Newbie 1070 - Game Over

[Rain]

I forgot to define MyLo:
I believe it's called "Mislynch and Lose". It's a situation with 2n+2 players alive, where n denotes the number of scums alive. Outcomes of this situations are either lynching a townie, lynching scum, no lynching. First case, mafia wins. Second case, town wins. Third case, no one immediately wins but will set Town at a more favorable position for the next day (since 1 person will die the night after, and a LyLo situation occurs). In this case, No Lynch is the way to go.

Fence sitting is a position wherein a player seemingly discusses pro's and con's of an issue, and ends with a grey, ambiguous statement which means nothing. Scums like to use similar tactics because if it eventually backfires, mafia scums can backpedal and lie about their stance on said issue without having to contradict himself (i.e. say things like, "See? I knew this was a bad idea! I said it a long time ago"). Taking a stance on things is important because it says that you're not afraid of how you appear to the rest of the Town, which is a strong Town tell.

Just a reminder: we vastly outnumber scums in this game. They are a lot more concerned about surviving. Even if a townie is lynched D1 and D2, as long as town wins in the end, all 7 of us wins. If you're pro-town and you really want to live, fight for it. Argue why you should live, or argue why someone else is scummier than you and thus, deserves to be lynched instead of you.

The only thing that's random is the distribution of roles. Lynches are *not* random, at all. Bandwagons form when town agrees that a certain person is scummy. Bandwagons form when scums take advantage of a person taking heat. Lynches occur when enough people decide that aspects of a person's behavior is suspicious, or when a poor defense is hastily assembled.

Barefoot, so far, things said against you still hold. You have no clearly defined position on issues, whether you think NL is a good idea or whether you think Jack is scum. Your vote on Muh316 was not accompanied with any reasoning. Also, a lot of your defense seems to be "I'm scared" and "You don't want to lynch a townie, right? That is our reasoning", which, unfortunately, does not make the cut.

To all those who say that there's not a lot of information on D1, this is true. So what are you going to do about it?

Vote Count

barefootfighter (3) - muh316, Ellyssa, Rain
Jack Forman (2) - Quaroath, Stels
muh316 (1) - barefoot-fighter
Stels (1) - T-Bone

Not Voting (2) - Jack Forman, splitfarvle

With 9 alive it is 5 to lynch.

[Quaroath]

I'm not currently feeling a jack lynch. Too new, too little info. I thought about moving my vote to barefoot last night, but that'd put her at L-1 and I'm not comfortable with that righ now. That said,

unvote

. Barefoot, you seem to be appealing to emotion too in your last couple posts.

FoS: barefoot

[Ellyssa]

@Quaroath #76 - Could you please explain why, on the 3rd day of a 3 week limit, you seem to be abandoning the 2nd largest wagon to position yourself to jump onto the larger one in the future, with the reason of not 'feeling' a lynch on him?

I understand the FoS, shed in the explanations of fence-sitting (thanks for that, you two). I also agree with the not wanting to put barefoot at L-1 yet. If you had voted I would have unvoted to prevent a quickhammer. But why the unvote on Jack with the wishy-washy reason, and what would that be aimed to portray? That perhaps we should only concentrate on the one wagon at the moment and ignore other possibilities and perhaps, if barefoot is Mafia, quickly bus her and get over with it?

Also, Jack's last post at you included a rebuttal of,

How do I have a "poor town vibe" if I am trying to conserve townies? What do you mean I have a poor town vibe?

Which I do not think you answered yet. Instead you seem to have let it slide, answering others with small notes and then the good analysis on barefoot's post, and then now quietly sliding off the Jack vote (which you didn't have to do for the FoS, nor was he in any danger) because you don't think it'll reach a lynch.

That's fair enough, but your phrasing seems a little bit like seeming to want to hop to and side with the winning side a bit too much and/or bus your mafiamate. There are still a couple other people with no votes at all at the moment.

Not sure if I expressed that well, but while barefoot's last post does seem scummier than Jack's no-lynch proposal so far, you seem to have just dropped the case on Jack with no challenge or reply to his rebuttal at all and no further input from him. I agree with your math on his no-lynch attempt, and share that viewpoint, but he asked what in each of his posts you found scummy, and you just seemed to let it go and slink off.

