Mini 436 - Game over - Mafia wins with no casualties!

[vollkan]

Vote: Albert B. Rampage

because he seems to be avoiding the question of what the 'B' stands for.

[vollkan]

Yeah, because of the B in his name Laughing (random vote is my guess)

It was not random, that B is highly suspicious!

[vollkan]

I'll do my part in trying to get this to move since I have been one of the quieter people.

After reading the posts over and then reading the posts by Miztef and Ryan I don't think there are any new general observations for me to make.

To me, the most suspicious thing is Snitchkin's "proving a point" but I don't really think that counts for too much.

In regards to my lack of posting. It isn't that I have been ignoring the game; I have been reading it. I just haven't seen anything particularly noteworthy yet that wasn't already discussed, and a mere "Yes, I agree" is fairly pointless.

In any case, start posting so that this game can begin to move somewhere.

[vollkan]

As I said in my previous post, Snitchkin has my suspicion, but it would be stupid to put him at -1 right now. Definitely safest to wait until he explains himself.

Mod edit
Votecount:
VanDamien 2 (ryan, Vollkan)
Miztef 1 (Paradoxombie)
Deathsauce 1 (HurriKaty)
StallingChamp 1 (Snichkin)
Snichkin 5 (TopHat, VanDamien, StallingChamp, Miztef, Albert B. Rampage)

With 12 alive it takes 7 votes to lynch.

[vollkan]

Miztef and Ryan are townies.

FoS:Snichkin

Definitely a very strange thing to say. Either Albert is mason, scum or trying some really weird tactic (though I can't think of any possible way this can be pro-town). I would like Albert to explain though, since it does not necessarily make him scum (though it is still very odd).

[vollkan]

Let me ask you this Miztef, is it possible that Tophat and Hurrikaty are mafia and he's trying to throw blame at both of us hoping a bandwagon will start on me? (risky yes, but still possible) Thoughts?

Yeah, it is possible. It is also possible you are mafia and trying to get them killed. It is also possible any of us could be mafia. The logic here isn't good in my opinion.

Basically, I find the whole Hurrikitty thing fairly meaningless: A) Most of what Ryan said was a rant on bandwagoning and B) It doesn't prove anything. The other thing I don't get, is that each person has disagreed fairly clearly, yet TopHat seemed damned sure they were scum. Something about the poor logic and quick, definite conclusion is odd but I will have to wait and see if something else comes up.

Also, even though Albert says a tell can be pro-town, I don't like his tactic which basically encouraged one of Ryan or Miztef to claim. I mean, he was proving a point, but doesn't it also just feed information to the mafia?

[vollkan]

Take it as what it is. A tell.

Don't dig further, there is nothing beyond it. I'm as pro-town as they come.

I just don't like this. Albert makes a massive statement (Ryan and Miztef are town), then gives no explanation other than that he is pro-town and not to dig into it. Albert may be pro-town and may have a good basis for his statement, but without reasoning it just seems suspicious.

[vollkan]

Albert. Unless I get a very good explanation from you I am going to have to vote on the basis of LACPTTPARPP. I'd rather not put you at lynch -2 and risk losing a pro-town, which is why I will wait until you explain yourself.

[vollkan]

Nah, I'm tired. No explanation until day 2 for you.

"god awful" pretty much sums it up. I don't want an explanation because we are curious and think it would be a novelty, I want one so that I can have a better idea as to whether or not you are scum. The fact that you keep dodging this question on the basis that you are "pro-town" really doesn't do much to redeem you.

Unvote, Vote: Albert B. Rampage

[vollkan]

I don't think Miztef meant he ACTUALLY wants 7 people to pile onto Tophat and lynch him, more that he just suspects Tophat at the moment.

For now, I am ambivalent to this plan. It doesn't seem to have anything wrong with it; but that could all change if someone raises a valid objection.

Care to elaborate regarding Tophat, Miztef?

[vollkan]

I agree. Albert's play has been scummy. He exaggerates his role tremendously and, furthermore, his claim contradicts the rules. Yes (acknowleding his most recent post) it doesn't necessarily contradict the rules since non-standard roles based around the "usual mechanics" may be included, but I quote the article ABR linked us to:

The Psychopath actually describes two different roles, neither of which are very common.

Not that it proves anything, but it gives a further indication of the unlikelihood which, combined with ABR's conduct and misrepresentation of his power, convinces me.

I do have a question though.
Miztef wrote:

However, there is still a chance it is a possible, and I believe we should ask a person the majority of us agree is scummy to hammer him. That way, if he is telling the truth, we at least used his power to the best of our ability, with the least risk.

Now, the article states:

The Psychopath is a normal townsperson, except he has a bomb and an aggressive streak.

If the Psychopath is lynched, he takes someone down with him - the first player who voted for him that day dies as well.

Does that mean DeathSauce only will die, or DeathSauce AND the lyncher will die if ABR is Psychopath?

If it is the first case, then Miztef's plan (ie. the scummiest person hammers ABR) doesn't need to be enacted since only DeathSauce will die.

In the alternative, if it is lyncher AND DeathSauce I think I have an idea even more cunning than Miztef's!

The first player who voted dies, right. So, if the lyncher dies as well, why not have DeathSauce unvote ABR, then have other people join the wagon and put ABR to -1 and THEN have DeathSauce REVOTE. That way, DeathSauce is both the first voter AND the lyncher - meaning we don't risk losing a second town. Unless you feel damned sure someone else is scum, this option is certainly the safest.

[vollkan]

I cross-posted with DeathSauce. Reading what he said made me wonder if the Psychopath powers (ABR's version or the official version) qualify as: "usual game mechanics: Killing, Protecting, Investigating, Voting." seeing as on the wiki it defines the role-type as "other".

This makes my uneasiness with a lynch increase slightly, but I will wait and see what other people think of it.

Mod edit
Votecount:
Albert B. Rampage 4 (DeathSauce, Paradoxombie, VanDamien, vollkan)
Snichkin 2 (StallingChamp, Ryan)
Deathsauce 1 (HurriKaty)
StallingChamp 1 (Snichkin)

Not voting 4: Albert B. Rampage, darhken, Miztef, Tophat

With 12 alive it takes 7 votes to lynch.

[vollkan]

Reading over this.

unvote

it is is the safest thing to do in light of what you guys have brought up.

the only really bad situation is if he is a scum pyschopath or a jester role. Then we are in a bit of trouble.

Isn't scum psychopath entirely different to ABR's claim. Then again, the role has been varied slightly, though I doubt he is scum psychopath.

Have to catch a bus, I would have elaborated on some things otherwise.

[vollkan]

The thing is, VanDamien, if you don't get lynched today, you have a chance of getting away.
If I don't get lynched today, I have 0% chance of getting away the next.
Do you understand this ??

Just to make this clear, which of the following scenarios do ABR and VD each want;
1) VD to be lynched?
2) VD to lynch ABR, killing VD and another player of ABR's choosing?

In both cases VD dies and has no chance of "getting away". Also, VD has claimed vanilla and said

Then I die, and maybe you can catch a scum on your way out; either way whoever's left can get back to hunting scum without some starnge role that doesn't belong in a normal game, IMO.

Albert said

No, get YOURSELF lynched, so I will be proven wrong very quickly.

If option 2) of the above was taken, wouldn't that prove one of you right or wrong?
If ABR is telling the truth then VD (who ABR is certain is scum) will die also, along with ABR's chosen NK target.
If ABR is lying, then VD won't die and VD will be proven correct, winning their bet.

What do other people think?

[vollkan]

OK, so the two people who will die on the off chance Albert is telling the truth are ready to accept their fates; I expect to start seeing some votes.

I don't want to vote until I am sure of what is happening here, since we could potentially lose 3 pro-town if this thing gets stuffed up.

As I understand it, ABR wants VD to hammer him, killing both ABR and VD. Then ABR will NK Paradoxombie. ABR seems convinced that one or both of VD and Para are scum, whereas VD and Para are sure ABR is lying.

Personally, I am inclined to believe ABR's claim. As DeathSauce said, it explains his initial behaviour which we all thought was odd. For that reason, I am hesitant about going through with this, since it could turn out really bad. Having said that though, ABR seems to be certain that VD and/or Para are scum so I suppose there is a good chance that a scum may be killed.

I am prepared to go along with this if other people think it is a sound strategy. At the moment, the risk of it is making me uncertain.

[vollkan]

Miztef's plan seems a lot safer in my opinion, since it means we can lynch on day 2 and have a better chance of catching the scum. For now, I think I will support Miztef's plan since it reduces the chance of having multiple pro-town deaths.

In regards to who should be lynched today, I think Miztef's candidates are the most likely. Personally, I favour Para as the candidate because of:

To keep it simple, I don't believe ABR, and I'd rather risk the consequences of killing him than risk letting him get away with an insane strategy like this.

The risk of lynching ABR today is enormous and, as Miztef pointed out, a lynch tomorrow is much safer. Hence, I don't like Para's eagerness to have the ABR lynch carried out today since it is fairly obvious that we can lynch ABR tomorrow with a far greater likelihood of killing a scum as well (maybe 2). Regardless of how much you dislike ABR's strategy, lynching him tomorrow is definitely the safest option (rather than a lynch today). There is no possibility of him "getting away" as Para suggests, since Miztef's plan is for ABR to be lynched tomorrow.

For now,

FOS: Paradoxombie

. Even if you think ABR is lying, it is still better to lynch him tomorrow so that if he turns out to be telling the truth (however unlikely you think that to be) we can have a higher likelihood of catching the scum.

[vollkan]

Para:

I meant he is a risk if he isn't a psychopath and he actually has a powerful anti-town ability/influence.
I don't even understand why you're so quick to believe him at all
But if you want to, you need also accept the possiblity that he is actually is some other role with an equally crazy ability and a reason to lie
And I think such a situation is more suited to ABR's behavior

Para, I don't follow your logic at all. Your argument is that we should lynch ABR today in case "he actually has a powerful anti-town ability/influence." Couldn't the same be said for anybody? We have no idea regarding anybody's role and ability. Just because ABR has claimed psychopath doesn't increase the likelihood he actually has a different role. Furthermore, as DeathSauce said, ABR's play has been enitrely consistent with him being a Psychopath.

I don't necessarily believe ABR's claim, but it certainly has a real possibility of being valid. Hence, as stated, it is safest to lynch ABR tomorrow.

Given Para's continued eagerness to lynch ABR today, along with the fact that he seems to be increasingly grasping at straws in finding reasons to lynch ABR (the whole "powerful ability" thing), I

Vote: Paradoxombie

[vollkan]

Mitzefs plan wouldn't even work for the obvious reason that you can't force someone to hammer you and kill themselves. Why has no one pointed this out?

I thought of this earlier and it is a real problem. I mean, if someone refuses to hammer it probably means that they are not vanilla town; the trouble then is that there is no way to differentiate between power roles and scum. I mean, it really is no different to a regular lynching in that there is always the risk of killing a pro-town, but here the lynchee has to actually do it themself.

Hypothetically, if it were day 2 and someone had been declared the most suspicious, what would happen if they refused?

I will come back to that in a second, because VD's latest post brings something to light here. VD says 9:3 is most possible at the moment. If we lynch ABR today (and he is telling the truth) and 1 pro-town skilled along with a pro-town at night by ABR and a pro-town by scum, we run the risk of it being 5:3 tomorrow; losing (ignoring power role effects).

Lynching ABR tomorrow is also able to cause a loss but, there is an added complication, if it is day 2 and someone refuses. In that case, if we lynched the refuser, ABR would live. Here is a real problem with Miztef's plan, it all depends on someone voluntarily allowing themself to die and, obviously, we don't want to be forcing claims. Equally, however, if ABR is lying then this will cause him to be kept alive indefinitely because we won't lynch out of fear of the risk.

I am sure there is some complex probability argument to justify lynching ABR today or tomorrow, but I can't be bothered working it all out at this stage.

Miztef's plan has a flaw which needs to be resolved. The idea that it gives us a better idea is probably correct, but even so, its operation is unworkable.

Which means, I guess, that a Day 1 lynch of ABR is back on the cards for me, unless someone can prove a Day 2 lynch is safer in respect of probability of loss or, alternatively, explain how to resolve the Miztef problem.

[vollkan]

ABR's cop point is another upside to Miztef's plan.

Miztef has explained the flaw's solution and I think it works in that case.

Para expressed some criticisms.

Id think a scum would choose to be lynched so we have to waste another day lynching ABR, right? Therefore, in order for someone to hammer ABR they'd actually have to be pro-town and we'd be sacraficing them unintentionally.

As long as we actually suspect scum, ABR will live, it will be when we make a mistake that he is taken out.

there's the obvious risk of letting ABR go free indefinitely but also,

Even though a mislynch is a likely eventuality in every game,
it seems unethical to me use a plan that requires a Vanilla to die in order for ABR to ever get taken out.

therefore, I cannot support that plan

As ABR said, an investigation will help us gain a better idea. Lynching ABR today without that knowledge is an unnecessary risk.

If a scum refuses and is lynched, then we have caught a scum; a good thing regardless of whether ABR continues to live. The only real problem is that only a vanilla will lynch. If ABR is lying, that doesn't matter. If ABR is telling the truth, it means we lose 2 pro-town and possibly a third if ABR stuffs up his NK. But, again, we face that same problem if ABR is lynched today as you seem to be advocating.

The only way to avoid the risk is not to lynch ABR at all which, as both you and Miztef agree upon, is undesirable. Thus, lynching ABR today is not the best choice since it means we lack potential knowledge we can have tomorrow.

