Mafia 62: Suspicion in Sicily - Game over!

[Yosarian2]

Confirmed

[Yosarian2]

Random voting huh, time to zone out till pg.4 or so.

vote:Rand Althor

[Yosarian2]

To be clear, I voted for you because your "I won't even read this game until page 4" comment seemed like a small scum-tell-like-thing to me.

[Yosarian2]

unvote

vote:kingster

[Yosarian2]

I think that's supposed to be kinkster, but he may be playing insane. Any reasoning behind the vote?

PLAYING insane?

But yeah, should have been kinkster. I pretty much always spell people's names wrong. It's just this thing.

Anyway, DP pretty clearly just added the third vote on for the sake of doing so, as part of a semi-random reaction getting bandwagoning pattern of the type most people have been doing this game, and he wasn't really putting anyone at risk or anything by doing so. Kinkster's reaction to his vote seems a little off to me.

[Yosarian2]

Ancalagon, why would you vote Twito randomily. I believe we narrowed random voting down to 3 people, so can you please, if you can't find an opinion in the things that have already happened, randomly vote those three.

...why would we want to narrow our list of suspects all the way down to those three people already, when we have so little to go on? That dosn't make much sense to me. Or if you're suggesting we just keep piling random votes onto people who already have multiple random votes on them, that dosn't make a lot of sense to me either. Care to clarify?

[Yosarian2]

Panzer: Huh? What were those two posts supposed to mean?

[Yosarian2]

Panzer: These two posts.

Actually, this would give us a lot of information, on Phoebus.

Unvote, Vote:Mole

Scratch that, It is a day start.

Unvote

. I'd like to hold my vote. I FoS:Phoebus, TS, and Cubsfan

I don't at all understand the thought process here. What were you thinking? Why would it give us information about Phoebus, but only if it was not a day start?

[Yosarian2]

Double-post removed by moderator.

[Yosarian2]

I assume Rand was actually talking about "lynch all lurkers" instead of "lynch all liars", heh.

[Yosarian2]

Yeah, LAL is lynch all liars, I'm just thinking it sounds like Rand got that mixed up, although if he could clarify it'd be appriciated.

I don't really think Phoebus's consntant 'let's lynch mole because he always lurks' mantra is especally scummy, I've seen pro-town players act like that before, but it's not especally helpfull either. Phoebus, if we don't lynch mole, who's your second choice?

[Yosarian2]

Alright. TS really wants to be lynched. This is a very bad situation. We have Cubsfan who is intentionally doing thinks to try and get people lynched. Then we have TS whos idiocy is confusing the town, purposeful or not. I have seen bad town and bad scum act like this. I have also seen good scum act like this purposfully counting on being ignored. So I kinda want to avoid lynching him due not wanting to lynch town but he is being detrimental. I really don't want to count on the vig(if we have one) to have to win this.

I don't know. I'll think I'll test it Unvote, Vote:TS

In the first post, it kind of sounds like you were thinking TS was more likely town then not, and you sounded pretty much unsure in general, but then you turn around and vote for her a few posts later.

Did something change your mind?

[Yosarian2]

The way I see it after I've been playing a few games, I think I see a pattern.

Everyone goes about using a same way to hunt out a scum. That is to get everyone to act the same. Anyone who step out of this line exhibit something so-called "a scum tell", and is suspected of having a hidden agenda.


I disagree and have a healthy dislike for this tactic (which seems to be universal throughout the site). For one thing, if this were the case, the best thing for the scums to do is to forget their hidden agenda. This means that the probability of exhibiting "scum tell" is determined by the player's experience, but independent of the alignment. Which implies the probability of someone getting lynched is solely based on experience. This implies that no matter what game, it is noobish player that will get lynched and whether that person is a scum or not is solely dependent on luck.

Given this, it is far more likely that the scum would survive, because there are always less of them and they have NK ability.

Second and more general point is this rule does not allow you to experiment with different playstyle. I for one have found out a noobish play attracts far more votes than a scummy play. But I'll leave it at that as the game is still ongoing.

Well, EVERYONE is supected of having a hidden agenda, of course. But "being different" isn't a scum-tell. Of course, on the other hand, most day 1 scum tells are pretty thin, and at best are "X is slighly more likely to be scum" type tells. But some people have all different kinds of playstyles, and that usually expected.

You're talking in such general terms, I'm not quite sure what your're speaking of. Is there one specific bandwagon that you're saying you don't like? Do you disagree with a specific scumtell someone is using here?

[Yosarian2]

On another note, I'm still fairly happy with my kinkster vote.

[Yosarian2]

Nope, that post was written without any loss of generality, and it probably belongs more in mafia discussion thread rather than here, but I thought it might be an appropriate response for Phoebus.

I note that there may not be much to go on on the first day, but still, I find the following to be true.

1. People with rather unconstructive game play gets lynched first, regardless of scum or not. (NOTE: This is usually justified by saying "it's not helpful to the town". A stupid justification if you ask me.)