[Quaroath]

A large part of my post depth depends on if I'm posting from my phone or computer. If I'm not quoting, in general I'm on my phone as I am now. I saw jacks question las t night when I was out (GO BLAZERS) and was just eyeing the thread during halftime. I forgot about it when I got home after the game. I'll address it when I get home since quoting on my phone is a pita and I want to excise the quotes that bothered me.
Jack reads increasingly as newbie. I can't really put an alignment on him though he is pinging my scumdar. I unvoted for two reasons. 1.) I think for what it was we've gotten all the info from pressuring jack over the no vote bit we can. If I return my vote to him I want it to be clear my vote is there for more than just the no vote issue. 2.) I would be voting barefoot right now if it wouldn't put her at l-1. I don't really feel that leaving a vote on jack would convey that I'd rather vote barefoot, but don't want to enter quickhammer territory so soon. I'd rather pull my vote for now.

I'm feeling a barefoot-Stels scumteam at the moment. I don't know where the vote count is and addin it up manually on my iPhone is a pain. Not sure what vote count stels is at, or I'd vote him.

Again, on my phone, will explain both more in depth tonight once I'm off work.

[muh316]

I'll go ahead and

Unvote

for now.

Barefoot was pretty scared when she had 3 votes on her. This seems suspicious to me. She also placed an OMGUS on me. Also suspicious. I personally don't like giving out these instead of votes, but

FOS Barefoot-fighter

To the people saying we should no lynch, its a bad idea. Don't ask it just is, we know by experience.

[splitfarvle]

I'll go ahead and

Unvote

for now.

Barefoot was pretty scared when she had 3 votes on her. This seems suspicious to me. She also placed an OMGUS on me. Also suspicious. I personally don't like giving out these instead of votes, but

FOS Barefoot-fighter

To the people saying we should no lynch, its a bad idea. Don't ask it just is, we know by experience.

Why did you decide to unvote someone you're suspicious of?

[barefoot-fighter]

First of all, I may be away for some days. Not too long, but I didn't want to be away when I have three votes on me. =(

T-Bone convinced me (ok, he was only the last one) that first Day lynch is not random. Still, Quaroath, I wasn't giving out

false

information, I considered it random. It is the least accurate lynch, but I agree there is a chance we have a reasonable lynch after these weeks of Day 1. We keep discussing till then, okay.

Ellyssa, I'll read those later, I want to go slower into this. No offense.<=)

You seem to be setting yourself up for a "Well if A is scum, i thought so too" or a "Well if A flips town, I told you so." line after an alignment flip.

Yeah, you're right, I just didn't say "I told you so", I said I don't know whether he is scum or not, because someone suggested that, since I was standing up for him, if he turned out to be scum, I was too.

Also, nice of T-Bone to bring in new reasoning, though I don't think I'll roll with that yet.=/

Preview Edit: Thanks Rain, it makes things easier.

I have a feeling my emotes are coming out as "emotional defense", which is not what I aimed for. I'll get back to them when no one is voting for me, then. And saying I was scared wasn't a defense! I'm not crying myself to sleep, I was just shocked (and thrilled). And yeah, voting for Muh was not very bright, I just wanted to get back on him for keeping his vote on me.

Oh, and since I need to take stands, I don't think Jack is mafia. And to make it clear, I'm not voting for NL and if I believe someone is mafia, I'll vote for them, even in the first day.

I wanted to be childish and enthusiastic, but it makes me look like mafia, then alright, I'll wear the poker face. And I'm unvoting, of course.
UNVOTE: Muh316

[Jack Forman]

Thank you all for explaining that a no lynch is used best in a 3 vs 1 game, but have any of you ever no lynched D1 or seen a game that it was done in? Its like trying new food don't knock it til you try it. Why give the mafia a free lynch on D1 when we lack the info and odds to hit a mafia? The people saying no lynch D1 could very well be mafia still pushing for the odds to be 5 vs 2. So now i am done with the odds and how everyone eles plays the game, I am here I am playing this is what sounds good to me noob or not i am still going to no lynch.

