One more thing:
That’s not what I said here. You told us, on Day 2, that you had been suspicious of **Ed **the previous Day. Except you had never mentioned any suspicion of **Ed **on Day 1. You voted for **Ed **because he had been chiding Silver Jan all Day long, and you thought she was Town. Except you had never commented on Silver Jan’s Towniness before that post.
You seemed to be inventing your thoughts on people on the spot in order to support the cote you were making.
I did not try to reinsert my quotes back into this.
I went back and read all of stanislaus’ previous posts and I reviewed the case Pizza made against him. I did not find Pizza’s case all that convincing and stanislaus would not have been in my top list of suspects from a read of his posts. This case against me does bother me, though, since it seems in several spot to misrepresent things and often overstates things (like the constant accusations of snuggling). And saying my defense of septimus is vote worthy if septimus flips scum just seems over the top.
If he thinks being equivocal is scummy and wants to vote me for that I can’t really say much, but it seems to me like he is stretching to make a case against me here. I may change my vote to stanislaus, but I want to look at the others I mentioned first.
There are some other things in that post that ping me, but this one could be a slip of knowledge we don’t have (knowledge given only to the “Janitor”?). Ed has not “flipped” at all, town or otherwise. Even if we assume Vig missed and Scum hit last Night, might there not be a Redirecter or something? And even in the absence of any such mechanic, we can only assume Ed was Town or 3rd Party.
I know that my chief suspect is presently voting TexCat but she moves her votes a lot and it will be interesting to see how this develops. A point in TexCat’s favor: it would be logical to assume Ed is town or 3rd party, just based on the fact that there was only one Kill last Night, so it might be more of a skim-tell than a scum-tell. Nevertheless
**Vote: TexCat **
Speaking of Night-time killings, I have to wonder about players who worry that my actions showed no fear of a Scum NK. My reputation for Town suspicion against me has the “fringe benefit” that I need worry very little about Scum Killing me unless I’ve claimed an important Power role. This is especially true in this game, where I’ve been a strong Lynch candidate.
Click the arrow in the quote to get the full context. Okay here’s my reply:
This all comes about because I’m running on a theory that septimus is who he says he is (for now) and so is choie. The reason why is because septimus isn’t going anywhere and hopefully Lightfoot can get a scan off on septimus at one point, or, the scums will waste a murder trying to hit Lightfoot thinking he’s going to do that. Hopefully the townies guess right and the scums guess wrong, and they miss a murder or we get a result on septimus. Either buys us time and avoids mistakes.
Secondly, I’ve already seen people react to the idea of septimus’ death, and I’ve seen people consider the case against choie. With those reactions on record, I felt like too many people were eager to just drop septimus today without discussing alternatives. As far as I’m concerned, we can lynch him today. If I am right about him, then great- I wasn’t wasting my time in the early game.
And since he’s probably still up there as a lynch leader, I’m not too worried that he won’t be the default lynch if we don’t have something better. My quest is to find something better.
If I were to assume septimus were innocent, I tried to picture where the scums were and who they could be. During my re-read of the game, several posters jumped out at me as potentially taking advantage of the situation… not doing anything to halt the town’s destruction, taking advantage of weaknesses displayed by the town, sowing division, and not using their votes effectively, or wagoning now known townies. But the biggest thing I was looking for was the likely scenario of distancing between scums, and also, silence between scums.
I don’t think that there’s a major feud happening right now between the Lords of Slaughter for show purposes. Town is nice and divided and lynching themselves off too well for that, except, it’s possible one or two of them placed a meaningless vote on the other when it wasn’t going to affect the outcome.
Working from that premise, and just using my gut, I arrived at TexCat, Stanislaus, Suburban Plankton, and ShadowFacts… and I am pretty darned sure one of them is guilty, given the likely number of lords of slaughter or third party folks. I am not looking at a bloc of 4 townies, I’d wager my hat on that, MOST ESPECIALLY if septimus is innocent.
Somewhere in that group, I have a very strong feeling, I am pointing at a scumbag.
My objective for the rest of this round is to see what these suspects think of one another, see what the rest of the players think of these suspects, and see if we can’t find at least one of them that we’re pretty sure are Lords of Slaughter. If that be the case, then that player will be a better lynch than septimus.
