Newbie 480: Game Over!

[Civil Scum]

No just me...Porochaz, you might want to reconsider that vote, cause I'm so civil it's disgusting. I'm starting to wish I had chosen a different name, but since we are rolling, here's my obligatory point-back.

vote: leetonicon

[Civil Scum]

K Ill reconsider... later when I have evidence to prove otherwise... having someone 2 people to lynch is not a dangerous situation at the moment because if 2 more people vote quickly causing Civil to be the first person to be lynched then it would be more obvious who the mafia were (presuming hes a townie) because they would be the ones wanting quick kills...

This is probably true, but a loose-cannon townie could concievably throw a vote in there for kicks.

May I ask you to reconsider your vote?

[Civil Scum]

unvote

Asking porochaz to reconsider his vote, said he wouldn't. I'd call it more of a polite request than the cold sweating of a town-fearing scum.
I'm new and haven't been at L-2 this early.
I don't really like being at L-2 this early, but from what everyone else here says, it sounds like I have little to worry about.

And 2 at L-2

vote: porochaz

[Civil Scum]

So first he panics and asks that a vote be reconsidered (and why is he only asking one of the two people voting for him to remove it? Why would you not ask both people? Why is he "okay" with leetonicon voting for him but not Porochaz??), then he casts a vote that for some reason he feels he has to justify, so he tells us he is "obligated" to cast an OMGUS vote (which he most certainly is NOT obligated to do... I don't think anyone else did).

I mean obligated by myself, not obligated by the "rules" or the situation. Since my name automatically gets mentioned for a random vote (it's just easy), I have made a rule of voting for the person who does it first. I know the first few votes are random, How is the incorrect use of obligation a scum tell? I know I don't NEED to justify a vote this early and that's not what that was.

1. Civil Scum, your vote is purely on the basis Im voting for you, yes?

yes

You feel you should not be at L - 2 so early as your new?

It isn't L-2 that bothers me, it is a quick lynch with a bad town vote.

I ask for anyone beyond myslf and Civil Scum to tell us what they think, I also just want to hear from people generally, your past experience with Mafiascum and Mafia in general, for example. This is my first game here, although I used to mod games elsewhere. I also very occasionally play in the real world.

Porochaz,
It's only my second game on here, but this is what I've noticed. Lot's of the good disscussion that occurs in the first few pages always stems from odd behaviour during the random voting stage. Obviously suspicions have to start somewhere. The problem is that a lot of the slip-ups, flip-flopping in voting, panic and defensiveness (interest in self-preservation for town or scum) that are CLASSIC scum tells are easily done by newbie townies on accident. So in newbie games with newbs [raising hand] it obviously becomes a bit of a dilemma, becuase these types of mistakes can be umbrella defended with the inexperience defense.

You are currently the prime suspect in my book. I can tell you now my vote will be staying on you unless something major changes my mind because 23 posts in, (including mine) I am sure your scum. Your excuse "Im new" doesn't hold up with me. This is my first game here, 3 other people are new as well... and your OMGUS vote confirmed it, you actally didn't give a reason beyond the fact you want me at L - 2 as well presumably to take the pressure off yourself... I dont think that reason is sound.

My worry here with this game is that you are SURE this soon that I am scum, while the evidence is not THAT fantastic. I am the prime suspect, true, but mostly because I'm the only suspect at the moment. 23 posts is just a start.
This isn't an attempt to curry your favor...

unvote

leetonicon wrote:

Hmmm.... I've been wine-in-front-of-me-ing for a while trying to determine what to make of what's been done so far. The fact that Porachaz voted for CS to put him at L-2 slightly early in the game suggested to me that they might be connected.

For the two scum to attack each other like this first off D-1 (while a viable option especially in real-world games) is not the best tactic when there are so many other players. If you ask me, you are stretching, first to read to much into my voting, and secondly to read even farther and suggest that any of this links porochaz and me. At this point, it is WIFOM, it is not coordinated behavior and nothing can be read into this.
It looks like you are trying too hard to find scum based on little evidence.

(And actually, CS's first request struck me as the reaction of someone new who didn't want to be the first day lynch which indicates nothing of scumminess or not; the second request (as was pointed out by others) is a little bit stranger)

You somewhat defend me and then say that my second post was srtranger. It pretty well asked again for porochaz to reconsider. I'd call it polite, cause if he's town I don't want him to get duped by some scummies on weak evidence.

The fact the we now have two L-2 bandwagons appears to be a good thing for the town,

Explain why this is good please. Two BWs early is good for town y?

but the fact that both wagons (Noob question: is wagon the appropriate term at L-2 on day 1 or does it have to be L-1 to be considered a wagon?) are unstable in the sense that each wagon contains a vote from the person being threatened by the other wagon and that makes me wonder whether CS's action was designed to look like he's helping the town while not actually helping as much as it would seem.

I'm with porochaz here, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Again, you seem to be reaching too far for some strange reasonings behind not-to-strange behavior. Early in this same post you introduce the idea that porochaz and I have made an early attempt at distancing, then later in the post... I'm turning in a townie? What exactly are u accusing me of here?

So, I'm keeping my vote on Civil Scum for now, FOS'ing Porochaz and hoping one of the other uncommitted people either starts a 3rd bandwagon or pushes one of these two to L-1.

Before we've heard from anyone else, you would like a 3rd bandwagon (how does this help the town? There's only 2 scum) and/or you'd like either/or/both me and porochaz pushed to L-1. You created some strange explanation and planning that "are" behind my voting patterns, and then FoS porochaz (asking and hoping someone L-1's) soley on the basis that porochaz and I could be distancing.
This is the scummiest post on the whole page, but hey thats just my opinion.

[Civil Scum]

oh oops, double

vote: leetonicon

[Civil Scum]

2) I'm rather concerned that Porochaz, Civil Scum, and myself have all gotten wrapped into a discussion and it's been quiet from everyone else... especially at our IC brethren who I would have thought should have stepped in (or will step in shortly since this has been the weekend) to ensure that the town has some potential information to work on for day 2.

This last part bothers me. Why are you thinking Day 2 already? You seem incredibly secure with how the game is going. I don't know what to make of that exactly, but it is quite odd.

?'s- How was my L-2 of porochaz a pro-town ploy, while not helping the town as much as it seems?
-Why are two BW's good for town on page 1?
-Why would you want a 3rd wagon?
-Why did you want someone to L-1 porochaz (on null-reasoning u retracted at the slightest pressure) or me BEFORE you heard from them (which you said you wanted)?

In this game, I still think CS's uneasiness at receiving a second vote was more interesting than anything that's been said since.

Soooo, cornered/worried scum, or panicky noob? I guess I don't see how any of this is evidence.

[Civil Scum]

I explained my "obligatory" OMGUS vote for leet, a semantics issue nothing more. My second vote to L-2 porochaz was really just silliness, I retracted it quickly; I don't really believe he's scum.

This 1 for 1 thing troubles me for a couple reasons.
1- I don't like the idea of applying a set of working principles and rules to a game where every situation and player is different.
2- As town, I can guarantee my lynch leads to lylo (barring a correct doc protection-if we even have a doc) and while likely some (1 or 2) of the people who will have voted ar scum, it seems that with the limited amount of info available, town would have a tremendously difficult time sorting it out. It is doubtful that L-1 and the hammer would both be scum (it seems well established that this would be too risky) but even if one of the last two voters are scum (not neccesarily guaranteed) which is it? L-1 or the hammer? Town would be left with quite a dilemma. I guess it would depend on how well/poorly those last two justify their votes.

RANDOM VOTES- "I have reason to believe he's not civil at all" Is this justification for a random vote? Sort of, but not really. My name is good fodder and it makes for a first vote that is always accompanied by a joke.
People put random underneath their first vote, but I don't know if that's the case. If all but one person has voted and all but one p[layer currently has a vote, is their vote random? No, they make a decision whether to have 1 vote on every player or to L-2 someone. Whether or not they do this, while not indicating alignment ( a case can be made that a newb scum might purposefully avoid placing someone at L-2 and drawing any attention), it is CERTAINLY not a random DECISION.

I'm admittedly glad that Ergo is sticking up for me so readily, I doubt a scum would come to my aid in explaining what I have tried to. It is coordinated, but for me this makes me lean town in his direction.

Zeek did bring up my odd behavior originally, but is witholding his vote. Either he pointed it out (like a good townie) and doesn't believe that the case is strong enough yet to warrant a vote (or wants it to run a longer course-like a good townie) OR he wanted to throw it out thereand hope townies run with it while he maintains a safe distance (like a good scum). I have no feeling either way as of now.

Leetonicon:
My problem with leet's play is this; he is really JUST jumping on the BW (not quite there yet but it could easily become one) which, again I'll point out, is now based largely on three things: an OMGUS vote (scummy?), that I requested that only one of my accusers (porochaz-the 2nd one) retract their vote, and my overreaction to L-2 early. Being at L-2 in the first few votes (not concerned so much with it feeling "unfair") just seemed so quick, I sort of had the idea that the next two could be as well. Leet has not really added anything to my list of accusations. He seems mostly to only be giving the impression that he is scum hunting. He talks about how he's been WIFOMing and trying to figure this and that, but his posts don't really suggest that he is doing any of it.

He has also retracted just about any reasoning he gets presured or questioned about. If he had put much thought behind the connections he is "trying" to make on weak evidence/no evidence, then I think he'd be more inclined to defend some of it than simply toss it away at the slightest pressure. In my opinion, it is fairly obvious that he has STOPPED scum hunting, but is trying to pretend this is what he's doing. He asks for the IC's for help in analyzing the game for information to use in D-2. Why is he already concerned with the D-2 implications of my quick-lynch?

Leet, since coordinated actions are arguably the strongest scum-tell (tough early on), shouldn't you be a little more concerned with looking at how people are reacting to the present situation? Why are u thinking and planning on D-2 already?

If Leet is scum, I would have to believe his partner is one of those not too invovled, fearful of being connected with his over-zealousness perhaps.

Early list:
Leetonicon ******

[Civil Scum]

Discussions not revolving around you are "less interesting"? It's the discussion of the game right? Ripley and peapod are lurking a bit yeah?

[Civil Scum]

Was this directed at me or Zeek?

Directed at Ripley.

Scum buddying up to a townie is the oldest trick in the book. If you're town, you can see by your own reaction here how well it has worked. Erg0 has gained your support, which will be valuable if you survive. If you don't survive he looks good for sticking his neck out to support a townie who was under pressure. I'm not saying Erg0 is scum; he could perfectly well be genuine. But you should be aware of the dangers of assuming anyone is town for this reason.

This is a good point, of which I am well aware. Given the circumstances when he began his "crusade", I was under heavy suspicion. This seems risky to me in the sense that doing so could alleviate the pressure on me (an innocent townie) when he could just have easily gone with the "flow".

I would expect/suspect this type of buddy-up from scum only after the BW appears to be slowing. Which is why post 53 from Zeek troubles me.

I will start at the bottom: yes, CS did overract to having two votes... that is the case against him. Or at least why I am suspicious of him. It was a huge overraction... does it not make you wonder WHY he overracted? You seem to just be saying "he freaked out and got really worried that he had 2 votes on him... so?" So?? So WHY did he freak out? Why are you not interested in figuring that out? Did he panick because he is scum and was worried that he had been found out? That is what I am trying to figure out while you are off on your own little crusade against others who have done nothing to warrant it.

One of his main talking points against me was that I had only requested one of my voters to reconsider their vote, and while I wouldn't expect him to re-hash every point or suspicion about me in every post, here it sounds as if my panicking was the only set-off. Over the course of the post he flip-flops back and forth on me a little. Saying I do look scummy, then maybe not, and then 'well even if he is scum we may as well leave him there'. Eventually he accuses Ergo of exactly the behavior Ripley has just mentioned.
So, in that vein, Ripley the timing of other people's defense (Ergo) of me and deflection (Zeek) away from me, would make me lean towards accusing Zeek of scummy behavior.

Overall however, Zeek's efforts have a pro-town feel and I am still more concerned with peapod. Obviously I could just be turning in my scum buddy after I blew it as a sort of strange distancing tactic, but prolly not. I (and everyone, right?) would very much like him to answer Ripley's question.

[Civil Scum]

Overall however, Zeek's efforts have a pro-town feel and I am still more concerned with peapod.

Ummm...

Well I don't know what your point of this is because I have never come out and specifically said "I am sure CS is mafia", so I don't see why flip-flopping is worth pointing out or even "scummy behavior" on my part. Is it bad that I am still considering that you could be either scum or town and exploring both possibilities instead of picking one and blindly making accusations based on that choice?

That is what lead me to the point against erg0 - considering that you could be town and examining his actions from that perspective.

I'm glad you're doing it, if ur town. I just made the observation that your attacks/suspicions about me have not been all too consistent. I went on to say the manner in which you've done it appears townish.

As much as Ergo's defense of me could be viewed as a scum tactic, I'm still a bit stuck on leetonicon. As porochaz mentioned, his thinking isn't real noobish, it's just weird. The heat begins to come off of me and what does he do? Unvote, retract all reasoning, etc. etc. all u have to do is read his posts. The unvote doesn't set it off for me though. I'd say that it's his post after he unvotes.

eta weird... when I previewed my post, Porochaz's comments weren't there... believe me or not, but it looks like CS is completely off the hot seat.

This gives me the impression that he is worried about following, about shifting his position. His post right before this was strange too. Most troubling were the assumptions he adressed, not becuase he speaks as if corrected and falsly assuming, but because he cites disagreements between him and I as the justificaitons for his vote. He was voting for me because we weren't seeing eye to eye, is how this reads for me.
From his previous posts, this was clearly not behind any of his suspicion.

I came in with certain assumptions which may or may not have had any validity to them. These are below and hopefully justify why I've said/done what I've done so far. More importantly, my original intention was to then lay out why I'm still most suspicous of CS, by laying out places where he appears to be strategically twisting what I've been saying, the problem being that when I went back to cite places where he did, if I look at them objectively, he's making certain assumptions which are opposite certain assumptions I was making so I don't agree with him, but I can't say it's as scummy as I was thinking.

???? They show that you're behavior is very odd, you don't lay out why u are most supicious of me (in fact you unvote me after objectively viewing my assumptions, which are?), strategic twisting had nothing to do with any of the questions I asked you (just wanted you to clarify the ideas in your posts).
My disagreement with your assumptions and concept of BW's and whatever the hell else is what made you think I was scum, Leet?
(Ergo had recently mentioned that Leet's inactivity and dead-lock vote on me were suspicious)-> Leet goes on to invoke some strange/insincere reasoning as to why he no longer feels I am most suspicious. This looks a bit like justifying an unvote which would otherwise seem very suspect, and still does in my book.

Peapod is still lurking, and possibly Ergo is buttering me up, but Leet's insincereity is still my number one choice.

[Civil Scum]

I think that labeling Zeek's case as pure "crap logic" is a slightly unfair overstatement. I'm happy this sparked so much debate, and I'm happy the good guys came out on top!
Ergo, you seem quite defensive. I am sorry you are coming under so much fire for defending a noob, but you did explain what I had been trying to clear up in precise detail. So either you are perceptive or are buddying up, or both. I agree that Zeek's case against you, while not exactly crap logic, is about as strong as the one directed at me.

[Civil Scum]

I've been pretty much waiting on the two replacements. My vote is nearing confirmation on Leet, but I'd still like to hear from the replacements. I don't understand this bickering about who's been posting and who hasn't. This doesn't seem very productive.

Vote: Civil Scum to beat anyone else from making the obvious vote.

Justification for a random vote?

[qoute="leet"]
Hmmm.... I've been wine-in-front-of-me-ing for a while trying to determine what to make of what's been done so far. The fact that Porachaz voted for CS to put him at L-2 slightly early in the game suggested to me that they might be connected. (And actually, CS's first request struck me as the reaction of someone new who didn't want to be the first day lynch which indicates nothing of scumminess or not; the second request (as was pointed out by others) is a little bit stranger) The fact the we now have two L-2 bandwagons appears to be a good thing for the town, but the fact that both wagons (Noob question: is wagon the appropriate term at L-2 on day 1 or does it have to be L-1 to be considered a wagon?) are unstable in the sense that each wagon contains a vote from the person being threatened by the other wagon and that makes me wonder whether CS's action was designed to look like he's helping the town while not actually helping as much as it would seem. So, I'm keeping my vote on Civil Scum for now, FOS'ing Porochaz and hoping one of the other uncommitted people either starts a 3rd bandwagon or pushes one of these two to L-1.
[/quote]

This was post 22. Ahead of himself to say the least.
I ask some questions, tell him he's off-his rocker a bit, and Porochaz agrees a bit in his next post.....then this one

I'll have to keep this short, which will hopefully as a side benefit keep it readable:

1) I may have made a mistake by FOS'ing Porochaz; I still think there's the possibility that Porochaz and Civil Scum are working together under the premise of Porochaz throwing Civil Scum under the bus, but the more I thought about it, the more it got into them having to have decided to try it right off that bat under the theory that it wouldn't look suspicious by looking suspicious... in other words, like I think I put it, it's more likely that i had a serious case of Wine-In-Front-Of-Me-ness and in hindsight, I should have tried probing someone else.

I made a mistake? I should have tried probing someone else, because...it attracted attention and wasn't real or made any sense. "...but the more I thought about it" (as in after Porochaz and I posted) "...the more it got into them having to have decided to try it off the bat.....wouldn't look suspicious by looking suspicious...like I think I put it, it's more likely that I had a serious case of WIFOM..." -->This has uncertainity (or a desire to seem uncertain->a total 180 in two consecutive posts) There is also a time sense past tense issue here with when his WIFOM ruminations took place. And he suddenly chose the other wine becuase of pressure.

Responding to Ripley's comments:
I agree that I'm probably being a bit impatient (reading through other games prior to playing this one really doesn't get across the time delay between postings). By stepping in, I just mean I expected one of the IC's to act as the voice of reason and point out that having only 3 people talking in a circle isn't getting us very far and maybe this was an unreasonable expectation on my part.

In response to Civil Scum's questions:
I was under the impression that having two competing bandwagons is normally how day 1 normally proceeds; looking at who joins which one and who switches between them gives more potential information to work from.