Now you didn't actually cast a no-lynch vote yet (though technically Jack's just got nulled too due to phrasing) so I don't know if you're also pushing to convince enough others for a quick no-lynch. I think between Jack and you on this case, Jack still seems a little scummier to me because the phrasing of his:

I am only thinking that I am a town person or supposed to appear to be a town person, just like you.

That entire paragraph frankly makes me a bit nervous, as though it were meant to play on and drum up the uncertainty, but I do not want to put him into L-1 so early into our day. A quick Mafia hammer or jittery townsperson and we not only lose a player, but also valuable discussion time.

7 people are town right... 9 people are trying to be town right... so mafia or not you and I are trying to be a townie or appear as townie is all I was trying to say. By having 6 town after D1 there are more people to apply pressure (that all of you seem to be looking for) then if we only have 5 town.

And I'm supporting him as an instinct, 'cause suddenly everyone turned against him for being too cautious. And I still share his view. But... If he turns out to be mafia (no offense here, but I think he is acting too nooby to be mafia), I'm not lying for him! D=

Too nooby to be mafia wtf... noob or not anyone can be mafia.

@Jack Forman
The reasons for No Lynch are plainly anti-town, if not scummy. It is true that a lynch is likelier to target town than scum on D1. However, this logic applies up to LyLo (a situation called Lynch or Lose, where you have 2n+1 people alive and n denotes the number of scums alive). Worst case scenario, we mislynch everyday for 2 days before we reach LyLo. If we spend even one day not lynching, we can only afford 1 mislynch before MyLo, in which case we'd have to NL again, to be at LyLo. In other words, if we decide on NL for D1, we have to hit scum within our 2 first lynches whereas if we lynch every day, our chances of survival depends on hitting scum within our first 3 lynches. Please remember that the town has control over who dies to lynches whereas mafia has total control to who dies at night.

My experience with newbies says that they usually consider NL to be safe, which is unfortunate because that's pretty scummy. However, stubbornness is a fairly strong town tell.

I forgot to define MyLo:
I believe it's called "Mislynch and Lose". It's a situation with 2n+2 players alive, where n denotes the number of scums alive. Outcomes of this situations are either lynching a townie, lynching scum, no lynching. First case, mafia wins. Second case, town wins. Third case, no one immediately wins but will set Town at a more favorable position for the next day (since 1 person will die the night after, and a LyLo situation occurs). In this case, No Lynch is the way to go.

Thank you rain I think we all understand how a no lynched is to be used, but you seem to just keep making the same point over and over. Now that we have all seen the odds and the wiki for a no lynch D1, you all seem like a bunch of wimps (on offense to anyone). If you really think I am mafia then lynch me, other wise cowboy/girl up and try something new.

Sorry for being such a NOOB that you all are so willing to point out, here is my final vote.

Vote: NO LYNCH

[muh316]

I'll go ahead and

Unvote

for now.

Barefoot was pretty scared when she had 3 votes on her. This seems suspicious to me. She also placed an OMGUS on me. Also suspicious. I personally don't like giving out these instead of votes, but

FOS Barefoot-fighter

To the people saying we should no lynch, its a bad idea. Don't ask it just is, we know by experience.

Why did you decide to unvote someone you're suspicious of?

A vote is a much more bolder statement than an FOS. A vote sends out the message " I want you dead" an FOS just declares your suspicion.

[muh316]

Guess we have our policy lynch...

[splitfarvle]

Hope editing down a quoted post for readability isn't frowned upon, there's just two segments in it I want to address.

Thank you all for explaining that a no lynch is used best in a 3 vs 1 game, but have any of you ever no lynched D1 or seen a game that it was done in? Its like trying new food don't knock it til you try it. Why give the mafia a free lynch on D1 when we lack the info and odds to hit a mafia? The people saying no lynch D1 could very well be mafia still pushing for the odds to be 5 vs 2. So now i am done with the odds and how everyone eles plays the game, I am here I am playing this is what sounds good to me noob or not i am still going to no lynch.