[vollkan]

What do you guys think, Miztef, DeathSauce, Volkan, VanDamien ?

I read over Ryan's posts and most of the major things have been addressed. Something which jumped out at me, though, was Ryan's post 269.

Ryan, in 269 you voted for ABR and then said that "Mitzef makes some solid points in post 265 and also points out how we the town can still keep our numbers after Day 1." Since Miztef's plan revolves around lynching ABR on Day 2, isn't it contradictory that you voted ABR? In fact, you acknowledge that a Day 2 lynch will help the town whilst voting to lynch on Day 1. If you know that a Day 2 lynch is more productive, why on earth would you vote for a lynch today?

Additionally, as ABR said there is no way the scum could or would have planned this since aside from the whole communication problem, all this has the effect of doing is getting ABR lynched. There is no justification for a scum plot to have ABR claim Psychopath since it is simply going to result in ABR's lynch.

Aside from everything raised by ABR, my main question for you Ryan is why you acknowledged a Day 2 lynch of ABR would be better and yet, just before that, you voted ABR. You did not even rebut what Miztef and others had said regarding Day 2 being safer.

[vollkan]

Why all of a sudden should your past posts not be seen as scum? Don't try and change the game ABR, you've still done numerous scummy things in this game and really never denied it

Ryan, as it stands ABR is being lynched on Day 2. If he is scum, he will die then anyway. At this stage, you still seem determined that ABR should be lynched today, again ignoring the fact that a lynch tomorrow is probably safer (unless DogMom's numbers argument she alluded to proves otherwise).

[vollkan]

If he's confirmed as scum, you're pegging 2 other people as his scumbuddies, I'm assuming. I sure wish I was as certain as you guys - I'm just not seeing the entire case against Albert. YES, he made a spectacularly weird claim, but that's not entirely an impossible claim. I'm just not convinced.

I think that is the basis of the Day 2 lynch plan. Nobody is convinced ABR is entirely telling the truth, so they want him lynched tomorrow where we have a better idea of who is scum. Having said that, I think DogMom makes a very valid point about not lynching ABR at all unless we are dead certain he is lying. In any case, it seems to be an unwise choice to lynch ABR today.

[vollkan]

Thing is, if we lynch him, we absolutely must do it when we have at least 6 more townies than we do scum. Otherwise, town loses IF he's telling the truth AND the lynch vote is a townie and ABR chooses a townie for his NK.

Well. Assuming the balance is 9:3 and ABR is telling the truth (for the purposes of argument):

If we lynch ABR AND the hammerer is town AND ABR NKs a town, and then the scum NK a town. Day 2 starts at 5:3. Loss.

If we don't lynch ABR and we lynch a scum and then scum NK a town. We start Day 2 at 8:2. If we lynch ABR AND the hammerer is town AND ABR NKs a town, and then the scum NK a town. Day 2 starts at 4:2. LYLO.

If we don't lynch ABR and we lynch a town, and then scum NK a town. We start Day 2 at 7:3. A lynch of any town player plus scum NKing a town will cause 5:3. Loss.

The second option is the worst case scenario if we lynch a scum today. It is lylo, not loss (as opposed to worse case today).

[vollkan]

This is a doozy for sure. However, it is good to know that even at worst possible case, if we lynch albert today, we wont auto lose.

Doozy is a good way of putting it. DogMom really outdid my feeble attempt at numbers analysis. I think waiting for Ivy is our best bet, since it will give us more information in order to potentially make a more informed lynch today.

Also, has DogMom's wall of numbers altered the stance of the "Lynch ABR today" people?

[vollkan]

Hurrikaty definitely needs to post something substantial. The fact that she has made one sentence posts is inadequate and it shows that she is aware of the game, but is not contributing.

I only defend her because so many of you try to say how scummy she is all the time, where as I don't believe so. She may be lurking, but I think thats due to personal reasons not as a game strategy. Until I see some decent evidence against hurrikaty, or the lurking proves to be quite intentional, I'm not voting her.

Why are you so sure it isn't a strategy? I don't for a second believe that it is a strategy, but you can't just dismiss the possibility. There are good reasons to be suspicious of Hurrikaty, as there are with any lurker. Until Hurrikaty posts something of some substance, there is every reason for people to think she is intentionally lurking.

[vollkan]

So, does that mean the plan is to lynch hurrikaty?

I'm willing to vote her today if she doesn't post within the next 24 hours. I am inclined to agree with death and ryan in this situation, that katy's lurking has become quite the fiasco.

I agree with that, though when you say "if she doesn't

post

" I would add the caveat that the post needs to be something beyond: "Yes I am here, sorry I have been really busy/forgotten about the game/etc. Please don't lynch me." I want this post to be substantial and I want subsequent posts to at least be on par with everyone else.

Also, I agree with DeathSauce here:

I don't see how she is cleared even if she suddenly starts posting eleven paragraph PBPAs. It is apparent that she has been lurking AS A STRATEGY and now that strategy has failed. Only a complete fool would continue a behavior that has been called out and identified as anti-town.

[vollkan]

HurriKaty is at lynch -1, given that Para did not unvote and, therefore, his vote did not count.

From what I can see, one of Para, Miztef, PI, TopHat or myself will have to cast the lynching vote. I'd like to say something like: "I'll give HurriKaty one last chance, but so far all that has yielded was her post 409." It looks like we will only get more of the same "siege mentality" defensiveness from her.

My question: Are the arguments against HK sufficient to warrant a lynch at this point?
My answer: Yes.

But I want feedback, since this can't just be rushed.

[vollkan]

I feel there is a 10% chance she is some sort of suicidal role that wants to be lynched. Before I drop the hammer I just want to hear 1 or 2 opinions on the possibility of her being some sort of "get lynched" role.

I don't think there is much of a chance of that, given that ABR claims to be a psychopath. I find it unlikely that there would be another weird role (I think you mean "Jester" by suicidal role) in this game. Obviously, it is still a possibility which we can't dismiss but I don't think the likelihood is that high, since it would create a very messy game.

Another reason supporting that, though this is really open to debate. At post 176 ABR said he is the test subject for the psychopath role. Is it possible, if that is the case, that this because this game is a test for the psychopath that it is less likely that there is something else weird, like a Jester?

Having said that, HK's conduct is rather "suicidal" so I can see why you would think that way.

Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter.

[vollkan]

OMFG, we lost the doctor and cop! What an insane D1/N1. Did anyone even guess Albert was a doctor?!?!

OMFG pretty much sums it up...A reread is definitely needed here.

I would never even considered the possibility that ABR could have been a doctor. I guess we all just assumed he was either a lying scum or a truthful psychopath.

Additionally, some input from PI and TopHat is definitely needed. The way things have progressed, we need all the discussion we can get. Having two people basically sitting out does not help.

[vollkan]

I'd definitely say unfortunately. Aside from the fact that it would mean we would still have a doc, it would allow us a discussion point from which we could gain a better understanding, based upon how people behave to ABR and everything. Everything to this point has been pretty much centered around ABR.

[vollkan]

vollkan's desire for approval before hammering Katy bugs me a bit right now.

I just wanted a consensus, hence my post 427. I didn't want to rush it if people had a good reason not to. Miztef raised the issue of the suicidal role. I didn't think it was likely, but I wanted to wait to see if people felt otherwise.

Snitchkin, Tophat and PI really need to start posting.

Now,

VanDamien wrote:
Why? You tell me. A slip, frustration, thought it was disguised?

Rules wrote:
-You may not discuss this game outside the topic, unless your role says you can. If your role says you can talk outside this topic, you can do so during day, night, via msn, aim, PM, or whatever you wish.

Emphasis mine.

Interesting. VD accuses Stalling of coaching Ryan. Stalling rebuts by quoting the rules which state you can talk outside the thread IF YOUR ROLE PM SAYS SO (which he bolded). Stalling appears to be under the impression that the scum can talk outside the thread. I'd be very interested to know what gives him that idea.

[vollkan]

My interpretation was that you could talk outside the game during day, msn, etc. if your PM specifically said so. Reading it again, I think I misinterpreted and your view seems more likely. In which case, my concerns regarding your interpretation are overcome.

[vollkan]

Welcome Gossip.

We have an SK.

Most probably scenario: 2 Mafia, 1 SK.

Is there any particular reason for you thinking that there is an SK and 2 scum?

And I wonder when TopHat will join us...

[vollkan]

From my experience, the "Standard" set-up, is 3M/1SK/8T.

Then how come DogMom, for instance, said it was reasonable to assume that we had 9 town (7 now) and that there were 3 scum?

[vollkan]

Except, Miztef raised the suicidal role issue after 427. That was post 432. There was enough convinced that she was a good lynch to put her at -1, and you in 427 claim you feel the arguments are enough. Did you expect unanimity?

You haven't understood what I said. In 427, I said that I personally thought HK was scum but that I wanted more discussion and agreement before hammering. Then in 432, Miztef raised the issue of the suicidal role. That was the sort of thing that my post 427 was about; I wanted to know if anybody had any reasons against the lynch. I didn't expect unanimity, I wanted to know whether other people felt a lynch was justifiable at that point.

Furthermore, in 406 you begin with agreeing to drop your willingness to vote Katy if she posted something of subtance, but then agree with DeathSauce that even substance at this point probably wouldn't help.

Yes. I was suspicious of HK for her lurking. Had she posted, I would have dropped my willingness to vote for her, but that wouldn't mean that I would not have some level of suspicion for her given her past lurking.

I'm also beginning if your numbers in 340 weren't intentionally wrong to add to the confusion, as you recognize 4:2 is LYLO, but miss (twice) that 5:3 is also lylo, and not loss.

My numbers were totally dodgy there. It was a stupid mistake on my part, not an effort to confuse. That's all I can really say in regards to the numbers.

[vollkan]

Discussion here really needs to begin again. Hopefully DeathSauce will have something to add which will make this game a bit more active.

[vollkan]

Okay, things are moving slowly again, that's good.

@Vollkan: Perhaps it's playstyle, perhaps we think differently, but perhaps it's a scumtell. I don't understand someone confident in their towniness seeking approval for any action they take. The way I see it, enough people here had found Katy suspicious enough to put her at -1, we were on page 18 on day one, the case was moderate, strengthened greatly by her horrible defense and admitting to lurking. As everyone has to be responsible for their own actions, deliberately creating an "out" by seeking approval for those actions is scummy.

I see where you are coming from and it is a valid argument, but I reiterate what I said earlier.

I strongly suspected HK; there was a good case against her. However, I did not want to lynch at that stage in case I had overlooked a reason not to lynch, which Miztef raised. At that point, Miztef could also have hammered but chose not to because of that possibility, which was another reason why I thought it would be reasonable to wait. I hadn't considered that there might have been a suicidal role, so while I dismissed it as unlikely, it made me stop and reconsider.

As you say, maybe we have a different playstyle. I didn't want to lynch in case there was something I had not considered, which arose in the form of the suicidal possibility. Since that presented an additional risk, I wanted to know how serious people thought that risk was.

Furthermore, quick to vote? 3 RT days into day two, backed by a really strong feeling, plus my vote was the only vote at the time. With 5 needed, no one's in any danger from one vote. As stated before, I'm confident enough in my towniness to not wait around for someone else to lead me.

Agreed. I don't see your vote as anyway risky. It poses no danger of a rushed lynch and, if anything, is good because it promotes discussion.

[vollkan]

His last post was on Wednesday. Until today, neither Gossip, DeathSauce, VD or myself had posted since Wednesday. Miztef also hasn't posted since Wednesday.

The discussion has picked up a bit now, so they (Miztef and SC) have no excuse for not participating.

[vollkan]

I think one major factor in our problem is that nearly all of day 1 centred on ABR. Now that he is gone we are lacking a way to go about this and we are under a lot of pressure.

I will make an attempt to spark some discussion:

ABR was clearly lying, I still don't understand why you guys couldn't see that.

So first I bandwagon a liar and then someone you admit was extremely anti-town and just because they both turned out to be actually town that makes me suspicious?

doesn't seem justified to me.

I think what Miztef meant is that if you were a scum, you would have known both ABR and HK were both pro-town or possible pro-town and SK. Hence, his suspicion comes from you bandwagoning two people who ended up being town.

Though, the same might equally be said of VD who, at [182], unvoted ABR for the purpose of being the hammerer on the belief that ABR was lying. Then, at [362], VD states:

I still don't believe Al, and hate that our cop could have to claim day 2 after only one investigation. I reiterate my willingness to hammer.

Until then Vote: Hurrikaty as its the next best lead.

What I am pointing to here, is that both VD and Para wanted ABR lynched and then changed to HK. Miztef's post did not deal with them both. Something else is the way that they justified their change of mind - VD: "...as its next best lead" and Para: "...I was very wrong. Just wow."

Other comments,
Ryan, most of your posts of late are single sentence questions.

I realize that the count of how many mafia to how many town is important but it seems very distracting to worry about the count instead of worrying about who is scum, how about we hunt some scum now?

and

Well what direction do you suggest we go now? Without our doctor and cop we are in kind of a delicate situation

It seems like you want other people to lead the discussion whilst talking enough so that you don't seem to be lurking. I'd like to see some substance from you rather than these one-liners.

Trust, Miz and Death I don't get much of a read on here.