As of right now, I’m willing to lynch any of these 4.
Now, my response to your response is, in short:
Yes, I accept that at face value, if you’re town. If you’re scum, however, my explanation fits what your behavior was. I have no proof, I’m just offering a theory and trying to see if anyone can poke holes in it.
And that’s fine, again, if you’re town. In my experience, scumbags like to look less bad than townies. They like to offer advice and lecture and avoid making mistakes and they like to point out mistakes in others. They want to draw attention onto townies and away from their partners unless they’re pulling a gambit. The “I voted and accused my partner” gambit doesn’t persuade me anymore, so I welcome scums killing other scums to try to fool me. On the chance they’re playing it mostly straight, the main strategy is to just drift through the game as townies massacre one another, or prod them into voting each other, or just make them the subject of conversation.
I don’t think enough people have accused you or made you the subject of conversation, and I don’t really get the sense that you’re hunting the scums very hard, and I do get the sense that you’re falling back into classic scum strategy of pointing out ineffective townie behavior simply to make others the subject of conversation and to make yourself look less bad by comparison. As such, my opinion is you’re acting like a scum and there’s a good chance you are one.
I’m not locked in on you because I’m not certain. I want to see who else wants you dead, if anyone, and I would really like to hear which of TexCat, ShadowFacts, and Suburban Plankton you think are probably scumbags. Do you think there’s anything to the cases on these people?
The other major points in your response are “I don’t agree with your logic” and generally just holding a different view or opinion. I can’t really budge you nor would I try. I’m just stating for the record why I don’t think you’re townie, albeit not certain you’re scum either.
Because as good as you are as townie, you’re pulling off what appears to be a classic performance. It will be really hard for anyone to make a case against you unless you slip up and obviously try to spare a scumbag’s life, and they get exposed. And I also think you’re too clever for that as well.
I just want to be on record as saying I cannot read your p-p-poker face, but I do get the slightest whiff of deviousness behind what you’re doing. Lynch a Lord of Slaughter and maybe I’ll reverse that opinion. Pressure’s on you.
I also don’t think we’re seeing eye-to-eye on these suspects. It’s possible I am arguing for the death of one of your partners. We’ll see if that’s nonsense or correctness in due time.
I would welcome such a move because it will make whatever cases I’ve made more credible and I will finally be a known quantity as a townie, which will end all the debate on that point, even if people seem to be leaning townie on me now.
I still said they should leave you alive for a bit so you could do what you do best. You seem a bit too perturbed by my plan for my liking.
My objective here is to point my fingers correctly, take out at least one LOS before I die, and if not, make sure my fingers were pointing at the right people on the time of my death. I’m willing to toss a little heat on you in exchange for that.
Disagree, and that’s why I think he’s an okay default lynch. It’s not just the self-preserving vote, it’s the lack of claim, and the timing of the self-preservation.
He should have claimed something* that would have gotten him murdered,* if he is indeed what he’s claiming to be.
He should have claimed the doctor role. It was too late in the round for any real doc to pipe up and counter-claim, and if he survived a murder attempt in the night, he could then claim bulletproof and that he was not a doctor immediately the next morning.
I still get the feeling there’s something askew. However, I’m willing to hedge my bet and pressure others. I feel there’s a good chance we can get Lightfoot to clear or condemn him, and if he’s townie, that’s a good hedge bet since he will die anyway as scum and we’ll have him on record as supporting or opposing certain people for death.
Right now I haven’t examined him very closely. I still have to look at Stanislaus, TexCat, Suburban Plankton, and ShadowFacts in detail, and see if I can’t reverse some of my own logic against them. Remember, my original cases on these people were based on a skimming re-read, lots of gut, and no fact-checking. If I review these cases I might find something which changes my mind or makes me put someone else in as their likely partner.
Once I’m satisfied I’ve examined them closely, I can take a look at Mental Guy. But I can only do so much in a day, and he’d have to wait until tomorrow even if I thought he were scummy, just because I cannot pressure everyone in the game at once. It’s not effective.
