Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zrk2]

Extend. I have a project I forgot about.

Zrk2:

Yes. It gives additional insight into their mind. I don't see how the scum are supposed to hide behind it. Please elaborate.

I was thinking in the sense that if players have to read through several hundred posts they are more likely to skim the majority of posts, meaning subtle scum tells are less likely to stand out.

Fair enough.

I did not make the case that there should be no scumhunting D1, I said that policy lynches or acceptable. Obviously if someone seems very scummy then we should lynch them. But baring overtly obvious scum then a policy lynch of a lurker/terrible scumhunter is not a terrible alternative.

And I'm making the case that policy lynches should not be seen as remotely acceptable.  For reasons which you seemed to have missed in my post.

[coolhandluke]What we have here is a failure to communicate.[/coolhandluke] Then what the big issue here is that we have opposing philosophies on how to play the game.

My case on Ranger was summarized above. It is that he wanted to hurt the town with a D1 no-lynch. BUT ALSO did not shift away from that stance until it threatened to get him lynched, not after it had been demonstrated to be fallacious.

The read I got from his refusal to instantly change his opinion once cases against it had been presented was townie.  He honestly thought he was helping the town, and until he was convinced that it would hurt the town he refused to change his vote.  I feel that if he were scum, he would have changed his view as soon as it was attracting attention to him. 

I'll check that.

As you seem to miss questions, the ones I want you to answer are:

What percent of games that you've been in/read have the scum lurking day one?
Is it in anyway useful, or does it just create a smoke screen of noise that the scum can hide in?
Why you feel that this is an acceptable loss again? (read the post and make sure you understand all that I consider lost)

I answered yours above.

No you didn't.  There is more lost than just the player who wasn't helping town.  There is also the loss of the read on you, which could cause people to needlessly focus their attention on you during the first night, and force people to question you further D2 morning.  Explain why THAT is an acceptable loss.

I don't think it would make me a larger target than I already am. People will be questioned either way. It's a good thing. I'm not worried. It's unfortunate that I'm the one facing all this and not the scum, though. It is obviously a loss but I think it's a smaller loss than we would face otherwise. That's why I consider it acceptable.

Zrk2:

Zrk2:

I have had people rub me the wrong way, but so far I have not seen enough to place anyone else on the list. It's a work in progress.

Who, and what are you doing about it?

I still need to go back through the thread. I've had so many questions to address I haven't had time to go looking for scum. It's unfortunate I was hoping to have my list and justifications all written up today, but I have too much else going on.

So you can't even say who you have gut feelings about?

Let's See...
Reads:
Toaster: Haven't seen him much. Miught be scum.
Deathsword: Meh.
notquitethere: Meh.
Urist Imiknorris: Townish
Vector: Maybe town. Mostly meh.
Hapah: Still lurky lurk scum. Still not happy.
Tiruin: Townish.
Captain Ford: Meh.
The Soldier: Meh.
Griffonday: Town.
TheWetSheep: Town.
TolyK: Meh.
Zrk2: Town.
RangerCado: Lean scum. Less than I was though. Will be reconsidering his posts.

Also:

It's also true. Did you read my post? This isn't primarily a pressure vote. This is a you are scum vote. However, if someone scummier comes along I will move my vote.

Interesting. In the very statement that TWS quoted, you said:

You are either scum trying to ruin the lynch or a totally ineffective townie, and I think lynching either on D1 is tolerable.

That doesn't sound like a "you are scum" vote. That sounds like an "I don't care what your alignment is" vote.

Ignoring your contradictions will not make them go away. Would you care to explain it?

I don't see a contradiction. I think he is either scum or useless town, BUT MOST LIKELY SCUM, so I think we should lynch him.

Can we get a votecount, please?

Zrk2

Zrk2: Is lurking no longer a cause for suspicion? Because UI only has 4 posts up till now, and a few others haven't posted much either.

I picked the two with the fewest posts. Four is also terrible.

Ugh :/

So of all leads, you decide to poke at lurkers without threatening them or inquiring the usual "WHERE ARE YOU [LURKER]" along with a probable coloring of their name in blue or red.

Lurking is a damnable offence because it is unproductive. It hurts the town because you aren't finding scum. It hurts the town because they can't get reads on you. It hurts the town because there could be a more productive player in your place. Lurkers are a waste of a player space.

I lack faith in D1 lynches because almost every last one ends in a townie lynch. As I said earlier there simply isn't enough information available D1 to make a conclusive case, so rather than risk the lynch on someone who has been productive but "scummy" is a bad idea. If they really are scummy they will still be scummy D2, and lurkers will also still lurk D2. Thus lynching a lurker is more likely to pay off because it gets rid of a guaranteed threat rather than a possible one.

My case on Ranger was summarized above. It is that he wanted to hurt the town with a D1 no-lynch. BUT ALSO did not shift away from that stance until it threatened to get him lynched, not after it had been demonstrated to be fallacious.

Thus I think he is scum. But if he is town and he lives on he may shape up, but he also may not. That's just semantics.

...Because there could be a more productive player in your place...Ok. So by all that in the first statement, it smells like you're painting them as town. Useless town, but town. So what in the world is the logic of lynching scum at all?! That in itself is fallacious.