(shrug) People who aren't trying to help the town are more likely to be scum then people who are trying to help the town, in general. As a general rule of thumb, good guys tend to be more vigerous scumhunters, bad guys would usually rather hang in the background. And yes, there's about a billion counter-examples to that, but a positive effect of acting like that is that it encourages people to do more to help the town and try and find scum, which inherently increases the town's odds of winning.

2. If 1 is not present, then people are accused for most hideous reasons. Usually something nit-picked from few posts and saying "this is not how a townie should act - die scumbag!" Which I also find is a silly justification.


My thoughts are that scum-tells are "codes of conduct" that has been made to easier identify the rule breakers, to make things easier for people to decide who to lynch. I believe that the name is misleading and prohibits creativity.

The best scum tells are the ones that would be a good thing for scum to do, if they could get away with it.

For example, lurking would help the scum, if they could get away with it, because it makes it harder to connect them to each other and harder to build a case against them.

Trying to out pro-town power roles would help the scum, if they could get away with it.

Pushing for a no-lynch, or pushing for a known good guy to get lynched, would help the scum if they could get away with it.

Defending a scum partner would help a scum, if they could get away with it.

Quitely getting on the wagon of a good guy that's already going full steam without getting noticed would help the scum, if they could get away with it.

And so on. Those are the best scum tells, IMHO; yes, there's always a WIFOM factor, but nonetheless people who do things that hurt the town are less likely to be town, and people who do things that help the town are more likely to be town.

There are also psychological scum tells (things that people believe scum are more likely to do for psychological reasons, rather then stratigic reasons), like "scum often comment on the nightkills"; I don't find those to be as reliable, and are usually best used just as a minor side-note or in order to give the town something to argue about, but eh, if that's all you've got early day 1, run with it.

If you don't like "scum tells", then how do you suggest we try and find scum?

[Yosarian2]

Anyway, getting away from general stratagy (I can apparently get pulled into a stratagy discussion WAY too easily...), Phoebus has a point. It's the job of good guys to keep the game moving and try to find scum, while it's the job of scum to mostly just not get lynched, so scum ARE more likely to sit back and do nothing, while town are more likely to try and get the game moving.

I hate "I didn't say anything because nothing other then randomness was happening" posts, because if everyone did that (and sometimes they do), then nothing ever happens, and the town usually does quite badly because of it. If nothing is happening, and you're a good guy, it's your job to MAKE something happen. So yeah, I agree with Phoebus that that post of yours raises red flags.

[Yosarian2]

Now that's what I call, point proven.

Not at all. You're not being attacked because you're "trying to do something", you're being attacked because you seem to be more interested in keeping yourself safe and not doing anything that might get you in trouble then in helping the town. As I said before, the #1 primary goal of town is to find scum; the #1 goal of scum is to not get lynched. So when a person seems more worried about trying not to get lynched then trying to find scum, it's a sign they might be scum.

[Yosarian2]

I like Primate's argument there.

fos:Hollywoody

[Yosarian2]

This is at a point of the game where TS is playing a game that is confusing to me, and not helping my voting situation. If he really is town, why is he playing a game that will draw a lot of flak? If he is scum, why put himself into such a position as to draw flak on day one for no good reason? This is the same question that I asked the first time, and I have yet to get a good response from ToasterStrudel.

That's pretty bad logic. You're basically attacking him because you think he's playing in a way that will cause people to attack him.

During the second quote, I am making something of an accusation of Yosarian/defense of Panzerjager on the basis that Yosarian was exaggerating Panzerjager's statements in order to put suspicion on him. I don't know why, as the vote on ToasterStrudel was correct at the time, as ToasterStrudel was playing in a style that was not helpful to the town.

Two things I don't like about this statement.

1. I didn't "exagerate" anything Panzer said. He seemed to change his mind over a short period of time for no obveous reason, and I asked him why. That's what pro-town people do, is ask people questions. And you suddenly jump all over me for it. Huh?

2. "His vote on toaster strudel was correct at the time." What? Either Toaster Strudel is scum, or he's not. Either way, a person who suddenly jumped from seeming to think he wasn't to suddenly voting for him deserves some questions.

He makes a general statement, that may be applicable to many games. As I stated at the time, a person is more likely to be lynched early for playing stupidly than they are for playing like scum. This is because stupid play brings out the worst in some of us, and we play worse, making it easier for the mafia to turn us against each other, in general.

...

What?

If you lynch someone you don't think is scum because you think they're "playing stupidly", then you are, in fact, playing stupidly, by voting for someone you don't think is scum.

That is my discussion on the three quotes, and the events leading up to them. As I mentioned earlier in this post, I will now discuss my views on the scumminess of any player. Firstly, though, I want to

unvote ToasterStrudel

, as it was a vote made solely for the fact that he may influence people the wrong way.

So...you didn't think he was scum when you piled onto his voted for him?

If you're town, you vote someone because they're scum, not because you don't like they're playstyle. I think Primate was right when he said that you're not looking for scum, you're looking for:

[quote="Primate]...a legitimate defensible way to cause mislynches and be partially exempted from the responsibility for those mislynches. [/quote]

Yosarian-Defends Dragon Phoenix to the death, has been suspicious of Kinkster since day 1 (ok, it's still day one, but I mean since page 3). I'm almost certain of an alliance with Dragon Phoenix.

