Mini 425 Generic Western Mafia- Game over!

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

/confirm

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

How many Mafia/Outlaws are in this game?

Someone's already fishin'

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Where does it say? I don't see. Are we not allowed to know?
Stop picking on me.

*hides in corner*

Mini Normal games are typically Closed setup, from what I gather. Closed setup means the number and type of roles present is not known.

Just picking John, no worries

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Vote: Occult

because I can


As for Post 35:

The "Joke?" comment was aimed at your "Speedlynch Raffles" comment, not the random vote.

IGMEOY = I've Got My Eye On You (see the wiki for common abbreviations).

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Typically, Day 1 on mafiascum.net lasts until at least page 6 - and that's for newbie games with 7 people. I'd imagine a 12 player would be longer. Any earlier than that and you really don't get enough discussion from all involved in the game to make accurate predictions as to alignment for the remaining days.

If everything goes against the town (meaning we lynch all townies and the scum get all their night kills), this game will only last until Day 3! That's pretty short, so we MUST spend as much time as possible on Day 1 trying to get people to slip up.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

How are we out of the random voting stage? As you said, we still have half of the players that haven't contributed yet. That's no reactions to go on for 50% of our players.

You were quite correct stating that we don't need to rush things, but post 40 seems to me that you're rushing anyway, and giving yourself an out by stating "But I have a sinking feeling we are going to go back to it once other 6 people appears. Anyway..."

FoS: Raffles

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

I went back and re-read all the posts... Only thing i can further contribute is that I have a slight hunch gorckat is pro-town because of his random vote choice and phrasing...

I don't think you can make this kind of assertion this early in the game, even on a hunch.

Of other people who have posted substantially, there is no one that I am confident is not scum...

Not surprising, it's only page 2

People who haven't posted much, please do so, scummy lurkers!

While your join date says noob, you're posts say that you've played before. Not sure if that was RL or on a different site, but be prepared for a 12 person mini game to take in the neighborhood of 2-3 RL MONTHS....we've got time

Glad you're excited tho

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Quick head's up:

I'm going out of town on a job interview, so I won't be here from tomorrow until Tuesday. I've already PM'd Sefer about this, just didn't want y'all to think I'm lurking

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

And John, why night one kill me? It's not like I'm a power role. PS: mafiaz, plz don't night1 kill me.

Please do not claim this early in the game. You shouldn't claim unless you're at Lynch-1, and even then if you're a Vanilla Townie, some people say don't claim at all.

Why? It keeps the scum guessing. Assume in a 12 player game that we have 3 scum. They all know each other, so they have 9 people to pick from to find the Cop/Doc/Other Power Role. With your claim, they're now down to 8. No claims unless you're under Lynch conditions people.

I guess I might be a good nightkill one then, with no doc to protect me :\/

If you're a Vanilla Townie, as you suggest in the first post, why would you be a good N1 kill? Please don't discuss strategy for the scum. There's no need to help them out.

And from what I've ever seen of Mafia, no Mod EVER bases his opening post on the actual game. Most Mods will actually tell you that you can't take anything they say at face value. Therefore, I think that looking at the Mod game setup post and assuming that we have no Cop and no Doc is an error.

@John - see post 61 please.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

NP John

In conclusion, the only people worried about dying this early in the game would be scum, who have a smaller pool of players.
-Peter

Or newbie players

Yeah, Guardian may have played before, but all I get from him at this point in time is eager newbie, not scum.


So far two people have answered for Vryklan concerning Gorckat's question in post 107. Vryklan, are you out there?

unvote, Vote:Vryklan

Raffles, I understand you and he are RL friends, but he needs to speak for his own actions. Besides, he hasn't posted in 2 days. Not a huge amount of time, but with the question that was asked by Gorckat, I think it's a bit fishy.

This puts Vryk at Lynch-3 with two FoS's

. Careful with the votes - we don't want a Lynch this early.

Gorckat you're also setting off my scumdar. First you were attacking Vryk for the post you commented about in 107, but you took someone else's word at face value about how he'd reply. Then you jump right in and start pointing fingers at DLMF for having a gut feeling? Honestly, I can see where DLMF would get this feeling: see post 87. That made me think "Oh look, scum". And, he hasn't posted since. I think DLMF's "gut feeling" is well justified. I will say that DLMF could have done a better job finding a post, such as this, that gave him that gut feeling. But that's what gut feelings are - you can't explain them you just know they're "right".

If Vryk comes back I may be switching my vote back to Occult. The first one was random, this one would be for looking scummy.

FoS: Occult

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

I'm not seeing a good reason for Vryklan's 4 votes, would someone elaborate?

The first one is, I believe, a random vote from the beginning of the game. The others stem from Vryk not answering Gorckat's question in post 107 and then disappearing for 3 days (read: Lurking).

My vote is a pressure vote, and if his explanation to Gorc's question in 107 is answered to my satisfaction, I'll remove it.

The others I can't speak for, but if you read back, I think this will be the general trend for the other votes that you see.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

BTW, thanks for responding Gorc and DLMF

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Raffles/Sefer, any word on Vryk?

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Vryklan post, seriously, you're looking scummier each day.

Scum? Just for being busy and having log on problems? Clear logical thinking there

Welcome back Vryk! He didn't call you scum, he said your actions were scummy. There's a difference.

As for the shotgun thing, you guys actualy took me seriously? Don't u guys shout shotgun to claim something in the states? Or is it just a brit thing over here?

See post 111. I don't think anyone took this any way other than you meant it.

Please address Gorckat's post 107, and Raffle's post 151.

More later, I need sleep

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Okay so we know that Vryklan was not lurking, I still don’t see good explanation why Vryklan still has 4 votes on him.

VRK’s reason

1. The first one is, I believe, a random vote from the beginning of the game. The others stem from Vryk not answering Gorckat's question in post 107 and then disappearing for 3 days (read: Lurking).

2. My vote is a pressure vote, and if his explanation to Gorc's question in 107 is answered to my satisfaction, I'll remove it.

Setting aside that Guardian did use the dice tag, I fail to see how the number you would select proves that Guardian chose it deliberately

First point is void. I answered it.

I don't count the d12 roll against him. We know each other, and we would both know we would vote each other for a laugh. That's what he meant by the emphasis of 11.