Except that just before this he was not thinking or reasoning along these lines. He wanted two bandwagons, an L-1, and IC discussion for D-2. He was not trying to generate more discussion or more potential information. Although that's what he says he was doing.

The issue being that with the two bandwagons being mutually exclusive means less information is available than if the two bandwagons were separated. This is why I'd want a 3rd wagon that was independent from these two (which would hopefully lead to one or more people leaving one of these wagons).

As far as the putting someone to L-1, I'm not sure I was right there. I was thinking that being at L-1 at day one was pretty safe but am now realizing I'm not sure on the tradeoffs for setting up a 1 for 1 trade. I'm also not sure what you mean about wanting you or Porochaz to be be at L-1 before hearing from them... I was assuming that being at L-1 would still leave you plenty of time to respond and also having someone at L-1 would hopefully stimulate conversation (see above bit of me being impatient).

Retraction of desire for either Porochaz or myself to be L-1'd. If he was so sure I was Scum #1, then why would he absolutely fold after I brought this up? He was of course ASSUMING that I would still have plenty of time to defend myself (even though he wanted me stone cold dead) and was hoping that the L-1 would STIMULATE conversation. His pointing to his impatience is even more troubling. Justifying irrational thoughts and overly-agressive behavior. It just seems odd...like hey it's okay that I'm overzealous and inventing reasoning after the fact, but it's just my self-proclaimed impatience.

I alread sort of posted my two cents on this next one, but here it is again.

Interesting on the prodding... I've been less online lately and haven't actually seen the email telling me I have a prod yet, but I see pablito's post (and now need to reread and see if anyone asked for me to be prodded or if Pabilito is actually being more proactive than most of the mods I had seen (i.e. I thought usually mods didn't prod until requested) Anyways:

I came in with certain assumptions which may or may not have had any validity to them. These are below and hopefully justify why I've said/done what I've done so far. More importantly, my original intention was to then lay out why I'm still most suspicous of CS, by laying out places where he appears to be strategically twisting what I've been saying, the problem being that when I went back to cite places where he did, if I look at them objectively, he's making certain assumptions which are opposite certain assumptions I was making so I don't agree with him, but I can't say it's as scummy as I was thinking.

Obviously this is all wrong. He mentions strategic twisting and a host of objective observations he made after looking at my assumptions and behavior. That is he MENTIONS them, but doesn't decribe or detail the content or actual process. He is only implying that there is a pro-town method behind everything he's done. But the actual substance is lacking, and I am not convinced that he was ever actively scum-hunting.

Assumptions below

1) Looking towards day 2 is essential. Basically: day 1 vote is a crapshoot but odds slightly favor lynching a townie even if the mafia don't obviousily attempt to influence the vote; this puts us at lylo (barring doc save) on day 2 and so we better have some insight into who's most likely to be scum to maximize the odds of getting to day 3

A slightly different defense of his post than he made earlier. Again, pro-town words, no pro-town feel.

2) 2 band wagons good. Assuming I did the math right, there are slightly better than even odds that with two bandwagons on day 1, one of them is scum; who jumps on and off a bandwagon may suggest who the other scum is.

Hate to be an ass, but the math is wrong.

2a) Having 2 incestous bandwagons is less good, especially if the only half the group was involved in discussing them. I was overlooking the fact that to get from L-2 to Lynch does require two more votes and unless the lynched is scum, at least that last vote is likely to be scum without a good justification for voting without much discussion (i.e. deadline), but if a deadline came up, I could see scum or town casting the 4th vote to avoid a no-lynch (which I'm assuming is always worse for the town on day 1 for newbie games)

So, now I need to go back everyone else's postings and figure out who I think the most suspicious person is. In the meantime,
Unvote

In this first portion, it sounds as if he knows I'm town. Don't know about that, but at any rate he doesn't really supply any concrete reasoning (here, or anywhere along the way) behind his unvote. Pretty much just happens becuase the heat was coming off.

eta weird... when I previewed my post, Porochaz's comments weren't there... believe me or not, but it looks like CS is completely off the hot seat.

Alright, correct me if I'm wrong, but why make this post unless you're scum? He's obviously aware of accusations around his wishy-washy logic and patterns. Why else make this post? To explain why it looked like he was following the flow and retracting, even though it was before porochaz unvoted? Why does it even matter? Only someone with something to hide would be concerned that their post's timing could be viewed as suspicious, right? Worried about attracting very specific suspicion before those suspicions are even brought up-> This doesn't seem town.

Well, there's my bit. Sorry about the essay.

Destructor-> I know this is sort of a weighted and unfair question, but what do you make of your predecesor's play thus far?


I'll go back through and look at the "missing turning point/reasoning" in/behind Ergo's stance on my behavior, this was a good point (can't remember who brought it up now-Porochaz maybe). But I really feel like it would have been a much more sensible scum move to poke and prod without voting, or keep slightly distant from me rather than be my attorney.

Perhaps Ergo is the type of person who would prefer that a newbie game run a better course than a D-1 lynch on noob-foul-ups... If I knew anything about his personality I could make a judgment call there.

I can't see myself retracting my vote for Leetonicon. There is something too insincere and FISHY about his logic and reasoning patterns.

[Civil Scum]

Alright, I'd better think about this. Post after work.

unvote

[Civil Scum]

I may have jumped the gun on voting for Leet on page two, but I don't think Post 32 goes too far. It is not so much Leet's odd reasoning that has/had me convinced, it's more his reactions to having his ideas and reasoning questioned.

With destructor leaning slightly in Ergo's direction (who is currently at L-2) and Ripley being suspicious of destructor (L-2), we appear to have two non-incestuous BW's. I'd like to examine Leet's posts under the assumption of innocence and see how they read.

Ergo has stated that his defense of me was incidental. He never came out and said this is why CS's actions are not scummy. He has simply been explaining my intentions, while agreeing that I overreacted, etc. At any rate it did draw attention away from me. Aciidental or otherwise.
I can't see him sticking up for me (what's a good term for an incidental defense?) and then voting for scum (leet). If destructor is town, Ergo becomes very suspicious indeed, unfortunately there's no sure way to know.

I have a large problem with the WIFOM portion of destructor's post revolving around ergo and me. My vote can very easily go back on destructor, although I would like to hear from peapod.

[Civil Scum]

The "sure" comment was A. To keep the pressure on Civil and B. a slight mistake on my part showing my over keenness in the game...

I think that porochaz's comment on Peapod's innocence can largely be explained by the second part of this quote. It was probably just a feeling he had, due to "over-keeness". My feeling is opposite, and I would say she's probably scum, but not 100% sure. I'm wary of lurkers.

I find it odd that Ripley has made an issue out of anyone's dealings with peapod, and suggests that somehow there is an association. When I said something about Peapod lurking, Ripley suggested that it was something I may have done to prevent her for being singled out for lurking and drawing heat as a scum-lurker. This accusation confused me. Porochaz has also caught some flak for his 'likely town' comment directed at Peapod.
It's safe to say that her current prescence, or lack thereof, is troubling all of us.

I'm not going to vote for anyone (ahem, not even leet) until I can get some kind of handle on her character.

Destructor, that case just made me happy with my vote.

Could you expand upon this?

[Civil Scum]

Looking back at the early pages of the game, you were definitely not lurking. I think I had that feeling around page 3 becuase a few of your posts were IC answering questions and becuase early (and still) I had absolutely no feeling on you either way.

I don't equate lurking with scuminess, but lurking does trouble me.
I wouldn't want peapod singled out for lurking, so I mention that she is lurking. Granted it was with your name first, but that wasn't part of a concious effort.
Ripley: I understood the point you were making. I just didn't see it linking us in that way.

Peapod could be a type of scum-parrot. The questions she poses early are already out there, and the similar "sentiments" of Ergo's that she mimics are interesting. This could just be her lack of devotion to the game. Some of her early posts make me a little suspicious for reasons I can't exactly put my finger on.
I'm hesitant to attach or use her behavior to determine anything about any other player.

Erg0
In Post 38 I didn't like the way Erg0 makes blatant assumptions about CS's motives. This comes across as a defense of CS, but one I think no one but CS himself was in a place to make, assuming he's town. He uses this as the basis of his attack on Zeek. Later, in Posts 49 and 101 he suggests the opposite, claiming that his defense of CS was a result of his attack on Zeek. This doesn't ring true

After reviewing the early part of the thread, it does ring true. I half-assedly explained my usage of the WORD "obligated", and Ergo expanded. Much of Ergo's later "defenses" of my admmitedly strange OMGUSing does stem from interaction between Zeek and Ergo.
To me it looks like Ergo's attack on Zeek was the product of them viewing my behavior with two completely different sets of assumptions. I can't find a concrete place where Ergo has lied about his motivations.

...Erg0's accusation that Zeek was reaching were based on his defense of CS...not the other way around.

Ergo's accusation that Zeek was reaching was based on his feeling that my actions were seriously misunderstood (this is not a defense in and of itself) and the conflict
that resulted did lead to a type of defense of myself.
I'd love to hear from Garnasha, but I'm leaning again in destructor's direction.

Civil Scum
I realise CS's first post has been discussed a lot. In brief, regardless of what followed, this post is notable because he only asks one of the two players voting for him to unvote. I saw his vote for leet as an OMGUS random vote, but it is odd that he would do that after refering specifically to Porochaz.

Yeah, it was odd and irrational. You seem to be writing about me with scumminess in mind right off the bat.

Post 20 was scummy. I don't know what his intention was exactly here, but it did come across as an attempt to share some pressure with Porochaz. He unvotes a few posts later (Post 25) without really elaborating on his intentions, which is confusing and makes his vote for Porochaz even more questionable.

This vote, as I explained was hair-brained silliness. I "elaborated" later by saying that it was simply becuase prochaz was still voting for me. Let's call it second-grade Imma get u back. I retracted it 5! posts later and "elaborated.

The one thing from this I feel fairly confident about is that CS and Porochaz probably aren't scum together.

True. You AND porochaz are highly unlikely as well.
[quote="destrucotr]
Without meaning to be defensive, I though CS went a bit far with Post 32. He clearly either misunderstands or misrepresents leet's post, coming across as a little opportunistic, though asks some fair questions. In this post, he also downplays the significance of his reaction to being at L-2, which is dodgy.
[/quote]
I may have been over eager, but mostly in response to Leet's over-eagerness. He was OFF HIS ROCKER. The vote may have been quick, as his behavior at that stage was primarily plain weird, and not neccesarily scummy. (Now I can't say that's the case)
It was dodgy (Ripley made a good point about this) and I guess I won't do that anymore. I just wasn't entirely sure how to convince anyone to choose "newbie" over "defensive scum", so at that point it just seemed like it was best to leave it to individual judgement. And best to "look around for other topics" becuase I didn't know what to do to show that my actions were not inherently scummy and my intentions not EVIL.

[quote="destructor]
Post 51 has a few things to note. First is this:
Civil Scum wrote:
I'm admittedly glad that Ergo is sticking up for me so readily, I doubt a scum would come to my aid in explaining what I have tried to. It is coordinated, but for me this makes me lean town in his direction.

WIFOM. It's not particularly revealing on its own, but certainly worth noting.
He also continues to flesh out his suspicions of leet, making some decent points, but others that aren't so great and kind of reachy, particularly his points about leet and Day 2. His focus on leet continues in Post 80. In this as well, he clearly misinterprets or misrepresents leet's posts.
[/quote]
I don't see myself misinterpreting or misrepresenting leet's post in Post 80. In fact, I believe I adressed the scummiest post leet made. He makes the claim that his voting for me was based on opposing assumptions we had made throughout the game so far. This was not true and nowhere earlier had he even been close to operating with that in mind. My curiousity with Leet's early fascination with D-2 had little to do with my vote for him. That one is reachy taken on it's own. It's the false/insincere/invented/fantasy reasonings behind his voting for me (and keeping his vote there with little justification), the lack of un-voting justification, and his final post where he makes a distinct point of letting us know that he didn't know porochaz had unvoted before he did.
Can anyone answer my question about 'Why make that post, unless u are scum and have something to hide'?

There is also evidence of possible distancing from Erg0, which is worth noting if either of them turn up scum, especially in light of his WIFOM comment I quoted.

I'd say me and Ergo have been undistancing. What distancing tactics have we attempted to employ?

Well, it seems to me that Zeek's accusation of Ergo (based largely on his "sticking up" for me) can also be boiled down to WIFOM. I thought I detailed the basic outline for my choosing town for Ergo. It's the timing that makes little sense for a scum.

His latest post (a few posts above) is more on leet. To answer your question, CS, I think that leet's posts weren't inherently pro-town (that's not to say they were necessarily anti-town either), but it looks to me like you're jumping at them and trying to see them as only scummy, speculating a lot in the process. I can't speak on behalf of leet's actions, so unfortunately there isn't that much I can say in defense to your analysis. Despite this, I'm not suggesting that leet's posts shouldn't be used to judge me to a degree. But I am saying that I, personally, can't be held accountable for everything that he did, anti-town or pro-town.

I disagree, you are him and you are 100% accountable for everything he has done.
I am very close to re-voting.

As it stands, all I can say for near cerainty are a few pairings I find impossible.

Ergo and myself: All of the suspicions revolving around Ergo's alignment are based on the case that I am town, and he is buddying up to me. I don't see how this case can stand as scum bailing out scum.

Porochaz and myself: too early, too risky

Leet and Porochaz: also too blatantly coordinated

Ergo and Leet: I find it highly unlikely that Ergo (as scum) would help take the heat off of me and place his vote directly at his scum-buddy's feet. Although, leet has messed up pretty bad...so maybe later I'll reconsider this one.

Zeek and anyone: I can't find a single scummy morsel in Zeek's posts.

Peapod: leaning towards scum for no apparent reasons

Ripley: 100% unsure

[Civil Scum]

Leet's whole thing about assumptions opposite of assumptions which wasn't as scummy as it first appeared, makes no sense. My "assumptions" (ie-questions and problems with Leet's behavior) were the result of his votes and suspicions. Leet's voting and suspecting me precluded any and all of this. He claims that the source of his reasoning was something that came about as a direct result of his reasoining.

I guess I'm wondering,
Has anyone seen these types of things before from an overeager town newbie who doesn't know the game's pace, is not remiss to hop onto the first BW, and doesn't fear forming early conspiracy theories? Can the issues with Leet's (hence destructor's) be newb town?

The potential pairing is for the rest of u guys I suppose. Just stating (as destructor did) that Porochaz and I are an illogical scum pair. And Ergo and myself. I of course know these to be impossible

I have 100% no feeling either way on Ripley. 100% unsure.

I don't think I have enough information or read to throw two people together at this point. But for the sake of a permanent record,
If Leet=scum then I would be most wary of peapod
If Leet=Town then I would be most wary of Ergo

Of course by me or anyone listing these types of things before the fact, people's behavior can be adjusted.
If the two scum are not in these three, they could hop-on, get leet lynched (with mine and ergo's vote), kill the other townie at night, and I would be easily manipulated into voting for Ergo day-2. Everyone has their theories, and stating them can change/influence the scum's choices. Damn this game is complicated.

[Civil Scum]

Walls of text may be my bad. I guess I'm waiting for someone to find a way to cast leet\destructor's behavior in an unscummy light. Until someone shows me a way to view his actions as strange-newb-town, I don't think I can vote for anyone else.

Porochaz, you're awfully defensive and seem to take most comments as an attack on your civility. Not sure if this is a scum tell, as u also had a back-n'-forth with Zeek about posting habits (non-related game material) Anything thats makes you seem scummy to me completerly screws me up, because as I said I don't think poro and leet can both be scum.

All of my reasoning revolves around destructor's scumminess and this is sort of a problem.

[Civil Scum]

I just realized that something about destructor's PBPA really bothers me.

Any buddying up is purely incidental. Heh, anti-town. Why, exactly? Do you think CS is scum?

This was in response to destructor's first substantial post. Ergo's buddying up is arguably anti-town?
It's funny cause I got the general impression from destructor's post that he was suspicious of me.

Overall, after a questionable start, CS seems to be scum-hunting, though he's been focusing his hunt on my predecessor. I think this has been a significant part of his play this game and I wonder if my play will change this.

He views most of my early behavior as only scummy, then lastly says that I appear to be working for the town. I don't like this transition.
And also, if he is largely suspicious of me (Me and Ergo it looks like which is one of those pairings that must seem highly unlikely to most of you, I hope) then why in the world is he concerned with how his later play will affect my suspiicions of him?

Who cares about the suspicions of scum? He's suspicious of me, but hopes to change my mind. You got your work cut out. Can you cast the light by which leet's behavior is no longer scummy? You insist that I should go back and do this. But frankly I just don't know how. Show me.

[Civil Scum]

Bah

vote: destructor

[Civil Scum]

Porochaz wrote:
The "sure" comment was A. To keep the pressure on Civil and B. a slight mistake on my part showing my over keenness in the game...

I'm not sure (heh) how true both of these can be at the same time. I could understand A alone, but B implies that it had more to do with trigger-happiness than pressure tactics.

Porochaz's motivation for the sure comment was likely not to keep the pressure on me (the motivation he quickly offered). It was probably the overkeeness/triggerhappiness. It does sound disgenuine, but could be unwillingness to admit error. I don't view this as scummy neccesariuly coming from porochaz. I did stuff like this a lot in my first game just because I didn't want to look foolish or newbish at all.

CS wrote:
Leet goes on to invoke some strange/insincere reasoning as to why he no longer feels I am most suspicious. This looks a bit like justifying an unvote which would otherwise seem very suspect, and still does in my book.

Why do you think he would have wanted to find a reason to unvote you?

I think that when believeing you have a dead-lock on someone (me) and being concerned with D-2, you should have some justification for removing your vote. A simple unvote would have looked bad.
He obviously wanted to find a reason for unvoting me, other than the fact that the heat was coming off. His post letting us know that he in fact unvoted at the same time as Porochaz shows this. He wanted to find a reason, otherwise it looks bad. For scum or town I 'spose.

I can definitely appreciate your point about him potentially forgetting why his vote went on me in the first place. Perhaps I should have said 'remiss to stick with the first BW'. Anyways he Did place the first vote, but also kept it there on the basis of other people's arguments and didn't really add too much, so I'd say he found himself content with his orignial vote and hopped on board with other people's arguments. Post 66 still doesn't sit right with me.

