Print

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

[Tiruin]

Vote standings:

• Griffionday(0) -
• Lenglon(0) -
• griffinpup(0) -
• Demdemeh(0) -
• TheWetSheep(1) - Vector
• Vector(2) - TheWetSheep,  Leafsnail
• Leafsnail(1) - Griffionday
• Not Voting(3) - Demdemeh, griffinpup, Lenglon

TheWetSheep has replaced Shinigami_King

Nobody has PM'd me back..Demdemeh is due for replacement! Keestram, borno, if anyone PM's me before any of you do--they will take Demdemeh's place.

Day 2 has begun and will end at June 6, 2013. [Thursday] 9:00 pm [GMT//UTC +8]

Extension requests: 0
Shorten requests: 0

3 votes needed to extend the day
4 votes needed to shorten the day

Praise be, for Think's LurkerTracker!


"Ok, I feel cold..can't anyone take my place?"
"No sire, you chose to stall it, you're consequence."
"Hah, right. So would you like to see someone end the same way as one of the Ithilien? Doubly so, for a Ranger?"
"...True. But you can't- and then the Keeper-..oh fine. Move over, I'm taking your place."
"You know, when she said something about the murderer fighting the beast and all, and given that this is the sunwell, I'm unsure if..."
"Come on, spit it out."
"Err, see that spider? I think it's photosensitive."
"Oh very funny. A spider that's afraid of its picture getting taken. I can see it very fine thank you very m-"
"No! No! Photosensitive. It's sensitive to light. The mirrors? Why would a sunwell be filled with mirrors?"
"It's a sunwell. It gets light from the sun as wells get water from the rain, or any aquiferous rock deep beneath the rock layer or soilbed. Granted, you can just angle the light rays at any of the mirrors above us and it will still prolong the time we've got. Until night falls..of course."
"I take it you won't mind a bit of expounding on why we don't have weapons, then?"
"..Err, providence is held in truth? Or something like that? Why're you asking?"
"Never you mind. Is that why we've got a spider?"
"Bloody hell will this be long."

The Day has been indefinately extended!
...until we've a full roster of players. :I

A ball of flame slowly reveals itself from the tablet.
"And here I thought we'd be alone. Hi Dariush, you ol' warlock, you."
"Oh not-..not him again."
"You know, I've finally found a use for that bucket of cleaning water."
"But it's still full."
"My point exactly."

Can we have an indefinite extension until we have a full roster of players?

+1

I'll get back to you about the other post later tonight.

Oh thankyouthankyouthankyou.

Because I'm having net problems!

Isn't the policy for inactive scum that the scum IC dictate the nightkill?

Policy-shmolecy..there is no 'policy'.

Wow that sounded corny. XD

Expounding: It depends per mod, but that's not in my policy. However, I voiced nothing about that notion also. What you'd think of this is up to you--but I haven't enforced, or reinforced any notion of this kind. However-ever, it would be pretty hilarious and annoying that the scumteam would drop out, for then I'd be both laughing and crying. But this happened before, and it was sad.

[Lenglon]

I've been neglecting this because toony's has been rather awesome to be in, and that's not right, despite how interesting toony's is. sorry.

No questions addressed to me, and my targets are missing. This is disappointing.

Lenglon: Why Ford?

mostly his failure to give me anything to get a read on, failure to give any input about how to handle a day 1 cop claim, failure to answer even a basic question about Day, and just overall failure to be active... which was part of why he replaced.

I really shouldn't hold it against leaf, but it still means I don't have a lot of material to get a read from. I'm really looking forward to vector's return.
conditional replacement request
birdy, ranger, i'm not sure that I want to stay in this, I don't think I can properly commit to two mafia games at once. if either of you want back in, i'll replace to make room for you. birdy was a vanilla townie, so shouldn't have any privlaged information, and ranger never got inspect anyone, so he also shouldn't have unacceptable information. neither of you got a proper chance to finish the game, what with the way you guys died on day/night 1. why not take a second chance?

[Griffionday]

Leafsnail:

The mod should not end the night until either the player returns or there is a replacement.

