Mini #553: Over!

[ting =)]

To all scum: We'll find you. Get ready.

=)

I'm not sure what a mass name-claim would accomplish. A name-claim would only be good if we assume that

a) all named people in the fellowship are town.
c) all 9 names in the fellowship have been used.

Anyway, since I really don't think 9 power roles would be appropriate, and giving a player a fellowship name but making him vanilla townie is pretty stupid, I think it's more likely that there are only as many fellowship members here as power roles, and claiming any name would mark you as a probable power role.

I'm not even going to consider the possibility of the mod making a fellowship member scum. That's just way too headachey for me to think about.

[ting =)]

heya, i'll be out of town for a while. I'll try to go online, but no guarantees. =(

[ting =)]

Hey, is it just me or did Matt_S just claim vanilla townie? For obvious reasons, I have nothng against townies, but how is a claim so soon helpful? FOS:Matt_S Also, post 30 reads a lot like he wanted all the other vanillas to claim...

[ting =)]

I am going to

vote:destructor FOS:Khelvaster

Khelvaster, have you considered that scum were given safe-claims? If so, even without role-claiming, name-claiming could be enough to out certain power-roles.

Here, you're implying that a claim, role or name, would be bad because a)scum might have safe claims b)it will out our power-roles.

Actually, I think if we're going to do it, the earlier the better. But we've already heard that at least two players have non-fellowship role names and I'd be surprised if scum haven't been given safe claims anyway, which makes me cynical to how effective it would be.

Here, you say it won't work.

Also, I have recent experience in an ongoing game where a mass name-claim hasn't outed scum.

And here, you say that a mass name-claim doesn't necessarily out scum.

Why then, do you say:

Can any of those people voting Khelvaster explain how he could be scum? I'm not buying this wagon.

You've already listed, I think, every reason that everyone in the thread has mentioned for suspecting Khelvaster, but you still don't see how he's scum?

That's suspicious. I just don't get how you can agree with the people voting Khelvaster that the name-claim would have been bad, but you're not willing to join them.

I think that:
You and Khelvaster are scum. You're defending him because he's your scumbuddy, but you don't want to out yourself, so you're trying to blend in and agree about everyone's opinions.

I'm not so sure about Khelvaster, but I think destructor is being scummy, and the whole arguement on him only makes sense if Khelvaster is scum. I wouldn't even suspect Khelvaster, but you just seem to be trying hard to defend him while not trying to look like it, and so he gets an FOS.

[ting =)]

My whole arguement on destructor, is on the basis that khelvaster is scum, and had decided to go for a name-claim in order to out the power roles. Even destructor admitted that it would out the power roles. Yes, it's possible that he could be town with a stupid idea, or just scum with a scummy idea that he wasn't able to push through.

Like I said already, I didn't originally have khelvaster pegged as scum, it's just when I look at him with regards to what destructor's doing that I get a scummy feeling, which is why he has an FOS, but not a vote from me.

@destructor. I really don't think I'm putting things in your mouth, or taking your statements out of context. It could be my interpretation of your statements I quoted are not what you intended, in which case I'd like if you clarify what you mean.

@eljko. In the last quote, he asked the people on the khelvaster wagon why they were on the wagon. That strikes me as scummy, or at least wishy washy, because the reasons that people are on the wagon, are because of all the things he said which I quoted.

Is it a reach? Not anymore than the wagon on khelvaster is. I'm just scum hunting, looking for any other suspicious play. I suppose the vote is more of an FOS than an actual vote, but since there's no other votes on destructor, there's no harm.

[ting =)]

@eljko

Still don't like your actions. If it is more of an FOS, give him an FOS.

A vote carries more weight than an FOS. I doubt that you, or anyone, would have responded as much if I just FOSd. Even you, in your attack, used a vote on me instead of an FOS, and your reason for me is just as much of a reach as my vote on destructor. What do you think my motives are anyway? If I'm town, then myself and the town have quite a bit to gain from the information based on his response, and how everyone reacts. If I'm scum, i don't have much to gain on attacking destructor, since there's already a wagon rolling on khelvaster.

Why not vote khelvaster and FOS destructor?

Like I said, the only reason I suspect khelvaster is because of destructor's play. Since I wouldn't even suspect him if not for destructor's actions, destructor gets the vote. I wouldn't be suspicious of him otherwise.

[ting =)]

EBWOP: The bit that went

What do you think my motives are anyway? If I'm town, then myself and the town have quite a bit to gain from the information based on his response, and how everyone reacts. If I'm scum, i don't have much to gain on attacking destructor, since there's already a wagon rolling on khelvaster.

is in response to:

It was a bit in destructor's defense, but my main motive was as an attack on ting. I don't like his motives at all, its a big reach in my opinion, I'll explain later.

You never mentioned what you thought my motives are. You mentioned why you suspected me, but not what you thought my motives were.

As far as I can tell, the only reasons you're voting for me are:
a)ting should have voted khelvaster and fosd destructor
b)ting's attack on destructor is filled with holes.

I think I've answered (a). For (b): Honestly, which attack right now isn't filled with holes? Mafia is a game of assumptions, suspicions, and conjectures. Unless the mafia make a big slip up and do something stupid, all attacks on anyone will be filled with holes. Even your attack on me.

[ting =)]

Haha, yes, that is a really long post. You should be sorry. =P

Okay, I've laid off actually mentioning much about the whole khelvaster v matt thing because I thought it was a messy arguement and I wasn't really inclined to either side. I think it's time I do though.

Like I said in the beginning, I thought khelvaster's logic went, and he just confirmed:

A name-claim would only be good if we assume that

a) all named people in the fellowship are town.
c) all 9 names in the fellowship have been used.

And I thought:

Anyway, since I really don't think 9 power roles would be appropriate, and giving a player a fellowship name but making him vanilla townie is pretty stupid, I think it's more likely that there are only as many fellowship members here as power roles, and claiming any name would mark you as a probable power role.

I haven't changed my opinions on khel. I still don't think the mod would have used all 9 fellowship names, which is why I wasn't inclined to agree to a name claim, but his logic on its own is not scummy, which is why I said I didn't really suspect khel.



What I'm posting about now though, is Matt. I'm inclined to think that Matt is really vanilla townie. As I see it:

1. I'm a townsman with no name and no powers

2. Other people without powers are townsmen without names

Read posts 12, 14, 15 and 28. Especially 12 and 28. I can't quote, because you need to take the whole thing in context, and I dont' want to quote his whole post. HE DID NOT KNOW THERE WERE PEOPLE WITH NAMES. His PM did not give him a name, or indicate that there were people with names. He thought all vanillas got the same PM as him. Before he came right out and explicitly said that he was unnamed in post 28, no one, except coolbot hinting, but not saying in 14, mentioned anything about nameless people.

In fact, Khelvaster's post 8 does not take into account nameless people. He mentions fellowship names, nazgul names, suggests unorthodox names, but NO NAMELESS PEOPLE. I'm inclined to think you had no idea there were nameless people until Matt came right out and said it. If you knew there were nameless people, you wouldn't have been so sure in your plan working.

3. If someone has a name, they aren't vanilla, a.k.a. power roles or possibly lying scum.

I think his PM did not in any way indicate other people had names. That's why he FOSd me and gsgold in post 28 for not saying, or implying, that we knew there were nameless people. He figured he wsn't the only one, and was looking for other people who had no names to come out and say it. That's why to him, named people were either power roles or scum. I think that's why you never mention the possibility of named vanillas, Matt - because you're vanilla and nameless, so you assumed all other vanillas must be too.

4. Everyone who asks for a name claim has a name or is scum.

The link between his 3rd and 4th point, is that he's a nameless vanilla. To him, that makes all other vanillas nameless. Anyone with a name then, is either a power role or scum.

Also,

4. Everyone who asks for a name claim has a name

He had no name, and didn't know others had names. People with the same PM as him, wouldn't have known of names, and wouldn't have asked for a name claim.


I think that khelvaster is a power role. I think that Matt is a vanilla townie. If you read back on the first few pages, you can tell quite easily that some people knew there were names and had no idea there were nameless, and some were nameless and had no idea there were named people. That's why Matt was looking for nameless people.

There's too many posts to quote, but if you read back the first few pages in this context, you can sort out everyone into one of those two categories based on their posts. It's no indication of scumminess either way though, which is why Matt dropped this line of reasoning.

The whole khelvaster v matt arguement won't lead to any scum either. Both of you, and everyone, were running on completely different understandings on the game, until after everyone became nameless. That's why khel didn't think his idea wouldn't work until it was pretty clear quite a number of us were nameless, and that's why matt is no longer hunting for nameless people. Granted, we're all nameless now, but he, and the other nameless, could have attacked people now based on who had names before, but didn't bother.

We need to hunt for scum from a different perspective and drop the wagons on khel and matt.

Also, =) for khel for knowing Merry's last name. Lord of the Rings kicks ass.

[ting =)]

Of course you're getting powerful pro-town vibes from Ting. What did you expect? =P

Right-o then, you guys realize that there are 5 of you voting for Matt, yes? There's Khel, Eljko, Massive, Ranger, Coolbot - which puts Matt at L-2. I'm not going to deny that Matt's behaviour could be interpreted as scummy, but I maintain that I think he's vanilla townie.

For the moment, I honestly think you guys should unvote. I doubt anyone will hammer Matt, but there's no need to hold him so close to a lynch without any comment from him, and without a more concrete reason.

I've been looking at things from a different way and have a tentative scum list now, and destructor's not on it, so

unvote

. I wish I had time to posts my thoughts, but I don't. I'll try to post within 24 hours, but no guarantees.

p.s. The part that made me slightly miffed about the movie was that they changed the ending with the scouring of the shire. I wanted to see that... =(

Oh, and you mean it's a shame the MOVIE butchered, yes? *takes out matches to get ready for a flame war.* =)

[ting =)]

*blushes. Nah, it's no biggie. I mindread people all the time anyway.

Okay, I'm suspicious of Eljko, Coolbot and GSGold. Mostly Eljko though. I'd vote for him now, but to clarify my reasons, I need to put down what I'm seeing so far in my terms, just so I don't get confused later on.

The Named Town perspective.

For the last time, we didn't know that there were some townies outside of the fellowship.

...What I'm saying is that being in the fellowship won't affect whether you are a power role or not... If I saw exactly three people say they weren't in the fellowship, we would win because the 9 townies were in the fellowship.

I am associating the fellowship with not being scum, if all 9 fellowship members are present...

1. I'm Fellowship.
2. If I'm Fellowship, there are probably other Fellowship roles out there.
3. If there are other Fellowship roles out there, there is a possibility that all nine are out there.
4. If there are nine Fellowship roles, they are the town.

I chose these posts because they were the clearest summary of this way of thinking. Lots of people have cited this arguement, sometimes in contradictory directions, how you interpret whether you think they're actually town is up to you.

The Unnamed Townie perspective.

