacement wouldn't be able to answer.

[GreenLiquid]

But hunches can't really be logically analyzed, which is a problem for getting a good read on you. You need logical suspicions just as much as hunches, if not more.

[GreenLiquid]

But that doesn't logically work because a townie could still be wrong with his hunches, and a mafia correct.

[GreenLiquid]

I used ad hominem ONCE. You've duplicated you're argument against me.

This is wrong. Almost every single one of your posts has had a mocking tone, and many have had ad hominem argument.

I used ad hominem ONCE. You're making it out that I use it every time. I didn't know what it was at the time, now that I do, I know that I used it. I have explained it. You've also duplicated that point against me. In two of your arguments, you use the post that starts "haha" against me

This is what could probably be classified as 'appeal to repetition,' first off. Secondly, ignorance of a scumtell is not an excuse. Does that mean that I can vote hop, be wishy-washy, and use faulty logic, then use 'I didn't know that was scummy' as a get out of jail free card? Nien.

In what way is that ignorant? Coron says "I am scum". If I’d actually believed someone would come out and say this, I would’ve put a vote on. It was a joke. You neglected to mention that immediately following this, Nightfall makes an ad hominem attack on me by making out I’m too stupid to spot Coron’s slip

Maybe because you didn't say any of this earlier. Nightfall did indeed make a sort of ad hominem, and again, that's a point against him. I don't mention it in the summary because unlike you, he does it only once.

I’m also wondering why the sudden burst of activity when prior to you jumping on my bandwagon, you had only posted thrice in 12 pages?

The game was dying so I decided to do a re-read and post thoughts in some attempt to revive it an catch scum at the same time. Also don't like how this argument is well placed in an attempt to discredit me.

[GreenLiquid]

Responses to the following will be in colorful

red

for your enjoyment.

why would he think I have some sort of information that would make him look bad? Probably because he realizes it's a realistic situation. You think about that situation more as scum because you are worried you just got nailed by a cop. In your earlier analysis as I recall you even do mention that he keeps going back to the point that I seemed to have information. Why are you attacking me for pointing out something that it seems that you pointed out yourself?

This would have been a most excellent thing to say in that post back there. However, you said absolutely none of this. The only thing you said is that he has a 'guilty concience' (which implies that you think he has info). Unfortunately, I'm not buying it. Had you stated your ideas in a logical way, they would've made sense.

Sorry for implying that he know's he's scum. That is unless you mean something else. This was basically an expansion of the "guilty concience" comment, since I believe this is the first time someone has asked for clarification I do not see what your problem is.

But 'guilty conscience' does not mean the same as your paragraph long explaination. It's not detailed enough, it doesn't share the same meaning, etc.

..because it's reasonable

Let me clarify. It's the second time you threw out that argument with almost the exact same wording. Which really sounds like breadcrumbing to me.

I can find you another game where I did something similar and was definately not cop or other investigation role. If you want me to find it for you I can.

Sounds like WIFOM to me. Either way, it's really not helping.

you mind clarifying wtf you're talking about?

Alright, I think my wording here isn't the best, so here's the full case:

Coron claims that his 'slip' post (where he claims that there are 3 scum) was in fact intended to fish for reactions. I do not believe this for two reasons:

1) Coron waits until pages later to actually say this. I'm not sure what the purpose of waiting that long would be, since direct reactions to the slip probably stopped around the third or fourth page.

2) Very soon after the 'slip,' Coron hastilly posts two posts (one after another) in his defense, in a very desperate fashion. If you are truly looking for reactions as you claim, then you would not have needed to have defended yourself.

The 'slip' was NOT pressing for reactions, the 'slip' was me making an assumption that is while not 100% confirmed, not too bad of a guess(I'd say around 95% accuracy). My attacks on the three in particular, in connection to each other was fishing for reactions.

Allow me to point out this post by me:

Was the initial 'all three scum are voting for me' post made exclusively and entirely to get reactions? Once this is answered I can continue this comment.

To which you respond:

Pretty much but not entirely(I mean there is a chance, certainly not ruling it out even now)

Now it appears that your story has changed.

it can't be both? Now you're being closed minded.

If it's actually a serious theory (no matter how strange it is), then it's not a *random* vote. But if it is, in fact, a random vote, then you're not basing it on a theory.

