Open 42 - Friends and Enemies - (Game Over) before 495

[Phate]

Mod Edit: Vote Count

Sammich[2](Samruc, Shanba)
Phate[2](ChaosOmega, Simenon)
Shanba[1](Sammich)
Lemming1607[1](Jex)

Not Voting[3](Phate, Lemming1607, Per)

I welcome you Phate, who is replacing AlSleet, and forgot to pick up his prod

Ah-ah-ah. The way you phrase is simplified to "I welcome you, Phate, and forgot to pick up his prod," with the clause indicating the subtext "Phate is a person who is replacing AlSleet." Setting aside the other grammatical errors, it seems to imply that

I

have forgotten to pick up my prod. Also, there needs to be a comma between "you", which is the object, and "Phate", which is the clause defining "you". You're also missing end punctuation.

The corrected sentence stands: "I welcome you, Phate, who is replacing AlSleet, who forgot to pick up his prod."[/englishmajor]

A big, fat =P to you: =P!

Also, I'm currently working on making a post analysis of each player and list of who's scum and who's not. I will have it up either tonight or tomorrow.

[Phate]

The following are my notes on every player. It's basically me trying to get up to speed, as well as sharing my opinions. Feel free to comment - in fact, I expect you to comment. Anyone not responding will be hung by their underdeveloped testicles (or labia; we're equal-opportunity) until dead.

EmpTyger - makes a huge show of leading the town (which appears pro-town, but isn't, necessarily - I'd be ecstatic to be a Mafia playing town leader) and voting for lurkers (which ISN'T pro-town, although some think it is - better a warm, silent body as a townie than an actively posting scum). Asks Sim's opinion (since I believe that ET/CO is scum, this is suggestion that Sim is also scum), who basically replies "Not scum. Duh (Since they're on the same wagon, this is really the only answer for Sim whether he's town, scum, or Mason)." Whether town or scum, that seems a dumb play on ET/CO's part. Perhaps I'm missing something. He spends the remainder of his time agreeing a lot with everyone, asking questions that lead to (IMO) wild goose chases, and discussing the probability of finding Masons with Simenon, while keeping his crusade against lurkers, fading into the background, and eventually leaving (Why is it that the ones who go after lurkers are almost always lurkers themselves?).

Conclusion: Suspicious. Maybe scum. I'd have to see more to know more.

ChaosOmega (replaced EmpTyger) - doesn't make filler post (admirable). Votes Crub and FoS's Sir T in first post, accusing Crub of trying to reveal the Masons and Sir T of bandwagoning. Next post: changes his vote to Samruc, implying that real townies vote instead of just accusing. Next post: revotes Crub with no other reason than that Simenon wanted him to die. (At this point, I am 72% that he is scum. Three votes and one FoS in three posts, including two flip-flops based on public opinion. His accusation to Sir T of bandwagon is paling in comparison to his own behaviour.) Sammich notices this, and confronts him. CO backpedals, saying Crub was his main suspect all the time, and that he just voted for Samruc "to see his response," and also, in essence, admits that his only evidence is Crub's perceived failure (he calls all of Crub's responses appeals to emotion) to defend himself after CO calls him out on mentioning the Masons (Is this particularly damning? I think not. Crub strikes me not as scum, but as a newbie, or unskilled, townie. Turns out I was right.) Casually mentions that Sammich is his first choice for scum (with no justification - this is essentially another completely unfounded FoS based on public opinion), but instead votes for AlSlee simply "because he hasn't posted in 9 days," and because he wouldn't like to be accused of setting up for a hammer. Someone remarks that CO isn't much better. CO curtly defends himself and vaguely agrees that he'd like to hear more from people.

Conclusion: S-C-U-M. In my initial skim, I thought Sim should be the lynch, but as of right now, CO is damned to the Mafia in my opinion. He definitely confirms my suspicious of ET.

Guardian - Nice sense of humour. I appreciate his scenewriting.

Jex - randomvotes Khelvaster. Votes Crub for putting YogurtBandit at L-2 (Hmm.) When Crub OMGUS's him, he tries to set the foundation for a case against Crub. In his next post, he says he's "doing a PBPA of the first person on the list (alphabetically) which just happens to be crub:" (Please. Whether you're scum, town, or Mason, there's no "just happens to be" when every post since your second has targeted Crub.) His PBPA is the beginning of a weak case on Crub that, coupled with Crub's refusal to defend himself, will end in a mislynch. Finally, he notes that Crub is lurking. Crub points out that Jex is on his fourth post, one of which is a randomvote with no explanation. Jex apologises. He remains silent until public opinion sways against Crub, at which time he pops back up and leaps onto the bandwagon, all the while reminding that he's been on Crub since the beginning. His eighth post, on Sep. 14, I really don't like. He responds to Crub's fatalism by saying such fatalism "wreaks [sic] of scum." (This could be a honest mistake, but if so, it's a giant one. At best: Townies aren't afraid to die to help the town win. A 1-for-1 trade is beneficial to the town, and that's what Crub wanted out of this one. At worst: WIFOM. But it's hard to interpret this as reeking of scum.) He apologises for inactivity, saying that he'll "stay up on the game," and defends his vote on Crub by saying that his gut instincts are always right. (O RLY?) Day 2, when Sammich notes that Jex and Sim had been pushing for his lynch almost the whole Day 1, he pleads ignorance by saying he wasn't reading the thread (*eyeroll* That's a cop-out if I've ever heard one. Request replacement, remove your vote and your opinions, or stay up-to-date.) He claims to have done a readthrough and votes Lemming, although mentioning that he also is looking at Sammich. His justification is the hammer on Day 1 (You were VOTING for Crub. If you didn't want him susceptible to a hammer, unvote.) He kind of defends Sammich against Lemming's accusation of spaghetti, and suffixes it with essentially: "but by the way, I'm not saying he isn't scummy." (It seems to me that he wants the easiest lynch, Lemming, but to be able to claim that he's been after Sammich if public opinion sways. His "case" against Lemming is disturbingly familiar - it reminds me of his "case" against Crub.) In his last post, when Shanba says the questions and the phrasing of Sammich's questions are scummy, Jex agreed with that, too. (Told you.)