2nd point is sort of a valid as a pressure vote stand alone. But you did say if the first question is answered you’ll remove the vote.

I will remove it for sure, when

VRYK

answers the questions posted in 107 and 151.

You

are not Vryklan, even though you two are RL friends, that doesn't make it ok in my book for you to answer for him, therefore my first point is in no way, shape, or form, void - Vryklan needs to speak for his own actions. So, until I get something from

him

, answering those questions to my satisfaction, the vote is staying where it is.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

What a weekend

@Vryk - thanks for posting a response to 107. The answer you gave was the one I was expecting (after all, applying what you would have done to someone else's actions and then pointing a finger for it is a good dose of craplogic), and I'm glad that you've given your reasons for keeping your vote where it is.

Unvote: Vryklan; Vote: Avinyl

Avinyl's vote switch in 180 seems off to me. He votes Ichigo in post 171 for "lurking", and then switches the vote 1/2 hour after Ichigo makes

ONE

post in response to the vote. For only having a "little suspicion" of Guardian you posted quite a bit about him in 171, yet you're gunning for lurkers and OMGUSing in the process? Seems like you're trying to point as many fingers as possible and sow confusion.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

I am conflicted about posting when some others post so little but I'm bored so heregoes...

Posting will spark discussion and give everyone a place to start from. If you're town, nothing you say should get you into trouble from which you can't extricate yourself, and if you're scum, posting more will help us catch you

The people that aren't posting are the ones likely to get voted off, because their not posting does two things:

1) It lets the scum hide with them.

2) Not joining the discussion forces the town to Lynch them, so that we can have people around who

will

participate and actively help us to find scum. If you're Town and you don't post, you're not helping the town. A Townie player should be posting regularly, and by his posts show that he is, in fact, pro-Town.

Don't ever feel bad about posting Guardian. If you see something suspicious, odd, whatever, POST! Call people out, make them defend themselves - that's the only way we can find the scum. The first day is usually the hardest, aside from a LyLo endgame, in that conversation can stall and people get antsy about wanting to move the game along. The best thing we can do is make sure we get

good conversation from everybody

on Day 1, that way we can identify possible scum on the latter days.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

@Guardian: I say call them out. Don't hold back because if you are Nightkilled, we lose those thoughts and if you're getting lynched, its gonna make it harder to sift out OMGUS type accusations.

If you catch a contradiction, then point it out so we can break the person down.

/agree - no point in sitting on it.

Also, I'm of the opinion that you don't want to post too much detail. If you see something, point it out, but don't make the post too long and involved or you might give the person too much information from which they can formulate a "correct" response.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

My reasoning for voting Ichigo

I was not very supicious of anyone, and so voted for the one who had participated the least. When he came back, i had no reason to vote him, so i voted John instead.

Sorry but I don't like this explanation. What was your reason for voting for John then? Why not just leave your vote on Ichigo? Why vote at all?

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Ok then... first off I would like to say that I am still baffled by Occult as he is suspicious of two people I am quite suspicious of (Vry, Avi)... but then also suspicious of me when Vry is and Avi is a little... Maybe this is distancing?

I don't exactly get what your trying to say. Could you please clarify.
I'm reading this as more of a OMGUS sort of thing. I've said that I am suspisious of you and Avi mostly and that still stands.

Were not even 8 pgs. into this game yet, I'd like to get a better read on the other players before I commit to a vote.

I'm assuming Guardian will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's trying to say that you (Occult) are suspicious of him (Guardian) at the same times that Vry and Avi are suspicious of him (Guardian), and that by you now being suspicious of Vry and Avi you're "distancing" yourself from your "scumbuddies".

Did I get that right Guardian?

As far as voting is concerned...

We need 7 to Lynch. We've not even come close so far, and I don't see the harm in using a vote to apply pressure to someone. FoSing is fine, but eventually you have to run someone up to 4 votes so that they either defend themselves or screw up and out themselves as scum. Just listing suspicions isn't helping to move the game forward, I'm afraid - the information may serve us well later on in the game but for now it's just giving more people the chance to lurk. We've got enough lurkers as it is - we need discussion and interaction.

I'm not saying, by any stretch, that we need to rush to a Lynch - that would be the worst thing we could do. But, we do need to keep everyone involved in the flow of ideas and information.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Peter, are you sure not to point out scum tells? I asked this as a question, and got two responses (posts 197 and 198) that I should point out any scum tells I see. I am just trying to play the game correctly and lynch people I see as potential scum...

Oh yeah? So you play at the whims of several posters in this game? I asked you why you were so certain in your convictions. I expected you to respond along the lines of "I'm not."

Why would you think that should've been his reaction? If you feel that someone is scum, you go after them. You pressure them, you make them slip up. On the flip side, if you feel someone is Town, you defend them. You're exactly right in that the Town doesn't need to lie, so it won't. The Scum have to lie, and they will get caught.

Notice how Occult has FOS'd Avinyl (post 186) - the one point of reasoning I agree with Peter on is that scum could now jump on Avinyl and lynch...

Wrong. Scum would be foolish to wait for a -3 to lynch and than quick bandwagon. I would expect scum to try be the 3rd or 4th vote on a player. Nice and unsuspicious.

Exactly. And if there are 3 more Townies that come in and lynch, then they're not helping the game out. There's only 2 ways to lynch Avinyl:

1) He gets 3 votes in rapid succession. Most likely, there's the majority of our scum. A Town would NOT quicklynch someone, because it's bad for the Town to do so.

2)The 3 votes get placed over time, and over pages of posts, due to the fact that Avinyl's answers to our queries are unsatisfactory.

The 2nd situation is the most likely, and no ones votes at that point would look scummy. But if a Town gets himself lynched like that, then I'm of the opinion that he wasn't helping the town out in the first place. Note: this discussion can apply to anyone, but Avinyl is on my radar for shaky explanations and lurking, so I'm using him as an example.

Unvote: Avinyl Vote: Occult

Yep, just moving from player to player hoping for momentum to grow.

I have to agree with Peter here Guardian. Why the vote switch?

@Peter: I understand from reading your posts that you like to take things slow and methodically, with which I agree, to an extent. But, what type of time table do you see for this game? 15 pages for day 1? 30? Just trying to get a feel for your playing style.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

@ Vel> I hope you'll forgive me if I don't come up with an exact page number. I've never been comfortable doing that.