[vollkan]

I think I was pretty fair in my assessment of you in this game. You haven't posted a whole lot of content, you have admitted to lurking and you just admitted that because I brought up your name you came out of "doing your homework" to post. Obviously that means you are keeping track of the thread without posting content which to me is anti-town. I realize you had the comment about the scum possibly acting bolder (which was a good point) But nobody is really acting like anything right now and whether that be due to fear of lynching another townie or inactivity, getting some discussion going is our #1 asset right now which is what I had hoped to do with my analysis.

Whilst Gossip has not been saying much, I would raise two letters in rebuttal to your line of argument: HK. HK was even worse than Gossip in terms of lurking, since Gossip at least has a decent excuse, and HK was town. I don't say this to negate your point, it is just a qualification that needs to be added.

[vollkan]

Para is definitely at the top of my list, followed by DeathSauce and then I am kind of lost. I am least suspicious of Miztef and, other than that, I can see reasons all round. If I had to pick a third I would probably say Ryan or VD. Having said that, though, we have Stalling and TopHat who we really know nothing about at all, so my suspicions are only based on the "active" players.

One question to VD:

Miztef, ryan, TopHat, StallingChamp, and me are town, along with the one of Trust or vollkan who is not scum.

What makes you so confident in Stalling and TopHat? I find I don't know enough to form an opinion on them?

[vollkan]

With any luck we will have replacements soon. Then not only will we get more discussion, which we are in dire need of, but it will allow us to form opinions based on a greater amount of evidence, rather than in a complete lack of discussion (effectively) from two players.

Ryan wrote:

I think I can speak for the game when I say, we all understand that "real life" takes over for this game. The thing is with this current stage of the game I would hope that our activity would pick up and it has kind of crawled to a hault. I appreciate you checking in at least and letting us know a few of your opinions, since this is an opinion driven game. There have been quite a few posts from people that I'd like to hear other perspectives from. Para has a couple of votes on him from (IMO) pro town players. Do you feel they are justified? Anybody else hit a blip on your scumdar?

So you think Miztef and VD are town? It would be also be good to know your opinion as to who is scum, since your post 514 was pretty much an overall analysis without a definite statement of opinion. At the very least, it will make a contribution to our current level of knowledge in this game.

[vollkan]

@DeathSaucce: Miztef voted for you in post 539.

I believe this game needs more evidence overall. We should start bandwagoning/voting with intent to lynch people we find scummy and get some more information.I've already tried paradox, but he's seems to busy to defend himself at this time anyway. I'll try up to try deathsauce or VD next. If not them, then Ryan or Trust are fine with me as well.

I'll send out a unvote vote: DeathSauce first, as some people already agree with me that he is one of the scummier ones. (Vollkan, ryan, VD)

Some of the evidence against DeathSauce can be read in post 514 by ryan. I will try to further build the case.

As an aside, that last bit there is interesting and does support DeathSauce's line of thinking.

Anyway, to the body of my post now:
@Ryan
A large number of your posts have been one sentence lines about wanting people to "weigh in" and wanting to "hunt scum". To me, that looks just like posting to avoid looking like lurking. This changed a bit when you made your massive post at [514]. Then, it relapsed with [532] and [534]. The strongest part of DeathSauce's argument against you is the fact that you accuse him or lurking whilst making insubstantial posts yourself. At [540] you said:

think the main case I have against Deathsauce is the lack of actual content. Looking back through his posts I just don't see alot that is worthwhile in finding scum. I just find it lurky and with the thread crawling right now I would hope some content would come. I do think fresh blood with replacements for StallingChamp and TopHat will be a welcome change, as TopHat fell off the thread completely and StallingChamp........well he's had other "issues" I believe.

Vollkan: I am leaning on VD being town with a definete townie being placed on Miztef. The three right now I'm thinking are scum is Deathsauce, Paradoxombie and either TopHat or StallingChamp. I get a pro town vibe from you with your posts and since I know I'm town, I'm thinking that 3 of those 4 are the scum as it looks like the overall thought process is that we have 3 scum.

You seem most certain about VD and Miztef and then say you get a pro-town vibe from me. Then your scum are DeathSauce, Para and TopHat or SC. I suspect Para more than DeathSauce and I don't have an opinion on TopHat or SC (for obvious reasons). You are one of my third candidates Ryan because much of your posting looks just like you are trying to coax out people's opinions whilst posting little of anything yourself. You did make that large post, but it was only after I had pointed out your lack of content. There is some weight DeathSauce's argument.

@DeathSauce
You have not posted much of substance. That is the main argument against you. You have also been away, which offsets some of that. I don't need to make an analysis here like I did for Ryan because it is more your lack of posting which is the issue. Hence, I also am inclined to agree with Ryan. Your suggestion of the scum trio as Miztef, VD and Ryan is interesting.

Miztef has struck me as pro-town. VD and Ryan, however, have raised my suspicion a tad as you can see from this post and my past ones.

In regards to what you are saying, at [526] he stated:

Therefore, I'd have to say I find you, DeathSauce, and Paradox the most scummy, but not likely to be a scumgroup together. My forth choice would have to be a tie between Trust/ryan at this time.

The interesting thing here is that both yourself and Miztef have Paradox and VD (the "you" in the above quote as scum. Though he says that you are not likely to be a "scumgroup". At [500] Miztef made it look like he found Para the most suspicious. Though, he has his vote on DeathSauce now.

Also, for convenience, these are the opinions of people:
Myself: Para, DeathSauce, Ryan/VD (leaning more to Ryan)
Miztef: DeathSauce, Para, Trust/Ryan/VD
DeathSauce: Ryan, Miztef, VD
VD: Para, DeathSauce, myself/Trust
Ryan: DeathSauce, Para, TopHat/SC
SC: -unclear-
TopHat: -unclear-
Para: -unclear-
Trust: -unclear-

Para and DeathSauce seem to have the bulk of the suspicion. I have to go to uni now but I will be back later to discuss any thoughts on this.

[vollkan]

You, for example, have been accused of being scum many times. If you are scum, it easily explains why the rest of the scum haven't jumped on the bandwagon. It could also be that the scum can't co-odinate the 3 votes needed in a fashion quick enough to win without one of use unvoting.

Lastly, The possibility of a vig or SK or other NKer would mean the scum doesn't auto win in that situation.

There is a slight error in that last sentence. If there is an SK the ratio at the moment is likely 6:2:1. Hence, there would be no way for the scum to co-ordinate 3 votes, unless the SK were to jump on the bandwagon also, thereby outing the members of the two factions.

As such, if there are 3 mafia capable of co-ordinating a lynch, there would have to be a vig (or "other NKer") as the other NK party. Assuming it is a vig:

To run through the numbers, a lynch of a town now will bring it to 5:3. Then a scum NK will bring that to 4:3. If the scum were to have rushed, the vig would then know who to target, bringing it to 4:2. The next day, we would know who to lynch and we would win.

Either way, it is not surprising that the scum have not rushed a lynch.
I hope those numbers are correct.

Mod edit
Votecount:
DeathSauce 2 (ryan, Miztef)
Paradoxombie 1 (VanDamien)
ryan 1 (DeathSauce)

Not voting 5: TopHat, Paradoxombie, Trustgossip, StallingChamp, vollkan

With 9 alive it takes 5 votes to lynch.

[vollkan]

DeathSauce wrote:

Uhhh, I am not pretending that everyone else believes that you 3 are the scum, setting up false dichotomies, or any of the other elements of "leading". I am stating my own belief and what I think we should do. If you can't see the difference, then I wonder if you are being intentionally obtuse.

"False dichotomies"? Can you clarify what post you were referring to by that, unless it was just a hypothetical?

[vollkan]

Okay, I thought that was what you meant though it didn't match my understanding of a dichotomy so I wanted to be sure I hadn't misinterpreted.

[vollkan]

@Ryan
My suspicions are still directed at Death and Para, with my feelings on Death being strongest at the moment due to the above "false dichotomy" thing, which I shall explain my reasoning on now:

A "false dichotomy" is not what Death has used the term as. Taking the wikipedia definition:

"The formal fallacy of false dilemma—also known as false choice, false dichotomy, falsified dilemma, fallacy of the excluded middle, black and white thinking, false correlative, either/or fallacy, and bifurcation—involves a situation in which two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered."

This was in response to VD's statement that:

Anyway, now we get to a point where general consensus is narrowing down to either DeathSauce or Para, not just myself, Miztef, and you, but Trust seems to be leaning that way also. The other two are inactive, and our three scum have jumped on the chance to go on the attack.

I asked for clarification by Death regarding the use of "false dichotomy" and at [585] Death answered a request by me for clarification on the "false dichtomy" with:

Vollkan, the false dichotomy was in the excerpt I posted from VanDamien. He (falsely) claims that the general consensus is that Paradox or I is scum.

All of this consensus stuff began with my suspicion summary in [560]. Everything in there was true at the time, though things will have shifted slightly since then no doubt.

My point is that I don't like the fact that Death felt the need to resort to labelling VD with a logical fallacy, misapplying the fallacy as it turns out. Secondly, in the 585 quote above, Death dismisses the consensus notion as "false" which, of course, is wrong because at the time of [560] there was a consensus of opinion against Death and Para .

I am more than a little suspicious of the fact that Death has tried (and failed) to discredit the existence of any consensus against himself and Para. He could have ignored VD's statement regarding the consensus since it was fairly innocuous and obvious given what had been established in [560], but instead Death chose to attack it and alter it into an accusation of "leading" against VD.

This makes me very suspicious of Death and slightly more suspicious of Para, seeing as it would support them being scum buddies. For now,

FoS: DeathSauce

, to change into a vote if his explanation of the above behaviour is inadequate.

[vollkan]

I used the wikipedia definition because it was at least clearer than anything I could write myself.

Now, rather than calling it a "false dichotomy" you have chosen to call it a "false choice", overlooking the point of what I said. There WAS a consensus of opinion against you and Para. T hat does not create a "false choice" by any sense of the phrase, it merely notes that majority suspects you and Para. The fact that you seem to deny a consensus and now continue to try to represent it as a "false choice"/"false dichotomy"/scum plot strikes me as very much an over-reaction.

Your most recent post now looks like an effort to frighten me into not voting for you. You begin by reiterating what I had just dismissed, then you assert that VD, Ryan and Miztef are acting in unison and then you tell me that if you get lynched the game is lost.

All of this strikes me as very defensive and it seems like I struck a nerve by questioning your false dichotomy thing.

vote: DeathSauce

.

[vollkan]

Cross-posted unfortunately.

To address the point that the bulk of the suspicion was on me and Paradox at the time of VD's post.

Don't you think that if there were three scum acting in concert in addition to four basically non-participating players that the scum's opinions will have the most weight behind them? Basically you are saying that the consensus was on me or Para because the scum said so.

Firstly, you entirely ignore the possibility that there are scum among the inactives. That is one major weakness in your assertion that Ryan/Miztef/VD are the scum, the other being the lack of evidence other than the fact that they have all thought similarly, which doesn't help you much since I agree with the arguments against you.

And again in [592], you argue that the consensus is all a scum plot against yourself and Para. Here, I see one of the two players I most suspect tell me that the whole case against them is a scum concoction, pulling out phrases like "false choice" to somehow beef up their case. If you and Para are scum then it is impossible that all of the others are. Hence, I get into a "real choice" of either yourself being the scum with Para as a likely partner or Miztef/Ryan/VD being scum. On the totality of evidence, I think the former is definitely more likely. You are continuously raising my suspicion of yourself by this defensive behaviour and now trying to make me think I have fallen into a trap by the scum.

I'm not trying to scare anyone. I am a vanilla townie. Unvote me or the game is lost.

You aren't trying to scare anyone but I must unvote you or else we lose? You respond defensively by denying the use of scare tactics and then four words later you repeat what I had called the scare tactic.

[vollkan]

What do you mean "we are sunk"? Trust has chosen not to vote, with very good reasons.

The situation is pretty frustrating. There is a strong case against Death but, on the other hand, there are dangers in making any movements with an incomplete set of players. There has to be at least one scum in the "actives" (or an SK) but beyond that we really have no idea.

What happens now depends on Para. I think he is justified either way, since there is a strong basis for suspicion against Death but there is also the understandable hesitation given the lack of players.

[vollkan]

There is? I just see the three main suspects agreeing that I am guilty without providing any real evidence!

My evidence against you is independent of the statements of those three and I've expressed all of my reasons in my last few posts.

I had thought that the collaboration between ryan. Miztef, and Van Damien would have been obvious to a simpleton, but if it is necessary to save my skin I'll post a full analysis with quotes from posts.

Hell vollkan, you even pointed out one that I missed in post 560

It is obvious to me that they are "collaborating" (though that word carries a particular connotation), as I explored in 560. Hence, I am somewhat frustrated. For now, unless Para can come up with a damned good reason to lynch Death I would suggest not to vote.

Now, to deal with the issue of Miztef/Ryan/VD:
Death, if you are town then your theory is quite likely correct, unfortunately that also means that we are immobilized until replacements come in since the "active" town would consist of only four people: Death, Vollkan (me), Para and Trust.

Now, I have done a bit of a reread with the intent of finding things to support your suspicion. The point of this is to play Devil's Advocate with my suspicion of Death, so I realise that quite a lot of what is below contradicts my own opinion: This is pretty massive....

1) All 3 were on the HK wagon, with Miztef and Ryan as the last 2 votes.

2) With respect to the suspicion raised against me by VD in relation to me asking for feedbackto lynch HK, Ryan at [480]:

I think VD just misread

what was typed by Vollkan as the first time I read it I was thinking "what the heck" and than after I re-read it than it made sense. I'm with you Miztef, I'm having a hard time reading anyone here in Day 2

.