AH I see what you're saying, and NO it was clearly NOT a true random vote I did NOT go to random.org or any similar sites, no dice were used, it was not even psuedorandom. It was taking the best lead I saw so far(which was almost nothing) and voting based on it. I was thinking that you were meaning "random vote" in that it was a vote during the portion of the game where there is little to no information to vote off of, which is in fact the case.

OK, makes sense now.

I acted a lot more sure of my random vote than most people and Nai hasn't played with me so Nai did not know that was one of my things that I do, it would be easy to mistake that for an information role with a result.

But if he has never played with you, then why would Nai try metagaming tricks like this? A lot of people act sure with their random votes to add humor.

I haven't actually seen this done often by people other than me, Internet Stranger(before your time I think), and a couple others.

I wouldn't say comparing yourself to IS of all people is a smart move... lol

On a more serious note, I see it happen a lot. Almost all the time, people come up with fun little 'fake' arguments full of holes as their random votes. Too often to be ignored.

[pre-post edit] Actually, it looks like Nai did play with you in Kirby Mafia. So that statement is not correct.

I posted like two times or something in that before being replaced(I think), and I didn't use this tactic(again as far as I recall), it is not suprising that I do not remember this.

Sounds fair enough.

It seemed to me Nightfall is arguing against my playstyle of voicing my primary opinions at any point in the game loudly to keep the game from stagnating too much. I feel it is better to have a little bit of bandwagoning that a lot of lurking(even if it is on me, you could definately find better targets though). Most people don't respond to a FoS at that point in the game by getting all hyper and angry and bad about it. It's a page one FoS if you're protown there is no way that he's a cop with information on you or your partner(since unless you're mason you probably don't have one), but if you are scum there is that chance that it's the cop. This is basically why the reaction as scum is different than the reaction as town.

If the scum were that damn paranoid, then this game would be way too easy. Scum are not going to make it apparent when you random vote. Because probability says that you will get random voted by one person during the random vote phase.

it wasn't a random vote and it didn't look like a random vote, in fact it wasn't even a VOTE on Nai, so this is all getting kind of silly with talking about it as a vote, it was a vote on Nightfall and a FoS on Nai. Also, what keeps the mafia from being that paranoid if you don't nail them when they do. Also, I find, often yes they are that paranoid.

Again, that vote/fos could very easily be mistaken for random, as a matter a fact I even thought it was until you posted otherwise.

First, a very interesting post by Coron:

Unless you think it's likely that the Nai-Coron thing was a distancing tactic then every % chance Coron is scum is a % chance Nai *isn't*.

I do not like this post, as it ties in almost perfectly with my scum-scum theory. This post is most certainly noted.

Perfectly reasonable, I aplaud your efforts. What I said is true anyway, though, but clearly you think it was a distancing tactic.

But what this post quite easily does is makes people believe that one of you is scum and one is town. This makes the scum argument tactic very effective if done correctly.

Coron:

Scumminess=likelyhood of being scum.

Makin' generalizations.

Sorry for stating a definition?

That's not a definition, as other people use other definitions of the word scummy. Usually, when I say scummy I'm reffering to their behavior, not their percent chance of being scum. Don't generalize.

Strikethru is generally used when you're making a joke so pretty much if you read it as "I guess that puts you in the probably scum category" it's funny and joke like, while what he seriously means is what is not struckthru.

Um, can you STOP ANSWERING QUESTIONS FOR OTHER PEOPLE!!??

As soon as you stop being a complete and utter retard(ad hominem for any of you people keeping track). To me it was 99.9% likely that what I said was exactly what he meant, and seriously, it you think he's going to slip up on something like "what does this strikethru mean" you might as well go back to newbie games.(sorry, that's very very very ad hominem, but I can't help myself, the comment is so retarded).

Pointing out your logical fallacies do not make them suddenly cease being logical fallicies. You do not know how a person will answer, and trying to answer before them can sometimes discredit their answer if it contradicts what the person was going to say. Again, answer questions asked specifically to you, and lot others answer their own.

Stewie, no, I don't find that being typical newbie scum play. I see that as a player ACTUALLY MAKING SENSE FOR ONCE.