Anyways, I had no name, so I figured all other vanilla townies had no name. Thus I expected a lot more resistance to a name claim.

...I assumed that anyone who does have a big name is either a power role or scum, seeing as I don't....

You did just ask for names of the 9 in the Fellowship. Now think. If only power roles had had names, you would have ousted all of them.

I'm not part of the Fellowship. That's shouldn't be surprising, as the game would be seriously broken if the town was only the Fellowship. So it's likely all a mass claim would accomplish is give the mafia clues to who our power roles are.

...thinking the people for the claim would be scum. If I had said I had no name, then the scum wouldn't have to claim and potentially get caught lying. As for the logic that you say is easy to follow, try looking from my perspective:

1. I'm a townsman with no name and no powers
2. Other people without powers are townsmen without names
3. If someone has a name, they aren't vanilla, a.k.a. power roles or possibly lying scum.
4. Everyone who asks for a name claim has a name or is scum.

It's pretty much the same as Khelvaster's logic, just using what I thought instead.

[ting =)]

Now, a lot of the arguements so far are because everyone isn't seeing eye to eye. Post 89 is Matt clearly misinterpreting Khel. Post 103 is Khel not understanding Matt.

Both perspectives are broken ways of looking at the game. The Named because they didn't know there were unnamed vanillas, and the Unnamed because they didn't know there named vanillas.

If anyone is voting for anyone because of these reasons, they really should just unvote for now.


On the current Matt wagon: This grew big really fast. I'm inclined to think that at least one scum is on this wagon.

Ranger has been on this wagon from the beginning. It was a random vote.
Massive & Khel are on this wagon because they can't see how the Unnameds see things. Or maybe they could, but they just saw things more from the named perspective. I don't know, but I think they're clean.

Coolbot:

He changed his mind from Zyconium to khel for no reason. The post in between was one of mine where I explain my vote on khel, but with emphasis that my vote was there only because there wasn't really anywhere else to put it. Looks like he was just looking for an excuse to put his vote there.

He did not change his vote for no reason. If you read all of Matt's posts from the top, he's always suspected Khel, but he's always held back because he could see that a name claim would have been bad for named scum. He changed his vote once it was apparent that everyone suspected khel too. You could call it herd mentality, or maybe he thought the wagon justified his suspicions.

Eljko:

Seriously, what the heck where you thinking Matt. It was really convienient that there was a solid bandwagon at the time of the vote, wasn't it? Trying to get a quick lynch? That's all it points to. My gut is leaning toward voting for you, I am going to go with that feeling.

Eljko's seems the most suspcious. It's really convenient for you too that there's a bandwagon on Matt right now to - shiot, i have to go. your actions on the first few days raise red flags for me. you're clearly named. but you were against the claim, even before you found out there wre unnameds. other nameds were for it then, because it would have worked.

[ting =)]

Okay, I'm so sorry about my last post. It ended rather messily. Let me clarify.

The way I see it, a normal game of mafia has 2 general groups, mafia and town, and then we sift through actions based on which of those two groups are likely to do it.

This game, has 4 groups, all of which will react to things in different ways. Named town, named scum, unnamed town, unnamed scum.

I think I'm not the only one arguing based on this line of reasoning. Matt and Massive both defended Khel by saying that a nameclaim is something that a named town would do, but that something that a named scum would not want. I'm not going to quote, but Massive's post 99 makes it pretty clear that scum would not want a name claim. Matt's post 75 and 28 also show that he thinks scum would have been against a name claim.

Now, unnamed people, have a very clear reason to be against the nameclaim. I'd be quite surprised if they weren't. Named people, at the very least, should see why khel would do it, and are more likely to see it as stupid play than scummy play. Destructor, I think showed how a named town would act to a name claim.

You FOSing khel though, not so much. It looks like named scum trying not to go for a nameclaim to avoid being found out. That's why you're on my naughty list. After rereading everything though, I think I'm going to

vote:coolbot

[ting =)]

It just struck me to look at the people who were on the khel wagon, and especially the people who weren't.

The people who were on the khel wagon, are crazyvlad, coolbot, gsgold, matt - in that order.

The people who were on the matt wagon, are ranger, massive, khel, coolbot, eljko. Destructor was voting for matt for a while, but it was an L-5 vote, and he pulled it out before it was an actual wagon.

Ranger's vote was a random vote, so I'm going to discard it. NOBODY is on both wagons except for coolbot. I'm not really surprised, matt and khel have been arguing from opposite ends from the get go, and they've both been really vocal about their opinions.

The people who made it a point to stay off a particular wagon, are people who have argued for the point of view of khel and matt. Massive's post 99 is a good example of a named person staying off the khel wagon. There are other people who see things from Khel's point of view and decided to stay off the wagon. The people on the Khel wagon is crazyvlad, who I think justified his vote - and then coolbot and gsgold who did it for the sake of bandwagonning.

The thing with coolbot is, his post 14 makes it clear he's unnamed. Matt, in post 15, identifies with him as a fellow unnamed vanilla. Why then, coolbot, are you on the Matt wagon?

I can understand khel, massive and maybe eljko. They're named, and don't identify with the unnamed view of the game.

You, on the other hand, are unnamed. If you really were an unnamed vanilla like Matt though, you wouldn't have voted for him. The more I thought about it, the more I figured it isn't just named scum scared of giving away a bad name who would have been against a nameclaim, but also unnamed scum who were scared of being found out as not part of the fellowship.

Besides all that, which I will grant, is assumption on how named scum and unnamed scum would act, and besides the fact that you have been on both wagons, despite most people identifying with either khel or matt, you've shown sketchy reasons for being on them.

Your vote on khel was, and you admitted, for wagonning, and then vague mentions of how you thought it was anti-town. I think it was clearly unjustified. Your vote on Matt, besides the fact that another unnamed vanilla wouldn't have done it, was also for sketchy reasons.

Maybe you just like voting for vague reasons, but I'm against votes that aren't clearly justified and explained. I'm keeping my vote on you until you give me a good reason not to.

[ting =)]

Also, I'm really sorry for the long posts. =( I've just been rereading, and there's quite a lot on my head, so I decided to just put the stuff down. To avoid creating really long pages like page 5, I'm going to cut my posts into littler pieces from now on.

[ting =)]

Yeah, I originally had his post pegged as an unnamed vanilla response, but it looks more like unnamed scum to me now. I was originally looking at the different ways that named and unnamed would act, I didn't think to differentiate between named scum, and named town, and unnamed town and scum.

The fact that unnamed scum might act similar to unnamed town flew by me, so I didn't suspect coolbot. All the same though, even without all the mess of nameds and unnameds, his voting pattern and waggoning is suspicious. That itself would warrant a vote.

[ting =)]

Just to clarify why I think coolbot is the shadiest player so far:

1. He's been on BOTH bandwagons.
2. He didn't give CLEAR reason for being on them.
3. He doesn't act in a way I'd expect town, named or unnamed to act.

I never said you're voting for Matt because he's unnamed. My post was messy and hard to read, I apologize.

What I meant was that I can't see your Matt vote as coming from an unnamed townie. You've just claimed it, but if you really were, then why the Matt vote? His reasons would have been clear to you. He did give justification, and it wasn't a quickchange. He's been toying with the notion of voting khel since the beginning.

I'm keeping my vote on you. It was not a quick change. He did justify it in his earlier posts. Saying it, 'looks odd' is vague.

[ting =)]

@eljko

That was post nine. He seems to know a lot about the townie PM, but there is no townie PM posted by Shaka. Two possibitites strike me right away.

That's the clearest indication that you're not unnamed townie. There are little hints here and there before that, but nothing definite till that.

I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just saying that I'm wary of your actions. You could be named townie, power or scum. That's all.

[ting =)]

@eljcko. Sorry, i didn't notice. =) And yes, not that big an issue.

mod:

Could you prod everyone? Eljcko is quite right about there being just a few of us active right now. I'd like to know what everyone else thinks of coolbot.

[ting =)]

@massive. No. Based on the mod post, I think there were named vanillas, named power, and named scum. And the same for the unnamed.

To me, that makes 6 possibilites for everyone. I've been ticking off most of the people based on which role they'd have most to benefit with their actions. The ones that have me wary are the ones whose actions I can't defend from either a named or unnamed town view, and the ones who've been careful to keep quiet whether they have a name, since their actions could be viewed as either scummy, or towny, depending on whether they have a name or not.

@Imat.
I'm content with my coolbot vote.

His posts were not defensive. And he did not have several votes on him. The most votes he'd ever had on him - was one. There was massive in the begining with a random vote, then khel, accusing him for starting a wagon, and then now me.

Maintains his own innocence without pushing blame?

To get this game moving again, we need a bandwagon. And Khel did present an anti-town plan, so I'm jumping on.

I less comfortable with matt, though. In particular, posts 69 and posts 71 raise red flags for me. He changed his mind from Zyconium to khel for no reason. The post in between was one of mine where I explain my vote on khel, but with emphasis that my vote was there only because there wasn't really anywhere else to put it. Looks like he was just looking for an excuse to put his vote there.

vote: Matt_S

His arguments for voting either of them were weak, and he's been painting them both as scummy. Matt didn't have a wimpy excuse. At the post where he voted, yes, but if you read all his posts before that, he's already made his reasons clear.

And his attack on khel, khel answered most of them already. I could maybe buy that he was just behaving like an unamed town, much like matt, for the whole begining with regards to khel, but that wouldn't explain his matt vote. I could see reasons for a named town suspecting matt, but not an unnamed.

It looks more to me like he waggoned khel, and then once the momentum on khel died down and it was clear that the wagon wouldn't go anywhere, he went on the matt wagon. Maybe it's not the proper term, but I'm calling it wagon hopping.

Also, his was not the 2nd vote on Matt. It was the 4th. Before him was ranger, massive, and khel.

[ting =)]

If anything, Matt's actions would be town. A scum would have hopped on the khel wagon right away. Why would he both defend and attack khel as scum? It reads more like he suspected khel, but didn't want to vote until he was sure. Then everyone started wagoning khel and giving reasons for khel being scum, so he thought that maybe khel really was scum.

I'm sorry, but I still don't see why CB jumped to Matt. Why are you defending him so much anyway? If he had a lot of votes on him and was about to be lynched, I could understand defending him. As it is, he's not really under any pressure. I'm not FOSing you, but I just want to know why.

Also, why are you so convinced Matt is scum? I could understand being mildly suspcious, but you've just confirmed FOSed him. Care to share why? I have him pegged as town, but I'm willing to change my mind if you give me a good reason.

[ting =)]

Avoiding voting for someone is one thing. Defending someone is another. If all he did was just not vote for you while attacking you, I could buy the Matt wagon. But defend you and attack you? That's completely different from scum attacking someone to bring about their lynch while just calling them suspicous or FOSing.

And I still maintain that his first few posts scream town. I can't see his posts coming from an unnamed scum.

[ting =)]

@Imat.