This is just plain wrong.  Seeing as we have a jailkeeper, a lack of a NK doesn't necessarily mean that missing person X is scum; however, delaying to let a mafia member get back when the game was NOT delayed for other people would paint them scum through and through.

In addition, if you look back at when I accused Dem it wasn't at all obvious at that point that Dem had vanished off the face of the earth.  I questioned Dem fully expecting an answer, and there was no way I could magically predict that they had vanished rather than had taken a little while to realize that the night had ended.  And while Vector had announced a week break, I did't see that as a problem because a) she'd been posting a bit anyway up till when I posted and b) she could answer those questions when she came back in a week.

25 hours before your case on Demdemeh:

Okay, so Demdemeh has been gone from the forums since before the night, and has yet to return.  I still think he's scum due to how he was managing his case on me; but we probably have an active scum.  Until such time as he returns or we end up with only one remaining scum I'm shelving the case on Demdemeh.

So it's your advice to completely ignore the people who you don't see as the most likely scum but with whom you can interact, and tunnel people who aren't here?  Actually; why do you thing tunneling a good thing, when I've mostly heard advice to avoid it?

No.  It's my advice to go after the people you think are scum.  I guess I could ask some timewaster questions to people I don't think are remotely as suspicious as Dem or Vector, but I don't think that would be hugely helpful.

So sitting around twiddling your thumbs saying "I have an active case, they're just not responding" is helpful?

If you feel that my cases have merit then I don't get why you're voting me.

Really?  My bad.

Ford was very lurky so I never got a solid read on him.  So I felt the need to press you to get a further read, I felt your cases were weak for lynch cases, and based on a very shallow read of the game, so that's where I decided to press.

Your responses have been interesting:  You've several times deflected my questions with simple answers ("Not true" is a personal favorite) that don't take the opportunity to teach the mechanics of the game.  Other times you've done the reverse and dismissed my cases based on the mechanics of the game, using them as a shield to hide your sloppy play.  In addition you've repeatedly insisted that you be judged solely by your cases as stand-alone items, rather than reflections of your focus in the game and as a part of your actions as a whole.  You also called for a bandwagon on a case that is based on a reaction to a shallow read of the game. 

In case you missed the memo YOU ARE AN IC, that means we are here as apposed to the more complex to get instruction from you on how we should play, to figure out what proper play should be.  We're watching you and learning from what you do, with the hope of better emulating proper form.

And you don't care do you?  I'm glad that you replaced in, but your interest is CLEARLY not in this game.  You haven't been paying attention (you missed a question adressed to the ICs), you're ignoring almost everything that is going on, and you are willing to let town intrest die and assure an easy scum win.  You can't possibly be confident enough in your reads to be 100% sure that Vector and Demdemeh are the scum team, but you are doing NOTHING to improve your reads on other players, or at least pretend to be town long enough to do so.  You seem to refuse to give us an example of what we should be doing in this case; I hardly believe sitting around twiddling your thumbs is ideal play.  You are KILLING town, I seem to be the only player remaining interested in winning this game, everyone else is either burnt out, missing, or soaked in apathy. 

Die, opportunistic, apathetic, lazy scum.

[Leafsnail]

This is just plain wrong.  Seeing as we have a jailkeeper, a lack of a NK doesn't necessarily mean that missing person X is scum; however, delaying to let a mafia member get back when the game was NOT delayed for other people would paint them scum through and through.

There is a 50% chance that no jailkeeper exists.  You are correct about your second point - that's why the mod should delay the end of the night regardless of whether the person that needs replacing is town or scum, if there is only one mafia member left.

25 hours before your case on Demdemeh:

It had been one day at that point so you were jumping the gun.

So sitting around twiddling your thumbs saying "I have an active case, they're just not responding" is helpful?

If I have an active case against scum yes, yes it is.  I'll try and address why I don't think filler cases against people you don't really suspect are useful below.

Ford was very lurky so I never got a solid read on him.  So I felt the need to press you to get a further read, I felt your cases were weak for lynch cases, and based on a very shallow read of the game, so that's where I decided to press.