3)At [500] Mizef says he has no regrets about the HK lynch, says he has some suspicion on Trust, then refers to having minor suspicions of VD and Ryan. Expresses suspicion of Para. Concludes the people to "watch out for" are paradox/VanDamien/Truegossip. Interesting for Death that VD is in that trio.

4) Miztef at [509]:

Ok, it's time to push more info out of people. I think paradox or VD are a good start, so I'll flip a coin and..... Vote: Paradoxombie (because I got heads)

What if the coin went the other way? This post is quite interesting in the sense that para is chosen over VD on a seemingly innocuous basis.

5) [510] Ryan accuses Death of lurking, this starts a bit of a debate between them

6) [514], Ryan's massive post. In this, his overall opinion of Miztef and myself is pro-town, he is neutral to VD and SC and somewhat suspicious of Death, Para and Trust.

7) VD at [523]:

Explanation? Who ever said you get explanation with my new vote?

Paradoxombie and DeathSauce are scum; along with either vollkan or Trust, and I lean towards vollkan.

Miztef, ryan, TopHat, StallingChamp, and me are town, along with the one of Trust or vollkan who is not scum.

DeathSauce is gone for a few days, so he can wait. vote: Paradoxombie

Much of this has been confirmed to me by what people have said. More is obvious to me by posting patterns. That is all for now

I don't like this post. It is too blunt and lacking in explanation ("posting patterns"??). This supports Death's theory more than anything else so far. At [524] Miztef says VD is being "upfront" and odd given the sudden shift from me to Death/Para, but Miztef then labels Death/Para as "fine suspects". This is very interesting.

8) [526], Miztef says he finds VD the third likely scum but is more certain of Para/Death; could be an effort to advance his agenda and debunk somewhat the chances of him being scum with VD.

9) As referred to by me in [560], Miztef at [539]:

I believe this game needs more evidence overall. We should start bandwagoning/voting with intent to lynch people we find scummy and get some more information.I've already tried paradox, but he's seems to busy to defend himself at this time anyway. I'll try up to try deathsauce or VD next. If not them, then Ryan or Trust are fine with me as well.

I'll send out a unvote vote: DeathSauce first, as some people already agree with me that he is one of the scummier ones. (Vollkan, ryan, VD)

Some of the evidence against DeathSauce can be read in post 514 by ryan. I will try to further build the case.

Miztef bases his vote on the opinions of Ryan, VD and myself and wants to build Ryan's case. Interesting.

10) Ryan at [540]:

Vollkan:

I am leaning on VD being town with a definete townie being placed on Miztef

. The three right now I'm thinking are scum is Deathsauce, Paradoxombie and either TopHat or StallingChamp. I get a pro town vibe from you with your posts and since I know I'm town, I'm thinking that 3 of those 4 are the scum as it looks like the overall thought process is that we have 3 scum.

Ouch...VERY interesting.

From then on it is basically: Ryan accuses Death of lurking, VD says the consensus is moving to Death/Para and that he is "happy" with a lynch of Death/Para. Miztef at [574]:

It's a possibility but

blantly rushing into this is not the answer ryan. We should get more opinions from the town

on this subject.

You, for example, have been accused of being scum many times. If you are scum, it easily explains why the rest of the scum haven't jumped on the bandwagon. It could also be that the scum can't co-odinate the 3 votes needed in a fashion quick enough to win without one of use unvoting.

Lastly, The possibility of a vig or SK or other NKer would mean the scum doesn't auto win in that situation.

Please refrain from drawing conclusions so quickly in the future.

It looks like a pro-town call for hesitation, but Miztef refers to getting "more opinions from the town" extrinsic to himself and Ryan. This bit is all mere semantics, but the words suggest that he and Ryan are scum...

Miztef's "confirm vote" is also interesting, since it is totally unnecessary and meaningless except as an encouragement of the lynch.

*breathes* Okay now that all THAT is out of the way:
If Death is town, his theory is quite likely correct, in which case we are at a standstill until replacement town players arrive.
If Death is scum, well, his theory is obviously a complete fabrication to throw confusion into the ranks of a town where we are down two players.

Waiting is most likely the best option for now, since I really cannot work out what course of action to take in the absence of replacers.

[vollkan]

Hehe, I was waiting with baited breath to see what was going to happen with the unvote, though it ends up in you revealing it...

I discovered it when I was reading your post and I accidentally highlighted that bit with my mouse, then noticed it didn't look like a regular hyphen or an underscore so I copied it into the URL bar to see what character it was...needless to say I found out to my amusement.

You could have waited for Para, though, before you revealed it.

I'm not too sure about the ethics of something like that, though, even if it could have been a massive help to us. By the looks of the vote-count even the mod was fooled, unless he was aware and just chose to ignore it on the basis of it being invalid.

[vollkan]

This has certainly taken an interesting turn and for now I definitely

Unvote DeathSauce

.

Miztef's ploy was unethical and, as VD and Death have pointed out, highly suspect. Adding to what has been said already, another major problem I see with your behaviour is that it demonstrates that at this stage of the game you were prepared to allow someone to be lynched when you yourself believed otherwise. I don't need to both making a comment on how incredibly risky that is.

You knew the tactic had not worked previously and I was able to reason out of common sense that it would be invalid above. As such, I find it rather suspicious that you are prepared to risk everything on this tactic which you yourself knew had failed.

What if both Death and the hammer were town? In that case, your little ploy would only create confusion and cause us to lose the game.

I was aware of your unvote, I think I must have been the only person to notice it before your revelation. At the time, I figured it was unethical and probably invalid and, whilst I reasoned that you were likely trying to use it as a trap, I realised it was a fairly suspect means of going about it. I suspected Death strongly and would not have been unhappy with a lynch at that point, though I gradually developed some reservations owing to the Miztef/VD/Ryan post.

Also, your latest post is very OMGUS and WIFOM:

interesting VanDamien.

Going after me on ethnically views? I'm not sure what to think of it right now, but I find it hypocritical that you would vote me and say "If you think Death is scum, let logic prevail" in the same post.

Also, I don't think any scums strategy would be to collaberate on bringing down someone with them... because they don't want themselves to be under suspicion at all!

I'm gonna vote: VanDamien.

I guess this is the first time you've been under suspicion the whole game and you have really cracked. VD's thing about ethics was not, from my understanding, hypocritical. You think it is hypocritical that he suspects Death but then votes you. The fact is, Miztef, that your unvote is incredibly suspect since it risks our entire game. If you (miztef) are town, then it was stupid, if you are scum then it has failed and you were pretty foolish to reveal it.

The thing about "bringing them down" is total WIFOM. You dismiss the point because "A scum wouldn't do that, it would bring them under suspicion".

Then the vote which is just OMGUS.

FoS: Miztef

I don't want to vote Miztef just yet, since this could well just be a stupid tactic by a townie. I've said my piece on the matter. Death, you have not escaped my suspicion, but given Miztef's actions I don't feel confident voting for you.

[vollkan]

I have made my views abundantly clear. I realize that there is still suspicion on me, but this schism in the ranks of who I believe to be scum is the only chance we have to lynch scum with the non-participation factor.

Good point. If Miztef is scum, which now seems more likely to me than yourself being scum Death, then we now have the necessary fifth vote in VD. That leaves Ryan as the most likely scum partner, which would support the findings in [604]. If you look, most of the posts which supported the Ryan/Miztef/VD trio were by Ryan and Miztef.

The only post by VD that actually supported that theory was [523] which was, as you can see above, was one of the most definite posts evidencing Death's theory. VD has pretty much undergone a turnabout from:

Paradoxombie and DeathSauce are scum; along with either vollkan or Trust, and I lean towards vollkan.

Miztef, ryan, TopHat, StallingChamp, and me are town, along with the one of Trust or vollkan who is not scum.

At the moment, I think it likely that Miztef and Ryan are scum partners with SC/TopHat as a third.

My reason for not pegging Trust as a likely third is that Trust confirmed he was not going to vote to lynch Death. My reason for not pegging Para as a likely third is that Miztef has consistently been suspicious of Para. Neither of which are conclusive and both are potential thirds, but I don't think they are as likely as SC/TopHat.

[vollkan]

Well, for starters his intentions were not obvious. I found it as I was writing my massive post [604]. I didn't know what to make of it since whilst it seemed likely it was a trap to catch yourself or Para, I also had the sorts of suspicions that Death raised in [607]. As I said back in [606], I was unsure of the ethics and I highly suspected it would be invalid.

I didn't know whether I should have revealed it or not. In the end, I chose not to but added

Waiting is most likely the best option for now, since I really cannot work out what course of action to take in the absence of replacers.

at the end of [604], mainly as a result of my uncertainty regarding the unvote.

It seemed very unlikely to me that Para or Trust would vote to hammer without further discussion.

My intention was to reveal it after having some responses to my post [604] since I could see that acting in that way would generate quite a bit of information (ie. we could see people's responses to the evidence for Ryan/Miztef/VD and then see the responses to the unvote) and help get us out of the rut we are in.

A question for Miztef:
If you actually knew it had failed in another game, why were you prepared to take that risk here? Not only that, but it would have been entirely reasonable for a town player to lynch Death at that point (particularly since you yourself had encouraged the lynch). As such, even if your unvote had been effective, there was a high likelihood of a town player being caught by your trick. Did you consider that?

[vollkan]

To summarise that post by Miztef:

1) If Death is town then Vollkan/VD/Ryan are likely scum.
2) If Death is scum then the players off the wagon are likely scum.
3) Regardless, Miztef is town.

3) refutes 1) due to the fact that Miztef was on the Death wagon (which sounds like some kind of military vehicle) himself. As such, if Miztef is a townie as his post suggests, then he himself demonstrates that it was reasonable for town to be on the wagon. Hence, being on the wagon is not evidence of likely scum.

I had found there to be a strong case against Death and felt confident he was scum. On that note, I still have suspicion of Death (his readiness to vote Miztef is another point here), but with everything that has now happened I don't feel confident placing a vote on anyone just yet. Miztef's "unvote" is not proof of scumminess, which is why I disagree with VD and Death's responses. Though, likewise, there are good reasons to be suspicious of the "unvote" (hence my FoS) and, as I have already said, we cannot just ignore it.

2) of Miztef's has problems due to the fact that we are down 2 players. If Death is scum, then it is unlikely scum were on his wagon; that is a likely though not certain proposition. That would leave 2 other scum. Miztef said:

However, on the reverse, if deathsauce is scum, then players outside the bandwagon are most likely scum.

If Death is scum, as he may well be, I don't think suspicion is justified towards Para and Trust on the basis of 2), due to the fact we are absent 2 players. Death/SC/TopHat is just as likely as Death/Trust/Para, or a mix of them. Maybe that is obvious, but it needs to be said.

And, Miztef, you did not answer my second question:

As such, even if your unvote had been effective, there was a high likelihood of a town player being caught by your trick. Did you consider that?

Your latest post asserts that if Death was town (as you believed) then Trust and Para were also town. As such, isn't it true that the only people who could have been caught were Trust and Para? If you did believe that it was a scum wagon, why would you lay a trap for townies who were not on the wagon?

[vollkan]

So all we've really proved is that IF neither me nor Trust noticed the unvote, then we are either not scum, or not in LYLO, but not both.

That pretty much sums it up. It would be very useful were it not for its dependence on you/Trust having noticed it.

Also, regarding the LYLO point I have a question:
If we screw up today it goes to 5:3 (assuming vig and not sk). Then a scum NK brings it to 4:3. The vig can then either bring it to 3:3 or 4:2. What happens at 3:3, or any even split like 2:2, 4:4, etc.?

[vollkan]

Reading Para's quote of Death made me notice something. Death said:

Sorry, but this just baffles me. A player uses a highly questionable tactic in the game and then comes right out and

says that they saw it used in a game where it gave the scum the win

, and you think it it's only FOS-worthy? Do you need Miztef to actually announce that he is scum? Because what he's done is just one step short of that.

I have bolded the relevant bit. Relevant because Miztef actually said:

I saw someone do it in another thread (it failed there, and the scum won) but I thought I'd try it out here anyway.

The issue this brings up is that Death directly attributes the scum's win to the "unvote" (ie. "it gave the scum the win") whereas Miztef merely said that the scum won, with no causal linkage between the "unvote" and the scum win. Death said that in response to Para saying that Miztef's actions are only "FoS-worthy".

Maybe it was unintentional, I'll leave that to Death to

explain

, but I find it interesting that Death has misrepresented what Miztef said to make Miztef appear as scummy as possible as a result of this.

As an aside, I don't think that Death or VD's voting for Miztef is scummy, even if I am suspicious of the misrepresentation I highlighted above. I disagree with their vote, but I can see it is justifiable since Miztef's actions could potentially be scummy.

[vollkan]

You have to be kidding me. Miztef said "It failed there and the scum won." That certainly seems to link it as a cause and effect by any normal interpretation. Even if it isn't cause and effect, why would any pro-town player use a tactic that they saw in a game that even indirectly led to a scum win?

The reluctance by the two of you to vote for Miztef is incomprehensible.

Let me give you a hypothetical event: "I put a hat on and it rained". There certainly is no direct cause and effect and I don't believe there is any indirect causal link. What you have said and now continue to suggests is the "false cause" logical fallacy.