Conclusion: I'm not certain of his scumminess, but I do believe that he is probably scum, and would support his lynch.

Khelvaster - votes Shanba. Votes Lemming, with little reason other than Samruc's FoS. Leaves.

Conclusion: Could be scum. Could be Mason, too. Not enough content to analyse.

Sammich (replaced Khelvaster) - First thing he does is FoS Shanba, making a weak case backed up through faulty logic. Disagrees with a policy lynch of YB. Goes on to vote ET, with a mediocre base of evidence. Maintains pressure on Shanba, but votes Sir T for a lack of "Town-love." (The fuck? What kind of evidence is that?) Surreptiously asks for a hammer. When Sammich notices this, he responds with, basically, "nuh-uh. If I was asking for a hammer, I would have been harder on him." (If that had any logic to it, it would be WIFOM; since it doesn't, it's just stupid. If he was telling the truth, if that's the case, why even mention it?) Then he OMGUS FoS's Samruc (he also votes himself, but I think he was trying to quote Samruc's vote of him). Shanba picks up on this, and votes Sammich. He backpedals and tries to defend himself, finally (though he denies it and "backs it up" with "reasons") OMGUS votes Shanba. His famous (it is now) "Opportunistic scum, take notice" dissuades anyone from voting for him, and gives him time to jump on the Crub wagon. His last post on the 29th - "I admit it. I would vote anybody except me right now." is ridiculous (Is he attempting to convey paranoia? I don't get it. That's a decidedly anti-town stance, and I can only guess that it's tongue-in-cheek). When Sim votes him, he responds with "What the hell?" (If they're both scum, that could have a double meaning.) At the beginning of Day II, Samm and Sim start out at each other's throats (Odd timing. Maybe trying to make people believe they're not connected). FoS's Sim, Lemming, Shanba, and Jex. The majority of his questions are so loaded as to invalidate them. Sim's question was, Shanba's question was ridiculously so, and the "cases" against Lemming and Jex were weak (Did he plan it that way? WIFOM). EVERYONE picked up on this, and he voted and FoS'd the people who called him out. When his attacks played out, he kind of just faded into the background.

Conclusion: I think he's scum. I'd put him second on my list.

Lemming1607 - Jokes around a bit. When Samruc accuses him, he defends himself. Is generally inactive, remains in the jokevote stage after everyone else has left it. When he asks for a votecount, ET (and Sir T? Unclear) jumps on him. Lemming wtf's in response. He begins to contribute, and I find his analysis on the mindset of the game to be up to par. Unvotes Crub, taking his "it was a joke" defense. Remains steadfast in his belief that A.) talking about who will be killed is WIFOM and B.) talking about the Masons is bad for the town. Votes YB, with unfortunately solid-looking evidence. Questions Shanba's reluctance to lynch YB. Responds to Per's analysis. After a tense period during which YB was at -1, Lemming unvotes. His post 26, on Sep. 13, 1:23 am, was a very well-reasoned case against Simenon, and one with which I can't help but agree. He continues his glorious crusade against unexplained bandwagoning during the initial Crub wagon. He kind of misses Simenon's point about "methodical bandwagoning," as does everyone, I think. His response to "opportunistic scum, take notice" ("hey guys I'm scum and I'm going to make it look scummy to vote for me so that no one will and I will continue to live") was astutely accurate. To no avail, he tries to get people to actually discuss their thoughts. When no one does, he hammers Crub in frustration. Is suspicious of Sammich, but I don't think the suspicion is founded (yet). Game kind of dwindles. He welcomes me with incorrect grammar (scumtell!!!!).

Conclusion: Townie. He uses logic to make his votes, and even if I don't agree with his logic sometimes, it's not bullshit. Furthermore, he's automatically suspicious of those who don't do the same. I think he's townie.

Per - makes detailed analyses when he's on, which is not often. I like his logic, and he notices everything - I only wish he'd post more often.

Conclusion: Townie, and furthermore one who needs to post more often. I like this kid.

Polter

Crub (replaced Polter) - Randomvotes Yogurt Bandit. OMGUSvotes Jex. When Jex immediately pounces on that and attempts to cast suspicion on him, he defends himself with basically "wtf? it was a joke." Oddly, in that post, he mentions the Masons where no mention was necessary or beneficial (Possibly trying to make people believe he's a Mason?). His next post also mentions the Masons, and he claims to have a grasp on 2 or even 3 of them (Guess he wasn't trying to make people believe he's a Mason. Suspicious or more likely noobish, then. Or is this reverse psychology, a la "First person to claim that they're not the doctor is probably the doctor"? This seems more likely, but we'll never know.) When Per raises his figurative eyebrows at this, he says that this was a hint for the masons to be more careful. Oh, and he jumps on the SirT wagon without commenting, something Per also picks up on. (Per seems to be a perceptive player, but it seems more like he's trying to throw suspicion off of Sir T than actually scumhunting. Mason protecting a partner was my first impression, and Mafia doing likewise crossed my mind next. Sir T's death proves that neither is true, however. Perhaps one of the two trying to associate themselves with someone else? Per strikes me as more Mason than Mafia, but I think Mafia would be more likely to do this. I also could be seeing connections where there are none. I'll reserve judgment.) Crub makes an admittedly lame defense (I can definitely see how you guys could mislynch him). When Jex tries to divert the mob from a lurker to Crub, saying Crub is also lurking (Mafia hiding a buddy? I'd count this as a possibility, but since the possible buddy is YogurtBandit, prepredecessor, I know it to be false. Then why? Foreseeing the wagon running out of steam, and switching to an easier target? Possible, but unlikely. Trying to associate YB with himself? This doesn't strike me as advantageous. WIFOM - would a scum do that? Still, though, this definitely doesn't fit my Jex-Mafia profile. I'm less certain of his scumminess.), Crub responds with what is, in essence, "NO U." He welcomes CO. It quickly becomes apparent that public opinion is in favour of a Crub lynch. Crub resigns himself to lynchitude, repeating that when he turns up town, Sim is the next lynch and expresses his (false, in retrospect) belief that Sir T is also mafia. He implies (correctly, I believe), that the scum are all on his case. He makes an unclear post in response to Sammich's "bandwagon"; when Shanba calls it appeal to emotion, he agrees. When Samruc tells him to make himself useful, he votes Sammich. In a noble/lazy play by his part, he plays the martyr to the bitter end (bonus points for the word myopic).