That said, AGAIN, I can't wait to hear from garnasha, and I'd like to read destructor's posts again, I think he made several valid points.

Ripley: The content you've posted has been extremely helpful and often insightful. You are fencing it a little bit though. A tad noncommital. However, I do believe that your extended suspicions of our resident lurker might be on track.

Looking around for two people who have not attacked, or expressed suspicion of each other... besides me and Zeek. I just can't find him scummy. I'm interested to hear how him and I are linked in Garnasha's mind.

[Civil Scum]

But what I meant to ask was: why did he want to unvote? And want it badly enough to take the trouble to concoct a weak justification? Do you believe he would do that simply because he felt the momentum was moving away from you? Do you think he was lying when he said he hadn't seen Porochaz's unvote? If you look at the timing of the posts, I think it supports his version.

Well there's only two main categories why he'd want to unvote, depending on his alignment. 1-He's scum, the wagon was slowing, so rather than keeping it there and looking bad, he unvoted. 2-He's town, decided he thought I might be town, and unvoted to move on. There's a lot of other reasoning that could be involved in either case obviously, but I do believe it looks a bit like the lessening momentum (and not viewing my assumptions objectively) which led to his unvote.

I definitely do not think he was lying about the timing of the posts. I just find it curious that he would post immediately afterwards to let us all know that.
Why do that? He is very concerned with how his actions are percieved. This could be the result of people "pokling him" (ie-pointing out his tendency to fold/flop under pressure, Ergo stating that Leet keeping his vote on me while hovering doesn't sit right) but Iono about you, but as town I tend to just screw up and be slightly confused as to why I draw attention later. It's never, 'If I do this, will it look scummy' The effect of the guilty concience. It seems that he was quite aware/worried about appearing scummy.

As for Day-2. Looking there is great, sure. Asking for IC analysis and postulating on scum partners in the first two pages is notably strange.

I am a little more willing to lean in the neurotic newb-town direction. As poro pointed out earlier, Leet's reasoning was just plain weird. And maybe he is a touchy paranoid.

Ergo- I'd like to hear any sort of case someone could make on Ripley. I have gotten this general feeling, but I don't see much evidence. Besides his keeping his random vote. I think Ergo blew this out of porportion, considering that Ripley has explained it and it sounds legitimate.

Ergo, did you point a finger at Ripley just to do it? Or is there something else behind your suspicion, besides past game experience?

Garnasha doesn't convince me. Haven't heard from Zeek in a while.

[Civil Scum]

Weeeelllll, before anyone runs with that... the subtext was that I did have that general feeling. But, I'm not encouraging Ergo to make the case. I'd like to see if he can, cause otherwise I find it suspicious of him. That was the most anti-Ergo post I've made. That subtext was definitely your's Ripley. And if no one can make any sort of case (Ergo did blow the random vote point out of proportion) then I'd like to label you town for now. I echoed Ergo's ideas cause I had a similar feeling, not becuase I'm about to pounce on the case that gets made and make it my own.

Try and read my post with this in mind (if u want)->That I don't like the way Ergo brought that up (somewhat weakly) and says it's something he's seen from scum before. Just like Post 112 wherein he lists several things Leet had done which Ergo says he had seen from newb-scum beofre. This was of course his post re-voting Leet/Destructor "...to keep things moving at least a little bit while we wait." Right after he unvoted Leet while the replacement came in.

Sooo, anything BESIDES past game experience.
Ripley, you may have misunderstood my tone and intention, easily done with text.
I would prefer evidence to come from this game, and not general behavior observed from players not playing.

[Civil Scum]

I was asking anyone in the town, as well. I've been undecided on you all game, and no one has really taken suspicious of you at all.
An IC such as yourself can easily play a town-seeming game as scum (that'd be the point) SO, yes I would very much like to either be leaning (10% or so from 100% middle) towards scum if someone can make any sensible argument, or to be leaning town if no one can at the moment. I would like to hear from other players their opinions on your play so I can get you out of my gray gray area. This must certainly seem scummy. The sole act of Ergo explaining my odd-process is WIFOM. It doesn't say anything about either of us. Of course there is much to the situation aside from the actual act (which really if u go back, it was not a defense in and of itself.)

Civil Scum has gone up quite a few notches on my scale of suspicion. Also, I haven't forgotten how Erg0's helped him out and explained his motives for him, and how CS has twice gone out of his way to point out what an unlikely scum pair they must obviously seem, to the rest of us.

Yeah, no motives. Not just that though, Ergo wasn't explaining my "motives" (as previously discussed in the thread) - he fleshed out my usage of the word obligated and then the asking poro but not leet to unvote thing he got right too. I wasn't thinking about why I handled it like that at the time, and I wasn't worried about how it would look. It was just how I worked.

Ripley expressed general suspicion of Leet early, but remains "tunnel-visioned" on peapod/garnasha until he can misread one and disgustingly insinuate that Ergo and I are both scum. I thought Ripley was waiting for Garnasha to find some way to "apologize" for peapod's absence.

Ripley, you obviously have me and Ergo in mind, or else you wouldn't have interpreted my post that way. You definitely went up on my scale of panties in a bunch/overreaction.

[Civil Scum]

I actually unvoted Zeek in 102, and said that I would vote leet if he wasn't being replaced. After giving it a couple of days I decided not to wait any longer.

True

I'm not about to put Ergo at L-1. But I don't get why he has now removed his vote for leet, while being apparently suspicious of Poro and Ripley. Becuase he doesn't seem to have a case against either.

unvote

[Civil Scum]

My vote on leet was based on leet's actions. destructor (eventually) satisfied me that he was acting in a pro-town manner, hence my unvote. I'm just probing at the moment, prior to deciding where my vote is best placed.

Destructor has made two main posts (albeit excellent ones) which do a very good job of exploring what has gone on so far. I am unsure as to why you call this acting in a pro-town manner. Just about anyone (& obviously destructor is a bit seasoned) who replaces like this goes with a PBPA. I just see this as something he would have had to have done, especially coming in under fire. If he had come in as scum, he wouldn't have posted along similar lines.

A quick note: if you expect everyone to always give a detailed case before voting, you're in for a great deal of disappointment in the future. There are quite a few players on this site that deliberately don't state cases most of the time. Finding the balance on that issue is one of the key things that will help you to develop your playstyle.

Okay, but uh at this point I don't see how you can expect to convince anyone to go along with you if you don 't make a case at all. Are others supposed to just take your word for it and trust your experience/instinct? This unvote and vaguely signaling your suspicion of Ripley make it appear as if you believe Ripley's leaving his random vote on our lurker is the scummiest thing anyone has done.

Really, I think Ergo would have been mistaken as scum to explain my odd behavior in the on the first page. Maybe he did err. Maybe (since the defense was incidental) he didn't expect his actions would do so much to direct the focus off of me.

I got the general sense from Ripley's behavior that his stance on me was town. He kind of misread a post of mine and flipped out. It's almost as if he wanted to take the first whack at a nail in my head, and then step out (less posting) while someone else drives it through. This would be consistent with his play so far.

I'm tempted to vote garnasha "to keep things moving while we wait" but that would be ridiculous.

[Civil Scum]

EBWOP:

If he had come in as scum, he wouldn't have posted along similar lines? (rhetorical)

[Civil Scum]

well, couldn't sleep so great so this is what u get. Ihope Garnasha compains about the wall. In retrospect this may be my last game here on Mafiascum although I think it's great. But I had no idea it can become so time-consuming.

And I might as well go out trying to take down an IC. Here comes my slingshot...

But anyway...Civil Scum, why do you seem worried about having two votes on you? You're pretty safe, as Porochaz said. Unless you're actually scum and you think we're already on your trail?

This first part she is echoing Porochaz's post saying that L-2 this early is not all that dangerous becuase of how bad two quick votes will look. She seems to understand that a quick-mafia lynch push is a very risky move for scum.

L-1 should be avoided in early game because L-1 possibly = an early lynch = little information = disadvantageous for the town.

Unvote for now because I don't see any point in keeping it there.

Will be back later with something more meaningful, 'cause I'm not feeling too hot right now.

Few posts later, she seems to not understand the point. But claims that what she is doing/going to do is in the town's best interest. And garnasha is also posting excuses and interesting threats.

The first game I played, a relatively seasoned player did the whole fencing "on the wall" someone called it, uncertain game the whole time and largely escaped suspicion until Day-2 when the "straw-man" argument that that's what he had been doing to avoid recieving attention surfaced hours before the deadline. He got lynched on this general feeling and was scum. Not to rely on past experience here (As I said I'd like not to) but I can see some validity to the point that not all cases need to be constructed with evidence when the basic aim of scum is to not create a trail.
(In live games, a person could be hard pressed by several people at once about why they weren't voting or why they remained consistently on one person's case, and they can't go in the bathroom for two days)
It is quite reasonable that an IC scum can avoid all suspicion D-1 simply by playing it safe and acting/reasoning rationally without making any of the mistakes that draw attention in newbie games.

In Post 30, Ripley's response to leet is interesting. A Pre-empting the game he intends to play.

Porochaz: you said on page 1 you were "sure" Civil Scum was scum. This seems remarkably early to reach such a decision. Has your opinion wavered at all?

A good question. He doesn't follow this up at all though, or delve any deeper. Perhaps cause Porochaz's conviction wavered in about 10 posts. As I said earlier though, I believe this looks town coming from Porochaz.

This strikes me as a really strange remark by CS. (refering to my comment about panicky noob/corneered scum, I don't see how this is evidence) He seems to be saying "You can't tell whether I'm a worried scum or a panicky newb, so that's an end to it; move along, please." What, exactly, do you expect in the way of evidence on Day 1? Nobody except the scum knows anything beyond their own role. It's basically guesswork, guesswork that's as intelligent as possible, based on what we can figure out from people's posts. The posts are the evidence. We have to interpret it as best we can. If we discarded everything that couldn't be proved, we might as well give up.

Later, Ripley says something to the effect that my early foul-ups were simply unfortunate distractions that didn't produce any results.

I think CS caused unnecessary confusion by describing his vote on leetonicon as "obligatory" without at the time explaining what he meant by that. I don't blame Zeet for misunderstanding. I don't think this issue is going to be helpful towards finding scum. It was just a distraction.

Except this is where a lot of the suspicions about Ergo are arising, someone Ripley has on and off attacked without switching his vote or FOS'ing. Which is quite odd becuase Ergo might be the only person Ripley hasn't tried to link with Peapod. I take that back->He does (for the echoing) but goes along with the idea that it says more about Peapod than Ergo. The strangest behavior arising from Peapod->yet the weakest scummy-link Ripley assigns to it. An un-involved/weak/distanced attack? No not from Ripley.

I agree that if CS's concern was, specifically, that he didn't want to be on two votes, there was no logical reason to address one voter in particular. An unvote from either of them would have been just as good. Obviously people often don't behave in a perfectly logical fashion even when they're town, but I think it was a worthwhile observation by Zeek.

Erg0 wrote:
CS's phrasing was half-joking (he referred to Porochaz's random reasoning regarding his civility) and his OMGUS vote was on the first voter, not the second. It's not like he didn't mention leetonicon at all in the post.

Yes, but he subsequently told us the vote on leetonicon was an automatic vote arising from a self-imposed obligation, which makes it pretty much meaningless. (How far does this obligation go? Suppose somebody had stuck a third vote on immediately after Porochaz's, accompanied by another witty crack about Civil Scum's civilly scummy name. Would CS have stuck to his rule and OMGUS voted the first voter rather than the third?)

The subtext I find in the first part of this post is, I am not willing to find this scummy and am keeping distant. ->even when they're town. He points out that it's an interesting and good observation from Zeek->which it was.

This last part (as Ergo mentioned) is not very useful. In fact there was little point to this post besides seeing if somone else will run with my case while RIpley plays outfield.

It's after I mention Ripley and Peapod as lurkers (wrong on Ripley admittedly)
that Ripley goes on his own little crusade. He first and foremost uses it to implicate me in a scheme I apparently concocted to goad Peapod into action without singling her out. The later connections with which he tries to implicate everyone's dealings with Peapod are notable.

In response to some questions peapod asked about why my behavior was "SCUMMY"

Any kind of behavior that seems unnatural, illogical, perplexing, inconsistent or just slightly odd is always worth noting, as is behavior that seems nervy or an over-reaction. You can't always neatly summarise such an observation with a precise account of what the person stood to gain from this behavior if they were scum. Scum don't by any means always behave rationally, especially if they're a bit nervous. Lots of these leads eventually lead nowhere; it doesn't mean they weren't worth pointing out.

An aside-in favor of my townieness->What could I possibly have gained from my whacked-out behavior on page 1?

Nervous behavior is particularly interesting, because although nobody likes to be in danger of getting lynched, and it's possible that a new player might get nervous on two votes, scum are basically more nervous than townies to start with. That's the effect of a guilty conscience.

Alright, slight hint at portraying my behavior as scummy

peapod wrote:
I really have nothing significant to add to the CS conversation because the issues have already been throughly explored. Over-explored, if you ask me.

Can you suggest something you think we'd have done better to explore?

Civil Scum wrote:
I'm admittedly glad that Ergo is sticking up for me so readily, I doubt a scum would come to my aid in explaining what I have tried to. It is coordinated, but for me this makes me lean town in his direction.

Scum buddying up to a townie is the oldest trick in the book. If you're town, you can see by your own reaction here how well it has worked. Erg0 has gained your support, which will be valuable if you survive. If you don't survive he looks good for sticking his neck out to support a townie who was under pressure. I'm not saying Erg0 is scum; he could perfectly well be genuine. But you should be aware of the dangers of assuming anyone is town for this reason.

I go on to explain why I felt it was bad decision making on Ergo's part to do this right then (an explaination which Ripley did little to explore, before "well you never let me down...etc etc)
Early in the post, Ripley startes off with a kind of shy/coy insinuation about how OTHER LESS EXPERIENCED PLAYERS COULD EASILY BE VIEWING MY BEHAVIOR.
Yet, it's the wording at the end that is a little strage, and from this point on Ripley definitely seems like he's leaning towards townie for me. Post 92 especially, his observations about leet/porochaz and Ergo in this post and elsewhere all stem from an assumption of my innocence.

Post 103

Erg0 wrote:
Also, I have a question for anyone that cares to answer it: Is it scummy to ask the second voter to unvote you but not the first? If so, why?

You're just going over old ground here. peapod already covered this in post 60:

peapod wrote:
So why is the OMGUS vote scummy?
So why is asking someone to unvote twice scummy?
So why is his ignoring leet scummy?

I replied to that:

Ripley wrote:
Any kind of behavior that seems unnatural, illogical, perplexing, inconsistent or just slightly odd is always worth noting, as is behavior that seems nervy or an over-reaction. You can't always neatly summarise such an observation with a precise account of what the person stood to gain from this behavior if they were scum. Scum don't by any means always behave rationally, especially if they're a bit nervous. Lots of these leads eventually lead nowhere; it doesn't mean they weren't worth pointing out.


Do you disagree with this? And why are you bringing this up again now - is it just because destructor mentions it in his summary? You've already complained that this point has received too much attention, and really you set that in motion yourself with post 38.

Also, this is a second example of peapod and Erg0 saying very similar things (the first was noted by destructor in post 118) - despite peapod having at this stage posted more excuses than content.

Civil Scum wrote:
With destructor leaning slightly in Ergo's direction (who is currently at L-2) and Ripley being suspicious of destructor (L-2), we appear to have two non-incestuous BW's.

Ah, incest rearing its ugly head again. Actually your unvote reduced destructor to a single vote, and Erg0 is voting destructor which, as I understood it at least, is incestuous, and I was quite suspicious of both leet and Erg0, though slightly less so now of destructor.

Quite suspicious of both leet and Ergo...yet voting for peapod until she stops lurking. Suddenly Ripley saying that leaving his random vote was not random, and that he has been concerned with peapod's civility this entire time, rings very hollow indeed.

Whether peapod thought she had requested replacement or not, she clearly said on Thursday that she intended to play on. She said she would "do my best to be an active member." which sounds despressingly half-hearted. Still waiting for some content from you, peapod.

Again, quite hollow.

From this point on he tends to attack garnasha for his play-style/or lack thereof.

Post 17-> Cs seems more unsettled than he should be.
Post 30-> Says again I'm panicky, questions Porochaz about being sure (an odd thing to say which I originally pointed out)
Post 41-> Says I am behaving very strangely, but wont commit to it being too scummy, perhaps letting others run with it and suggesting that it is probably not worth a vote. He probably knows I'm town, from where I'm sitting, and likely does not expect the wagon to get me and his intention from that view is obviously never to vote me or attack me directly.
Post 56->Links peapod and me, drops it, comes back to it later when I mention it (quite defensively I might add)
Post 61 ->My behavior COULD be over-nervousness caused by my being scum and having a guilty concience.
Post 73 ->Links Poro-Peapod
Post 92->Agrees GENERALLY with my points on Leet (but doesn't do anthing about it), begins distanced/uninvolved probing of Ergo
Post 130-> Was suspiciouds of Leet & Ergo, less os of destructor
Post 139 -> Expands on a point of destructors which makes Ergo look bad. He does a lot here (and elsewhere) to cast suspicion and damage people's credibility, but never exactly takes the reings.
Post 167 -> Complains about Garnasha's complaints (strawmanning anyone?) yet primarily quotes Ergo and me.
Post 175-> focuses again largely on Ergo and continues straw-manning Garnasha
Post 181 -> I find it highly interesting that Ripley's response to my "gut-feeling" post was one so full of fervor. His response to my feeling post was entirely one which appealed to feeling. Humorous, derisive...all feel.
Post 186 -> Back-steps on his shotgun-blast (as expected) but doesn't back all the way up.

So, Garnasha and Ripley stand out to me as a distinct possibility. I wonder if anyone will agree that the most blatant instance(s) of distancing have involved Ripley and our resident lurker. It's been nothing but wily distancing and an oddly kept vote, it does seem odd to me now as do lot's of Ripleys dealings with peapod/garnasha amidst such other commotions.