We know that there are only two scum in this game, and more than two players advocating a lynch vs. no lynch so your suggestion that scum might be pushing for a lynch makes no sense. I would also argue that you are not in fact playing the game since you've already decided your day one play three weeks before the deadline. Are you planning on just sitting the game out until day two?

@Jack Forman
The reasons for No Lynch are plainly anti-town, if not scummy. It is true that a lynch is likelier to target town than scum on D1. However, this logic applies up to LyLo (a situation called Lynch or Lose, where you have 2n+1 people alive and n denotes the number of scums alive). Worst case scenario, we mislynch everyday for 2 days before we reach LyLo. If we spend even one day not lynching, we can only afford 1 mislynch before MyLo, in which case we'd have to NL again, to be at LyLo. In other words, if we decide on NL for D1, we have to hit scum within our 2 first lynches whereas if we lynch every day, our chances of survival depends on hitting scum within our first 3 lynches. Please remember that the town has control over who dies to lynches whereas mafia has total control to who dies at night.

My experience with newbies says that they usually consider NL to be safe, which is unfortunate because that's pretty scummy.

However, stubbornness is a fairly strong town tell.

Thank you rain I think we all understand how a no lynched is to be used, but you seem to just keep making the same point over and over. Now that we have all seen the odds and the wiki for a no lynch D1, you all seem like a bunch of wimps (on offense to anyone). If you really think I am mafia then lynch me, other wise cowboy/girl up and try something new.

Sorry for being such a NOOB that you all are so willing to point out, here is my final vote.

Vote: NO LYNCH

Bolding in Rain's quote mine, because it seems like it might be coaching. It gives Jack potential way out after Rain spent time listing reasons not to vote no lynch.

[splitfarvle]

Guess we have our policy lynch...

What do you mean? I've only come across lynch all lurkers and lynch all liars in the two games I've played.

[Stels]

@MOD: Sorry, but I have HSPA's for three days in a row starting tomorrow, so V/LA until the 4th. Sorry about the inconvenience, but I'll browse the game and respond when I have the time during my V/LA.

[Ellyssa]

@Jack Forman: Blah. Regarding

but have any of you ever no lynched D1 or seen a game that it was done in?

This link I posted earlier shows stats, taken from compiled Newbie games (1-900) on this forum, showing Day 1 Lynch Data. All the tables on the page except the first two seem to be broken, but in the 2nd table, it shows the % of wins that have occurred when Town no-lynched on the first day.

3 wins out of 15. Out of the 6 possible lynches on the first day, the

only

worse possible outcome for Town was when the Cop got lynched on the first day in terms of anecdotal evidence there. Even lynching a vanilla townie or the fricking doctor gives us

double

the winning percentage over picking no-lynch, minus statistical variance. Town gets better odds mislynching than no-lynching, because we have more chances to lynch someone overall, and we need 2 successful lynches no matter what to win, even if it means we mislynch another 1 or 2 in the process. No lynch decreases our lynch pool by 1. With 8, we can only lynch 3 times (at 8, 6/5 and 4/3) before losing. AND if we hit townies at the 8 and 6 one, we lose as well without the 3rd lynch. With 9 we get to lynch at 9, 7, 5 and 3, and the first mafia can come after two mislynches and we still won't lose.

Still, I'm having a hard time equating your argument with being Mafia, because it would seem to be way too obvious to blatantly push for this. Your tone of posting doesn't sound scummy/suspicious, even if you're advocating a position that would give them an advantage!

How about this, are you intent on keeping that vote no matter what, or would you consider changing it if we need it nearer the end of the three weeks and you think someone else is likely to be Mafia? This isn't a "rushed" day 1 lynch or anything, and I don't know if you're trying to push this because of rushed day 1 experiences in other games elsewhere or whatnot. We don't need to have

everybody

alive to win.

