Random Mafia

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

That sounds painful…

[Chronos]

Does that mean I’d be the one, er, holding the glass, or the one, ahem, pouring?

[Freudian_Slit]

Well, you did just suffer a traumatic death. So you choose!

[Chronos]

What the frell, you only [del]live[/del]die once. I’ll hold the glasses.

<watches carefully how Freudian makes the drink>

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

So.

[Freudian_Slit]

Oops, looks like it’s day break. We’re gonna have to hold of on that drink making lesson for now, Chronos.

[sachertorte]

I look longingly at the Giraffe Boards and the copious use of red.

Jimmy Chitwood (Vigilante) is dead.

[Rysto]

Cop down and Vig down. Ugh. If we’re going to win this we’ll have to do it the old fashioned way.
Vote Cookies

[Meeko]

I begin to wonder if my play is really all that bad. Or, if my play is on par with everyone else.
**Oh, wait. **

Would be nice to have a list of those still with us, with us.

**
Scud and Cat still alive? **

Then again, the ““slip”” on mentioning the overnight thread seems to be less, given that Slit was town.

Bet one or the other of those two, if not both, are scum, of Scud and Cat.
But I lean towards Cat

Vote TexCat

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Good luck, you unfortunate bastards.

[Mahaloth]

Ouch.

Well, unless something comes up to change my mind, I’m voting the way I have the last two Days. Let me review, briefly.

Vote Tom Scud

Because:

1. His vote for Freudian on Day One(I think) was terribly lame. That is where he got my vote initially and where he first pinged me. His “point” and vote looked even worse when she came up town.

2. He accuses both Freudian and TexCat of going after vulnerable/controversial players, yet he has gone after low volume posters like TexCat and Kelly.

3. He’s been a hypocritical bottom feeder, poking people and sliding away.

To me, he’s just been the most scummy, and while I fully understand why the votes shifted at the end of yesterDay, I suspect that it could also be in part because he’s scum and has the other scums to save him.

I think it’s a wise lynch for toDay.

[GuiriEnEspana]

I think it’s pretty unambiguous that Jimmy was our Vig, Story’s reveal wasn’t so straightforward so there’s a little hope we still have a Cop among us, we sure need one…

Vote OreDigger

For the reasons I gave yesterDay after my analysis plus the vote on Chronos.

After yet another re-read I’m also pinged by Red. Lots of “scum wouldn’t do that” type arguments, safe play, easy votes, I remember the term “clean-noser”, and I’m highly suspicious.

159 Posts PM, Ogden Nash (Poet)
[302](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.
php?p=12251906&postcount=302) Comment on typo not being a scum tell but picking up on one is
312 To Peeker, best to be clear when making a claim
316 Doesn’t see scum motivation for not sharing parenthetical, votes TexCat
385 Defends himself to Freudian and TexCat after they voted him. Explains he voted Tex for the reason given for her vote on Peeker and for not giving the scum motivation, scum wouldn’t want to draw so much attention to themselves
395 To Peeker, clarifies that “doing (what Peeker did) does not make someone scum”
510 Gives example of case where he was scum twice in a row
599Happy with vote. Doesn’t fully agree with Story’s case against Chronos, he just proposed a bad idea but didn’t follow up on it. Is pinged by Drain’s comment on everyone voting for Peeker due to his play style
608 To Jimmy, scum wouldn’t make the mistake Kelly made
612 To Jimmy, says he’d been lynched for voting rashly, scum wouldn’t do that
636 Fluff about bestiality
647 Fluff, posts link to spreadsheet
727 Comments on previous game and lucky list of possible scum. Defends Kelly, rash voting isn’t a scum tell, doesn’t think Freudian is bussing him, a 1 for 1 deal wouldn’t favor scum, doesn’t understand Zeriel’s vote on Drain
835 Is pinged by Freudian for bandwagony votes, votes her
851 Doesn’t get Story’s vote on Mahaloth, vote was weakly motivated but not opportunistic. Asks TexCat to clarify vote on Jimmy, thinks she mischaracterized him
974 Story was likely a power role but we shouldn’t assume he’s a cop who left breadcrumbs, doesn’t buy TexCat’s death miller idea, FOSes Zeriel for coin-flip vote on Tom but is not scummy, Tom’s “slip” is a null-tell, comments that Meeko went quiet in 2 games before (as town and scum), accuses Chronos of a mischaracterization and votes him
On preview, I see Meeko’s back after his Day3 quasi-absence, another one who pings me but I daren’t attempt a WoW on him…