Useless =/= scum. Being a raging a** =/= scum. The indicators are in the essence of their posts, and I've not seen once that you're poking at those indicators.

On your faith, do you even see the context behind the lynch? Yeah, it may be a townie, but then people can also detect the intentions behind the lynches then poke at that. Using said information in the later days. WHile there isn't enough conclusive information to make a case, that information (regardless of the lynch alignment) ALSO leads to information later on.

The whole premise of "If lurker = D1, then lurker = D2." or "Scummy D1 = Scummy D2" all reside within the context, and you're relying on a general explanation to fortify your argument. And what, if Ranger is town? Your next two leads (for lack of you giving reads after being asked), ARE ACCUSED LURKERS. What will you build your case on? A weak "WHY U NO POST D1"? Then start from there?

You aren't questioning those who lurk as opposed to that who you target. I mean, I could agree with you on the lurker stance, but then think its weak -- still valid in thought, except you lacked to question them. Or poke them. At all.

What would you suggest we do to lurkers instead? Let them lurk? That unacceptable. Of course I'll start there, and if they refuse to respond then we will have no choice but to lynch them.

Then you say

It's an acceptable loss because they weren't doing anything for the town anyway.

Regarding Griff's idea

Spoiler: Marked here (click to show/hide)

So Zrk2, my vote is on you primarily because I feel the way you are acting in D1 is the most harmful to the town in the long run.  Yes you're playing qualitatively better than Ranger, but Ranger has been learning over the course of the game, and has expressed what felt like genuine concern that he doesn't have reads yet.  You on the other hand seem to be playing a self-fulfilling prophesy, if the only lynch we should do D1 is the weakest player, then the town will always be lynched D1.  Not [#mafia]/[#players]*100 percent of the time. ALWAYS.  Why you ask? the mafia have their chat, the strongest player can help the weaker players play better in the game, ensuring that if that rule is followed D1 will end in a town lynch.

But more than that, you deprive us of a valuable read on you as I mentioned earlier.  You're crippling the town N1 and early D2 by your vote for the weakest strategy.

Please tell me why you feel that this is an acceptable loss again?

And then earlier

Unfortunately I'm not very good at forcing people so I tend to keep an eye on everyone, responding to questions and analyzing the arguments of others until I find someone who I think is scum. Then I check through their posts, and if it seems likely I compile my case and move my vote. It's simply a different approach to scumhunting.

I ask you to summarize your reads or in the very least to summarize why you think your target is scum. Do you believe that every other case is as weak as the probability of getting a town lynch is more possible than a scum lynch? Numbers don't matter, but how the person defends him/herself, including how communication is given. Wherein numbers pertain to the majority vs informed minority. It's all within their context and not just because of numbers, which I seem to think you're getting at.

Your case on Ranger? It falls purely on the basis of him suggesting a No-lynch, then...backing off? I don't see that. Probably because we're looking at it differently, but the timing doesn't correlate to that. Quote it. Link it. You say he wanted to hurt town, but I see him communicate and then argumentatively accept the consensus as well as voicing his opinion on the no-lynch thing. While he was flailing about "Oh woe be the lynch", he did add his (however superficial) reads and view on the matter, including an understandable case on himself regarding the no-lynch.

Did you press Ranger then? Hows about continuing the pressure now? Your case seems to be locked in the past as you keep on pointing to "I summarized it above".

Please, answer in full. Thanks. Because I'm really under the impression of vagueness regarding your case. What are your full reads on everyone, and details on who you suspect?

Reads are above. If you'd take the time to read my posts you would see that I have summarized my case before and posted the whole bloody thing as well. I don't have time to give you a whole fucking essay because I have shit to do all day.

Finally caught up. Now I can finally get to rereading. Holy shit you guys post a lot.

[Captain Ford]

PFP, Extendify

Griff:

Why did you post this?
Why is your one read just saying someone is a strong town?
Do you have the rest of your reads?

1. It was on my mind.
2. I've given several reads in this format over the course of the game. Most of them are town reads, and they're pretty superficial. I'm only just beginning to find more interesting nuggets buried in the rough.
3. All of the reads belonging to me are indeed in my possession, so yes.

A non-smartass answer would be: I don't have reads on everyone, and I don't have any startlingly awesome insights yet. But actually, I think writing down a list would help me organize my scumhunting process, so I'll do that after I've caught up completely. (So thanks for inspiring me, I guess)

Hmm... Actually I want to know; why are you defending Zrk?  My reasons for holding off my vote still stand, but if you can't really fault any of our arguments, why do you think it's the wrong thing to do?  Also, there is plenty of meat in most of our arguments, what made you think that you can't find anything conclusive about our alignments in it?  Wouldn't concluding I'm town be PRECISELY a case of that?

So you're the first person to accuse me of the d-word. I wondered who it was going to be.

Tell me that what I've said hasn't helped you understand Zrk2's play better than you otherwise would have. I'm interested in seeing meaningful arguments, and there's no meaning in repeating past mistakes. Since you (and Ranger) have never played with him before, I decided to share my insight with you.

Pointing out the flaws in each other's arguments and helping to refine them is a crucial part of town play.