If he were scum, he'd want to break up a potentially game winning name claim long before it showed his guilt... [snip] but neither Khel nor Matt knew this at the time, Matt just seemed to want to end it quickly.

Hardly. It will only appear as a game winning claim to the named towns. Unnameds can tell right away it won't. Your mention of named scum claiming unnamed gives me something to think about, but Matt mentions being unnamed long before any of the nameds knew there were unnameds - he was the first. It could be he was named scum who hit upon the bright idea of claiming unnamed, yes. I think it's more likely he was just unnamed wary of a plan that seemed like it wouldn't work.

@Khel.
I agree that going, 'but xxxx is scummy because of yyyyy. You make me suspicious, FOS: xxxxx' is a scummy thing to do. Trying to get someone lynched without actually being on the wagon.

What Matt did, was, 'xxxxx is scummy because of yyyyyy. But then, why did xxxxx do zzzzzz? Scum wouldn't do that... I need to think a bit.' Which I think is not scummy enough to raise a vote for.

@Imat.
If his townness was inclusive of his unnamedness, he would have to be named town. Which he said he isn't. Even if I ignore all that though, he's still exhibited the most suspicious voting pattern. Until I find greater reason to suspect someone, I'll keep my vote on coolbot.

[ting =)]

EBWOP: The last bit is @massive.

[ting =)]

@Khel. Fair enough, but I still don't think the way it all played out is scummy enough for me to be happy with a matt lynch.

[ting =)]

@Imat, the bit you quoted was adressed to massive, I'm sorry for having labeled it wrong. Thanks for you opinion on it though.

I agree with petunho that there are some people who haven't really spoken up. I had questions for ranger, spindax and gsgold, but they've all been replaced now, so the questions are moot.

@Massive. Are you intent on keeping your vote on Matt? Since the time when the game went to a lull, khel and coolbot have confirmed that they intend to keep their vote on Matt. Imat and Talitha just got in and have voted Matt. Do you still mean to keep your vote on him till he gets lynched, or is it just for pressure?

[ting =)]

@Massive. No. They don't have to be part of the fellowship. I think I get why you're asking it though. I'll have to think that over.

@Talitha. I've called him unnamed several times throughout the game. He's never bothered to correct me, and he's had posts that he made after I called him unnamed. For the record though:

@Coolbot. Do you have a name?

[ting =)]

@Destructor.
I used to think that there were 4 distinct classes - named town, unnamed town, named scum, unnamed scum.

All of them would have reacted differently to a name claim. Named towns would have seen it as working. Unnamed towns would have been against it because to them, being unnamed, named people must be special (like matt wondering if khel is a power role for having a name) and so a name claim would have been a scummy move since it'd out the power roles. Named scum, assuming they have a bad name, like Sauron, would have been against a name claim. Unnamed scum would have been against it because it'd make them stand out, but after Matt claimed unnamed vanilla, that's a moot point, because they can just hide behind it now.

Now though, I'm considering that maybe it's not just fellowship names that have been used, which splits the named group into fellowship town and non-fellowship town, and ditto for the scum. Assuming that there's no fellowship scum. That would make things confusing.

After thinking things over, fellowship town and non-fellowship town might react differently to a name claim. Splitting named into 2 groups means that everyone's actions can be interpreted in a lot of different ways, depending on which group you put them in.

I don't think Matt fake claim unnamed vanilla. I'm inclined to believe it.

@Khel.
A name claim might be good. But with all the confusion and with all the talk of non-fellowship names, it'd be easy for scum to just fake claim a non-fellowship name. It might clear some things up, like the actions of coolbot, but it might also muddy the waters.

[ting =)]

mod:

If a name claim occurs, would you reveal if the replacements had names and what they were?

[ting =)]

@coolbot. I've come to terms with it. I originally thought you were unnamed, from your first post about not being in the fellowship. I misinterpreted it. You never corrected me on it till recently though.

[ting =)]

I was mildly suspicious of gsgold who has been replaced by petunho, and spindax, who has been replaced by qman. The problem is, gsgold and spindax made so little posts that I can't be sure of my suspicions, and since they've been replaced they now have a clean slate. How are you two doing on your reread by the way? Are you guys done yet?

[ting =)]

@Coolbot. What makes you think he's in a group like Gondor or Rohan if he's unnamed?

@Massive. Nothing concrete enough that I felt the need to bring them up.

With gsgold, it's the fact that he voted for khel simply for the reason of a wagon. To me, voting just to wagon and then saying it's 'just to spark discussion' is cheap. A vote meant to spark discussion has as much weight as a vote that hammers. Saying, 'but I only voted for discussion, I didn't do it to lynch' is stupid. Personally, I don't vote except to random vote, and when I honestly find someone suspicious. You don't need to vote to start discussion. It's not a major scumtell though, just something I don't agree with personally.

With spindax, it's the fact that his two posts went, 'it's a trap!' and then 'oh wait, i misunderstood, false alarm.' I'm not sure how he misunderstood khel's post, it explicitly asked for a name claim. He could have meant that he misinterpreted khel's intent, but with two posts, I'm not sure. The thing is, with so little posts, I can't tell what he meant, so it's not a suspicion worth bringing up.

[ting =)]

Hey guys. I'll be short of time for the next few days. I'll post my thoughts when I can. I agree that the day is dragging on. For now, I think that 2 of the replacements are scum. Not talitha though, I think her wanting a lynch is justified, but I don't like her choice. Also, I got town vibes from ranger, who she replaced.

I'm putting matt, khel, destructor, talitha on my town list. I'm not willing to make up my mind yet on massive, crazy_vlad, imat, coolbot, qman. gsgold/petunho and eljko are still on my suspicious list. I've reread through the game, and unless something unexpected and new comes up, eljko is on the top of my list. I'll add to my previous suspicions of him when I get the chance.

Since I'm not so certain of coolbot anymore, I'll

unvote

for now.

[ting =)]

About Eljcko:

If you read back - I actually thought he was the most suspicious at first. Then, I changed to coolbot. The switch was partly because I was afraid I was wrong about him and he might be a power role. Here's why:

That was post nine. He seems to know a lot about the

townie PM

, but there is

no townie PM

posted by Shaka. Two possibitites strike me right away.

A couple of things are obvious: He is not a townie, named or unnamed. [Sorry Qman, I have to. =(] You can read his previous posts, he mentions in a number of posts not knowing what the townie PM is, without making any distinction between named or unnamed townie.

This makes him either power role, or scum - which is why I was unwilling to continue my attack on him - I was unsure.

I've made up my mind now though. Read back on his early game reactions on the name claim. I don't want to quote since you have to take it in context of all the other posts around it.

He was against the name claim. If you read back on how the other people with names reacted: They could all see that the plan could maybe work, like destructor. Sure, most of them had apprehensions on how it might not work, but the nameds could see how it might work.

People like matt and ranger all thought it might out the power roles, something which, I maintain that only town without names could have thought of.

Eljcko's behaviour doesn't fit either the named or unnamed town profiles. In fact, if you read post 26, he sits on the fence, something which massive called him on earlier. He says he AGREES with what

matt

says, BUT he calls a name claim PRO-town, which is something matt obviously did not think. Then, after saying that a name-claim would be pro-town, he says he WOULDN'T go for it because a name-claim would be bad early on in the game, and he says that khel was asking for specific names, something which khel never asked for in any way.

That ended up sparking a confession where he says he misunderstood khel, but when he says what he thought khel actually meant, he STILL misunderstands what khel was saying - showing that he never saw things from khel's, or any of the named's eyes at all. In fact, now that I've reread everything, coolbot actually ends up agreeing with eljcko's misunderstanding of khel's view, and he ends up sparking an argument with khel in post 70. You can read khel's reply to coolbot and eljcko's view in post 77.

In fact, in light of all that, I'm more convinced now that Eljcko and coolbot are scum. I am going to

vote:eljcko

[ting =)]

@ting
I was against name claim because

it would jeprodize the power roles.

We don't want a bunch of people claiming vanilla, which happens to be very popular now, and then a couple players sitting back with there mouthes shout because they are town and it is not smart to lie. The power roles are screwed. The fact that I disagree with something pro-town is not a very good point to fool with either,(i saw the emphasis you put on the "contradiction".) I would consider myself a conservative, but I don't believe in the death penalty, a conservative belief.

When I misunderstood khel's idea, his is the thought process that happened. I read his posts and thought

he wanted all the names to come forward

I did not read it carefully enough) instead of non-fellowship townies. I turned out to be wrong, so that screwed up my thought process, so I sounded wishy washy.

I'm not buying this. Especially not the bold bit. That the power roles might be compromised by the name claim would only have come to people who had no names to begin with.

To people with names and who were of the opinion that everyone else had names, there would have been no way to single out who was a power role based simply on having a name.

And also: the italicized bit. You're still reading it wrong - that IS what khel wanted, all the names to come forward. He's already explained his plan since then, so I'm not going bother. But honestly, if only a few non-fellowship people chimed in with their names, how did you expect khel's plan work? His plan worked on the basis that 9 people claiming with names will out 3 people without names, or at least 3 people with bad names.

I'm keeping my vote.

[ting =)]

Crazy vlad, why the talitha vote?

----

Can anyone here confirm for certain that we have named-nonfellowship people? All we have, as far as I can tell, is Coolbot's word. Well, coolbot's half-word, he mentioned that he wouldn't confirm or deny either way.

I'd like to know because he never mentioned named-nonfellowship until massive asked if it was possible.

[ting =)]

@crazy_vlad. Okay.

@Matt, Massive. I ask because I'm still suspicious of coolbot. I dropped him from my scumlist and had him as 'don't know' because his actions would make sense if he was named-nonfellowship. However, if named non-fellowship doesn't exist, then that would make coolbot scum to me. It's not role-fishing, I'm asking so I can decide what to make of coolbot.

@coolbot. Not rolefishing. I can respect your wanting to not tell though.

[ting =)]

No time to post now, but like talitha's last post.

[ting =)]

Okay, I have some time now, and I'd like to clarify my last post a bit. I especially like her asking for Eljko's opinion. It just hit me that we haven't heard from him in a while, he's been quiet of late.

I also like what she's said about Qman. I do not like what she said about gsgold/petunho. That's a bit of a stretch.

[ting =)]

That was a lame attempt at a joke on my part.

Er, sorry. It's funny in hindsight. I think I take I took it too seriously. Heh.

[ting =)]

Eljko, I think you posting your scumlist was helpful but I'd also really like to know what you say to the accusations against you.

[ting =)]

Also, I'll be gone for the weekend, I'll post again Monday.

[ting =)]

Sorry for the long no post. I've been trying to find time for a proper reread. I'll post tomorrow.

[ting =)]

I'm still keeping my vote on eljcko; I don't buy his claim for the reasons everyone's already stated. After rereading through the game, there are

lots

of instances where his current defense and his earlier posts don't match up, but I'd rather not post them and make long walls of text especially since there's no need since he's still the imminent lynch.

