Mini 497 - Game Over

[Sephiroth]

So it begins.

random vote:kabenon007

[Sephiroth]

Hey people!!!!

Vote: Sephiroth

cos he's got the most vote so far.

8)

What is the reasoning behind your vote for me? What do you hope to gain by voting as you are?

[Sephiroth]

Maybe so. Never the less, I would like to see duster's answer.

[Sephiroth]

I'd like to see more posts from Sephiroth, Silver Pheonix, Aimee and Knuck. They seems to be the players who've said the least so far.

Apologies. I've been busy.

I'm curious about this reply, since Sephiroth here seems far too defensive about a random vote.

I my intent was not to make a defense. I intended to pressure Duster with my questions, and it seems to have worked.

I voted Sephiroth cos everyone was voting and i was just going with the flow... or was i?

This post is ridiculous...First, going with the flow is scummy on it's own (and I think that

was

why he voted as he did). Second, saying something like "or was I?" Is simply confusing to the town, and therefore, anti town. I'm liking Duster less and less every time he posts.

Im also *slightly* suspicious of Tinvision, because I thought his posts thus far were a little bit too random, in my opinion, for I feel that the game has moved past that stage at this point. Though, I will freely admit that the brightline between random stage and actual discussion is very debatable, so I'm not going to press the point.

-Mod Edit- Fixed Quote Tags

[Sephiroth]

Can someone put a single post about why dusterhan is so scummy. Include quotes, and attacks made on him please. I can't make much of it

I would prefer that you read the thread and decide for yourself who is scum. Duster has posted twice and I found both posts suspicious. That is as much of a case as I'm going to make at this point, because I have no intention of voting him based on that alone. Though your attempt to get a gift wrapped reason to jump on a (dying) wagon is noted.

I agree that dusterhan needs to stop acting absurd

What? You FoSed dusterhan because your games were slow and you random voted Knuck saying you wanted to fight him... TBH you the one acting the most absurd. And I agree with Nekka that the random voting stage is important. So

Unvote; FoS: -TinVision-

Likewise, SP's defense of Dusterhan is noted. This post is suspect, because you call a random vote absurd. I will agree with you that the FoS "because the game is slow" is odd.

[Sephiroth]

And,

FOS: Sephiroth

For spinning words so well. First Nekka's then SilverPheonix's (though I may agree that you didn't have to spin so much with Nekka). Also, in light of my analysis, I find the fact that he called Tin's votes random suspicious.

Hrm. Could you elaborate some? It seems to me that you agree with me on both of my points...and I'm not sure what you mean by "spinning words". I'm interested in discovering why it is suspicious.

[Sephiroth]

What you may see as suspicious is only my playstyle. By making suggestions such as my 'gift wrapped reason' comment force players to respond and defend themselves. Its simply my way of getting reactions and creating discussion.

I certainly do not understand your point about SP. The point I was making is that SP admits the vote is nothing more than a random vote. If the reasons for the vote are joking/random, then how can its absurdity be suspect? The vote is random. People throw in little joke reasons to brighten up the game, but its still a random vote. Calling the reasons for a random vote absurd is in fact quite an absurd accusation.

[Sephiroth]

As I said earlier, it is a matter of opinion when the random stage has ended. I will leave it up to tinvision whether or not it actually was. My point is that SP himself calls the vote random and calls the reasoning absurd in the same post, which is a contradiction.

[Sephiroth]

In fact, I'm far more inclined to look at those who

do

find it scummy, mainly Sephiroth, who has probably been the most against dusterhan so far.

FoS: Sephiroth

This post is ridiculous...First, going with the flow is scummy on it's own (and I think that was why he voted as he did). Second, saying something like "or was I?" Is simply confusing to the town, and therefore, anti town. I'm liking Duster less and less every time he posts.

The biggest attack I had on Duster. I said I was liking him less and less, I didnt even actually call him suspicious in any of my posts, simply call that one post suspect.

This statement seems rather aggressive given the context, and I am not sure what exactly you mean by "dying wagon". Which wagon, and how is it dying? As far as I can tell, there has never really been much of a wagon for dusterhan.

If you hadnt noticed, I play aggressively. It starts conversations. The wagon of which I speak is the Duster wagon, which only reached 2. I'll admit, not much of a wagon (though there were others expressing suspicion). When I say it was dying, I mean that it was starting to fade (ie people moving on to other issues). It's a fairly common term.

[Sephiroth]

The biggest attack I had on Duster. I said I was liking him less and less, I didnt even actually call him suspicious in any of my posts, simply call that one post suspect.

No, you quite clearly also say that "going with the flow is scummy", and then say he is confusing and "anti-town". This most certainly suggests that you find him scummy.

And I'M supposed to be the one who's spinning words?

I quite clearly say I consider one action that he took to be suspect. Not that he was scummy. Pretty much everyone here has been guilty of at least one action I've found suspect, but do I think everyone is scummy? No. Also, I didn't call him anti town or confusing, I said his comment was. There is a LARGE difference between calling a single action from him confusing and anti town as opposed to him in general. All that post implied was that his posts were hurting the town, and that he took one action that I thought was suspect. Furthermore, calling someone anti town =/= calling them scum. You're saying that they are hurting the town, which means absolutely nothing about alignment, since it could easily be a bad townie. Please try to not put words in my mouth, and please, in the future, I ask you to appreciate the distinction between my opinions of independent actions and of the people making those actions.

I second the notion for Atticus to voice his opinions.

[Sephiroth]

Im not yet really suspicious of Duster. I don't at all like his "going with the flow post" but thats not nearly enough to convince me. I also don't at all like his recent post asking for a vote count, though it is more anti town then it is pro scum (yes there is a difference). Undecided on him for now.

[Sephiroth]

What would we learn if we did and he was scum? No one's running to his defense, so I can't see anyone who can be linked to him in any meaningful way.

Except for you, of course. Obviously this means nothing unless he were to proven scum. But I do agree that he isnt a good lynch today.

[Sephiroth]

Dusterhan: I want you to start posting.

Who are you suspicious of?
What posts strike you as odd?
Why are you being a

n

idiot

lurker?
Is there some real life complication that you have that stops you from having an opinion?

QFT, though I doubt it has a chance of coming true. It has been well established by duster's latest post that he does NOT plan to post content. Obviously, this shows us that his alignment will likely never be discovered, unless NKed (unlikely since he as a townie is a bad townie, he as scum would not NK self) or lynched. This makes him a VERY dangerous player in the late game, a big fat question mark.

Now, looking at this from a normal standpoint, I would not lynch him. More often then not, he will be town, based on the statistics of the game of mafia, and there is only a small chance that he is scum in this game (all suspicions aside). Therefore, lynching him would be a bad move.

If you look at it from a meta standpoint, will always lynching players with this playstyle prevent the anti town and unhelpful playstyle? This raises a better question, is that fair, or should a player be able to play however they want? I dunno. It's a discussion for another day. My point is, we're all dwelling on Duster way too much. After this post, I plan to ignore him unless he makes a blatantly scummy post. I need to reread at this point.

[Sephiroth]

i've got no idea who could be mafia

... so, lets leave me alone and discuss

who else could be a scum

I really dislike when people tell the town to discuss, and add nothing of their own. How can you say that you have no idea who the mafia are, then ask us to discuss who

we

think they are. It's ridiculous.

Please reread the thread, and tell us what you think of a couple players. If you give us another BS post, I think I'll be leaning towards voting you.

[Sephiroth]

...

Who are you suspicious of?

What posts strike you as odd?

Why are you being a

n

idiot

lurker?

Is there some real life complication that you have that stops you from having an opinion?

...

These are some questions I posted earlier for you, Dusterhan, feel free to answer.

It's just occured to me, that Atticus didnt ask you who you thought was suspicious. He asked you two questions, both easier to answer than who you thought was scum. Can you please answer them?

[Sephiroth]

My mistake. For some reason I was only reading the bold portion.

[Sephiroth]

My thoughts on all of the players that I suspect, off the top of my head (or in one case, that I think should be lynched despite alignment). I will make a second post later detailing the other players in the game. All the other players did not really stand out to me, so I'm going to reread and find out why this is.

Atticus:

Atticus makes several small posts early in the game, though most of his comments are arbitrary or noncommittal in nature. This earned my early suspicion. He goes on to make a weird post 22 about Dusters motives, clarifying something that he doesn't actually know. I'm guessing this was to get a reaction out of duster, however. From that point on he gets serious and into the game. Defends Tin once, attacks Nirp, expresses suspicion on Kabenon, and Fosses him. He was starting to become a more active player, but now he seems to have partially returned to his previous habit of posting arbitrary things, or making posts that are noncommittal. He's been going back and forth between these two types of posting all game, and I am therefore slightly suspicious of him.

Dusterhan:

Earlier I pointed out that it would be a good idea to ignore Duster. It is quite clear that Duster does not plan to contribute anything to the game. Because of this, we have no idea of his alignment. Going by percentage, it is highly likely that Duster is town. However, after much thought, I'm starting to think that Duster may not be a bad choice of lynch after all. Firstly, there is the matter of info that we may get from a Duster lynch. People have said throughout the day how we don't get much info from a Duster lynch. But think about it; who has yet to post an opinion on the issue? As far as I can tell, everyone has a well documented opinion of a Duster lynch, and there is the matter of some odd behavior by certain players (tin and Kab's weird switches for example). The duster lynch could give us some good info. Second, Joost makes a good point in 213; If we dont lynch him now, when will we? I find scum NKing him highly unlikely. As joost said, the longer that Duster lives, the more he will hurt the town, and influence lynches. This will be especially bad in endgame. Thirdly, Duster is unwilling to scumhunt himself. He also asks "who are we picking on". I am very worried that late game he will be susceptible to being lead by scum and this will be VERY dangerous late in the game. So I think a Duster lynch would be a good move right now.

Tinvision:

He seems to make two random votes which is odd, and his play is almost too random for the random stage. But this is really a matter of playstyle more than anything. Later he says the case on Duster is weak, yet jumps on a few posts later. He explains his mistake in 109, but to me it seems a way to get out of having to explain himself fully. I think his next post with the full explanation was weak, but thats simply my opinion, and not something I can base suspicions off of. I liked his argument with kabenon on page 5. He then lurks for a while, and posts on page 7. He claims that his vote on Duster was out of frustration, though when he originally voted, he claimed it was because the lurking was scummy. Why does he unvote then? It's not as if Duster has stopped lurking. Logically, he should still think he's scummy. Why would he decide not to lynch him if he thinks he's scummy enough for a vote earlier on? I have no idea. He has been lurking ever since. Tin is looking pretty suspect in my eyes.

kabenon007:

I dislike his post 33. I ask a question directly to Duster, so as to pressure him, but kabenon speaks up in his defense. It really hurts the effectiveness of a post when another player answers for the intended player.
post 51: says duster is unhelpful to town.
post 80: reiterates that duster is unhelpful. says "he is not scummy...yet".
post 98: claims that dusters scummy looking posts can be explained by newbness. what happened to duster not looking scummy, just unhelpful?
post 100: asks why duster looks like newb scum as opposed to noob town.
post: 115: ignores joosts answer. says that destructor is logically right in his argument against tin, which tin points out to be an incorrect understanding of logic.
post 124: asks what the point of voting duster would be
post 135: votes duster. Huh?
His behavior about Duster just seems...weird. I dont know, it seems kind of scummy to me. The rest of his posts are for the purpose of defending his vote, for the most part. Not much else on him. He looks fairly suspicious.

Alight. More tonight, hopefully. I am still deliberating where my vote should go, but as I've said, I fully support a Duster lynch, unless I'm completely convinced someone else is scum.

[Sephiroth]

I have been too busy to get around to my promised post, and I still am. I hope to get to it tomorrow.

[Sephiroth]

What do you mean by "confirm the vote"? I don't remember the basis of my vote, so it was probably random. I don't see much reason to unvote until im certain who i will vote for instead.