As for the ad hominem arguement:

Sure, he did mention that you had the memory of a goldfish, but he also presented the reasons that allowed him to come to this conclusion, he told you exactly why what you're saying is wrong and THEN moved on to the personal attacks. That might be unfriendly play(which honestly I might do a bit much of myself) but it's not ad hominem and it's not scummy.

IMHO we have a perfectly reasonable reason for him to change his FOS to a vote if we think instead of not thinking, if you want me to quote the post where I explain it I can, but I feel you are likely capable of finding it yourself.

What is the deal with the connection between Coron and Jules? Coron has gone out of his way to defend Jules twice now, with as far as I can tell no direct benefit to him. If one of them comes up scum, it would be a very good idea to take a very close look at the other.

I believe I benefit because I think Jules is town.

But you're going waaaay too far out of your way just because you 'think' he's town. Townspeople have no need to do this.

A post by Jules:

Posts 297-299

Not sure what to say to Stewie's. It comes over strongly and it was intended to come over strongly. My reaction was that Nai this was scum trying to make me look like scum. What other reaction do you expect when someone has posted evidence against you and it's completely false?

Just for the record - I have only completed 1 game on here, in which I was town

Discrediting Nai's arguments again in the first paragraph by out and calling them false again with no explaination. Second paragraph looks like it falls under this under 'Gambler's Fallacy.'

I would respond to this idiocy if you wouldn't get mad at me for it. Actually I would have to go over the specifics of what happened in the posts leading up to it, but as a recall, the gambler thing is an idiotic comment.

Notice how Jules just up and says that the arguments are false. Is there any logical rebuttal? Nope, just flat out says 'hey, they're false, ignore them' with no defense.

As for the Gambler's Fallacy, it appears Jules is trying to imply that he is town in this game because he was town in another, which means absolutely nothing.

Hey! Nice of you to tell us that now! Sounds like a great claim revision. Unfortunately, townies don't suddenly change their claims.

turns out he didn't. (damnit, you're probably going to get mad at me again)

First, he starts off with 'I'm a townie with no powers,' then later it becomes that he had an artifact. Over the course of a lot of prodding, we finally get all the details. When a person claims, they need to outline the important details. And maybe it's just me, but I think having an artifact is classified as an important detail.

The only point he has in his favor is this (from SL who replaced luna):

I can confirm luna receiving that artifact at the end of Night 1.

Which is a pretty big point, too.

Biggest. Point. Ever.

Quite. Which is probably the one good thing about his claim, and is probably big enough to redeem most of my suspicion about the claim (though I could still easily see what he was doing as an attempt to not have to bother claiming an artifact).

I understood exactly what he was saying when he said that.

One other thing I forgot to adress is that I don't understand what you mean be 'he' or what 'he' said. Can you clarify?

the quote that you seemingly misunderstood. To me right now it seems like you are pulling things out of your rear end now.

More ad hominem.. except I've explained why it's not. It's being mean, not ad homing(to ad hominem). You have me on "being mean and saying exactly what he thinks about things", but usually I find that honesty is a strong protown trait.

But the way you say it makes it easy to make others who read it put classify the victim as desperate or inferior, and

discredits their argument

.

Coron in Response:

Who's "we"? You and Jules?

The town, a subset of which I believe to be Jules and Coron.

Trying to generalize as town and gain people's attention. Also suggesting more links between Jules and himself.

do you think I'm scum with him and am just that retarded? Do you think one of us is scum latching onto the other? I mean the whole both of us are scum thing should probably be considered less credible(by far) than my point about Nai's reaction.

No, I think you're trying to utilize a logical fallacy called guilt by association, which could be very powerful in setting up a quick double mislynch. I'm not really sure what to think, but a member of the town has no reason to continually attempt to link himself to another player unless said players are masons.

I honestly don't think you're scum that much GreenLiquid I think you're just playing very poorly in your suspicions, suspecting both me(who I know to be protown) and jules(who I feel maybe 90% sure is protown).

Why do you think Jules is pro-town? Why do you go out of your way to defend him? It isn't adding up, and I think Coron has cards he isn't showing.

In addition, I realize this last post could be an appeal to emotion/blackmailing. 'I don't think your scum, but I think you're playing poorly' looks like it quite easily translates into an attempt to get me to stop attacking you. Sorry, chester, but if I find you scummy I'm going to attack you, whether or not you find me scum.

