I'd rather let the whole hand banana/Panzer arguments slide for the time being - hand banana and Panzer have brought enough suspicion upon themselves that the situation is very likely to clear up overnight (due to cop investigations and/or NK's), and as such my opinion is that we should wait for tomorrow before dealing with either of them.
In light of this situation, I went back and did a PBPA on Khelvaster:
Post 3:
Khelvaster wrote:mull my townspeople? What's that mean? :p
Post 5:
Khelvaster wrote:Just for that reasonable interpretation, Vote: Nekka-Lucifer :p
Post 8:
Khelvaster wrote:Unvote
That vote was a joke. Just in case it actually would count, i'm unvoting :p
Post 10:
Khelvaster wrote:Hand Banana: If you need help translating something or don't know what a word means, use google translator. The website is
http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en . By the way, where are you from?
Post 18:
Khelvaster wrote:FoS: Handbanana
If the townie's scum, saying they are very aggresive would be an excuse for BWing. It just sounds wierd.
Post 28:
Khelvaster wrote:flubadubdub, wonder how this game will go.
Nothing of real substance here (unsurprising, since this comes from the random voting stage of the game), but his lighthearted, joking manner is noteworthy - IMO, it's a minor scumtell.
Post 33:
Khelvaster wrote:For not having posted yet
Unvote, vote: ac1983fan
Khelvaster seems to go on a lurker hunt here... which would be fine except that the game had only really started a day ago and the town already had a topic of discussion in Nekka-Lucifer's suspicion list.
I also don't like how Khelvaster elects to vote for a lurker *prior* to asking for a mod prod.
Post 38:
Khelvaster wrote:Where is ac? He still hasn't posted.
Khelvaster's still lurker hunting, and still not asking for a mod prod.
Post 42:
Khelvaster wrote:That sounds fine to me. If you think someone's scum, it's best to let them go on showing scumtells than to tell them what to correct. Panzerjager, your argument against this isn't very good.
Khelvaster's subtle support of Nekka-Lucifer's anti-town decision to withhold the names of the people (well, person) he suspected is noteworthy.
Post 51:
Khelvaster wrote:nekka definitely seems like an inexperienced townie to me.
This post caught my eye when I looked at it in the context of Khelvaster's post 42 and his later posts 91 and 126. I think I may know what's going on here, but I do not want to elaborate on this unless Khelvaster is forced to claim at some point in the future. Suffice it to say that I saw something here that should make it easier for me to decide if Khelvaster is telling the truth if/when he does claim.
Post 63:
Khelvaster wrote:good point with the fos: lurker hunting. Scum tend not to be absolute lurkers.
Here Khelvaster seems to contradict himself - despite his own hunting for lurkers earlier (indeed, note that he was the *only* person to actually vote acfan for lurking), he agrees with Panzer's FoS: lurker hunters. That's a scumtell by my book.
Post 91:
Khelvaster wrote:I'm sorry for having been so confusing. I voted the lurker because I didn't want you guys thinking I was indecisive or lurking, then handbanana pointed out that lurker hunting isn't a good thing.
Unvote if I haven't already.
Apologizing for being scummy is a scumtell itself, IMO.
Post 93:
Khelvaster wrote:wait...my bad. Was it nekka who didn't want to hunt lurkers? I wholeheartedly agree with that now that I think about it. I was just pretty much panicking and trying to contribute something so people wouldn't think I was lurking.
Here Khelvaster tries to explain himself. I find the explanation he gives scummy and ask for additional explanation shortly thereafter.
Post 96:
Khelvaster wrote:Because I didn't know what else to do. There really isn't anyone being scummy yet, and I felt bad just sitting back, so I attacked a lurker to try and do something.
Post 100:
Khelvaster wrote:Because if people think I'm lurking, I will seem more scummy than if I am not lurking. I think you're forgetting, town-aligned people don't want to look any scummier than scum-aligned people do.
I've grouped these two posts together because both of them represent Khelvaster explaining himself more fully in response to my requests for additional explanation. In light of Khelvaster's early belief that Nekka-Lucifer is town, I am still inclined to consider these explanations acceptable - one of the few things in Khelvaster's play that I can't find fault with.