[Sephiroth]

I havent finished rereading all the players that I wished to. So I'm unsure of who I find to be the most suspicious yet. I just dont see any reason to unvote if I dont plan to put my vote elsewhere as of yet. I've always seen those "unvote my random vote, do nothing" posts really annoying, and even suspicious to a small degree. Thus I don't make them.

[Sephiroth]

Hrm. Perhaps I should contact Meme to request a temporary replacement mod? Needless to say, the game will stall like crazy without a mod. On the brightside, it gives me time to finish my rereading.

[Sephiroth]

Did Sephiroth contact Meme yet?

just sent the pm now. I dont know if we'll get results any time soon though, in terms of finding someone to replace cavane.

[Sephiroth]

PM sent. But I dont think that getting players will be a problem.

I tried to get work done on my analysis today but I lost a good size post to a quota error.

[Sephiroth]

My rationale is simple - he's not a threat.

How do you justify this? He will undoubtedly make it to endgame unless we lynch him now. No mafia would kill him.

He isn't confusing us.

True enough, for now. But you must look at this longterm. As the days go on we will find likely scum and thus better lynches. If we do not lynch Duster today, I dont think we'll lynch him until we're stuck in endgame with no read on him. And I really dont want to have that come about.

Ignore dusterhan, look for other more insidious players and lynch them.

Any suggestions?

If we ever hit a brick wall further down the line, then by all means, get dusterhan.

What if we dont? Then he wont die til endgame. What if we're stuck in a endgame situation with him as dead weight? WE
d be screwed, to put it simply.

By that time, he'll either have started playing more socially,

I doubt this will happen. He only posted when pressured, and even then, nothing of value.

or been replaced

As long as he posts something *regardless of content) he cannot be replaced since it would be an unfair bias by the mod against a certain playstyle. Replacement is not an option unless he stops posting entirely.

I don't condone a dusterhan lynch today at all.

Unless I find a good scum candidate, I do. I tried to finish my analysis but bluehost ate my post.

[Sephiroth]

First of all, apologies for my absence. Now.

Sephiroth- in the beginning I didn’t like seph’s play at all. Post 83 seemed like a backtrack/lie.

This is clearly not a backtrack or lie, firstly because I do not go back on any of my opinions. Secondly, because I have consistently said that I find his posts to be suspect, but not that I necessarily find

him

scummy. I could point to several posts that I find scummy from each player, this does not mean I am suspicious of all of those people.

Later he says he is not “yet” suspicious of duster, which is a contradiction.

How so? An argument cannot just be a claim. Please warrant your statements. Show me how I contradicted myself.

Later he does a PbP and puts duster in his top 4 suspects..along with 2 lurkers and Kab who was attacking duster.

I did not put him in with my suspects because he was one of my suspects. I specifically said that he was in there because I wanted him lynched, and I explain why in the post. Please read.

So Seph felt like Kab was acting weird in his attack of duster (defending his vote), but is ok with a duster lynch.

Try reading the post. The reason I am suspicious of Kab is NOT because he is or was for a duster lynch. I am suspicious of him because of the way he repetitively changes his opinion. I outlined it in that post. Again, please read.

Seems like Seph, is trying to set up Kab, when duster comes up town in a lynch seph was for.

How is this a good point at all? Statistically, I expect that Duster will come up town. I do not want Duster lynched for scumminess. The fact that you do not know this proves that you did not actually read my post. Further, Duster coming up scum or town has nothing to do with why I'm suspicious of kab. I've said before and I'll say again: its because he has been consistently inconsistent.

Anyone else think that odd? Last post was 09/28, attacking destructor for “defending” duster.

Wrong. Way to mis-categorize my post. I am defending my logic for supporting a duster lynch, I never attack destructor at all.

Has crap argument on why leaving duster alive is a bad idea…no to mention

As I said earlier, you need a warrant to make a claim. Why is my argument crap? Try explaining it, not just being luck "Ha! Your idea is different then mine! It is therefore crap!"

he never had his vote on duster….

Again, if you had read my post, you would know that I did not vote because I was going to wait until I had finished all of my PBP's. As it turned out, things came up, I never got around to finishing my PBP's. Thus, no duster vote.

For attacking Kab’s push for duster lynch,

I am not attacking his push for a duster lynch. You are misrepresenting my attacks while apparently not actually reading them.

while you are active-aggressively doing the same thing without voting.

I am not at all doing what kab did. Kab went back and forth between trying to explain his behavior with noobness, to denying he made any scummy play at all, to voting him. THAT is what I'm attacking. Also, I've already explained why I never voted.

Also your earlier backtrack/lie makes you quite scummy looking.

Why was this a backtrack or lie. You have failed to explain besides saying "it looks like one".

I would like to see a new updated suspect list from you

I have no objections with that. I never got around to my old one.

Good catch on Sephiroth. I will have to reread him. What exactly is crap about the argument on lynching Duster (besides the fact that he never voted for Duster himself)?

I thought you were a better player then to call this mess of misrepresentations and assumptions "a good catch".

[Sephiroth]

Duster coming up scum or town has nothing to do with why I'm suspicious of kab. I've said before and I'll say again: its because he has been consistently inconsistent.

You're joking. You have to be. Honestly! What inconsistencies do I have, oh wise Sephiroth? My opinions of dusterhan have changed, yes, but I have explained them, have not denied changing them, so where then are my inconsistencies?

Nice patronizing appeal to emotion. You can look into the answer for yourself, I outlined the posts in which you inexplicably changed your opinion all the way back in post 219, page 9.

[Sephiroth]

To quote myself:

"post 51: says duster is unhelpful to town.
post 80: reiterates that duster is unhelpful. says "he is not scummy...yet"."

Here, you don't think that he is scummy, simply unhelpful.

"post 98: claims that dusters scummy looking posts can be explained by newbness."

According to your earlier posts, he didn't look scummy just unhelpful. Now, you are saying that he looked scummy, but it can be excused my newbness. Your first change of opinion, from thinking he wasn't scummy at all, to saying that what looks scummy could just be noob town.

"post 124: asks what the point of voting duster would be
post 135: votes duster"

Firstly, this is a contradiction and complete turnaround from both of your previous statements. First that he wasn't scummy looking, and second, that he only looked scummy because he was a noob. Also, the second post I just listed is a contradiction of itself, the first calling into question the point of voting duster, the second voting him.

You made several changes, and had more than one inconsistency. Saying you were "consistently inconsistent" may have been an overstatement. However, on the Duster wagon, you were not consistent at all.

Look at these two posts:

I was kinda wodering the same thing there Atticus. We have all established that dusterhan is lurking, we have asked him to post, and he hasn't. Why would placing a vote on him at this point do any good at all, unless Nirp was scum? I don't know, it does seem a tad scummy...

calling nirp scummy for voting Duster.

so dusterhan has enough time to post an "I'm here," but not enough time to actually put any kind of effort in. My vote is switching from

unvote

to

vote: dusterhan

.

voting duster only a few posts later.
if thats not inconsistency, then I don't know what is.

I'm not saying we should lynch him, all I am saying is that his posting mere I'm here posts but avoiding writing anything of importance is scummy, and right now he is the scummiest person in my eyes. I haven't really seen too much in the realm of other scumminess. My vote on Nekka was random, and my vote serves a better purpose on duster. I don't think he is any danger of being lynched yet. He is only at three I believe. And destructor, just for the record, there is really no such thing as a harmless scum, as long as one is alive, the town will die. There might be something like a worthless scum, who doesn't say anything and so is an easy lynch but provides no information. But I don't think any scum can be harmless.

nice backtrack.

Anyways, you're getting too worked up over this. Yes, you're one of my top suspects, but I am not voting you. This is because I haven't finished my PBP's on everyone yet. I'd rather wait until thats finished until I vote. Especially I would like to look into Knuck, since I've repetitively been told that he was more inconsistent then you were.

[Sephiroth]

(unless Seph you actually want to reread yourself and admit you are wrong or "mistaken"). dont have the time right now.

I don't see how I could possibly be wrong. Your case in a nutshell: misinterpreting my points and making assumptions about my playstyle. Unless you believe that you are better at interpreting my posts than I am, I suggest that you admit you are wrong.

[Sephiroth]

Nice edit job. heres the full quote:

I think that in the cases we are looking at, people are saying that dusterhan made a mistake, that he was exhibiting newbish tendencies. While his actions might appear scummy, appear is the key word. Sometimes newb actions can be mistaken for scummy actions. It's not an excuse for sloppy actions, but that is the difference people are hinting at. He isn't acting so much scummy, he just isn't really helping the town too much. Do you understand now, joost, or shall I elaborate a bit more?

Perhaps I misinterpreted this post, but I think youre simply playing semantics games with me at this point. I'm fairly certain that you were admitting to seeing him as slightly scummy, but now that its important, the wording lets you get out of it. The point is moot in any case, since it boils down to a difference in opinion.

Anyways, is that the only part of the case youre going to attack?

[Sephiroth]

I don't agree with the case on Kaben, and I think your trying hard to find something that isn't there Sephiroth. You can find someone scummy and find someone voting on them scummy, possibly getting on the wagon to bus their buddy at an oppurtune point. Theres no real contradiction there, just scum hunting.

:disbelief:
How is this possible? He said in one post that Nirp was suspicious for voting Duster. In his very next post, he votes Duster. How in hell is that not a contradiction? Answer that.

Further, I'm not exactly trying to find anything. I posted my suspicions on him, and he responded. So then I respond. And so on and so forth. Its called

"discussion"

. It lets us get a better read on all parties involved, and also gives other players something to talk about, therefore making it a protown thing to do. Once we have exchanged a series of responses, we will probably come to a conclusion, and carry on with the game. I do not see any way that you could possibly conceive this as a scumtell. I would LOVE for you to explain why it is a scumtell for me to be continuing my discussion with Kab. If you cant come up with an answer, your FOS looks a LOT like a mafioso just trying to get some pressure off a buddy.

[Sephiroth]

example:

I think player x is scum and find them suspicious

player y jumps on the wagon forming around player x with little to add to the curent case, making him look like he's busing his buddy to look cleaner when he was on the vote the next day

I vote player x anyway because if he does come up as scum I've got a good case against player y for tommorow anyway and the town can only lynch one scum a day

I dont understand what hypothetical situation youre getting at. Please inform me which players would be which in the example. If you can't, then i dont see the relevance to the situation.

[Sephiroth]

Also, perhaps my bolding a few words will help Sephiroth understand better...

I think that in the cases we are looking at,

people

are saying that dusterhan made a mistake, that he was exhibiting newbish tendencies. While his actions might appear scummy, appear is the key word. Sometimes newb actions can be mistaken for scummy actions. It's not an excuse for sloppy actions, but that is the difference

people

are hinting at.

He isn't acting so much scummy, he just isn't really helping the town too much.

Do you understand now, joost, or shall I elaborate a bit more?

You like that patronizing tone dont you kabenon?
Anyways, I understand what you're saying perfectly well. I just believe that you got lucky with your wording. But as I said, I'm going to drop this point because it is my personal opinion. I really cant argue an opinion of what you did.

Anyways, you claim that you made a complete turnaround on Duster because of his "I'm here" post, and the fact that this was his only contribution in light of being suspected. If this is so, it leads me to wonder what exactly is so different between this post and Dusters post 93, where he ignores all talk of himself, and simply asks for a vote count. Shouldn't this have produced the same turnaround that you later showed when duster posted "im here"? I simply do not understand why you just decided that the "I'm here" post put it over the edge, when it was clear from the beginning, and certainly from 93, that he didnt plan to contribute anything.

[Sephiroth]

And it was kind of like a build up of pressure, starting with that post of dusterhan's vote count please, building building building and then wham, a coup de graux (i don't know how to spell that) with his "I'm still here" post. That was the last straw. So I voted, cuz my opinion changed. There you have it.

Possible. But I don't like that you would argue that he isn't scummy, while the notion that he is scummy is building and building. I'll drop the point for now, I've been promising to finish my PBP's for a long time now.