A better guage would be amount of posts from specefic players. I feel we have gotten a lot of good information on the majority of the players, and don't mind if things are moved up a gear. I'm not ready for a lynch, but I am ready to put pressure on people.

Your answer is fine. I wouldn't expect a single page number to be the answer, it's just the example with which I asked the question. I'm quite happy with your answer, and I agree with it.

Why would you think that should've been his reaction? If you feel that someone is scum, you go after them.

I'm not sure I follow. I feel I put a lot of pressure on Guardian. Through my posts I made it clear that at this point no-one really can be secure in his convictions. If Guardian was thinking clearly I would expect him to have seen my logic and at least agree on that point. Instead he completely contraditcs my post.

You however, can read my post and pick out pieces you agree and disagree with. To me this demonstrates you are applying straightforward logic and a single motive.

-Peter

My statement was going towards your comment (post 215) that Guardian shouldn't be so convinced that he's actually going after scum - "I'm skeptical of anyone who pretends to beleive in his convictions at this point. Guardian, you shouldn't know anything more than the rest of us do. What makes you so certain in your convictions? Why are you trying to steer the town?".

I was just commenting that if Guardian thinks he's onto a possible scum, shouldn't he be going after that person? You suggested that he should have answered that question with a "well, I'm not" answer (post 228), which suggests that he shouldn't really be going after someone at all. I would think that in order to hunt scum, any player (not just Guardian) would have to have

some

conviction that the person they're going after is acting scummy. We can't ever be 100% certain, until a player is killed, of whether they're scum or not. And one person is not going to be able to pressure another person by themselves in a game this size, so his "directing of the town" is, in a way, necessary to get the pressure on the person in question.

Another possibility here is that you were saying in post 215 that Guardian was acting

too convinced

, and that the only way he could be

that sure

is if he was actually a scum with extraneous knowledge.

I'm not trying to get into a disagreement with you, just looking for clarification. You've brought up some interesting points and I want to make sure I fully understand what it is you're trying to say.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

FoS on Raffles, for being overly aggressive in scum hunting.

Can I ask why that is such a bad thing?

I don't see it as a bad thing. This, to me, is a version of the "Too Townie" logical fallacy.

If both are scum, they voted/fos each other early on as a distancing tactic.Now both are confident the other is town (raffles post 33 and vryklan post 9)

Isn't it more plausible that since we are best mates in real life, we were voting each other for kicks? Post 33 is still pretty much first page of the game. I find it amazing that you can deduce my current stance on Vryklan from that post.

Hmmm, Post 33 is by Guardian. I don't see you defending vryk anywhere near post 33. DLMF, can you explain what you were going for here?

For scum, this is the essence of the game. How do you appear town when you have opposite goals? You have to put on your "town" face, and this is harder than you might think.

Wrong

Good vanilla town players don't care if they get lynched. They speak the truth and do their best to logically out scum. This is the difference.

and wrong.

For the first one: Is it any concern of the scum what happens in the day? Some nice mafioso might look out for their fellow scums, but most just gets on with it. What has day got to do with their objectives? Just so long as they themselves don't get lynched, all is fine. Scums have night kills. They don't need lynching to kill. Then a good scums just forget that they are scums themselves and get on with scum-hunting as they would do normally.

For the second one: Townies

should

care about being mislynched. Assuming a game with no vig, if townies are only ones getting lynched then how the hell are you going to kill the mafias? It sounds obvious, but lots of people seem to miss this point.

Of course the scum care about what happens in the day. It's in a scum's best interest to get a townie lynched during the day, and then get another kill at night. If the scum don't "put on their town face", then they can't hope to appear to be scum-hunting, and therefore kill their chances of getting a win.

And, I disagree that a good town player doesn't care if he gets lynched. A good town player will

not

get him/herself in a situation where he could be lynched. In that way the town player will not need to worry whether they're going to get lynched or not. A town lynch does nothing but help the scum out, so it is in every Townie's best interest to not screw up to the point where the rest of the town wastes a lynch on them.

I agreee with Peter's stance on regarding the revealing of information. However I think there's a balance you have to strike. You can't expect the town to pick up on

all

the scum tells. Also, a better skill is to develop a discussion and accuse inconsistencies.

I agree. If you see an inconsistency, you should bring it up. Not everyone is as good a player as the norm, and people miss things all the time. Keeping information to yourself can be detrimental. I'm not saying that you should spell things out. That just gives the scum a chance to get the "correct" answer. I'm saying that if you see something, you should question it in as simple a manner as possible, and let the potential scum formulate his own answer. That way you're not leading the horse to water, as it were, and you're more likely to catch another inconsistency.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Raffles it looks like we will have to agree to disagree. I see mafia players try to manipulate the day-lynch all the time.

Of course you do. That's how they win

Looking at raw odds, it is likely that a town player will be lynched day one. Knowing this, a good town player shouldn't freak out (like Guardian has) when facing a potential lynch: chances are good the town will just lynch another townie.

Sure, a good town player should defend himself, but clearly stating your game intention as staying alive appears scummy to me.

Guardian is acting like a noob to me, not scum. The problem is that a lot of noobs present scumtells because they don't know the proper way to react. Yes, Guardian has said that he's played before, but from looking at this one game it doesn't look like he's played a lot.

I agree with you that a good town player should not freak out, but a noob townie will, because they don't know any better.

The town players can afford a day one loss, whereas a day one scum loss is twofold: they are statisticly closer to losing the game and they lose a voice of manipulation during the day.

-Peter

Even though it's statistically likely that the townies can afford a Day 1 loss, and will undergo a Day 1 town lynch, those numbers don't take into account the fact that we can all think and question, and therefore shift the raw statistical odds in the town's favor by catching scum through good game play.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

That was the hot topic IIRC, but I do believe that I was blowing it out of proportion. Most people decided it was just a misstatement, and I'm happy to go with that for now.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

It was nothing more than a gut feeling. I said you sholdnt VOTE on a gut feeling. i didn't even FoS. i just simply interjected my opinon. I have no proof. my only proof is that he is playing the game too well, and thats basicly anti-proof. hence no vote, no fos.