But one thing you are doing if you are townie but stick to this no matter what the situation is, is that we essentially have one less vote in D1 to try to hit a likely scum if one surfaces. Especially since you are unlikely to get 5 votes for no-lynch based on the support against it at the moment, so it's essentially a wasted vote since D1 automatically no-lynches if we don't settle on someone at the end of 3 weeks anyway. So it's one thing to decide on no-lynch at the end of D1 because no one stands out, and be cautious in the meantime, but to push for no-lynch immediately, which would end all discussion? That does not serve town at all.

Preview Edit
@split Yeah, that may be what he's trying to do, I'm not sure, by -really- sticking to his guns now and trying to seem that way. I believe "policy lynch" in general is lynching people who you think will be bad for the game overall; and could include lurkers and liars depending on people's viewpoints, as well as other general things (like someone typing entire walls of text only in alternate CaPs and being generally irritating while within the rules).

[Quaroath]

Sorry for being such a NOOB that you all are so willing to point out, here is my final vote.

Vote: NO LYNCH

In essence, you are saying you don't want to play the game. You just want to watch us play. Awesome.

Policy lynch on this is "Lynch the useless player" or "Lynch the newbie who doesn't care that more people than there are total mafia are telling him a no-lynch is anti town, as if he is town, he's not going to help find scum"

Jack, No Lynch D1 is a poor play for the town, Period. It isn't done because it's a bad play. Part of the SE and IC job is to give new players this knowledge. Please listen to them. I can't believe you don't think *someone* is a bit scummy.

[Quaroath]

RE: Jack giving me poor town vibe:

I'm really getting a poor town vibe from some particular aspects of each of your posts.

How do I have a "poor town vibe" if I am trying to conserve townies? What do you mean I have a poor town vibe?

I am not trying to slow down the flow of information.

Maybe not by intent, but that's what you are doing pushing a no-lynch

I am only thinking that I am a town person or supposed to appear to be a town person, just like you.

Yeah, that statement isn't fishy

at all.

A No Vote would prove beneficial to the town, because there is not enough to go off of to assume anyone is scum.

False. Been covered enough.

Most likely we will lynch a townie D1.

True, just on shear odds.

By Voteing againts a person that is a no vote you kind of look scummy, if you were town would just ignore me and continue to RVS.

If you say so.

So obviously my no vote did apply pressure.

To yourself?!?

If that was the goal... okay. Well done.

You say I am trying to relieve pressure but I obviously am applying pressure if it convinced you to vote against another townie.

Here you say you are a townie again. You keep saying it like you feel a need to proclaim your alignment. I also find it interesting that you say "another townie", which implies you know my alignment.. which you only could as scum. Smells like a slip of the tongue (or keyboard, if you will.)

The problem with no-lynch is that the Mafia will then get a free NK on a townie on Night 1, and then we'll be down to 6 vs. 2, and that's being optimistic

If we do vote chances are we will be 5 vs 2. And our chances are even worse. And yes, I am really casting a "No Vote"

5v2 is better for town that 6v2. This isn't something that can really be argued effectively.

That post, plus your even further repeated pushing of No lynch is setting off my alarms so badly I'm having to force myself to not react with an F this, string the bastard up reaction.

The problem is I don't really think you are scum, I am starting to think you are just mule headed new player town. You are playing a poor pro town game. You put off seriously poor town vibes refusing to do what is best for town. There is a difference between "scum vibes" and "poor town vibes" One indicates I think you are scum, the other means I think you are probably town, but just playing poor.


Hmm... can't figure out how to link posts (so the link itself is "this post" and you click "this post" to go to the post.

So, Jack, your post #82 in the thread makes me want to bang my head on the wall.

I don't think barefoot meant it personally when she said you read to noob to be mafia, it's just her way of saying "he's doing so much to draw attention to himself and playing so blatantly anti-town, I can't believe he'd do that as mafia who want to not gain attention and be the spotlight/lightning rod like you are now."

Continuing to say a no-lynch is the way to go when it has been explained by 4-5 people that it is bad play and that is only hurts town on day 1, is just anti town. If you are town, you are trying to hurt the town more than help it. If you are town, and you get yourself lynched because of this, you aren't helping town win, you are helping mafia win.

[Quaroath]

Eyylssa, strong pro town vibe right now. Agree, Disagree? Discuss!