Knuck/OP:

His first real post, besides asking Duster for reasoning behind his vote, was this:

As far as the posts go I agree that Dusterhans posts are odd because of the confusion and suspicion he puts on himself which really doesn't help the town, although from his other games this seems to be the norm. And my question I asked him was just to get a response from him to see if he would actually answer it or not, there's no real suspicion on his vote.

...in which he seems to express a lack of suspicion, based on meta logic. Firstly, this is wrong because as far as I can tell, Duster was in only one other game. Secondly, it is wrong because we do not know whether Duster is town or scum in either games, so theres no real way to tell whether the behavior is protown or antitown, and thirdly, it is wrong because it's not even true. Duster's posts in his other game were at least a little involved in the game. A meta defense in this situation seems questionable.
His post 84 is the classic "cover all the bases" kind of post. I'm not sure if I consider this scummy or not, but tis something to note for later in the game. post 116 is pretty odd, considering that later he would later make a change in opinion about Duster. He calls the TV switch suspicious. Post 215 and post 222 are the big change that everyone that has been widely discussed. But the thing is...I really dont find it that suspicious. You see, Knuck did exactly what I did. We both felt that it was more than likely that Duster was town, and at first we were against lynching him. However, we both decided it was better for the town overall to lynch him, townie or not. So I dont find what he did scummy, seeing as he was consistent on whether he felt Duster was scum or town. I still find Kab's switch from Duster being town to duster being scum (seemingly arbitrarily) to be more scummy. OP comes in with a basic "cover the bases" replacement post. Nothing about Knuck or OP reads scummy to me, besides the wierd meta at the beginning.

Destructor:

Mainly random stuff, lurker prodding, and meta logic up until post 72 where he attacks TV, as well as myself, though these are only attacks on my playstyle. I also thought the attacks on TV were weak. He backs down in his attacks on me in post 94. Soon after he votes TV for his editting and his change of opinion, and fosses Atticus for lurking. Good call. Weirdly enough, Knuck backs up destructor in the Dest/TV debate, which I found odd. Destructor again backs down from suspicions in post 126. From there on Destrcutor discusses Aimees suspicions, questions joosts vote on duster. Not much relevant from that point until post 259, where he questions the sense of lynching Duster. I defend my position on lynching Duster, but there is no response from Destructor, since Duster was replaced. So the point is moot. From there he attacks TV for a while, then backs down after decent responses. Overall, I get a protown feeling. My only problem with him is his tendency to back down from his suspicions. However, the fact that he has done this with a variety of players leads me to think that it is a playstyle thing.



So thats 6 players reviewed, a bunch to go (to see the other 4, look at page 9). Also, atticus, how is this:

Ugh! I can't get a read on anybody! 'Tis frustrating! I've still got nothing for you guys.

different from this:

i've got no idea who could be mafia... so, lets leave me alone and discuss who else could be a scum

which warranted this?

Dusterhan... Tsk tsk tsk... You need to stop volunteering for things you can't do. Examples: answering questions, playing the game mafia.

[Sephiroth]

Destructor:

Mainly random stuff, lurker prodding, and meta logic up until post 72 where he attacks TV, as well as myself, though these are only attacks on my playstyle.

No, my attacks (I wouldn't call them that, personally) were on your scummy posts. I don't think a playstyle is an excuse for scumminess.

Apologies, this was completely my fault. For some reason I had you mixed up with Aimee, who backed down from her attacks because she accepted it was my playstyle. However, after I state that it is my playstyle to be aggressive (especially early in the game) so as to get reactions, you never bring up that point again, only bring my attacks on SP into question. Thats probably what contributed to the mix up.

I also thought the attacks on TV were weak.

Perhaps I could have chosen my words more carefully. Essentially, what I saw from TinVision was dishonestly while being defensive. This is scummy behaviour.

Ah. Alright. My main problem is that the dishonesty is unverifiable. Also, defensiveness is not a scum tell (in my opinion anyways).

He backs down in his attacks on me in post 94.

Only for the sake of discussion. UnFOSing doesn't usually happen, but if it did, I wouldn't necessarily have done it yet.

Alright. I find it odd when a player just ends a discussion. Not necessarily scummy, but odd.

Destructor again backs down from suspicions in post 126.

All I really did was note that I had misread a post by Tin. I wouldn't call it backing down, since the specific suspicion I raised at the time was based on a misread. My earlier opinion still stood.

Alright.

I defend my position on lynching Duster, but there is no response from Destructor...

I didn't mean not to refer to your response at all, but I felt no great urge to continue discussing dusterhan. Eventually, when I realised I'd not refered to your post, dusterhan had been replaced and most of your questions were answered/mooted.

Yeah, I know. That's what I said in my post, you just only quoted part of it.

From there he attacks TV for a while, then backs down after decent responses.

I backed down (again)? The last thing I said after Tin's response was that I thought we should lynch him. How was that backing down? I think his response made him look scummier!

Thanks for the answers, they were satisfactory.

I'm aware of the rest of the post...but I still think that this bit, in the context of the post, is odd. If either TV or yourself get lynched as scum, I'll be looking more intently at these posts.

Well, I'm satisfied with the responses. As I said, I was not particularly suspicious of you to begin with. It's a town tell that you responded anyhow.

[Sephiroth]

Sephiroth is slightly different. Every time he posts, I get a reasonable vibe from what he is saying - he seems to be contributing actively, and hunting for scum. However, as soon as the pressure dies down off him again, he disappears.

Could you give me examples of time periods I was absent? I could probably provide reasons for it.

Early d1: he is contributing, get's attacked, defends himself then disappears.

As you said, I was contributing,

then

I was attacked, and forced to defend myself, and eventually leave. I was contributing beforehand. Kind of defeats your argument.

It's only when he comes under attack again, this time from ckd that he begins to contribute again. This is a type of behaviour I have often seen from scum (and in fact done as scum myself)

This is a meaningless coincidence. Correlation does not imply causation my friend. I had RL issues. Now I dont.

In addition, I mainly post mon-fri. I just checked, and you can too, only 1 of my 33 posts has come on a weekend, as I am very busy on the weekends. Right now I am about to start the load of work I have to do. With any luck I can finish my PBP's on Monday.

[Sephiroth]

Sephiroth- in the beginning I didn’t like seph’s play at all. Post 83 seemed like a backtrack/lie.

This is clearly not a backtrack or lie, firstly because I do not go back on any of my opinions. Secondly, because I have consistently said that I find his posts to be suspect, but not that I necessarily find

him

scummy. I could point to several posts that I find scummy from each player, this does not mean I am suspicious of all of those people.

No, you called him scummy and anti-town.

Where do I call HIM scummy. WHERE. I call his post scummy. Do you not understand the difference? In my last post, I

explicitly

laid out how there IS a difference between finding a player scummy and finding a post or two of theirs scummy. Did you read that part?

Post 60 (which is quoted in 83)

I voted Sephiroth cos everyone was voting and i was just going with the flow... or was i?

This post is ridiculous...First, going with the flow is scummy on it's own (and I think that

was

why he voted as he did). Second, saying something like "or was I?" Is simply confusing to the town, and therefore, anti town. I'm liking Duster less and less every time he posts.

The biggest attack I had on Duster.

I said I was liking him less and less

, I didnt even actually call him suspicious in any of my posts, simply call that one post suspect.

You did more than call out one post.

You said you are liking him less and less

every time he posts (more than one). You called him anti-town and that his action was scummy.

First, both of those things which you use to prove that I did more than one post WERE IN THAT POST. So yeah, I did just attack that one post. Liking him less and less = I think he's scum? Thinking one of the things he did is scummy = I think he's scum? When did you make these giant leaps in logic? Also, you sure made a big profound point here (bolded text). You basically restated what I said in my post. Also, protown players are fully capable of taking action that is antitown, therefore calling his action antitown does NOT mean I think he's scum.

I think you were backtracking because you knew he was town…and when he was lynched, you wanted to be able to say, “Hey, I never thought he was scummy, look ma no votes”…Yet in post 60 you CLEARLY thought he was anti-town and scummy. You wanted to push the wagon without actually being on it.

Um, no. I felt he made an anti town and scummy play in the post I quoted. Not that his play was scummy overall. Again, antitown definitely does not make him scum, as bad town is just as capable of making antitown play. Just because you say CLEARLY does not make what you're saying true.

Later he says he is not “yet” suspicious of duster, which is a contradiction.

How so? An argument cannot just be a claim. Please warrant your statements. Show me how I contradicted myself.

After you called him anti-town, scummy, and said you are liking his posts less and less, you say you are not yet suspicious of him. You are contradicting yourself. Unless you want us to believe that when you call someone anti-town and scummy, you don’t actually think they are suspicious.

You see, I didn't call him scummy or anti town. I said his post were. Even had I said he as a player, not his actions, were anti town, this is in no way connected to thinking he's scum. I was explaining in this post, that although he made scummy actions, I did not think he was scum. This whole post was for that purpose, explaining that although I thought he had made a scummy post, I did not think he was scum. Seeing as this was the first time that officially stated my opinion on whether HE (not his posts) was scum, its certainly not a backtrack.

Seems like Seph, is trying to set up Kab, when duster comes up town in a lynch seph was for.

How is this a good point at all? Statistically, I expect that Duster will come up town. I do not want Duster lynched for scumminess. The fact that you do not know this proves that you did not actually read my post. Further, Duster coming up scum or town has nothing to do with why I'm suspicious of kab. I've said before and I'll say again: its because he has been consistently inconsistent.

How the hell do you suspect “statictically” anyone will come up town?

Simple: town almost always outnumber town. If we remove content, and lynch someone who we cant really get a read on, chances are that they
will turn up town.

Please quote where I said you want to lynch duster for scumminess?

You didn't. However it seemed implied when you attack me for listing him within my top four suspects, and say it is a contradiction that I would want him lynched when I think he is town. If that was not your intention, feel free to correct me.

Speaking of being inconsistent, this entire quote is about you being inconsistent.

Dusterhan:

Earlier I pointed out that it would be a good idea to ignore Duster. It is quite clear that Duster does not plan to contribute anything to the game. Because of this, we have no idea of his alignment. Going by percentage, it is highly likely that Duster is town. However, after much thought, I'm starting to think that Duster may not be a bad choice of lynch after all. Firstly, there is the matter of info that we may get from a Duster lynch. People have said throughout the day how we don't get much info from a Duster lynch. But think about it; who has yet to post an opinion on the issue? As far as I can tell, everyone has a well documented opinion of a Duster lynch, and there is the matter of some odd behavior by certain players (tin and Kab's weird switches for example). The duster lynch could give us some good info. Second, Joost makes a good point in 213; If we dont lynch him now, when will we? I find scum NKing him highly unlikely. As joost said, the longer that Duster lives, the more he will hurt the town, and influence lynches. This will be especially bad in endgame. Thirdly, Duster is unwilling to scumhunt himself. He also asks "who are we picking on". I am very worried that late game he will be susceptible to being lead by scum and this will be VERY dangerous late in the game. So I think a Duster lynch would be a good move right now.

In this post, you state that you changed your mind (after “much” thought).

How is it POSSIBLY a scumtell to openly change ones opinion? Would you rather I just start voting Duster without explanation? Townies do change their minds once in a while. To call that a scumtell really is ridiculous.

You think the town should lynch duster, even though you think he town. You are actually making a case for the town to lynch..a town.

I like how you simply write it off without addressing why it is a good idea. I think it's very scummy to be so adamant about something so as to throw out anything different from your opinion without listening to the argument for it.

“if we don’t lynch him now, when will we?” I don’t know, how about never. How about we focus on lynching mafia instead? Please tell me, giving duster’s play at this point the game, how he could possibly influence lynches.