After my reread, I decided that the people I think are most likely to be scum are coolbot, imat, massive. I'm not sure yet how to arrange them until we find out new stuff come day 2.

Just out of curiousity, who does everyone think is most likely to be scum? Besides the people we're currently voting for.

[ting =)]

So we're down a cop, an SK, a godfather and a townie, and there's eight of us left. What do you guys think would be a probable set up? I'm afraid I've never played with an SK or a godfather and I'm not quite sure how the game would balance out.

[ting =)]

EBWOP: I don't know what the remaining 8 roles might be in order for the game to be balanced.

[ting =)]

mod:

How do the kills stack in this setup? If A sends in a night action to nk B, and B sends in a night action to nk C, will B and C both die, or will only B die and C will live?

---------

I don't think the Mod would put in three killing groups either...

We

have

three killing groups. There were 3 nks. The mafia obviously have one. Depending on how the kills stack, crazy vlad probably made the other nk. That leaves one more nk unaccounted for.

...I have a hard time seeing a vig kill CoolBot.

Why? Do you think coolbot looked townie-ish?

I'm actually fairly sure Qman is a killer. I need to go back and re-read the thread and remember who he replaced before I can figure out if he's a good killer or a bad killer.

We already have a dead SK. Do you think the game would be balanced if we had 2 SKs?

I'm fairly sure Qman is mafia.

This came later. Do you think he's mafia or a vig/sk? I just want to know where you stand.

[ting =)]

I'm sorry, I've been fairly busy as of late. As it is, I'm only posting in games which are at a critical stage. Apologies. I should be more free in a few days time.

[ting =)]

@Destructor

Why did you mention safe claims anyway? In your reply to massive, you looked back and justified it, but you never gave your reasons for doing it in the first place.

@Massive.

@Coolbot. Do you have a name?

Oh, and ting, stop fishing. I'm not going to tell you what my role is.

Can anyone here confirm for certain that we have named-nonfellowship people? All we have, as far as I can tell, is Coolbot's word. Well, coolbot's half-word, he mentioned that he wouldn't confirm or deny either way.

I'd like to know because he never mentioned named-nonfellowship until massive asked if it was possible.

I find that question very interesting, ting, because here in my notes it says "ting: not Fellowship" ... guess I ought to look back and find what made me think that, but I bet I got some more questions now.

@Matt, Massive. I ask because I'm still suspicious of coolbot. I dropped him from my scumlist and had him as 'don't know' because his actions would make sense if he was named-nonfellowship. However, if named non-fellowship doesn't exist, then that would make coolbot scum to me. It's not role-fishing, I'm asking so I can decide what to make of coolbot.

Which should have told you that I, too, had a named-non-Fellowship role. I mean, I asked enough questions about it.

Coolbot, Mafia Godfather, killed night 1

Tell me why I should not conclude that you are scum who was defending his godfather.

@Imat.

Whether you think it's a CPR doc, a vig, or some other role, it's still a third killing group. Whatever our actions are today, we have to keep in mind that there's going to be two nks.

@Matt, khel.

Why did you two feel that coolbot was more town-ish than talitha?

@mod.

Thanks. I was in a game where the stacking was different, so I just wanted to make sure.

[ting =)]

I'm here, no need to prod. I was pretty busy for a while, but I'm on holiday now, so I'll be posting a bit more. It's 3 am now though, so give me till tomorrow to post.

[ting =)]

Okay, I've just read all the day two posts. I intend to do a full reread, but I'll just post my thoughts on day 2 for now. The major issues brought up seem to be khelvaster-safeclaims and massive-coolbot.

Khelvaster-safeclaims.

If as dectructor suggests, the scum have safeclaims, then I'd consider that maybe destructor is scum. He hopped on the mass-nameclaim suggestion. That shows that he either genuinely had a name, or had a safeclaim. Barring those two possibilities, I can't see any reason for anyone to support a mass nameclaim.

I used to think that destructor really had a name, which is why I thought he was sure to be town. Now I'm trying to piece out what I think. If he really is scum with a safeclaim, then why bring up the possibility at all? To make himself look more townish?

He said he's played in an earlier game where scum had safeclaims and a mass nameclaim was suggested. That might explain why he brought it up, but I'm still slightly iffy about it.

----

On Khel, I still don't think he's scum, and if anything, his posts + coolbots posts make me think the scum don't have safeclaims. If coolbot had a safeclaim, and if Khelv is also scum with a safe claim like Matt suggests, then why didn't coolbot jump on the mass nameclaim idea?

The idea of scum having safeclaims and calling for a mass nameclaim to make themselves look like town doesn't make sense. First off, only destructor hopped on board. Coolbot, who we know is scum, never hopped on board. If anything, coolbot was against it.

That makes me think that Khelv was town who genuinely thougth it was a good idea, and since coolbot wasn't keen on the whole nameclaim thing, I'm guessing destructor must be town too.

Destructor, you're attacking khelv on the basis that he might be scum with a safeclaim, which is why he wanted a name claim. You can't do that without attacking yourself too, since you too were for the name claim.

----

Massive-coolbot

My original guess on reading day 2 was that massive is scum. Massive said that coolbot was the first to claim named-fellowship, but that's not true. Massive was the first to claim it, and coolbot hid behind it. That's why I thought Massive was scum, it looked like he was giving his godfather a way out.

Now, assuming that the scum don't have safeclaims, it seems more likely like coolbot was just hopping behind people. In the beginning, he looked a lot like he was claiming the same role as Matt - unnamed-fellowship. I thought so, and Matt thought so. That's why I found it suspicious when he suddenly turned on Matt.

After that, he gets all ambiguous about his role, something he wouldn't do if he had a safeclaim to hide behind. He never reveals if he's named or not, but just allows massive to defend him as named-fellowship, and then he says nothing to confirm or deny it.

[ting =)]

I attacked Khelvaster? I don't think I did. I was suggesting why massive should be, if he was going to attack me for bringing safe claims up.

My mistake.

And I wasn't "for" a name claim. That's not to say I was entirely against it either, but I was most definitely erring on the cautious side.

You can phrase it any way you want, but you're still the only player who hopped on the suggestion in any way.

[ting =)]

Those would be fakeclaims. You're right though, we can't just simply accept any claim from anyone at this point.

[ting =)]

Actually, I think if we're going to do it, the earlier the better.

But we've already heard that at least two players have non-fellowship role names and I'd be surprised if scum haven't been given safe claims anyway, which makes me cynical to how effective it would be.

That. It's the only time any other player besides khel said anything about doing it.

[ting =)]

I don't disagree with that. I was just pointing out that it was the only post that even considered doing the nameclaim besides khel's when he suggested it. I don't see why we're arguing over this though. My point was that for someone to agree with a nameclaim suggestion, he either has to have a name, or a safeclaim. I believe that you are one of those two.

[ting =)]

That post makes me think you're town. Until I start wifoming myself.

[ting =)]

Heh. I wasted five minutes reading the past few pages trying to figure out who you were calling an ass and why until I decided to look at the post below it.

mod:

If you decide to delete his posts, just delete this one too. =)

[ting =)]

Do you think that Imat still doesn’t understand the events about the name-claims 150 post after it happened? If Imat did understand what happened, wouldn’t pushing this point be scummy? I know the second question has a if clause in it. Just answer please.

I think he might be scum. I've said as much before. I'm still thinking it over, but yes, I think he understood and was fibbing things to build a case on Matt.

I'll type out the rest of my thoughts on Imat and the others soon-ish.

[ting =)]

These are Imat's posts which are related to coolbot. I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions, this is not an analysis. I add commentary only to summarize posts related to other people, with extra mention on the other people whose alignment we know - eljcko, crazy vlad, talitha.
--------

As for CoolBot, I'll have to reread what he has said, pick up on what you two have seen.

CoolBot has show himself to be shady in this game, I don't know if he warrants a vote, but his quick bandwagon hops do strike me as trying to get a quick lynch over with, perhaps anxious for the night to arrive. However, I haven't been looking much at his posts because I was paying more attention to Matt and Khel at the time. I'll have to look at CB's posts specifically.

CoolBot, you'd better not be Scum, cuz I just poured through your posts looking for any sign of scumminess and didn't find any. If you are scum, that'll look really bad for me.

CoolBot, following the same logic, also claimed unnamed. Its possible we've just uncovered two Scum. However, I've convinced myself that Coolbot isn't Scum, a dangerous position to have on any player, so I won't take action on him yet.

I won't argue the CB vote anymore, if he wants to lurk he'll just look the worse for it, sticking my own neck out for some random player doesn't strike me as a good move anymore. However, what I defended him on in the past still stands, so I personally won't vote for him unless I see something really scummy.

What I said about Matt also stands, however, so my vote won't change from him until, again, scummy behavior is seen.

What is suspicious is that CoolBot hasn't told us of these other names in the past, even though he has said hes not in the Fellowship and is named. To not defend this easily reinforced arguement seems somewhat...odd...I'll be keeping a closer eye on his posts, specifically dealing with names, when I reread...

CoolBot's not giving examples of names outside of the fellowship but still pro-town, even though its an easy thing to give examples for.

CoolBot has shown himself to be persistent against the bandwagoned players. Perhaps looking for an easy place to park his vote, perhaps genuinely believing in the Scumminess of the target. Even now, when Matt_S has explained himself, CB wants answers for answered questions. Perhaps he needs to reread, but he seems to want a quick lynch in any case.

Up to this point, nearly all of Imat's posts have been focused on Matt, most of them involving comparison with coolbot, and then concluding that matt is scummier. No mention of crazy vlad anywhere. Only has 3 posts concerning Eljcko. After this point, Imat focuses on Talitha and accordingly votes her until the day ends.

Day 2:
Imat goes back to attacking Matt. For reference, his reason for unvoting Matt early on was:

Actually, I think I'll UnVote, 5 out of 7 votes is too close for me, I felt like we haven't had nearly enough discussion to put somebody at that level.

He revotes after a lengthy pbpa of Matt, which is too long to either quote or summarize.

His last post in the whole game is an attack on Shamrock.

---------

Also just for reference: Coolbot never mentions Imat. Only once.

I don't know, I think you're reading into her posts what you want to, Imat. Especially the joke thing - I can't see how you're not seeing it.

His first vote was on Khel, because he said we needed a wagon. After 2 posts, he switches his vote to Matt, who he spends the most part of the day gunning for. Towards the end of the day, he votes Qman. His case on Qman is the shortest of all his votes, it's only 5 lines total spread over 3 posts. His last post was when he unvoted Qman to hammer.

This is not an analysis of coolbot's posts, and I'm not trying to imply anything. I'm including this part only because I'm posting Imat's posts related to coolbot.

---------
@matt.
You have a voice as well as a vote. Besides Qman, who are you suspicious of?

@bab.
474.

mod:prods please?

----------
I will probably vote Shamrock, but I'll hold it until after I read up massive's posts.