[Red_Skeezix]

@Rysto

Cop down and Vig down. Ugh. If we’re going to win this we’ll have to do it the old fashioned way.
Vote Cookies

Is this vote based on your comments about the case that she made against Tom Scud?

@Meeko: Could you recap your case against TexCat?

[Rysto]

@Red_Skeezix

Is this vote based on your comments about the case that she made against Tom Scud?

No, I’ve decided to let random.org do my voting from now on.

Yes, it’s due to the case I laid out yesterDay.

[TexCat]

Ugh. My main suspect dead by scum, and worse he turns out to be the vig? Jimmy had claimed Alexander Graham Bell (Inventor). Perhaps this is why he was against the name claim?

I was liking the cases Ed & MHaye made on Oredigger yesterDay, even more so now that Chronos has flipped town. I also note that Oredigger did not vote on Day 1, something that I hate.

Vote: Oredigger

[Red_Skeezix]

Guiri, just to clarify what you’ve mischaracterized, I haven’t said “scum wouldn’t do that” i’ve said “that doesn’t look scummy, here’s why” or “if you’re going to say that that is a scummy behavior, please justify why”. Also, how have I been a “clean noser”? I’ve pointed out things that I thought were scummy, and given my opinion, which you are so quick to dismiss despite what I’ve actually said as “scum wouldn’t do that”, on most of the major cases that have been made.

[special_ed]

Vote Oredigger

like we should have done yesterDay

[GuiriEnEspana]

@Red_Skeezix

Guiri, just to clarify what you’ve mischaracterized, I haven’t said “scum wouldn’t do that” i’ve said “that doesn’t look scummy, here’s why” or “if you’re going to say that that is a scummy behavior, please justify why”. Also, how have I been a “clean noser”? I’ve pointed out things that I thought were scummy, and given my opinion, which you are so quick to dismiss despite what I’ve actually said as “scum wouldn’t do that”, on most of the major cases that have been made.

Sure, I said “Lots of “scum wouldn’t do that” ***type ***arguments”, I didn’t say you’d said “scum wouldn’t do that”. It’s a small difference (like the “non” in “non third party”) but the following extracts (bolding mine) should help demonstrate what I meant (links to your full posts were in the spoiler tags in my previous post):

@Red_Skeezix

@Texcat: How is peeker not disclosing his parenthetical scummy? Or in other words, What is the scum motivation for doing so? I don’t see it, ***nor do I see what the point the point of creating a distraction centered around himself would be for scum. ***What I do see is someone latching onto a recent discussion topic (peeker’s allusive claim) and trying to turn it into a legitimate vote.

@Red_Skeezix

Your vote is worthy of a vote because it does not make sense. How does any player drawing all this attention to himself benefit him or the scum team if he is scum? What’s the scum motivation? If you can tell me that, then maybe your vote will make more sense to me and I’ll consider rescinding mine and reconsider your points, but at this time I just don’t see it.

@Red_Skeezix

IME, scum are MORE conscientious about their actions, and less likely to act rashly then town.

@Red_Skeezix

On to Kelly/Meeko/Freudian. NAF’s original case against kelly was weak, it looks to me like someone playing rashly. If you want to attribute rashness as a scum play, you’ll have to convince me since I just don’t buy it on face value. If I have Meeko’s argument correct, he is arguing that Kelly is being bussed so that he will be lynched and Freudian would get town credit for it. This doesn’t add up for me since a 1 for 1 trade rarely benefits scum. Not that it’s not possible, but it’s not the first thing I think of.