Final Bandwagoners: ChaosOmega, Jex, Lemming, Shanba, Simenon. Probably, all of the scum are on this wagon. At first glance, the incredible speed (5 votes in 4 days, the last 2 less than 2 hours apart) makes me think that it's possible that not all of the scum had time to jump on. On second thought, the scum probably account for the aforementioned speed. The Masons know beyond the shadow of the doubt three players that are not scum (leaving 8 potentials). The Townies know only one (themselves), leaving 10. The Mafia know who the scum are, but know 8 potential Masons. Thus, Masons are 20% more likely to vote for any given non-Mason, and the Mafia have a 20% chance of correctly guessing Masons, all circumstantial evidence aside. So I'd estimate, out of those above, at least two and probably three Mafia are on the wagon, but at least one and possibly two Masons are on the wagon as well.

Samruc - after we move out of the randomvote stage, he becomes suspicious of Shanba, then Crub, but isn't sure enough to lynch Crub. He spends the next several posts nailing Sammich with impeccable logic. Day 2, he wtf's Lemming's hammer, but maintains pressure on Sammich.

Conclusion: Townie, and someone I'd trust to use correct reasoning.

Shanba - past the randomvote stage, I have to say: he agrees with people a lot, but he never really hardcore pushes a lynch. He votes Sammich, who accuses Shanba of scumminess (and seems to be grasping at straws to justify this) and OMGUS's him. He defends himself capably. After being persuaded to join the Crub wagon, he returns to Sammich.

Conclusion: Townie. Somewhat indecisive, but she's right on the money about Sammich.

Simenon - Consistently votes without any justification. When he's called out on this, he pushes a cryptic question: Is it a coincidence that he's always the third onto the wagon? I think he may be trying to suggest he's a Mason (the third Mason, no less), but I don't think he is. He also may be suggeting that he's methodically bandwagoning to apply pressure systematically, but if that's the case, why does he stay there and lynch, rather than pulling out when it becomes apparent no information is forthcoming? He really doesn't provide any reason for me to think he's anything but scum. I'm amazed that you people voted him over Crub - compare their responses to attacks.

Conclusion: Scum. Not certain, but fairly sure.

Sir Tornado - getting tired of writing analyses. He's dead. What can we learn from his death? Not a hell of a lot that I can find.

YogurtBandit - Made a grand total of two posts.

Alsleet (replaced YogurtBandit) - Obligatory "I exist" post. Mourns YB's suspicious (or at least, interpreted that way) play (which is understandable, since we're a vanilla townie). Notes short-lived argument between Shanba and Sir T and gently implies a connection (in retrospect, Sir T's vanilla status invalidates this line of reasoning, although it was weak from the beginnin). Notes that the last three posters (Sim, Jex, and Sam, in ascending order of included "logic") are gung ho to lynch Crub on what he feels is substandard evidence. Elects not to vote just yet. QFT's Sammich responding to Simenon, opining that Simenon wants to kill Lemming with no evidence he plans to share. Suspects Simenon, but reserves vote or FoS. After Simenon replies that he would prefer to lynch Crub first, with no supporting evidence, and Crub cheerfully threatens that Sim will be next to be lynched, and Jex drastically misreads Crub's behaviour, Al makes an unclear post. He comments that it blows "Answer the question" out of the water, and accuses someone of double standards. QFT's Samruc's opinions on CO's opinions on Sammich, expressing that Sammich is worth examination, but Simenon is scummier, still withholding vote/FoS (Why??). Apologises for lack of activity, finally actualises opinion with a vote. Reiterates his reluctance to wagon on Crub, and expresses equal reluctance for Sammich. Expresses that his "prime candidate is actually Shanba," citing erratic play (odd switch. Does it have merit? Only time will tell).

Conclusion: Cautious townie. Reluctance to bandwagon is admirable - could indicate Mason, but I know otherwise. Doesn't offer much, but sees through bullshit logic for what it is. Reluctance to vote is slightly suspicious and could indicate Mafia, but again, I know otherwise.

Phate (replaced Alsleet) - Replaced in. Jumped all over bad grammar. Made a priority to post this.



Ok, now that that's over with, I'd just like to say this - I have made mention to the Masons in the above analysis, but as best I can, I have not shared my opinions on who they are, or referenced them except to distinguish them from the Mafia where it was strictly necessary, to help avoid a Mason mislynch. But that seems to me like an easy way for scum to say, "He wants to out the Masons! DEATH!"

So if someone criticises my mention of the Masons and gives no reasons that I have not just responded to, beware, they're just looking for an excuse to lynch me. But if someone criticises my mention of the Masons (or anything else), and gives actual evidence to back it up, then listen to them, and if I don't respond well enough, goodbye, Phate.

[Simenon]

Consistently votes without any justification.

I demand an explanation for why this makes me scum.

I think he may be trying to suggest he's a Mason (the third Mason, no less), but I don't think he is.

Huh, interesting. Why as scum would I try to claim that all the wagons I've jumped on have had two other mason buddies on them?

That simply isn't logical. Think before you type.

He also may be suggeting that he's methodically bandwagoning to apply pressure systematically, but if that's the case, why does he stay there and lynch, rather than pulling out when it becomes apparent no information is forthcoming?

I haven't been "suggesting" anything. Read my posts. I've laid out everything I want you to see.

He really doesn't provide any reason for me to think he's anything but scum.

You haven't really provided any reason other than I have deliberately dodged not giving a reason for my votes, which you haven't provided a reason for backing that up in the first place.

I also find it incredibly interesting that the first on your list is the person who is voting you.

[Simenon]

Also, you claim not to be a mason, so you have no grounds to assume that I'm not.

This:

Reluctance to bandwagon is admirable

is laughable.

Sometimes less is more as far as analysis goes.

[Simenon]

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm not first on your suspicion list. That would instead be CO, who is also voting you.