...

I didn't like kinkster's vote on dragon phenox, and so I voted for kinkster. You didn't like Toaster Strudel's vote for Cubsfan, so you voted for Toaster Strudel. Are you scum with cubsfan?

And the vote I made on kinkster for his attack on dragon phenox was like 8 pages ago, but you only suddenly have a problem with it right after I fos you. I'm really not buying any of this as a legitimate attempt on your part to find scum.

unvote

vote:hollywoody1221

But, if I get lynched, remember that Yosarian and Primate brought the initial suspicion against me, and that 1)Yosarian and DP have been in agreement. 2)Phoebus has been in agreement with DP, and is following DP.

"Those two people agreed on something so they MUST be scum together!" Please.

[Yosarian2]

Hollywoody: Hmm, interesting. I notice you've abandoned most of your earleir arguments, but now your main point seems to be that most of the veterens tend to be voting the same way.

I can kind of see what you mean, although I tend to think it's more a matter of experenced players tending to see things in the same way. For example, Phoebus started out the game by saying for a few posts "let's lynch mole, he's always useless". I tend to ignore stuff like that as not really meaningfull, as it was basically just a way for him to start the game off with a not-random vote and as mole was never really in danger. However, your push to lynch Toaster Strudel for her playstyle seemed more scummy to me, as she was in serious danger of being lynched and yet you haven't really been acting like you think she was likely scum. It just seems off to me.

My hunch would be that other experenced players would tend to view the play in the same way, which is why experenced players votes tended to cluster in the same places. If all the 'vetren" players in the game tend to vote for or at least agree about suspicions on some of the same people, it's most likely because they're all following the same basic rules of thumb when it comes to scumhunting and they agree on some of the same things as being scumtells, not because they're all scum together.

That being said, I went back after reading your post and looked at the experenced players in a little more detail, and Dragon Phenox's play so far this game has seemed a bit strange, although I haven't played in that many games with him so I don't know if it's his normal playstyle. But most of what he has done as far as attacking people is concerned is either following other people's lead/supporting other people's bandwagons or lurkerhunting (well, non-voter-hunting to be technical). I've got no problem with lurkerhunting, but not if it's all you're doing.

For example, most of his non-lurkerhunting posts have been either agreeing with someone else's point or giving some kind of support to someone else's attack without giving his own thoughts.

I must say that that post does not sit well with me either.

Unvote spectrumvoid
Vote Raffles

is a good example of this.

This behavior really isn't sitting right with me.

fos:dragon phoenix

. I know it's still early, but if he dosn't start expressing some views of his own on some of the major bandwagons we've seen so far, that might become a vote.

[Yosarian2]

1)When I said that there was an 80% chance that I thought you were scum, you know what that means? It means that, at that particular moment, I believed there to be an 80% chance that you were scum.
2) Obviously, no one knows what anyone else is, except for the mafia, who know who is mafia, and who isn't mafia. And, since no one knew me to be town, I had a number of choices
A) I don't defend myself at all, allowing a bandwagon to form, and possibly resulting in my lynch, which would not be good, for myself (obviously) and for the rest of the town.
B) I sarcastically satire the position, as Kinkster is doing. It's not working so well for him, so I decided this would not be the smartest thing to do.
C) I defend myself vehemently, going after anyone who has accused me. Yes, I was rather harsh of you. Yes, I'm still reasonably sure that you're mafia. This was the only logical move I could make, and arguably the best one, as if we lynch mafia today, then the mafia would probably get just a

little[/b] bit angry that I brought suspicion unto them. The doctor, if there is one, may notice they would want to get rid of me, as I found them out. Hopefully, he would defend me.

Um, no, not at all.

You don't "go after anyone who has accused you" if you're town. That's called OMGUS voting, and it's not helpful.

If someone attacks you, you should respond to their attacks logically, with reason, and explain why the reasons they're attacking you are not valid. Trying to attack the person who's attacking you just because they're attacking you dosn't at all answer the arguments they've used against you, and just makes you look scummier.

[Yosarian2]

If we lynch Dragon Phoenix today, which would prove that I was at least partly right, then we have moved forward a great deal.

...

It's comments like this that make it hard to move my vote off of you. Like how you're just talking like it's a given fact that if we lynch dragon phenox that he will be scum and that that will prove that you're a good guy and that all your suspicions are right. It's way over the top to make those kind of comments based on the limited information we have, and it's just not feeling genuine to me.

[Yosarian2]

Ahh, but if you're trying to draw attention to someone, then you find them suspicious, don't you?

There's also a valid concept called "pressure voting", where you vote someone if you want to post, or vote, or something like that. You don't necessaraly want them lynched, but you want them to start doing something that will help the town, or stop doing something that will hurt the town, and you're using your vote to pressure them in that direction. I think that can be a valid pro-town stratagy.

However, like I mentioned before, it makes me a bit nervous if that's ALL someone is doing.