You take the term "influence" too literally. I am talking about his vote. As the number of players goes down, Dusters vote, easily influenced easily by others, becomes increasingly weighted in terms of who is lynched. One vote day 1, no big deal. 1 vote with 5 players left? Hell of a big deal. If Duster had continued his play, and we had made it to LYLO with him, you know how much influence he has over the lynch? He clearly showed that he is impressionable, saying "who are we picking on now?" and such, and joining my wagon because everyone else was. At LYLO, 2 scum, 3 town, 2 scum vote someone, Duster could easily jump on. This kind of affect could go on throughout the entire game, and be harmful to town. I think eliminating the possibility of an autoloss is worth losing a townie for. Also, as I said, I thought his play was antitown, ie hurtful to the town, ie better if it was not there. On top of that even, there's the possibility that I am wrong, and he is scum who plans to lurk all game and show up in endgame to win it, and on top of THAT, theres the fact that if we allow him to get to endgame (as town) with another townie and one scum, the townie will be in an extreme disadvantage because they will have no read on him.

I cant find any posts at this point where anyone in the town says, “Hey duster has a point”.

Again, youre taking "influence" too literally. Allowing duster to live turns him into a tool for the mafia to use in late game, or a mafioso himself who we have no read on.

You are attacking Kab for changing his mind, but the fact that you are for a duster lynch when you think duster is town is ok..

That doesnt make sense. Thats like "you think that rock is gray, but youre willing to throw a football!" They are unconnected. And I was attacking Kab for repeated unexplained changes of opinion (I was proven to be incorrect in some of my assumptions, which I can admit, unlike you).

that fact that you just wanted to ignore him, but now lynch him is ok…that is hypocritical.

Any change of opinion is hypocritical then? I gave a well explained reason (though you may not agree with it) for my change of mind. If even

that

type of change of mind is hypocritical, then how o how will any townie ever change their opinion on something?

he never had his vote on duster….

Again, if you had read my post, you would know that I did not vote because I was going to wait until I had finished all of my PBP's. As it turned out, things came up, I never got around to finishing my PBP's. Thus, no duster vote.

Your argument is crap, because you just don’t lynch someone you believe is a townie.

So basically youre going to say that all my arguments are crap simply because you dont agree with what I'm arguing for? Let's apply this to your attacks on me:
You: "You're scum because you're inconsistent!"
Me: "Your argument is crap because I'm not scum!"
Doesn't quite work now does it?!? How bout explaining why it is bad? I've shown how it benefits town to lynch someone that you think might be town. (future protection from doomed LYLO situations, + info, + the scum are only lynched day 1 about 20% of the time anyhow + his play was antitown and hurtful to the town). What have you done to show how lynching a (thought to be) townie day 1 purposefully hurts a town more than an essentially random lynch? Not to mention that it is only my opinion that Duster was town. Other players thought he actually was suspicious.

You don’t know what the future will hold. This case in point, Duster was replaced. Now aren’t you glad the town didn’t agree with you and lynch a townie?

Yes, he got replaced. However, this is due to him dropping out of the game. When I made my post, he had been popping in and out. As long as a player is posting, they cant be replaced. Thats why I suggested the idea. But what I like about this is that YOU ASSUME THAT DUSTER IS TOWN. Now why would you know that? Perhaps because you're scum and he's not one of your buddies?

I dont think you ever planned on voting duster. I also dont think you ever planned on finsihing that PBP.

Good for you. I don't give two peanut decorated shits about what you think I planned on doing.

You thought

the town was going to lynch Duster without you so you can buy yourself some town creds by saying "I never voted duster, and look I even said he was town".

This is were I draw the line. Saying what you thought I was thinking is fine, when you actually present what you thought my motives were as a fact, not as your own opinion, thats a problem. And very suspect.

My vote on you stands…and all of the reasons stated with that vote stands...also add you are a hypocritic too.

Nice job restating your opinion. But next time, how about arguing the points I make? They are as follows.

1) I make a very big distinction between thinking a post from someone is scummy, to thinking that THEY are scummy. I clearly said that I felt his actions were scummy, and have explained this standpoint twice before this post.

2) Saying I'm liking him less and less does not = I think he's scum. Nor does saying I think his actions are anti-town.

3) You have failed to explain why my argument for lynching Duster is bad besides yelling "HE"S A TOWNIE" at me. Please try to address why he was more valuable alive.

4) The latter part of your argument is mainly you hypothesizing about my motives, which is both wifom, and worthless.

Finally, to say that I had no intention of finishing my PBP's is pretty stupid seeing as I have already continued them to some extent since the original post.

[Sephiroth]

Riiiight…you retort was weak, full of mistruth, horrid reasoning, and out and out misrepresentations. you are scum

Nice warrantless assertion. Let's see how you back it up.

1) I make a very big distinction between thinking a post from someone is scummy, to thinking that THEY are scummy. I clearly said that I felt his actions were scummy, and have explained this standpoint twice before this post.

You want us to swallow the following:

You say someone’s posts are scummy and their actions are anti-town, but you are not suspicious of them and don’t think they are scummy.

I bet if you hear someone make a racist statement, and see them put up a noose, you don’t think they are racist too, right?

This is clearly a false comparison. Scumtells are inherently when scum messes up, or does something by accident. Or, when you view something as scummy, it could be a misinterpretation by the person reading it. A racist comment is
1) certainly not by accident
2) cannot be misinterpreted (ie, i think he would say that because he is racist, but wait, he wouldn't want us to think that)
As determining whether posts are scummy or not is up to interpretation, while racist comments are racist any way you look at them, there is a clear difference.

Again, let me stress this: He made 1 post I found scummy. The rest of the game he lurked. It's not like I had seen repeated scummy posts, in which case I would start to find him scummy. There was one post I found scummy, not enough to convince me he is scum.

I like how you simply write it off without addressing why it is a good idea. I think it's very scummy to be so adamant about something so as to throw out anything different from your opinion without listening to the argument for it.

Hanging a townie is not a good idea…

Wow. You once again TOTALLY ignored ALL of my arguments. I'll just repost my example then (which you also failed to address):

Your argument is crap, because you just don’t lynch someone you believe is a townie.

So basically youre going to say that all my arguments are crap simply because you dont agree with what I'm arguing for? Let's apply this to your attacks on me:
You: "You're scum because you're inconsistent!"
Me: "Your argument is crap because I'm not scum!"
Doesn't quite work now does it?!? How bout explaining why it is bad? I've shown how it benefits town to lynch someone that you think might be town. (future protection from doomed LYLO situations, + info, + the scum are only lynched day 1 about 20% of the time anyhow + his play was antitown and hurtful to the town). What have you done to show how lynching a (thought to be) townie day 1 purposefully hurts a town more than an essentially random lynch? Not to mention that it is only my opinion that Duster was town. Other players thought he actually was suspicious.

This time, try addressing this.

wait, now let me get something straight here, are you calling my actions scummy or me scum, I get so confused. I love how you go to length to defend your push (not vote) for a person you believe is town (who plays anti-town and post scummy things)...riiiight.

I envy your ability to bring emotion to the forefront of your arguments, and act as if it actually means something. First, your actions are scummy. Are you scum? I think it might be likely at this point because of the combined scummy posts which you've made (I'll get to that tomorrow)

guys, do I really need to discuss why lynching someone you think is town is bad?

To relate this to my previous example, why cant I say "Guys, do I really have to explain why I'm not scum?" They are equal in the amount of assumption it would take for the rest of the town to believe. Don't just go with what you've been spoon fed your whole mafia career, argue it. Again, your insistence that I am scum for disagreeing with you on a point WHICH YOU REFUSE TO ARGUE is very suspicious.

Any change of opinion is hypocritical then? I gave a well explained reason (though you may not agree with it) for my change of mind. If even that type of change of mind is hypocritical, then how o how will any townie ever change their opinion on something?

Read the quote…you are hypocritical because you attack Kab for changing his mind about duster, but it is ok for you to change your mind about duster. Again, please quote where I said people who change an opinion are hypocritical. Again, you misquote me.

You may have never said it, but you never deny it. Let me ask you. if you do not find it suspicious, then why bring it up in a case against me? Unless you're scum trying to inflate a weak case to help a bad lynch, then theres not reason to insult me as a person for something that doesn't increase your guilt of me. I believed him to have made repeated changes of opinion without explanation ( I was proven wrong, so I backed down). I, on the other hand, made a single change of opinion, and explained it quite thoroughly.

Yes, he got replaced. However, this is due to him dropping out of the game. When I made my post, he had been popping in and out. As long as a player is posting, they cant be replaced. Thats why I suggested the idea. But what I like about this is that YOU ASSUME THAT DUSTER IS TOWN. Now why would you know that? Perhaps because you're scum and he's not one of your buddies?

Oh look at this tale she is spinning, I am scum because I know duster is town and he isn’t one of my buddies!!…This is a gem….you really want to push this lie too?

Firstly, I am a he. Secondly, nice appeal to emotion. Thirdly, this is not a lie, because it's not a statement, but a proposition (note the "perhaps"). Seeing as propositions are simply suggestions of possibility, it inherantly CANNOT be a lie. Also, you so "push this lie

too

", which is a subtle way of implying that I've lied before. Could you quote where I've lied thus far? I'd be oh so interested in seeing where I've lied.

I don’t think anyone should address this, yet. I want to hear this theory in full. Please Sephiroth continue…i am scum because...?

It's late, I have things to do, I cannot do anything tonight. Your attempt to direct and control the town as well as discussion is noted. I plan to write up my case on you tomorrow night.

As a side note, let's look again at the start of your post:

Riiiight…you retort was weak, full of mistruth, horrid reasoning, and out and out misrepresentations. you are scum

Mistrust: I never lied in my entire retort. Your only attempt to call something I did a lie fails because propositions cannot actually be lies. So my post does not have mis-truth.
Horrid reasoning: You didnt attack my reasoning at all. You simply stated "You're wrong", and questioned the distinction I make between scummy posts and scummy players.
Misrepresentations: So far you accused me of misrepresenting you by saying that you thought being hypocritical was scummy. But through logic I've shown how it was in fact implied, and that if I was wrong, it was at most a misunderstanding, not a blatant misrepresentation as you present it.
So you can see, my case really had NONE of these things that you claim in the beginning. You have a very bad habit of throwing in these buzzwords without warrant and hoping it helps your case. It's really not.

[Sephiroth]

I am going to wait to retort after you have crafted your case against me. I look forward to your case and your OMGUS vote.

Yeah, you're right. That does seem like a good excuse to not respond to my points, get caught up in my attacks on you, and pretend this whole thing never happened. It was silly of me to forget that you replaced Duster, it's true. But this doesnt mean you can
1) assume I don't know anything else that's going on in the game, or
2) ignore my refutation of your argument.
Good try though.

he called duster scummy, then when duster's wagon rose, he came out and said he never thought duster was suspicious. I think he did this so once duster was hung and it came out he was town, he could say "hey look, I never voted for him" essentially buying himself some town creds.

Firstly, you have still not found where I call HIM scummy. I call his post and the action within that post scummy. Not him. So your argument fails in that aspect. Secondly, even were it true, according to you, you're a not accusing me of being suspicious because of hypocrisy. So what is left of your argument then?

he could say "hey look, I never voted for him" essentially buying himself some town creds.

Cold hard wifom, thats what. Not to mention that its a conjecture.

When I called him out on it, he comes back with “I never thought duster was scummy.” He wants the town to believe that he thought duster's POSTS were scummy and his ACTIONS were anti-town, but he never thought duster himself was scum. Joost, are you telling me you believe this?

He should. I've shown numerous times how I never called him scummy, just that post/action that he took. You so far have failed on several occasions to show a post in which I call HIM scummy. Your failure to understand the distinction certainly doesnt make you right.

Before I replaced in he was pushing to lynch someone he thought was town...again, joost, are you ok with lynching townie, versus trying to find scum?

I think I've provided solid reasoning for my advocation. NOT ONCE have you argued anything on the topic except "Der, ya dont lynch a townie, hyuck hyuck".
For the third time, in hope that you will finally address it, I refer you back to my example of how this doesnt work:

So basically youre going to say that all my arguments are crap simply because you dont agree with what I'm arguing for? Let's apply this to your attacks on me:
You: "You're scum because you're inconsistent!"
Me: "Your argument is crap because I'm not scum!"
Doesn't quite work now does it?!? How bout explaining why it is bad? I've shown how it benefits town to lynch someone that you think might be town. (future protection from doomed LYLO situations, + info, + the scum are only lynched day 1 about 20% of the time anyhow + his play was antitown and hurtful to the town). What have you done to show how lynching a (thought to be) townie day 1 purposefully hurts a town more than an essentially random lynch? Not to mention that it is only my opinion that Duster was town. Other players thought he actually was suspicious.