Only you still haven't explained why you think they're weak?

Your responses have been interesting:  You've several times deflected my questions with simple answers ("Not true" is a personal favorite) that don't take the opportunity to teach the mechanics of the game.  Other times you've done the reverse and dismissed my cases based on the mechanics of the game, using them as a shield to hide your sloppy play.  In addition you've repeatedly insisted that you be judged solely by your cases as stand-alone items, rather than reflections of your focus in the game and as a part of your actions as a whole.  You also called for a bandwagon on a case that is based on a reaction to a shallow read of the game.

I don't think that waffling in response to a question where a couple of words will suffice is helpful.  I don't need to be judged "solely by cases as stand alone items", but I do expect you to at least respond to them and their weaknesses rather than just repeatedly insist that they're shallow.

In case you missed the memo YOU ARE AN IC, that means we are here as apposed to the more complex to get instruction from you on how we should play, to figure out what proper play should be.  We're watching you and learning from what you do, with the hope of better emulating proper form.

I've been trying to give you instructions on proper play, but you're just quibbling with every single point I make.  That's ok, but you can't then turn around and get annoyed because I'm not giving you the advice that you want to hear rather than the advice I feel actually helps.

And you don't care do you?  I'm glad that you replaced in, but your interest is CLEARLY not in this game.  You haven't been paying attention (you missed a question adressed to the ICs), you're ignoring almost everything that is going on, and you are willing to let town intrest die and assure an easy scum win.  You can't possibly be confident enough in your reads to be 100% sure that Vector and Demdemeh are the scum team, but you are doing NOTHING to improve your reads on other players, or at least pretend to be town long enough to do so.  You seem to refuse to give us an example of what we should be doing in this case; I hardly believe sitting around twiddling your thumbs is ideal play.  You are KILLING town, I seem to be the only player remaining interested in winning this game, everyone else is either burnt out, missing, or soaked in apathy.

I disagree with that assessment.  The thing that kills games is massive absences of the people who are most suspicious.

I don't believe in allowing people to get off the hook because they're gone.  If you do, there's a real danger that by the time their slot is replaced (and usually it shouldn't take this long) you've created a bandwagon against someone else who you didn't really suspect, and allowed the playerslot you actually think is scum to get away with it.  In the really bad case that the absence lasts a long time, I'd prefer to see people's reactions to the cases I have against the people I think are scum (helpful, as it can give alignment information on both the person responding and the person who the case is built against).

On the other hand, I think you're correct in that I haven't been giving enough time to this game (although in my experience this basically never works as a scumtell).  Having the two people who you suspect absent and probably getting away with it is demoralizing even for me.  I'll try and correct this error with my next post.

[griffinpup]

(Note.  This whole post mocks the inaccuracies of logic that Leafsnail has been exhibiting.)

Everyone who isn't voting for Vector or Dem should be trying to explain how their actions make sense from a town perspective.

In response to this...
Everyone who isn't voting Leafsnail should be trying to explain how their actions make sense from a town perspective.  Reading Griffionday's most recent post, it's obvious that Leafsnail is scum.  Instead of waiting for Leafsnail to reply to Griffionday's post, however, you should see if you can explain Leafsnail's actions himself.  If you can't, then he's obviously scum and should be lynched.  Remember though, don't pressure or even ask any questions to anyone else, just focus on Leafsnail.  Asking questions would never be productive, and would probably make you look like scum.  Tunneling is a far better option.  Oh ya, and don't forget to call for bandwagon votes and lynches.  There's no reason to vote someone unless you give scum an opportunity to piggyback on your arguments.

PPE:  This post was written right after Griffionday's.

I've been trying to give you instructions on proper play, but you're just quibbling with every single point I make.  That's ok, but you can't then turn around and get annoyed because I'm not giving you the advice that you want to hear rather than the advice I feel actually helps.

Wait, you've been giving us advice?  Where?  All I see is ME ASKING YOU A QUESTION AND YOU IGNORING IT!  That really helped me be instructed.  The advice that I actually want to hear is advice on what I ASK ABOUT.  I request that you cite all the advice that you've given us the whole game.  Not only that, but your instructions on proper play.  Apparently that's in here too.