[Yosarian2]

Is this one of your reasons for FoS-ing DP, earlier, as it seems like he hasn't added much. At least not much that I liked.

Yeah, I'd like him to start doing a little more analysis about who he actually thinks is scum; like I said, I'm in favor of lurker hunting and stuff, it's a quite useful tactic for a pro-town person to do, but if that's all a person does it becomes completly impossible to read them.

[Yosarian2]

I still don't see the real evidence for DP, but I'd like to hear from Yos as to why his vote is on hollywoody. To me it seems to be a bad town logic than scumlogic.

I first voted for him because the way he behaved, with the problems in his logic and OMGUS-like timing of some of his attacks, just made me think that he looked more like a scum trying to cobble together an attack rather then like a townie who's honestly looking for scum.

That feeling isn't as strong now as it was when I first voted him, his recent posts have been making somewhat more sense, but eh, I don't really see anyone else with a better case against them at the moment and some of hollywoody's posts still seem a bit off to me.

[Yosarian2]

Back. For the moment let me address post 272, where hollywoody1221 is posting his theories about why he finds me scummy. The main thing is here is a big confusion between reasons to vote for someone. At the start of the game I am not always voting for someone because I find him/her scummy. I am voting to see reactions, to get information for later in the game. That's why I unvoted cubs, but took note how quickly others followed. I had no big reason to suspect cubs, and it would therefore be stupid to be glad that others quickly followed suit. On contrast, I find it much more likely that scum can be found in the subsequent bandwagoners, but that's something to address later in the game. For the same reason I am prodding non-voters by voting for them. Not to lynch them, but to get reactions.

But you're voting for Raffles because he's actually the person you want to see lynched today, correct?

If so, could you clarify exactally why that is?

[Yosarian2]

Eh. The case against kinkster isn't all that strong, but at the moment I'd rather lynch him then see a deadlilne no-lynch.

unvote

vote:kinkster

[Yosarian2]

Note: That's lynch -1.

[Yosarian2]

So mafia NKed means 2 scum groups or SK

Or a vig, of course.

[Yosarian2]

Hm. TS might not be a bad wagon; I notice Jalyn didn't mention him at all, which is unusual as TS did get a good deal of attention yesterday, and one scum will sometimes totally ignore a bandwagon on his partner rather then join it or defend.

[Yosarian2]

Really not liking TS's recent behavior.

vote:TS

[Yosarian2]

Eh, if we're that close to a lynch, I I should probably say why I didn't like his last post.

Where my arguments are stretching reason, you can fill in "overwhelming gut feeling."

Isn't his reaction now uber-scummy, too?

To me... he sticks out like a sore thumb in this game. I dunno. Maybe you guys aren't attuned to the things I am attuned to, scumdar-wise.

I suggest that you question the alignment of people that continue to vote for me.

Why? I am sinking my teeth into another player early in the game, and I am not letting go. Right? Two possibilities.

(1) One is that I an scum and I am totally suicidal. For some bizarre reason I want this one player to be lynched. Heck, if I were scum, I'd nightkill him and not try to have him lynched or vigged so hard, and stake my own life, when you get down to it, on him being scum. No matter how many people are voting for me, I still go after this one player non-stop. Does this make sense for scum to do?

(2) Two is that I am Town and I am absolutely and overwhelmingly convinced that scotmany12 is scum.

I think it's pretty obvious which of (1) or (2) it is. So the people that continue to vote for me, like DragonPheonix "I have seen enough" and votes, should be viewed with great suspicion, because that's also very opportunistic voting. Ancalagon should also be viewed with suspicion.

I hate this defense with a passion. "I've been going after one player non-stop, and there's no reason I would do that if I was a scum". Besides the obveous WIFOM factor here, I have seen scum aggresivly go after one player before, fairly often. It's a easy way for scum to avoid giving away their buddies by avoiding commenting on other people, and it's generally a simple way for a scum to look like he's scumhunting without real risk, especally if the person the scum is attacking is not that likely to really get lynched.

I also don't like the little "people who are voting me are suspicious opportuinistics" comment at the end; in fact, that's part of the reason I voted without giving a reason, was to see if I'd get a similar OMGUS type attack.

[Yosarian2]

I also notice that her whole attack against scotmany12, that makes her "absolutly and overwhelmingly convinced" that he's scum, is mostly based on scotmany's vote on her. Yes, he thought the early bandwagoning vote you did was scummy; so did a lot of other people. He said he found it suspicious, and then later joined your bandwagon because of it. And you find that suspicious? Weren't you just arguing that day 1 bandwagoning is not scummy?

So yeah, I don't like the hypocracy here. Her attack on scotmany really feels like more of an OMGUS attack, and in general she seems to only attack people who attack her.

[Yosarian2]

Well, that sucks.

Looking back, I don't really see any DP post that looks like a breadcrumbed investigative result.

[Yosarian2]

Investigate people with guns..a weak cop.

Right. Usually mafia, cops, and vigs have guns, so each night the gunsmith looks at someone, sees if they have a gun, and if they do then they're one of those roles.