Then he is pushing a theory (maybe not a lie) that I must be scum because I know duster is town and he is not one of my buddies, not even checking the facts before putting it out there.

Do you go back and read the first post every time you post a retort to my case? I didnt think so. Do you repetitively check to make sure who is who's replacement every time you post? I didn't think so. Neither do I. I made a simple understandable mistake, seeing as Duster was still listed as a player. Further, how is not checking the facts a scumtell?

Now he is going to be putting together a case against me, but he knows nothing about what is going on in this game.

When did forgetting that you were Dusters replacement turn into not knowing anything about the game? I like how you make these tiny little things to make it LOOK like my play has been a lot worse then it really has. Very suspect.

Ask yourself this, why is he so sure I am scum, when he does even know who I am replacing?

1) How am I "so sure youre scum"? I said I was starting to feel that way. That's certainly a profound statement, it certainly sounds like I'm convinced.
2) What bearing does the play of your predecessor have on how right I am about whether you're scum, when I didn't think your predecessor was scum? Have you stopped to think that perhaps I think you're scum based on YOUR bad play?

Are you willingly to believe any case this guy pushes when it is obvious he does not have a handle on the game?

Firstly, how about you let the town hear the case instead of trying to write it off before it's even posted? Second, this is an ad hominem. Even the most out of it players could have valuable insight that can catch scum in a game.

FOS joost

Why did you take it upon yourself to correct him joost? You werent curious how far he would have tried to take it....it would have told us a lot about him..

Yes, letting a townie carry a mistake. I wouldnt have turned that into a major point even, in the context of the case, since I wouldve said that the role of duster is unknown, as long as I was following that train of thought. The fact that you would purposefully mislead a player, role unknown, is yet another point against you. Case coming up in a second.

[Sephiroth]

The CKD Case

I. The misrepresentation:

A.

No, you called him scummy and anti-town.

you continue to lie.

Ckd accused me of lying. However, I have several times shown that I called Dusters post scummy, not Duster himself. I asked CKD to find just one place where I call duster scummy, and he failed. Yet he still accuses me of lying. At the very most, the fact that I make the distinction between scummy actions and scummy players and he does not is a meta debate. To call my opinion an outright lie is a

blatant

misrepresentation.


B.

Yet in post 60 you CLEARLY thought he was anti-town and scummy. You wanted to push the wagon without actually being on it.

Here CKD continues to misrepresent me. First, by continuing to try to convince me that I called him scummy. He even throws one thing I did do (call him anti town) with something that I didnt do (call him scummy). Then, he presents his opinion of my motives as if they are fact, in his next sentence. Two more blatant misrepresentations.


C.

Also your earlier backtrack/lie makes you quite scummy looking.

There was no backtrack, or lie. I had at that point not stated whether I thought Duster was scum or not, so I could not have possibly backtracked. Misrepresentation number 4.


D.

Riiiight…you retort was weak, full of mistruth, horrid reasoning, and out and out misrepresentations. you are scum

As I showed at the end of my post, I made no misrepresentations, no lies, and you didnt even attack my reasoning. So this your 5th now.


E.

you really want to push this lie too?

By putting "too" at the end, you imply that this is yet another lie in a series. As I've shown, I have not lied throughout my attacks on you nor in my defense from your attack. Number 6.


F.

Again, you misquote me.

When you say misquote, you imply that I actually took one of your posts, quoted it, changed around the words, and presented it as if you actually said it, which is WAY off. I simply misunderstood what you were attacking me for. Also, your use of the word "again" attempts to imply that I have misquoted you before, which is also, a blatant misrepresentation, if not a borderline lie.


G.

1) I make a very big distinction between thinking a

post

from someone is scummy, to thinking that THEY are scummy. I clearly said that I felt his actions were scummy, and have explained this standpoint twice before this post.

You want us to swallow the following:

You say someone’s

posts

are scummy and their actions are anti-town, but you are not suspicious of them and don’t think they are scummy.

A subtle attempt to turn what I said, "post", into what you want me to have said, "posts".

So that is a whopping

8

misrepresentations, all used in ways to inflate his case, and make it seem right when it was not. These are very scummy, because there is no motivation for a townie to falsely inflate a case, while there is motivation for scum (an easier lynch).

II. Appeals to Emotion:

A.

Oh look at this tale she is spinning

Here you imply that I am trying to spread a falsehood, or knowingly build a case on a lie, when the truth is that I simply forgot who you replaced. This appeal to emotion is an attempt to imply that I made a scummy play, when I in fact did not, as well as an attempt to set a precedent for my posts being "funny", or not worth consideration.


B.

...riiiight.

A use of sarcasm without reference to any points, a handy way to get around arguments, while decreasing their validity in the eyes of others.


C.

I like how you simply write it off without addressing why it is a good idea. I think it's very scummy to be so adamant about something so as to throw out anything different from your opinion without listening to the argument for it.

Hanging a townie is not a good idea…wait, now let me get something straight here, are you calling my actions scummy or me scum, I get so confused.

Here, you use your appeal to emotion, your mock confusion, as a way of mocking my argument without addressing it. I actually find it funny, because in the end you are just reinforcing my point that you simply do not have the capacity to understand the distinction I make, and it ends up weakening your case. Also, you use it to get around my argument, which I'll get to in my next main point. For now, I'll conclude this one.

Several times you make an appeal to emotion as a way of damaging my arguments and acting as if I'm obviously wrong. However, you never actually disprove my arguments. You're essentially just sitting there going "Yeah, right. Yeah, right." This attempt to prove me wrong without doing any work is another thing I don't see a townie doing. If a townies case ahs been well defended against, they back down. Scum has much more reason to push a case despite losing the main points. Thats what these appeals to emotion allow you to do.

III. Dropped, or Ignored Points

A.
Repeatedly, CKD has stated his points, without actually addressing my arguements against him.

1) I make a very big distinction between thinking a post from someone is scummy, to thinking that THEY are scummy. I clearly said that I felt his actions were scummy, and have explained this standpoint twice before this post.

You want us to swallow the following:

You say someone’s posts are scummy and their actions are anti-town, but you are not suspicious of them and don’t think they are scummy.

I bet if you hear someone make a racist statement, and see them put up a noose, you don’t think they are racist too, right?

This is clearly a false comparison. Scumtells are inherently when scum messes up, or does something by accident. Or, when you view something as scummy, it could be a misinterpretation by the person reading it. A racist comment is
1) certainly not by accident
2) cannot be misinterpreted (ie, i think he would say that because he is racist, but wait, he wouldn't want us to think that)
As determining whether posts are scummy or not is up to interpretation, while racist comments are racist any way you look at them, there is a clear difference.

Again, let me stress this: He made 1 post I found scummy. The rest of the game he lurked. It's not like I had seen repeated scummy posts, in which case I would start to find him scummy. There was one post I found scummy, not enough to convince me he is scum.

He, I strongly rebutt both his argument and example. Yet in his next post, he restates his original argument! He doesn't even touch on my counterarguments, just ignores them.


B.
I've brought this up tons of times. Number of times CKD's addressed it? 0

I like how you simply write it off without addressing why it is a good idea. I think it's very scummy to be so adamant about something so as to throw out anything different from your opinion without listening to the argument for it.

Hanging a townie is not a good idea…

Wow. You once again TOTALLY ignored ALL of my arguments. I'll just repost my example then (which you also failed to address):

Your argument is crap, because you just don’t lynch someone you believe is a townie.

So basically youre going to say that all my arguments are crap simply because you dont agree with what I'm arguing for? Let's apply this to your attacks on me:
You: "You're scum because you're inconsistent!"
Me: "Your argument is crap because I'm not scum!"
Doesn't quite work now does it?!? How bout explaining why it is bad? I've shown how it benefits town to lynch someone that you think might be town. (future protection from doomed LYLO situations, + info, + the scum are only lynched day 1 about 20% of the time anyhow + his play was antitown and hurtful to the town). What have you done to show how lynching a (thought to be) townie day 1 purposefully hurts a town more than an essentially random lynch? Not to mention that it is only my opinion that Duster was town. Other players thought he actually was suspicious.

This clearly shows why he can't just assume a point, and it also REPEATEDLY asks him to argue his point about why lynching a possible townie in this situation is bad.


C.
I have now shown how his misrepresentations of my response were incorrect:

As a side note, let's look again at the start of your post:

Riiiight…you retort was weak, full of mistruth, horrid reasoning, and out and out misrepresentations. you are scum

Mistrust: I never lied in my entire retort. Your only attempt to call something I did a lie fails because propositions cannot actually be lies. So my post does not have mis-truth.
Horrid reasoning: You didnt attack my reasoning at all. You simply stated "You're wrong", and questioned the distinction I make between scummy posts and scummy players.
Misrepresentations: So far you accused me of misrepresenting you by saying that you thought being hypocritical was scummy. But through logic I've shown how it was in fact implied, and that if I was wrong, it was at most a misunderstanding, not a blatant misrepresentation as you present it.
So you can see, my case really had NONE of these things that you claim in the beginning. You have a very bad habit of throwing in these buzzwords without warrant and hoping it helps your case. It's really not.

He has not responded.


D.

You thought

the town was going to lynch Duster without you so you can buy yourself some town creds by saying "I never voted duster, and look I even said he was town".

This is were I draw the line. Saying what you thought I was thinking is fine, when you actually present what you thought my motives were as a fact, not as your own opinion, thats a problem. And very suspect.

No response.


E.

1) I make a very big distinction between thinking a post from someone is scummy, to thinking that THEY are scummy. I clearly said that I felt his actions were scummy, and have explained this standpoint twice before this post.

2) Saying I'm liking him less and less does not = I think he's scum. Nor does saying I think his actions are anti-town.

3) You have failed to explain why my argument for lynching Duster is bad besides yelling "HE"S A TOWNIE" at me. Please try to address why he was more valuable alive.

4) The latter part of your argument is mainly you hypothesizing about my motives, which is both wifom, and worthless.

Finally, to say that I had no intention of finishing my PBP's is pretty stupid seeing as I have already continued them to some extent since the original post.

He ignores my summary of my main points.

So yeah. He has a habit of just ignoring any arguments that hurt him. A townie would NEVER do this, but address everything.

IV. Assumptions of Validity

A.

guys, do I really need to discuss why lynching someone you think is town is bad?

Another refusal to address my point, and an assumption taht his side is correct, without addressing my arguments.


B.

Hanging a townie is not a good idea…wait, now let me get something straight here, are you calling my actions scummy or me scum, I get so confused. I love how you go to length to defend your push (not vote) for a person you believe is town (who plays anti-town and post scummy things)...riiiight.

Here, he simply restates his point (doesn't at all address my argument, then uses an appeal to emotion to change the subject quickly. He assumes that hanging a *possible* townie is bad.


I may continue this later, but this is it for now. CKD, throughout our debate, I have tried very hard to reason with CKD and defend myself with logical arguments. In response, he has misrepresented my points, assumed that he is correct, appealed to emotion, and flat out ignored my points. All of these actions were clearly taken to inflate and promote what was in actuality a weak and predominantly false case. In addition to this, I will throw in the action that I thought was scummy from Duster, his attempt to go with the flow. Finally, I would like to add that he attempted to purposefully mislead me, a role that is unknown to him. Why would a protown player try to mislead a player that is possibly protown, and at the very least a helpful contributor. This case from CKD is ridiculous, and I'm pretty sure that with all of these scummy actions adding up, he has to be scum. So yeah. Keep the bullshit coming CKD.

Vote: Ckd

[Sephiroth]

The lie here is that you want this town to believe that you called duster’s posting scummy and his actions anti-town, but you didn’t find him scummy. Explain to us what actions actually make someone “scummy” in your point of view. Please address what “I am liking him less and less”..WHY are you liking him less and less?