"Also, there is plenty of meat in most of our arguments, what made you think that you can't find anything conclusive about our alignments in it?"
Because they're flawed but you didn't know it.

"Wouldn't concluding I'm town be PRECISELY a case of that?"
No, actually. I drew that conclusion because of your aggressiveness in hunting multiple people. That can easily be turned around, though.

If I hadn't said anything, and he was lynched on the reasons he was being voted for at the time, it would have been difficult to come to conclusions based upon your reasons for voting him. That's independent of the way I derived your alignment, technically. The manner and timing in which you and Ranger changed your votes certainly gives me new and interesting information.

I am intentionally interfering with the pattern of behavior that leads to Zrk2 getting lynched to see what happens. Shaking things up tends to produce novel interactions.

Also, I mentioned this last game but wasn't as assertive, and he got lynched again and flipped town. So I'm being more aggressive with it this game since I've seen the evidence firsthand.

(This got kind of long because I've done a lot of thinking on the matter. I still feel like it's mostly incomplete thoughts, but I need to move on)


Toaster:

So why are you defending him?

In addition to the reasons above, because it's difficult for him to raise a meta argument in his own defense. I also view him as a player with a handicap, and I'm trying to put him on an even footing.

I'm sure I could write for a good while longer on this subject. I'm not entirely sure about the merits of this strategy, so it's also a bit of an experiment.


PPE: Holy crap, he posted reads. And he's reconsidering his case on RC. Very interesting...

(I totally feel like Zrk2 is my little lab rat now)

[Captain Ford]

EBWOP

PPE: Holy crap, he posted reads. And he's reconsidering his case on RC. Very interesting...

*dons a lab coat and glasses conjured from thin air, then pulls out a notepad and begins scribbling notes in it*

(I totally feel like Zrk2 is my little lab rat now)

[Toaster]

Ford: I actually would like to hear more from you on the subject, especially in light of his latest post.

[Tiruin]

Toaster

Wouldn't you say the ones with the quicktopic link are scum?  Looks like you have your scumchat on the brain.

Yeah, because the justifiable reason I remember from the BMs was that lurking meant that you were online, and were chatting it up on quicktopic with your scumbuddy. In that sense, I pointed out that conclusion; the only others I have in mind that defends lurking (hence why I'm pointing it out to Zrk there as he didn't poke at his lurker list...) are either people doing many other things - posting in other threads/RL whilst having logged on for an extended period of time and other other things.

Now, if that person was lurking for hours on end while people are chatting up here in thread, while being poked and ignored, its probably justifiable. Or, that the person wasn't caught during the time they did lurk, and still consecutively lurk. That could be done as a case. Also, that was knowledge from when I had the links before - did this everytime since I was scum from the BMs.

...Did you skim the thread, or are you putting forward a vote just so I can clarify this?


@Zrk

What would you suggest we do to lurkers instead? Let them lurk? That unacceptable. Of course I'll start there, and if they refuse to respond then we will have no choice but to lynch them.

Well as I suggested many times, you poke them. You've listed them only sparingly, and did not offer anything for them during that time. However you got the idea here.

Reads are above. If you'd take the time to read my posts you would see that I have summarized my case before and posted the whole bloody thing as well. I don't have time to give you a whole fucking essay because I have shit to do all day.

Finally caught up. Now I can finally get to rereading. Holy shit you guys post a lot.

Yes about the reads, I can plaintively see them. And I did read your posts, however your case on Ranger is about something that was done before -- you aren't pushing it, but are answering questions everyone else is giving. In your later posts, you aren't addressing Ranger himself. But I guess RL factors in there, so its excusable.

This was your last line addressing him, and it consisted of nothing but a declarative sentence. No sign of any interrogative sentence unless I'm getting how you scumhunt wrong. You had this beforehand, and still have it yet you're not regarding his posts afterwards. Two posts pointing out on Ranger, requesting him to speak or die. He spoke. Your reply?

Do you ask proceeding questions for your target, by the way? It's not that hard to make a summary...Unless you have none.

Extend if it hasn't been passed yet.

[Toaster]

Tiruin:  No, that was a legitimate vote.  The fact that you specifically mention scumchat said to me you had it on your brain, as in you're posting in one and are ergo scum.  Since that meaning looks like it completely slipped past you, I guess it's not the case.

Unvote Tiruin.

[Griffionday]

Zrk2:

I don't think it would make me a larger target than I already am. People will be questioned either way. It's a good thing. I'm not worried. It's unfortunate that I'm the one facing all this and not the scum, though. It is obviously a loss but I think it's a smaller loss than we would face otherwise. That's why I consider it acceptable.

You are still missing why the wasted N1 inspects are an acceptable loss.  I say wasted, because if you took the time to build an actual case that was more than simply a policy lynch then the inspect roles would have more to base their read on you off of, and be able to decide whether you were earnest or not; making it their fault if they mistarget.  The problem isn't that you become a larger target, it's that you are unnecessarily making yourself one.

What do you mean by otherwise?  In the case of a no lynch, sure that argument flies, but not in the case of spending the time to actually hunt and harass scum targets.