[Yosarian2]

Yeah, reading Alex's posts, I can agree with that; he hasn't really contributed much, and basically everyone he did attack turned out to be town.

vote:Alex

, at least as a starting point for the day.

[Yosarian2]

unvote Alex

b/c there are too many lurkers right now that will be clouding my thoughts on anything.

So, there are too many lurkers and so you're not going to vote for anyone? How does that follow?

[Yosarian2]

If anyone can remember and would be kind enough to fill us in on what happened in lost posts, it's be appriciated.

I think it's pretty clear that on day 1, DP couldn't have had any night info on Raffles. He even as much as said so:

At the moment, Raffles is my prime choice, yes. I have no more info than what I posted. I did not like his post. It's called gut feeling - and you can hardly expect more this early in the game.

I think he was specifially making clear here that his vote against Raffles was not a bredcrumb.

If Dragon Phenox did get any information, it would have been the night after that, and if he wanted to breadcrumb it, he would have done so pretty early on day 2. And that's not likely; in his first post, he FOS'd toaster strudal; he then lurked for a while and then voted TS, and we now know TS was a townie. And those are the only posts he made day 2, so I tend to think that DP either didn't find a gun or else he chose not breadcrumb his results.

[Yosarian2]

Well, if there's a deadline comig up, I've got no problem with a

vote:rand althor

. He hasn't done much all game, and I'd rather see him lynched then a no-lynch today. THat puts him at 3 votes, which means he'll now be lynched at deadline unless something changes.

[Yosarian2]

Secondly, I'm not ready to lynch Rand purely on his lurkiness. I say we leave him at what he is now, and if we can't get anything else going, then he will be our deadline lynch.

Do you have a better idea? If it was up to you, right now, who would you lynch?

If people don't want to see us deadline lynch a lurker, then we need to get everyone posting more so we can get an extension, because otherwise not much is going on.

[Yosarian2]

I'm not sure on this - people can correct me if they think I'm wrong. But at this stage, I don't think RA is not even worth deadline lynching. Because not many made a relevant comment against him, and as we are purely lynching on lurking, this would yield virtually 0 information.

Well, it's not 100% lurker lynching, as I don't really like the posts he did make either; very little content, the only real content he produced was when he voted for TS and when he voted for kinkster, and I don't really like those posts either. So it's not just lurking, it's active lurking, activally chosing to say very little while posting, and I tend to think that is a scumtell.

I think we are taking more of a pot-shot at a scum and we'd be lucky to do so.

Sure, it's a pot-shot. But it's better then a no-shot.

Again, if you've got a better case against someone else, I'd like to hear it. But I don't understand how you unvoting Rand and then not voting someone else helps the situation; now if you have moved your vote from Rand to someone you would think a better target, I'd be fine with it.

Also if he was a scum, I would have thought his scumbuddies would be active in advocating for alternate targets rather than for a deadline lynch of a scumbuddy purely because he's a lurker.

That's not a very strong argument. The whole scum group could be lurking (not hard to imagine, with most of the people in the game lurking). Or they could have decided they'd rather run silent on this one rather then risk themsleves for a lurkerscum. I understand what you're saying here, but I'm not convinced.

So with this, I'll firstly

Unvote

, in the hopes that we'd get more involvement, someone to argue my theory and hopefully a deadline retraction.

Argument and involvment is good. But I really think you need to have your vote on SOMEONE, with the lynch coming up and most of the town terminally lurking; if not Rand, then find a better target, because we don't have much time left to find a lynch.

[Yosarian2]

Bah. THe quote tags got messed up there. Mod, I did not intend to unvote rand, that paragraph was supposed to be in quotes. Just in case you counted that as an unvote;

vote:rand althor

just to be sure.

[Yosarian2]

Yos - if we are going for lurker lynching, there are plenty of other people that I don't like the posts of. Take your pick, N9V, ancalagon, cubsfan. Those are the only three I looked but I'm sure there's probably a couple more. Would you be able to justify why RA over these three?

I'll go back and take a look at their posts, tell you what I think.

(shrug) A major part of the reason I voted Rand over other lurkers is just because he already had 2 votes on him and I wanted someone to have 3 votes on him rather then risk a no lynch; if one of the other lurkers had 2 votes I might vote for them instead.

If I had looked at Rand's posts and thought he looked town, I wouldn't have voted for him his lynch, but none of his posts give me a reason to think he's town, so I'd much rather lynch him then lynch no one.

But I'll take a look at those other lurkers, see if any of them look worse to me.

[Yosarian2]

Ok, here's the other lurkers you mentioned, at a glance:

Cubsfan: 21 posts. Fairly active early in the game, less so lately. Def. a lurker, but none of his posts seem especally scummy to me at the moment, and some at least sound like he was trying use logic to scumhunt at least in the early game. He needs to post more, but I don't think he's the best lynch today.