Or Ripley and leet. Ripley had done little to pursue leet, and was even the one to shed his cleansing light. Although the motivation behind Leet letting us all know that the unvote was simultaneous has yet to be explained reasonably.

Ripley defended leet's behavior after the fact/after the HEAT! Doesn't defend him prolly cause Leet did look kind of bad and Ripley wasn't going to stick his neck out for him when he gets hung and turns up scum. But now destructor sits town with Ripley, and he is more than happy to use destructors points to incessantly drill Ergo, while keeping his vote on Garnasha.

I'll probably go on to vote Ripley sometime in the near future, and the second of the two above scenarios seems much more plausible.

[Civil Scum]

That's fair I guess. Although, just becuase his posts have been sensible thus far does not make them town.

I'm actually leaning more towards Ripley/Destructor, for buddying up after the heat is off and seeking to get either Ergo or garnasha lynched wihtout voting. Ergo has been pretty calm considering he's been at L-2 for quite some time.

I've also disagreed with every point Ripley makes about Porochaz. The Sure comment, and his generous labeling of peapod as town. Ripley insists they are odd, and tries to cast them in a negative light. I've been quite vocal that I believe these two things specifically fall easiest into the category of over-keeness.

Ripley is quick to tell me that I am making a mistake to be unable too look past leet's scumminess to view Porochaz as scum. But poro hasn't seemed all that scummy. Ripley drops hints on him, but neevr really engages or fleshes them out. Suggesting only that I examine porochaz, in a way that seems like a subtle defense of destructor.

Notable is Ripley's Post 92, where he agrees with me on leet, and then spends the last considerable part of the post distracting with a fancy (some rhetoric) attack on Ergo.

[Civil Scum]

For clarification, my post 200 was in response to Ergo's post right before mine.

->Yes, Ripley has had some posts which serve essentially no purpose from a practical town stand point.

When he says he was most suspicious of leet and ergo there was never any conneciton he hinted at ever up to that point. He's only been linking people directly with peapod.

Ergo and leet as scum partners would be a notable coordination as one voted and attacked me early while the other defended(for lack of a word for incidental defense) me. But this is never explored.

Ripley, who are u going to vote for next?

[Civil Scum]

Ripley, I guess my point is that this "general" feeling exists for very certain reasons. This is how you've been playing. Your style as town or scum, I'm not sure.

Your accuasation of me after last pages post does wreak of OMGUS, only without a vote. You've also been quite content with attacking Ergo but not voting.

Since the two votes on Ergo are Poro and Zeek, I am practically convinced that they are both town.

[Civil Scum]

Funny you should make that first point Ripley. I was just thinking today that you would probably bring up my timing of the post as deliberate since I knew you were away. I was going to say something about it, until you did.

I actually didn't have that in mind. I do like that u used it as a weak focal point for establishing my character and damageing your credibility.

You don't accuse me of scumminess here, even though I basically outlined THE GENERAL FEELING THING->which led to me and Ergo being scum just posts ago.

I would say this might be yoiur style, except you insist a large part of your play is a suspicion of peapod, and before you were yelling that anyone who viewed your play as non-committal, low-key, deliberately careful
Viewing this all, I'd say it does look like your intention is to stay out of the light and conceal your identity.

Newb-scum->Panicky behavior nervous behavior maybe
IC-scum-> Wouldn't suprise me if it's something we don't have right here. Completely obscured motivations, rhetoric, little "evidence".

U see how I work now? Hilarious. I'm running a campaign? I'm justing showing why we have had a hard time placing your alignment (a similar sentiment shared by several players)

The words I used were mine. Everyone else can go back and examine your play and see if they find the same things. The reasons u gave for playing like this just don't match/add-up. And now, having gone and found where this general feeling came from (which Ripley insisted I do) Ripley has changed his song from ->Hot damn WOW look at Ergo and CS as scum buddies with their general feeling. to-> CS is on a bending words campaign. But not scummy now? hmm

Peapod parroted poro, leet, ergo, her behavior doesn't say anything about any other player. She was just not playing. And to say, 'well if she is scum then she was probably repeating what her scum buddy (Ergo) said' is just stupid.

Garnasha probably wouldn't come in like he did if he picked up the scum role. WIFOM maybe, but what else do we have to go on there really.

The thing with Zeek and Poro keeping their votes on Ergo, and his being at L-2 for so long, and so much attack but no FOS no voting, leads me to believe Zeek and Poro are town, as well as Ergo. I don't have time to go into this, gotta study for a test. Let's just call it a feeling for now.

vote:Ripley

For firing a OMGUS (and are scummy as hell) cannon when I talked about a general feeling shared by myself and others. And then firing a 'Ur just a word-twisting asshole' cannon when I fleshed out where this feeling was coming from.

FOS: Destructor

Leet's behavior was exceptionally scummy, and no one has yet to explain why in the world he would feel the need to let us know that he and Poro actually unvoted simultaneously. Destructor hasn't done much to convince me he's town. But his posts are sensible and reasoned.

[Civil Scum]

Poro-> I would be careful.

Ripley just did it again. Nowhere in his last post does he cast my behavior in a scummy light. He's once again allowing other people to do it. There's nothing scummy about this. He's insisting that I'm going out with a bang (as town trying to take down an IC). I wouldn't be going out trying to fool people into voting for town. It's not contempt for 'people who are trying to play a reasoned game' -to paraphrase our wise leader, and it's not just that I may not play again. I'd actually really like to, some other day maybe when I have the time.

He doesn't accuse me of scumminess at all the second time around. Can u see any problem with this?

He claimed that he wasn't being indecisive, that he was suspicious of peapod/garnasha this entire time, but now he makes it sound like his play this game resulted from finding everyone suspicious.

You're the scalp in his campaign so far if u ask me.

[Civil Scum]

EBWOP
There's nothing scummy about this --->meaning about what I've done->which is explain to Ripley and everyone else where the uncertainty on Ripley is coming from. And fine, the point on Leet I'll drop. His other behavior early was still incredibly suspect, and the fact that Ripley has been the only one to defend him now (the only person Ripley has defended) AFTER THE HEAT AFTER HE GENERALLY AGREES WITH ME IN ONE SENTENCE IN THE MIDDLE OF A LONG POST IN WHICH HE IMMEDIATELY CHANGES THE SUBJECT TO Ergo AND NEVER COMES BACK TO LEET AND CONTINUES GOING AFTER Ergo WHILE SAYING HE IS MOST SUSPICIOUS OF PEAPOD. Does anyone else think there's anything to this?

Don't be the scalp Poro.

Of course practically the entire case against Ergo rests on my civility. I'm just going to stop posting until everyone's had a say. This is either going to go really bad or really well.

[Civil Scum]

Okay, christ, last one. To be fair and accurate->Ripley did address Leet's odd behavior with more than a sentence in Post 90. But to be accurrate and fair, he really never comes back to it. It is around this point when his feelings and reasoning around me seem very town-orientated (treating me as town).

->This is also when he says

On to Erg0.

Erg0 wrote:
The overreaction aspect has been well explored, I didn't see a need to throw my two cents in as well at that point, because CS was already under plenty of pressure and I wasn't going to put him at lynch-1 for it. The appropriate thing to do at that point was look around for other topics of conversation.

Ah, the power of words. Is there any practical difference between "looking around for other topics of conversation" and "trying to change the subject"? Yet one sounds so much sneakier than the other.

The power of words indeed.
Someone said they appreciated Ergo's point about other topics of conversation. This is important. People's reactions to having a player at L-2, L-1 are arguably as important or more so than the reactions of the person in danger. Discussing other topics is undoubtedly town-favorable that early on. Especially when the person in danger is thought to be town (which is certainly the read/handle I have on Ripley's thoughts on me at this point in the game) !!!

Soooo, why does Ripley attack Ergo for doing something pro-town here. If he does not find me very suspicious at this point then how is Ergo's "changing the subject" something sneaky? We would both have to be scum in Ripley's mind for that part of the post to even make sense. My answer is that it was a snide/word bending attempt at damaging Ergo's credibility. It served no purpose beyond that, and quite literally did not make sense.
What's your answer?
(again if u read the thread his reasonings do operate with an assumption of my innocence)->In this same post he says my describing my vote as obligatory wasn't helpful in finding scum...there are a host of other places as well.

An OMGUS vote from a newb (me) in the first two pages was seen as scummy.
Soooo, how are we supposed to view an IC's (Ripley) Post 181! It is basically OMGUS on page 8!!! Honestly, like what in the hell!?

And back to leet real quick. The post in which he unvtoes, he "clearly" lays out his reasoning for unvoting. If those reasons had been genuine you'd think one would let them stand as the reasons why you removed your vote. If they were contrived then you might be more worried about your unvote. It's obviously a weak case. And I wouldn't vote leet before Ripley hangs.
Okay now I'm quiet. Keep twisting Ripley.Give me some spin!

[Civil Scum]

Ergo, that was just to say that if Ripley manages to get me lynched here, and u survive the night, then town is probably screwed.

[Civil Scum]

This baffles me even more. If you're going to infer any meaning at all from this situation, where a player is at L-2 for a while without any apparent interest from other players in furthering the case, surely the meaning you would infer is the precise opposite of what CS says here. If the scum have made no move to advance a promising bandwagon, the likeliest reasons are that they're on the bandwagon already, or that the person being voted is scum.

Uh, you left out a third equally feasible reason. And you were trying to advance the BW, only without ever voting.

Ignore the damn words. "Changing the subject", sneaky? Ergo generating discussion on other topics resulting in taking heat off of a townie (Ripley's read on me at the point when he said that) is something bad?
Ripley's behavior is scummy as hell.

Back with more on some of the other quesitons, and to adress other players besides Porochaz who seems to have made up his mind here. "...the evidence suggests he has gone too far to be a deluded townie"->Okay, what does that even mean? What evidence? Please justify your case before accepting Ripley's crap logic case.

->How is the case crap logic? Ergo mentioned something he noticed (several people have said they had a difficult time placing Ripley), Ripley told me to look into it myself. I did, and I think there is enough evidence to warrant a vote (hence in my mind a lynch). I'm not saying the case is water-tight, but an OMGUS on 181? Several posts and remarks serving no purpose other than to damage people. Making things seem scummy and suspicious, but never following up. 'Look at CS begging for someone to go after Ripley' Ripley's done this with practically every half-assed finger he's pointed all game.

Oh, and your overreacting again as soon as someone puts pressure on you

Great. That's good evidence. I'd still say I'm attacking more than defending. If u think before u vote u should think before u post.

[Civil Scum]

Reading the post from Ripley's game makes me think. I'd hope he would admit I made a better effort than this Turbovolver guy who jsut quotes one large section and makes one smart ass remark. Also my points have some sense of cohesion and progress somewhat logically.

That said, Turbo's overall commentary, near the end of the post about asking questions and never following up, not voting, etc. are on the whole the same general things I am looking at.

I may have to reconsider my vote on Ripley (PLEASE note this is not becuase I am just giving up becuase I don't think it's going to go anywhere) but rather becuase I would like to give this more careful consideration.

I don't like that Porochaz has just out and out voted for me asking Ripley to "prove" his case by doing likewise and ZZZZ'ing. Screw that.

I'm still leaning heavily towards town for both Zeek and Ergo. Ergo's interactions with Zeek early on do not appear disgenuine and once again I think Zeek would get my nomination for 100% town if such an award existed. The whole crap logic voting case is interesting and I'll take a look at it. Poro was "sure" I was mafia on a relatively weak case (ie-that I was doing weird shit on the first two pages) and tyhen on Ergo on the basis that he might be buddying up (a large part of the case on Ergo-true?) and now on me again.

I would also like to object to the deadline until we have the input of Garnasha and Destructor.
I'd also like to

[Civil Scum]

I was using 'civility' to mean innocence.

I may be able to get behind a garnasha lynch, although if he is town I think it kind of blows that we had to just go with the lynch becuase of lack of content, but Ripley and Zeek make perfect sense as to why this might be the best option.

In his game CS got himself lynched D1 despite being town. I'm mildly surprised he hasn't mentioned that, actually. CS, a question: could you briefly summarise what you did wrong to get yourself strung up in that game. Actually, 2 questions: did you set out to play differently in this game as a result of what happened in that one?

Uhh, I said some really stupid stuff. lol. I "defended" someone who had messed up early when a replacement came in and put her at L-1. I thought it was odd that Claus replaced and threw his vote on Banshee first post. She'd been at L-2 for a while, but no one had done it. It was gonna look like bussing from a townie or a scum.

So I started saying stuff that didn't make any sense and continually tried to explain that it was newb antics and not scum tells. My whole defense rested on the point that in the game I could really only be scum if I had seriously been trying to bail her out.

I wouldn't say I've set out to play real differently. I planned on using less sarcasm, cause it doesn't translate in print so well. I also got tunnel visioned in that game when I thought I had the scum-pair figured. Something I've certainly done here. I've been trying to make better sense, but I really don't have a good grasp of how to build a case online and convince other's that my suspicions are credible. Frankly, I do odd things and that somehow becomes me being scum.
Oh, I also lied and backtracked! Oops! I haven't lied about motivations or backtracked this game. I learned one lesson atleast.

->After a lot of evidence that appeared scummy, the scum in that game continued to use a paper thin argument against me. The scum L-1'd AND hammered me, and went on to win.

[Civil Scum]

K another thing, Quote:
The thing with Zeek and Poro keeping their votes on Ergo, and his being at L-2 for so long, and so much attack but no FOS no voting, leads me to believe Zeek and Poro are town, as well as Ergo. I don't have time to go into this, gotta study for a test. Let's just call it a feeling for now.

Apart from the general feeling thing which so annoys the hell out of me you then say this:Quote:
Ergo, that was just to say that if Ripley manages to get me lynched here, and u survive the night, then town is probably screwed.

Why? I am trying to think of a situation where this statement wouldn't contradict the one above but I cant think of one. The only clear situation I can think of is that you are now saying erg0's scum. If you truely are town, then isn't that going to cast Ripley in a bad light? Do you not think that we may think before we vote?

Yes, it WOULD have casted Ripley in a bad light, maybe not so much now. Yes, it's just a feeling. You seem confident that my feeling would be sufficient to prove Ripley is scum should I be lynched. It would look bad for both Ripley and Ergo. This is of course my view, I don't see how you would be willing to go along with this Day-2 when it turns out I was just a deluded townie.

Lets face it, you could of probably guessed that today (day 1 not today today) I was always going to vote for you or Erg0.

I don't believe this.
At any rate it doesn't seem very pro-town.

Erg0 I feel has been scummy but has fallen out of my radar recently. His scumminess is largely based round CS, is my thought and I'm interested to see his play if your not around. You however have done little to improve my situation with you since our argument on page 1 and I see no reason not to lynch you now.

Ergo's scumminess is largely based around me in what sense? That he defended me early? What does it say about either of our guilt/innocence? A lot of the Ergo being a suspect sprung from his play with Zeek not me. Did u even read the portion of the thread which you've based your undying suspicion of Ergo on? And once I'm "not around" Ergo's treatment of my early foul ups will still be a factor.

Other players: Whilst me Ripley and CS could rant with each other till deadline, it takes 4 to vote so we need your input as well, so what are your opinions, it doesnt have to be about this, although it could be useful, it could be about anything you find scummy. For example. Zeek do you still find Erg0 scummy? Garn, bald yet? Feel up to doing a PBPA yet? or maybe just a view on the situation at hand. Destructor, how do you feel about the whole Ripley/yourself pairing? Erg0, you posted recently (well actually everyone apart from destructor has posted in some form or another) got anymore feelings/views yet?

Good questions. Will the answers actually affect your play at all?

Porochaz seems more suspect to me with every post.

[Civil Scum]

Well, now you're still sure (sort of?) that I am scum but will be willing to go along and lynch someone else if need be. Who's crap logic case will u follow I wonder? I hope you don't vote for peapod/garnasha cause I'm pretty sure she's town, but not 100%

Your strange methods are becoming less likely to be explained by over-keeness. Trigger-happy? Deadline, ahhh!

unvote

[Civil Scum]

Honestly, wtf poro.

You know Im actually considering unvoting you, why? because what Ripley said about twisting posts its true. You couldnt get a solid enough case against him for other people to back up so your moving onto other people, me. Making you look more like deluded townie rather than scum.

Alright!

Not that Im actually going to change my vote, I just seem to notice your following Ripleys thoughts about you a little to well and obviously.

Umm, okay. Sort of a contradiction in two sentences, but okay. I just looked at the game and saw the same type of behavior from Ripley that I see here.

And also, u followed Ripley's thoughts too (str8 into a wall), then concluded that my thoughts on Ripley would be more accurate if I was lynched as town. Then u sort of follow Ripley's thoughts here about the deluded townie thing, but then...

I see you as my first choice, the person I find most scummiest...

I have no idea what to make of this. You're not making any sense. And this recent thing between Ripley and I has you all up in a knot about proof in D-2. Isn't the
No case for anyone has changed your mind about Ergo and I-> u said so yourself.
Of course, little case can be made for destructor or garnasha. Who are u gonna change your mind to? Zeek, nah. Ripley, nah. And who else...

Oh that's right Ergo and I are scum, you said so yourself. Look out for the wall bud!

[Civil Scum]

Well, sorry to throw more crap onto this page. I find it quite unfortunate that we have essentially played a 5 1/2 - person game.

Porochaz wrote:
He may not like your playing style but it jut smells newbie scum screaming for a way out rather than overconfident townie who thinks people with a different playing style are all scum.

Yes - but screaming for a way out of what? He wasn't in any particular trouble by that stage.

My exact thoughts when I read that statement by Poro.

The uncertainty on Ripley's civility is becuase of his scum-hunting playstyle. If he can play so similarly as to raise suspicions for this same stuff when he is actually scum, then kudos to him. I didn't like the OMGUS in Post 181. I thought all of it was a little scummy, and the OMGUS irked me to the point I'd might as well point out where this feeling comes from.

But it appears to be a matter of style, and I believe it would be difficult for Ripley's scum-play to be so identical to his town play, that he draws the same attention.