Also why are you worried about becoming a larger target at all?  Your attention should be more on the hunting scum, which you mention in passing as "a pity".  If you are not scum then it is more than a pity: it's a real problem, which you are failing to adequately address. For example; your reads say that you fin Hapah to be lurky scum.  Okay get him to show that to everyone else.

Ford:

Tell me that what I've said hasn't helped you understand Zrk2's play better than you otherwise would have.

Can do.  What you've said has not really increased my understanding of Zrk2's play.  I still don't understand it at all.

I'm interested in seeing meaningful arguments, and there's no meaning in repeating past mistakes. Since you (and Ranger) have never played with him before, I decided to share my insight with you.

Pointing out the flaws in each other's arguments and helping to refine them is a crucial part of town play.

True enough but it's also the safest (from the scum's perspective) way to insert WIFOM into the game.

Spoiler: Snip on read on me (click to show/hide)

"Also, there is plenty of meat in most of our arguments, what made you think that you can't find anything conclusive about our alignments in it?"
Because they're flawed but you didn't know it.

"Wouldn't concluding I'm town be PRECISELY a case of that?"
No, actually. I drew that conclusion because of your aggressiveness in hunting multiple people. That can easily be turned around, though.

Fair enough, I think you might have mentioned that reasoning before actually.

If I hadn't said anything, and he was lynched on the reasons he was being voted for at the time, it would have been difficult to come to conclusions based upon your reasons for voting him.

I disagree, see my case on Deathsword here.  Are you sure that you wouldn't be able to come up with equally valid analysis of TWS's, Ranger's and my arguments to force us to give a more complete account of why we voted for Zrk2?

I am intentionally interfering with the pattern of behavior that leads to Zrk2 getting lynched to see what happens. Shaking things up tends to produce novel interactions.

Also, I mentioned this last game but wasn't as assertive, and he got lynched again and flipped town. So I'm being more aggressive with it this game since I've seen the evidence firsthand.

So you're against voting for Zrk2 because the arguments against him are based on behavior he's displayed before and then flipped town, right?  Please explain how his similar behavior in another game couldn't just as likely mean that he's playing a fairly solid (in that it matches his town behaviour) scum game this time around.  This is the main reason I prodded him so hard, and am pushing him to go hunt currently: I want to see what happens when he's forced to not use his simple set of rules to play the first day.  I cannot believe that you have a solid enough read on Zrk2 to say that he's not worth poking as hard as possible; unless you are scum yourself.

[webadict]

Captain Ford stares at where the black hole was and then continues talking about stuff.

Deathsword conjures a sword of death, deeper black than anything anyone has ever seen. He tests the sword with a few swings, each slash leaving a visible trail. "Cooooooool." More like pointless.

Tiruin, not wanting to be evicted again from Webadict's antics, hastily recreates the black hole and shoves everyone through. Hapah, notquitethere, and The Soldier say hi to them. RangerCado, still recovering from being hit, manages a "Da buea doo...?"

"Yeah, I could've gone so many better ways to fix that." Tiruin pulls them all back through the portal. Luckily, Dakarian has settled back down by then.

Griffionday tries to summon a mushroom, but totally doesn't.

Vote Count
------------------------
Captain Ford -
Deathsword - Griffionday,
Griffionday -
Hapah -
notquitethere - The Soldier,
RangerCado - Zrk2, Urist Imiknorris, Captain Ford,
The Soldier -
TheWetSheep -
Tiruin -
Toaster -
TolyK - Tiruin,
Urist Imiknorris - Hapah, RangerCado,
Vector -
Zrk2 - Deathsword, TheWetSheep,
No Lynch -

Not Voting - Vector, TolyK, notquitethere, Toaster,

8 To Hammer. Day Ends Wednesday at 9 PM Central.

Day Extended.

[TolyK]

It all happens overnight D:

Extend.

I have a goal of not asking for a replacement, but I can't do my reread right now.  Small personal crisis of the "I have reams of homework, need to hunt for jobs, and seem to have suddenly just started falling for an intriguingly bad choice after 6 months of abstinence from dating, wat do" variety.

For now, my reads.  They're less clear than usual, but I'll put them out and do a backread on the scummier fellows tomorrow:

Toaster - I keep forgetting he is playing--this sort of worries me.  Scum or third party?
Deathsword - Seems to be reactive, rather than active.  One of my possible scumpicks.
notquitethere - Assuming that you're town (as I believe you to be--either that, or 3rd party, because god knows I can't get a good fix on you), I think your gambit should be saved until your reads are clearer.  We used a tool like this to some effectiveness in the very first KWN, in which the players were sectored into pairs who were responsible for doing in-depth reads on each other's alignments mid-game.  Get information now, but focus on scumhunting.  I'm not really sure that a separate chat would do myself in particular any good--if you've got someone you really want raked over the coals, cool, but in general I do better in a broader setting where I have other folks to bounce off of.