Everyone please pressure Phate.

[Phate]

Ok, before I go on, I'd like to quote myself, so my position is not misconstrued:

Conclusion: Scum. Not certain, but fairly sure.

I don't know you're scum. I suspect you're scum. I am almost certain CO is scum. Next on the list is Sammich. Third: you and Jex.

I demand an explanation for why this makes me scum.

To me it looks like you're trying to subtly twist what I'm saying. Perhaps it's just an overreaction to what you perceive as an accusation without due evidence, but it's worth a thought.

Huh, interesting. Why as scum would I try to claim that all the wagons I've jumped on have had two other mason buddies on them?

That simply isn't logical. Think before you type.

Why wouldn't you? If I, as scum, was able to convince the town that I was a Mason, and thus anyone who defended me (my mafia buddies) probably was too, I would be ecstatic. Are you going to grace us with your REASON why it isn't logical?

I haven't been "suggesting" anything. Read my posts. I've laid out everything I want you to see.

I can't figure you out. Maybe you always play this way, but to me it looks like you're deliberately withholding information. Since there are no investigative roles, there is no emperical information you are capable of possessing (unless you're scum). So in that case, you could only be withholding an opinion (unless you're scum). The only opinion I can see that is worth withholding is the identities of the Masons. That has little to do with defending your votes.

So I'm going to call your fucking bluff. In response to "Why did you vote X," you asked, "Do you think my 'methodical bandwagoning' a coincidence?" I'll answer you: the nature of the question suggests that it is not. So no, for the purposes of this little game, we'll say that I don't think it's a coincidence. Your turn: Why are you voting the people for whom you're voting?

You haven't really provided any reason other than I have deliberately dodged not giving a reason for my votes...

You're right. That + the way Crub was treated for behaving in a similar fashion strike me as very odd.

...which you haven't provided a reason for backing that up in the first place.

Clarify. I don't understand this. Are you saying that I need to provide a reason why unexplained bandwagoning is a scumtell?

Also, you claim not to be a mason, so you have no grounds to assume that I'm not.

Maybe you are. Maybe you're not. It's possible that you are, but I doubt it. In any case, I haven't assumed anything about the identities of any Masons. Where do you think I have?

This:

Reluctance to bandwagon is admirable

is laughable.

*shrugs* Laugh if you like. Perhaps I was unclear, but I believe that reluctance to bandwagon without due evidence (which is what I meant) is admirable.

I also find it incredibly interesting that the first on your list is the person who is voting you... Oh, I'm sorry, I'm not first on your suspicion list. That would instead be CO, who is also voting you.

I'd like to say first that this is screaming for a snide comment like "Think before you post." Then I'd like to go to the actual logic. So I will.

To be honest, I hadn't even looked at the vote count when I made the analysis - I started it when the mod pm'ed me telling I was probably going to get the replacement. That's why I have an analysis of each player (I did it in alphabetical order, meaning I analysed Alsleet first, but I organised it in alphabetical order of original player, with replacers chronologically after their replacee).

But you know, what? I find that interesting too. Very interesting. Let's go look at those posts, and the reasons for voting AlSleet.

Because he hasn't posted in 9 days, and I'd rather not put Sammich at L-1 yet, even though he's my first choice for scum right now.

In Simenon's TooMuchScum, ALSleet lurked before eventually asking for a replacement.

Both voting for a lurker with no reason other than that he's a lurker (and both within a page of each other). Tell me: who benefits more from seeing a lurker (assuming the lurker is of undetermined status) killed? Town loses a warm body. Scum comes 1 step closer to the win. So yes, I think it's very suspicious that two people I find scummy happen to be voting for a lurker, one I replaced. And I'm not surprised at all that you showed them the surface of this, without digging a little deeper to the reasons behind the vote.

Everyone please pressure Phate.

Call it what you like. You're not calling for pressure any more than you were for Crub. You're calling for a lynch. Pressure is designed to gain information. A lynch is not. If you had wanted to pressure Crub, you wouldn't have let him go to L-1 and be susceptible to a hammer. That's true of everyone on the wagon.

Why? If you're protown, it could mean you feel threatened - otherwise, you've given no reason (seeing a pattern here) to label me scum. If you're Mafia... well, you could feel threatened.

Care to respond?

[Sammich]

Sammich (replaced Khelvaster) - First thing he does is FoS Shanba, making a weak case backed up through faulty logic.

Lolwut?

Disagrees with a policy lynch of YB. Goes on to vote ET, with a mediocre base of evidence. Maintains pressure on Shanba, but votes Sir T for a lack of "Town-love." (The fuck? What kind of evidence is that?)

It wasn't mediocre. =\

Surreptiously asks for a hammer. When Sammich notices this, he responds with, basically, "nuh-uh. If I was asking for a hammer, I would have been harder on him." (If that had any logic to it, it would be WIFOM; since it doesn't, it's just stupid. If he was telling the truth, if that's the case, why even mention it?)

=\

Then he OMGUS FoS's Samruc (he also votes himself, but I think he was trying to quote Samruc's vote of him).

Not really.

Shanba picks up on this, and votes Sammich. He backpedals and tries to defend himself, finally (though he denies it and "backs it up" with "reasons") OMGUS votes Shanba.

It wasn't an OMGUS, but if you see it that way, I'll refrain from headdesking and yelling.

His famous (it is now) "Opportunistic scum, take notice" dissuades anyone from voting for him, and gives him time to jump on the Crub wagon.

Well, maybe the famous quote'll give me a custom title or something. =\

His last post on the 29th - "I admit it. I would vote anybody except me right now." is ridiculous (Is he attempting to convey paranoia? I don't get it. That's a decidedly anti-town stance, and I can only guess that it's tongue-in-cheek).

You're ridiculous. I don't know how you're analyzing this stuff, but this is BS.

When Sim votes him, he responds with "What the hell?" (If they're both scum, that could have a double meaning.)

What the hell?

At the beginning of Day II, Samm and Sim start out at each other's throats (Odd timing. Maybe trying to make people believe they're not connected).

Are you trying to link us together as scum or something?