Poro: Erg0 mentioned something recently that I agree with, "voting a player based on someone else's bad case is apparently a very reliable scumtell". CS began his campaign against me very shortly after this, and his case on me was so bad that actually for a while I did consider the possibility that he was staging it as a trap to try and lure someone into supporting it, in which case he'd have turned around and said "gotcha; it was obviously a fabricated load of tosh".

Very interesting. Ergo kind of set up to go along, and retracted it after I posted some reductive goop. But I also believe it is feasible that he was genuinely suspicious of your play at that point.

If voting someone based on someone else's bad case is a good scum-tell then...
Probably Porochaz gets the gold medal.
->Goes with weak evidence on me. FoS's Leet on my case. Votes Ergo on Zeek's case. Accepts Ripley's "case" on my scumminess recently. Basically tells me that I have nothing to worry about if I am town 'cause then Ripley looks so bad. Retroactively going to accept my bad case on Ripley only after I'm show to be town?-> My case is just as valid/invalid with me alive or dead. If my case isn't strong enough for Poro to vote for RIpley D-1, then why D-2.

There's a lot of other things I don't like/am picking up about Poro's posts, but to expand on them not with two absentees moments before deadline would be a waste of everyone's time and energy. But fot the sake of a record,

vote: garnasha

Unfortunate, but there's nothing he can say or do that would make me think it worthwhile to keep him around. REGARDLESS OF HIS ALIGNMENT

He tried to get things going back on destructor at a strange time in a strange way and I have a sneaking suspicion that he could very well be scum.

[Civil Scum]

Everyone has expressed a lack of suspicion in Zeek. His methods haven't felt at all scummy to me.

For reasons (beyond scumminess) which Zeek and Ripley pointed out, I believe it is in the town's best interest to lynch Garnasha regardless of his alignment. With a deadline approaching I don't see much of a point of making an argument and tyring to get three more people behind it in 3! days.

I can't BW myself, and if no one can make a good scummy case in 3 days, I don't see why we shouldn't just lynch Garnasha and be done with it.

In the most simple terms:
My flip-flop on peapod/garnasha, just like my other feelings of "Certainty" about people came about based on who I was viewing as scummy. My convictions on other potential scum and scum partners produced my feelings on garnasha, and also Zeek and Poro being town with their votes on Ergo-town.

After becoming quite convinced that RIpley is innocent, my entire view of the game changed. Now that I am becoming suspicious of Poro and to a lesser extent Ergo (based on Garnasha's alignment) my read on other players changed dramatically, literally overnight as I reworked "likely" scenarios and pairings.

OF FUCKING COURSE my flip-flop is not based on anything Garnasha has done->he hasn't done anything.

Re-evaluating my suspicions of Ripley and destructor (who I am starting to believe is town) has changed how I am viewing the entire game. It was an instantaneous change of "heart" based on letting go of other suspicions, which ionvolved large frameworks of who, what, when, why!?

My suspicions or lackj thereof of most of the players are absed on my views on one or two people-> a serious deficit and also what has caused my reasoning to become so wishy-washy.

I think Poro reaks right now, and has for sometime-> but I was first unabl;e to get past leet to see it. I was viewing Ripley's non-commital attitude as scummy which led to some strange reasoning as to why Ergo, Zeek, and Poro were town-> something I'll never expand upon now that I believe Ripley is town.

Poro reaks, but Garnasha not being killed now and not being nightkilled (if we don't lynch him and he is a townie who doesn't get NK'd) could really make things difficult in D-2.

My "reads" nad feelings on most players this game have been products of the suspects and pairings I've been looking at. When these change, my stance on other players changes.

What else do I have to go on with Garn or Destructor?

[Civil Scum]

Does my previous Post satisfactorily explain why I'm vote and suspicion hopping and changing opinions on people?

Vote: Civil Scum. I'm going to check back once I can get on the comp again, if someone else said I should be lynched regardless of alignment before he did then that person of course is going to get my vote. Especially if that person didn't vote me and used flawed logic to make a seemingly good case.

Jumping on the impending BW? Ripley suggested the idea that lynching u regardless of alignment would not neccesarily be anti-town AND he didn't vote. I don't see how that makes him scummy->which u imply here.

It's not a logical case as to why u are scum, it is just a contigency plan to keep u from screwing up D-2 like D-1. How's your brother doing?

However, with the deadline approaching, I am thinking maybe I should change my vote to Garnasha. With all things considered, I would be more satisfied with a Garnasha lynch than anyone else. Even though, as I said, I find erg0 scummy, and am really wondering about CS again (especially due to his recent crusade against Ripley for no apparent reason)... I think the safest bet is Garnasha.

Quoted for truth.

I agree with Zeek's arguments as to why Garnasha is a good bet for lynching, and would do so even if my own vote weren't on him. When a game is deadlined I look at this kind of thing a lot. A player like Garnasha, if town, is unlikely to be nightkilled, so if he's not lynched today and we lynch wrong, tomorrow we're very probably in a lylo situation with a player we know almost nothing about. With so little from him OR peapod in the way of interactions with or opinions on other players, we'd have a real problem. Whereas if we lynch Garnasha, either he's scum, or else we can at least rule out all the possible scum pairings that would have included him, leaving us with a group of players (except destructor) who have interacted a lot. With destructor we do at least have leet's history and destructor's own PBPAs. Though since then he has been much too quiet. I only just realised that he's posted nothing except a brief excuse post in the last 9 days. Since that post was now 3 days ago I'm going to repeat the prod request:

Also quoted for truth.

[Civil Scum]

Christ, one more thing.

Zeek and Ripley made those points as to why a Garnasha lynch is more than appropriate give the circumstance on the SAME page that Garnasha hopped on, saw suspicions directed at me, and posted one thing.

"If anyone else said this..." Yeah hows abouts looking up like 6 posts.
Even if he's town, if he's not going to read a single page (let alone the entire thread) why in the world should we keep him around??

[Civil Scum]

That would make things look mighty suspicious if you had, lets take Ripley for instance, put up some sort of argument against him and now decided hes town? Oh wait, thats what has happened. Your like a colour-blind chameleon who is badly trying to find a way into the townie area by designing a theory that people like.

ONCE A-FUCKING-GAIN. I was viewing RIpley's behavior and style as that of an IC scum who would escape detction and suspicion by leaving no trail and taking no stance. When I saw that he attracted PRACTICALLY EXACT suspicions for this behavior when he was town made me instantly believe that YES he is likely town.

He was scum hunting the whole way through the other game in precisely the manner he has here. I felt it could be scummy, didn't like the OMGUS in Post 181, and fleshed out where the uncertain feelingsd on Ripley come from->His style of play. AND IN THIS CASE<- AS IN THE GAME HE LINKED US TO-> his style was predicated upon catching scum.

The main problem with being scum is you have to pretend to be figuring things out when you're really planning and decieving and lying. I doubt that he could pretend to scum-hunt in this style so well as to arouse the identical feelings he attracts as town.

SO I CHANGED MY MIND, and suspicions upon which I was basing other game ideas on changed like that.

Lynching Garn regardless of what side towns on is stupid. Were hunting scum and lynching townies is going in the opposite direction. I said I would listen to any argument people had about anyone but yours makes absolutely no sense.

Whatever. I disagree. What side town's on? We're hunting scum and lynching TOWNIES is going in the opposite direction? Garn isn't town by default, and even so I firmly believe in this case it doesn't really matter. There will be nothing to indicate he is town going into D-2. OH AND HES NOT EVEN READING THE THREAD!!!!

[Civil Scum]

Alright, sorry about the cursing. I am also quite drained and frustrated. 5 1/2 person game...

Unless Pablito lifts the deadline I am also pretty much done until D-2. I'm echoing Ripley and Zeek becuase I agree with them about the benefits of a Garn lynch in either case. Me explaining their sentiments will not make the logic any clearer, if anything I'd make it less-clear.

I also can't see any point in attacking/drilling each other until D-1 ends.

confirm vote: garnasha

[Civil Scum]

However, with the deadline approaching, I am thinking maybe I should change my vote to Garnasha. With all things considered, I would be more satisfied with a Garnasha lynch than anyone else. Even though, as I said, I find erg0 scummy, and am really wondering about CS again (especially due to his recent crusade against Ripley for no apparent reason)... I think the safest bet is Garnasha.

Why? Because, if Erg0 and/or CS are town, it will be a big loss to lose them. If Garnasha is town... meh, what's the harm? The way I see it, we have a 33% (2/6) chance of lynching scum... which means we have a 67% (4/6) chance of lynching town. If we are going to screw up, I'd rather screw up and lynch someone who's not helping us than someone who might be able to. Combine this with the fact that I think Garnasha may be scum anyways - has he contributed anything to the town or tried to help us find scum so far? I don't think so - so it's probably a good bet to lynch him if it comes down to the deadline and we are still unsure about everyone else.

Well there's the whole post (not too difficult to find Garn!)

I AM reading this thread as far as my irl situation allows it, but up till about page nine nobody did something so scummy I could make a case out of it. Guess my problem is that I'm better at logic than at detailed reading 10 pages of text.

There's scum in the game. Some stuff did happen in the first 9 pages. There is evidence for scum there. Your logic after 10 pages is not all that great here I might add.

The best way I guess I can find scum is checking all cases made and attack the first person who uses craplogic.

I'd say in Newbie games craplogic is as much a scum-tell as it is a newb-tell.

Zeek's logic seems good to me, but he also added if we are unsure about everyone else.

Ripley, if you want interaction, ask me for my thoughts about something. I think three games is too much for me, and those other games are a lot more interesting.

That's great, makes me wish two things:

1. I wish u had requested Pablito to replace you in this game if u have no desire to contribute or help.
2. I had a one-man lynch wand, in which case we'd be night 1.

My suspecting CS now rests on his reluctance to vote Ripley

I voted Ripley. Reasoned that the stuff I was picking up on was not in fact scummy.

, his complete change of heart

Again explained. With Ripley (under my assumption that he was guilty) leaning heavily on Ergo for a bit while no one L-1'd Ergo, coupled with some of Ripley's treatments of Leet (and leet's behavior) made me think that they were a likely scum pair-->hence ergo-town, garn-town, zeek-town, poro-overkeen town.

With my change of heart, Ripley as town seemed to not incriminate/implicate Leet. So destructor becomes town, and Ripley becomes town.
With leet as town, in my mind Poro became possible, Ergo became possible, Garn became possible. There was a lot of other stuff in there but that's the just of it.

, and pointing to someone else for his reasoning.
Zeek and Ripley both suspect me, making their reasoning valid.

They botha re on record saying they don't find u incredibly scummy. Go look.

However, I now see why CS didn't repeat their reasoning if he did that with a reason: coming from his mouth, it's craplogic since he thinks I'm town.

I'm not sure your town now that I believe RIpley is town. Why do I need to repeat their reasoning? And how does my opinion of you affect whether or not the case is garbage?

And you don't see the point - Why? You're just discouraging discussion here. Deadlines are meant to encourage it, not making it useless. Only explanation is a simulpost of you and pablito, since the only reason discussion would be useless is because we're missing destructor.

READ THE THREAD PLZ. Discussion increased, a slow down of the game didn't prompt Pablito to enforce a deadline. It was the length of this D-1, becuase we were waiting for u in large part.

Now u might get lynched and suddenly you're active. If this game is so uninteresting and not worth your time, then why would u even care if u got lynched?

You asked for less walls of text, trying to discourage discussion? U made some promises and never did anything.

I'm simply stating again that I'm done discussing (everyone else go right on ahead).

Your case you're trying to build on me is a joke. Discuss

Gone for a day or two, promise

[Civil Scum]

"I am reading the thread as far as my irl (girl?) situation allows it"
But am playing in two other games actively. ???
Can I reconfirm?

[Civil Scum]

Sure, I'm agitated. Garn is suddenly active now that he might get quick-lyncehd before deadline.

But he's definetly not scum-hunting, else he would have read atleast one page of the thread in its entirety.

His sudden activity and desire to BW me can only be motivated by Self-preservation.

Granted self preservation applies to scum and townies almost equally (minus the occasional martyrdom) in Garnasha's case it is interesting.

If he is town in an uninteresting game then why be concerned with staying in it?
This all has scum-self-preservation written all over it.

[Civil Scum]

Me, I stick to my convictions...

Boy, we could sure use a president like you...

Jokes aside, it almost seems as if Poro would be content with a no-lynch if the deciding vote were his.

Garn's resignatory "go after the hammer and CS when u find out I'm town..." is the most reliable scum tell I've seen in my short tenure here. When defense and offense fail, the resignation post can be expected. It's the only thing that a scum can do at that point that doesn't look scummy.

I could see Garn\Poro as a distinct possibility, although I have become suspicious of Ergo as of late.

[Civil Scum]

Garn. Seriously. What was the point of 282-285?

Destructor is making an excellent case. I need to read through it a couple more times. I still think garn is a safe bet, but Ergo is certainly back on the radar.

[Civil Scum]

On Garn my post 283

It is coordinated. As in it could appear coordinated to others.

I can't believe Garn is picking out single words in month old posts at this point.
And if HE says grasping at straws one more time...

The BW hopping thing did get discussed. I didn't like the way he kept his vote on me (stayed on the wagon without making any more arguments).

Garn is going to disappear now that Ergo is a potential canidate. That's just great.


I didn't like when Ergo said he could be williong to go along with me on Ripley and then saying he suddenly has a bad feeling about me for my comment on the case against Ergo resting on my innocence (which doesn't seem so much the case now but oh well). So one reductive point worries him and causes hiom to retract any agreement he may have had with my "case" on Ripley. He then states that he could flip a coin between Ripley and I. It didn't sit right.

Garns "oh damn, gtg eat." I mean come one, damn must eat food. This is such garbage.

There are a couple points of destructors in his case on Ergo that aren't quite as solid as they appear. The place where he accuses Ergo of fabricating evidence when he said that Zeek had voted for me. There was an explanation for this earlier, I'm not sure if it suffices.

There were a couple other things but I don't have the time right now.

[Civil Scum]

Yeah, good call Ergo. Poro, that vote and unvote is bull crap.
Wow Poro. Just wow.

K, thats not good...

Pointless.

vote: Civil Scum for the same reasons as before. Plus for a while a few pages back Ripley set up somewhat of a case against you. Killing me would have been to obvious that you were scum, Ripley was the logical second choice.

Don't twist the words (or invent them) of a dead man. Ripely wasn't making a case for me in the last few pages. He was suggesting that I was a deluded townie (a la Turbovolver) and then again was saying that I was noticeably more agitated when once again being at L-2.

I'd say a good set-up on me would have been NK'ing you. Personally I would have
killed Zeek because no one has suspected him thus far.

Although Ripley was also a logical choice for just about any scum. Ripley dying here at night no more implicates me than any other player. Your case is shitlogic.

If Ripley was setting up to go after anyone, it was Ergo.

The thing Im most interested in is Zeeks point of view. He said Me/Garn or Civil/Erg0, so has anything changed? Im also interested in destructors non Erg0's views and how his opinion now differs.

Interested in, as in You/Garn out the window cause Garn is town. Or interested in agreeing that Ergo and I are a likely pair.

I hope it isn't the latter. Cause out-right voting for me and then retracting your vote after MY SCUM BUDDY appeals to you for caution makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.
I really don't believe u are interested in catching scum at this point (ie-by hearing everyone else's opinions). You're just interested in attacking CS (who I am sure is town).

I said I wasn't going to jump in on this one

errrr, short term memory lapse.

my opinion hasnt changed at all but what you say is true and it wouldnt be fair to lynch CS without him talking so unvote, this unvote is almost certainly temporary though and it will go back on as soon as all the other 4 players post reactions on this game.

You would like to hear everyone's thoughts, and then (as your unvote is almost certainly temporary) you will then put your vote back on me. This is garbage.

May I remind the court that the cruxt of Poro's vote for me D-1 was that I had accepted Ripley's TOWN-assessment of my obssesive (and obnoxious) behavior too readily. He said I accepted it too willing. Reductive argument? A vote based on something I could be doing. Paper-thin.

My agitation this time around was due in large part to Garn. I was very seriously pissed. I was with Zeek's last post on that one. Garn looked increasingly more scummy. I am glad he's gone, but oh well.

I also went on a crusade against Ripley for a similar reason. He OMGUS me in a way which seemed to say "I am an IC. There is nothing I do that is scummy. If u are getting this impression it is because some kid named RIpley bullied u as a child"
I went too far overboard and have explained why I became convinced Ripley was town several times.

Ripley made an excellent point about Ergo's post which mentioned two very different things. He took a step back from agreeing with me because of one comment I made several posts later which was also unrelated to the case I was "building" on Ripley.

->Ergo and Porochaz both seemed to think that either Ripley or I was scum for pretty uncertain reasons.

->Why was Ergo ready to flip a coin on me and Ripley?
->Why did Poro want Ripley to prove his case by voting for me?
They both seemed that the whole debaucle was scummy on one side, but for no clear reasons.

ALSO PORO. Thinking about pairing, Am I paired with Ergo in your eyes? Then why would have listened to him about unvoting me? You're not worried about being wrong, u said it jsut wasn't fair to vote before we've heard from everyone.

[Civil Scum]

vote: Civil Scum for the same reasons as before

So much has happened just now. Garn turns up town (holy smokes). Ripley dies as the COP. Ergo was coming under serious suspicion jsut before nigt-fall. Destructor took to accusing him on very solid grounds.
Zeek dropped the hammer on a townie (and Ergo put him at L-1) I don't think anyone can really be blamed for that.

And Poro is still after me for the same reasons. And is on record previously telling me that I should have known his vote was always going to go on me or Ergo.

I don't think he has seriously considered anyone besides me.

Your tunnel-vision is extremely dangerous. And faintly scummy. You ask for other people's input and do nothing with it. Yet you're always asking for other people's opinions, always asking good questions about other topics, yet none of it ever seems to influence your play.

I'm interested in what you-PORO have to say about the case destructor was building on Ergo. Becuase you seem to have disregarded it completely.

Can't wait to hear form Zeek and Destructor.
I think Ergo has some explaining to do.

[Civil Scum]

I just thought it was weird that Ripley was blatantly fixing to go after Ergo with Destructor and yet this didn't seem to cross your mind after he died.

I never found Ripley to be scum

Unless I turned up town, in which case you would be uncertain. Ergo is on record reasoning along these lines for no clear reasons.