Post 104:
Khelvaster wrote:You feel like they are all very active, implying you know who they are all
I don't really like this, but that's mainly because I consider trying to evaluate possible scum groupings as a moderate pro-town tell (one of the main reasons I thought that hand banana was likely pro-town up until the actions that led to my Post 120).
Post 113:
Khelvaster wrote:if the mod isn't replacing them, they probably answered the prod and are lurking as part of a strategy. These lurkers are most likely scum or power roles.
Regarding Hand Banana, he could be scum, or he could just be a noob. I can't find a way to defend him, but I don't want to take part in his lynch either. I am undecided about him.
Speculating on the identity of power roles is scummy, since it makes it easier for the scum to find and destroy them. Also, second-guessing the mod is bad, 'mkay? (Especially when the mod pays as little attention to the thread as mnowax does...)
Khelvaster's indecision about hand banana is interesting, especially given the "but I don't want to take part in his lynch" comment. Could he be scum who doesn't want to be seen on the wagon of a player he knows is pro-town?
Post 117:
Khelvaster wrote:This post doesn't strike me right. There is no way to even come close to truly assigning percentages that people are scum...Did you know 83% of statistics are made up?
Hand banana phrased his list of suspicions poorly, but I still like how he's been clear about who he suspects for most of the game (one of the strongest non-claim related points in his favor). What would you prefer that hand banana have done, Khelvaster? Would you have preferred that he post his list of suspects without using percentages? Or would you have preferred that he not post a list of suspects at all?
Post 123:
Khelvaster wrote:Hand Banana: I think many people believe that even if you turn out to be town, you are the least helpful townie we have, so it won't be that big of a loss.
My opinion is that the town should always lynch the player whose death is most likely to help the town find scum, rather than the player who has been the least helpful to the town. This distinction doesn't come up frequently (since the player who's most likely to help the town find scum and the player who's been least helpful to the town are often one and the same), but it's worth keeping in mind.
Post 124:
Khelvaster wrote:Can you at least try and defend yourself when people say things? Repeating yourself is better than saying "I already said this."
^^^^ I forgot to put that in my last post.
Another one of the very few Khelvaster posts that I can't find a fault with (or, at least I can't find a fault with it without starting on a path that leads to worlds of WIFOM).
Post 126:
Khelvaster wrote:Oh...I didn't know that. Thanks.
See post 42.
Post 129:
Khelvaster wrote:What if the person you name is the real doc or cop...
Khelvaster's pointing out the obvious (something both town and scum would have reason to do - town wants to prevent outing its power roles, scum wants to look pro-town and want to reduce the possibility that hand banana's plan will lead to a scum being randomly gunned down). Null tell.
Post 152:
Khelvaster wrote:I almost want to lynch Hand Banana...I feel unsafe with him as our vig. He isn't scummy, but the way he's acting makes me feel really bad about his judgement to hit scum instead of townies at night. He apparently read through Tapioca mafia...in that game, the vig nailed a townie night 1 and a doc night 2. Despite this, we could just tell him not to kill anyone. That would weaken him down to a townie, but it would be better IMO than losing a townie.
Anyway, I am seeing something awkward about Panzer's posts. I don't know if it's just paranoia, so for now IGMEOY, Panzer. I'll need to reread posts to find something substantial.
This post is critical. To my eyes, Khelvaster is subtly advocating lynching a claimed vig. More to the point, he says "I feel unsafe with him as our vig". Note the lack of a qualifier in that statement - the only players who could know for sure whether or not hand banana is scum are the scum themselves.
Post 167:
Khelvaster wrote:He kept himself safe from mafia until doc dies by claiming. The mafia won't hit him, since the question of whether he would die is left open. A doc, if he exists, will definitely offer him protection.
There could be a Mafia RB'er (in which case the scum can deal with him regardless of doc protection). There might not be a doc. There might be an SK along with the mafia, in which case there's a good chance that hand banana gets doublekilled (since docs usually only protect from the first kill).
Saying "the mafia won't hit him" is foolish and, more importantly, WIFOM.