I don’t really agree with this. Neither Shadow nor myself should be confirmed town if Normal flips scum because Normal has never been under serious pressure, and ShadowFacts has not been the lynch leader either.
Any interaction between myself/Shadow and Normal could therefore be innocent or WIFOM.
Since this forms much of the inner meat of the logic for your case against Normal, I don’t agree with it. And I think you’re pulling the trigger too soon on Normal, because you should be able to pattern her votes, examine her interactions, and question her deeper into the game. Some players seem to be playing to avoid such analysis, and would be better choices if you think they are also scum.
How about lynching Shadow and using that to determine Pizza and Normal?
I want Shadow dead, Normal wants Shadow dead. Let’s get Shadow!
Why does it have to be Normal?
I’m not saying I wouldn’t vote for Normal if it came down to Normal versus someone else, but I find your conclusion to be kinda sketchy and I’d flip Normal and Shadowfacts, then I could agree with it more.
I want you to rank the following in order of who you want dead:
ShadowFacts, Stanislaus, TexCat, and Suburban Plankton.
Do that for me, if you would please. Apparently ShadowFacts would be at the bottom?
unvote: texcat
vote: ShadowFacts
2 things: TexCat is finally getting some pressure (great) but also seemed to be misinformed about special ed not having flipped yet. Something I think the Lords would remember so they avoid such a mistake.
ShadowFacts is long due for more pressure as well.
Now, I’ll actually re-examine the four people I’m talking about and try to view each from both angles and see if what I come up with changes my mind.
For the record, TexCat is still a fine idea, but I’m switching her to a Finger of Suspicion and bumping Shadow into the line of death.
Also, if I’m not just sitting here talking to myself again, please speak up. I’ve got many hours before sleep and I’d rather not waste them talking to the wall.
I know what you’re saying about Normal and Shadow possibly BOTH being Scum (or you and Normal BOTH Scum) but it doesn’t mesh with my intuition or limited experience. For example, if you and Normal WERE both Scum, would you be calling attention to this possibility now? Perhaps, you would – Wifom. But I haven’t noticed it in my games. I can tell you’ve played at a much higher level than I.
Another thing I wouldn’t be brave enough to even think of is the Doc false-claim. It’s been drilled into my head never to lie in Mafia. I can see that by retracting the claim the very next Dawn, it might not count as a “lie” but my play is much too simple (or simple-minded 
) for that ploy even to occur to me.
Anyway, the reason I’m voting for Normal and TexCat is not tactics. These are the two people I find most likely to be Scum. I’d been wondering about TexCat, who’s a lurker. One of the very first strategy posts he made was the one accusing me of being “cosy” with choie for “liking” her post. I think this alleged “cosiness” has been taken far out of proportion; with all the other happenings in the game focusing on it is a scum-tell.
Among the other three people you ask about, I’ve been pinged by both Stanislaus and Suburban much more than I have by Shadow. When this game is over, I’m going to study it and try to get a better grasp of scum-tells. (I can’t really do that with old games that I didn’t play in … it would all seem too diffuse and confusing.)
As for me, I’m content to be Lynched or Vigged or Investigated. As I implied earlier Vigging might make more sense than Lynching. But it obviously would be a huge shame to waste Town Powers by Vigging me and Investigating me the same Night so, if LightFoot intends to Investigate me she should call off the Vig.
I agree that Lightfoot should determine whether you get vigged or investigated, and I don’t feel that telling it publicly is a bad idea.
Besides, it presents another opportunity for Lightfoot to bluff intent to the mafia. You can’t really trust townies openly communicating their strategy. Some of them might be deceptive for some reason.
Would you rank Suburban higher or lower than Stanislaus? For the record.
I’d prefer the vigilante, if any, pick off some of the folks I’ve voted for today. But that’s if I had my druthers.
I have insomnia, but I feel like I’ve been kicked in the head. Got any coffee?
What is it with everybody outright ignoring my arguments against them? ShadowFacts finally got to most of it, but it took him a few posts. I have a long string of “FALSE” comments out there aimed at Septimus, that he is blithely ignoring. And I think that TexCat lied about her reasoning for voting Ed and not Septimus on day two – which she skipped over in favor of making her case on Suburban Plankton, who I believe by this point must fall in the “easy target” category for the scum if not one himself.