[ting =)]

@bab.
Yes, Imat is Shamrock. This was before the names were reversed, so Shamrock didn't know he was really Imat. Accordingly, I've decided to ignore all posts from you and Shamrock between replacing and when the mod sorted out the confusion.

Also, from 474.

You have GOT to be kidding me. I have been looking at this game and so far, and I have considered Mert/petunho/GSGold to be scummy!

If that came after attacking Mert, I'd be suspicious, but it came unprompted, which made me think it's rather a small town tell, albeit a wifomy one.

[ting =)]

I'm not confident in a lynch based on a predecessor's actions at all.

Shamrock

is

Imat. Anything that made Imat lynchworthy applies to Shamrock, they have the same role.

I haven't had time to reread yet, sorry. I'll post my thoughts once I have time.

[ting =)]

@massive.
What kind of killer do you think he is? We already have an sk dead. Do you think we have two anti-town nk roles?

[ting =)]

If you think he's mafia, then why did you say:

I am still voting for Qman because I believe he's a

killer.

There's a pretty clear distinction between the two.

[ting =)]

Yay, people are back! =)

I am fine with lynching either of Massive and Shamrock.

Those are the only two people who defended coolbot, despite the fact that coolbot never had that much pressure on him anyway. I think we should go for Shamrock first though, then massive. Massive, you can kind of explain as coolbot hiding behind him. Shamrock, as the coolbot posts indicate, was just flat out defending coolbot. I can understand defending someone you think is town if they're at L-2, but at L-6?

I also think massive is scum, and for other reasons besides that. I think it's counterproductive to go for two people though, so I'll

vote:shamrock

and leave massive for tomorrow.

[ting =)]

I don't buy massive's explanation because:

I am still voting for Qman because I believe he's a killer.

When I point out that we can't possibly have another anti-town killer, he changes to:

When I pegged him as a killer, I gave him ample opportunity to say, "Yeah, I'm the vig" and own up to which kill was his. He didn't -- instead he got argumentative and defensive. So I think he's Mafia.

Which begs the question of why did he say he thought qman was mafia but instead said killer 2 posts before that.

After getting called for fishing, he says:

I wanted to give him a chance to explain his actions. I don't believe that we should count a vig who is willing to shoot on day one as necessarily acting in the interest of the town.

Plus, after his ridiculous outrage on day one and his statement on day two, I was fairly sure that he was Mafia and would defend himself in a silly enough manner that we'd know for sure.

Which is ambiguous in that it plays on both qman killer-mafia possibilities, attacking both, but not really picking one. If he believed the first bit - then that implies he believes qman is really vig, and lynching him would be stupid.

If he believes the second bit... then why call him killer in the first place in 512? He just keeps changing his case as he goes along.

Oh, also, coolbot attacked qman. I'm not discarding the possibility that it's bussing, but I see no reason to suspect qman right now.

[ting =)]

@bab.
Fair enough. You're right about your objections. I didn't really attack massive though, I just wanted to say that I'd do that tomorrow. If my quote:

I also think massive is scum, and for other reasons besides that. I think it's counterproductive to go for two people though, so I'll vote:shamrock and leave massive for tomorrow.

made you think that, I'd like to clarify that I have no intention of going after massive today and that my post was talking about who I'd attack tomorrow, I was not setting up a lynch.

I can't remember the numbers, but do a search of coolbot's posts, and arrange them newest first.

I'm too lazy to type out what I think of it right now, so I'll just copy something from one of my previous posts:
[quote="ting"=]Towards the end of the day, he votes Qman. His case on Qman is the shortest of all his votes, it's only 5 lines total spread over 3 posts. His last post was when he unvoted Qman to hammer.
[/quote]

[ting =)]

er, i messed up the tags. also, by some weird coincidence, i have the first post in the last three pages.

[ting =)]

zomg! you caught me! /runs.

@destructor.
I don't mind a massive lynch but the shamrock wagon was building up faster, and since I find both suspicious, I figured to go for Shamrock first.

mod:

could we have a vote count?

[ting =)]

I completely disagree, and this won't be resolved here. I think that any vig that's randomly shooting on Night One should be held accountable for their actions, because they are clearly not working in the interest of the town. Maybe here you guys shoot first and ask questions later, but to me, it's grossly irresponsible.

Theory discussion, to which I disagree. Either way, there's no point to this discussion since you said you think Qman is mafia.

ting: I believe he's Mafia and have said so, numerous times. I think you're playing semantics here.

If you meant mafia, you would have said mafia. Instead, you said killer, and then switched to mafia once I pointed out that the remaining killer is probably a vig. If anyone else had done that, wouldn't you find it suspicious the way his story keeps changing?

Ting: you yourself noted that coolbot's case against Qman was very short. I don't know how this makes Qman not mafia. A mafia member won't want to write a convincing case against his own teammate, and Coolbot's post ( it is 282 ) is anything but convincing.

Ting: do you still think this is evidence for Qman's innocence.

I did not mention it as a defense of Qman. It was just information I thought I'd mention. After I bring it up, I point out:

I'm not discarding the possibility that it's bussing, but I see no reason to suspect qman right now.

to clarify that it's not something I'm making a big deal out of.

"the shamrock wagon was building up faster"
So you joined it?

Because it was easier to lynch them?

Please explain yourself. This sounds really bad for you.

yes.

It only sounds bad if you don't take it in context of my earlier posts.

Note, that at the end of day 1, I said:

After my reread, I decided that the people I think are most likely to be scum are coolbot,

imat, massive.

I'm not sure yet how to arrange them until we find out new stuff come day 2.

That has not changed. I still think that they both might be scum, and now that it's day 2, I'm going for them. I have reason to think that they're scum. I can't push for both their lynch. So I had to pick one. I picked Imat/Shamrock.

[ting =)]

@massive.
o.O We had

three

nks. The mafia have one. The SK obviously had one. That leaves one nk unaccounted for.

I think the logical conclusion is that it's a vig.

Three

anti town killing roles in a 12 player game? No way. Even if he's not a vig, I'm pretty sure the last killing role is at least a pro-town role.

@massive v matt vig thing.
I think the whole vig-shouldn't-nk-debate was already had somewhere in MD. I'll have to hunt it down later, but just to throw in my 2 cents:

I don't think we should shut down the vig. Then he'll be nothing more than a townie, we're essentially costing the town a power role. That's bad. I'm fine with the idea of the town deciding who the vig should kill. That boils down to us having two lynches per day. We'll have to spend a bit more time discussing, but I'm okay with that.

If we do that, the vig becomes a gun that the town wields and points around. The only problem would be if the vig objects to the nk choice, but then a vigilante by definition

is

outside the law. He's not supposed to be accountable to anyone, including us. Either way, the vig is a pro-town role. I don't think he'd do anything completely detrimental to the town as it'd be against his win condition as well.

If we decide to direct the vig though, we should decide first if we're all in favor of it, don't throw names around yet. That'll just give the mafia ideas. We also have to be wary of the mafia trying to manipulate the vig's kill, but then it'd be the same with lynching someone anyway.

The other choice is to just trust the vig. I'm okay with that too. Last night a cop, a godfather and an sk died. That gives a 2/3 chance that the vig caught a bad guy.

[ting =)]

I was going to post something, but it seems Matt beat me to it.

Directing the vig would be like batman walking into the police station with a tie over his bat suit and going, 'so, fellas, who should I go for today?'

The remaining players seem reasonable enough that whoever is vig probably won't do anything stupid. I'm still fine with either option, but I'd rather just trust the vig because it's less of a hassle.

[ting =)]

Yep, I asked for a replacement mod.

Also, I'm pretty sure we have a vig. Or at least, I see no conceivable reason why we should assume the killing role is anti town.

[ting =)]

This was one of my first minis... =( I'd really like to actually see one play out and finish it.

[ting =)]

W00t~! 4th page in a row now. something's fishy. =)

[ting =)]

^er, that's massive. also, yes, we need a mod.

[ting =)]

yay! =)

[ting =)]

Wee! Thanks talitha. =)

[ting =)]

Oh. Okie.

I still want to lynch Shamrock. I guess we have to wait until we have all 8 players active though. It wouldn't be fair to whoever replaces not to have a say.

[ting =)]

1. yes.
2. yes.
3. Not quite. Massive accused you of being a 'killer.' Then he changed his accusation to 'mafia' since the remaining killer role is probably a vig.

Also, hello.

[ting =)]

Heya, I'm preparing for my flight tonight, so I can't really post much now.

I think we should wait for replacements before lynching though. It wouldn't be fair.

[ting =)]

Thanks for replacing guardian.

I don't have regular internet access now - just moved country. I skimmed through guardian's posts, but don't have time for a reply now, sorry. I'll reply when I can, but in short - I still think a guardian lynch is good.

[ting =)]

Reading new posts now. Posting in a bit.

[ting =)]

Okay, I'm going to respond to a few stuff that caught my eye, and then make a case on guardian based on Imat's posts, then a case on guardian from his own posts. I don't have time now to post my thoughts on the others, but I still do think massive is scum.

-------

but there is a disturbing interaction with Coolbot day one. Ting =) makes an excellent read on Coolbot day one... but the read is almost too good. He is spot on that Coolbot is scum, and for the right reasons.

What really troubles me is that he unvotes and moves on when other options present themselves. It could be seen like he was planning to bus, but when no one bought into it, he dropped it and moved on.

Aside from that, though, he's been pretty spot on in his logic and reads, and seems like a townie. I am unsure about ting=), but I think that there are better targets than him, and while I am open to be convinced otherwise, right now I don't think he should be lynched.

I disagree on the bold bit. I attacked coolbot for nearly the whole day, even when bringing up my case on eljcko. I never dropped my attack, I even still mention him in my last post for day 1. If anything, my attack was defelected by massive, in the following posts:

@Coolbot. Do you have a name?

Oh, and ting, stop fishing. I'm not going to tell you what my role is.

Can anyone here confirm for certain that we have named-nonfellowship people? All we have, as far as I can tell, is Coolbot's word. Well, coolbot's half-word, he mentioned that he wouldn't confirm or deny either way.

I'd like to know because he never mentioned named-nonfellowship until massive asked if it was possible.

I find that question very interesting, ting, because here in my notes it says "ting: not Fellowship" ... guess I ought to look back and find what made me think that, but I bet I got some more questions now.

@Matt, Massive. I ask because I'm still suspicious of coolbot. I dropped him from my scumlist and had him as 'don't know' because his actions would make sense if he was named-nonfellowship. However, if named non-fellowship doesn't exist, then that would make coolbot scum to me. It's not role-fishing, I'm asking so I can decide what to make of coolbot.

Which should have told you that I, too, had a named-non-Fellowship role. I mean, I asked enough questions about it.

I brought this up at the start of day 2 to massive. He pretty much took the heat for eljcko and assured me that he was town and that coolbot had the same role.