Gut feelings are fine. voting on them are not.

I like this rebuttal to your comments Gorc and Occult. As far as I can see, he's not being hypocritical in his statement, because he didn't use his gut feeling to justify a vote, he used it to express concern about another player's play style. Having said that, I would like for you try to articulate what you find unsettling about Peter's play, John, if you can.

This statement doesn't sit well with me:

ill be posting i this thread alot more because we now have a livly disscusion on which can comment now, unlike before.

How is there more lively discussion now, post break? The majority of what we're going to talk about occurred pre-break. We had 234 posts pre-break. Are you telling me that there was

nothing

to talk about in those 234 posts?

As far as pressuring people, I definitely think we need to wait until we get everyone back. We had a LOT of lurkers before the break. I'd call for pressure on Avi, DLMF, John, Ichigo, mustafa, and Vryk, just on the basis of either lurking or fluff-posting. That's

50%

of the players in this game - and everyone on that list with the exception of John has less than 12 posts.

This is my first mini-sized game. Is this level of lurking normal? It's beyond frustrating, IMO.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

No. Say there was no discussion. It's always a random lynch. Then the odds will

always

be in scum's favour, because there is

always

more scums in any given ongoing game. Then all scum should care about during the day is not getting himself lynched.

But there is a discussion and a bloody long one at that. So its not a random lynch its a lynch in the townies favour hopefully so if the scum sit back and don't care they will find themselves on the lynch list quickly.

Thank you!

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Yay someone who's going to play! Welcome Paradox, I look forward to your analysis of the goings on.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Yes,
-I agree more with peter's stance.
-This conversation is getting away from finding scum. Peter wanted to end it as it was a distraction. While guardian wanted to keep it going.

Im not saying in anyway peter is not mafia. But from this debate i feel peter came off less scummy.

Occult, I can see the opposite side of this argument just as well.

Assume Peter is scum. He went after Guardian for a bit of a nit-picky reason (Guardian's stance that Town players should play to live). This is a fairly hot debate, and others have had this exact same conversation before us, and people will have this conversation after us. But to keep going after someone for such a personal issue is a bit like arguing about gun-control or abortion rights - it's difficult to sway someone's opinion in this case.

I get the impression that Peter kept hitting this as one of his only arguments for Guardian as scum, and when the rest of the players didn't jump on, he said "ok nevermind, this is distracting". A change of tack was warranted if Peter is scum because he isn't getting the necessary town reaction.

I haven't gone back through and done a proper re-read (which I need to do) but this is the overall impression I get of the Peter/Guardian interaction. If there's something in there that I haven't seen I'll change my opinion with a later post after the re-read is done.

I'm still itching to hear more from Ichigo, Avi and DLMF. It's really sad that we have this many inactive players.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

EBWOP: Take Ichigo out of that last sentence. Sorry folks I had forgotten that he got replaced.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Phew this is gonna be a bear to catch up on.

Welcome Thesp, glad to have you with us. I like your play style btw. Very interesting way to get reactions from people.

Honestly I'm at a loss on this game. It took me 2 hrs just to do a full read through, and I am not looking forward to going back and doing it again sorted by player. General feelings at the moment:

Guardian is town.

Peter could be a possible scum.

I get absolutely nothing from John, Avi, Mustafa, and Raffles. Speaking of which:

Unvote

Could be looking at a replacement for Avi here soon, so I'm not willing to vote him out if he could get replaced any time.

Gorck, Occult - pro-town.

Paradox I don't have a read on yet, and Ichigo was no help.

Thesp same thing, although I'm leaning toward Town.

As for Thesp's accusations on Page 14 (I think):

I don't see the John = SK connection, but I've never played a mafiascum game with an SK in it, so I don't really know what I'm looking for in that regard.

Peter I agree with, Occult not so much. Myself and Vryk I just don't see at all. Like I said, I haven't done an individual re-read, so maybe these will become apparent once I do.

Interesting responses to Thesp's initial post, esp. from Raffles, John, and to a lesser extent, PZ.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Everyone,

My son has given me his strep throat infection, so I'm a bit incapacitated. I'll try to get in here and make a real post asap, but for now all I want to do is sleep

Sorry guys,

Vel/Rich

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Ok I'm back. Thanks for your patience everyone.

@CTD: Based on game size, I'd say 3 scum, 1 SK. Could be just 4 "vanilla" scum based on game title. If you're looking for a concrete answer...sorry, I'm not scum so I don't know. Ask Peter, John, or Paradoxombie, also possibly Raffles if you want a definite answer.

I'm happier with a Peter lynch than John, but either way I think we're hitting scum.

Vote: Peter Venkman

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Yes. Why aren't you voting for scum? I already pointed them out.

You're wrong about at least one of them, which makes me very confident that there's scum among the people you didn't point out.

@CTD: Based on game size, I'd say 3 scum, 1 SK. Could be just 4 "vanilla" scum based on game title. If you're looking for a concrete answer...sorry, I'm not scum so I don't know. Ask Peter, John, or Paradoxombie, also possibly Raffles if you want a definite answer.

4 scum, eh? Interesting answer.

If everything goes against the town (meaning we lynch all townies and the scum get all their night kills), this game will only last until Day 3! That's pretty short, so we MUST spend as much time as possible on Day 1 trying to get people to slip up.

Why? It keeps the scum guessing. Assume in a 12 player game that we have 3 scum. They all know each other, so they have 9 people to pick from to find the Cop/Doc/Other Power Role. With your claim, they're now down to 8. No claims unless you're under Lynch conditions people.

The quote from #41 implies that you know how many scum there are. You can't predict the number of mislynches it takes for the town to lose if you don't. I find it baffling why a member of the uninformed majority would even attempt to.

On the other hand, even the best of players have been known to blindly assume a 3-person scumteam in minigames, which is why I didn't flat-out call you on this.

Which is exactly what I did. Assume 9/3:

Day 1: 9/3
Night 1: 8/3
Day 2: 7/3
Night 2: 6/3
Day 3: 5/3
Night 3: 4/3

Day 4 game ends scum win. It's a valid assumption: considering that we don't know anything at all about the make-up of the game, we can guess as to the number of scum there are based on previous games of this size. And, consider the context from which you took that quote - I was explaining why we should take our time and have as much discussion as possible. You're misrepresenting me by just focusing on the numbers when in fact it's not all that scummy when taken in context. I'm advocating that we be careful, not listing hard numbers.