The town in that game, from what has been said, lost due to the allegedly "good" town player making a case and voting for the "novice" town player. Of course, it is true that IF the scum had not noticed the trap and had fallen it then the town would have won, but the reverse is not true. The town could still have won even though the trap failed. By the sounds of it, the effect of the trap's failure was to prompt the "good" townie to further build the case. Thus, the trap may have been of some relevance, but it was not a necessary cause since the "good" townie did suspect the "novice". If the "good" townie had simply given a normal vote, the town would have lost then and there anyway.

And as Para said, you wouldn't support it as evidence of Miztef being pro-town.

Moving back,

I still would like to see an actual post of substance ofanything that I have done that appears scummy so that I can address it. All I have seen in the last three pages is posts saying "DeathSauce seems scummy", not a single one saying "DeathSauce seems scummy because..."

The first thing which raised my suspicion of you (and of Ryan) was the lack of posting. That was by no means conclusive, but given the other stuff like the fact you seemed to consistently be making slight attacks on Ryan/VD, it made me feel that you were distancing and lurking. That, plus the lurking made me suspicious of you at that point, though most of my suspicion was at Para based on earlier events. There was other stuff earlier on, like your backflip on ABR and arguing that Miztef was supporting a scum HK but, again, a lot of that was similar to other people (including myself in some parts) so it wasn't really conclusive.

My suspicion against those three was fairly even and mild up until Death started with the "leading" and "false dichotomy" stuff. Until that point, I could understand the case against you, but my suspicion was effectively split. Then, your actions and responses to everything (ie. what looked like scare-tactics, accusations and continual denial of any legitimate case against you)

Having said that, I found the situation difficult once I found there to be some credit to the Miztef/Ryan/VD theory, ignoring the "unvote" thing which left me confused about what was going on. Hence, why I have unvoted now and am not going to vote you again just yet even though you have my suspicion, because too much else is going on for me to feel confident.

That said, I also don't like your latest post's suggestion that the non-voting of myself and Para is "incomprehensible". Your play of late has been to represent Miztef as being as scummy as possible based on what happened whilst denying the validity of any view which is not so strong.

In short, my dilemma is that as suspicious as I find Death, the collaborative behaviour between Ryan/VD/Miztef on the wagon makes me uneasy about it. Throw in the "unvote" and I see the Ryan/VD/Miztef trio dissolve somewhat, with Death's responses again heightening my suspicion of him.

If Death is town, Miztef looks to me to be likely scum with Ryan as a likely partner. VD has voted for Miztef, but it could be distancing to debunk Death's theory (this is really concerning me at the moment). If Death is scum, I think it highly likely that at least one of the inactives is his partner, but there is no evidence I can see supporting him being partnered with an active.

I am putting all this out here to get people's thoughts on it, since I need this dilemma to get picked through and be sorted out.

[vollkan]

Running through Ryan's post I noticed a few things:

Setting a "trap" always makes me think of a scum trying to save his own butt by posting something and than if the going got tough you could say "Well on post (whatever) I proved I was town by doing this" admitting to the trap was also surprising, I'm going to re-read what I missed from you while I was gone but for now my vote stands.

That seems to be one of the reasons people have for suspecting Miztef.

I have a

few questions for Ryan, Death and VD (and Trust if you agree with them regarding Miztef)

:
1)If Miztef actually came out and tried to say what Ryan posits above, would you believe him at all?
2) If the trap had worked successfully (ie. it was a valid unvote and someone hammered without justification) what would your thoughts on Miztef be?
3) If the trap failed (ie. someone hammered and Death was lynched) what would your thoughts on Miztef be: (a) if Miztef had declared it to be proof of town-ness as in 1)?
and (b) if Miztef had acted as though it were a massive blunder?

These are the main scenarios which could arise. In each case, my own answer would be that I would become suspicious of Miztef. In the case of 1), my suspicion would skyrocket. If 2) arose I would be probably only as suspicious as I am now but I would also not be highly suspicious of the hammerer, given the possibility that a scum Miztef laid the trap in order to catch townies who were not yet on the wagon. Both 3) scenarios would make me very suspicious of him.

I don't think Miztef's actions are evidence for him being a townie, my point is simply that there is no gain for a scum in doing them. It would be WIFOM to say that since Miztef's unvote has no gain for a scum, therefore Miztef is town. However, I think it is justified to say that since Miztef's unvote has no gain for a scum it is not evidence that he is scum. I hope I have made the distinction clear.

That said, there are still legitimate grounds for suspicion (hence my FoS) since the tactic could still be used to trap a townie but I just don't think that to be overwhelming proof in light of the realistic outcomes of the above scenarios.

Also, Ryan said:

I've done enough pro town moves in this game that I'm a little surprised that a "trap" being set isn't looked upon as you (a self proclaimed pro town player) to be a little scummy.

What do you mean by this? You seem to be suggesting that there is some link between you making "pro town moves" (?) and me not being convinced that Miztef is scum due to the trap. Maybe I am missing something, but I can't work out what you are saying.

[vollkan]

Your post [607] was precisely what question 3) was addressing actually. In [607] you said:

It seems to me like that would have been a clever "out" for a scum. If the hammer fell on me, the thread is locked, then the next day you can come in and say "But I did a double-secret unvote!" It's too late and you get the bonus of being able to promote the player that dropped the hammer as scum.

This strategy is especially dangerous when we have an unknown second NK-able entity.

I must have worded question 3) badly, since neither you nor Ryan answered it how I meant. What I was getting at is this:

If Death was lynched and then on day 3 Miztef tried to use the trap as an out (this is the scum usage you suggest in [607] and has been the only actual usage by scum raised so far), it would cement people's suspicions of him. Certainly, I would likely vote immediately if Miztef tried that unless I had a tremendously good reason otherwise. That was scenario 3a of my questions.

3b was if Miztef said something like: "Oh gee, that sucks. I tried to make a trap but the mod didn't count it. I am so sorry". Again, I wouldn't buy that and would be very suspicious, though maybe not so much as for the 3a.

Hence, tying those together I can see no advantage for a scum Miztef in using the unvote as an "out" on day 3. Any attempt of him to do so would reasonably send people's suspicions sky-rocketing. Hence, I just can't see this as evidence of scumminess because the scum would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing it.

To play devil's advocate with myself here:
Maybe that explains why Miztef has revealed the unvote now. If Miztef realised that he has no advantage on Day 3 using it as an out, then he couldn't just try and evade the issue by not revealing it at all on the chance that somebody would notice it at some point (either before or after Death being hammered) in which case he would fall under heavy suspicion for not saying anything. Hence, as much as it has drawn Miztef under suspicion, maybe revealing it was the smartest thing for a scum to do.

But, all this depends upon a scum Miztef actually making this move in the first place and I can't really imagine a scum genuinely taking this course of action without first realising how completely risky and unable to really accomplish anything it would be.

I have a quick question for you vollkan. What if I had been lynched and Miztef never brought up the miniature unvote at all? That seems to be a possiblility no one has mentioned.

If you had been hammered and came out town and Miztef never mentioned the unvote after that, I would have become very suspicious. If it was a pro-town move (albeit a stupid one) that failed miserably, it would only be reasonably for Miztef to announce his blunder. Hiding it at that stage would look, to me like he was trying to keep a "card up his sleeve" in the sense that he could reveal it when he was in a hard spot to generate confusion.

[vollkan]

I did it because I wanted to progress the game without just stating that I wanted to lynch Deathsauce.

People seem to be quoting this sentence a lot and so I re-read it. Miztef, much as I think your actions have no advantage for scum, I can't reconcile the contradiction here.

I would be more comfortable if you explained your actions by something like: "On a reread Death turned out to look pro-town after all and so I laid an unvote trap". But I really don't like the fact that you seem to be stating on one hand that you wanted Death lynched and on the other that you wanted Death "sacrificed" to catch a hammerer. It makes no sense that you would want Death lynched at the same time as potentially wanting the hammerer lynched.

The trap only makes sense to me as a pro-town action if you genuinely have a strong belief that the person in Death's position to be a town player. Everything I have said to this point regarding the unvote is entirely dependent on Miztef actually having little to no suspicion of Death.

[vollkan]

If I just got to pick who to lynch right now, I'd go with deathsauce. His whole reaction to my trap rubs me the wrong way, and I was suspicious of him even before my trap. All my arguements against him and my vote before the trap were quite true, although

I was going a bit overboard in order to get the best reaction.

I have bolded the bit that interests me most. What specifically are you referring to by that? Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that you exaggerated your case against Death to "get the best reaction".

Again, you say you were suspicious of Death before you set the trap, once more demonstrating the contradiction inherent in the trap as you set it and the massive flaw to your plan if it was done on a pro-town basis. You have answered my statements on this matter by saying in [646]:

I realize that there are alot of risks and some flaws in my plan. However, it has led to alot of interesting and unique information being presented and so at least, even if you decide to lynch me, you'll have some valuable information from my crazed antics.

Miztef, the information this has generated does not justify the "unvote" in any way. You say you made a stupid error, fine, but don't try to offset the potential consequences of your actions in light of the fact that it has generated discussion (as well as a good deal of confusion).

I am very much at a crossroads in terms of my suspicion. My two most likely scum candidates are Death and Miztef but I feel quite strongly they are not together (unless they have done a brilliant job of distancing).

Death: My suspicions from earlier have not waned at all. His heavy-handed responses to Miztef initially made me more suspicious of him, though I can see the justification for them, particularly in light of the contradictions in Miztef's reasons for laying the trap. That said, I suppose they would be consistent with Death being scum in trying to get rid of an easy target who was on his wagon. Overall, I don't find positive grounds for suspicion in Death's more recent actions, but my earlier suspicions linger on.

Miztef: What I said back in [604] pointed you to being scum with Ryan and VD, though of late VD has been disputed somewhat. Could be distancing by VD, but there was not so much evidence for VD's membership in the first place, as I said some time back. Ryan was a somewhat more likely partner and I find it more probable that his recent actions are distancing than VD's. I think it is obvious that your unvote was either:

(1) A complete blunder by a townie who decided to try something (not so) clever; or
(2)A complete blunder by a scum who chose to reveal their mistake as a pro-town blunder in the hopes of not getting into bigger trouble later

To keep this game moving until the 5 inactive players do something, I have a question for Death and Ryan (and VD if care to drop in):

Question:

On what basis do you think (2) of the above is more likely than (1)?

Since you two (or three) have your votes on Miztef, you must have a reason for seeing (1) as less likely.

[vollkan]

Ok, I wouldn't call it a complete blunder.... the major reason for it was generating information. It has done that to great extent, even if it has caused unnessasary suspicion on myself.

Well, a good townie wouldn't have hammered you without good reason! Unless a bad town player randomly just threw down the hammer, I doubt I could convince the town that the hammerer is very scummy (if I were scum).

The entire point of my trap was to leave some time for the scum to hammer and then be caught! Of course I left time for that to happen.

Again, a contradiction. The "major reason" is to get information but "the entire point" is to catch a scum (or a bad townie as you have admitted).

Death, you say it is the fact it had some relation to a loss in another thread and Miztef's contradictions which have made you suspicious rather than Miztef's actual actions. Even if I disagree with the former of these somewhat (the whole cause and effect debate we had), I can see your sense in the latter.

I am done defending the trap. ryan is right in that we need to get back to looking for scum, we are only restating things to each other now.

I don't like this bit at all. Ryan thinks everything that has been said over the last few pages is useless in hunting scum (funny, though, that it was useless enough for Ryan to cast a vote) and Miztef agrees. This looks very evasive on Miztef's part and makes me think back to everything in [604], with Ryan possibly pulling out a distancing vote to dissolve the Ryan/Miztef possibility.

[vollkan]

Vollkan has also been questioning me about it, but in a more overall picture way, and isn't as rash as Deathsauce seems to be. I am somewhat confused as to why vollkan has not voted for me yet though, since his evidence against me seems to have mounted up quite heavily. My guess is he is waiting for input from the inactives/replacements.

You're partly right in that I feel a lack of players creates too much uncertainty in this situation. The other reason I have not voted for you was given by Para in his post:

You assume he is scum pretending to be town and made a slip and appeared scummy for a second, but the obvious alternative that he IS town and made the same slip. There's no reason he's anymore likely to make such a slip if he's scum than if he's town, I don't see why you are so willing to pick one over the other. Maybe it's just an easier alternative for me to see since I think the slip in the first place wasn't really necessarily a slip.

I know for the past few of my posts I have been arguing that a revelation would be the best thing for a scum to do, but still I meant that with the overriding likely possibility being that you made a "protown blunder" as I called it earlier. I don't see your unvote as "scummy", it is just something which could potentially be scummy, which you can pretty much say about anything so I don't quite see why people have been so quick to pounce on you for it.

Now, to the DS v Para feud which has erupted all of a sudden:
Earlier on I asked DS why he thought it was more likely that Miz was scum than town. His response:

vollkan, I can't honestly tell you which one is more likely. The very fact that Miztef revealed the trap makes the whole thing very WIFOM-y.

The "WIFOM-y" refers to the idea I floated about a scum Miz possibly revealing since it was the smartest thing to do. Odd, however, that I raised that idea well after DS had raised the bulk of his attack. Here we have DS admitting he does not know which is more likely and admitting that the only possible evidence of scumminess (the reveal thing) is WIFOM-y at best.

There have been at least three major inconsistencies in Miztef's posts since the "trap" fiasco. Read my response to vollkan in post 654, that should help to explain my suspicion of Miztef. Read all my posts since the "trap". You are completely misrepresenting the breadth of my suspicion.