Like I already said - this makes me think that either Massive is scum who was defending his godfather, or that coolbot very cleverly hid behind massive. I'm leaning towards the former.

----

Imat case coming.

[ting =)]

Okay, it would help if you kept my 57th post open in another tab, I'll be drawing from it. Important stuff in bold for people on the go.

Since we know for sure the identity of one scum, the most conclusive argument would be one that ties him to another person. I see a connection between Imat and Coolbot because Imat's defense of Coolbot was

unprompted, and not something you'd expect from a player unsure of another.

Unprompted - There was no need for Imat to defend coolbot AT ALL. Coolbot was nowhere close to being lynched, and his actions were far overshadowed by others. Yet, Imat defends him. In fact, there's only 2 people in the whole game who felt compelled to defend coolbot - Imat and Massive.

Now, you could argue that Imat was just being a good townie defending people who's case on them he didn't agree with, but then - why hasn't he been bothered to look at khel, he was under way more pressure than coolbot throughout the whole day? He only made 3 posts on eljcko for the whole day 1, compared to 8 posts concerning coolbot, who was definetely under less pressure than eljcko.

Imat has no explanation for defending coolbot.

His defense isn't the kind you'd expect between two townies either.

CoolBot, you'd better not be Scum, cuz I just poured through your posts looking for any sign of scumminess and didn't find any. If you are scum, that'll look really bad for me.

However, I've convinced myself that Coolbot isn't Scum, a dangerous position to have on any player, so I won't take action on him yet.

I'd expect that kind of thing from masons. Or maybe a cop and a townie he investigated. NOT from a townie who's mentioned being unsure about the other person's alignment.

Even when he later 'suspects' coolbot, he does no attacking at all. He mentions minor transgressions, but he always frames them lightly.

[ting =)]

Okay, Guardian.

What I don't like is the way he sweeps all of Imat's scuminess as just poor judgement.

When BAB pointed out that Guardian's defense of Imat is basically just saying Imat was a lousy player, Guardian replies:

I'd say that's far too basic, so no.

Some of his actions are explained in part as him being a bad player. His logic is bad, but none of the bad logic appears to have malice behind it. Bad players can sometimes be even more prone to showing they have malice; I don't think Imat had any tendencies in that direction.

Also, some of his actions just make sense, and I'm not sure why he was about to be put at lynch -1 for those actions.

This is a horrible defense. Bad logic, poor judgement, lousy play - none of them are an excuse for scummy behaviour. Everytime someone does something scummy, they might as well just go, ''Oops, I didn't think hard enough. It's not scummy though, my judgement's just taking an off day.'

You

can't

excuse him like that. Scummy play is scummy play. Whether it was prompted by a lack of logic or because he was scum and had malicious intent is something we decide. Unless you have a meta on Imat showing that he consistently plays badly like so, then his actions were just plain scummy. Not bad play.

-------

Guardian also keeps mentioning how Imat's play on coolbot was justified. I don't think so, but that's a matter of perspective. I still believe that his defense of coolbot was unprompted, and that his 'suspicions' of coolbot were half hearted affairs.

-----

Now, the two people Guardian has suspicions of:
Massive, and Qman.

He's made cases on both of them. I think the case on massive was stronger, but Guardian has put Qman as his top suspicion. I think guardian and massive are both scum, and it reads to me like guardian knew he couldn't ignore the attacks on massive, but also didn't want his partner lynched.

So, he struck a compromise by mentioning suspcions of massive, but ultimately pushing for someone elses lynch.

Obviously, this is just an assumption. It's all hypothetical, but that's how I read his suspcions on massive and qman.

[ting =)]

Wait... you still think Imat/Guardian is scum, or you still think massive is scum? Which?

Both.

Actions speak louder than words.

You made a solid case on CoolBot early day one, then unvoted a few posts later, and never voted him again, instead leading a wagon on ejlicko, townie. If you are scum, you distanced with him while making cases on a townie, Coolbot//ejlicko.

You're accusing me of doing the same thing with massive//Qman, and we don't even know the alignment of either.

We DO know the alignment of both the player you made a secondary case on yesterday, and the player you ended up voting.

How are you not setting a double standard by saying your actions are not scummy, but mine are? Especially since we know the alignments of the players your actions involved but don't know mine...?

I made a long post explaining my vote switch from coolbot to eljcko. If you want me to, I can quote the bits where I justify my switch and explain. All that, along with the whole massive thing i mentioned and the fact that my vote was going nowhere prompted the switch. If you think I didn't justify the switch enough earlier on, I'd like to know why.

I agree it's a double standard. I can't help that it appears that way. But it being a double standard doesn't remove the possibility. And yes, it doesn't remove the possibility of your accusation either.

His looking further into coolbot was directly prompted by your own 141... Imat noticed you were strongly attacking coolbot and decided to look into him...

Imat was... you know... commenting on what other people's cases... playing the game... scum hunting...

So saying that he was unprompted in looking at Coolbot is false.

Not something you'd expect? Why not? More on this next post.

One post prompted a whole day's worth of defending? You don't just stick your neck out to defend people. Hence why hardly anyone bothered. Except for Imat. Also:

[quote="ting]Now, you could argue that Imat was just being a good townie defending people who's case on them he didn't agree with, but then - why hasn't he been bothered to look at khel, he was under way more pressure than coolbot throughout the whole day?[/quote]

Limited time and resources?

It doesn't change the question - Why defend coolbot? There are other people under more heat. Coolbot was not in the spotlight. If he had limited time and resources, why coolbot?

He's the

only

player Imat bothered to defend.

Imat was not simply being a good samaritan.

So those two are his buddies huh, the two that defended him? Very doubtful. Oh, were mafia that simple.

Yes, because mafia obviously don't care about their godfather very much. You're wifomming. You can't ignore a possibility because you think it sounds simple/insert occam's razor argument here.

Also note how Coolbot was under more pressure when Imat entered the game, and Imat was more active when he entered the game?

He was getting less and less involved and eventually replaced out at the time ejlicko was getting attacked. He made roughly the same [proportion of posts about ejlico/total posts by him in the time period] as he did [proportion of posts about Coolbot/total posts by him in the time period]. Why did you ignore this?

I wasn't looking at time stamps. Fair enough.

Still doesn't change though, that out of ALL the players who've been under attack at some point - Imat defends only coolbot. Why?

Timing of his replacement still doesn't account for that.

-----

breaking because this post is already quite long.

[ting =)]

I'd expect that kind of thing from masons. Or maybe a cop and a townie he investigated. NOT from a townie who's mentioned being unsure about the other person's alignment.

Again... why not?

Because you don't stick your neck out like that. Not when every action is looked at with suspicion and can be contrived as bussing/distancing/buddying/yadda yadda.

Using this game as an example, the only times people have been defended are when they're at the point of lynching. (khel, matt). I'm sure if you look through past games, a similar pattern will emerge. Sure, I'm not denying that there are exceptions. That's pretty obvious. Imat's was one of those. But -

You don't just simply defend someone to such a degree of:

CoolBot, you'd better not be Scum, cuz I just poured through your posts looking for any sign of scumminess and didn't find any. If you are scum, that'll look really bad for me.

Not unless you're certain. Or lying.

Even when he later 'suspects' coolbot, he does no attacking at all. He mentions minor transgressions, but he always frames them lightly.

Yeah, that makes sense considering he "convinced himself that Coolbot isn't scum"... You expect him to attack Coolbot with an all out assault after that, or what?

Fair enough. The rest, I still don't buy.

Okay, Guardian.

What I don't like is the way he sweeps all of Imat's scuminess as just poor judgement.

STRAWman to the rescue?

No. Imat playing badly is an integral part, if not the main part of your defense of Imat's actions. A number of things were brought up by the others, and you fall back on this when there are no other explations for the scummy things he's done. I can quote you.

So you say I attribute everything to poor judgment... and then quote a 3 paragraph post where I explain in detail how I am not just attributing everything to poor judgment...

My purpose in quoting that was to show I disagreed - because you are.

Some of his actions are explained in part as him being a bad player. His logic is bad, but none of the bad logic appears to have malice behind it. Bad players can sometimes be even more prone to showing they have malice; I don't think Imat had any tendencies in that direction.

The second paragraph is saying, 'yes, some of his scummy actions are because he was a bad player, BUT - the intent behind them was not malicious.' Correct me if I'm misrepresenting you, but it's basically saying the explanation for his scummy actions was poor judgement, but you justify it by saying he didn't mean to cause harm. I don't buy that.

Also, some of his actions just make sense, and I'm not sure why he was about to be put at lynch -1 for those actions.

I disagree with this too. Of course you'll think some of his actions make sense - because you'd have been L-1d otherwise.

In part, they do. Moreover, I go on to explain how judgment isn't important in figuring out who mafia are, it is MALICE. You completely ignore this.

I did mention that. Malice is subjective, and it's ultimately up to the rest of the players to decide whether the underlying motive behind an action is scuminess, or just bad judgement.

I'm inserting this here to find out how many people read posts that reach this length so i know where I should cut my posts. post diliyo if you read this.

A lot more of Imat's contributions made sense than you give credit for.

I assert that those contributions of Imat that may not be as logical don't have any malice, and no one has argued to the contrary.

This statement ignores posts by Imat which

don't

make sense from a town perspective. Which I've brought up. Just because he's done some things that aren't scummy doesn't excuse the things he's done which

are

scummy.

First: I just did.
Second, you aren't understanding my argument (or are intentionally straw manning) in making this post, so don't tell me I can't do something you don't understand.

Your argument was that he did not have malicious intent.

My argument is that blowing a nuke on a city because you accidentally touched the red button is just as bad as blowing a nuke on a city because you hate the people there.

Scummy play is scummy play. Intent is not possible to tangibly measure.

Whether it was prompted by a lack of logic or because he was scum and had malicious intent is something we decide.

Okay, now you understand. See how there is a distinction?

Now this is just intentionally ignoring what I've brought up before that. Or misrepresentation. Or ignoring me to misrepresent my argument. Would you like me to alternately quote the relevant bits between your posts and mine?

Meta provides an unreasonable burden of proof.

Unless you have a meta on Imat showing that he plays logically and makes good cases, his actions were just plain bad play. Not scummy.

See what I did there?

I think in analyzing his actions in THIS game indicates that his play was just bad play, not scummy. If you want to argue to the contrary, or meta to the contrary, be my guest.

This is my point. You

can't

analyze the intent behind his actions in this game simply because you don't know how he plays. Neither do I. Which is why the whole thing about 'no-malicious-intent-behind-it' isn't valid because you can't prove what his intents were. No one can.

I think his defense was totally justified. Re-read Coolbot's posts 0-8 in isolation, the posts Imat read before forming his analysis/defense of Coolbot. Coolbot does not look scummy in reading those posts in isolation. Ergo, saying you found him town-like makes sense.

I've posted on what I think of coolbot's posts. His defense being justified isn't the main point I'm bringing up. It's the fact that it's uncalled for.