Post 171:
Khelvaster wrote:Mod: Votecount please
Asking for a vote count without posting content at the same time is, IMO, a minor scumtell.
Post 181:
Khelvaster wrote:Vote: Nekka
No need to be so freaking hostile to the newbie. If we get two kills tonight, then hand banana is vig. If we get one kill, then hand banana is scum. It's that simple. I highly doubt the existance of a mafia roleblocker because of the small size of the game. Nekka is trying to quicklynch a claimed vig, and that is absolutely unacceptable.
Let's set aside the sudden reversal on Nekka for now and note that Khelvaster now claims that Nekka's continued attack on hand banana despite hand banana's vig claim is "absolutely unacceptable"... after Khelvaster did much the same thing in Post 152 (albeit more subtly). Anyone else see the contradiction here?
Post 182:
Khelvaster wrote:I forget the edit acronym, so yeah...adding to my last pos23t.
I mentioned Panzer in an earlier post--I'll look at him more on d2. Nekka's actions are much worse than Panzer's. There isn't much to go on d1, but I think attempting to lynch the vig is a terrible offense. I got lynched for doing that on d1 in Tapioca mafia, and I was scum.
I'll say preemptively to Nekka and his inevitable OMGUS argument: don't give me any crap about this being a WIFOM accusation. No sane townie would go out of their way to try and lynch a vig. Instead, the townie would want to wait until d2 to see what comes of the vig's claim. Zero tolerance is the only way to go for trying to lynch unchallenged, claimed pro-town power roles day 1.
Again - Khelvaster is attacking Nekka for continuing to attack hand banana,
despite attacking hand banana himself in post 152 when hand banana had claimed in post 127
. That's a player contradicting his own posts, and IMO it's lynch-worthy.
Post 3:
Khelvaster wrote:Vote: Tarhalindur
Tar is the only person I've seen who is continuously trying to take down a claimed, unchallenged vig. That is not good in my book.
Once again, Khelvaster is contradicting his earlier posts... twice.
First, he claims that I'm the only person he's seen who "is continuously trying to take down an uncounterclaimed vig". Not only is that wrong (the only player who might be guilty of that offense is Panzerjager), but that contradicts his posts 181/182, where he attacked Nekka for doing the
exact same thing
.
Second, he's once again attacking a player for attacking an uncounterclaimed vig,
despite his own attack on said uncounterclaimed vig in post 152
. Not only is he contradicting himself, he's doing so repeatedly. Contradicting yourself is bad enough, but contradicting yourself three times, and repeating the contradiction over multiple posts?
Vote: Khelvaster
Post 212:
Khelvaster wrote:Tar is also using an argument for lynch that is definitely a scumtell. He is saying the claimed vig is an inexperienced forced vig, and therefore we should lynch him. Tar has lain low most of the game--he now reared his ugly head to try and get a quick lynch.
Pot, meet kettle much? IMO, if any of our active players is popping up only to try and get a quick lynch, it's you - you've been flying under the radar for most of the game, and when you've popped up you've either been lurker hunting or attacking people for things that you've done yourself (i.e, contradicting yourself).
Post 213:
Khelvaster wrote:My bad...I shouldn't post so late at night...
Unvote: tar
"My bad" does not an explanation make.[/yodaspeak]
Post 238:
Khelvaster wrote:They're onto me because I made a sloppy play by mixing up tar and panzer. I backed out of that as soon as someone pointed it out to me--apparently fixing mistakes is a scumtell now.
Leaving out the OMGUS aspects of this post - no, your tar/panzer mix-up is not the only reason why you're being bandwagoned. It's one of the reasons, yes, but not the main reason. The main reason you're being bandwagoned is because you've been contradicting yourself on multiple points. Other valid points against you include your early lurker hunting when there was already discussion going on and your failure to attack the people who have actually been attacking a claimed vig after attacking someone who wasn't attacking said vig
because you were mixing up their posts
(i.e, if "pushing for a lynch on an uncounterclaimed vig" is scummy when you think I do it, why aren't you attacking panzerjager when he actually admits to pushing said lynch?).