Working on my scum thoughts post for a while.

[Quaroath]

Guess we have our policy lynch...

This post really

really

bothers me for a reason I can't get my head around. It is purely a gut feeling, it just feels wrong. I'll try to figure out why while rereading.

[Rain]

@splitvarvle
Yes, it does seem like coaching. However, that only becomes relevant if Jack flips scum. In my opinion, newbscums are much likelier to acquiesce to peer pressure, if only to please other people. Thus, I sincerely believe Jack Forman to be town, if newbtown.

@Jack Forman
I think you misunderstood, that or I explained myself wrong. MyLo is the only scenario where No Lynch is the correct way to go. In our situation, if we NL D1, we have to hit scum within our first 2 lynches, lest we lose. Instead, if we lynch every day, we have to hit scum within our first 3 lynches. (If anyone still has problems understanding this, I will describe in detail in another post.)

You are also wrong in

Why give the mafia a free lynch on D1 when we lack the info and odds to hit a mafia?

First of all, lynching, even if it results in a townie's death, is one of the best means to gather information. Hindsight can be used to see who really tried to push the lynch for the townie. Second, we are not giving mafia a free lynch. Town has control over lynches. Mafia has control over night kills. Forfeiting a lynch means forfeiting an opportunity to hit scum.

I do not disagree with a Jack Forman policy lynch. However, I would avoid contemplating this until the very end of D1. I would much rather lynch scum. People pushing for this are likely scum trying to deflect the lynch onto an easy town target.

About policy lynch: it is of my opinion that its aim is to eliminate people with demonstrated anti-town behavior. Lynch all Lurkers and Lynch all Liars are just slogans to label types of policy lynches. You may, for instance, policy lynch a player with abusive language, or a player that ought to be modkilled but isn't, for miscellaneous reasons.

[Alduskkel]

Vote Count

barefootfighter (2) - Ellyssa, Rain
Jack Forman (1) - Stels
Stels (1) - T-Bone
No Lynch (1) - Jack Forman

Not Voting (4) - splitfarvle, Quaroath, muh316, barefoot-fighter

With 9 alive it is 5 to lynch.

[T-Bone]

Guess we have our policy lynch...

This post really

really

bothers me.

Because he's....scum??

I'll get to you Day 2 bud. I think Stels should still be our Day 1 lynch.

[Rain]

Quaroath.

You've followed me in my vote for Jack Forman. You followed me in my vote for Barefoot-fighter. While I appreciate your support, it seems oddly convenient and safe, for a newbie game, to follow an IC.

Part of the SE and IC job is to give new players this knowledge. Please listen to them.

The above is a logical fallacy, namely an Appeal to Authority. I do no expect anyone to blindly listen to me, or any other player. I give what information I can, and advocate others to use critical thinking to come up with their own conclusions. At times, I may persuade others to join my cause, but they must base their judgement on the logic of my case, not simply because I'm an IC.

I also notice that you've mentioned everyone at least once but muh316. Though it is not mentioned in the wiki, newbscums tend to ignore their partner a bit. The goal would seemingly be to keep a neutral view on one another, so if one is caught, the link between the two scums can not be brought to light. Under normal circumstances, I would probably let it slide. However, again, Quaroath, you've mentioned everyone at least once. But muh316.

It also doesn't help that all muh316 has done is active lurking.

(Quick summary of what lurking/active lurking is:
Lurking means not posting often. It can be a scum tactic, if they see that the rest of the town are aimlessly pushing mislynches around. However, I find it more indicative to the player's commitment to the game rather than his alignment. Active lurking is much worse, and can be exemplified in muh316's post style so far. In 6 posts, he has exactly 0 contribution to the advancement of the game. He doesn't find anyone scummy, doesn't post much opinion of his own. That, my friends, is active lurking.)

Thus, it seems we have caught our Quaroath - muh316 scum team.

The following is rather minor, and more of a personal opinion: don't unvote needlessly. Unvoting an RVS vote defeats the purpose of RVS. If you no longer find one person scummy, surely someone else looks scummy in comparison. Townies have an interest to be transparent, and voting is a good.