Ripley changed his song from "general feeling=trash, some kid bullied you, and u are possibly scum"
to "you're interpereting everything I've done with the assumption of guilt"
He changed the point back, I voted. I read some of the posts in the game he linked and decided the things I was picking up on could not be fabricated or indirectly produced by Ripley playing as scum.

Why'd you stay distant Ergo? Why was the madness scummy on one end? I took your case too far?

Will you answer the questions in Destructor's last post?

FoS: Ergo

Won't vote quite yet.
For pairing:
I sincerely doubt that Destructor would have come up and attacked Ergo instead of simply letting Garn hang. Some of his questions and suspicions are quite insightful, and I think Ergo has dodged many issues and not shown as much interest in somethings as maybe he should have.

Then again Destructor might have easily predicted that with a deadline so near the Ergo lynch was not going to happen anyways.
In which case, kill Ripley and the movement dies and with Porochaz absolutely itching to see me hang, Ergo and Destructor will have little problem getting that done, especially when they seem such an unlikely pair after Destructor's late D-1 case/vote. They couldn't have coordinated this though, it would have had to been an excellent well-thought out play by Destructor alone. But the effort seems so genuinely town, I'm just not sure.

In either case, Ergo was paired with me early for buddying up to town=me. And now for bailing me out-me=scum.
So Ergo is scum with both possibilities. Why not hang him first?
Zeek will go on to die, and then we can sort it out. Seems stupid, but it is logical.

[Civil Scum]

I never said Erg0 was your scum buddy. However what he was saying in that post seemed to me to be logical and more from an IC stance than anything else. What he said was true and if there was a slim chance you arent scum then its probably a good idea not to vote you until everyone has had there say.

An IC stance? Anyone who knows anything knows you shouldn't have voted that soon. It's logical because you are behaving irrationally.

Yes, Ergo has a good grasp of the game becuase he is an IC. However his overall contribution to the game in terms of reasoning and scum hunting certainl;y leaves something to be desired.

Porochaz went along with Zeek's case and voted Ergo. That is Zeek's EARLY case. You know, the one where Ergo was buddying up to me and stepping in to explain the rationale of a newbie. Yet in accpeting this possibility, my innocence never once crossed Poro's mind. If he was voting Ergo that whole time, while having me as the second most scummy, he would have had to link us the whole way through. He very obnviously didn't and simply shifted his vote back to me at an opportune moment.

CS wrote:

poro wrote:

my opinion hasnt changed at all but what you say is true and it wouldnt be fair to lynch CS without him talking so unvote, this unvote is almost certainly temporary though and it will go back on as soon as all the other 4 players post reactions on this game.


You would like to hear everyone's thoughts, and then (as your unvote is almost certainly temporary) you will then put your vote back on me. This is garbage.



Watch. I can guarantee this is what Ill do. The only reason I took the vote off was as a safety precaution not because I suddenly dont find you scummy.

A saftey precaution against what? You're not making sense. If u are so damn certain I am scum then there's nothing to worry about right?

You have essentially said that nothing will convince you not to put your vote back on me. And then you continually confirm that I am scum and you will not vote for ANYONE else.

Just vote and keep it there then, christ.

[Civil Scum]

What more convincing evidence can you hope to get? Are you waiting for two people to claim scum?

[Civil Scum]

After I pressed Poro about what could possibly make my case on Ripley more valid after I died.

->He asked Ripley to prove his case BEFORE Ripley mentioned Turbovolver. He also used the phrase "deluded townie" before the Turbovolver game was linked.

No I bloody well didn't!!! I made that one out of my own case.

You found me scummy for my attacking Ripley. Then when I switched you found me scummy for that->Based on that I had gone along with Ripley too readily. Again, paper-thin.

In regards to CS I guess I just think the evidence suggests that hes gone to far to be a deluded townie.

Porochaz made this post before the turbovolver game was linked and BEFORE I changed my stance on Ripley. Yet he cites it as the basis for his vote before AND after I flopped.
It appears genuinely fabricated.

Just a change of heart, huh! Just like that... your opinion changes just like that? That would make things look mighty suspicious if you had, lets take Ripley for instance, put up some sort of argument against him and now decided hes town? Oh wait, thats what has happened. Your like a colour-blind chameleon who is badly trying to find a way into the townie area by designing a theory that people like.

Lynching Garn regardless of what side towns on is stupid. Were hunting scum and lynching townies is going in the opposite direction. I said I would listen to any argument people had about anyone but yours makes absolutely no sense.

He doesn't for a second consider that my post explaining my wishy-washy presumptions is genuine. You can read it for yourself and decide. Post 252.

This chameleon thing in the town area resembles his conclusion that I was "screaming for a way out"->And as Ripley pointed out, a way out of what? I wasn't particularly on the radar when I went after Ripley.

His last point basically calls me stupid for agreeing with Zeek and Ripley.


Earlier:

I don't have much time at the moment but unvote, Ive contemplated doing this for a couple of days but have only now decided fully whilst I believe to an extent Civil is scum, there are others who have acted just as scummy in the last wee while. Im going to do some research and give my thoughts on each poster and give out my vote again (which could still go to Civil)

Porochaz was looking at Ergo and Leet (supposedly)

A few posts later.

Civil Scum: Is the most difficult to place, he acts scummy but always has an air of noobishness to him, for evidence against him you could look through many posts in the first 3 page and find it. However I decided last night when I unvoted him that he seemed more nooby than scummy and that most of the many things that he did could be explained by his lack of experience. This seems stupid thinking to me but its the most logical I can be and I don't particularly want to vote for someone just yet who I can't put my finger on.

Really? Did you lie to make me think the pressure was off?
Going along with Zeek's case on Ergo at the drop of a hat.

17 posts later

It wasnt just the over defensiveness, it was everything from and after the second request to take my vote down. A couple of people (including yourself?) told him that it was nothing to be worried about and its just to generate discussion. But he asked for a second time and OMGUS me purely on the basis I was voting him thats what made me think he was scummy.

Okay, but not anymore right (17 posts)...

I personally think the OMGUS vote was a big part of this and was a desperate scum trying to find a way out

Whaa?

Around this time Poro changes his tune on Leet/Destructor, saying he finds his odd behavior townish. But Post 143 does not read this way.

Unfortunetly destructor, you replaced him, so technically you ARE him. Whilst we can't ask you what your motives were at that point, we would not be wise to take it into account whilst voting and unfortunately as you are basically the same person (I know that sounds bad but within game terms its true) we can hold you responsible. However if I was going to vote for you I would be interested to see some more posts from you first, especially the 2nd half of that PBPA you promised us...

Responsible for behavior Poro had just previously decided was not too scummy. ?

CS wrote:

As it stands, all I can say for near cerainty are a few pairings I find impossible.

Ergo and myself: All of the suspicions revolving around Ergo's alignment are based on the case that I am town, and he is buddying up to me. I don't see how this case can stand as scum bailing out scum.



Why do you include yourself in this? Why do you see yourself as a potential pairing? That seems a bit suspicous...

Does it?

Here you go into PBPA... Your doing the impossible partners thing... who's peapod scum with? Id like to know who are your most likely scum pairings?


Your 100% unsure about Ripley, how can you be 100% unsure, that sounds deliberetly confusing... you can't be 100% unsure, you can be unsure but not 100% because by being unsure your struggling between 2 or more choices, thus not being 100%.

About as perceptive and useful as the two red sweets thing.

I'm reviewing my position...I'm not willing to do this until I hear from everyone...I'm reviewing my position...My position doesn't exist becuase it's not real and it never plays a factor in any of my reasoning.

Post 184

4. Whilst I'm not going to buy into it just yet, I can see where the Erg0/CS connection is coming from.

This connection and case was not really formed yet.
Garnasha asks him about it in the subsequent post.

Well, again,
chaz wrote:
I haven't seen anything to suggest Ripley is scum beyond Civil who I spent most of my first few pages attacking and Erg0 who I have my vote on currently.
so I personally think it isn't to much of a stretch to see them two scum together, there relationship within the game is certainly an interesting one and yes I am considering it but as you'll have read I am not buying into that theory yet. Its just one of the possible outcomes.

It might not be a huge stretch, but calling an idea (a possibility) you have in your mind a theory that you're not buying yet is strange. It is a possible outcome, reviewing it.

When Ergo asks for expansion, Poro cites my Post 62 as immediate distancing. This is a considerable stretch. It wasn't distancing. I was responding to Ripley's words of caution about why Ergo's buddy-up seemed like bad timing for a scum.

Actually the only reason why asked that was basically a test for Ripley, even though I disagreed with you, I did see your point about Ripley making a big long post then not actually vote. I asked him to back his convictions. If he thought you were scum he'd vote for you, if he had a good reason why not, fair enough and if he didn't give me much of an explanation then I may of had to rethink my stance. However Ripleys later posts led me to the second option of those 3, therefore my vote remained the same.

There is a problem with this. Along the lines of the "sure" comment to keep the pressure on and the Peapod is very likely town comment.


Poro consistently says these are the people I find more scummy than "the others"
but he really hasn't attempted to build a case.

Reviewing the game Poro, you seem a little bit like a leaf in the wind. But at the same time, when it comes down to it you stick to your convictions. You're play is troubling and when I mentioned that you seemed to latch onto every case and suspicion and add a few decent/not so decent points, you responded by simply saying "Well this paragraph wins paragraph of bullshit in this thread"-Watch your language please.



I definitely don't like Ergo using complete WIFOM as a defense against one of Destructor's early points.

Ergo, if your town you must have something figured out by now? You can't play clueless the whole game u know.

Ergo? Leaning towards town for destructor and Zeek, so what now?

Ergo and Porochaz for me now.

[Civil Scum]

Christ, just re-reading this page.

Its interesting in so far as its a pretty good case against Erg0, its not the sort of topic I can get into easily in mafia so whilst not ignoring it Im not replying to it until I feel I have to. Anyway its an interesting post and until Erg0 posts a response to it, I cant say much more about it. I assume thats what CS is doing considering his response to it was only 1 line saying Erg0 was back on his radar.

There a lot of explaining that your behavior is okay because of stuff that I have done.

I made the radar comment before Destructor's considerably damning post on Ergo.
You're misrepresenting my behavior and using it as some strange defense of your own.

[Civil Scum]

Poro fabricated reasons to find me scummy. He's been completely tunnel-visioned this entire game (self-admitedly) but has not used this to implicate any other play.e

CS: I really don't like the way you're trying to steer people towards me based on Ripley's death. That sounds to me like "my cunning plan to set him up isn't working, I'd better point out that Ripley was suspicious of him".

As I said, I don't think that Ripley's death can be used as evidence. He was a logical choice for just about any scum.

I found it strange that you-Ergo killing Ripley didn't cross Poro's mind. That's what I was getting at. He automatically suspected me and gave some shoddy-ass reasoning as to why Ripley dying imlpicated just me. When really it was going to be Zeek or Ripley who died, regardless of who the scum are.
Poro, do u look both ways before u cross the street?

In this vein Ergo, by suggesting it was a set-up by me, then u must agree he is the person you would have killed IF you were scum. ? Also, you calim that Ripley's death is what I'm using to steer people towards you. I didn't think that was the case. You did this to Zeek early too. Calling it feeble reasoning, an understatement to be sure.

Post 314. Ergo. It is also possible that Destructor and Zeek had not looked a the game yet. In which case, none of this applies. I'm also a little sick of IC tips. As I said, throughout the game Ergo's contribution has been less than noteworthy.

This was the point in Destructors case which I had issue with.

Erg0 wrote:
Given that he was using these assumptions as the basis for a vote, I found this notable. I was attacking his assumptions, just as you're attacking mine.

What are these assumptions Zeek made? And the fact that you've suggested here that you found something that never happened (Zeek using some 'assumptions' as the basis for a vote) 'notable' pretty damning. You fabricated evidence about Zeek. Why?

I believe Ergo had adressed this. The overall impression of Zeek's post was anti-CS. Ergo later recalled the events as Zeek voting for me, which in fact he didn't. It is not entirely accurate to say he was fabricating evidence when it was inaccurate memory.

Ergo being ready to flip a coin on me and Ripley after uninvolvement doesn't sit right. Also he really hasn't answered Destructors's questions to my satisfaction.
Leading up to Garn's lynch (when me and Poro were bickering AGAIN) he says that a lot of it feels like townie vs. townie arguing. But if he wasn't incredibly suspicious of Garn, Zeek, Ripley, opr Destructor, then he must have been considering that there was some scumminess between either Poro or myself.

However, I'm not so certain that Poro or CS are town, although I am leaning towards Poro being town, especially now that we know Garnasha was.

Could you expand on this? I find Porochaz's generous labeling of Peapod and his "well I'm not gonna lynch Garn, you guys go ahead if you'd like" more damning now that Garn has turned up town. In fact, I believe Poro's entire treatment of the Garnasha dilemma suspicious.

Civil Scum wrote:
Zeek will go on to die, and then we can sort it out. Seems stupid, but it is logical.


What is this suppose to mean?!?! Are you trying to hint that you are going to kill me during Night 2?

If we nail a scum, you are the likely canidate for the second NK. That's all that was.

I wrote:

Now that I am becoming suspicious of Poro and to a lesser extent Ergo (based on Garnasha's alignment)

Long before Destructor's late D-1 post. Ergo was back on my radar at this point especially if Garn turned up town. Calling destructor's questions "splitting hairs" and stating that I'm using Ripley's death as the main point in steering towards him is all understated side-stepping.

I very sincerely wanted Garn to die.

Just mention that he's back on your radar, but keep pushing for townie garn to be lynched. And then when the issue doesn't go away:

He looked increasingly scummy, and I also saw him as a potential pair for Poro. Can you really blame me for p[ushing for his lynch?

With Garn as town Poro/Ergo are tied for second in my mind. I can't rule out destructor however. But this only works if Poro is some insane townie who found scum on the first page and never lkooked anywhere else, although he simultaneously claims that he has and hasn't.

[Civil Scum]

No I used my own case on all of my arguments against you. Ripley had already suggested you were that kind of person before he linked to the Turbovolver case.

Yes, but you unvoted Ergo and voted me before Ripley used the phrase "deluded townie".

As I said, I don't think that Ripley's death can be used as evidence. He was a logical choice for just about any scum.

I disagree to an extent, there have been less active players and others who didn't get involved with the Ripley-Chaz-CS thing. Killing off the one person who had made a case against you but went on to defend you would seem a logical choice for you though

Uh why? A logical choice to kill off someone who had gone on to defend me.
You keep saying I'm sure your scum, I'm sure, I'm sure on the second page.

You've sort of been doing what I did to Ripley, retroactively finding everything scummy. Except you've been doing it proactively. Everytime something happens, every time I explain something, you go well "this happened because CS is scum in this way" or "Well of course he said that so now he's scummy in this way".
If you really are town, this game is over.

I like that last post Zeek.

And to be clear, someone doesn't have to point to something that blatant for defense when it can certainly stand on its own. Porochaz is pretty much just pointing to everything D-2 as evidence of my scumminess. He hasn't had time to bring anything else up.

And yes I am sick of IC tips. I want some IC scum-hunting input. Something Ergo has in large part failed to provide.

If Ergo is scum, he DEFINITELY would have been worried about Ripley coming after him D-2. Just read some of Ripley's later posts.

I don't want to rule out Destructor just yet, but I honestly can't see how Porochaz can honestly contend\believe that Ripley being NK'd implicates me more than Ergo.

[Civil Scum]

Why I liked Zeek's post:

But there really was no reason (for anyone) to defend Garn, especially the way he was playing, so hmmmm... I will have to think about it a bit.

[Civil Scum]

Ergo- You said you liked my post and asked me why I had figured zeek and poro for town.

Which means:
1. The post appeared to you to be atleast a genuine town effort.
and/or
2. It made Ripley look scummy.

When the whole thing started to blow up (in the worst way) you said that you could flip a coin on Ripley or me.

What was it about the interaction that had you believing that one of us was likely scum?

[Civil Scum]

No. It was somewhat flimsy and 100% predicated upon Ripley being scum with Garn or Destructor. As soon as I decided Ripley was town I threw the whole thing out the window.

You were quite composed throughout your long stay at L-2. Especially considering that Destructor was mainly adressing you.

Ripley's reaction seemed townish to me on the whole. However, my experience has been that his pattern of play on day 1 is usually indicative of scum (or someone with a power role that is trying to hide themselves).

Grasping at straws has been thrown around quite a bit this game. But this paranthetical is noteworthy in my book. But, yeah WIFOM- Why would Ergo bring this up if he had been the killer.

From memory, after a couple of posts back and forth between you I started to feel like you were pushing him too hard and for the wrong reasons. I haven't re-read this section yet, but I'll give you a more detailed response on this tomorrow.

Yeah, I did push too hard. I'd just assume nobody go back and read that section, although people's reactions to what happened are important.

Your answers are believable. But,
I guess I'm still wondering, if I was doing it for the wrong reasons, why you seemed to think the reason(s) were that I was scum. And it still doesn't completely
explain why after the post you linked to, you were ready to vote for either Ripley or me.

I'm trying to figure out if Zeek can fit anywhere, because he has by and large escaped suspicion. I'm not ruling out Ergo/Destructor. Poro/Ergo. Poro/Zeek.

Poro/Leet-Destructor seems unreal. Poro's D-2 play is less impressive than D-1.

[Civil Scum]

Alright. When u said it sounded like townie-townie arguing. Between Ripley and Poro and I. Fair enough.

I want Poro dead.

poro wrote:

Lynching Garn regardless of what side towns on is stupid. Were hunting scum and lynching townies is going in the opposite direction. I said I would listen to any argument people had about anyone but yours makes absolutely no sense.


Whatever. I disagree. What side town's on? We're hunting scum and lynching TOWNIES is going in the opposite direction? Garn isn't town by default, and even so I firmly believe in this case it doesn't really matter. There will be nothing to indicate he is town going into D-2. OH AND HES NOT EVEN READING THE THREAD!!!!

To which Porochaz replied

Firstly, judging by the amount of times Ive had to repea myself NEITHER ARE YOU!