[GreenLiquid]

"Was the initial 'all three scum are voting for me' post made exclusively and entirely to get reactions? Once this is answered I can continue this comment." My post was not made because I wanted to have a 'slip', so your logic doesn't hold here, sorry. I answered the question as presented.

Your answer at said that most of the intent was to gain reactions. In your latest post, you now say that no part of it was to gain reactions. Simply put, your story's changed.

And yes, guilty concience does have the same meaning it's just very condensed. Guilty Concience means pretty much "feeling like you're being attacked for something because you should be attacked for something", with a little bit of reading comprehension it can easily be figured out how this connects to my explanation. I reallly don't like filling the thread with stupid stuff that people should be able to figure out, but you seem to me making me do it and then claiming that I should have wasted a whole bunch of everyone else's time earlier by insulting their intellegence and overexplaining.

Guilty concience, though, isn't a very logical term. When I read it, my mind jumped to the practical term 'guilty concience.' You can't explain something many pages later and remove all doubt, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Also he posted that he was a plain townie with no powers, he did not say ANYTHING about Artifacts, so he did not actually change his claim, in fact he claimed his role(that's what a roleclaim is right?), just not anything about artifacts. Also, saying after it was after a lot of prodding might be an exageration, it was fairly quickly after his claim that he told us about his artifact.

But this seems like a blantant attempt to get out of claiming any artifact whatsoever. Notice how many details of his claim (including the artifact) were only given after someone else asked specifically for that detail. The first claim was nothing short of misleading.

Sorry, but for that last little bit, I'm not understanding what you mean by guilt by association to set up a double mislynch. Guilt by association is where one person is scum so the second person is scum, right? I'm not sure exactly how this at all applies to a double mislynch. Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

By Guilt by Association, a scumbag can set up a link with another innocent player. Then, after his death, the town lynches the other player for being so closely linked to the scum. This is one of the ways scum can really screw a town (oftentimes in endgame, too).

I think Jules is protown because he has made reasonable posts(for the most part) and has had some really stupid worthless acuisations against him. I go out of my way to defend him because I think he's town. I may or may not have cards I am not showing.

Then I suppose we have different opinions on the issue. All I'll say is that all but a small couple of posts Jules has posted have falacious logic, that ad hominem/mocking additude I don't like, or give a bad scum-vibe.

I don't think this is a nasty habit, or even particularly true. If I vote without comment this is probably just a response to whatever is going on. Your inability to make any sense of my Zindaras FOS baffles me, especially if you're actually going through the thread and not simply viewing all posts by X.

I understand your Zindaras FOS after rereading, but the point is that not giving your reasons for voting or FOSing in your post means not telling the town why you suspect that person, and allows for wiggle room to change your story later, without having to explain that one post.

Assuming you don't doubt he had that artifact, is there a point to this or are you just scolding Jules?

I'm almost positive he had one, but the first post was just plain misleading and makes me think that he wanted as little detail in his claim as possible (something I could easily see newbie scum trying to do).

How would that be advantageous at all to scum?

Again, that takes a bunch of details that he would otherwise have to explain and nullifies them. As newbie scum not yet confident with the ability to make a up a good story, I can absolutely see why this would be helpful. Remember, just because he had an artifact in no way means he's town.

[GreenLiquid]

Why would you, if asked to claim, not share your prime role detail? If you're a townie with an artifact, the artifact is your role, and any not claiming of it just sounds plain suspicious.

Not only that, but note that his claim was worded very, very similarly to what was in the role PM, which leads me to believe that he probably looked at it when claiming. If that was the case, there's absolutely no way he missed the little detail of having an artifact.

As for being new, what I'm saying is that new players, not yet confident in their abilities, will want to make as small of a claim as possible, to avoid slipping up. This particularly makes me think that he's newbie scum who doesn't want to risk making a mistake in his claim (in my first few games, I was very nervous about claiming, or even posting, hence my 'can't claim' fake claim in WRE).

[GreenLiquid]

This is a lie, in my latest post I specifically say my post was not made for the purpose of the 'slip' it was made for the purpose of calling all three of them scum. Calling all three of them scum was to get reactions. So, the post was made to get reactions, but the 'slip' was not intended to get reactions. The 'slip' (that I claimed there were 3 scum without proof, just so we all are talking about the same thing), just sort of happened.