This is all to say that you're best off if you can build a mason chat, so work on your reads first above all other things.
Urist Imiknorris - we're out of RVS; doesn't seem to be playing at all.  Lean scum.
Vector - town
Hapah - ? Hasn't posted enough to get a good read.
Tiruin - Town.
Captain Ford - Lean town.
The Soldier - Lean town.
Griffonday - Town.
TheWetSheep - Don't know.  More investigation required.
TolyK - More investigation required.
Zrk2 - Possibly scum.  I need to look back at the whole "role-fishing" thing and ask some more questions; I've established recently that I can't read this fellow very well.
RangerCado - Lean stupid newbie town.

True.
And "Tomorrow" from that day was today, for me. Eh.

It's still today, isn't it?  Did I promise the morning?  No, I didn't.  Off my ass you go.

Timezones. I wasn't accusing anyone.

TolyK:

...
It's interesting. Many people poking at lurking. Lurk lurk lurk, comprises most of what I read in some posts. Why do you people think lurking is an offense in DAY ONE? I mean, you can just log off, then bookmark the quicktopic link and/or view the thread whilst logged off. Do you people think Lurking = Laziness, or that lurking = lack of drive in scumhunting? Because classifying things as "LURKING" doesn't hold much water unless you back it up with the reasons behind it.

I mean really. He's lurking = he's scum for being online? For an extended amount of time, now that's where suspicion begins to grow. For...a few hours? Not that much in the way of conclusive evidence.

Hm. Experiment. If Uri Eye notices that I said this, then he I have a hypothesis. I don't want anyone other than him to answer this, just for the interest. If he doesn't answer in his next 2 posts then I get information as well, and I might pressure-vote him. As I said, I want ONLY him to answer this, don't quote or refer to it until he posts. Alrite?

There's not really anything to answer. Her question looks to be rhetorical, and even if it wasn't, I couldn't answer anyway because I don't think that.

What was the point of this?

It confirms that you actually read through everything, which (in my eyes) lowers your chances of being scum.

TolyK

Hm. Experiment. If Uri Eye notices that I said this, then he I have a hypothesis. I don't want anyone other than him to answer this, just for the interest. If he doesn't answer in his next 2 posts then I get information as well, and I might pressure-vote him. As I said, I want ONLY him to answer this, don't quote or refer to it until he posts. Alrite?

Uri Eye? You mean UI? Use more conventional acronyms or abbreviations :/

Also. What information did you get due to the next 2 posts there? It's real confusing given that we have timezones. And then a "Might pressure-vote him", why the transparency?

I used that acronym due to it not being found by Ctrl-F > "UI" and the like.
Second part: see above.

You really seem to be flailing over NQT's case given that he hasn't responded to it, muchly. It could be trapped/warped or whatnot, and we could always ask the Mod. Is this all you've got regarding NQT's power? because that comes off as confused poking at a future point.

    @TolyK: Judging by your words there, you paint NQT as scum, and yet your vote is...? Still on TWS for trivial reasons.

No, I paint him pink. Or rather, I only say that his proposal is unlikely to be pure.
TWS - ?

Pink. Are you being sarcastically vague? Because if a proposal is unlikely to be pure; and in context this being D1 (in the viewpoint of NQT=Town), then what reason would he have to give an 'impure' proposal? To catch scum? If this is your reasoning, how is it possible? Depriving town of a resource, yeah, perhaps. I just don't see how that is practical.

Pink - mostly joke. And I think NQT explained this himself pretty well, notes on that in a bit.

TWS...TheWetSheep. :/ Anyway, so what do you think about NQT's proposal, really? Vague, justified town/scum move or...what? It's confusing trying to sort you being confused.

Derp.
Well, read a bit further down (after the glowing purple text-in-a-quote...).

Regarding your view on the vote record, what is your take on those nearing the lynch? Details included; all of them, please. Meaning those you named.

TolyK: As the day starts coming to a close, who do you think is the most likely to be lynched and who will you vote for based on the current information?

Judging by the votecount and what I've read into so far, probably Ranger or NQT, with a chance of Zrk. NQT due to his claim, though I think we should wait on it and posibly experiment with it. Ranger due to being "different" in his thoughts. Zrk due to the vote record.

Uh. It would take forever to do details, and I barely have time to put this up anyways.
I try a quick one, though.

Zrk2 seems the most scummy now, though as Ford said (and Griff noted) it's "him acting in character". Possible link? I only have the gut feeling and general association, since I haven't read many of his posts in-depth and those I have don't really seem wrong to me. Might vote for.
I don't honestly know about Ranger, he's really mixed for me. Probably won't vote.
NQT is really strange. I can't find a flaw in his logic, and haven't yet seen how it would help scum EXCEPT if he did two townies.
If two people die soon from being linked, and they're town, NQT'll probably be a good lynch. But for now, I want to see where this gets us. Probably won't vote.

Recap? Meh, doesn't seem like I want to vote for anyone quite yet. Still got that "don't want to mislynch" stuff, probably.