That was said in response to Para arguing there is a lack of evidence for Miz being scum.

1) The first contradiction is that Miz said you were "justifiably angry" and that "your response rubbed him the wrong way" (or to that effect). I don't think this is a "major inconsistency" in the sense of proving scumminess. An angry response is justified (I myself am more than a little irritated by what could have caused a loss) however, as I have been saying all the way through this, I don't think DS's particularly rash response is justified, nor do I think his arguments are actually sound, since they still fail to prove that Miz IS scum, it merely proves he COULD be scum.
2) The second is the fact that Miz "unvoted" even though he suspected DS. This is more a major problem with his plan itself than a contradiction in his explanation. It isn't evidence for scumminess.
3) The "major reason" versus "entire point" contradiction which I raised. I suppose in one sense the two "purposes" are compatible, since the trap would certainly have generated discussion. I don't like the fact that Miz tried to justify it by saying the discussion he caused is good, though again it is not really "scummy", since it could well just be another reflection of the dodginess of his plan.

All in all, whilst the contradictions are suspicious and I can see sense in suspecting Miz for them (as I said back in [660]), they are not very strong evidence at all.

Quote:
Here are the tells, for clarity:
#1. Going after obvious targets to escape suspicion
(While the "to escape suspicion" is speculation, I think it's obvious that's what DS is doing)
#2. exaggerating points extensively and intensely for use in #1


Re-read the thread. I was suspicious of Miztef long before there was any sort of threat to me. You admit Miztef is an "obvious target", therefore suspicion of an "obvious target" is suspicious?

You accuse me of "exaggerating your opinions". I see no evidence I have done so. If you want to keep your scumtells to yourself, just say so. The fact is I am only looking to defend myself, something every player wants to do.

DS wrote everything not in the quote by Para (read up and you will understand). Miz is an obvious target, but his scumminess is not obvious. It is suspicious that you would be so adamantly against Miz when he has not done anything which actually IS scummy. I played the devil's advocate with myself a bit, and it ended up in a WIFOM and some minor contradictions. I was not convinced there was a case against Miz despite trying to find the evidence for it, since clearly you and others did feel there was one.

This bit really grabs me:
You then say you are not "escaping suspicion" but are merely "defending yourself". Either way, I really don't like this since you are basically admitting that you have advanced the anti-Miz line to protect yoursself.

There is no solid case for Miz being scum based on the evidence. The arguments you have made have been rash and something of an over-reaction. If this attack on Miz is "defending yourself", then that strikes me as very suspicious indeed. The only reason you are not on L-1 any more is because of the events which have happened regarding Miz, most of which has been fuelled by you conflating a case. This looks to me like a scum taking advantage of the fact that one of the people who suspected them the most made a blatant error.

How many times should I explain that it is NOT the trap that is my main source of suspicion?

Then what is? The contradictions are NOT evidence of anything in that they are minor and pretty explicable. This looks like back-pedalling to me after people have said that the trap is not suspicious.

Also, DS, I don't like how you continually say that people are calling you scum without stating the evidence, to somehow discredit your opposition. I know exactly what people refer to each time they say it; it just looks like you are begging the question.

This argument between Para and DS has given evidence enough to allay my indecisiveness. As I said earlier, DS has admitted the case against Miz is weak and WIFOM-y at best. And yet, he persists in arguing emphatically that Miz is scum and even admits that he has done this to his own advantage.

DS, if there is anything here which I am unclear about point it out because I don't want to fall prey to your claims that the case against you lacks evidence.

Vote: DeathSauce

[vollkan]

Welcome both of you, thanks for joining.

[vollkan]

Okay. I thought it was very odd that you had said nothing about it. I assumed you had missed it completely.

[vollkan]

Firstly, addressing DS's response to my voting post.

Not really, I thought it was WIFOM-y because it's WIFOM-y, not because of an idea you floated, not sure where this comes from.

We must be talking about two different things. I thought you said my rationale for a scum revelation of the trap was a bit WIFOM-y, in which case I agree since it was just a hypothetical which I admitted was stretching it. Hence, in my post I addressed the fact that you seem to just be accepting that one element of the case is based on WIFOM-y logic. If I have applied your comment to the wrong thing, explain what you meant.

Quote:
Here we have DS admitting he does not know which is more likely and admitting that the only possible evidence of scumminess (the reveal thing) is WIFOM-y at best.
That was not my entire answer to your question and you know it because you quoted the rest of it later and said
Quote:
Death, you say it is the fact it had some relation to a loss in another thread and Miztef's contradictions which have made you suspicious rather than Miztef's actual actions. Even if I disagree with the former of these somewhat (the whole cause and effect debate we had), I can see your sense in the latter.
You agreed with me then and are ignoring it now.

No, I have never said I agree with you. I could "see your sense". There are grounds for suspecting Miz, but you have overshot them. Contradictions are scumtells and Miz has made contradictions but they are only quite minor. The point is that there is a minimal case against Miz which lacks any substantative evidence. You rushed to vote a person who made an obvious error and it looks as though you have simply been making a case up as you go along.

Quote:
This bit really grabs me:
You then say you are not "escaping suspicion" but are merely "defending yourself". Either way, I really don't like this since you are basically admitting that you have advanced the anti-Miz line to protect yoursself.
How did I admit this? My defending myself has nothing to do with my suspicion of Miztef. I expanded on that when I said

Para accused you of going after obvious targets (Miz) to escape suspicion (you were at L -1 until this erupted). When you addressed this you said:

Re-read the thread. I was suspicious of Miztef long before there was any sort of threat to me. You admit Miztef is an "obvious target", therefore suspicion of an "obvious target" is suspicious?

You accuse me of "exaggerating your opinions". I see no evidence I have done so. If you want to keep your scumtells to yourself, just say so. The fact is I am only looking to defend myself, something every player wants to do. If a group of players continually posted "Paradox is scummy and is showing scumtells" and never exanded on that, might you not also get frustrated and ask for some actual evidence?

You clearly knew Para was referring to Miz by "obvious targets" and then conflated whether or not it was to escape suspicion by referring to people not listing each scumtell against you. Hence, you either dodged the question or you admitted to using Miz to your advantage. Either way, I don't like your response.




[quote="DeathSauce]
I just can't get over that sentence. It appears to me to be the slip-up scumtell of all time. I know you guys disagree, but just go over it again one more time and try to see it from another point of view.

Miztef's later explanations did not help, and we have shown, to my belief, that the trap had a bigger upside for potential scum that it did for potential town.
[/quote]

I addressed this with the whole "cause and effect" thing ages ago and yet you still can't seem to just accept it, maybe because this forms the foundations of the case against Miz.

I gave a brief read to the game Miz linked us to. The circumstances there are entirely different and it has no analogy here. For starters, there were only 3 players. Hence, when the scum noticed the trap and believed it to be effective, if he had hammered he would have been outed and lost (the unvote was much bigger there too I notice. ). Here, we have nine players. If someone had hammered it would by no means be conclusive and I don't think any of us would be foolish enough to act on the trap without thorough discussion.

Nonetheless, as Para said it doesn't really matter since the move's riskiness is not contingent on analogous evidence. I think the real importance here is that DS has represented Miz's statement about the other game as being a crucial scumtell when it is obvious that the analogy is not needed and, furthermore, that the analogy given is a poor one. Hence, again the case against Miz is feeble at best.

[vollkan]

This is highly surprising from someone that has used the last few pages of this thread building their own case against Miztef. Even Miztef said
Quote:
I am somewhat confused as to why vollkan has not voted for me yet though, since his evidence against me seems to have mounted up quite heavily.

I did try and explore DS's side of the argument in the last few pages, but I think the results of that pretty much speak for themselves.

The only "case" I managed to build on Miztef was:
1) The possibility that a scum Miz revealed to save himself later. This is by no means a vote-worthy scumtell.
2) The issue with the fact that Miz suspected you when he laid the trap. Again, this may just be a reflection of poor planning and of Miz copying a trick from another game where the circumstances meant that it didn't translate over well.
3) Agreement with Ryan that the issue had been over-discussed and that Miz was "done defending". Not major.

I pointed all of these out and raised them in argument against Miz to make sure that he was thoroughly dealt with, as was needed in the wake of his actions. The reason I didn't vote is obvious; none of them are at all significant to the point of warranting a vote.

[vollkan]

Well I hope you can see how I find it slightly odd that you build a case against one player for a week and yet don't vote them, but your analysis of one of my posts warrants an immediate vote.

You seem to be ignoring everything I have said to the ends of discrediting my vote against you.

As I just said, the "case" I built I against Miztef was little more than a few meagre actions which scarcely warrant suspicion yet alone a vote. The fact that you clearly accept them as a case illustrates precisely my point, that your arguments against Miz are conflated.

For you to say that I base my vote on a single post by you is outrightly false, and I think you know that. I have continually reaffirmed all the way through that I had suspicion of you. The particular post I referenced in my voting post merely cemented everything else that had been raised, either by me or by others, for some time.

Votecount:
Miztef 3 (VanDamien, DeathSauce, ryan)
DeathSauce 3 (Miztef, Paradoxombie, vollkan)

Not voting 3: TopHat, Trustgossip, StallingChamp

With 9 alive it takes 5 votes to lynch. At deadline, it's 3 to lynch, or the person with the most votes.

[vollkan]

This game has been particularly weird due to ABR's "claim" of his own version of psychopath, the very awful results of the Day 1 lynch and night-kills and then Miztef's "unvote".

[vollkan]

Nice work replacements for bringing some of the earlier stuff into a new light; gives us more to discuss which is good.

No, I am saying that VanDamien knew that it was numerically more advantageous for Albert to be lynched sooner than later if he was to be lynched... And that was ignored, brushed over by Mistef and Vollkan. I havent finished my re-reads yet, so I won't comment on Vollkan's overall play, but I think Mistef looked to me like he was promoting his plan to the exclusion of all others, even after VD showed it to be flawed numerically.

My initial gut belief was that a later lynch was better since I assumed we would be better informed and less likely to potentially have 3 town deaths (ABR, his hammerer and ABR's target). I got tremendously muddled up with my numbers in the likes of [261], where I said 5:3 was a loss. I almost made that error again a few days ago and my reason was that I read it as "3 scum out of 5 players". I can't remember what prompted me to write that 5:3 was a loss here, but it was possibly the same reason.

Regardless, I thought a D1 lynch of ABR could cause a LYLO D2 and, hence, I thought a D2 lynch was better, though I realise it has many problems as well.

As you say, you haven't reread me yet, but in [306] I stated that DogMom's point that we shouldn't lynch ABR at all unless we were certain he was scum. DogMom was pretty convincing from then on and I agreed with what she had said, hoping it would have changed the minds of the D1 lynch supporters; and also she through out my dodgy numbers and proved that the best option was just to refrain altogether (as I said back in [357]).

[vollkan]

There is another reason why VD should be called to explain his vote:
Before VD voted Ryan (with no justification), Miz and DS were at 3 votes each. I may be wrong here, but wouldn't that result in a No Lynch at deadline? By voting Ryan, VD has effectively caused DS to be the lynchee.

I am confident in my vote, but I can't help but be a little concerned by VD's actions seeing as he made no explanation of his vote. If VD believes Ryan is scum, then isn't it in our best interests in the circumstances of a deadline for him to give us reasons why? Maybe VD has found something that we all missed, but at this rate all he has done is cause DS to be the lynchee.

[vollkan]

Saying that I haven’t been finding scum (which you’ve hinted at in your War and Peace posts you’ve been posting) is really WIFOM.

And I could easily say that sounds terribly OMGUS and contrived.

Why is it WIFOM? Usually WIFOM logic is something like: "If I were scum I would have done this but I didn't". If, as you say, VD hinted that you have been prodding people to "hunt scum" whilst not doing anything yourself, there is no WIFOM.

And the second:

I could easily say that you’ve been lurking through the game with no solid stance on anyone until right before a deadline.

This is evasive and an example of the tu quoque fallacy. Since this is one of the less common ones, the gist is:
A criticises B
A is guilty of B
The criticism of B is dismissed.

If VD has accused you of posting nothing substantial, it is no answer for you to swing the criticism back. Yes, VD is somewhat hypocritical here, but his play has effectively been the opposite of yours.
Ryan: Many "prodding" posts without too much input.
VD: Very few posts but usually of a very relevant nature.

Of course, VD's style does tend to produce a low amount of discussion, just because his comments are so sparse.

Regardless, that doesn't really matter since you (Ryan) have still failed to actually address VD's concerns.

Also, VD's quoting of [514] by Ryan drew my attention back to Ryan's comment that my posts have not been assertive about my opinion. My last post before [514] was [507], in which raised some of my own suspicion of VD and Para as well as stating in regards to Ryan:

It seems like you want other people to lead the discussion whilst talking enough so that you don't seem to be lurking. I'd like to see some substance from you rather than these one-liners.

It's rather odd that I give my opinion quite clearly (I admit, I did not say "I think x,y and z are scum", but I don't think that sort of thing is necessary or productive until you have a good reason) as well as noting Ryan's lack of content and then Ryan proceeds to accuse me of not giving opinion and, effectively, lacking content.

I am looking forward to Part 3 of the trilogy.

[vollkan]

Ouch...

This just gets worse and worse. I'm going to do a bit of a reread to try and get some new information, hopefully.

[vollkan]

I can see Miz's logic, but it still relies on a WIFOM which we can't accept at this stage of the game.

