Scum mafia: On Cecil pond [Game Over]

[Mahaloth]

I’m so busy at work, but I really need a vote count since I’m up there on the chopping block.

Chronos?

[Alka_Seltzer]

@Story - Don’t worry about it, any annoyance you caused me was minor. I’ve been at this internet lark for some time now, and I don’t get wound up easily. For my part, no doubt I rub people up the wrong way sometimes, but that is not my intention. You are still my top suspect, for the reasons I gave in #1203. I’d like you to address that case, and the list of questions Fluid left you, but I’m more interested to hear what you have to say about other players right now.

@KellyCriterion

My criticism was poorly worded. Let me try again, and I’ll use your post up above where you analysed the fluid votes, aka, worked your PR machine, to show what I mean about you not wanting to get your hands dirty.

That’s awfully dismissive of a substantial (and time-consuming) piece of analysis, something you’ve failed to provide all game. The point about #1255 is I’m looking specifically at the Fluid wagon, and flagging up what I see as the most suspicious votes. I showed my reasoning, and drew some conclusions. I’m not prepared to Say Cookies, Oredigger or Diggit are scum right now (one bad vote does not equal scum), I need to look at the rest of their play, which is something I’ll do when I have time. If I flip, hopefully #1255 will be something useful for town to look at.

If you have a problem with my analysis of the Fluid wagon I suggest you provide your own.

@KellyCriterion

In other words, “Hey Rysto, I’m totally cool with the fact you voted town, ok?”

Over the course of a game, town will vote town frequently. Rysto’s vote doesn’t stand out to me.

@KellyCriterion

In other words, “I didn’t like Drain’s vote, but DRAIN I THINK YOU’RE TOWN!! I’LL SAY IT AGAIN I THINK YOU’RE TOWNNNNNN!!! DON’T GET UPSET WITH ME OK?!”

Someone needs an anti-capslock pill. Drain is almost certain to be town, because she hasn’t been counter-claimed. You should understand this, you were asking questions about the mason claim. There is no such thing as a masonry of one.

@KellyCriterion

In other words “Here is some safe commentary on Meeko’s vote. Note the absence of anything that might upset Meeko”.

This is nonsense, I’ve pointed out problems I’ve had with Meeko’s play.

@KellyCriterion

I can’t follow your reasoning on this one, but I note you once again favour some commentary over a real, genuine attack.

As I said above, #1255 is commentary. I have a substantial case against Story down, which again, is something you’ve failed to provide all game.

@KellyCriterion

So, what does Alka Seltzer look like when he’s actually “going hard”? This, apparently:

It says exactly what I want it to say, that I don’t consider it to be a good reason for a vote, and I’ve explained why.

@KellyCriterion

Man, what a beating! You still right to play, OreDigger?!

Do you have an actual point to make here? This is mafia, a game based on logic, not Street Fighter.

@KellyCriterion

Which brings me back to one other thing Alka said:

Your first post toDay did include a “point against a story”, but once again you can’t help yourself, you need to congratulate him in the same post. Story makes a point how bad lots of late votes are, to which you respond by saying:

If you can’t get your facts right your arguments are worthless. I quoted Fluid there, not Story. I criticised consistent late voting in a later post where I quoted Story.

@KellyCriterion

I have acknowledged you have no shortage of posts, but you are a master at using them to become everyone’s buddy. Unless you have a town role in this game and it’s to be “everyone’s favourite teddy bear” (or some likable pond equivalent, in which case I commend you for your play), then you need to start sticking the sword in a little harder.

I couldn’t be more indifferent to what you think of my playstyle, and I’m not going to take advice from a player of unknown alignment.

@Kelly - Some questions for you. Do you actually think I am scum, and if so why? Also, what do you think of Meeko’s play in this game? Do you have a read on him?

@Meeko

This.

But, I can’t unvote.

@Meeko - You should vote for your top suspect. There were two points I was trying make earlier. Voting for 5 players in a day is not pro-town, it’s impossible for the other players to follow your train of thought. And unvotes can be just as significant as votes, they can be used to manipulate the vote lead.