[Leafsnail]

Spoilers are to avoid stretching the page out too far.  Please answer the questions directed at you.

Spoiler: Griffionday (click to show/hide)

Griffionday:
1. If you now regard me as the most suspicious player, how does this affect your other reads (eg on Vector/Dem who you seemed to be leaning on as scum towards the end of day one)?  In particular, who do you think I (or Captain Ford) am scum with?  Try asking that person to comment on your case against me.

2.

Just as an FYI to Shinigami: What you described Ford as doing is pretty much the definition of active lurking.

What was the purpose of this post?  Did you intend to agree with Shinigami, who you seemed to think was scum at this point?

3. In post #369, you voted for Ranger.  What exactly about his claim (which, as I have stated before, I believe to be the correct move under the circumstances - better a claimed living cop than an unclaimed lynched one) made him worth voting?  Why, in post #384 do you seem to be happy with lynching Ranger for being a fool rather than scum?  That said, I do agree with your later reasoning that leads to you unvoting him.

Spoiler: Lenglon (click to show/hide)

Lenglon: 1. Apparently I/ Captain Ford am your prime suspect.  Griffionday has been posting plenty on the subject of me being scum - why haven't you weighed in at all today, or indeed tried to ask your own questions of me?  Why is your read on me contingent on Vector being here?

2. In post 404 you unvote Ranger, but also put the Finger of Suspicion on him while asking an apparently RVS question.  Why?

3. There seem to be two seperate cases where you defer to Vector's opinion - firstly when you unvote Griffionday after she tells you to back off, and secondly when she tells you to vote for Ranger.  Why did you yield to her opinion in both cases, when as far as I can tell you don't have a townread on her?

Lastly, I would like to strongly advise you not to seek replacement if you're a townie, even if you can only play this game to a limited degree.  The game has been disrupted enough by two replacements, a weeklong absence and a playerslot lying inactive for over a week, we do not need more discontinuity in players.

Spoiler: griffinpup (click to show/hide)

griffinpup: 1. Why are you piggy-backing off of Griffionday's reasoning without actually voting or accusing me?  Your last post essentially seems to amount to an insult and nothing more.  In fact, why aren't you voting anyone at all today?

2. In post #520, you say that "it'd be silly to hold you [TWS] accountable for shinigami not answering questions".  However, SK and TWS definitely have the same alignment.  So, if SK did something scummy, would that not also imply that TWS is scum?

3. You are not voting, nor do you appear to be trying to change anyone's mind.  Does that mean you are happy with the votecount as it currently stands, pointing towards a Vector lynch?  If not, why aren't you trying to change it?

Lastly, I think I have to some degree answered your question - you can keep going after the person and ask them to try and explain why their predecessor may have acted the way they did, as well as other players.  It's obviously less good than having the actual person there to explain themselves, but it's better than allowing their predecessor to get away with scummy actions.

Spoiler: Dem's replacement (click to show/hide)

Demdemeh's replacement: I think I've already made most of my questions clear, and it's a shame that Dem appears to have vanished because a lot of players seem to regard a replacement as a chance to wipe the slate clean.  However, I would like to ask Dem's eventual replacement to speculate on why Dem would not vote for someone they believed to be the mafia rolecop, and why they made a shorten request when the vote was not in their favour.

Spoiler: TheWetSheep (click to show/hide)

TheWetSheep (formerly Shinigami_King): 1. I am sympathetic to having your prime suspect missing, but could you not at least ask other people what they think about that suspect, or chase up your secondary suspect (Griffionday)/null read (me)?