It sounds like you are trying to wiggle out of contradicting yourself by getting into semantics.

Artifacts are a totally separate thing from role, I don't find it misleading. I realized immediately that he had not mentioned artifacts and then asked the question. It wasn't misleading unless you're really dull.

The artifact you started with is not part of your role? Hohoho, what a jest my fine chap.

so you weren't talking at all about a double mislynch, that's what confused me. So if you think I am trying to set you guys up for a mislynch of Jules(or vice versa), why do you suspect both Jules and myself so highly?

You've both done scummy things. I'm just saying that it's a point towards your guilt now, but based on alignments it could change. For example, if you were to die and turn up scum, it might be used as important evidence for defending Jules, based on how the situation looks at that point.

[GreenLiquid]

If you're a vanilla townie, the fact that you started with an artifact IS your role. I'm not sure how hard that is to comprehend.

[GreenLiquid]

It sounds like you are trying to wiggle out of contradicting yourself by getting into semantics.

it sounds like you were wrong and I was right, you see that but still do not want to give up your point for some reason.

If you're a vanilla townie, the fact that you started with an artifact IS your role. I'm not sure how hard that is to comprehend.

because it's not.

Wow, that's a great idea. So anytime I want to refute someone's arguments from now on, I'll just say 'no!' Yeah, logic is overrated...

[GreenLiquid]

I would like to know since when is "aggresiveness" or "overdefensiveness" a scumtell as I'm tired of being accused of it in all my games because frankly IMO, they aren't. I'm also curious as to how one post could put luna at 80 while any subsequent posts by anybody can barely change that #.

Read the entire reread. She's said more than that. And even then, that one post is extrememely telling. That would be like someone who's acting pro-town the whole time saying 'I'm scum! Lynch me!' only getting someone up to 60.

Overdefensiveness is just a way scum act. It's a good argument... when used correctly. Some players playstyles are just overdefensive, regardless of whether or not you like it, so you've got to bite the bullet and deal with it. Overagressiveness can be scummy, but oftentimes isn't. A lot of it depends on the arguments used and how desparate the attacker is.

Also, we need more people to post. It would be nice to have everyone's suspicions outlined by the end of Day 1 so that we have material to look back on later.

[GreenLiquid]

I still think that starting with the Ear is evidence of being protown. Have you not considered this GL?

I would say it's a point in his favor, but a miniscule one. You know some of the bad guys are going to start with some sort of artifact or another, otherwise the game would be breakable. I just don't like the way he failed to state up-front that he had an Artifact.

I don't like the way Nightfall just jumped in and agreed with someone before departing. Can you at least state some of your suspicions or something to that extent?

With that in mind, I think everyone should post a list of their suspicions about everyone else. It'll give us a good foundation to work off of from day one, and allow any info we get to be that much more helpful in the long run.

[GreenLiquid]

GreenLiquid, I thought you were going to take a stand against someone when you finished your reread?

I'm still taking people's reactions into account. More will come later.

[GreenLiquid]

Still here. I'm saving typing up my big post until I have a good chuck of access time to burn.

[GreenLiquid]

A few notes before I post my master list:

In response to Green Liquid: Nope, that post wasn't a joke. He was at lynch -1 at the time. That's about the time I expect people to claim, so that they aren't lynched without it.

I'm sorry, but a small slip at the beginning of the game that is ambiguous at best and suspicious at worst does NOT warrant a page 2 lynch. This response was not the one I was looking for in terms of pro-town behavior.

Classic Scumtells and CrapLogic: Well, I think that, a few posts before this big PBPA of yours, people were actually saying that X attacking Y, and Z attacking X, isn't exactly right. And no, I wouldn't hesitate to put my vote on him. But, amazingly enough, I had my vote on someone else at the time (who I still have my vote on) that I thought was scummier. Right, classic scumtell. Do me a favor and actually pay attention to the posts and the situations when you go back.

You're missing the point. The scum tactic here, one that is pretty widely known, is placing suspicion on someone and implying you will vote for them without actually doing so. This is done so that, for example, if players decide to go back and look at voting records, they will find no record of your 'suspicion' of that player. A way for scum to place suspicion on someone without having to explain themselves when said person ends up town.