FoS's Sim, Lemming, Shanba, and Jex. The majority of his questions are so loaded as to invalidate them. Sim's question was, Shanba's question was ridiculously so, and the "cases" against Lemming and Jex were weak (Did he plan it that way? WIFOM).

Weak?

EVERYONE picked up on this, and he voted and FoS'd the people who called him out. When his attacks played out, he kind of just faded into the background.

Wtf.

Conclusion: I think he's scum. I'd put him second on my list.

My only comment to this is that you suck.
But what else is new? I tell that to people a lot.

[Phate]

Lolwut?... =\... Not really.... What the hell?... Weak?... Wtf.

Now that we have those out of the way, let's move on to the ones that give something to respond to.

It wasn't mediocre. =\... It wasn't an OMGUS, but if you see it that way, I'll refrain from headdesking and yelling... My only comment to this is that you suck.

Matters of opinion. =P Of course, so is almost everything in a Mafia game, but without any evidence to back up your statements, I feel no desire to change them.

Well, maybe the famous quote'll give me a custom title or something. =\

Put it in your signature. "Wth? I think there's a bandwagon beginning to form on me. Opportunistic scum, take notice." Maybe it'll work.

You're ridiculous. I don't know how you're analyzing this stuff, but this is BS.

Your communication style reminds me of a friend of mine. You misunderstand me. I'm not using that statement as a reason to consider you scum. I'm just saying it sounded so ridiculous it had to be a joke, but it was a poor one. In other words: "Lolwut?"

[Phate]

At the beginning of Day II, Samm and Sim start out at each other's throats (Odd timing. Maybe trying to make people believe they're not connected).

Are you trying to link us together as scum or something?

I think that at least one of you and maybe both ARE scum. So yes, I'm searching for possible connections between you in the hopes of finding a link.

[Simenon]

To me it looks like you're trying to subtly twist what I'm saying. Perhaps it's just an overreaction to what you perceive as an accusation without due evidence, but it's worth a thought.

Sorry, but I don't put in the work if you don't. In fact I find it very necessary that you justify that in order to see where you come from.

[Simenon]

To clarify: I want you to justify how me not giving reasons with my votes makes me scum.

Both voting for a lurker with no reason other than that he's a lurker (and both within a page of each other).

Note: I didn't vote ALsleet just for lurking, but rather because ALSleet tends to flake as scum. If you read the post I just quoted, you'll see that I site a valid metagame (I know because I was there) on ALSleet, which brought significant weight to my "lurker vote".

[Phate]

To me it looks like you're trying to subtly twist what I'm saying. Perhaps it's just an overreaction to what you perceive as an accusation without due evidence, but it's worth a thought.

Sorry, but I don't put in the work if you don't. In fact I find it very necessary that you justify that in order to see where you come from.

Fair enough. To clarify (/justify) what I mean: If you're town, then the difference between "Phate says he suspects Simenon is scum" and "Phate says Simenon is scum" is minimal, and the difference is likely due to an overreaction (IMO) on your part. But if you're scum, then the difference is huge. If I suspect you and give reasons to back it up, that's fine; if I say (stating it as a fact) that you're scum, then no proof is enough. Short of being scum, or being a Mason when all the vanilla townies are eliminated, or being the only townie left with three other players, I can't KNOW who is scum. So it is untrue to say that something "makes you scum," which implies that the evidence is both completely damning and beyond reproach. If I were perceived to have said that, I suspect that it could be used against me.

Happy? Why or why not?

Edit: just saw your next post. There you again with "makes me scum." Are you doing it just to throw it in my face?

When a townie votes, it is because they think the person they're voting for is scum (usually; this is a generalisation, but you catch my drift). They have a reason for doing so. When scum vote, it is because they want a townie to be lynched (again, a generalisation, but again, you catch my drift). They need no other reason to desire this, so unless they invent reasons or agree with the reasons of those before them, they vote without justification. Thus, in my opinion, voting without justification (especially when repeated, and leading to a mislynch) is a scumtell, because townies will always have a reason, whether flawed or not, (the reason they think the person they're voting for is scum), but scum don't need a reason to want a townie to be lynched.

Good enough? Why or why not?

I didn't vote ALsleet just for lurking, but rather because ALSleet tends to flake as scum.

What do you mean by "flake"? Does AlSleet "flake" as town?

Now that I've "put in the work," I've got a questions for you:

Why are you "methodically bandwagoning," i.e. voting for people without revealing your reasoning?

[Phate]

Oh, and btw, I'm not voting yet because I'd like to see those I've accused respond to this before I make any decisions.

[Simenon]

When a townie votes, it is because they think the person they're voting for is scum (usually; this is a generalisation, but you catch my drift). They have a reason for doing so. When scum vote, it is because they want a townie to be lynched (again, a generalisation, but again, you catch my drift). They need no other reason to desire this, so unless they invent reasons or agree with the reasons of those before them, they vote without justification. Thus, in my opinion, voting without justification (especially when repeated, and leading to a mislynch) is a scumtell, because townies will always have a reason, whether flawed or not, (the reason they think the person they're voting for is scum), but scum don't need a reason to want a townie to be lynched.

Let me start at the first conclusion: that voting without reasoning is a scumtell. By far, the scum I've seen (and indeed my play in general) vote with giving a reason to try to appear town, and town vote without reasoning (for reasons I can discuss later). I can point out many, many players who vote without reasoning, and indeed I can name many players who always vote without reasoning. They obviously can be both town and scum. Therefore my experience has led me to conclude that this is not a scumtell but is a tell for playstyle. In fact, you can tell a scum by their demanding to give reasoning- something that makes them try to appear town (not suggesting I think you are scum because of this). I can back this up by naming the players and linking their past games, but come on. Search for a game three years ago and you'll find most players simply voted for no reasoning, or if they did state it, used bandwagoning to justify it.

Your second conclusion I need further information about you. Do you recognize any positive arguments for voting without reasoning?

Seeing as you have done what I asked, I'm going to try replying myself.

[Simenon]

Why wouldn't you? If I, as scum, was able to convince the town that I was a Mason, and thus anyone who defended me (my mafia buddies) probably was too, I would be ecstatic. Are you going to grace us with your REASON why it isn't logical?

