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...
peapod wrote:
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.
peapod wrote:
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.
Ripley wrote:
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.
Ripley wrote:
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.
ripley wrote:
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.
Ripley wrote:
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"
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.
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
Ripley wrote:
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.
Ripley wrote:
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.