N9V: 15 posts. Rather a severe lurker, and I really don't like his toaster strudal vote. Ironic that he complained about lurking but hasn't posted any content yet today (although he claims he had a content-full post lost in the crash, but hasn't bothered to tell us what it was). Wouldn't mind lynching him today; probably on about the same scumdar level as Rand is in my eyes at the moment.

ancalagon: 21 posts. Not as bad a lurker as some others, has at least posted recently, but hasn't really committed himself to much; most of his posts are short and without much content. Really need to hear more from him about what he thinks about the game and what he thinks about other people in the game.

So, yeah; at the moment, I'm in favor of lynching either Rand or N9V.

[Yosarian2]

Well, first of all, hollywoody, you need to vote for someone. Everyone needs to vote for someone, to get the game moving and get us closer to a lynch. Skim the last day or something if you need to; vote a lurker, or vote someone who's done something you think is suspicious, or who gives you a bad gut feeling, or whatever.

Also, do you think Rand's a good lynch right now, or not? Your post is rather vauge.

Right now, so few people are voting or commenting on anything that even if we do catch a scum, we won't get much information because no one else is saying anything. Everyone's got to start actually playing the game, or we're going to lose.

[Yosarian2]

Can you explain why, Panzer?

[Yosarian2]

Yeah, you're posting in pleanty of other places, n9v. Not only that, you jsut signed up for a NEW game in the queue forum about 7 days ago. If you don't have any time to play, then why are you signing up for more games?

I mean, you haven't really said anything all month. Why sign up for games if you're not going to play?

Or could it be that you're a lurkerscum and that's just an excuse?

[Yosarian2]

Well, to be fair, I went back and took a look at the thread N9V signed up for, and reading through the Stargate queaue thread, it looks like he signed up for a "later" role, one that won't be in the game for a while, so perhaps he is having some problems with time. Still, considering how much posting he's done in other threads in April, I have trouble believing he hasn't had time to post more then this here.

I'm still pretty much equally happy with lynching either lurker, either Rand or N9V. Rand didn't even show up after beign put into lynch range; looking at Flay's posts, it sounds like if Rand dosn't respond to the prod he'll be replaced before deadline, which is probably for the best at this point.

Just to be clear:

Mr. Flay: Rand has been prodded, correct? And if he dosn't respond soon he'll be replaced, right?

[Yosarian2]

Hmmm. Interesting.

In that case, I think I'll leave my vote on Rand for now. If he's not replaced before deadline, that means he's lurking intentionally. If he is, then a bit of pressure on his replacement might be a good thing, and a replacement would also put back the deadline.

If it comes to it, I'll vote for either one if needed for a lynch, but for now, I'm fine with leaving my vote where it is.

[Yosarian2]

Well, to make sure we have someone to lynch at deadline,

unvote

,

vote:n9v

. Gotta say I don't like Rand's excuse any better then I liked N9V's excuse, though.

[Yosarian2]

Might as well start out with a

vote:rand althor

, we should have lynched him yesterday.

[Yosarian2]

Ok, here's scotmany

I'm just looking at his posts alone now, not re-reading the whole game, so if there's some context behind some of these posts I'm not missing I apologise in advance.

Early vote on TS, but at least with better logic then most of that wagon. Still don't like that it was, what, the 7th vote on him.

Voted kinkster. Meh logic.

About a month into the game, TS correctly points out that scot hasn't made that many posts with much content.

He then either wasn't posting or wasn't around for most of april; in one post he mentiones he was away on some kind of trip and couldn't let us know because the site was down, but I'm not sure if that entierly explains why there's no posts from him frol april 3 to april 24. Of course some could have been lost in the crash.

He was around a bit right before the deadline. Said he thought Raffles was pro-town, gave a logical reason for it. Said Rand might be ok as a dealine lynch but that he didn't want to "lynch him just for lurking". Never voted for anyone before the deadline.

All in all, there's not much to go on here. Scot was pretty lurky for most of the game, and a lot of posts he did make were 1 liners that didn't say a whole lot. Based on the last few weeks, he does look like he intendes to be more active now, at least.

[Yosarian2]

Sorry about that. I kind of forgot about this game for a few days. Give me a second, I'll analyse panzer.

[Yosarian2]

Panzer:

I'm going to preface this with mentioning that Panzer always, inevitably, looks scummy to me, no matter what his role is, so take my analysis with a grain of salt.

Observation 1, based on early game:

Unvote, Vote: Rand Althor

Umm, it's ten to lynch. A third vote means absolutly nothing. It's a random wagon, man.

Raffles yelled bandwagon and placed vote 2. I placed vote 3 and became the bad guy. Two people jumped my wagon.

This is just worth noting because I get a strong feeling that Panzer and Rand are not scum together. So, if Rand turns out to be scum, Panzer is probably not his partner, and vice versa. Observation for later.

That is wonderful BS, but look at Cubs fan, he put a third on me for putting a third on rand and justfied it with nonother then "he put a third vote on rand." To me that is far more scummy then N9V for voting me. N9V just lied.

Unvote, Vote: CubsFan

OMGUS vote, basically.

He then goes on to defend his Cubs vote and defend his random vote for quite a while, making random 1 line posts doing that. The next post of his that wasn't a defensive post was this

Ancalagon, why would you vote Twito randomily. I believe we narrowed random voting down to 3 people, so can you please, if you can't find an opinion in the things that have already happened, randomly vote those three.