Because I would be claiming two mason buddies that aren't actually mason buddies. Convincing the town to an extent possibly, but the town can just look back at my voting record and lynch me instantly.

Maybe you always play this way, but to me it looks like you're deliberately withholding information.

I'm trying to make people think for themselves, which is strangely something my hands-off playstyle has evolved to do.

I'll answer you: the nature of the question suggests that it is not. So no, for the purposes of this little game, we'll say that I don't think it's a coincidence.

Alright, then I'll state it for you: yes, it was with purpose and no it was not a coincidence. (I believed I had admitted as much so yeh).

Now try reading what I just said in context of lemming's interrogation. Can you see why I made that statement?

Your turn: Why are you voting the people for whom you're voting?

I'm voting you for reasons already stated. I voted the people I voted originally because they had votes on them and I didn't think they were not town (with the exception of one very special vote).

If you look at what I've said, it's not that hard to figure out. I realize my posts are very cryptic this game, and I apologize. But I'm just a little too lazy to figure them out.

You're right. That + the way Crub was treated for behaving in a similar fashion strike me as very odd.

Crub had a very different tendency to omgus all over the place and overreact, to the point where it looked like he just gave up.

What do you mean by "flake"? Does AlSleet "flake" as town?

To "flake" is to need or ask for replacement. It implies (although it is not always the case) being active in other threads and therefore it making you seem like an ass.
AlSleet doesn't flake as town to my knowledge. I only know his scum play. Ask someone else.

Why are you "methodically bandwagoning," i.e. voting for people without revealing your reasoning?

For reactions, to speed up the pace of this generally slow game, to shorten the length of day one (scattered one wagons tend to make games longer by losing their focus), so that someone could ask this very question, and finally a super sekrit recon that I'll state after the game. I can assure you thought it's not rolerelated. All of those answers about equally.

Eager to see your response.

Unvote
Vote Sammich

And rather willing to vote someone who just cracked under your analysis.

[Simenon]

Phate how new are you to mafia?

[Phate]

I'll respond to the last question first, because it colours the rest of my post.

Phate how new are you to mafia?

Well... actually... this is my first game. But I had some friends who liked to play, and I've checked out the Wiki, and watched some games, and I pride myself on the logic.

Because I would be claiming two mason buddies that aren't actually mason buddies. Convincing the town to an extent possibly, but the town can just look back at my voting record and lynch me instantly.

I see, and concede the point.

I'm voting you for reasons already stated. I voted the people I voted originally because they had votes on them and I didn't think they were not town (with the exception of one very special vote).

Didn't think they were not town... *puzzles that one out* So, if by "town," you mean "townie," then you thought they were either Masons or Mafia. If, by "town," you mean "protown," you mean you thought they were Masons or townies. So why would you vote them? I have some ideas, but... hmm.

Crub had a very different tendency to omgus all over the place and overreact, to the point where it looked like he just gave up.

*thinks* That may be true, but I still think your reactions were similar, but your treatment was different. I'll file that away for future reference.

For reactions, to speed up the pace of this generally slow game, to shorten the length of day one (scattered one wagons tend to make games longer by losing their focus), so that someone could ask this very question, and finally a super sekrit recon that I'll state after the game. I can assure you thought it's not rolerelated. All of those answers about equally.

Maybe so. That doesn't completely excuse you in my eyes, but I'm not anywhere nearly as certain that you're scum, after you actually began to answer my questions.

Let me start at the first conclusion: that voting without reasoning is a scumtell. By far, the scum I've seen (and indeed my play in general) vote with giving a reason to try to appear town, and town vote without reasoning (for reasons I can discuss later). I can point out many, many players who vote without reasoning, and indeed I can name many players who always vote without reasoning. They obviously can be both town and scum. Therefore my experience has led me to conclude that this is not a scumtell but is a tell for playstyle. In fact, you can tell a scum by their demanding to give reasoning- something that makes them try to appear town (not suggesting I think you are scum because of this). I can back this up by naming the players and linking their past games, but come on. Search for a game three years ago and you'll find most players simply voted for no reasoning, or if they did state it, used bandwagoning to justify it.

So to sum up the points herein as I understand it:
It is not uncommon or unnacceptable for townies to vote without giving a reason.
Scum are more likely than town to demand reasoning.

Can anyone else validate this? The second point seems nonsensical to me - as a townie, I can say for damn sure that I want to know why people are voting like they are.

Your second conclusion I need further information about you. Do you recognize any positive arguments for voting without reasoning?

I'm trying to make people think for themselves, which is strangely something my hands-off playstyle has evolved to do.

Now try reading what I just said in context of lemming's interrogation. Can you see why I made that statement?

The teacher role, if sincere, is appreciated, and I would definitely enjoy discussing this with you after the game. Until then, though, playing the mentor doesn't grant immunity. Turning around an accusation with a Morgan Freeman-esque "You tell me, grasshopper" doesn't work. If I can't find a valid reason, you can just look wise and say, "keep looking." If I can, you can smile and nod, having just manipulated me into letting you off my own hook.

But yeah. Notice to everyone: Since there appears to be a bandwagon on Sammich, and since I think he's scum, and since he's failing to defend himself, I will hereby vote for him in +- 20 hours unless he provides me with a satisfactory response. That will put him at L-1, unless someone votes for him, in which case it will put us at Day 3.

[Shanba]

Sim - I was forced to replace Alsleet as a vig in my mini normal, but I believe he had personal issues at the time.

[ChaosOmega]

doesn't make filler post (admirable)

My posts are serious business.

Votes Crub and FoS's Sir T in first post, accusing Crub of trying to reveal the Masons and Sir T of bandwagoning. Next post: changes his vote to Samruc, implying that real townies vote instead of just accusing. Next post: revotes Crub with no other reason than that Simenon wanted him to die. (At this point, I am 72% that he is scum. Three votes and one FoS in three posts, including two flip-flops based on public opinion. His accusation to Sir T of bandwagon is paling in comparison to his own behaviour.)