I LIED ABOUT THE STRINGS
There were totally strings

I have made my decision and sent it off. As some of you partially figured out, there was a catch. Two players get to talk in privacy just like I said, that much was true. But if one of them dies, the other dies in the next phase. This is a beautifully pro-town move. Let us consider the possible alignments of the folk I've targeted:

Town-Town: Good because they effectively get a mason chat, ensuring better town play.
Town-Third Party: Still an incentive to hunt scum, but added bonus if town player is killed.
Town-Scum: Makes there be one town player the scum won't kill. Worst case, a single town member will inadvertently protect scum. The bad from town death on scum kill is balanced by free scum death on mislynching town.
Third Party-Third Party: This is actually the best case scenario: an effective scum-hunting mason-team that has a high chance of being double-eliminated by scum or town.
Third Party-Scum: Two for the price of one on lynching, though worst case scenario this might lead to scum inadvertently protecting a serial killer or some such.
Scum-Scum: Two for the price of one on lynching!

I am, of course, not going to say who I targeted.

FAQ
1. Only scum would lie! Not true: sometimes deceit works in town's favour. This was conceived as a risky pro-town gambit. Risky for me, not for town. By getting people's views on my claim I've been able to make a stronger decision- and the results no matter what my pick universally favour town.
2. Why are you admitting to lying? I don't want the recipients of my move to publicly claim that I deceived them: this would remove the benefit of the gift I gave them. Also, it's in town's benefit to have full disclosure on these matters (to better inform their actions and understanding of what's going on).
3. You're wrong about it being in town's benefit! Rest assured I have chosen my targets very carefully and to the best of my fallible judgement, I have increased town's chances of winning this. I'm not going to openly speculate on whether I chose particularly town or particularly scummy targets as that would play too much into scum's hands.
4. Aren't you worried about being a lynch target now? Hopefully, town will see that my intents were in good faith and scum will hesitate at revealing themselves in attacking me openly.
5. Aren't you worried about being night killed now? It was always a danger, but I still have more tricks up my sleeve...
6. Why haven't you voted yet? I'm going to wait and see the reaction to this post, and make my final decision based on that.
7. Why did you use your power now rather than later when you'd have better reads? I'm petrified of being night killed before I get a chance to use it.

Numbered your FAQ.
1's failure is almost answered by 2, so those almost hold. The problem is, when Scum NK a dude they kill both, so if you're scum you basically get a double-decker pb&j.
3: This only works if you logically figure things out (the town-town etc. stuff above), not as much on who you picked. But let's move on...
4: I see your "good intents", except that thing in part 1.
5: Everyone has tricks up their sleeves. -.- And this part doesn't really matter any ways, why'd you put it here? To make it more belivable?
7: So, uh. Okay?

Tiruin:  No, that was a legitimate vote.  The fact that you specifically mention scumchat said to me you had it on your brain, as in you're posting in one and are ergo scum.  Since that meaning looks like it completely slipped past you, I guess it's not the case.

Unvote Tiruin.

Quick unvote? Well, it's backed up, but you could've pressed him more.

Whee extension PPE.

[Captain Ford]

PFP

Toaster: In a bit. I need to respond to Tiruin now and put out some more feelers first. I'll get back to you when I've got something to say.

(Although my response to Tiruin might be illuminating)

Tiruin:

Do you know any of his behavior anytime he was lynched as town?

Yes, that is exactly what I've been saying.

If you meant to ask if I've seen his behavior as scum, then no I have not.

Is your only case on Zrk's innocence being a meta claim? What do you see in him being town, in regard to being productive?

Pretty much, yes. He's been mislynched enough for the same reasons that I think his meta is more significant than it is for most players.

I don't have a town read on him. I don't have any reason to believe he's town. But I don't have any reason to believe he's scum, either.

I just think we can do better than lynching someone who's difficult to read.

Here, you say that there's not much fault against people's arguments against him. While appreciation must be given for your thoughts (), I'm pretty curious about how you found Zrk. I can agree with that notion, but you seem sure; more sure than me on the guy. Do you read him as town or...what?

At the time I wrote that, I had nothing. Currently, I'm ... percolating.

Or probably you know his alignment, hmm?

I have no clue.

I'm also trying not to insult him while making a case that he's a bad player who hasn't learned from multiple failures. That is incredibly difficult to do.

Reads on those not voting Zrk, then?

Will do. But I have to actually do some work, too.

PPE: Holy crap, 5 more posts. And big ones, too. Will respond to those when I have time.

[Captain Ford]

PFP

Man, I've been so busy responding to people I haven't even gotten a chance to talk about NQT yet.

Griff:

Tell me that what I've said hasn't helped you understand Zrk2's play better than you otherwise would have.

Can do.  What you've said has not really increased my understanding of Zrk2's play.  I still don't understand it at all.

Me neither. But that is still a step towards understanding. I'm slowly making progress in that direction.

Spoiler: Snip on read on me (click to show/hide)

I disagree, see my case on Deathsword here.  Are you sure that you wouldn't be able to come up with equally valid analysis of TWS's, Ranger's and my arguments to force us to give a more complete account of why we voted for Zrk2?

I believe I'm doing that. I could be more direct about it, but it's still having that effect.

So you're against voting for Zrk2 because the arguments against him are based on behavior he's displayed before and then flipped town, right?  Please explain how his similar behavior in another game couldn't just as likely mean that he's playing a fairly solid (in that it matches his town behaviour) scum game this time around.

He most definitely could be playing a strong scum game*. I can't tell the difference.

* By playing a terrible one, may I point out.