@Red_Skeezix

I can’t see a motivation why a scum player would call attention to the fact that they were doing either of these things. So for now FOS Zeriel.

As for “clean-noser”, I read this term is one of the recent games and liked it. I may have used it incorrectly but quickly looking over my WoW again you’ve basically dismissed a number of cases against players (many against now known townies, 302, 316, 599, 608, 727, 851, 974), provided random comments, examples from other games or clarifications (312, 395, 510, 612, 727), fluff (636, 647), defended yourself (385), was pinged by someone once (599 Drain), and voted (316 for TexCat for a weak vote, 835 for Freudian for bandwagony votes and 974 for Chronos for mischaracterizing me). I’d say that’s pretty clean play and an ideal way for scum to approach this game without attracting too much attention.

I also noticed that you accused TexCat and now me of mischaracterizations but didn’t followed it immediately with a vote whereas you were pretty quick to vote Chronos for a mischaracterization and didn’t wait for a response.

[Drain_Bead]

Anyone feel like doing a vote pattern analysis, given what we know of the dead? I never have time to do them, but I think it may help.

vote Oredigger. I should have voted for him yesterDay.

[Red_Skeezix]

@GuiriEnEspana

Sure, I said “Lots of “scum wouldn’t do that” ***type ***arguments”, I didn’t say you’d said “scum wouldn’t do that”. It’s a small difference (like the “non” in “non third party”) but the following extracts (bolding mine) should help demonstrate what I meant (links to your full posts were in the spoiler tags in my previous post):

You might try to play it off as a small difference but it is huge, and the implications are equally huge. “Scum wouldn’t do that” implies that an action signifies exclusively town behavior, since scum wouldn’t do that (behavior). What I have said in all those cases was that the behavior on the outset is effectively not scummy, not that the player cannot be scum because they have done that. What you are trying to demonstrate essentially is that I am paying attention, asking questions and pointing out flaws in other players arguments. For some reason this strikes you as suspicious behavior.

@GuiriEnEspana

As for “clean-noser”, I read this term is one of the recent games and liked it. I may have used it incorrectly but quickly looking over my WoW again you’ve basically dismissed a number of cases against players (many against now known townies, 302, 316, 599, 608, 727, 851, 974), provided random comments, examples from other games or clarifications (312, 395, 510, 612, 727), fluff (636, 647), defended yourself (385), was pinged by someone once (599 Drain), and voted (316 for TexCat for a weak vote, 835 for Freudian for bandwagony votes and 974 for Chronos for mischaracterizing me). I’d say that’s pretty clean play and an ideal way for scum to approach this game without attracting too much attention.

I have to laugh about you picking up that term and using it as an argument. IIRC, “clean-noser” was used pretty extensively by scum in Cecil Pond (amrussel) to throw suspicion around at players who were town and make pro-town arguments about players who were not town.

Also, I fail to see how I’ve played a “clean” game. I’ve been poking and prodding where I have perceived a lot of players have been turning a blind eye to. Just because my comments and criticisms have been largely ignored this game, does not imply that they are any less valid or designed not to provoke attention. I voted TexCat for weak voting reasons, and I voted Freudian for having weak voting reasons. I called out Jimmy on his assertion that scum is more likely to make rash plays than town, why? Because IME, that’s a statement that cannot be backed up.

Plus, in many of the examples that you have given, A player has said something to the effect of “So-and-so did this and that makes them scummy” with no reasoning other than pronouncement. I have held, and will continue to hold, for action X to be declared scummy, there has to be a why. Saying that something is scummy, does not make it so, there has to be more.

@GuiriEnEspana

I also noticed that you accused TexCat and now me of mischaracterizations but didn’t followed it immediately with a vote whereas you were pretty quick to vote Chronos for a mischaracterization and didn’t wait for a response.

Well, it’s still pretty early in the day, and I am still considering other cases, namely Oredigger and TexCat. Plus you are ignoring why I voted Chronos, which is to say he made big puffy case based on nothing, and then voted an established bandwagon. It looked to me like he was creating an opening for a bandwagon to start. Without taking responsibility for it himself (smudge and bluster).