I have found something else about Ryan I would like discussed:
Ryan's voting post #642 for Miz was:

I'm not sure how I could be so wrong, and

although you could still be scum Deathsauce I'm starting to agree with you about Miztef pulling an anti town move.

I've read and re-read and read some more and I still find it to be scummy BUT I'm not sure why he'd admit to his plan unless he thought he was going to be found out and figured he'd try and come clean to look more townie. *shaking my head* If you aren't pro town, you are anti town and I am NOT a fan of anti town players so........
Vote Miztef

Now, just prior to that in #640

In light of re-reading the posts I missed while on vacation I am going to

unvote

I just am not a fan of setting traps that potential townies could find themself in AND than having an out if a townie is lynched.

I still feel DeathSauce could be our mafia but Miztef is just not sitting right with me right now.

I'm looking back through posts to see what I could have missed about Miztef as I was pretty sure he was pro town. I'm not above admitting mistakes and DeathSauce might have been right about Miztef being mafia but if that's true than my case on DeathSauce might be wrong as well. I'll post something after I get a few things re-read (and done at work) What a tangled web we weeve

I don't like the ease with which Ryan reversed his stance entirely, despite admitting that he was suspicious of the very person who he was agreeing with. This much would fit with Miz's statement:

Most of the time, you seemed to be on deathsauce's side. Since me and him are both town, either kill was fine for u, just had to pick a side

Also, we have Ryan's rather blunt "If you are not pro-town you are anti town..." A pro-town player can make a mistake (as I suspect Miz has) and not be anti-town. There is false logic to this, but I don't think it is as important as the stuff regarding Ryan's reversal.

[vollkan]

Now it's just a matter of waiting until everyone has checked in. Given the recent lull and the complete absence of Trust (absence of trust in a game of mafia), that may take a while.

I think maybe the vote is a little premature; I was planning on voting Ryan too, but after we had heard from everyone and discussed a bit, anyway the evidence is certainly all there even if we didn't get to hear all of what VD had to say.

[vollkan]

Voting is severely risky to me right now. We have (most likely) 3 scum, that means that 1 vote on a town by a town could mean all the scum jump on and win the game (this is likely LY/LO).

On that note, I want to get the numbers flowing again; I figure that could be a good way of helping to assess the situation. I had errors in my numbers before, please correct me if I have any problems here.

I have bolded each possible outcome of D3 and N3 combined.

Assuming it is 4:3:

Townie Lynched D3 = 3:3

Scum NK of N3 =

2:3 (Loss. This is the outcome if we really screw up and lynch the vig)

If we have a vig and the vig survives the D3 lynch, then the vig will also get an NK. If the vig chooses not to NK, we lose since it is 2:3 (am I correct here?)

If the Vig NKs a town =

1:3

(Loss again)
If the Vig NKs a scum =

2:2

(I will get to this in a minute, since it is the focus of my question)

Scum Lynched D3 = 4:2

Scum NK of N3 = 3:2
Since vig will obviously have survived to get a NK in this case,
Vig NK of Townie =

2:2

(This is also the focus of my question)
Vig NK of Scum =

3:1

(This is, obviously, the best outcome we could get)

Now, the two ones which are confusing me are where it is 2:2. Here, I am ignoring any information we actually learn and am focusing on just the numbers.

In #625, DS told me that in an even split scum wins in "most games". My question is, does that apply here if the vig survives for the reasons I shall give now?

Obviously, the scum won't vote each other which would mean that D4 could only end in either a No Lynch or a Townie being lynched.

If No lynch D4

= 2:2
Scum NK N4 = 1:2
Vig NK of scum N4 = 1:1

This is, of course, providing that the vig does not also choose the scum's target. If the vig made that error, we would lose since D5 would open at 1:2.

If the vig were to target the other townie and the scum were to target the vig, it would result in 0:2.

Anyway the point of that is that if it is 1:1 there can be no lynch on D5.
Hence, on N5 wouldn't the NKs cancel each other if the vig was not NKed by the scum and cause...a tie??

If town lynched D4

= 1:2
Scum NK N4 = 0:2
assuming vig is not the lynchee,
Vig NK N4 = 0:1 (We lose)

Hence, today is basically LYLO/D (lynch or lose/draw). If a town is lynched today, the best we can hope for is a tie (that is to say, 1:1 with a scum and vig and assuming such an outcome is actually a tie which I may be wrong about).

This next bit is

very important

! Providing the lynchee is not the vig, scum will not hammer today. If they did, the vig would NK and it would end up 2:2. Since a hammer would most likely give away the scum's identities, it seems most definite that D4 would be a No Lynch and hence, D5 will open 1:1. If the town is vig, then it seems like a tie (again, I think), if the town is a townie, then it will be a loss.

If the scum were to hammer today, it would dash all hopes of us winning. However, it would also give the scum a 50:50 chance of a draw based on whether they are able to NK the vig. Their chances of winning, hence, are enhanced by not hammering today but lynching a townie as normal because that would make the vig more likely to misdirect his NK and, thus, decreasing the likelihood of a 2:2 arising where it pretty much comes down to a 50:50.

That's all for now and should give a bit of fuel for discussion.

[vollkan]

Actually, it is more than a 50-50 chance of winning for the scum. If we lynch a townie today, we have 3-3 split. At this point, the scum will have 2 Nights to NK the Vig. If they choose randomly, they get 33% chance of hitting the scum first Night, and then if they fail, 50% the second night, which gives them roughly a 66% chance of winning the game without the Vig hitting his target incorrectly.

Yes, true. Let me clarify where the 50-50 comes into it. The 50-50 arises if the scum were to hammer in rapid succession or something, giving the vig a perfect idea as to the scum's identities.

See, if the scum hammer it goes to 3:3.
The vig should have a good idea who the scum are bringing it to 3:2.
Now, the scum's NK brings that to 2:2. Here, there is a 1/3 chance of the vig being NKed.

If the vig survives,
D4 is 2:2
No Lynch
Vig NK = 2:1
Scum N4 NK = 1:1

This is where the 50-50 comes in. If the scum N4 NK is the vig, we lose. If the scum N4 NK is not the non-vig, it is a tie. Hence, there is a 50-50 choice for the scum at that particular point. I did not for a second mean the probability of a scum win is 50%.

Hence, if we mislynch then it is very dangerous because the vig is at a disadvantaged position and, hence, the 94% of Sir Tornado raises its ugly head. However, if the scum were to hammer they are virtually staking their win on being able to pick the vig on N4 since the vig would most likely be able to NK the scum on N3 and N4 consecutively were the scum to hammer.

[vollkan]

It's been over a week since anybody has posted. If the mod is going to prod the two lurkers then we at least need to have some discussion going on if this is going to progress forward at all.

To continue what was being said re: Para's vote being premature. I ask Miz, do you stand by your suspicion of Para in light of the statistics I have given? (This could lead nowhere but it is better than nothing given the level of activity here)

[vollkan]

Prod Sweeney and Trust and then we'll see who else needs to be prodded once discussion picks up again.

[vollkan]

Welcome. With any luck this game will begin to move again.

[vollkan]

Welcome, and well done for making a post which actually brought some new stuff up.

Some things I noticed.

His motives seem to have been this: since noone was willing to hammer Hurrikaty (for fear of appearing scummy,) he tries to speed things up by convincing someone, anyone to bring Hurri to L-1; he would then proceed to do the dirty deed himself (hammering, which he does).

Why couldn't a fellow mafia do it? Simple: they both already had votes on Hurrikaty (I'll go more into this later).

The whole thing with Miz baiting so that he could hammer is a little weak to me. The case against HK was so strong that I doubt whether Miz's comments would have been particularly influential. If Miz was scum and wanted HK dead, it would be just as advantageous for Miz to vote HK to L-1 and then have a townie hammer.

Certainly, I think Miz's encouragement is a little off and I agree with you there, but I don't think it is wholly evident that this is exactly what Miz did.

I reread the exact specifics of HK's lynch after reading what you said and something else relevant came to light.

I'm gonna give her one last chance, if her post feels scummy, I have no problem changing my vote to her

Then, in #426 Ryan votes HK without that other chance which he had made his vote conditional upon. It is possible Ryan missed ABR in #424 where ABR pointed out that Para didn't unvote and that Ryan was hammering rapidly, but I doubt he would have made such a blatant scum move. Even so, it is interesting that Ryan changed without HK's post AND that Ryan and Miz were the last two on the wagon and that both of their votes were "odd".

Something else. D3sisted, you said you consciously did not address Miz's "unvote" but I want to know what your take on it is; whether you are taking the DS line of it being scummy or whether you are taking the other view that it is just a stupid thing without a necessarily scummy motivation.

It's interesting that this brings us full circle back to the Ryan/Miztef pairing from earlier on. On D2, I suggested the possibility that Ryan's vote on Miz was for distancing in order to cast doubt on Ryan/Miztef. d3sisted's post prompted me to do a reread, specifically in the area of Ryan/Miztef collaboration.

Funny then that today Miz has cast an FoS on Ryan, but he says he really is not going to vote unless necessary. In fact, their little debate today would seem further evidence of this possibility. Maybe they are making genuine accusations, but it is just a little odd that once the serious possibility of them being scum buddies is raised then they invert their approaches to each other without actually presenting any really strong arguments (ie. Ryan just following DS yesterday).

Plus, note that Miz immediately expresses suspicion on Para once Para has voted Ryan. Hence, Miz is basically either:
a) Retracting his suspicion of Ryan in light of Para's vote; or
b) Suggesting Para is scum with Ryan

Since he didn't make any reference to b) and, indeed, Miz described the vote as "severely risky" this suggests that Miz adopted an a) approach. Of course, by that I am leaving open the question of whether Miz actually had suspicion in the first place, or whether he was just distancing.

Ryan/Miztef definitely looks strong to me at the moment and, after my rereading, I am really split as to who looks more scummy.

[vollkan]

"Maybe they want to distance?" you say. I doubt that theory, and here's why: At the time, there was no suspicion of their being scumbuddies (there was some earlier, though that had more or less been quelled) so from their perspective, they had not a need for distancing. Besides, they stand to gain more if both of them remain alive: a) They win faster b) They ease the risk of having the town/SK/vig pick the remaining partner (i.e. safety) c) Easier to get mis-lynches out d) Maintains pressure upon the town by keeping the game at LyLo. The only advantage they gain from bussing is allaying a tenuous (even inexistent) suspicion. No need to run if you are not being pursued.

Can you direct me to where Ryan put Miz at L-1? I can't find it.

Assuming what you say is correct anyway,
You are basically saying that because Ryan voted Miz when they weren't under suspicion, therefore he couldn't have been distancing. It doesn't really work like that, however.

If Ryan behaves like that to Miz early on, it still distances himself pre-emptively; in fact that is one of the commonest ways that scum do distance. That way, people will be less likely to raise the possibility of Miz/Ryan.

Hence, I don't think that action debunks the Miz/Ryan; particularly given all the other evidence that I raised in #604.

Something else I notice which is odd, in that post of Miz's with the hammer ASCII art:

Unvote Vote: Hurrikaty
_____
__ |_____|
|__|=====\= |____| /
\\|_____|//
HurriKaty


Sorry, but she hasen't posted, and I must agree that 2 Jester roles is quite unlikely.

Okay, he does an ASCII-art hammer, odd and it suggests some sort of eagerness to lynch. Why bother going to the trouble of writing the hammer?
Then, however, Miz actually apologises for the hammering. If he really had a conviction that HK was scum, why on earth did he feel the need to apologise. Plus, everyone else had given their consent to a hammering, Miz was hardly taking an unpopular course of action. I can't believe we glossed over this, but he is practically pre-empting a townie death.

All the stuff from my reread, the past stuff and d3sisted's new evidence have pretty much solidified my suspicion of Miz. I don't like Ryan either (as I already said, I was considering voting Ryan after some discussion today) but on view of the events as a whole, I definitely think Miz comes off worse.

Vote: Miztef

[vollkan]

I also considered whether VD changed his vote to ryan to purposefully put DeathSauce at most votes, but that is out of the question since he was Town.

VD unvoted Miz in #701 and then voted Ryan in #707. The only effect of unvoting would have been to make DS the lynchee and I am pretty sure VD would have been aware of this.

However, given that VD then became set on Ryan, I don't think he wanted DS lynched.

I see your point though. Unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with the preemptive distancing strategy so I didn't give it thought.

Yeah. I figured that since you had said you were new, you probably hadn't considered that Miz and Ryan had undertaken proactive distancing.

By the way, how do you calculate whether a situation is LyLo? Is it considered LyLo right now? I was under the impression it was, since mis-lynch, mafia NK, SK NK can reduce us to 4 overnight. If it is, Vollkan you might want to be careful with that vote. You haven't even heard what the guy's got to say for himself.

LYLO is where a mislynch will cause a loss. ie. 4 townies and 2 scum. If the town lynch one of their own, it goes to 3:2 and then the scum NK brings it to 2:2 (which is a win for the scum).

As I proved with the numbers in #756, there is tremendous risk in scum hammering rapidly because the fact that we have a vig/SK throws significant uncertainty into the mix. In #756, I concluded the situation is now LYLO/D. Even if a town is lynched today without the scum outing themselves by doing a rapid hammer, they still run the risk of a draw. If they were to hammer and out themselves, a draw would be pretty much certain unless they were able to NK the vig.