This is the main reason I prodded him so hard, and am pushing him to go hunt currently: I want to see what happens when he's forced to not use his simple set of rules to play the first day.  I cannot believe that you have a solid enough read on Zrk2 to say that he's not worth poking as hard as possible; unless you are scum yourself.

I definitely haven't said he's not worth prodding. Only that you should keep in mind that he has a history of getting mislynched because the way he plays sets off most people's scumdars.

Once someone starts pressuring him hard, he tends to accumulate more votes because the way he answers (or doesn't answer) questions makes himself look worse.

Right now, he's coming off to me as putting in strong effort and genuinely seems to be doing his best.

Biggest thing is that he's investigated people without being prompted to. He's taken initiative, and he's got strong convictions. It's hard to argue that that's scum behavior.

[Zrk2]

Thread Summary:

[/b][/u]


I feel a bit like McCarthy threatening to put this together for so long...

Captain Ford -
Dull. One thing I noted you saying, though:

GriffionDay is definitely giving me a strong town feeling. Staring at his list of votes on the LT, it struck me that he's pushing his suspicions rather fervently. Also, he actually looked at quicktopic to see if there was a way to tell if someone was listening in secretly.

Counter-thought: Could he just have quicktopic on the brain? I admit it's a good idea, but it still bespeaks a predisposition to involve himself with quicktopic, which suggests scum-affiliation.

Deathsword -
Solid posts, nothing remarkable.

Griffionday -
Has been consistently productive.

But this post seems out of character. Buddying, maybe?

I'm flattered, but I'm afraid that answer doesn't help me. Which is probably the fault of the question so unvote

Hapah -
Still too bloody quiet.

notquitethere -
Meh. The Roleclaim is really quite odd. I don't know what to make of it, but I don't like it.

RangerCado -
Engaged in the now infamous no-lynch incident.

Looking back I disagree with my initial assessment.

However I don't like this. It's softballing. This is not how to scumhunt.

Since Vector has nothing to say i'll unvote her for now and focus on other things.

The Soldier -
He's about. Bah.

TheWetSheep -
When he does post he is fairly useful, but not spectacular. Rather passive, if I do say so myself.

Tiruin -
Has been scumhunting long and hard. See here:

And here:

Toaster - Really bounced his vote around in the RVS. See here:

TolyK -
When he posts he contributes. Fairly generic in the beginning.

Urist Imiknorris -
Quiet. Not cool.

Vector -
Has been quiet throughout the whole game, but then she is busy.

But when she posts, damn, does she ever post. So I'm leaning busy town.

@Zrk

What would you suggest we do to lurkers instead? Let them lurk? That unacceptable. Of course I'll start there, and if they refuse to respond then we will have no choice but to lynch them.

Well as I suggested many times, you poke them. You've listed them only sparingly, and did not offer anything for them during that time. However you got the idea here.

Fair enough. I'll go dig up the lurkertracker and figure out who I'd qualify as lurkers. Then we can get prodding.

Reads are above. If you'd take the time to read my posts you would see that I have summarized my case before and posted the whole bloody thing as well. I don't have time to give you a whole fucking essay because I have shit to do all day.

Finally caught up. Now I can finally get to rereading. Holy shit you guys post a lot.

Yes about the reads, I can plaintively see them. And I did read your posts, however your case on Ranger is about something that was done before -- you aren't pushing it, but are answering questions everyone else is giving. In your later posts, you aren't addressing Ranger himself. But I guess RL factors in there, so its excusable.

I know that's a cop-out but it's true.

Ranger: What do you think of lynches now? Are there any policy lynches you consider acceptable?

This was your last line addressing him, and it consisted of nothing but a declarative sentence. No sign of any interrogative sentence unless I'm getting how you scumhunt wrong. You had this beforehand, and still have it yet you're not regarding his posts afterwards. Two posts pointing out on Ranger, requesting him to speak or die. He spoke. Your reply?

Do you ask proceeding questions for your target, by the way? It's not that hard to make a summary...Unless you have none.

Extend if it hasn't been passed yet.

I can try and find the post of my original case if you wish.

RangerCado:

As for the RVS period, it really is just to see if someone slips up at the start. we really have no evidence and a no lynch at the start could be much more beneficial then an actual lynch today. more on that after school.

This has been mentioned previously, but a lynch does a whole lot more than just kill someone. It reveals their alignment so everyone can reflect on their case in light of that, and people can take a look at the cases presented against them. In short it gives people a whole lot more information than the none they had previously had. Without a lynch the mafia just gets a free kill and the town spins their wheels for a whole day. Why would you want to give the mafia a free kill? Have something against the town? Planning something? Why?

Tiruin- I have read many games showing vector as scum and playing very well. Just pointing out facts but can't make any real claims until she speaks.

That is a good compliment.

As for the RVS period, it really is just to see if someone slips up at the start. we really have no evidence and a no lynch at the start could be much more beneficial then an actual lynch today. more on that after school.

Why are you assuming all of these?

I am assuming these due to the chances of lynching a town are much higher on day one, and i have rarely seen a mafia lynched on day one unless they made a slip-up. A no lynch allows anyone who can investigate to go off on their suspicions and see if their confirmed and any deaths could potentially give us useful intel.