Wrong. Anyways, all Poro ever repeated was that he's sure I'm scum for such and such a reason. It's stupid to lynch Garn, etc. Post 210 is when he votes CS. You can see here that "gone too far to be a deluded townie" has nothing to do with the vote. However there are some other flimsy pretenses for switching his vote back to me.

Secondly, can you stop swearing. I dont mind minor swear words or in times when its needed but your swearing for the sake of it just now

I conceded.

Thirdly, we disagree about Garn. I dont think hes very townie but I don't have suspicions the scummy way.

Intenionally vague?

You see fit to attack him for that, I dont currently.

That wasn't just why I was attacking him. Anyways, you weren't attacking HIM becuase you thought the "smart" play was to lynch ME. But you case (which again is just basically a bunch of weak bits you invent and pile and clump together incessantly, like a dung beetle who badly wants the ball to become large enough that it will carry him to finer dunes. You drilling me this entire game does not get you into townsville.

Fourthly, By the Zeek quote you posted, he seems to think Garn is scummy, you have not said either way but HAVE said it doesnt matter as if he is town he wont be NK'ed. (Which echos Ripley, except Ripley did a much better job at explaining)
...

So Ripley's belief that I was a deluded townie was good enough for Poro to drop suspicions of Ripley (base don that he had posted negative CS but not Fos'ed or voted) but I am not allowed to accept something Ripley said, because it's just echoing? I responded to Garn about this saying that if I were to explain what Zeek and RIpley were saying, I would have probably just muddied it up. Anyways it doesn't effect the validity of the arguments for lynching Garn whether I repeat them or not.


Another flimsy pretense for being sure I'm scum

Now Ripleys post helped me decide between what I see as my two options just now. Ripley accuses you of spin, you accuse Ripley of word bending, your repeating him.

Now Im happy with my vote...

Ripley did make some fancy posts which served no purpose other to damage credibility or assign "proper names" to things. Notably when he said to Ergo 'ah the power of words, is there any practical difference between looking around for other topics of discussion and trying to change the subject, yet one sounds so much sneakier than the other. Yeah, one does sound sneaky. But Ripley was leaning townie for me around this point, so this minorly-snide comment on what Ergo was doing made no sense.

Ripley, thanks for explaining why your votes not on Civil Scum, I see exactly where your coming from but again, Im not changing my mind. I don't think CS is overconfident, by looking once again at the L-2 situation early on. He may not like your playing style but it jut smells newbie scum screaming for a way out rather than overconfident townie who thinks people with a different playing style are all scum.

So, Ripley is cleared becuase he has good enough reasons to believe I am town. So Poro says, 'alright Ripley fair enough. But your reasons aren't good enough for me.' Yet he doesn't flesh out his case, get other's behind it. Poro just says, 'fine that's a good enough reason why you don't have to vote for him, but I am still going to because I'm sure he's scum, whatever guys I'm not changing.' And then he adds another flimsy piece of "evidence" which didn't exist/wasn't considered prior. Here it was me Screaming for a way out.

Oh and lastly here's a some strange anti-Garn lynch Porochaz-nonsense
Post 240

Because I would still be willing to listen to a Garn or a destructor case...

A few posts later.

Quickly, I don't believe Im defending him for anything townie/scummy but I personally thought I was defending him from a lynch no matter what the alleigance of Garn was. My thinking is that a town lynch isn't a good lynch ever.

Odd
A few later..

I wont be the quicklyncher theres not enough evidence I think. I stil stand firm that we should look deeper into this but whatever Ripley or destructor, so be it.

He stands firm that we should look into it deeper, which I am reading as 'keep my vote on CS unless someone has "IAMSCUM" hidden in every post'

When asked about adressing the wrong people

Sorry I meant Zeek and destructor as Im not changing...

But want to look into what deeper?

Can I second the prod on Destructor?

[Civil Scum]

On this second post. Sure, These are the various places you've accused me in some form or another. There is some back-tracking though which doesn't come across in this simple list. Like when u decided I was more townie than scum, until fingers came back my way. When you cited my "over-eager" acceptance of Ripley's deluded townie observations as the basis for your vote. Although you had re-voted me prior to this idea.

Anywho. I don't think you can use your attack on me as a defense of yourself.

[Civil Scum]

And your case is a big long string of ever-changing CS=Scum. You being sure I'm scum for whatever reason you can come up with next doesn't make.

As for the "Screaming for a way out"-sure just a statement. But completely irrational.

You say you were never suspicious of Ripley. Although, you kind of said you would be if I was lynched and turned up town. You wouldn't go on to bet your life on it, but it would have strenghtened my case. You said so.

Were you telling me if I am town then to not worry? Looks a bit like you suggesting that I should be okay with martrydom. But lynching town is bad. Especially if all it does is slightly strenghten a case on someone you are not too sure about.

You reak. All the stuff you've stated, claimed, whatever you want to call it, has been adressed by myself or otherwise. And u just switch it. Find a new angle.

I don't even want you to reply to my posts anymore. I would like to hear from someone else.

[Civil Scum]

I'm not twisting words or just digging up posts. I'm showing that you have had strange reasons for being suspicious of me the entire game, and they constantly change. I'm drawing a common thread. U make it sound like I shouldn't be re-reading the game.

...but Im unlikely to stay as involved though till D2

if I survive

...

Isn't that an odd thing to include at that point. I personally didn't feel that Porochaz was a likely lynch canidate anyways.

[Civil Scum]

Christ on a bike Poro. Nobody noticed it is not the whole story. Also, do you expect us to have all the evidence we need to weed out scum in the first five pages.

Or is EVERYONE just supposed to be sure in the first 2.5 pages?

It is just slightly slighty possible are that you are an outright insane townie. In which case we're pretty well screwed.

[Civil Scum]

Currently rereading the thread again. Noticing several things about Destructor's play that I like. Zeek isn't automatically the "squeaky clean" princess, but still looking pretty town so far.

Another quick note on Poro's play:

Several times, with me being quiet after pressure (I post explaining it) and he brings it up again later, and early with Ergo.

I'm more interested in why he's (Porochaz) quoting a case that I already responded to without acknowledging the response.

He does this a lot. Sticking with old material and evaluating it on its own without considering later explanations and responses.

This one specifically is a really good point made by Ergo. One point against Poro/Ergo. (that is- not in favor of them being partners)

I can't say if this type of thing is 100% scummy coming from Poro, or if it's just really annoying. I can't believe he said he was sure I was scum in post 23.
The sure comment, he claims was to keep the pressure on AND a slight mistake.

He later says (again) he kept the vote there to keep the pressure on whilst the whole thing splintered off into other people (as he had hoped). He votes Ergo (largely based on Zeek's case and pulls back his suspicions of Leet a little bit later)

Sorry, everytime I go back through Poro just sticks out like a sore thumb.
I'm going to continue the read through and ignore Poro.

[Civil Scum]

I like Porochaz's consistency and his defence of Garnasha, though the defence of Ripley was less convincing.

Porochaz's "defense" of Ripley revolves around his finding me scummy. I agree it's less than convincing. Also incredibly strange that he nver says "Ripley, don't you think CS is going along with the deluded townie observation too readily?" Instead he puts this argument across to me while accepting the fact that Ripley did not feel the need to vote me.

I don't see what there is to like about his consistency or his defense of Garnasha.
I particularly take issue with his response to when I wrote "OH, AND HE's NOT EVEN READING THE THREAD" - To which Poro replied 'Well, neither are you'- Which is not only untrue, but suggests that Poro is alright with Garn not participating.

And, yeah Zeek hammered Garn. But someone had to. At that point, were it up to me I would have dropped the hammer I am sure. I don't see how this makes Zeek look any worse than Ripley, myself, or Ergo. All of which could have placed their vote elsewhere (excepting Ergo, who couldn't vote for himself, although I suppose he could have put me at L-1). Yeah, the deadline was still 48 hours away. But I think everyone was just ready for it to happen.

I took issue with a few things that CS did before I made it back. His vote on me (156), I thought was reactive and reckless. He had posted issues he had with me, but I don't think it was a good move to not vote at the time (implying he's waiting for a response or more evidence) then put a vote on me, only accompanying it with the word 'Bah'.

-I had my vote on Leet during the replacement. Ergo unvoted before you came in (saying well this is probably going to go nowhere now).
-I posted explaining why I wasn't ready to change my vote. Ergo places you at L-2 (not saying 'well maybe this will go somewhere'. He later states this was placing you at one-vote. Poor recollection again rather than fabricating evidence)
After your first post, I immediately unvoted-saying I'd better think about this-becuase it was a town-sounding effort.

I don't know how to Hyperlink, but these posts should ease your mind about my troublesome behavior you're talking about here.
-Post 121 and 137 I cite reasons for the unvote and point to one part of your PBP which I didn't appreciate.
-Ergo says your post made him happy with his vote.
-I ask why
-Post 142 I outline why I am leaning towards revoting.
-Post 153 I expand on something about your post whcih realkly bothered me.
-You hadn't responded anywhere in between, hence 'Bah, revote'

If you go back and read this section of the thread, my reasons for voting you were based on both your's and Leet's behavior. And it's not like I just hoped in there. Frustration did play a part I'll admit. But you're misrepresenting my vote/unvote/vote pattern with how you've boiled it down here.

In Post 170 CS speculated on Poro's intentions. I don't know why he chose to do this, since, like Erg0 to CS early on, I don't see why he should have been assuming the best of Porochaz. In the rest of the post, CS seemed to begin backing off on his suspicion of me. I thought it was notable that this came after Erg0 had unvoted me. In 178, this continued and he also began digging into the Ripley thing, asking Erg0 to present any case he had, which Ripley pointed out.

With Poro, the few odd things people had pointed out weren't striking me as incredibly scummy. They still don't. It's his whole pattern of play I take issue with.
And for a while I felt the "Sure" comment. Voting Ergo on Zeek's case alone. Labeling Peapod town, all fell easier into the category of over-keen town. Because frankly, there was nothing to be gained with these comments as scum.

183 confuses me. After posting that he's increasingly suspicious of Erg0, he seems to post something that is almost defensive of him. In this post he also begins his offensive on Ripley. 192 was also odd, since he unvoted me without any explanation, and in the same post wrote that he found Erg0's unvote strange. In his next post he even goes on to suggest reasons that I could still be scum. His unvote was really odd, and I'm surprised no one else thought to say anything about it.

This unvote is odd. I didn't like Ripley's OMGUS this late. This is where I go balls-to the wall overboard on Ripley. This was all very strange. I'll try to remember exactly what my reasoning was at this time, but I can't guarantee anything.
I didn't understand where Ergo was going with his vote. I found his unvote strange, especially after stating that Destructor's first post made him happy with his vote. He later explains that your deconstruction of his problems with the post satisfied him.

I have been alternatively suspicious and defensive of Ergo. Because we have been linked in some form or another, I've felt like if I take a definitive stance, people would have used it against me. And frankly, I really haven't been able to decide what to make of his early treatment of my behavior. This no doubt sounds side-steppy, but I don't know how else to elaborate at this point. To do it thouroughly, I would have to link a number of posts, and try to recall what I was reasoning at the time. As Ergo said, for every post he can find a defense for him, he can find one where I attack. I posted a lot either way, and will try to come to a conclusion soon.

Post 200, CS suggests a Ripley/me connection and says he disagrees with Ripley on a few points of question about Porochaz. Again, he seems to be assuming the best of Porochaz.

still operating under the assumption of Poro=overkeen town and Ripley's guilt (both mistakes now)

They are moments like this, when viewed in retrospect, that gave me the impression that CS was playing like a 'tunnel-visioned' townie. The reason I say this is that here, CS seems to be leaning towards thinking Poro is pro-town, but later in the day, when Poro began more of an assault on CS, CS seemed to turn around and start noticing more scummy things about Poro. This seems to have carried over into Day 2.

After I decided Ripley was town, and so destructor too. I began linking Poro/Garn.

CS raises some pro-town points in favour of Erg0 tied in with attacks on Ripley in Post 218. I still think Erg0 is likely scum, and the lynch and night kill don't do anything to quell this suspicion. If anything, it only makes it seem more likely. In light of this, I think 218 is notable and is further evidence of a Erg0-CS Mafia. Yes, I realise that in Day 2, CS has noted suspicion of Erg0 but I'll have to read more carefully to see to what came of it and where it may have been going. I do recall CS saying he found certain parts of my case not-so-solid. I'm not sure if he ever elaborated on this.

It was the accusation of fabricating evidence especially, which seemed to be over-stepping a boundary. A lot of Ergo's response to your earlier post, which he says stands as a reply to your later one as well, reads a bit like a legal document.

The whole "stated" basis/actual basis thing I am not quite clear on. Whether or not the attack on Zeek (based on a conflict of assumptions-suspicion certainly being more appropriate at the time-point Destructor) precluded the defense has chicken-or-the-egg written all over it. The defense followed when Ergo was pressed (and the stated basis for the defense developed out of this). But in assuming non-scumminess on my part, Ergo has kind of taken a defensive position on me which he uses to call Zeek's post a "reach". I don't think you can say outright which took place first. I especially don't like the WIFOM of me comment made by Ergo. But it is true that many things are WIFOM. Why use this as defense though.

CS's flip on Garnasha (from town to scum) was certainly notable and not to be forgotten. He explained that this was due to a change in perception of players alignments. It could easily have been a mistaken on his part, to not explain this when he voted for Garnasha, but could just as easily been a backtrack. I also noted CS' almost incessant declaration of Zeek's pro-townness, which may again be the 'tunnel-vision' rearing its head.

Trying to fix my tunnel-vision. Zeek has been somewhat self-critical of his own arguments. I don't think this incredibly scummy though. And I certainly do not hold his hammer of Garn against him. I don't feel the need to explain my flip on Garnasha again. It was based upon other perceptions, and certainly not helped by Garn's sudden activity which reaked of scumminess, self-preservation, and NOT READING THE THREAD. 'If anyone else proposed the crap-logic case that I should be lynched even if I'm not that scummy, then I'd probably go after them'. It was honestly like 6 posts above. And I found him less and less townie as the deadline approached.

After Ergo posts his thoughts on me, I'll respond and let everyone know where I stand on him right now.

[Civil Scum]

Oh, and Ergo. Porochaz's consistency should really bother almost everyone at this point. Becuase, if both Poro and I are town then there is no way for town to win this game. Poro won't vote for anyone else. Not even my scum partner who he can't find.

-How hilarious would it be if Poro and I were the scum?

[Civil Scum]

Damn it Poro.

Just a change of heart, huh! Just like that... your opinion changes just like that? That would make things look mighty suspicious if you had, lets take Ripley for instance, put up some sort of argument against him and now decided hes town? Oh wait, thats what has happened. Your like a colour-blind chameleon who is badly trying to find a way into the townie area by designing a theory that people like.

Lynching Garn regardless of what side towns on is stupid. Were hunting scum and lynching townies is going in the opposite direction. I said I would listen to any argument people had about anyone but yours makes absolutely no sense.

This was your response to my explanation for the flop and such. Did you not expect me to respond negatively to this? Also, the conversation at this point was revolving a lot around Garn and the deadline (which seemed to escape you at the time) You do defend him weakly in the post following mine. And u don't seem that upset that he's not threading the thread. Anyways, with the stance you claim to have at that point, you should have been defending Garn outright.

Once again you're using your attacks on me as a defense for your own questionable/shabby behavior.

[Civil Scum]

Yep, the case against Erg0 is affected by the whole thing with you and forms a large part of it. Except, my case against Erg0 is, to a large extent, fueled by you. So I look at you both and go "hmmm, I wonder how Erg0/Civil will react with Civil/Erg0 gone. How the dynamics will change?

What a god-awful terrible terrible reason to advocate someone's lynch. I was responding to your posts.

Several times you've used my behavior as some strange shield. Elaboration complete.

Poro, you are putting me in the difficult position of practically having no choice but to vote you.

[Civil Scum]

That wasn't one of them Poro. It was just a god-awful reason to want to lynch me.

-Clearly, the stated basis was important/relevant at that point because that's what was being discussed. (ie-The attack on Zeek becoming a defense of me) The stated basis for the defense, was the attack. ?? Am I getting this right, Ergo?

That someone would make a distinction between a stated basis and the actual basis is worrisome.

You'll see that later on I resolved this and decided that you were probably both town (thought this conclusion is still subject to review).

What about what has taken place recently makes you unsure about this feeling you had?

[Civil Scum]

The stated basis for the attack was the defense? Or the stated basis was assumption of innocence? I am a little lost on this one. (no sarcasm)

I was still working it out in that post, as I thought you were both doing scummy things

Ripley's reaction seemed townish to me on the whole.

This seems like a contradiction.

Ergo(scum) helps derail a potential BW on me and votes for Leet(scum), unlikely
Destructor\Poro - unlikely

Ergo\Poro - distinct possibilty.
Poro\Zeek - can't rule it out
Zeek\Ergo - In which case I would need to convince Poro I am town, or that someone else is more scummy. So, impossible in a sense.

I'd say Poro is making it real difficult for his scum buddy as well.

[Civil Scum]

My post before while you were coming in too sort of explains this. I was fairly convinced that Leet was scum and decided that your posts had not done enough to alleviate my suspicions. I check the thread a lot. I don't see what's wrong with putting you back at L-2 here. In my mind, I didn't have a better place to put my vote. Why wait?

As for Poro-over-keen-town. That was just me constantly voicing my opinion or "read" (if you will) on Poro's play.
-As for invoking WIFOM in this case, I disagree. If he was scum, there was nothing to be gained. Which usually would be WIFOM I guess. But, this isn't exactly an allstar game.

I thought it was over-stepping a boundary because I vaguely recall Ergo adressing this. Saying that the overall impression of Zeek's post was anti-CS. He remembered it as Zeek haviung a vote on me.
-He also said that placing the FIRST vote on you hardly qualifies as opportunism, when in fact it was the second vote. And was somewhat opportunistic as you've pointed out.
-There was another place where he inaccurately recalled something but I'm not gonna go find it right now.
-Calling all of this "fabricating evidence" is a little much.

-It's a matter of Ergo making up his mind which came first, yes.

-I really don't think that Zeek's hammer of Garn is bad. Considering the length of D-1 with no useful input from a player and their replacement, and considering how Garn was playing. I can honestly say, that were I Zeek I would have hammered him myself.