Point A, B, C, all have to do with this basic point.

Ok, I'll address this one last time (or at least I hope you understand this time):
1) Anti town does NOT mean scummy. I repeat, it does NOT mean scummy. It means that they are playing in a way which hurts the town. Scum can do this, town can do this. This in no way should tell you that I think he is scum.
2) When I said I liking him less and less, I meant it in a meta sense mainly. I really dislike players who post no content, yet post frequently. I tend to lynch them as a meta strategy.
3) I'm not saying the actions he took don't have the capability to make someone scummy,

if combined with other evidence

. I'm saying that there wasn't enough evidence for me to think him scummy. Only that he made a scummy post. An isolated occurrence does not make a player scummy.

And even if you don't agree with me, this is my meta opinion. This is a meta debate at this point, and it certainly isn't a lie.

Fine, if I need to explain the most elementary points of this game I will. We need the majority to win.

I agree with you up to here.

We need to lynch scum, not townies to win.

It's true that scum must be lynched in order for the town to win. However, to think that we are going to lynch scum every time, or that this is necessary to win, then you're being ridiculous. Once I had established that losing a townie day 1 is not a huge detriment to a town (it usually happens anyways), I weighed the pros and cons. The only con is that he statistically is likely to be protown. Thats about it. The pros were lots of info, eliminating the possibility that he could make it to endgame and OMGUS us into a loss, or even just the problem that it is impossible to get a read on a player of that style, so any townie stuck in 3 player endgame with (town)duster and a scum would be screwed. Then we look to the fact that there is NO WAY that scum would eliminate a noncontributor, and see that we must deal with this problem, because if he makes that endgame, he is a huge detriment. Not to mention that his lynch gives us a wealth of information. Plus, I'd rather lynch a noncontributor then an essentially random contributor. Now I have established that town should probably lynch him to help themselves. When we think of throwaway lynches, when can we afford one? Day 1. That was my logic, and still is my logic. If you see fault in it, attack it's weaknesses, dont just say that townies are important.

The fact that you were trying to push a case to lynch someone who you thought was townie, based one YOUR conjecture of their future actions is scummy.

My conjecture? Do you think that he would have started posting content? Do you think he would've been readable in a 3 man endgame? Just because it is a conjecture doesnt make it false, and additionally, I dont think this even is a conjecture. Barring replacement (which seemed unlikely leading up to my post) my predictions WOULD have come true.

I wouldn’t have a problem with you if you simply admitted you thought duster was scummy.

This is ridiculous. I felt that he deserved to be lynched based off of his future detriment to town. I'm not going to lie, and say I thought he was scummy just so I can appease you.

Once the town obviously wasn’t going to lynch duster based on his “scummy” posts and “anti-town” actions, you change up tactics to “I think duster (who is town) but he will hurt us in the long run, lets lynch him”

I dont think it was so clear that people didnt suspect him enough to lynch him. There were at least 3 people at the time expressing suspicion on him.
Regardless, I assure you I seriously thought this through. I'm also not the only player with this view. If you havent seen it before, then that's odd.

E.

From my point of view, you ARE lying.

Your opinion. Exactly. Your opinion which cannot be verified at all, and is COMPLETELY your word vs mine, youre willing to be absolutely sure I'm scum based on that. And that is ridiculous.

Your lie is that fact that you want this town to believe you didn’t think duster was scum at a certain point.

I dont know what to say. I've given my explanation hundreds of times. I never thought he was scum. There just wasnt enough evidence, just that one post.

That point in the game is key and I think you that I have caught you in your ruse, which is way you are going to such great length to say you didn’t think duster was scummy.

I am a strong player and major contibuter to this town. My lynch is bad for the town. Therefore, I defend myself when you attack me. By attacking me on the point "you claim to have never been suspicious of duster" you force me into defending it further. So claiming that I am going to too great lengths to defend it is a nulltell.

Anybody ask themselves why he couldn’t just simply say..”yeah I thought duster was scummy”?

Because it would be a lie.

Anybody ask themselves why he wants you to believe that he thought duster’s posts were scummy and his actions anti-town, but didn’t think duster himself was scum?

Because it's true.

Any change of opinion is hypocritical then? I gave a well explained reason (though you may not agree with it) for my change of mind. If even that type of change of mind is hypocritical, then how o how will any townie ever change their opinion on something?

Read the quote…you are hypocritical because you attack Kab for changing his mind about duster, but it is ok for you to change your mind about duster. Again, please quote where I said people who change an opinion are hypocritical. Again, you misquote me.

Here you are trying to say I said changing one’s mind is hypocritical. Which is either a misrepresentation or a lie. I never said that. You didn’t quote me in the post, but you are suggesting I said something I NEVER EVEN CAME CLOSE TO SAYING…I say misquote..but maybe it is a misrepresentation?..which is worse?

Misunderstanding is the proper word. In every post that I have misunderstood something you said I have either allowed you to reexplain your point so that I can respond properly, or explained how my interpretation was implied, from my point of view. So you can hardly call this a misrepresentation, as I'm allowing you to explain what you did mean. If my interpretation is incorrect, I feel to see how the fact that I changed my mind is relevant, except for your far out theories that I did it as part of some elaborate scum ploy.

G.

1) I make a very big distinction between thinking a

post

from someone is scummy, to thinking that THEY are scummy. I clearly said that I felt his actions were scummy, and have explained this standpoint twice before this post.

You want us to swallow the following:

You say someone’s

posts

are scummy and their actions are anti-town, but you are not suspicious of them and don’t think they are scummy.

A subtle attempt to turn what I said, "post", into what you want me to have said, "posts".

So that is a whopping

8

misrepresentations, all used in ways to inflate his case, and make it seem right when it was not. These are very scummy, because there is no motivation for a townie to falsely inflate a case, while there is motivation for scum (an easier lynch).

Please address this…don’t just call it a misrepresentation.

The fact that it is a misrepresentation disproves your point. I said his POST was scummy, not posts. It is nowhere out of the normal to say one post by someone is scummy without thinking they are scummy.

LOL, I am not even addressing the appeals of to emotion points. They are ridiculous. Please tell me how sarcasm and angry posts = scum.

Yet another assumption of validity. *sigh*. Appeals to emotion are scummy because they are used to disprove an argument based on emotion as opposed to logic, as well as a way to skirt around the argument itself.

I haven’t retorted to why “lynching a townie is a good thing” because I thought it was elementary. You lynch someone when they are acting scummy, but could be town. You have stated and are pushing to have us believe that you thought duster was town…not town, that could be scum…but just town. That is scummy.

When did I say that I was certain that Duster was town. I said that it was statistically likely (in the absense of decent content) that he was town.

Just because I don’t go line by line when addressing your posts doesn’t mean points are dropped. That is too ridiculous. If you ask me a question, I will address it.

It's not that you werent going line by line. Its that you were ignoring key arguments that I was making, and simply repeating your own arguments. This isnt nitpicking, this is pointing out the way you blatantly ignored my key arguments.

The only thing is this whole case you MIGHT have a point about is the fact I didn’t address why I thought lynching a townie was a bad idea. I thought this was common knowledge.

Actually, you really havent responded to my main four points about why you are scummy. I explained appeal to emotion as well as ignored points, assumption of validity, and misrepresentations. These are all scummy for obvious reasons, and all good points. Your blanket statement in which you accept one point and not the others will not work here.

I think you are lying you say I misrepresenting you. You say I am ignoring points, but you have not asked questions. “Appeals to emotion” example are sad. Even if they are appeals of emotion how is that scummy?

You attacked less then half of my misrepresentation points well. Saying "these ones are the same" doesnt cut it. The appeals to emotion are scummy for reasons I outlined in my original case as well as here, and by other players. read.

Oh and look the second most scummiest person in the game (tinvision) agrees with you…good job.

Ad hominems are fun arent they. I forgot to point that out, but thats your second ad hom this game (the first was when you called my case- which you had yet to see- bad because I forgot who you replaced).

At any rate, we can keep going around in circles. I think you are scum…I think I caught you in your ruse. Now I am purposely misleading you?

You can't deny that you were willingly allowing the misinformation of another player to continue.

You were about ready to pose a case that I was scum based on your conjecture that I know he was town because he wasn’t one of my scum buddies.

If you thought this to be true, then you have seriously underestimated my playing ability. Also, wasn't this whole debate about how I don't decide someone is scum based on one action?! How the hell did you expect me to build a case on one post?

I wanted you to discredit yourself.

SCUMMY AS HELL! Why would you want me to discredit myself? To inflate a weak case, thats why! You could've easily just shot down that one point about you+duster, and it would have been a protown play, but you tried to turn it into something to destroy my credibility in the game, and ensure that I would never function as a useful part of the town again. It's ridiculous that you think this makes you protown.

Tell me, how am I NOT protown?

See above.

I think you are scum, I wanted to prove to this town how full of crap your cases are.

WHAT CASES? I hadn't written a case yet. You think that just because you're suspicious of me that what I say doesn't mean shit? Thats essentially what you're saying here.

I am attacking you because I think you are scum = protown.

Yet another misrepresentation. I'm not attacking you because you're attacking me. I'm attacking you for the way you're going about it, ignoring my arguments and attempting to publicly discredit me through continued misinformation. It's ridiculous, you could be lynched just on this if is this is how you treat players that you're suspicious of. Not to mention all the scummy behavior. Your lynch is definitely a good move today.

[Sephiroth]

sarcasm and angry posts, as you yourself called them, are indeed appeals to emotion. They are, rather than appealing to us to think, appealing to us to feel as you feel, that his attacks on you are ridiculous rather than appealing to us to think that his attacks are full of holes.

so you think my posts are scummy? his attacks are ridiculous...how can one argue an accuastion of "appealing to emotion" wihtout getting into WIFOM territory...

Because there is clearly no motivation for town to use appeals to emotion, so there is no "well, maybe he's doing that so we think he's protown" factor. Please explain how appeal to emotion could possibly be wifom.

[Sephiroth]

my point is here, what you call "appeals to emotion" do not = scum.

correct. appeals to emotion = scummy. Multiple appeals to emotion in combination with other tells = scum.

HELLO TO YOU ALL, IT SEEMS THAT IM REPLACING INTO THIS HERE GAME, WHO ARE TEH SCUMZ?

try reading. I have recently presented my case on CKD, and Ckd also posted a case on me earlier.

[Sephiroth]

you are wrong..again (yeah yeah yeah, when have you been wrong before)..Have you started preparing your Day 2 explanation yet?

these kind of comments sure arent helping you. In the time it took you to make this post you couldve easily have actually responded to some of my most recent attacks on you. But you make another appeal to emotion, and also once again just state your opinion without arguing you point. Anyways, I don't expect I'll need an explanation tomorrow, I think you're scum. Thats why my vote is on you.

[Sephiroth]

The point? You asked me a question. I answered it. Also, in light of your post claiming to try to help the town as much as possible, your post certainly doesnt help the town at all, simply once again assert that I'm scum. Also it's more evidence against you, and I dont see any point in NOT including it, so I did.

[Sephiroth]

Yeah I think it's best to wait for input of others before starting a new Sephiroth-CKD discussion. I'm particularly interested in Destructors opinion.

Fine. I'll wait for a while.

[Sephiroth]

/self-prod

Still think Atticus is scum, but since CKD has so many votes, I'll try and re-read him

(Note: Sorry for neglecting this game. )

please post...im holding off in my discussion with CKD particularly to allow others to add input.

[Sephiroth]

nice input.

for once, I agree with CKD. Although I wouldn't put it quite that way, I would like to see a little more analysis out of Atticus on why he feels
1) that one of us must be scum, not two confused townies
2) that CKD is the more likely scum
rather then just stating it, I would prefer actual argumentation.

[Sephiroth]

Fair enough. But I would still like some actual analysis from you.