@Oredigger77

Didn’t go anywhere? What are you smoking? I FOSed you, you asked why I replied to you. . .

You just repeated some points other people had made, you didn’t make a case for me as scum.

@Oredigger77

You are right though that my case against Fluid could have been leveled against several different people one you left off your list is Sach. Hmm, someone acting scummy left off a list by someone else acting scummy. I will review you’re posts over the Night but nothing you have done has reached out and slapped me the way Sach has.

That’s nitpicky. I was illustrating by example why I thought the argument didn’t support your case very well, I wasn’t trying to provide a comprehensive list of players.

I’m a bit baffled that no-one is discussing the points I made about Story, his play makes little sense to me if he is town. Looks like we are probably going to lynch Mahaloth or Kelly toDay. I’ll have a think about whether I want to move my vote.

[Alka_Seltzer]

@Mahaloth - I see Meeko has voted for Kelly now, I think you are 1 vote ahead of him.

[Stanislaus]

This was the last count:

Spawn 14
Mahaloth 4
Storyteller0910 3
sachertorte 2
Natlaw 2
Meeko 1
DiggitCamara 1
KellyCriterion 1

Since then I count:

2 votes for Kelly (Red and Meeko)
1 vote for Mahaloth (sachertorte)

Giving us:

Spawn 14
Mahaloth 5
Storyteller0910 3
KellyCriterion 3
sachertorte 2
Natlaw 2
Meeko 1
DiggitCamara 1

[Red_Skeezix]

@sachertorte

Snarky, maybe. But I’m not sure I would characterize responding to someone else ‘over-defensive.’ I guess I fall into the category where I don’t like it when someone ignores things. I’m much happier that KellyCriterion jumps in and responds to Alka Seltzer. When players fail to respond, we call them on avoidance. When players respond we call them on ‘over-defensiveness.’

Yes, we call players on over-defensiveness and on avoidance, but those aren’t the only two options. You are presenting a false dichotomy here; there is a wide gulf between Kelly’s play and complete avoidance.

(Also remember that my vote for Kelly is only partially because of the over-defensiveness. I consider over-defensiveness and avoidance to be lacking when they are the only suspicions against a player).

@sachertorte

And why would my telling you my opinion on the matter be suspicious? Group A wants to lynch KellyCriterion. Group B wants to lynch Mahaloth. I am in group B and I’m telling you why.

Please don’t reframe my suspicions. I am not suspicious of you because you made an attempt to defend Kelly and chose to vote Mahaloth. I am suspicious of the attempt itself. The fact that you are saying that a hyperbolic, poorly reasoned defense of a confusing accusation is good town play or something that scum wouldn’t do or would only do in error. In other words: The way that you have characterized Kelly’s play is what is suspicious to me. Does that 100% mean your scum? Nope. It doesn’t. It’s not even suspicious enough for me to vote you instead of him. But it is suspicious enough for me to comment on. And there is scum motivation in making such a defensive play. So the action cannot be ruled as strictly pro-town or innocuous.

@storyteller0910

Let’s say a person agrees with you, and characterizes it as over-defensive? Do you see this is a Scum tell? Why?

The first part isn’t really a question. The second and third parts are very context sensitive. Possibly contributory, it depends on how they characterize it. If they just said “I agree with Red about the over-defensiveness” and then voted, I would be suspicious of that action. If they said “I agree with Red, and I think that there is nothing more suspicious than over-defensiveness” then I would be suspicious. There are probably several other permutations of agreement that I might find suspicious. The reason I think is because over-defensiveness is not the be all end all of things that scum does. And almost anything that scum does, town does and looks more scummy for it. That’s why you have to take into account more than any single point of scumminess.

@storyteller0910

Would you characterize me as “over-defensive” earlier toDay? If so, do I differ substantively from Kelly Criterion in that regard?