Of course, if the situation is 4:2:1 (with the last 1 being a SK), the situation is much the same. I will do the numbers thing for this now, much like I did for 4:3 in #756.
If it is 4:2:1,

Townie Lynched D3 = 3:2:1

Scum NK of town = 2:2:1
____SK NK of town = 1:2:1
____SK NK of scum = 2:1:1

Scum NK of SK = 3:2
____SK NK of town = 2:2 (scum win)
____SK NK of scum = 3:1 (LYLO)

Scum Lynched D3 = 3:1:1

Scum NK of town = 2:1:1
____SK NK of town = 1:1:1
____SK NK of scum = 2:0:1 (LYLO with the SK)

Scum NK of SK = 3:1
____SK NK of town = 2:1 (LYLO)
____SK NK of scum = 3:0 (town win)

SK Lynched D3 = 3:2

Scum NK of town = 2:2 (scum win)

As can be seen, some results are clear LYLO, some are scum win, one is town win and the rest are very messy and complicated.

*takes a breath* In short. The scum will be risking a lot by rapidly hammering in either case (the other case being 4:3 with a vig, which I discussed in #756)

Does anyone else find it weird that two died N1, but only one in N2? I’m guessing that the SK or vig was inactive. Hence, I am inclined to think =Confused= SweenyTodd is SK or vig.

A thought just occurred to me, could =Confused= be a Godfather, but since he was inactive, didn’t get a chance to send in the NK? Are there even GFs in Normal Mini?

It is also possible that the vig is only a 1 shot vig, that the vig felt unsure or that the scum and vig targeted the same person.

I also read somewhere (the wiki I think) that usually SKs cannot just abstain from their NK. If an SK didn't send in their night choice does that mean they would be modkilled?

As an aside, it probably is not a good idea to hypothesize on who is the vig; it looks suspiciously like you are hunting for a power role.

[vollkan]

...it looks suspiciously like you are hunting for a power role.

Hm, ABR accused ryan once before of "fishing for a power role", what does that mean anyway? Doesn't everyone want to find out who is Doc, Vig, Cop etc?

Not at all.

Imagine that, say, you prove or give reasons suggesting that Person X is the vig. In that case you can be dead sure that tonight the scum will NK that Person X, hence causing the town to lose Person X and be at a considerable disadvantage.

This is the very reason why people don't just claim their power role immediately once the game starts.

"Fishing for a power role" is a common accusation levelled against persons who try and search out in thread who the power roles are, either by giving evidence or just saying things like "Who do you think is the vig?".

Of course, you should be thinking about it in your head; but posting it in the thread will only help the scum.

[vollkan]

Well done =confused= for making a good post. This game has been frozen for so long now that it is nice to see some substance from multiple players again.

Moving on,

At this point things were looking rightfully bleak for ABR, I don't really blame the people that went after him because his play baffles me. But this quote right here just really stunk to me. To me it really looks like Miztef is just making any excuse he can to justify his stay on the wagon. Voting someone for bad play is one thing. Voting someone for bad play when you believe they're town is quite another. Especially when they are looking close to a lynch.

Your point on his ABR vote also made me think of his HK hammering post. Miz also expressed caution there when he apologised for hammering. Maybe it is just a coincidence, but in both cases he expresses regret as though he is preemptively trying to justify a town death.

In regards to the DS vote, Miz voted DS in #539.
Now, in #500 he posted his suspicions: Trust, VD and Para. Notice: No DS
then in #526 we get

@ VD: well, you... but if that's true then more then likely 1 or none of your suspects are scum.

Therefore, I'd have to say I find you, DeathSauce, and Paradox the most scummy, but not likely to be a scumgroup together. My forth choice would have to be a tie between Trust/ryan at this time.

DS suddenly appears and, not only that, he rises higher than Trust but Miz gives absolutely no explanation as to why.

The other interesting thing is that Miz relies on me along with Ryan and VD in his voting post #539. The strange thing is, though, that the only comment I had made expressing any suspicion of DS was in my post #527:

Para is definitely at the top of my list, followed by DeathSauce and then I am kind of lost. I am least suspicious of Miztef and, other than that, I can see reasons all round. If I had to pick a third I would probably say Ryan or VD. Having said that, though, we have Stalling and TopHat who we really know nothing about at all, so my suspicions are only based on the "active" players.

Of course, none of that by me was particularly strong, and I had only said it in response to a request to outline my thoughts at that point. My suspicion on Para was, I think, based on his justification for changing to HK (going by what I said in #507) and for DS it was to do with lack of content, this also being the cause of my suspicion of Ryan at . VD was, going by #507 again, due to his HK change.

Anyway, my point is that Miz used me to justify his vote when I had not actually given any explanation for why I suspected DS. I think that demonstrates just how weak my suspicion was but, nonetheless, Miz actually used my unexplained and weak suspicion to justify his own vote; just a tad opportunistic there.

[vollkan]

I just checked Miz's posting history from his user profile. His last post in this thread is actually his most recent post in ANY GAME. Hence, I think it is quite likely that he has actually left the site.

[vollkan]

First up, welcome to Adam...interesting first post though.

Now, d3s's latest post. I'll try to cover as much as I can by the major areas, starting with the ABR Plan. If I miss anything/you want a clarification let me know; there is a lot of content there for me to address. I will address some of your specific post refs (you'll see why) and in other cases I will address the general area.

Now, you note that in my post #723 I:

Vollkan, 723, Explains again why Rampage should be lynched D2 rather than D1. Claims it would be LyLo otherwise, when it’s not; you’re the one who crunched the numbers, Vollkan.

That isn't exactly right. I said:

My initial gut belief was that a later lynch was better since I assumed we would be better informed and less likely to potentially have 3 town deaths (ABR, his hammerer and ABR's target). I got tremendously muddled up with my numbers in the likes of [261], where I said 5:3 was a loss. I almost made that error again a few days ago and my reason was that I read it as "3 scum out of 5 players". I can't remember what prompted me to write that 5:3 was a loss here, but it was possibly the same reason.

Regardless, I thought a D1 lynch of ABR could cause a LYLO D2 and, hence, I thought a D2 lynch was better, though I realise it has many problems as well.

As you say, you haven't reread me yet, but in [306] I stated that DogMom's point that we shouldn't lynch ABR at all unless we were certain he was scum. DogMom was pretty convincing from then on and I agreed with what she had said, hoping it would have changed the minds of the D1 lynch supporters; and also she through out my dodgy numbers and proved that the best option was just to refrain altogether (as I said back in [357]).

In your PBPA you said that I justified a D2 lynch in #732, which I did not. Likewise, I did not say it was LYLO, I said that was what I thought at the time.

As I said in #732, back in #357 I expressed concern upon the plan based on Dogmom's numbers. In #357 I said:

Doozy is a good way of putting it. DogMom really outdid my feeble attempt at numbers analysis. I think waiting for Ivy is our best bet, since it will give us more information in order to potentially make a more informed lynch today.

Also, has DogMom's wall of numbers altered the stance of the "Lynch ABR today" people?

In your PBPA, all you say about #357 is that:

Vollkan, 357, Wonders whether DogMom’s number crunching has affected “Lynch Rampage today” crew.

That really is not an accurate reflection of what I said. The way you present it makes it look far more suspicious that what I actually said.

That aside, the only defence I can have for my support of the plan is what I said in #732. At the time when Miz's plan was first raised people were calling for a D1 ABR lynch. As per #732, I felt a D2 was safer but Dogmom threw me off it altogether.

Moving on,

Miztef and Vollkan also frequently ask whether HK warrants a lynch, looking for consensus and approval on Hurrikaty’s lynch.
Vollkan, 492, Sides with Miztef on a ludicrous suggestion. Lauds Miztef for delaying Hurrikaty’s hammer, defends him a bit too.

The basis of my hesitation was if anyone had objections to a lynch at that point. In #427 I was still wavering as to whether it would be a good idea to give HK another opportunity to explain herself.

Then Miz raised the suicidal thing, which I didn't know how to deal with. I thought it was unlikely but this was my first mini game and I didn't know whether such a thing was common or not. I said I thought it would be unlikely given ABR's claim, but it concerned me.

Now, you then refer to my #492 and, again, you misrepresent it. The bit I think you are referring to in #492 is:

I strongly suspected HK; there was a good case against her. However, I did not want to lynch at that stage in case I had overlooked a reason not to lynch, which Miztef raised. At that point, Miztef could also have hammered but chose not to because of that possibility, which was another reason why I thought it would be reasonable to wait. I hadn't considered that there might have been a suicidal role, so while I dismissed it as unlikely, it made me stop and reconsider.

As you say, maybe we have a different playstyle. I didn't want to lynch in case there was something I had not considered, which arose in the form of the suicidal possibility. Since that presented an additional risk, I wanted to know how serious people thought that risk was.

I did not "side with Miztef". Miz's bringing up of the suicidal role (if it was ludicrous, I didn't know that) and his subsequent hesitation made me think that it could be feasible.

Next,

Vollkan, 507, Defends Miztef from Paradoxombie’s lashing, even though Para astutely raised a convincing point against Miztef.

Again, this is not accurate. Para queried an accusation by Miz and I explained to Para what I thought it was about. I didn't defend Miz, I just tried to make sense of what he had said. The other mention of Miz in my #507 was when I said:

What I am pointing to here, is that both VD and Para wanted ABR lynched and then changed to HK. Miztef's post did not deal with them both. Something else is the way that they justified their change of mind - VD: "...as its next best lead" and Para: "...I was very wrong. Just wow."

From what I gather, I didn't like the fact that both VD and Para shifted in such an odd way. This wasn't defensive of Miz, the reference to Miz was (by the looks of it) in differentiation from the "next best lead" thing. Having said that, I am unsure what I mean by "Miztef's post".

Vollkan, 527, Agrees Para is most suspicious, followed by DS , ryan, and VD (identical to Miztef’s suspicions). Reiterates that he is least suspicious of Miztef.

Not identical, actually.
Miz, in order of suspicion, was 1) VD 2) DS 3) Para 4) Trust/Ryan
Mine, in order, were 1) Para 2) DS 3) Ryan/VD.

At the time, Miz didn't look suspicious to me.

Anyway, they weren't identical; so why did you say they were? "very similar" would have been a fairer assessment.

Next,

Vollkan, 538, Wants to know if ryan considers Miztef and VD town.

Not correct. That post was me seeking Ryan's clarification of a post which HE made in which he said:

Para has a couple of votes on him from (IMO) pro town players.

The players voting Para were Miz and VD. Hence my question. The reason I asked I actually explained in #538, until that point Ryan had given no indication of his thoughts. Hence, his suggestion that he thought Miz and VD were pro-town was his first expression of his opinion. In fact, in that very post I followed my question up with "It would be also be good to know your opinion as to who is scum".

Next,

Vollkan, 560, Miztef strikes him as (you guessed it,) pro-town.

That post was where I first addressed the Ryan/VD/Miz thing. In that context, I said that whilst I was suspicious of Ryan and VD to an extent, Miz had struck me as pro-town. However, I also noted an inconsistency with Miz having found Para most suspicious but was now voting DS.

Hence, if anything that post was critical of Miz, whereas your construction of it suggests anything but.

Something interesting, in your PBPA section on the unvote debacle, you omit my post #617. This is important because you thrice refer to inconsitency with #606.
In #617 I addressed that very matter. Why didn't that post make the PBPA?

Vollkan, 674, Calls the evidence against Miztef weak. Accuses DS for unjustified suspicion against Miztef, saying there is no reason to think Miztef scummy. Votes DS along with Miztef.

Vollkan, 696, “case against Miz is feeble at best”

Both of those were in specific reference to the case against Miz on the basis of the unvote NOT on Miz in general, as is clear from the posts.

Vollkan, 782, Despite the comprehensive evidence I gave on Miztef, he still tries to defend him, saying one of my arguments is weak. Revives the theory of a

I scrutinised an argument which is weak. That isn't defensive, that is precisely what I ought to have done.

For the last thirty-two pages, you two have been unfailingly supporting and defending each other. And don’t deny it either; I’ve just provided two full pages of irrefutable proof.

Irrefutable...? A lot of your PBPA is not accurate. I admit I have suspected Miz least at points in the game, but I don't think that alone is irrefutable proof of being scum partners. My behaviour has, I hope, been explained here.

[vollkan]

Good game all and thanks Mod.

Please tell me what you did and did not like about this game, and what could be improved; as it was my first game as a mod feedback is really appreciated.

I think you did really well as mod. I particularly liked the fact that you had vote counts at the top of every page; it makes navigating the thread a lot easier. Also, I agree with you that having the VCs in players' posts differentiated with the blue text is a good way of doing it.

Likewise, you handled the rampant need for replacements very well also.

I can't really think of anything that you did which needs improving, sorry to disappoint you if you were hoping for some concrit.

Something unrelated to mod stuff, we (the scum) were able to work out today that Para was the vig and had attempted to NK Ryan (but failed since he was GF) based on the fact that Para voted with little reasoning and that he had said he was "VERY sure" Ryan was scum. I'm saying this because I think it is interesting as a learning point just how little information it can take to amount to (effectively) a role claim.

[vollkan]

Easily the MVP goes to Vollkan in this one.

Thanks very much. What is "MVP" though?

[vollkan]

Sidenote on vollkan, his lack of scum tells made me suspect him quite a bit near the end. After 34 pages someone so protown seems likely to be playing extremely self-conciously(and therefore very likely scum).

How close to the end? I didn't think you suspected me until quite late because your semi-claim post about being "VERY sure" seemed to be directed at me, unless this is just me reading into it too far.