That your answer is "3 scum, 1 SK or 4 vanilla scum" when directly asked is highly inconsistent to me, and strongly suggests that your lying.

Sorry, I came up with one extra this go around. Is 4 any more of an unbelieveable number than 3? I don't have any excuse for 4 this time vs. 3 in 41 and 118, so take it as you will. But, if this is the entire basis for your argument for your vote on me, I think it needs some work.

Peter, nice bandwagon.

Confirm Vote: Peter Venkman

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

EBWOP:

Sorry all. I've been trying to write that post for 2 hrs now, and post 455 and 456 were not there when I started. I will address them shortly when I have more time, if I have not already addressed them up to this point.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Sorry Peter, it's going to have to wait until tomorrow. I do have reasons for voting you, I just don't have the energy to compose the post at the moment.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

I'll comment on some of the things that have happened since Monday, and post my reasons for my Peter vote.

Bandwagoning with whom? CTD is voting on Mustafa. Are you even paying attention?

No, no I wasn't, so my apologies to both you and CTD for my accusations of voting and bandwagoning back in post 457.

Another thing that made me scratch my head was the way you jumped off Avinyl in your post #382:

I get absolutely nothing from John, Avi, Mustafa, and Raffles.

Then why was your vote on him for 8 whooping pages?

The initial vote was a pressure vote for lurking, and there was no one else who caught my attention for a vote so I just left it there.

My reasons for voting Peter:

Post 77, 95, 97 and others: Statements that Scum can afford to be outspoken in the beginning, because all arguments come down to WIFOM. Yet, he contradicts this sentiment in post 130 with a comment that states that scum should be worried about dying in the early game. If scum should be worried about dying, why would they be outspoken and potentially say something that could get them into trouble.

215 - vote for Guardian for "leading" the town, skeptical of anyone who believes in their convictions. I don't see how you're supposed to play this game if you don't believe in what you're doing. If you don't think someone is scum, why go after them? These are very black and white type statements, and seem to ignore the fact that convictions can change over time as new information is presented. FoS on everyone voting for Avi because scum can quicklynch, FoS for Mustafa because...he's voting after Guardian (post 217).

228 - among other things, a comment that scum would be foolish to wait for a -3 bandwagon before hopping on, which is a direct contradiction to the FoS for everyone voting for Avi in 215. Either the scum will jump on or they won't. Which is it?

Points out Guardian vote hopping "hoping for momentum to grow" but at that point it was the only time that Guardian had switched his vote as far as I can tell.

Calls out Guardian for playing at the whim of others, yet in the same post he asks if Guardian would be more comfortable if Peter put a vote on Mustafa instead, which seems hypocritical.

236 - states that Day 1 the raw odds are that a Townie will be lynched, and Guardian's "freaking out" about getting lynched will just get another Townie lynched. All well and good, but statistical raw odds don't jive in Mafia, where one of the prime mindsets is that you keep Day 1 going as long as you possibly can so that you can gather as much information as possible, and thereby reduce the raw odds of lynching a Townie.

Personally, it seems as though Peter has been doing his own directing of the town in the Guardian attacks, and trying to throw suspicion on Guardian for his comment about wanting to stay alive. I agree it's not a good town play, but as I've said, Guardian seems more newbie to me than scum, and newbs do a lot of stupid stuff.

260 - a subtle shift occurs in language, where Peter says that town shouldn't play to stay alive which is subtly different from town shouldn't be afraid to die. It seems to me that he is starting to try to mitigate his stance after the argument with Guardian is beginnning to lose steam.

286 - attempts to drop the argument with Guardian

288 - picks up the argument again, to a degree. Accuses John of role-fishing, which I thought was a great misinterpretation of what John was actually saying. Introduces an arugment about vanilla townies trying to stay alive if there's a cop, which is going in a completely different direction from the bulk of the argument. Directs the town towards post 266 to find more of Guardian's mis-qualifiers, but townies shouldn't be directing. States that Guardian is misrepresenting him by taking out the qualifiers such as "at this time", but the way the argument has structured itself to this point indicates that if Peter is talking about Day 1, so is Guardian. Guardian made no other statements to the contrary.

299 - defends xombie in a very defensive manner by jumping on John's request for a clarification. Post 254 had Peter express suspicions of John, Guardian, and Mustafa for covering for each other, which is another contradiction.

305 - evidence of Guardian and John supporting each other and he doesn't understand why players should do this. But, he did this same thing back in post 299. Slight appeal to emotion concerning getting lynched or nk'd and providing information to the town as a result.

324 - Guardian is dividing the town over an argument of playstyle. This isn't a one-way street - both of them are guilty of this, but Peter rests the blame squarely on Guardian.

398 - more of the same. Everything on Day 1 is WIFOM, no call to trust anyone, etc. Oblique finger pointing back towards Guardian for directing town, but at this point he's done almost all of these things himself, so I fail to see where he's right and anyone else is wrong.

404, 409 - doesn't like Thesp leading the game, but I don't see how he's leading the game. Thesp presented his thoughts and let others develop their own opinions of those thoughts. Town shouldn't lead, everyone should be suspicious, yada yada yada.

421 - vote for John, but there's no reasoning to be seen other than he "distrusts" him. Seems like he's doing what he accused Guardian of doing back in 228 (vote hopping).

423 - Guardian leading a bandwagon (how?) and pushing the town, something of which Peter is guilty.

454 - votes me for my inconsistency of determining number of scum, vote hopping from John in the process.

468 - deadline approaching, appeal to emotion to find someone to lynch.

Summary:

Peter has been saying all along that we shouldn't be leading, shouldn't be defending others, yet he's been more than willing to forgo these ideals when it suits his purposes. There have also been several incidences of Peter contradicting himself. There's no blatant scummy post that I can point out - everything taken as a whole is what I have a problem with.

So there's my reasoning for my vote on Peter. If lynching me today seems like the better play for everyone, then so be it.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

The whole reason for voting me is because I picked 3 scum (voluntarily in post 41) and then I picked 4 when asked a direct question. So now I'm the number 1 candidate for a lynch based on that - and you want me to claim? Why? What good is a claim going to do at this point?