The reason why I voted with every one of my posts was because of the fact that I wasn't posting too much day 1. I'm not saying it's a good reason, but with all that time in-between the posts, my viewpoints on things are bound to change. My first post, I voted Crub for the mason comment that stood out to me. It was just my initial suspicion at the time. Next post, I vote for Samruc to get an answer on something. Third post, I'm satisfied with his answer, and I go back to the person I was initially suspicious of, now with me being more sure because of his comments leading up to my third post. Oh, and how is my behavior "paling in comparison" to that of Sir Tornado? He wanted someone lynched for reasons that have nothing to do with the current game. He put him at L-1 early day 1 because of his playstyle. I know that I was part of a bandwagon, but I least I thought the person I was trying to lynch was scum.

Sammich notices this, and confronts him. CO backpedals, saying Crub was his main suspect all the time, and that he just voted for Samruc "to see his response," and also, in essence, admits that his only evidence is Crub's perceived failure (he calls all of Crub's responses appeals to emotion) to defend himself after CO calls him out on mentioning the Masons

When did I say that Crub wasn't my main suspect? And I called them appeals to emotion because they were. All he was doing was going "I'm town. If you're voting me, it means you're scum. You'll see when I turn up town."

(Is this particularly damning? I think not.

Him talking about the masons I thought was suspicious. I thought he was scum because of that in combination with his response to the votes he received.

Crub strikes me not as scum, but as a newbie, or unskilled, townie. Turns out I was right.)

Crub strikes me as townie now as well. If only we could play in hindsight.

I don't like this statement. The wording suggests that you were playing and you felt that Crub was a townie, but you weren't even playing day 1. It just seems like you're trying to word it in a way as to make it obvious I was wrong.

Casually mentions that Sammich is his first choice for scum (with no justification - this is essentially another completely unfounded FoS based on public opinion), but instead votes for AlSlee simply "because he hasn't posted in 9 days," and because he wouldn't like to be accused of setting up for a hammer.

Do you know why I wouldn't have liked to put Sammich at L-1? Because we were about 1 and a half pages into day 2. I think that's a little early to do that. He still is my first choice for scum at the moment, because of his list of suspicions and now because of his response to your comments.

Looking over your list, I'm happy with my vote on you. Let's put your summaries of all players in a list:

ChaosOmega: definite scum
Jex: probable scum
Khelvaster: could be scum/could be mason
Sammich: scum
Lemming1607: townie
Per: townie
Samrus: townie
Shanba: townie
Simenon: fairly sure scum
Phate: townie (obviously)

It looks like you're trying to do the same thing Sammich is, which is to suspect a bunch of people and get on the one that sticks. So there are 4 people who you are at least fairly sure are scum, in addition to another person who believe could be scum. And surprisingly, the person who hammered day 1 is not in your long list of suspicions. Considering you think the Crub lynch was a bad one since you knew he was a newbie townie, I'm curious as to why you're not suspicious of Lemming1607.

[Sammich]

Eager to see your response.
Unvote
Vote Sammich
And rather willing to vote someone who just cracked under your analysis.

-insert a bunch of insults here-

It looks like you're trying to do the same thing Sammich is, which is to suspect a bunch of people and get on the one that sticks.

I don't think of it that way.

[Shanba]

Sammich, wake up. If you're town, your posts are actively detrimental in their quality. Please try and actually give us something to work with - if, by chance, you are a townie you get lynched at this point your wagon will not give us much information, because you seem to basically have given up.

[Sammich]

Sammich, wake up. If you're town, your posts are actively detrimental in their quality. Please try and actually give us something to work with - if, by chance, you are a townie you get lynched at this point your wagon will not give us much information, because you seem to basically have given up.

Ah, crap. I'm pulling a Crub, ain't I. D=
Anyway. I'll try to make a post concerning something. Like. An analysis. Promise.

[Phate]

*blinks* That was fast.

Simenon, you remember what I said two posts ago about the possibility of scum subtly misquoting me and then using the misrepresentation of my opinion to cast suspicion on me? I believe I said:

Fair enough. To clarify (/justify) what I mean: If you're town, then the difference between "Phate says he suspects Simenon is scum" and "Phate says Simenon is scum" is minimal, and the difference is likely due to an overreaction (IMO) on your part. But if you're scum, then the difference is huge. If I suspect you and give reasons to back it up, that's fine; if I say (stating it as a fact) that you're scum, then no proof is enough. Short of being scum, or being a Mason when all the vanilla townies are eliminated, or being the only townie left with three other players, I can't KNOW who is scum. So it is untrue to say that something "makes you scum," which implies that the evidence is both completely damning and beyond reproach. If I were perceived to have said that, I suspect that it could be used against me.

That in mind, let's watch how my opinion evolves as ChaosOmega goes on. First, here's a quote from me:

Crub strikes me not as scum, but as a newbie, or unskilled, townie. Turns out I was right

Then here's CO's spin on it:

The wording suggests that you were playing and you felt that Crub was a townie, but you weren't even playing day 1. It just seems like you're trying to word it in a way as to make it obvious I was wrong.

And by the end of the post:

Considering you think the Crub lynch was a bad one since you knew he was a newbie townie...

Interesting how first, I note that my opinion differed from CO's (which is his focus, but really my opinion differed from the majority of the players - I didn't mean this as a jab at CO for being wrong, but a question of, in retrospect, whether his case was strong enough for a lynch, based on the information he had at the time. If not, it warrants further investigation.)

After his analysis, it WAS a jab at him specifically, with no other purpose, and furthermore presumptuous of me to disagree. And by the end, I KNEW that Crub was a newbie townie (but I only THINK the Crub lynch was a bad one - Incongruous?). This is called "twisting my words."

Another example:

Looking over your list, I'm happy with my vote on you. Let's put your summaries of all players in a list:

ChaosOmega: definite scum
Jex: probable scum
Khelvaster: could be scum/could be mason
Sammich: scum
Lemming1607: townie
Per: townie
Samrus: townie
Shanba: townie
Simenon: fairly sure scum
Phate: townie (obviously)

It looks like you're trying to do the same thing Sammich is, which is to suspect a bunch of people and get on the one that sticks. So there are 4 people who you are at least fairly sure are scum, in addition to another person who believe could be scum. And surprisingly, the person who hammered day 1 is not in your long list of suspicions.