-As I said, I don't think being self-critical is scummy. In fact I don't understand it at all.

There are a lot of contradictions in Zeek's posts, particularly regarding the validity of his own cases.

The weird self-contradicting case on Porochaz and the abandonment of his prior position when hammering Zeek are marks against him in my book.

I can't find the self-contradicting case on Porochaz (I don't even remember Zeek accusing Poro aside from listing him as a Poro/Garn)-Once again I blame Garnasha for all 4 votes. I don't see what makes the hammer so significant in this case. Any one of us could have unvoted to buy Garnasha more time (But nobody wanted to)

Actually Zeek- Why were you suspicious of Poro near the end of D-1?

I really can't see how Ergo can "like" Poro's consistency, especially given the situation. I feel like he's setting up to come after me and Zeek.

[Civil Scum]

Why do you like Poro's consistency? Now and earlier?
As scum, this could only serve to link you two explicity in my mind. Convincing me to vote for Poro. This would make you and Zeek scum? Except you would have quicklynched.

Why do u like it? And what purpose do you have for even saying this?

[Civil Scum]

The self-contradiction that I'm referring to from Zeek is his argument for Porochaz being scummy for following Zeek's own "crap logic" case on me. I kind of see what he was doing, but it seriously weakens his position on both of us.

Yeah, but this also kind of makes sense for why Zeek would abandon his vote for you and lynch Garn. It does weaken his position on you, but I understand what's scummy about it.

[Civil Scum]

EBWOP:
I don't understand what's scummy about it

[Civil Scum]

Yeah, but Zeek didn't think his logic on you was all that bad at the time. He later points out that You and I both seemed to think so at the time. And then began wondering that if his case was not all that strong, then why Poro latched onto it so readily. Especially considering that it was based on buddying up to me, who he has constantly voiced assuredness of guilt.

If you're alright with Poro's "consistency" now, then you must be coming after me. If it was really just a matter of transcribing notes, you could have done it easily by now. From where I'm sitting, whatever you're about to do is going to reak of necessity.

-There are still some points of Destructor's you're avoiding.
-You haven't explained what has happened between your decision that Ripley, Poro, and I sounded like town vs. town to being alright with Poro only going to vote me.
-And please don't say that my actions around the Garnasha wagon were anymore opportunistic than yours.

However, the fact that Porochaz did not die DOES NOT mean you aren't scum. You say it would have been a good set up against you if he had died... but since he didn't die, it obviously was not a "set up", which could be because you are scum so naturally you wouldn't want to "set up" yourself.

QFT

What Zeek said is true. BUT-Poro, you're saying that the very fact that you are alive means that I AM scum. Can you not see the problem with reasoning this way?

[Civil Scum]

Alright.

But hey, weren't you like, suspicious of Ergo?

If you absolutely had to choose, who's your second choice?

[Civil Scum]

I suppose I could have re-voted in my last post in that span (153).
-I was going to wait for a response, but was itching to put my vote back on you at that time. When no response came in a day or so (is that right?). I voted. I don't really understand what is significant about the delay?

WIFOM- Regardless, I still am thinking Poro reaks. I'll let you defend yourself against his last post.

[Civil Scum]

I did post before you came in which was a longer time ago. I also took issue with you saying "His focus on leet continues in Post 80. In this as well, he clearly misinterprets or misrepresents leet's posts."

I didn't think that I was misinterpreting or misrepresenting. I may have been overly-agressive. Ripley did say that he broadly agreed with some of the observations. Leet invented some reasoning (assumptions opposite other assumptions) for unvoting me. I don't see myself misinterpreting this. I can say now that I don't think this was motivated by scummy goals.

I was willing to wait for a response, and then decided not to.
Q: Why was a lack of response within this time, which is really not that long, enough to make you vote?
A: Uh, becuase I didn't really want to wait. I was fairly sure that Leet was acting scummy. It wasn't alleviated. I was willing to wait for a response, but was itching. I like people to know where I stand maybe? I usually have my vote on someone. My voting changes instantly, uh. You're sort of asking me to explain a trait.

Q: What is significant about the delay?
A:...

I believe that I understand some of what you're getting at here. From a CS/Ergo standpoint it would make very good sense for us to get the first two votes in. You are very seriously trying to piece together whether I am Ergo's scum partner.

Ergo's incidental defense of me as anti-town struck me as you assuming guilt of me. You explained this later. Porochaz flat-out asking Ergo to explain my behavior stikes me as odd now. It actually makes sense from a town standpoint, as he would expect me to tell lies. This means Ergo/Zeek, again impossibe, they would have hammered.

I really can't wait to hear what Ergo is cooking up.

Ergo-1
Poro-1
Zeek-3
Destructor-4

Well that's where I stand until I hear from Ergo. As of this second, I would vote for either of them.

For the record, anytime I accepted Ergo's explanations easily or agreed with him D-2 was for the express reason of making him believe I would work with him. This obviously failed, and he is fixing to come after me. Right? Ergo?

[Civil Scum]

I also didn't like Ergo's post about why your first PBPA made him hapopy with his vote. It wasn't very convincing.

[Civil Scum]

I agree that Ergo/Destructor is possible in spite of what has happened recently. But since Poro won't vote for anyone else first, it really just doesn't matter.

This is exactly my point - Zeek was attacking Poro for following his (possibly bad) logic, but Zeek's vote was still on me. It's one or the other, surely? If he actually thought his logic was bad, he shouldn't have still been voting for me. If he thought his logic was sound then there was no case against Poro.

I agreed with this point. It would mean that the suspicions are falsified, or not really based on logic.
That is, I agreed with it until I found this post.

This is getting hard to follow

Porochaz wrote:
Zeek do you still find Erg0 scummy?

I haven't really changed my mind on Erg0.

I am kinda confused about his response to my "attack" on Porochaz (where I wondered if Porochaz was just trying to start a bandwagon on Erg0 using my "bad" reasoning):

Erg0 wrote:
This is actually an interesting point, as voting a player based on someone else's bad case is apparently a very reliable scumtell (though one I haven't really tested myself).


I can't tell if he is being sarcastic or not (because of the word "apparently") and if not, I can't understand why he said it because there has been nothing to prove that it is a reliable scumtell.

The whole point was, as I said, two people said they didn't like my logic (CS and Erg0 for what it's worth), however one person (Porochaz) agreed with it and even voted based on it, so I took a step back and said "hmmm... if my logic is bad, why is Poro voting for it? What does he have to gain?"

Answer: if he is town - nothing; if he is mafia - he could be able to start a bandwagon and get Erg0 lynched (and this would assume Erg0 is town if Porochaz is mafia because obviously he wouldn't try to get a bandwagon against his only teammate).

However, as I said, I don't feel it is bad logic, so that doesn't give me any reason to assume Erg0 is town, hence why I still have my vote on him.

But no one else really responded or had a thought either way about it; haven't heard Ripley, CS, destructor, or Garn comment on it... heck, other than CS, the others haven't even weighed in on whether or not it was good/bad logic in the first place.

I also didn't like his response about "WIFOM"...

Erg0 wrote:
Everything is WIFOM. There are degrees of WIFOM though, and that's what you need to think about here. I would not normally ever raise a point like this regarding my own actions, but it was pretty clear that nobody was thinking about it.


Before this he had basically tried to make it sound like he shouldn't have to take heat for doing something suspicious because "why would he do something blatantly suspicious if he was mafia? that would be too obvious"... I called him out and said that is no excuse at all. Why would you do something blatantly suspicious if you were town? His response (quoted above) again completely ignores what I said and again just says what he originally said.

To me this (the quoted part above) reads: "I pointed it out because everyone thought what I had done was suspicious and started to think I was mafia, and no one bothered to think that is too obvious of a mafia move to make, so that should mean I'm not mafia" (which makes no sense to me - if you do something that a mafia would do, then why shouldn't we think you are mafia? - so I called him out on it when I said "complete WIFOM").


However, with the deadline approaching, I am thinking maybe I should change my vote to Garnasha. With all things considered, I would be more satisfied with a Garnasha lynch than anyone else. Even though, as I said, I find erg0 scummy, and am really wondering about CS again (especially due to his recent crusade against Ripley for no apparent reason)... I think the safest bet is Garnasha.

Why? Because, if Erg0 and/or CS are town, it will be a big loss to lose them. If Garnasha is town... meh, what's the harm? The way I see it, we have a 33% (2/6) chance of lynching scum... which means we have a 67% (4/6) chance of lynching town. If we are going to screw up, I'd rather screw up and lynch someone who's not helping us than someone who might be able to. Combine this with the fact that I think Garnasha may be scum anyways - has he contributed anything to the town or tried to help us find scum so far? I don't think so - so it's probably a good bet to lynch him if it comes down to the deadline and we are still unsure about everyone else.


Speaking of CS, Ripley brought up an interesting point.

Ripley wrote:
Anyway, after a few more pages of trying to get me lynched he just changed his mind and went after someone else. The point here is that we were both town; he was just plain wrong, though utterly convinced he was right.


This is what I did last game (Mini Game)... I was convinced this guy named Off The Mark was scum and I went after him for a couple pages. Eventually it turned out it was up to me and him to win the game for the town. I'm actually trying to play more balanced and look at both sides (trying to consider everyone as scum and town - and not blindly go after anyone like OTM) in this game because of that.

Zeek has been uncertain of whether or not his logic was all that bad. I think it comes across in this post and others. I don't think that the contradiction is as cut and dry as you've labeled it, Ergo.

Self-Critical it remains in my opinion. Which Destructor and I agree is not really a scum tell.

Poro- I liked destructor's lack of a conclusion in his post. I also don't see how this is scummy.

Zeek hasn't given us an incredible amount of material, and I think Ergo is trying a little hard to find something dead-lock incriminating.

Destructor, you must have a general feeling as to what Ergo and I are doing to you. It makes much better sense from a certain scenario though, yeah?

Isn't Ergo saying "Newb or Scum" who can say? as inappropriate as my using that as a defense early?

...try your relationship with Ergo...a lot of reasons I voted you.

What about my relationship with Ergo would have you believe I am scum and he is not?

I almost feel like we should lynch the lurker at this point.

Isn't, 'regardless of alignment' sort of written into this?

I'll address Ergo's post at a later time.

[Civil Scum]

I've just been really busy the last few days, but you seem to be extremely anxious about what I'm going to say about you. Considering you think I'm super-scummy, I'm not sure why you're so worried.

This is a good point, so I'm not really going to adress you all that much. Just briefly.

But trying to attack me for hammering Garn... instead of you... If I was mafia why would I do that then? Wouldn't having Garn around hurt the town more, since no one would know his alliance and he'd still be posting excuses about "oh I gotta go eat now"? I can't figure out, as a townie, why you would be upset about that? Especially considering you were the only other option really. I mean, I could understand if it was destructor coming after me and saying "I really thought Erg0 was mafia, and instead you lynched Garn who wasn't, wtf"...

I generally agree with just about all of this and the post. I think a lot of the Garn lynch was a fear that nothing might have happened if a bunch of votes shifted places, coupled with the frustration of essentially lacking a player this entire time. This frustration comes across most believably in Zeek's posts. And leaving Garn in town for D-2 would have been a good move for scum. Point Zeek.

Destructor has more "space" to work with on this one (point Zeek)

Swing on Ripley: I really don't want to cover this again. I read the turbovolver post and some of the game and was immediately convinced that Ripley could not elicit these exact suspicions as scum.

Swing on Garn: Now that I look at that post, that wasn't me saying I thought Garn was town. As i said previously when I decided Ripley was town, destructor became town, Poro Ergo Garn became possible at that moment. This was a smart-ass remark and a reference to Poro's early/and present belief that Garn was town. From this point on I become suspicious of Poro/Ergo/Garn.

I did this same thing in Post 195 when I said that "I'm tempted to vote garnasha "to keep things moving while we wait" but that would be ridiculous." This time it was for Ergo. All the same, I wanted Garn to die.

There are other bits and pieces as well - he says in 303 that Ripley thought he (CS) was a deluded townie, which is not really true (see Ripley's post 267). I somewhat agree with Porochaz on this point, though saying that Ripley was moving towards making a case might be a bit strong.

Before 267 Ripely once again has a town read on me throughout most of my ranting. He says at one point that he's just gonna ignore me.

He says he almost voted me here in 267, citing my aggravation/reaction at being at L-2. He says he didn't see this in my other game. Had he survived to D-2 I most certainly would have gotten some posts. Idignant, increased posting, SWEARING.
Ergo- You can do better than overreacting at L-2 right?

The issue that I really have here is that for all the hopping I can't really divine CS's intent because of the age old "newb or scum?" question.

This seems incompatible with you liking Poro's consistency. You're uncertain on me, but you don't caution Poro about the danger's of his current tunnel-vision.


Zeek was trying to reason which pair Garn/Poro or CS/Ergo was pushing the wagon on the townie. Ergo mentioned (a good point I though) that this was a rather shallow analysis. I'm not detracting from Zeek (I actually was figuring along similar lines) But the likliehood of either scum pair voting one after the other on opposite wagons is not very high.

There are degrees to WIFOM which is what you have to remember...

Start of game -Ergo incidentally defends me. Derails my early BW.
-I immediately voice that I believe Ergo's defense of me feels townish.
-Pressure comes off.
-I am making some decent, some reachy (Ergo seemed okay with them on the whole at the time) points on Leet. (I generally/outspokenly voice a lack of suspicion of Ergo throughout this early period)
-Post 81 'I say I'm happy the way things turned out. Sorry Ergo for all the trouble this has caused you' he says 'Oh don't sweat it. Happens all the time.' This may well have been followed by a hug.
-Ergo voices non-commital support of a vote on leet.
-Ergo says he's not gonna vote until Destructor arrives.
-I post saying why I am not unvoting during the replacement.
-In the very next post Ergo votes destructor.
-I unvote after Destructors first post.
-Ergo says he's happy with his vote now.
-I ask why
-He answers
-I go on to revote
-Ergo begins to back down on Destructor a bit
-Garn expressing suspicion of "leet"
-Ergo drops a couple mentions of trouble with Ripley's play.
-I ask anyone (Ergo by NAME) to make a case if possible.
-Ergo gives a few points on Ripley.
-I try to talk Ergo back into suspecting destructor. He says you've satisfied him.
-I unvote destructor.
-I use Ergo's minor points on Ripley to go on an all out crusade at the drop of a dime.
-Ergo says he liked the post with no elaboration. Want's to know why I had town reads.
-Ergo goes a little quiet in this span
-Ergo: "I almost feel like we should lynch the lurker at this point" (Reads, the luker is detracting form the game, he is the perosn I would least like to have to get a read on tomorrow)
-In the NEXT post I take actiona nd vote Garn (regardless of alignment) I say that I believe Ergo's suspicion of RIpley was genuine
-Ergo contradicts himself in the next post. We don't have townies to sacrifice.
-I begin attacking Porochaz, basiacally confirm my vote on Garn several times-> One of the many things about the situation that I believe totally expunges Zeek of hi vote. The Garnasha hammer was imminently forgivable, I wish Ergo wouldn't use this now.
-Ergo votes Garn (ostensibly in order to prompt a decent read-through)- A point I was screaming about

-Now D-2 Ergo and I are a bit at odds.

Do you see what I am getting at here? Degress of WIFOM. We couldn't have worked it out though. It's almsot as if we would have needed a phychic link. "Wow, that whole you defending me thing worked so good, we might as well tag along for the rest of D-1"

Voting, suspecting, unvoting, making cases right after each other (literally seperated by no posts sometimes) defending each other.

Now Ergo is an IC. I'm a newb but I'm not completely clueless.
Would we be THIS obvious? Looking back at the thread, in lots of places we might as well have been holding hands. Suspicious in order not to look suspicious. Outright coordinated, following, defending, in sequential posts.

Anyways, If Ergo and I were to reach into a bag without looking...what are the odds we both get the red sweets?

[Civil Scum]

Come on Ergo, like seriously if we were to reach into a bag and pull out the red sweets... you're clearly missing the joke.

The first point, yeah. Which scenario works better though? Makes more sense? CS=scum with Ergo=town Ergo=scum with CS=town This is my point

[Civil Scum]

Ergo, Poro's tunnel vision greater differs from mine in D-2 for one very large reason. He's outright said he's not gonna vote for anyone else besides me.

I would agree that Destructor is tunneled, but he's working it out. I'm not gonna caution him against it, cause I think you're scum, there I said it.

Ironically, he's (Destructor) about the only person I really think is solidly town.

Considering the situation, I don't find it that ironic.

[Civil Scum]

"Degrees of WIFOM"

First of all, I don't understand how you can be upset with someone for using/expanding upon your argument. Except that it's aimed at you. This is defensive in and of itself.

Secondly, you used it as a cure-all for one thing, that you would have known you'd draw heat for defending me like you did. Except, you also claim that subsequent pressure required you to justify your position (attack on Zeek), resulting in a type of defense.

Your usage was a strange cure-all for your initial "defense" of me. Except the defense evolved out of your actions, and the explanations for your actions.

The difference in these two cases of "Degrees" is that it is the whole pattern of play this time. Not one basic/early decision.

While you (obviously) agree with me here,
I don't think you should be comparing these two usages of the argument's basis. They are completely different.

Zeek, linking Poro and Ergo is a bit difficult. I've been able to do it easily because Poro won't vote for anyone else (unless he's changed that stance lately) and I'm fairly certian of you and destructor.

-Poro switching his vote from Ergo to me during the Ripley debaucle, while saying he was going to vote for one of us, is very strange and waify. A suspicion (a true suspicion) of Ergo has not factored into any of his play or reasoning.

Okay, that's my piece.

[Civil Scum]

Destructor and Zeek. Please consider my point. Reasonable WIFOM.

vote: Ergo

[Civil Scum]

I'm at a loss for words right now...I was convinced that Ergo and I were in a competition to win over Destructor and votes either way.

Zeek, you're frustration and reasoning seemed very genuine. I just had no clue. Sorry Ripley. Not sorry Garn Poro, would have liked to have been scum with you that game, hilarious.

Now that I think about it. The reasonable WIFOM argument I was making near the end of the game also makes good sense if neither Ergo nor I are scum.


Good game.