-----
cutting.

[ting =)]

I disagree. I think my case on Sethaniel is stronger. I am beginning to lean that the arguments in general on massive, and the subsequent actions by massive, are suspicious, but my case on Qman is better than mine on massive.

Who is more scummy, me/Imat, or massive? Why?

Imat. I can think of an explanation for massive's defending coolbot. I can't think of one for Imat. Perhaps the reason is simplistic, but eh. Don't use a cannon to kill a fly.

To avoid accusations of tunnel vissioning, I'll read up qman/seth and post my thoughts. Besides qman's general lurking though, I don't see any reason to suspect him more than either of you or massive.

Why are you so sure Ting=) is a good guy?

Empking, I will give you cookies.

>.<

I "deflected" your attacks because the attacks weren't taking into consideration that there was the possibility of named-non-Fellowship town members, of which I was one.

I know. That's why I asked you if named-nonfellowship-town existed. I mentioned early day 2 that I'm not holding this against you. I suspect you for other reasons. I'm sorry if I keep bringing it up, but it was integral to my point on coolbot.

I think this is probably a mis-statement on your part. At best you can say I had the same "role classification." Saying I had the same role as CoolBot is saying I'm scum.

You claimed to have the same role classification. Fair enough, okay. It was a mis-statement.

[ting =)]

while at the same time you are saying I am scum because I am attacking HYPOTHETICAL massive scum.

That was

never

the basis of my case.

Look, you can repeat it all you want, but I patently disagree that we can't

analyze Imat's actions and conclude that there wasn't malice behind them.

This isn't impossible and doesn't lead to WIFOM. Analyzing whether there is malice behind someone's actions is crucial in mafia.... Saying we can't and saying we should lynch Imat because he had bad suspicions/defense of Coolbot is really really... well, bad.

You're missing my point. You CAN'T know the intent behind's Imat's posts unless you know how he plays. Any 'intent' you assign to his actions will all be hypothetical.

Actions

are a more important gauge of scumminess than a guess of what the intent behind them might be. He did scummy things.

His attacks clearly look like they made sense to him; he had what he thought were good reasons for them. He came to the wrong conclusions, but none of his attacks were scum pushing crap logic.

Again, we don't know if he did what he did because he CAME TO THE WRONG CONCLUSION or because he WAS SCUM. Since you're him, it's 'obvious' to you that he came to the wrong conclusion, but the rest of us have nothing to guarantee that.

For example, what motivation did scum have to randomly attack Talitha? None. Read through that case -- do you think that it was unreasonable for Imat to think what he said he thought? I don't at all.

Wifom. If you want me to speculate though - He knew eljcko was town, and didn't want to appear like he was just hopping on the largest wagon. So he joined the attack on talitha - he was not the only one calling suspicion on talitha, you know - in order to not draw undue attention.

But all that's wifom too, see. That's why I don't like analyzing intent if there's other things to look at. It's not tangible. Not like actions.

You say that his defense of CoolBot is unjustified. You can repeat that a townie wouldn't say "CoolBot, you'd better not be Scum, cuz I just poured through your posts looking for any sign of scumminess and didn't find any. If you are scum, that'll look really bad for me." all you want, but it doesn't make it true or logical.

No. I'm saying that it was

unprompted.

I've repeated that quite a bit. He had no reason to defend coolbot so much. Like I already said, hardly any of the players bothered. But Imat did.

--- cut

[ting =)]

Imat replaced in, was active, and the major case on the time was yours on CoolBot, ting=). You go on to strawman me and say that he was responding to EXCLUSIVELY that post. You had a STRING of posts on Coolbot, it makes a lot of sense that Imat responded to those first and tried to enter the game by making a decisive conclusion on Coolbot. Your rhetoric to the contrary is just false. Imat doesn't do nearly as much defending of anyone later on because he isn't nearly as active... and then replaces out. This doesn't lead to him being scum.

Also no. Khel still had a wagon on him. Eljcko had a growing wagon on him. And then there was also Matt who Imat decided to use by comparing him to coolbot in a number of instances. All at times when Imat was active.

You, ting=), *may* just be misguided in saying this, or may just be pushing and pushing it because you think it is an easy lynch. I'm not sure what I think yet about that, leaning towards the former... which is really frustrating.

I apologize if you're frustrated. That wasn't my intent. I'm not pushing this because I'm hopping on an easy lynch - I already mentioned suspicions on Imat during day 1, before any night kills, and before there was a wagon on him.

That leaves misguided. I might be. I don't think so. Of course you'd think that though. [/not sarcasm.]

Sethaniel jumps on, suddenly saying that he agrees with you and your case on me. This adds even more to the reasons for thinking Qman/Sethaniel is suspicious.

You say it like as if agreement between players is a bad thing. If you're saying that he's hopping on the wagon on you though, I'd also disagree.

1. He's

not

voting for you. He's voting for massive.
2. The wagon on you is more or less gone.

I definitely support strongly a lynch of Sethaniel instead of massive today. massive's continuing to push on unpopular cases, and lack of jumping on the 'ting is right and his case on Imat is great' group leads me to really want to see Qman's alignment before massive's.

You also mentioned suspicions of massive. Would you be against his lynch today if it ever came to that?

[ting =)]

making arguments that I am scum premising them that I am scum.

Where? The premise I started from was always based on coolbot being scum and then working out from there. I have never started an argument on you based on the premise that you're scum.

There are so many contradictions that ting=) repeats and repeats making ignoring what I say that I am done responding.

I don't see any contradictions. I feel that

you're

ignoring my points just like you're ignoring that the rest of us have no guarantee about what Imat's intent was.

I apologize for the long posts. Long posts depress me too. I'm also sorry if me hounding you has made this game unfun for you, but I do think you're scum. You can't expect me to back down without giving me a good reason.

[ting =)]

It isn't the hounding it is the ignoring of my arguments.

Again, where? I've made it a point to meticulously respond to everything you've said. I'm fairly certain I can just quote myself to reply to any previous argument you choose to repeat. Also, I'm quite sure you just skim through my long posts without actually reading and can prove it.

--
@destructor.
I was gone from the game for a while and found that there were a lot of stuff from guardian to reply to, so I did.

vote:massive.

My reason for voting is:

I must be getting some of the

ring

rust off. =]

This is why I wasn't attacking him during day 1 despite the fact that he was on my suspicious list.

I just realized now that this crumb is inconsistent with his claim of named-nonfellowship townie.

I brought up in day 1 how I thought it was really wierd that we had

both

unnamed-FELLOWSHIP

and

named-NONFELLOWSHIP townie, something which massive assured me was the case.

With coolbot dead, I now fall back to thinking that that is not the case.

[ting =)]

add on: I still think guardian is scum.

Oh, I forgot to emphasize:

un

named-FELLOWSHIP and named-NONFELLOWSHIP

[ting =)]

Sorry. I don't have regular internet access.

Considering the way the game has gone, is there any chance that Shaka may have forgotten to inform massive about Imat targetting khelvaster?

Would it be against the rules to ask for confirmation from Talitha? An answer would imply that either guardian is lying or serious mod error, so I'm not sure if this is a valid question.

----

An RB might be possible. There was only one night kill. That suggests that either empking was a one shot vig, or that the mafia had a roleblocker, figured he was vig, and decided to both block and nk him. I'll go check later if empking was active on the forums during the night phase to find out if he maybe didn't submit a night choice.

---

Oh, holding off on the voting might be good, bab. I think we only have 2 scum, but on the off chance that we have a 3 man scum group, we're currently in lylo.

---

I need to reread the previous day. The idea that the town had a cop and a doc and a vig

and

a tracker... doesn't quite sound right. Like guardian said though, we could have a scum roleblocker, that might make the game balanced, but that's a pretty ridiculous amount of power roles in a mini. That means that less than half the players are standard townies/goons. Has there ever been that kind of game in a mini normal before?

I'm not sure about destructor being scum. When khelvaster suggested a name claim, destructor was willing to hop aboard. Considering the way things have gone though, I'm not too sure exactly where that puts him at the moment.

[ting =)]

@Guardian.
I was in a game before as town where I kept being hounded by someone. Completely sucked the fun out of the game. I hate to think I've been doing the same to someone else.

That said, I still think you might be scum. But there's no point repeating myself. I see no harm in going after someone else at the moment. If you're the last scum, then you can just be process-of-elimination-lynched tomorrow. If there's 2 scum left, drawing attention to you isn't going to help us find the last scum.

So, I'll leave you alone for now.

@Matt.
That's true. I still haven't found the time to reread though. Why not make a full case on destructor?

[ting =)]

Dude, we're 90% (arbitrary number) at LYLO. We lose if we mislynch. There's no second chances.

90% is too high. Most games with an sk only have 2 scum, which is what I'm expecting. I only mentioned lylo because it's a possibility, and it never hurts to be cautious.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still for a guardian lynch, but me focusing on him helps nothing. I'm more inclined to look at other players for the moment.

[ting =)]

I think I'll wait for everyone to come back before doing anything. It's obvious that today's lynch should be either guardian or destructor. We should wait till guardian is around.

[ting =)]

Is everyone back from holiday yet?

[ting =)]

I think the people under most suspicion should claim first. If they go last, they can plan their claim. Since there's no agreement on who is actually the most suspicious, I propose the people with votes on them/under attack claim first.

If no one disagrees, I think those are guardian, destructor and you Seth.

I think we should wait for bab though.

[ting =)]

I am now henceforth indicating my desire to see you respond to destructor.




I don't mind waiting till you get back though.

[ting =)]

What would you gain from such a response?

Insight on why you don't want to answer.

Why do you believe you would gain that?

Because you answer.

[ting =)]

I would like a claim from you, destructor. There's no reason not to anymore.

@Guardian
I don't think it's fair for you to judge on your own what will, or will not be useful for everyone. You're dismissing his case, and pretty much just holding on to your claim that you saw him nk. You should know what it looks like from everyone else's perspective.

[ting =)]

Yes. Humor me. I'll vote guardian when you claim.

[ting =)]

Yes, I'd like that too. Des first though I think. Today's lynch is clearly between him and guardian.

[ting =)]

Yeah, I'm waiting for bab to get back too, which is why I wasn't really pushing it yet.

You said you'd vote Guardian after I claimed. Does that mean you already think he's scum?

Yes.

If so, why not vote for him now?

Will a vote from me now be any different than a vote from me after you claim?

Can you see how me claiming will do anything to change your read of Guardian?

Who said my wanting you to claim had anything to do with Guardian?

[ting =)]

Maybe I'm just curious about something.

[ting =)]

Why

don't

you want to claim?

I'm not the only one who expressed interest.

[ting =)]

Yes. It's what made me curious to begin with.

[ting =)]

Awesomeness. That's everybody for it. Well, minus vacation people.

[ting =)]

Fair enough.

*waits patiently while eating a cookie.

[ting =)]

OH NOES!

My lie.

You sees through it.