[Rain]

Woops, I meant T-Bone, not muh316. Sorry about that.

Unvote
Vote: Quaroath

[muh316]

Guess we have our policy lynch...

This post really

really

bothers me.

Because he's....scum??

I'll get to you Day 2 bud. I think Stels should still be our Day 1 lynch.

I'm not scum. I'm just stating that the Mafia is pretty much laughing at this guy. A policy lynch is better than a no lynch.

[Quaroath]

Quaroath.

You've followed me in my vote for Jack Forman. You followed me in my vote for Barefoot-fighter. While I appreciate your support, it seems oddly convenient and safe, for a newbie game, to follow an IC.

If by, I woke up and voted afer you had already voted, your darn tooting I "followed" your vote. I've also been open about my reasons and far more detailed that saying "OMG IC SAYS SCUM, MUST VOTE"

And I haven't voted barefoot, I'm as you point out later

IN YOUR OWN POST

, not voting. Misrepresent much? Is that not scummy? dun.. dun.. DUNNNNNN

Part of the SE and IC job is to give new players this knowledge. Please listen to them.

The above is a logical fallacy, namely an Appeal to Authority. I do no expect anyone to blindly listen to me, or any other player. I give what information I can, and advocate others to use critical thinking to come up with their own conclusions. At times, I may persuade others to join my cause, but they must base their judgement on the logic of my case, not simply because I'm an IC.

For the record, this is what I said:

Jack, No Lynch D1 is a poor play for the town, Period. It isn't done because it's a bad play.

Part of the SE and IC job is to give new players this knowledge. Please listen to them

. I can't believe you don't think *someone* is a bit scummy.

I bolded the small bit of that you actually quoted for a reason.

While granting an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, you are drastcally misrepresenting the context that I was speaking, which was purely, "Look Jack, the Ic's and both SE's and a couple other people have said no-lynch is bad for the town, and have backed it up with statistics and reasoned logic, please listen to them."

Saying it's anything more is, again, a misrepresentation of the context I was posting in. I never said listen to them in who to lynch, or blindly follow the IC/SE (which is what you make that sound like). Stop quoting me out of context please, it's scummy as hell.

I also notice that you've mentioned everyone at least once but muh316. Though it is not mentioned in the wiki, newbscums tend to ignore their partner a bit. The goal would seemingly be to keep a neutral view on one another, so if one is caught, the link between the two scums can not be brought to light. Under normal circumstances, I would probably let it slide. However, again, Quaroath, you've mentioned everyone at least once. But muh316.

Another lie, I haven't mentioned muh316 or T-bone. Please quit lying. Isn't LaL a good strategy? As far as Muh316, Haven't had anything really to say to/at him. As for T-bone, i honestly forgot he was even in the game until he hopped in an hour or so ago. (i'll address this post in a minute.)

It also doesn't help that all muh316 has done is active lurking.

(Quick summary of what lurking/active lurking is:
Lurking means not posting often. It can be a scum tactic, if they see that the rest of the town are aimlessly pushing mislynches around. However, I find it more indicative to the player's commitment to the game rather than his alignment. Active lurking is much worse, and can be exemplified in muh316's post style so far. In 6 posts, he has exactly 0 contribution to the advancement of the game. He doesn't find anyone scummy, doesn't post much opinion of his own. That, my friends, is active lurking.)

Thus, it seems we have caught our Quaroath - muh316 scum team.

Or is that muh316+quaroath+T-bone, since you are picking the people I haven't directly addressed? Make up your mind.

The following is rather minor, and more of a personal opinion: don't unvote needlessly. Unvoting an RVS vote defeats the purpose of RVS. If you no longer find one person scummy, surely someone else looks scummy in comparison. Townies have an interest to be transparent, and voting is a good.

This to misrepresents what I said in the same friggen post I unvoted in. I said I'd vote for Stels if I knew what the vote count was, but since I was on my phone, I wasn't going to risk putting him at L-1.

Now that the vote count is updated: VOTE: Rain Misrepresents or lies flat out 3 times in one post. Oh yeah, I'm comfy.