I'll get to preparing a whopper here shortly...

[GreenLiquid]

SUSPICION SUMMARY

I'm going to start off by listing thoughts about every player in the game, then follow up probably tommorow with the top three suspects, and then what in my opinion would be the most favorable lynch of the day.

CORON

Over the course of twenty pages, I've been paying special attention to Coron. At the beggining of day, he makes a slip, then rushes to his own defense. Other players bandwagon him for this, some making themselves suspicious as well. Over the course of the day, Coron and Nai have had some sort of vendetta against each other that seems to imply something mechanic based, a scum tactic, or stupid town. This has taken up a large portion of the day, which unfortunately forces me to derive most of my suspicions from reactions to this fiasco.

After I had posted my re-reads, Coron began defending himself, and did a good job as well, using pro-town logic and sounding at least somewhat confident in doing so, making him a bit less suspicious in my eyes than he would've been otherwise.

Coron has used some craplogic over the course of the game and has for some odd reason defended Jules, one of the scummiest players around at this point. I'm not sure exactly what this implies. He has also been answering other people's questions and trying to make generalizations, both things that are annoyances as town and crafty tools as scum.

OVERALL:

Coron is somewhat suspicious overall. He earned a lot of suspicion early on, but partially redeemed himself later by defending himself with logic and good reasoning.

CONFLUX/CTD

I have very little to say in regards to Conflux. He has spent much of the game lurking about, and hasn't posted much of anything useful. His replacement, CrashTextDummie, acts similarly. This unfortunately makes it very difficult to get a good read. This is something that is not part of the pro-town archetype and Conflux/CTD may have to be run up later on if some actual content is not posted.

OVERALL:

Conflux and his replacement as slightly suspicious. I can't get a good read on him, and I think a small yet well-defined list of suspicions should allow me to get the analysis I need. Until then, there ain't much I can do.

HACKERHUCK

HackerHuck has acted as the voice of reason over the course of the game, a definite part of the pro-town archetype. I am not familiar with HH as a player and I'm not sure if this is just ordinary for him or something different, so if any other players can enlighten me in regards to his playstyle, I'd appreciate this. He's not without his flaws, though. Some of the things he points out are quite obvious, and he seems very agreeable, arguing against only obvious targets and voicing opinions that are pretty mainstream, not novel.

OVERALL:

I think HackerHuck is slightly town. I'm not sure I want to push it much further than that, but I think the way he's been acting suggests a pro-town person behind the wheel. Again, we'll see how things change in the future.

JULES

Ah yes, Jules. Unfortunately, there is almost nothing in the way he's been acting that even remotely feels pro-town. He's used crap-logic and lots of it, bandwagoned, used even more craplogic, been incredibly vague when questioned, used some more craplogic, used a lot of OMGUS, and other things too numerous to list.

He's also a major fan of ad hominem attacks and using a mocking tone that fits in perfectly with the newbie scum archetype, which is what Jules would be if scum. And I'm quite sure that's the case. Also notable is the fact that Coron has defended Jules on multiple occasions, with little reason (at least, STATED reason) for doing so.

OVERALL:

Jules is, well, incredibly scummy. He's done numerous things that do not make sense coming from a pro-town player, tried to avoid having to explain himself, and to top it off fits the persona of newbie scum to a T.

LUNA/SL

Luna has done some pretty scummy stuff, but isn't going to be putting Jules to shame anytime soon. The biggest offense on the list is placing a very weak bandwagon at lynch minus one on Page 2. Other transgressions include not backing himself up and not contributing. I think people may be making a little too big of a deal of the lynch -1 thing, even though it is extremely scummy.

OVERALL:

Pretty scummy. Someone that needs to have an eye on them over the remainder of the game.

NAI

Nai is in a similar boat as Coron, in this case vendettaing against him, constantly implying the prescense of hidden info (even in cases where it doesn't make sense), using craplogic, and in general using very, very weak arguments. Almost everything that applies to Coron also applies to Nai, and that doesn't make me comfortable at all.

OVERALL:

Very scummy. Nai has made himself look very suspicious over the course of the day. All of the actions add up to a player that just reeks of having an anti-town agenda.

NIGHTFALL

Nightfall has acted similarly to Conflux, lurking a lot and not posting novel things. Ironically, Nightfall is voting for Conflux for these exact reasons...