[Sephiroth]

This is interesting. CKD backed down. I'm still marginally suspicious of him, but a lot of it came from the fact that he was pushing a bad lynch on little evidence. Of course, its easy to back down once the discussion dies down a little, and I made it pretty obvious that a lot of suspicion for him came from the bad case. So scum making the play to back down isnt too farfetched. I'll have to think about this. The vote stays for now.

Also interesting is Kabenon's post. He has been number two on my list for some time, and the debate he's been having with Shanba has been adding to it, since Shanba seems to be winning most of the points. But the whole deal with hiding his suspicion of me is certainly curious. Why would you want to hide any suspicion that you have? I've always believed that making everything non role related public, since it allows the rest of the town to debate discuss, and evaluate any case you have. Anyhow, I mainly dropped those points because I was in the process of debating Destructor as well, and as I had already went back and forth with you for a while, info from Destructor would be more useful to me then more info from you. Soon after that I got into the huge debate with CKD. Now that you bring it up, I did have some good points against you. I plan to reread and post a case on you, and maybe on OP, who I would say is my number 3 suspect at this point, at least in the absence of someone besides Kab and CKD.

[Sephiroth]

Well, I'm still pretty sure CKD is scum. He may have backed down, but its really wifom, and doesn't change the fact that he posted the exaggerated case to begin with. In addition to the fact that I'm pretty sure he's scum, his results will tell us a lot about the people trying to derail his wagon in favor of one on Kab.

[Sephiroth]

so when I come up town..what does that tell you about Kab?...is he clear in your eyes? if not, why post this?

I didnt include how I felt if you turned up town for two reasons. First, I'm fairly certain you won't be turning up town. Second, I'm not completely certain what I'd think of Kab. The fact that he just jumped on the case I presented against you is definitely a point against him, in the case that you are town.

[Sephiroth]

I plan to take responsibility for your lynch. You're scum.
Anyways, where did I say I dont have a clue? I said "I'm not COMPLETELY certain". That means I have some idea, and I'm not certain. Further, I never said it would be telling for Kab, I said it would be telling for those pushing for kab. Theres a large difference. It's nice to see that you have kept up your ways of misrepresentation and exaggeration. I'm certainly happy with my vote now.

[Sephiroth]

OK, what will it tell you about the people trying to "derail" my wagon them..

Seph, you are going to have many problems day 2...I hope you are 100% certian on this, because you are the engine behind my lynch.

I have a question...if you truly are town, why are you continually pointing out that you being town = bad for me, when you could be looking into other players, doing analysis, rereading, and getting your opinions out there? You're not even close to being lynched. Sitting there and saying, "OMG, Im town, seph's scum, lol" really accomplishes nothing.

[Sephiroth]

I will continue to post as Seph however, as an attempt to avoid confusion.

[Sephiroth]

I will continue to post as Seph however, as an attempt to avoid confusion.

Elias! I thought Seph's arguements were familiar...the line by line arguements..ugh...you're still wrong about me, but you have manned up and decided to take responsibilty tomorrow..if you are town, it is bad for the town.

so you expect me to attack others (which I have) and you to do nothing? How many people have you questioned or threw questions at in the past 5 pages versus me? Please Elias, dont be a hypocrite.

If you look back, I posted in depth PBP of most of the players in the game already. You came into the game attacking me, and for the most part, thats the only opinion youve really posted.

Atticus: now you know why one of my quoteboxes said "Elias wrote".

[Sephiroth]

Alright. I'll admit that my previous post was somewhat of an overstatement. Yes, you attacked Tin and Vamp VERY briefly. Yes, you briefly touched on what other people had said about Kab. Yes, you attacked Joost earlier (then again based solely on the fact that he was agreeing with me, so that shouldnt really count as a legitimate attack, simply an extension of your attack on me). But my main point is that overall, I've posted more about my opinions on various players (towntells and scumtells) then you have. I think you'll have to admit that I have dominated the majority of your posts, while the same can not be said about my posts and you. I'm just saying that if youre convinced that youre gonna be lynched, then why dont you, ya know...post your opinions on possible scumbuddies of mine under your allusion of me as mafia, post some opinions of what you would think of players if I came up town, and so on. For someone claimin theyre about to die, youre way too content in just sitting idly by.

[Sephiroth]

well, I think you would characterize anything I might say that might be an overstatement as a misrepresenatation, but I guess that is ok for you, right.

The reason it is not a misrepresentation is because I'm willing to admit I was wrong. You have yet to admit any of your misrepresentations are wrong. I addressed why I got the impression that you hadnt attacked someone, then explained how my point still stands. You simply said "OMG hes lying" to my misrepresentation charges.

Elias, I am not attacking you anymore...you are digging your own grave because you have got tunnel vision or you are scum. Have I attacked you since you said yo uwould take responsiblity for my lynch?

No. But the fact that you arent hunting for anyone else while complaing that your lynch is wrong is a tell.

so since I am "content" that is a scum tell?

I am content because I am a replacement into this game and I am vanilla townie. If I was some sort of a power role I might throw more into this game. As it is, I am putting more into this game than 85% of the town.

While I see your point about non-participation from the town, I think that if you are vanilla townie then you should be fighting just as hard not to be lynched as you would be were you a power role. If you're town, first you know that you are town, and most likely a lynch that isnt yours is better then one that is yours, and second, you know that every post you make helps the town in endgame later. That is why I find it scummy that you'ce resigned yourself to being lynched but arent making contentful posts, just reinforcing the already present idea that I am a major part of your lynch.

I have urged this town to look at other people, but this town is full of lurkers waiting for my deadline lynch...what would you have me do? Put more effort into a game, where no one posts? I have said my piece, if something else comes up I will comment...

I would like you to post analysis, and talk about how you feel about all the players, protown and why, antitown and why. If you wont do that, well I'm not going to make you. I will simply point out how youre being very unhelpful by simply accepting your lynch.

Still not too late to admit you could be wrong Elias....

I never denied that I COULD be wrong. I just feel that it is highly unlikely. Please, dont put words in my mouth. I think I've already covered how I hate this (in this game as well as in 486).

why dont you practice what you preach...when I come up town, who will the scum group be then?..those who voted, or those who made a point not to? If I am scum, who are my buddies?

If my beliefs prove to be true, and you are in fact scum, I will be taking a close look at those pushing the Kab wagon (shanba, joost), seeing as it directly conflicts yours. If you were to come up town, I'd be looking at Kab, who was very quick to jump on your wagon, and others that supported the wagon without much original content. I posted most of this already on page 21. I've simply been asking you to do what I already have.

[Sephiroth]

the fact that you have stopped scum hunting is telling...

As you said yourself, there have not been many posts besides ours that contain anything substantial. I've found who I believe to be scum, and I have the info that your lynch tells me in line for tomorrow, so I'm ready to lynch you.

[Sephiroth]

the fact that you have stopped scum hunting is telling...

As you said yourself, there have not been many posts besides ours that contain anything substantial. I've found who I believe to be scum, and I have the info that your lynch tells me in line for tomorrow, so I'm ready to lynch you.

wow

Elias, you are a horrid scum hunter who has a knack of focusing on the obvious while ignoring the truly scummy.

Um, no. First, the "truly" scummy is a term that is completely and totally subjective. Saying I don't focus on the "truly" scummy is quite frankly ridiculous, as what is defined as truly scummy varies widely from person to person. Second, I am not focusing on one person in terms of the game. I have expressed suspicion on several other players, and will express suspicions on several others tomorrow. However, with the level activity there is in this game, and the level of certainty I have that you're scum, and the info that will come from your lynch, I am happy to end today with said lynch.

Your lack of foresight will get you hung tomorrow. You dont even see people laying groundwork for your lynch tomorrow.

Lack of foresight? I have already questioned people twice on the reasoning behind saying "one of CKD and Seph is scum". I know perfectly well what people will try to do to me tomorrow in the case that I'm wrong. I'm confident that youre scum, first off, and second off, I'm confident that I can argue myself out of whatever the scum would try to throw at me to engineer a mislynch. I think you know from 486, I'm not so bad at defending myself.

(by the way, I have a feeling that statement you will be using as defense come tomorrow, town I say dont let him). Ask yourself this, why would people be stating if CKD is town, the Seph must be scum before I am hung? It is set up. I hope you are scum, because once my alignment and role is revealed, you should pay the piper for your tunnel vision.

You think that the idea that one of us must be scum is set up by scum...however youre the one leading the idea! You've been saying all along that I'm scum engineering a mislynch. Saying that the people setting up this idea is completely contradictory to me being scum, because there is no reason that my buddies would try to throw me under the wagon.

I feel like I have put all the info I can (at this point) out there, I agree that my lynch will provide much info for this town. But that information will not be in your favor. I will keep a spot warm for you.

Um...so why are you calling me scum for trying to lynch you? You just admitted that you give good info...tell me, who elses lynch gives us info, besides say, myself? You and me have been the most vocal in our stances, and thus provide the best info. I dont understand you at all CKD...

That being said, I would appreciate it if someone besides me or CKD chose to post something. Atticus, the main problem I see with your post is that you seem ready to vote one player without reviewing any others really. It hope you plan to take a look at at least one or two players before choosing one to vote for.

[Sephiroth]

FL

I am the current vote leader...your vote is on me (from vamp) care to comment?

Vampyrusddg actually never voted. Nekka-Lucifer voted dusterhan. So that vote on you is officially questionable.

Reading over recent posts.

not that questionable, the MOD said the vote counted in the VC

Come on, let's make some inferences due to my implications here.

Think "reasons for the vote on you."

Could you maybe stop being so cryptic? It's really annoying, and noncommittal.

[Sephiroth]

...
CKD being town changes everything, though at the very least it gives me a good place to start from today, in terms of reads on other players. But wow. I have to reread.

[Sephiroth]

Frankly, this game is dead. Kabenon is my top remaining suspect, as he was my second highest suspect from yesterday. Though I'll hold off on voting, I want to see where this Atticus/Aimee thing goes.

[Sephiroth]

Cool. OP and Kab were both near the top of my list, but I'm going to wait til after aimees promised post to post my thoughts.

[Sephiroth]

_____________

curiouskarmadog (4): -TinVision-, Sephiroth, joost, kabenon007
kabenon007 (3): Shanba, Aimee, curiouskarmadog
-TinVision- (2): destructor, OpposedForce

not voting (3): Flameaxe, Atticus, FaerieLord
_____________

Okay, I doubt a mafia would abandon this game completely or not vote when a lynch gets this close...it's going too well in their favor. So I'm going to ignore Flameaxe, Atticus, and FaerieLord for now.

That's kind of silly, really. Mafia would already know that the vote leader was townie, and that the town was inactive. What is the point of putting any extra votes on as opposed to waiting for the inevitable townie lynch? Especially when you consider the fact that their nonvoting gets them brownie points from other players, I definitely won't be counting them out of my consideration.

Now, since the doctor was nightkilled, either the mafia are incredibly lucky or incredibly good.

I'd like to lean towards good

but lucky is more an accurate guess.

Why would you want the mafia to be good?

Which tells me this:

Out of: Shanba, Aimee, one is possibly mafia, but I don't think so.

Out of: -TinVision-, Sephiroth, joost, kabenon007, three are probably mafia, and so keep in mind that while one of them might LOOK scummy, make sure that your eyes are not clouded when you peer at them.

I don't follow your reasoning. Why is it unlikely that we have 1 in the first group, but its probable that there are 3 out of 4 in that group? What process did you use to determine this?

You guys have seen why lynching a noob is not a good idea, nor is lynching a lurker. Teach the noobs, replace the lurkers.

Um, no. Lynching lurkers is good. (lynching noobs simple because they're noobs is stupid).

[Sephiroth]

That's kind of silly, really. Mafia would already know that the vote leader was townie, and that the town was inactive. What is the point of putting any extra votes on as opposed to waiting for the inevitable townie lynch? Especially when you consider the fact that their nonvoting gets them brownie points from other players, I definitely won't be counting them out of my consideration.