Your own comments about me continue to irritate. You’re being too lecture-y about it.
I agree that Texcat’s town-Ed slip (or “slip”) is less than meaningful, but a) she has other crimes; and b) I don’t see where you get it as a town tell. She’s not exactly skating through the game right at the moment, and that would be expected to raise the error rate for her, regardless of alignment.
:smack: :smack: Pardon me if I express irritation.
I already answered your question honestly. What does it matter if I assess one at 17.3% Scum and the other as 17.5% Scum when there’s an uncertainty of plus-or-minus 10% on these numbers? If and when one becomes a serious Lynch candidate I will try to study the case.
It’s obvious you are devoting far more hours to the game than others are, so why don’t you list all the players in order of probable scumminess? 
(I don’t know how you do it; I am retired but still lack the time to read most messages more than once. I have other retirement projects and tonight will be taking my kids to a fair – pop 7 balloons with 7 darts and win a stuffed animal!)
Yes, I know. I’m a laugh a minute, aren’t I?
I don’t expect you to have a percentile rating for anyone.
If you’re townie it’s not really much of a choice, you could flip a coin and it becomes just as meaningful, probably, especially if you haven’t looked at the cases closely. It just becomes a “yeah whatever, kill X before Y, I don’t care.”
But!
If you’re a scumbag and one of them is your partner, it becomes a much more meaningful question, doesn’t it? Do you bluff and agree that the case on your partner is good, or do you lie and state that the case on a townie is good? Or what if they’re both guilty…
I just have this feeling I’m going to die soon, 
and I’m trying to shake as much info loose as I can before that happens, annoy the Lords of Slaughter as much as I possibly can, and fart in their general direction.
@ Renata
It’s not a townie tell, it’s just that I find teams of scumbags generally make more careful moves than individual clueless townies. You know, having a team of known partners coordinating and relying on you, pressure to do well, etc…
That’s why I find people picking on dumb errors that intelligent people can make when they’re not paying attention, not always productive, and usually a scumtell.
This is irritating. “That’s not what I said here.” It is what you said. It’s a quote from you. I guess you meant to say that you were more focused on the timing rather than the reasons for my vote. Since you have the reason entirely wrong. I didn’t invent that; it’s in your quote.
I’m voting Normal and TexCat, but ATPG is still high on my suspect list. Let’s reiterate that Normal Phase and ATPG are attempting to dominate the discussion. Most of the posts are from them, and they insist that we spend our posts answering their questions.
It seems farfetched to imagine that both of them are Scum (though I won’t rule it out). More likely is that one is 3rd Party or Town and the other is Scum riding along on the other’s coat-tails. Despite that both being Scum seems extremely unlikely it might be a good working hypothesis.
They’re both bussing their possible team-mate TexCat, yet when one votes her, the other quickly retracts the vote. They’re both working over-time to smudge me, yet I don’t think either actually has a Vote on me right now. They want their cake and eat it too when I’m Lynched and flip Town (“See? We told you guys to Lynch one of these other ‘Scum’.”)
ATPG asked me questions and I gullibly thought he was interested in my opinion. No, it was just a play with his pretense that he finds me scummy. Apparently if I’d been an honest Townie I’d have flipped a coin to choose between two of his suspects, but to honestly find them equally Scummy (or equally Townie) is a scum-tell. :smack:
My worry that SJ could double-vote me was completely honest. I’ll plead guilty to being feeble-minded but I wasn’t lying. I’m not sure what other FALSE comments you refer; they all seemed more matters of interpretation. Pick the best single example and I’ll address it next time I’m on-line, but I just don’t have the time to answer a huge litany of charges point-by-point, especially since many almost have the form (Septimus: “This seems scummy” … Normal: “No, scum-tells are reversed with me; when Scum I act more townishly.” )
[del]Other than Normal, ATPG and TexCat my suspicions are on some of the Lurkers-in-hiding[/del] Oops, I better not say that. One of our domineers has told us general condemnation of Lurkers is a scum-tell.
You’re being too sarcastic, and it’s misplaced. I’ve suspected you plenty in past games Septimus, when you’ve been town, and you’ve never acted liked this.