I consider you defensive earlier today, maybe not over but close to the line, you were on day 2 of being accused. But that goes either way (null). Scum will be defensive to try to avoid the lynch, and town will be defensive because they are frustrated. In that specific regard you are only slightly substantively different, you were under heavy fire for two Days, he has not been. You were defending your own ass, he was defending an assertion that was poorly worded.

Overall, You are substantively different because of your other actions in the game.

[Mahaloth]

Not sure if there is much for me to do, then. I’m going to make a survival vote. I am town and I think I should do my best to survive.

Can someone else unvote me or change their vote to Kelly? I’m finding it rather amazing that I am in any way more scummy than him. I think storyteller is a vig like he said, though I’m obviously not sure.

Anyway:

Unvote NatLaw

Vote Kelly

[Freudian_Slit]

I think Kelly is a lot scummier than you, Maha. I’m already voting for him, though.

[Chronos]

Official vote total:
Spawn 14
Mahaloth 5
KellyCriterion 4
Storyteller0910 3
sachertorte 2
Meeko 1
DiggitCamara 1

[del]1: special_ed[/del]
2: ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies – Spawn (1139)
3: Drain Bead – Mahaloth (1162), [del]Storyteller[/del] (1210-1220)
4: Oredigger77 – Spawn (1176), sachertorte (1194-1212,1214), [del]Storyteller[/del] (1212-1214)
5: storyteller0910 – sachertorte (1174), Spawn (1174)
6: Meeko – Spawn (1135), [del]Natlaw[/del] (1170-1295), KellyCriterion (1295)
7: Mahaloth – Spawn (1140), [del]Natlaw[/del] (1265-1306), KellyCriterion (1306)
8: Freudian Slit – Spawn (1136), KellyCriterion (1251)
9: USCDiver – Spawn (1161), Meeko (1161)
10: Alka Seltzer – Storyteller (1203), Spawn (1203)
[del]11: peekercpa[/del]
12: Natlaw – Mahaloth (1263), Spawn (1263)
[del]13: Zeriel[/del]
14: DiggitCamara – Storyteller (1186)
15: amrussell – Mahaloth (1172), Spawn (1173)
16: KellyCriterion – Spawn (1145), Mahaloth (1233)
17: Red Skeezix – Spawn (1146), [del]Natlaw[/del] (1222-1250), KellyCriterion (1279)
18: sachertorte – [del]Storyteller[/del] (1179-1242), Spawn (1179), Mahaloth (1296)
[del]19: fluiddruid[/del]
20: TexCat – Spawn (1155), Storyteller (1155)
21: Rysto – Diggit (1226), Spawn (1226)

[Chronos]

That makes less than three hours before the official end of Summer, by the way. Also, I might be a little late with the end-of-Summer post today and for the next few weeks, but as per the rules, the seasons will change at 1:00 MST promptly, and votes/unvotes will not count after that time.

[storyteller0910]

Skeezix:

I worded my question very poorly. I didn’t want to know whether you would consider someone agreeing with your characterization is Scummy; I want to know whether you consider overdefensiveness, in general, as a Scum tell. More specifically, why is Kelly Criterion suspicious for his overdefensiveness (note that the argument of whether or not he can be fairly characterized in this way is not really of all that much interest, at least not to me)? You are voting for him and using this as at least one plank in your platform supporting that vote; I’d like to hear a more explicit link between a player who is over-defensive and Scum.

---

Alka - Assuming I survive toDay and toNight, I will answer your questions about me toMorrow. For now, though, with not a lot of time and a close lynch, I’d rather concentrate on that.

---

At the moment, the lynch vote is far too close for comfort. If the Day were to end at this moment, and Spawn were to vote for Kelly, we’d have a tie and a random outcome. Neither candidate has claimed. To potentially lose a power role on the vagaries of random NPC voting would be extremely unfortunate. Today has been busier than I’d anticipated, but I intend to use my missing vote to ensure that this does not happen.

If I had to vote right now, I’d vote Mahaloth, mostly because my subjective vibe from Kelly has been leaning Town. Fortunately, I don’t have to vote right now, and I have time to look at both before the deadline.