The problem is not that the 3 of them have been lurking, if I read correctly, then they were being prodded before being replaced. I dunno, but in all the reading I have done, it really seems to me that a game clearly going in the favor of mafia would not be one where the mafia were dropping off the face of the earth. They had no votes on them at the end, and I don' see any actions of there's (might have missed some) that really seemed scummy. So I am discounting them until I see some new content from them that's more than "hi."

Alright. Thats better then what you said at the beginning. But still, you seem to be disregarding them mainly because they're lurking. Essentially you're saying that if scum want to win this game, its alright to lurk. Thats unsettling to me.

Why would you want the mafia to be good?

I like a challenge, I like talking with and spending time in a game with people who are good at their roles. I don't want to play with a bunch of moron mafia. Easy wins are not fun.

I suppose. I think easy wins can be fun, but I see what you mean.

I don't follow your reasoning. Why is it unlikely that we have 1 in the first group, but its probable that there are 3 out of 4 in that group? What process did you use to determine this?

Mafia need to stick together in smaller games yet at the same time, they can't do it in too obvious a way unless the townies explain it away by missing the forest for the trees. So while there's a good chance that all 3 mafia would vote together (I think it's generally 25% mafia in normal games, correct me if I am wrong) they might split one off to vote elsewhere. Hence why here might be one in our group of 2 votes. However, I haven't read enough suspicious content from either of those two, so I'm going to focus on the ones my scumdar bleeps loudest on.

Alright. Why does your scumday beep on these players?

Um, no. Lynching lurkers is good. (lynching noobs simple because they're noobs is stupid).

No, you are quite wrong here. Lynching lurkers usually ends up with a dead townie and no information on the death because they made no connections with others before they died.

It is better to REPLACE a lurker, after suggesting so firstly and waiting for a reaction, because a new player in he same role MIGHT NOT LURK. You want active players who give you information; not dead vegetables.

um, no. I'm well aware that it is likely they are a townie. However, if a lurker continues to be present in endgame, or even later in the game, their vote becomes more and more valuable due to a decreasing number of players. If they're lurking, they probably wont have too good of an idea of whats going on in the game, making them easily convinced by mafia (this happened to me in one of my first games, in which I was lurking). So leaving lurkers in the game is incredibly detrimental to town. Obviously we agree on the point that lurkers in a game are very bad. Now, as for the no information: I dont see why this is true. 1, you record everyones position on the lynch, and can compare it to their meta strategies in other games. 2, you can look at a persons position and notice if they were reluctant to lynch or all for it, or contradictory. Later on, you can incorporate the reasoning behind these positions into cases to get better reads on people. Lynching lurkers gives you just as much information as any other day 1 lynch, as day 1 lynches are essentially random for the most part anyways. Finally, the issue of replacement. First, there are two types of lurkers: ones who dont post at all, and ones who post just enough not to be replaced. Let's focus on the first category for now, though it is the minority. Sure, we would like to simply replace these people, but the replacement queue on the site is incredibly depleted right now. We could be waiting for weeks to get a replacement, and we may not be able to get one at all (games have collapsed as a result). In cases such as these, lynching is the way to go. The second category, the much more common one, is the player who posts little or no content, but makes posts (not necessarily relevant). As the player is posting, the mod does not ahve justification to replace. Therefore the correct option to eliminate all those problems that lurkers cause is to lynch him. And who knows, you might hit a scum. This brings me to my next point; Since scum can simply lurk until threat of replacement comes, then post, then lurk some more, lurking becomes a successful scum tactic. Solution? Meta policy of lynching lurkers. This not only prevents the scum tactic, but also deters townies from lurking. Thus, lynching lurkers is good.

[Sephiroth]

Alright. Thats better then what you said at the beginning. But still, you seem to be disregarding them mainly because they're lurking. Essentially you're saying that if scum want to win this game, its alright to lurk. Thats unsettling to me.

I'm disregarding them because they have no information to present to me. I am waiting to see what happens. I ain't going to pass judgment on someone who isn't around to defend themselves. And no, that's not what I'm saying.

So if they are replaced they are back under consideration? I was under the impression that you were giving them a free pass for today based on the fact that they were lurking.

What if all 3 ARE townie? Would you rather have them dead or would you rather replace them with active townies?

When did I say anything about wanting them dead? Currently, I'd like them to be replaced, as lynching all three is ridiculous (i support lynching lurkers, but to an extent). I apparently got the wrong impression from your post.

Alright. Why does your scumday beep on these players?

This is a book's worth of info by itself, but when I have time, I will give the abridged version. Right now, would suspect them even without having read the other 18 billion pages in this game simply for their voting paths and the paths of voting on them from innocents.

Alright, but I'd like to see detail at some point.

On lynching lurkers: I don't agree one bit but I think we will have to agree to disagree here. I feel lynching of more than 1 lurker in any game is anti-town, but that's just my experience and opinion.

I guess we'll agree to disagree, though as I said earlier in this post, I lynch lurkers, but to an extent.

[Sephiroth]

Out of curiosity flame, why are you voting mizzy? I really dont see where youre coming from.

[Sephiroth]

no, i saw your reason. I was just wondering if you had anything thing better to warrant a vote then "I got a hunch guys, lynchlynchlynch"

[Sephiroth]

Flame, all youve done is call her posts bullshit. You didnt actually explain why it was, you just called it bullshit. Thats definately not a reason for everyone to jump on her wagon. I'm pretty suspicious of people who are like "might be joining in mizzy vote soon'.
...based on what?!

[Sephiroth]

oh, you just want a wagon. Well, I'm /in.

vote: mizzy

[Sephiroth]

hrm. well im just joining because wagoning is full or win.

[Sephiroth]

how does wagoning make me look less like scum, and how am I making you wish that you suspected me?Band-wagoning is good for town, and something that scum can easily join in doing to look like town with little detriment. Thus, its a null point, as both sides have motivation to do it.

[Sephiroth]

So you would actively do something to allow scum to kill townies withou detriment? You would actively give them an out?

Bandwagoning is generally not a good thing to do without good reasoning to back things up. You guys should have learned that on the CKD kill, but I suppose you didn't.

Well, go ahead and bandwagon then, and then I can move on to a less hopeless game.

You just come off sounding retarded in this post. What exactly is the correlation between bandwagons and lynches? Are you honestly claiming that every bandwagon turns into a lynch? Not even the majority of bandwagons turn into lynches. The purpose of a bandwagon is to garner reactions and record who jumps on, and why, then derail it before the lynch.

A whole other issue is saying that the CKD lynch was a bandwagon. It was barely even enough votes to lynch at deadline, making it not a bandwagon. And I thought it had fairly good evidence. If I didn't I wouldnt have been on it.

[Sephiroth]

My point is that you seem to be 100% willing to hop onto something that you know gives mafia a chance to act in a way that doesn't harm their case. That doesn't seem very pro-town to me.

um...it doesn't really help their case either. However it greatly benefits town because of the info it provides.

[Sephiroth]

So yeah....anyone besides Mizzy flame or myself feel like posting?

[Sephiroth]

i herd you guys liek mudkipz.

So yeah, we still playin a game here?

[Sephiroth]

I say we replace her.

[Sephiroth]

[Sephiroth]

Um...I wasn't aware that I had to come out and say that the CKD lynch was enough, given that I accepted it yesterday, and its the towns job to hold me to that, not mine. Sure, I'll take responsibility for it. It was my case and my push that led that wagon to be strong enough for a deadline lynch. I still believe my play was justified, however.

[Sephiroth]

and by "enough" in that first sentence, I mean "my fault"

[Sephiroth]

Oh sorry guys. As you know this isnt my main account and I'm only playing one game on it, so I tend to forget about it. So are we lynching anyone yet?

[Sephiroth]

oh. if only i knew where my vote was...*looks back*
k its on mizzy, good. Might just switch over to Kabenon though, he's still scummy for his activities day one.

[Sephiroth]

pretty sure there isnt a choice here. Kab has been on my LOS for some time, I'm not surprised to see a guilty on him. Even in the case that Harper is insane, then at least we'll know.

unvote, vote: kabenon

[Sephiroth]

ugh
this conversation is retarded. Post tomorrow.

[Sephiroth]

I think the evidence against Vamp is pretty damning, knowing Kabs alignment. Could you provide post #'s of those fosses against me?

[Sephiroth]

I know from experience with him that he is a chronic lurker. I dont really know anything about his style besides, but his play seems really suspect if what Shanbas saying is true.

[Sephiroth]

actually, I'm a fan of meta defense. It still doesnt help with what I view as the main scumtell though, the connection with kabenon.

[Sephiroth]

vote: mispeled

[Sephiroth]

Also, Flameaxe was the only person besides me against Kabenon's lynch.

I kind of think the problem is that you were

for

Kabenon's lynch:

- kabenon007 is acting like he might be scum with Flameaxe. this doesn't work the other way around, though.

... I'm not sure if kabenon's claim makes sense ...

... But kabenon is pretty scummy, even without the claim. So I'm okay with a lynch.

but you didn't ever commit to it. That reads strongly as bussing to me.

I took it into my head to do a little digging too, and vampyrusddg, your predecessor, also reads as scum.

I don't agree with the case on Kaben, and I think your trying hard to find something that isn't there Sephiroth. You can find someone scummy and find someone voting on them scummy, possibly getting on the wagon to bus their buddy at an oppurtune point. Theres no real contradiction there, just scum hunting.

This is his only comment on Kabenon, and at the end of the post he FoSses Sephiroth for attacking kab.

There's also the issue that he doesn't really commit to any attacks. He FoSses a lot of people, but never changes his vote (in fact, he says this: "But at least that saves me the trouble of moving it " when he stops attacking Seph and starts attacking ckd. It's also notable that he goes from FoSsing Seph and agreeing with ckd to attacking ckd and saying Seph made an eloquen case against him.) He's afraid to commit, perhaps, because then 180 turns like the one he made from ckd to Seph will be easier to slip in unnoticed.

Vote: mispeled

also, your reasons for voting flameaxe are bullshit insofar as theyre based mainly on a clash with his playstyle.

[Sephiroth]

I didnt just follow that post. I requested post numbers to reinforce the points, and never got them. I then looked back myself, saw that the points being made were true, and cast my vote. The connection to proven scum is the best evidence in this game thus far.

[Sephiroth]

my mispeled vote stands.

[Sephiroth]

jdodge1019 (8:35:40 PM): BALLS IN THE FACE

Vote remains.

[Sephiroth]

I have to say still that the connection case on Mispeled is strong enough for my vote. I dont see why other people arent voting. come on guys, lets get a-lynchin!

[Sephiroth]

...WHA???!?!?!?!!

Ok. Thats not that shocking. But what gives with the early vote flame?

[Sephiroth]

still doesnt explain the early vote portion. I know youre not an explaining-your-actions kind of guy, but some reasoning would be nice.

Personally, I'm looking more at Atticus and Tin, who have basically just cruised through the game (more atticus though).

[Sephiroth]

hey guys, this game is too short. offtopic conv anyone?

[Sephiroth]

ok, this is going nowhere.

unvote, vote: no lynch

[Sephiroth]

vote: mizzy

can we just get this over with now?

[Sephiroth]

pretty sure mizzy is scum now.

[Sephiroth]

its actually more likely that one scum is lurking and the other doesnt dare attempt a lynch without him. Which is more consistent with you being scum with TV.

[Sephiroth]

ok. so we've established that one of us has to be scum. That person is you, which is why I voted at the beginning of the day.

[Sephiroth]

The fact that I disagree with someone? Thats ridiculous.

And which is more likely to be a bus, the person that leads the wagon on purpose, or the person that goes with a cop investigation? It seems to me that its a better bus if its planned, which makes it more likely you were the one who bussed, not me.

[Sephiroth]

Ok Mizzy. Leading the wagon is SO different from being loud voices in it.

As for my vote, its a double edged sword. If I'm scum you're safe, if you're scum you're safe from the quicklynch too. A lack of quicklynch proves nothing.

[Sephiroth]

I think that while an active lurker is scummy, it is better to attack their partner who is active. Thats what I'm doing, unfortunately its hard for you to do that, being the partner and all.