These points show that a no lynch also can give us an extra day due to no death on day 1, depending on how the nights go.

It may yield the town an extra day to debate, but it also wastes that first day, as  discussed previously, and two deaths give more than double the information that one death does, because they build on each other. Furthermore by your logic town should never lynch until LYLO because it will give them more time to discuss. Unfortunately one has to eventually grow a pair, stand by what you said, and watch the carnage as the kills pile up and the truth comes tumbling out. Sometimes you're wrong, but you have to trust your abilities and go for it. Mafia is no place for the faint of heart.

Also, i think for now i'll vote No Lynch as i still believe it to be the best course for now.

You sure were determined to deprive the town of a lynch, weren't you?

True, but i don't like the risk of lowering the towns numbers if we mislynch.

Having more people around is always nice, but the town has been known to pick scum on the first day occasionally, and even other than that the D1 lynch tends to be based on the quality of scumhunting rather than anything else. Thus even if a townie is hit D1 it is almost always a relatively useless one and so the town loses relatively little.

I thought a No lynch would help as we may have many Night based roles, both helpful and harmful, that everyone may get more information from rather than mislynching a townie.

Or maybe you're trying to fly under the radar and want to avoid the possible blowback from voting to lynch a townie. Either way you need to make a decision. You are either scum trying to ruin the lynch or a totally ineffective townie, and I think lynching either on D1 is tolerable.

I have true suspicions of him (to me anyway) as he has avoided a couple questions from others. he may just not have seen them (as i sometimes do) but his statement here:(see above for reasons related to DS logic)  leads me to believe he's rolefishing. The way its worded just makes it seem that way so, Zrk why are you appearing to role fish? if this isn't your intention, could you rephrase what you said?
 sorry for not quoting how you suggested Tiruin, but posting on this thing is terrible. in a week a should have a better way to do this when i don't have access to a computer.
 I'll be back 10 am tomorrow. ciao!

I have explains time and again what I meant by my post and you simply cannot fathom it. Now you are trying to turn something you misunderstood into me rolefishing. I was not. Your case is bad and you put no effort into presenting it. Weak. Scummy. Like you are trying to stay below notice. Too bad.

Speak now or die.

Zrk2:

I don't think it would make me a larger target than I already am. People will be questioned either way. It's a good thing. I'm not worried. It's unfortunate that I'm the one facing all this and not the scum, though. It is obviously a loss but I think it's a smaller loss than we would face otherwise. That's why I consider it acceptable.

You are still missing why the wasted N1 inspects are an acceptable loss.  I say wasted, because if you took the time to build an actual case that was more than simply a policy lynch then the inspect roles would have more to base their read on you off of, and be able to decide whether you were earnest or not; making it their fault if they mistarget.  The problem isn't that you become a larger target, it's that you are unnecessarily making yourself one.

What do you mean by otherwise?  In the case of a no lynch, sure that argument flies, but not in the case of spending the time to actually hunt and harass scum targets.

Also why are you worried about becoming a larger target at all?  Your attention should be more on the hunting scum, which you mention in passing as "a pity".  If you are not scum then it is more than a pity: it's a real problem, which you are failing to adequately address. For example; your reads say that you fin Hapah to be lurky scum.  Okay get him to show that to everyone else.

If I die the town is guaranteed to lose a player. Besides, if people are trying to find my faults then they can't look for the actual scum.

Hapah, TheWetSheep, Deathsword and The Soldier: You each have less than 10 posts in this thread. That is unacceptable. Who are your scumpicks? Also, please restate your case for the person you are currently voting for.

Now back to calculus.

[Captain Ford]

PFP

Zrk2: Here's a link to the LurkerTracker.

Counter-thought: Could he just have quicktopic on the brain? I admit it's a good idea, but it still bespeaks a predisposition to involve himself with quicktopic, which suggests scum-affiliation.

Maybe. I guess that's not nearly as strong a point as it looks.

But in context, he had a better theory, and if the two of them were on a scumteam together, I doubt he would have been so eager to announce that he was "right all along".

Also, NQT being scum doesn't make a whole lot of sense now that we know what his ability actually does. As scum, he would have been best served firing it off in secret and killing one of them for a DK. Or holding onto it so he could eliminate a particularly difficult town or third-party role later on (since he could kill them by targeting somebody else. It's a day action, so it might be useful in getting around blocks or other forms of immunity).

He might be third-party. But I'm not leaning scum right now.

[Zrk2]

I figured out how it works recently, but thanks for the link. As to the comment you quoted I was just commenting on something that occurred to me. It would take other corroborating evidence to convince me of that.

[Captain Ford]

Griffy:

For example; your reads say that you fin Hapah to be lurky scum.  Okay get him to show that to everyone else.

Flaw: He can't do that if Hapah doesn't post.


Zrk2: I was saying my point about the quicktopic wasn't all that strong.

And other corroborating evidence to convince you of what?

Also, would you please summarize your case on Ranger, taking into account his answers to the questions in your original case. Why is it that you will raise a case on someone and then sit on it? Do their answers affect your opinions at all? Or is it impossible for them to undo the damage done in your eyes?