OVERALL:

Somewhat suspicious. Again, this is someone that needs more examination before a good conclusion can be made.

PERFECT/KELLY

Perfect started the game off scummy (see my reread for more) then didn't really stand out. I'm not sure why this is, but there seems something odd about it. After a long lurking streak, perfect is replaced by Kelly, who also is being suspicious, her biggest infraction being voting or FOSing without stating reasons. Not someone who stands out (not that that's a good thing).

OVERALL:

Somewhat suspicious. Once more we have someone that I can't get a good read on. I'll have to continue to watch later on in the game.

STEWIE/MM

Great, another Nightfall/Conflux. Stewie didn't do much posting, and could be classified as lurkerish. However, the posts he did make gave me a scum vibe, and made quite a few points I didn't agree with. For this, I would have to say and state that Stewie is a bit (and by a bit, I mean a fair amount) ahead of Nightfall and Conflux on the scum-o-meter. Still in the same boat though.

OVERALL:

Suspicious. Someone that needs to have a PBPA done on them, and probably needs to be carefully watched as the game proceeds.

ZINDARAS:

My sentiments for HH apply here. Acting as the voice of reason, acting pro-townish, and in general being helpful. Not much else to say.

OVERALL:

In the middle, leaning towards town. We'll see here, but I think Zindaras is pretty clean for the time being.

I will reflect on these tonight and post my top 3 sometime tommorow or tuesday, whenever I have a sizeable opening.

[GreenLiquid]

Well, I don't remember anything about this game. Looks like this situation calls for a reread!

[GreenLiquid]

vote: GreenLiquid, explain!

Explain what?

[GreenLiquid]

Take a guess?

If you want to play games, I'm not interested. Either make a valid accusation or don't expect an explaination.

The latter part of Day One was really strange, and I'm not sure I even could follow people's thought processes. I think it would be wise to start the day off with people posting who they find suspicious. I don't have a single clue who people currently suspect, and I'd like to hear from everyone so that I can have something to go by. Knowing where everyone stands is important, and at the moment, I don't have a good read on

anyone

.

A few notes:

1) Nai's use of 'artifact' does not make me think he is town. The limitations on it make me want to think that it was a mafia power that Nai wanted to label as an artifact, realized what could happen if he was ordered to pass it, and gave it the no-pass limitation.

2) I don't like how Zindaras made repeated efforts to stop HH's lynch near the end of Day 1.

[GreenLiquid]

HH was SK, how would that implicate Zindaras.

I didn't say it implied a connection, I just said I didn't like it. I wouldn't have liked it even if he had turned up town.

[GreenLiquid]

Why did you drop off the planet yesterday? You were going to tell us who you ultimately suspected.

>_< Ugh, I had completely forgotten.

In no particular order, they were Nai, Coron, and Jules.

This was mostly due to numerous apparent links, and other actions that were outlined over the course of my reread. Nai and Coron are still suspect now, but I think Jules has fallen down on my list since yesterday.

How likely (percentage-wise) do you think it is that Nai had this as a role ability rather than an artifact?

Maybe about 20%. Not extremely likely, but still a very real possibility.

I'm curious about what in particular you disliked.

Anytime a player defends another player with no explanation and seemingly for no in-thread related reason, the alarm bells start ringing. HH being a SK also means there's no mason connection.

I did not do anything with the ear last night.

Before I comment further, I would like to know why you did not use it.

[GreenLiquid]

There were reasons why I defended Hucky. I felt that he was the voice of reason throughout most of the game. His opinions very much resembled my own. Therefore, I felt he had the same alignment I have.

Then the question is: why did you 1) Not say this, and 2) Not make an actual defense?

[GreenLiquid]

Also, I didn't start the game with nor currently have a 'of the Diviner' artifact.

[GreenLiquid]

Coron, it'd be nice if you'd actually post some things other than attempts to get rid of Nai.

:goodposting:

Still wating for a response from Nightfall.

[GreenLiquid]

Why has SL yet to explain why he didn't use his artifact last night?

[GreenLiquid]

I'm still here. This has to be the most frustrating game I've ever played. I'll look over some things but I'm still suspicious of Coron & Nai, and possibly Jules.