Same goes to Phoebus.

I agree kill cubs then watch kinkster be further incriminated.

Which is just so odd, and at least somewhat scummy. Trying to "narrow down" who people are going to "random vote" for? As John Stewert would say, Whaaaaaa? This post just feels like a really wierd way to try to steer conversation, although I can't really imagine what he was trying to do.

And then he goes for trying to tell people to "random vote" either Cubs, N9V or Kinkster to claiming that there are legitimate reasons to vote for them...

Both, N9V and Cubsfan have had points brought against them, decent ones might I add, and I believe that one those two are scum. On top of that, if cubs turns out scum, in turn Kinkster is probabyly scum. It would lead to a scum catching chain reaction. This is why I feel that these three should be the ones being voted because they are most likely scum at this point.

...yeah. His argument against cubs always felt pretty wifom to me ("It's very scummy for you to put a third vote on me for putting a third vote on someone else! Your third vote is so scummy, because mine wasn't!"), and he never actually gave an argument against N9V.

FoS: TS

I toyyed with this. That shows great balls and leads me into WIFOM land. Why would scum do exactly what a guy is on 6 votes for? Why would town? Seems like a stupid gambit admitting so openly. Is he bad town or is he scum thinks we are dead set on cubs? Is he a town that thinks he can do what he damn well pleases because Cubs is at 6 votes? It isn't a nice place to be and warrants an FoS and it seems like it was designed to confuse the town. I'm giving this serious consideration of switching my vote, but I have just as much trouble calling him one as I do the other.

This is the first post that's actually made logical sense to me, but eh, it's also kinda wishy washy in a way that could be scummy.

He then goes on to speculate about Phoebus being a cop with a guilty on mole and then undoes it after he realized it was a day start. Those posts strike me as both bad logic and borderline scummy speculation.

He then jumps back to cubs without any new reasoning to speak of, then jumps to TS, then says he'd be happy with either a cubs or a TS lynch, all without any logic.

I think I mentioned before that panzer always looks scummy, so I'm having trouble deciding if this is normal panzer play or not, but I don't like it.

He the vote-hopps over to Phoebus, then back to cubsfan, then over to kinkster, all without giving any decent reasons for anything. (Notable: His kinkster vote was "for the sake of the English Language", because of a grammer error on kinkster's part. Geez.) The hops back to TS, then over to Hollywoody, still without any logic or reasoning or anything. A few more irrevelent posts, a FOS of Ancalgon with no reasoning, then votes back to TS for claiming vanillia. (Probably the first vote he's made all game that has a logical reason at all.)

Finally, at the end of yesterday, he followes me into voting first Rand, then follows me over to N9V. Today, he votes Alex, for no apparent reaons.

There are a lot of other one line posts in there, but they don't say very much.

About the best thing you can say for Panzer is that he's at least been fairly active. He's also been vote hopping pretty much all game, almost always for either no stated reason or for absolutly terrible reasons, and generally voting for good guys in the process. I really see no good reason to think he's pro-town at this point in time.

fos:panzer

[Yosarian2]

This is ridiculous. Looking at the amount of townies dead, we must be nearing LyLo by now. (Although the vote counts tell us we are not lylo just yet, or we are on the right track).

Hmm.

There were 18 people to start out the game with, right? It looks like we've got 2 killing groups here, so if we're dealing with a scum group and a SK, that's probably either 3 mafia 1 sk or 4 mafia 1 sk. There's 1 dead mafia member, so that could mean 2 or 3 scum left.

So yeah, we could very well be at lynch or lose.

I'm happy with either a rand lynch or a panzer lynch at this point, still leaning towards rand I think.

[Yosarian2]

If people want to, like, play or something, that'd probably be a good thing.

[Yosarian2]

I'd like people to come in and post their analysis, but anyoen who dosn't have time to do that needs to at least come in and say SOMETHING, preferably something game related, like "what do you think about lynching Rand" or comment on someone else's analysis or something like that. Participation is so bad right now it's painful.

[Yosarian2]

Interesting. Why?

[Yosarian2]

Well, that's lucky. That dead scum might have stopped us from losing last night.

That being said, I'm now more confident about rand being scum. Looking at scott's post, I get a vibe that he was just giving one excuse after another for not voting for rand. He kept saying "well, I don't want to lynch rand just based on lurkiness" and ended up lynching cubs just based on lurkiness. Definatly feel a strong connection there between scot and rand, I think. Not going to vote rand just yet, don't want to rush things when there still might be 1 mafia and 1 sk, or perhaps even worse, but that's where I'm leaning.

For reference, here are the scot posts I'm talking about:

Secondly, I'm not ready to lynch Rand purely on his lurkiness. I say we leave him at what he is now, and if we can't get anything else going, then he will be our deadline lynch.

Yosa, I'm not entirely sure on who we should lynch. I was simply suggesting that we don't have enough reason to go out and lynch rand normally. His lurkiness is not enough. Having him be a deadline lynch, however, will be fine. Unless there are more reasons to lynch him, then I think that we should leave him where he is at right now, and if nothing else comes up, then he gets lynched at deadline.