We've had 21 pages of posts and as several people have pointed out no one has looked scummy. Yet, several people have taken offense to the fact that I can't find a definite scummy post from Peter. If I could have found a definitely scummy post, we wouldn't be in this situation, we'd be lynching someone, because everyone would see it.

You wanted my reasons for a Peter lynch, and I gave them. I would think that 3 separate occasions he's done exactly what he said we shouldn't do as pro-town players would be enough to constitute suspicious behavior. Yet I'm the one garnering the votes because Peter makes a "better argument" based on my posts of 3 vs. 4 scum. Try this: - 5 scum mini normal; - 4 scum mini normal (3 mafia, 1 sk); - 3 scum mini normal. Three games played on this site, and they all have differing number of scum.

So all I can do is let you guys make up your minds which you seemed to have done. Now the deadline is pushed back, but I still don't see how anything I can say is going to change anyone's minds - the reason for lynching me is flimsy and is, I believe, based on the fact that there's a deadline approaching. A role claim sure isn't going to save me, it almost never does. I can understand voting for me under the deadline conditions in place; as has been said a lynch is much better than not lynching, and I'm not holding a grudge against anyone who votes to lynch me under deadline conditions. My role reveal will help the town out, and I'm ok with that, but I'm not going to help the scum out by claiming and giving them more information beforehand.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

VRK, your argument against me would have been solid if you had used actual quotes from me. The fact that you had to paraphrase everything to fit your preconceived notion of my role speaks volumes about your conviction.

I wrote that post going from my notes, and for me to go back through just to quote you on every post would be nothing but ludicrously time-consuming. I gave the post numbers where I got everything from, and as you're so fond of saying the other players should be able to go back and get the information themselves. If I had left out the PbP, and just given conclusions, then I could understand you're argument.

Regardless, when a town player faces impending lynch (which you were) it is often customary to give a list of opinions of all the remaining players. In this way, the town has a nice summary of the dead person's thoughts and can proceed armed with the role reveal.

You seem to have a good grasp of the Mafia forums, and the lack of such a post leads me to believe you don't have the Town's interest in mind.

-Peter

So you're trying to shore up a weak reason for a vote with something that I should have done because it's "customary"? And because I didn't give my suspicions of everyone else in the game, I don't have the Town's interest in mind? I've already given one list in post 382, but here's an updated one for you.

Pro-Town:
Gorckat
Occult
Thesp
PEG/Guardian
Mustafa

On the fence:
DeathSauce/Avi (leaning Pro-Town)
Raffles (leaning Pro-Town)
xombie/Ichigo (leaning Ati-Town)

Anti-Town:
Peter - already done.
CTD/Vryk? - Vryk wasn't much help, and CTD seems to be pushing too hard (not sure here).
John - lurking in plain sight for a good majority of the game.

These aren't in any particular order, I just listed them as they came to me.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Good, Peter has been running this game

I havn't been

trying

to run this game. If there aren't any other outspoken players that is unfortunate and reflects poorly on the rest of the town. I've been trying my hardest to keep this game progressing with a lot of players doing the absolute minimum.

Again, as you're so fond of saying, town shouldn't be outspoken and shouldn't try to lead. Once again, you're contradicting yourself by doing something you've said that pro-town players shouldn't do.

Please outline why a scum player would take a strong, outspoken and aggressive stance towards a player he knows to be town during day one.

-Peter

So that he can influence the lynch of a townie and then point back and say "Well scum would never do that!"?

You're straying into WIFOM territory there.

Of course he is. As previously stated

ad nauseum

, all of Day 1 is nothing but WIFOM....

/sarcasm off

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

The whole reason for voting me is because I picked 3 scum (voluntarily in post 41) and then I picked 4 when asked a direct question. So now I'm the number 1 candidate for a lynch based on that - and you want me to claim? Why? What good is a claim going to do at this point?

No, it's not the whole reason for voting you, and you know it. It's a shame so many people jumped to your defense, because apparently you don't think you have to do it yourself anymore. You ignored the part where you call Peter Venkman a bandwagoner, when you've been on all the major bandwagons yourself (excluding yours). There are other reasons that warrant suspicion of you (I'm not gonna repeat them).

Wrong

I'll comment on some of the things that have happened since Monday, and post my reasons for my Peter vote.


Peter Venkman wrote:
Bandwagoning with whom? CTD is voting on Mustafa. Are you even paying attention?


No, no I wasn't, so my apologies to both you and CTD for my accusations of voting and bandwagoning back in post 457.

Try and keep up CTD. And since I'm not seeing the other reasons for suspicions, as are several other people since they unvoted me, maybe you restating them would be a good idea. Assuming there are any...

So all I can do is let you guys make up your minds which you seemed to have done. Now the deadline is pushed back, but I still don't see how anything I can say is going to change anyone's minds - the reason for lynching me is flimsy and is, I believe, based on the fact that there's a deadline approaching. A role claim sure isn't going to save me, it almost never does. I can understand voting for me under the deadline conditions in place; as has been said a lynch is much better than not lynching, and I'm not holding a grudge against anyone who votes to lynch me under deadline conditions. My role reveal will help the town out, and I'm ok with that, but I'm not going to help the scum out by claiming and giving them more information beforehand.

This is one gigantic appeal to emotion. So your role reveal is gonna help the town, but it's not gonna do you any good if you claim it? Granted, seeing as the deadline got pushed back and your wagon has fallen apart, a claim is not warranted at this point, but that doesn't change the fact that this rubs me entirely the wrong way.

Saying that this was an appeal to emotion would be fine if I was using it to try to get out of a lynch. I'm not. If the town wants to lynch me, then I'm ok with that.

And finally, I'm going to point out in intricate detail why your scum number discrepancy is not just "flimsy evidence" like you and a number of other people have said, but a serious scum tell:
There's a big difference between scum and townies when it comes to the importance of scum numbers. Whenever scum look at the player list, they see themselves and their scumbuddies, and how many townies they have left to kill in order to win. Even though most scum would prefer to forget about it, the numbers game is always in their head.
A townie, on the other hand, comes into the game with no information. Their number one goal is to find scum amidst the players, and while they may be looking for links between players, the number of scum is of no real importance to them. On day 1, they just have to find 1 scum and lynch him. Scum number ONLY get important when the possibility of Lylo becomes an issue.