*winces* Ouch. That sounds BAAD, doesn't it? It's easy to just look at this and take CO's word for it. I mean, his sarcasm and negative phrases are tearing my arguments apart. Look at some of the language: "suspect a bunch of people and get on the one that sticks," "long list of suspicions," and saying that I believe 5 people may be scum.

5 scum? It's unreasonable for someone to think that, isn't it? After all, Sammich was suspected for four! So five must be even scummier! That's more than half of the remaining players! But there's a little problem with that:

I never said this. I'm being blatantly misquoted.

So with that in mind, let's go over the post and separate the actual content from the propaganda.

My first post, I voted Crub for the mason comment that stood out to me. It was just my initial suspicion at the time. Next post, I vote for Samruc to get an answer on something. Third post, I'm satisfied with his answer, and I go back to the person I was initially suspicious of, now with me being more sure because of his comments leading up to my third post.

If you're town, that's correct.

But what if you're scum? What would you have done? Hmm. For the purposes of this little scenario: You're looking for a Crub lynch, because he's not defending himself well and he looks like an easy lynch. Some of the townies agree, but one of them, Samruc, doesn't vote. You attempt to pressure him into a vote ("You suspect Crub, but won't vote him, so I'll vote you to

make

you vote Crub"). Afterwards, when the Crub wagon is picking back up, you jump back on with no more than an "I agree."

That seems much more likely to me.

The reason why I voted with every one of my posts was because of the

The reason why I voted with every one of my posts was because of the fact that I wasn't posting too much day 1. I'm not saying it's a good reason, but with all that time in-between the posts, my viewpoints on things are bound to change.

Not sure how significant this is, but it's interesting that Jex, one of the other people I suspect are scum, used this same reason to justify the opposite behaviour. Which is it: lack of activity causes more change of opinions, or less?

Oh, and how is my behavior "paling in comparison" to that of Sir Tornado? He wanted someone lynched for reasons that have nothing to do with the current game.

This doesn't just miss my point, it sidesteps it and clotheslines it on the rebound. He accuses Sir Tornado of bandwagoning without sufficient reasoning. Next post, he votes Crub, who's being wagoned (reasoning: one post that commented on the Masons). Next post, he votes Samruc to try to get him onto the Crub wagon (reasoning: If you're suspicious, why don't you vote?). Next post, he jumps back to Crub (his entire post was: "I agree. Vote: Crub." This was in response to Simenon's post, quoted in its entirety here: "That's :badvoting:. We should be voting Crub.") Sir T, on the other hand, jumped onto one bandwagon and pretty much stayed there, citing a valid metagame decision - in his experience, the town tends to lose games when YogurtBandit plays. I'd call that "paling in comparison."

Him talking about the masons I thought was suspicious. I thought he was scum because of that in combination with his response to the votes he received.

I maintain that both Simenon and Sammich now have similarly failed to defend themselves, with different results (looks around). Well, different for Simenon, anyway. Sammich seems pretty sunk.

In response to your list, I'd like to make a more accurate list.

ChaosOmega: S-C-U-M. In my initial skim, I thought Sim should be the lynch, but as of right now, CO is damned to the Mafia in my opinion. He definitely confirms my suspicious of ET.

Jex: I'm not certain of his scumminess, but I do believe that he is probably scum, and would support his lynch.

Sammich: I think he's scum. I'd put him second on my list.

Lemming1607: Townie. He uses logic to make his votes, and even if I don't agree with his logic sometimes, it's not bullshit. Furthermore, he's automatically suspicious of those who don't do the same. I think he's townie.

Per: Townie, and furthermore one who needs to post more often. I like this kid.

Samruc: Townie, and someone I'd trust to use correct reasoning.

Shanba: Townie. Somewhat indecisive, but she's right on the money about Sammich.

Simenon: Scum. Not certain, but fairly sure.

Phate: Townie (obviously).

Now look at the difference between my list and his. Yes, he made "I think so" statements by me into absolute statements. But what's the biggest difference?

Oh, right. He added a player that was replaced. So when I have Khelvaster (maybe scum), followed by Sammich (probably scum), that's only one person. But I guess he didn't notice this. Well, I'm going to stop this accusation in its tracks. There are 3 Masons, 3 Townies, and 3 Mafia left. Having four people you suspect are scum isn't unreasonable - obviously, you're not right on every one of them, but you could be right on the 75% majority.

Suggesting that you suspect 5 in a game of 3 Masons, 3 Mafia, and 4 Townies is a lot different, though. I'd hate to have a misquote make people think I said that.

It looks like you're trying to do the same thing Sammich is, which is to suspect a bunch of people and get on the one that sticks.

Let's break this sentence down. The first part of it is an attempt to link my behaviour with Sammich's behaviour. The second part is an accusation.

So first let's deal with the first part: The difference between Sammich and I is that I actually provide reasons rather than just accusations. Search my posts for loaded questions, or for cases so baseless they don't even require an answer. Get back to me on that.

Next: If I know there are three scum, and I've narrowed it down to 4 potential people, any of whom I would support the lynch for,

why is that a bad thing?

I'm curious as to why you're not suspicious of Lemming1607.

This has the most merit of anything so far in this post.

I already responded to it, though, in my analysis of Lemming. He strikes me as hammering out of frustration and lack of activity. I don't think it's a good idea, but his behaviour makes me think he's completely town - indeed, the only thing I can find that ISN'T town is the aforementioned hammer. So I'm willing to overlook it for now - but never think I've excused it, only that I have other people much higher on my scumlist.

Like you.

P.S. Since I really don't want to put Sammich at L-1 just yet, and because he says he's going to work on a response, I'm going to hold off on my vote. If no defense is forthcoming, though, expect my vote around this time tomorrow.

[Phate]

You know what's really frustrating? Putting hours into an analysis only to have no one read it.

Shanba, Samruc, anyone who hasn't responded yet, do you think my logic is sound?

Also:

I haven't really done much during D2 yet. More will come on Saturday.

It didn't. I really hope it will soon.

Mod: Prod Per, please.

[Guardian]

Per is being prodded...