[ting =)]

That's it! I've

HAD IT

with you!

VOTE: DESTRUCTOR.

just kidding. ; )

unvote

Bab should be back in less than a week.

[ting =)]

Gemelli's thread distillery.

I've never tried it out yet though, so I don't know how useful it actually is.

[ting =)]

Hmm, thanks for finally answering.

I'm saying he could have interpreted either the same way depending. Or maybe his role got nerfed and he was no longer a watcher.

No. I believed at the start of the day, and still do, that either you're lying, or Shaka screwed up.

While the latter is possible, I believe the game would have been halted by talitha if that was the case.[/gaming the mod]

Whatever. Note who ting has supported.

Ting thought you were scum since

yesterday.

I've backed off with the long posts because there's no point making long posts if you're going to ignore them anyway, and since you made an appeal to emotion that I was sucking the fun out of the game for you. While I do understand the feeling, I still think you're scum.

His vote then unvote of you was just classic scum bullshit.

Come

on.

That's the most ridiculous reach I've ever heard. If it helps, I'll put [/joke] on random posts from now on.

[ting =)]

Yeah, weren't you strongly suspicious of Seth?

[ting =)]

So... I'm less willing to believe you and so I'm scum?

[ting =)]

More suspicious than a person you actually made a case on?

You haven't done anything to

convince

me to believe you. Your day 3 arguments basically boil down to, 'Look, I have a guilty on him, so nah!' You haven't said anything to make me doubt your connection to coolbot either.

Destructor, likewise is mostly just going, 'I'm town, so that's obviously a lie, nah!'

Before either of you start accusing me of strawmanning, that really is essentially the core of all the day 3 arguments - both of you asking the rest of us who we trust more.

You'll also notice that I've been calling for destructor to claim. I'm not going to lie - I'm more inclined to believe him over you right now, but that's not to say I'm not suspicious of him. I'm suspicious of you both, just him less so.

[ting =)]

Then you aren't reading my posts.

I

did

. I didn't buy your points. So I replied. But you blatantly said you did not read mine. This is a circular argument.

I won't accuse you of straw maning at all -- I only ask WHY you wanted me to continue it by replying to destructor. I totally agree that that is what day 3 has come down to. Why such insistence that I reply to destructor's "I'm town, so that's obviously a lie, nah!"?

Why was it so suspicious that I didn't?

Because I thought you'd reply with something other than a 'nah!' post of your own.

You're also telling him you'll vote me instantaneously after he claims. How in heck does that make any sense?

I'll reply when he claims.

I did. Then ting=) showed that he'd really already made up his mind. I thought he hadn't... but his posts following seem to be trying to appear open minded while single-mindedly subtly guiding towards a me-lynch.

So your reason for thinking I was town for a while is that I was not on your case. Your current reason for thinking that I'm scum is that I

am

on your case. How is this not omgus?

Before you make another

You appear to be pretending to, and that's what is suspicious.

argument, I replied to that in 792 btw.

[ting =)]

no u

I'm going to drop that line of thought. There's no point.

How was I supposed to reply to a "nah you're scum" post with anything other than "nah I'm not"? There was no substance to respond to.

Then don't reply to his 'nah'. Make a case on him based on something else. Or defend yourself based on something else.

Uh, that really, really doesn't cut it.

Kinda funny. Given that, you know, you and destructor have both done the same thing.

And I replied to that reply. Your faked even-mindedness is what is suspicious. If you want me to explain further, tell me what's unclear.

Yes, and I replied to your reply to my reply. :sigh: I sense another circular argument in the works were we'll both eventually decide to just ignore each other.

I've been clear since yesterday that I'm suspicious of you. I've also been clear that I was going to put a ceasefire on my case on you because I symphatized with the feeling of having someone go on relentlessly about you.

I never said that my suspicions were gone. Nor did I say that was not suspicious of destructor.

Skepticism is fine -- note how I singled out ting=) and not you, or Seth, both who appear to be leaning the wrong way. You two, unlike ting =), appear to be actually trying to figure things out though.

ting =)'s mind has made up, and he's agreeing that that's true, pretty much(!).

/quote]
Again, how is this not omgus? I'm inclined to believe destructor over you, yes, but that doesn't mean I'm not willing to change my mind. I've been asking you for the last couple of posts now to post something of substance to convince me. But you just keep repeating yourself.

Bold is a gross over exageration. I'm more inclined to believe him. That doesn't mean my mind is made up.

You need to look at the play of both players and (hopefully) make the right choice. By no means should that choice be obvious because of my claim.

ARRRRGGGH. Your whole case on me is that I believe destructor more than I believe you, and that I'm suspicious of you. Seriously?

You're accusing me of close mindedness, even while I've been trying to get you to see things for forever now.

[ting =)]

Nice nitpicking. How is what you're doing any better than your tunneling charge on me?

The first two are correct.

This is not.

Here you say that

his case was in fact bullshit

and not worth responding to, and that I in fact should not have responded to it.

Make up your mind, scum.

destructor is surely scum, and if ting =) isn't his buddy, I'll be greatly surprised.

I said it's a 'nah' case, which to me falls under appeal to emotion. It's a

bad

case, but still one you should have replied to. Not a bullshit case.

My point was that you should have replied better. That's very clear in context. You dismissed his case as nothing and said that it wasn't worth replying to. I expected better from your reply than an echo of his.

---

You're just grasping at straws now.

Also, while early on we both thought that the most likely possibility was only 1 scum left, you've suddenly concluded that we now have two scum. And your case on the second, is again, really just an extended omgus.

[ting =)]

ebwop:

I said it's a 'nah' case, which to me falls under appeal to emotion. It's a

bad

case, but still one you should have replied to. Not a bullshit case.

This is in reply to the bit in Guardian's post which I italicized.

[ting =)]

okay des, bab is back.

[ting =)]

Hm.

I wasn't expecting that.

[ting =)]

Notethat even if Guardian is scum, this whole thing could be a bussing attempt.

Yes, that's exactly why I wanted to des to claim.

I thought of two things that he might claim. If he'd claimed vanilla, I'd have voted him, despite what I said earlier. I was expecting him to claim survivor, which I would have brought.

I'm still thinking about this claim. It's... convenient.

[ting =)]

I was going to quickly skim through and post a short reply before I sleep, but there's more posts than I expected.

I'll do it tomorrow.

[ting =)]

unNK able townie?

Does that really make any more sense than tracker, especially considering that neither the SK nor godfather had such immunity?

that makes sense.

I thought I could have been a likely nightkill, which failing, would have screwed scum over pretty badly and helped confirm me. I was hoping someone might have picked up on this when I said claiming would probably help scum more than town.

but so does this.

The claim was not as helpful as I thought it would be, in the end it still boils down to who do we trust more.

Des' claim is pretty elaborate, Guardian's is the simpler of the two.

[ting =)]

I think I've made a pretty strong case for why it is plausible to believe ting =) is destructor's partner. There's no one who makes sense to such a degree for me.

Er, no.

Your case was just that I believed destructor more than you. I hence disagree with the words, 'strong', 'plausible', and 'believe' in your post.

If you're going to call strawman, then point me to your case. Or a summary of it.

sethaniel? my top suspect as soon as I replaced in?

When you first said that, you made a case on both massive and seth. I thought that if you were scum, massive was your partner who you were distancing with, and that seth was town who you were trying to mislynch. I'm now thinking that if you're scum, besides the possibility of you bussing des, maybe I got the two switched.

[ting =)]

Summary: see above -- the part where you're pretending to evaluate but in reality have already made up your mind.

Again, how is that different from

Your case was just that I believed destructor more than you.

We've already done a page long back and forth on this. I'm dropping it until you bring up something new.

[ting =)]

I'm pretty sure Guardian is scum. Look, des is town for reasons A,B, and C, and Guardian is scum for reasons D, E, and F.

Guardian, I WAS doing this for the better part of day 2. I made long posts going, 'Guardian is scum for reasons D,E and F.'

Your reply was to say that you weren't going to bother to read it. I already said this, there's no point on me making cases on you if you aren't even going to care to reply.

Obviously the above is a caricature and highly exaggerated to make a point. However, I think the point is a valid one, and the way in which the manner you present your thoughts contradicts your actual thought process is what is suspicious. You want it to seem like you've been considering this at length and are undecided, when in reality it is pretty settled in your mind that you want me lynched. This leads me to believe you are scum with destructor and trying to win the game right here right now, by lynching me and NK-ing another townie.

You

know

my thought process? Really? I

am

still deciding.

Again, we've gone through all this before already, 2 pages or so back. You're not bringing up anything new.

[ting =)]

hi all, real life caught up to me in the form of exams. i'll be /la for a while, but i'll check in every once in a while when i can.

i'll just skimming through though, so post my name in bold letters if you have a question adressed to me.

[ting =)]

here, still exams.

most of the arguments so far seem like rehashing.

except for the thing on des going for seth. why did you anyway? i have a guess why, but i'd like to hear your reasons for why you think what you did was the best thing to do.

[ting =)]

vote:guardian

this has gone on long enough. you haven't done anything to convince me not to.

[ting =)]

bab, switch vote, yes?

my main reasons:

Destructor was for the early nameclaim from khel, something which coolbot was wary about. That means that he has a name, and it's also consistent with his claim of bulletproof.

Guardian's information disagrees with Massive's, and out of the two, Massive is the one we're guaranteed to be able to trust. That plus the whole coolbot thing.

[ting =)]

=(

[ting =)]

ting

matt mirrors my feelings exactly, both with his logic and his

sad

lack of smiley.

[ting =)]

I call bussing.

[ting =)]

)= [gnit]

go town!

[ting =)]

haha, wooo~!

I think the bussing was very good play. I think the claims that you both made were really good too.

Des: Is there any particular reason why you were for a nameclaim early on when khel suggested it? That had me pretty convinced you were town. =/ Oh, and did you guys have names?

Bab:

Man.

That was freaky. I was keeping track of the game and I was sold on your claim.

I don't know why he would think that a mass-claim would be pro-town if he was a power role and had a name. It makes no sense.

I think he was maybe fishing for vig targets.

[ting =)]

Oh. Kudos. The frodo claim was good, imho.

Yeah, I was nameless vanilla. I wouldn't have been pretty confident of defending Matt otherwise.

[ting =)]

@massive.
Why did you think I was scum btw?

I want to wifom you with it if I'm ever in a game with you again.

[ting =)]

Yea, thanks for modding talitha. =)

@bab.
I can't recall you doing anything that screwed the game up. I thought you played pretty well imho.

Also, yes, on hindsight, I think guardian played really well. The scum would probably have won if you didn't have the replacer role. I think he got screwed over by Imat though. Nothing short of a confirmed cop claiming innocent on him would have made me not suspicious of him.

@massive.
Hm. If I recall, I had my vote on Imat/guardian for most of that day. I switched to you because he did a good job of convincing everyone that he wasn't scum, there was no way he was going to get lynched.