This illustrates why scum are

more likely

to use scum numbers in their arguments, because they have an entirely different mindset when it comes to them. This doesn't mean that no townie will ever do it and that this is 100% accurate, no one said it was. But it is something that should raise an eyebrow.

As I was reading the game for the first time, I thought to myself "huh, the guy knows how many scum there are". I decided to test the waters instead of outright confronting him, so I asked the question. Now I know this is a tricky question, and it shouldn't be asked for no reason, because the only sensible answer is always "I don't know", for both scum and town. It can be used to lure townies into incriminating themselves (note to DeathSauce, this concerns you), but Vel-Rahn Koon seemed to have information about the number of scum I didn't have, which is why I believed asking the question was justified.

Which brings us to the changed numbers:
We have established that VRK assumed that there are 3 scum when he made those 2 earlier posts. He said himself that his adjusted numbers were not the result of anything that happened in-game. Now why would a townie, who clearly assumes there are 3 scum, answer differently to this question? VRK has no explanation. I have no explanation. No one else has an explanation. But there IS an explanation:
If he is scum, he has a motivation to lie. To appear clueless. To not give away the number of his peers by answering correctly, should he be lynched. To steer the town in the wrong direction. The list goes on.

Let me make this perfectly clear:
If VRK had not used scum numbers earlier, I would NOT have asked him this question and I would have thought nothing of his answer. But since he DID, and since his answer IS a clear contradiction, and since he doesn't have an explanation for this, I'm gonna have to assume the only scenario that makes sense to me: that he is scum.

When reading through all of the reactions to this whole mess, I began to fear that a big chunck of the town has been lobotomized. A worrying number of people have had nothing more to say than "Oh wow, he assumed numbers, and then he contradicted these numbers, and he can't explain it, big deal, let's talk about something else". How the hell do you expect to catch scum if you don't question these kinds of things? I feel quite strongly about this, so naturally I have little understanding for people who don't believe this is a scum slip. But to downright dismiss it as something insignificant seems almost criminal to me.

So much for VRK. Just for the record, I still very much think that mustafa15 is scum. I posted my reasons for suspecting you quite a while ago, and once again, you ignore it. Do you think these things will go away, just because apparently no one has shown insterest in them? It's become increasingly clear to me that you are deliberately avoiding discussion. You are playing like scum through and through.

Since you asked the question outright, I answered it outright. You specifically said, how many scum do you think there are in this game. That answer requires a number just by it's very nature. In the post that I answered this, I said I wasn't sure (Post 452). If that's not good enough, then please, by all means, lynch me. The fact that you're unwilling to post the rest of your suspicions still leads me to believe that this is your only argument.

This is an odd approach, when CTD had just confirmed himself as VRK's partner.

Please alow us a glimpse into your mindset, because I sure as heck would like to know what's going on in there.

At least we agree on something...

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Again, as you're so fond of saying, town shouldn't be outspoken and shouldn't try to lead. Once again, you're contradicting yourself by doing something you've said that pro-town players shouldn't do.

What part of "I

havn't

been trying to run this game" don't you understand?

Given the poor posting history of the majority of the players, the people who have been here since the beginning are going to stand out.

I have been putting pressure on players because I don't know how else to oust scum. What else do you suggest?

But you have been directing the town. There is no other way to oust scum but

to

direct the town. That's the whole problem with your argument. If you don't present your arguments, you can't possibly oust scum, but presenting your arguments inevitably leads to directing,

because you have to convince everyone else of what you're seeing.

Of course he is. As previously stated ad nauseum, all of Day 1 is nothing but WIFOM....

Uh, why is this an attack against my character? Do you disagree? Or are you just going to spit out sarcastic one liners in hope that it detracts from my arguments?

-Peter

Not attacking your character - your being a bit too defensive in a good portion of your responses lately. I'm just tired of seeing you say that we shouldn't do something and then do it. You didn't say anything about WIFOM in the above post, but the argument to which that line responded was all WIFOM (Deathsauce's post 552).

Town don't use WIFOM arguments! WIFOM is a scum tactic designed to confuse the rest of the players.

Of course I disagree that Day 1 is nothing but WIFOM, otherwise I wouldn't say something like that. If Day 1 was nothing but WIFOM we wouldn't be able to catch scum because we'd all be going round and round and round and get nothing done.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Sorry, I may be new but I have no idea why Vel-Rahn Koon Keeps insinuating that all First day discussion is WIFOM. Sure there isn't any hard evidence to help anyone, but that doesn't mean that it should all be thrown out. I think of it like you are calibrating a thermometer, if you don't know where zero is, how can you take an accurate temperature. I think after monday(Im going to assume that we are going to go all the way to the deadline) everyone will have a lot more to base their votes on, and everything said will be shead with a different light

As Peter explained, this isn't my idea, it's his.

Also Vel-Rahn Koon, pretty much admits to not being either scum/regular townie(I think most power roles don't exist due to the Generic in the name, but I am relatively certain that there are other power roles in play), by saying seeing him swing is good for the town

UNVOTE, VOTE Vel-Rahn Koon

I didn't admit to anything. What I said was that me being lynched and revealing my role will help out the town. The most one could pull from this statement is that I am pro-town. No mention whatsoever of power roles, because I don't want the scum to know if I have a power role or not. If I'm going to get lynched, I'm going to get lynched based on my actions and not help out the scum one iota before my role reveal. If I claimed power role, the scum would have a given target for tonight and the town would get doubly screwed.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Nope, you are extrapolating an argument from an Aristotelian question. My point was that for scum to come out strong against a town player Day One is a really terrible strategy for the scum team. The best a scum player could hope for is a one for one trade.

You, however, are imagining WIFOM arguments that could take place during Day Two. Am I a smart scum player, doing something stupid than claiming I would never do it because it is stupid? Well, that question doesn't exist unless your role comes up as town. I don't think that is likely.

Well, it's been 11 years since I've had a philosophy class, so the Aristotle reference is lost on me. What I do know is that I am NOT imagining WIFOM arguments that could happen on Day Two, I'm seeing a WIFOM argument that you are starting RIGHT NOW.