As for RA, there isn't much on him. He has been lurking most of the game, which I don't think warrants enough for a lynch. Lynching lurkers is fine for a deadline lynch, but I dislike straight out lurking them. One other things that I found intriguing was him hammer on Kinkster, and for a lackluster reason as well. So yeah, I guess he could be scum, but not entirely sure about him due to his lack of interest as it seems.

Both RA and Cubs have been lurking throughout this game quite a lot. That does not totally make them scum. I view them as just some lurkers who aren't paticularly helpful. I'm not really ok with going out and lynching some one just because they are lurking. For a deadline lynch, lurkers are fine, but I don't want to see them get lynched just for lurking.

[Yosarian2]

Let's hold of on the votes until everyone's commented, ok? Even if I'm right, we've still got a SK to find.

[Yosarian2]

Anyone have any other thoughts before I vote for scot?

[Yosarian2]

Erm, for rand. Lol.

[Yosarian2]

Well, looking at scot's posts, I don't think he was trying to set you up for a lynch later, rand; he was too consistant about defending you without looking obveous about it. And his behavior towards cubs looked very different; he initially sounded like he didn't want to lynch cubs, but when it came to a choice between lynching cubs and lynching you he went after cubs aggressivly.

[Yosarian2]

Well, it's not really fair to say he "defended cubsfan", Raffles. There were several posts where he defending lurkers in general, where he mentioned cubsfan too but I think it was pretty clear that the main person he was trying to defend was Rand; the cubsfan thing was just cover so it wouldn't be so obveous, I think. And then later he eagerly jumped on the cubsfan wagon in order to save rand, it looks like; if Rand wasn't scum, I don't think scot would have cared which one of them got lynched, but it looks like he did care.

As it dosn't really look like anyone has anything else to say, I guess I'm going to roll the dice and

vote:Rand Althor

[Yosarian2]

I'm not trying to derail the wagon, but I think it might be useful to discuss this while we are still awake. Who would you name for the possible SK?

Eh...if we're going to lynch Rand, not sure how useful that thought is; if we all name who we think the SK is, wouldn't that make it easier for the SK to control the endgame by picking his kill carefully, either to get rid of someone who suspects him or to frame someone?

[Yosarian2]

Well, if there's 2 mafia left, then Rand HAS to be one of them, or else they'd already have lynched him by now. If there's only 1 mafia left, then I'm not sure the fact Rand's not been lynched yet says much; probably just means that the 1 scum is either Rand, Panzer, or a lurker. Which dosn't actually mean much as basically everyone is lurking.

[Yosarian2]

I'm thinking that yos is scum figuring that on day three he wanted to lynch me based on the fact I was lurking. His day four reason was we should have lynched him yesterday and today's reason was because scotmany protected me. From all of his votes on me only his last has a good reason. I think he is scum going for an easy lynch.

Yeah, I started voting for you in large part because of your lurkage, that's very true. I always like voting for lurkers when town, I think lurking is an incredibly scummy thing to do and I think that towns that let lurkers get away with lurking tend to lose, and deservedly so. (Note: see my signature.)

Even since I started going after you for lurking, you've done absolutly nothing to convince me you're pro-town; none of your posts really look to me like a good guy who's trying to find scum. Not only that, but every single time a bandwagon gets going on you, scum seem to derail it.

[Yosarian2]

Hey just checking in... (prodded ) still very suspicious of Rand.. but he does make an interesting point about how Yos had a different reason each day.. idk. Jury's still out in my mind.

SO, I had reason yesterday, and I have an extra reason now because of scot's defense. Should I be less suspicious of Rand now that I have more reasons to distrust him?

[Yosarian2]

You really think OMGUS voting's going to help you at this point, Rand?

[Yosarian2]

The reason you gave for suspecting me is that I "kept changing my argument" for wanting to lynch you. Which basically just means that I have even more reasons for not trusting you now then I did yesterday.

You even agreed that it "looks very bad for you". If it looks very bad for you, then why is it scummy for me to vote for you?

[Yosarian2]

...

No matter what your alignment is, Rand, hammering yourself is always a terrible move, and bad sportsmanship in any case.

[Yosarian2]

(sigh) I guess that's not surprising; if there was another scum and a SK left, the only way the town could win was by lynching Rand and hoping for crosskills.

Not sure why both groups killed us off, though; wasn't it obveous that me and Panzer were both town? Why wouldn't the bad guys try to kill each other off in that situation?

Oh, well. Very well played, Raffles. And yeah, the town only lynched right once all game, we didn't really deserve to win that one, heh.

[Yosarian2]

At least I was right about Rand for the past 3 days, so at least I feel I wasn't totally useless, hehe.

[Yosarian2]

Alex; no, me and Panzer were killed. The game ended with just you and raffles, and because the SK wins ties, Raffles "killed" you in endgame.

[Yosarian2]

..And by the way, this game offers still more proof my "lynch all lukers, they're usually scum" theory.