I strongly suggest that all players who are attending the game right now consider the situation and either place a vote on one of the leading candidates or explicitly decline to do so.

[Mahaloth]

I actually agree with story on this one.

Place a vote or decline to do so.

[Mahaloth]

I should note I rather disagree with story about me being more likely to be scum, though.

[storyteller0910]

Mahaloth:

I see no reason to be coy about this. I am guessing from your posts so far that you intend to make a role claim beyond “Plankton.” Since I can divine this from your posts, Scum probably can, too, so some of the value of secrecy is lost. We have barely two hours in which to act on whatever you tell us even if you do it right now.

If you have something to say, say it soon.

[Mahaloth]

I should also add a few things in case I am lysed:

1. If we have a detective and you survive the Night, you may want to give us your confirmed results in the morning. If the players are still alive, that is. 3 results is a good level. I hope we have one. I’ve played in so many games where the detective dies without helping us out.

We need it. Again, only useful if they are alive.

2. The scum are quietly winning. Watch for the passive players.

[Red_Skeezix]

More specifically, why is Kelly Criterion suspicious for his overdefensiveness (note that the argument of whether or not he can be fairly characterized in this way is not really of all that much interest, at least not to me)? You are voting for him and using this as at least one plank in your platform supporting that vote; I’d like to hear a more explicit link between a player who is over-defensive and Scum.

The link between over-defensiveness and scum is simple but not strong. A scum player may be over-defensive because a scum player knows that they are making false argument.

Example:

Assuming a scum Kelly, knowing that a response to Alka, is expected, may be less able to judge the appropriate level of the response, due to the fact that Kelly knows he is wrong (or is attempting to mischaracterize) but does not want to get caught backpedalling away from the original assertion. So Kelly pushes the point harder using forceful language in an attempt to diminish the impact Alka’s original rebuttal.

But it boils down to one of those things that scum has to pretend to be town knowing that they are scum. If the defense is too weak it looks inauthentic and scummy, if it’s too strong it looks over-defensive and scummy.

[Drain_Bead]

I agree with the push for claims. It’s getting to be crunch time. If you’re not plankton, claim now, please.

[Mahaloth]

I’m Plankton only.

I hope we can turn this game around.

[TexCat]

I am still convinced that Story is not a vig; that he has been lying. I am so convinced that I am going to offer myself up to be vigged tonight.

Story, if you really are a vig, please kill me tonight.

Pond, if I show up dead tomorrow with nothing next to my name, you will have a confirmed vig with a drawback and can proceed.

If, however, I am still alive or dead with plankton next to my name, I hope that we can then lyse the scummy, lying, storyteller.

[storyteller0910]

@TexCat

I am still convinced that Story is not a vig; that he has been lying. I am so convinced that I am going to offer myself up to be vigged tonight.

Story, if you really are a vig, please kill me tonight.

Pond, if I show up dead tomorrow with nothing next to my name, you will have a confirmed vig with a drawback and can proceed.

If, however, I am still alive or dead with plankton next to my name, I hope that we can then lyse the scummy, lying, storyteller.

There are so many problems with this idea that I hardly know where to start, but chiefly this: if you are actually Town, me killing you at Night costs us half a mislynch. If you are not, me killing you at Night will gain us half a mislynch, but we’ll never know it. Your death will not prove my alignment as Town, and your survival will not prove it as Scum.

So - uh - with all due respect, I decline to kill you.

[Rysto]

Unfortunately, I just don’t have time at work to do in-depth analysis of players, and I was out past midnight last night. I maintain my suspicion of Diggit, and I’m really not happy with the lack of response. However, my one-off vote isn’t doing the Town any good.

Yesterday I looked at the Mahaloth case and didn’t really see anything that made me suspicious of him. I’ve mostly been ignoring Kelly’s actions on the basis that he seems to be new at this game, but there comes a point we have to go after people for scummy actions, even if they’re new.

Unvote Diggit
Vote Kelly