If either pickem or VRK turns out to be town, my eye will turn toward the CTD/Peter contingent

Please outline why a scum player would take a strong, outspoken and aggressive stance towards a player he knows to be town during day one.

-Peter

This IS a WIFOM argument.

So begins the game of "wine in front of me", or WIFOM, for short. In gaming, it's any kind of game or subgame, especially a psychological one, in which a player is given a set of apparently equal choices where one or more is completely wrong. In such games one often may try to use what he knows of his opponent to make a better choice, but this often leads to recursive reasoning, as anything that one player could think of is something another player could think of, in the form of "But that's just what he wants me to think, so I'll do the opposite...but maybe that's what he want's me to think...so I'll not do the opposite...but maybe that's what he want's me to think...etc, etc.". Such games are basically random, and therefore should be carefully considered before they are engaged in.

In Mafia, WIFOM arguments are usually a Scum tactic used to distract the Town. The scum will make an unusual play at night, which would lead to a situation that would 'clear' them. Also, these arguments are often used by Newbies and should be avoided if possible, in favor of clearer arguments.

Your question directly leads to recursive reasoning, because you have to answer 1) They wouldn't or 2) They might do it if they could get some benefit out of it. The majority of people will go with 1) right off the bat, and then you can just as easily say "Well, if that's what most people will think immediately, why wouldn't they try it to be sneaky". "On the other hand... WIFOM, WIFOM, WIFOM, WIFOM, WIFOM, WIFOM, WIFOM.

We're not talking about a hypothetical Day 2 scenario. You're doing it RIGHT NOW.

your being a bit too defensive in a good portion of your responses lately

Aha! So responding directly to questions/comments addressed to you is a scum tell! Put it in the Wiki!!!

No responding directly is fine. You are being DEFENSIVE in your responses. Why? There's no need to get defensive. When responding to attacks, Pro-Town players don't have anything to hide, so they don't typically get defensive.

PickEmGenius>

How do you feel about the person who you replaced not missing a day of posting since he left this game?

Why do you think he wanted out so bad??

-Peter

While PEG's response was dripping with sarcasm to this post, he has a valid point. Why is this relevant to the game? This is a very poor post that could be interpreted as a personal attack because it has ZERO bearing on the game. Guardian already told you why he had to leave:

p.s. I am going on a really long vacation May 15th, so hopefully this game is abnormally short, or I'll eventually need a sub. whatever

Hmmm. Seems to me he wanted out because he was going on a vacation that he told us about 6 weeks ahead of time. Strange that you're trying to build a case against PEG on this flimsy stuff...

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Town don't use WIFOM arguments! WIFOM is a scum tactic designed to confuse the rest of the players.

This is flat-out wrong. Scum are

more likely

to use WIFOM in certain situations.

I made it black and white, but you're saying that it's grey. That's not flat-out wrong. That's me screwing up, which I seem to be doing a lot of lately. Good Town players don't start WIFOM arguments because they get you nowhere. I'm sorry I painted it in black and white, but it's certainly not flat-out wrong.

If either pickem or VRK turns out to be town, my eye will turn toward the CTD/Peter contingent

Please outline why a scum player would take a strong, outspoken and aggressive stance towards a player he knows to be town during day one.

-Peter

This IS a WIFOM argument.

I'm really, really uncomfortable with your attack here, while I acknowledge there is a minor WIFOM going on here. I'm curious - what did you think of death's initial thoughts which spurred this point of contention?

Well I know my own role, so I know exactly where Death's eyes will be turning. As of now, I'm on top for the lynch for Monday because of the number of votes I have. Let's keep it that way and maybe you guys can actually find scum in this game.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Well I know my own role, so I know exactly where Death's eyes will be turning. As of now, I'm on top for the lynch for Monday because of the number of votes I have. Let's keep it that way and maybe you guys can actually find scum in this game.

I'm entirely not understanding here. What did you think of DeathSauce's original argument?

Sorry Thesp I misunderstood what you were asking. I had to sort everything by DS's name and then go back further than I had.

Originally, Death seemed to be firmly against CTD and Peter going after me, but by the time of the quote in question, he is starting to attack PEG and myself, and as of his latest postings, he is confident that he has found the right scum group with PEG/me/mustafa. I think the reasoning for the switchover is lacking. Could be scum trying to follow the flow and stay off the radar. I wasn't all that happy with Avi's lurking, but I figured that those actions were due to his being a newer player. Not so sure now.

Is this what you were looking for? I hope I've understood your question correctly this time.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Is this what you were looking for? I hope I've understood your question correctly this time.

Let me see if I'm understanding correctly. Peter Venkman is defending himself from this...

If either pickem or VRK turns out to be town, my eye will turn toward the CTD/Peter contingent

...which you describe here...

I think the reasoning for the switchover is lacking.

...is that correct? It seems you're asserting DS's reasoning is poor (which is essentially what Peter Venkman suggested with his minor WIFOM), though springboarding from his attack anyway. Is that correct? (Looking over, I'm not sure if it is, I need to make sure one way or the other.)

Ah I see. Go back to my post 554, the beginning of this was me being sarcastic concerning the "Day 1 is nothing but WIFOM" argument. Peter says in post 571 that I'm imagining a WIFOM argument that could take place on Day 2, but I used post 591 to rebut that and say that he was doing it on Day 1, not setting something up for Day 2. The fact that Death's reasoning for switching over his vote is poor has nothing to do with the

fact

that this is the beginning of a WIFOM argument going on NOW, not something that he's hypothetically setting up for Day 2. I will retract my previous stance that Town

do not

make WIFOM arguments - it does happen. I will say that a pro-town player

should not

use a WIFOM argument: it's not a very good argument to make and Town should stay away from it because it leads nowhere.

I've been arguing all along that Peter is doing things that he says that a protown player shouldn't do, and that's why I think he's suspicious. That is the springboard for my attacks. In my PbP post I pointed out, IIRC without going back to look, 3 separate situations where Peter says that townies shouldn't do something and then he turns around and does them himself. That is suspicious. If you say that Townies should do A, B, C and not do X, Y, Z and then you go off 5 pages later and do X, Y, Z, why shouldn't I be suspicious?

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Go

TOWN!

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Nice job scum! Well played. Thanks for the game Sefer, even if I have been sitting out the last 15 pages