2. Have you got a read on Dem yet?

Spoiler: Vector (click to show/hide)

Vector: I think I have already made my questions clear to some degree, but the main things I want to know are
1. Why did you advocate the Ranger lynch?  There are two aspects to this I find particularly strange:
a) Several times you state that Ranger is not amongst your prime suspects, and probably is the real cop.  However, you seem to imply there's some kind of hidden reason why you should lynch someone even if you believe them to be the strongest town role in the game.  What is this reason?  Does it really outweigh the fact that you're killing the town's most reliable means of finding scum?

b) Four other players (birdy51, griffinpup, Griffionday and Lenglon) all arrived at the conclusion that lynching a cop claim day one is not a tactically sound move.  However, not only did you fail to arrive at this conclusion yourself (which I believe you to be more than capable of doing), you also failed to properly engage with any of the arguments these four players made with regards to not lynching a cop day one.  You did jump in with a quick "gotcha" on Griffionday accidentally saying town instead of scum, and attacked the flaws in Lenglon's less developed argument, but you didn't actually attempt to respond to the wider argument about lynching a cop claim day one being a bad move.  Why?

2. In post #456, you call Dem scummy.  However, why did you only bring up this comparatively minor point when Dem was at that point not voting for someone they had repeatedly stated they thought was the mafia rolecop?  Furthermore, didn't you think it odd that they agreed to shorten at the time they did?

I'll answer your request in a new post, griffin, this one is getting unwieldy.

[Leafsnail]

Wait, you've been giving us advice?  Where?  All I see is ME ASKING YOU A QUESTION AND YOU IGNORING IT!  That really helped me be instructed.  The advice that I actually want to hear is advice on what I ASK ABOUT.

I'd suggest bolding or otherwise emphasizing questions you have for people, particularly if you're not using their actual name - it's easy to have it not register in their mind otherwise.  I think I've to some degree answered you question in my responses to Gday and a very similar question Lenglon asked, but I invite you to look at the response I've given in my above post.

I request that you cite all the advice that you've given us the whole game.  Not only that, but your instructions on proper play.  Apparently that's in here too.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Hey, everyone.  I should really get back to packing, but first: lynching RangerCado was a really bad move.  There is no point at all in lynching a cop claim day one, and that applies double if the cop may the only town power role and the mafia has no roleblocker.

Don't lynch cop claims day one

You don't really need "random" votes - just asking them about the important aspects of the game should be sufficient.  If lynches have already happened it would be good to ask them what their opinion on the lynch and the people driving it are, for instance.

How to deal with replacements

More stuff about lynching or not lynching cop claims

I do sortof get the logic, but bear in mind that if you absolutely refuse to vote for someone who isn't posting then "Don't post at all ever" becomes the perfect scum strategy.

Don't let scum get away with it because they're not posting - I continue on this theme in a lot of posts responding to Gday

2. Tiruin would not allow the night to end with someone unreplaced and one scum remaining, as that would lead to possibly confirming the replaced slot as town/scum

Don't think that inactive scum will give you a night with no kills, Gday quibbles with this so I talk about it in several other posts too.

I have also in several posts attempted to bring up the idea that you should actively push for lynches on people you think are scum, and this is both better at lynching scum and getting reads (people are less able to fake a town response if they know they are in danger).  For example

This feels like a failure of the BM teaching process.  Part of mafia is questioning people, yes.  But ultimately you also need to get scum lynched.  If you spend the whole day "questioning" you will basically always lynch town.

I am aware my advice is different from what you're used to (which is why you spent a post mocking it without any actual argumentation against it), but that doesn't mean I haven't been giving it.

[Lenglon]

Spoiler: Lenglon (click to show/hide)

Lenglon: 1. Apparently I/ Captain Ford am your prime suspect.  Griffionday has been posting plenty on the subject of me being scum - why haven't you weighed in at all today, or indeed tried to ask your own questions of me?  Why is your read on me contingent on Vector being here?

2. In post 404 you unvote Ranger, but also put the Finger of Suspicion on him while asking an apparently RVS question.  Why?

3. There seem to be two seperate cases where you defer to Vector's opinion - firstly when you unvote Griffionday after she tells you to back off, and secondly when she tells you to vote for Ranger.  Why did you yield to her opinion in both cases, when as far as I can tell you don't have a townread on her?

Lastly, I would like to strongly advise you not to seek replacement if you're a townie, even if you can only play this game to a limited degree.  The game has been disrupted enough by two replacements, a weeklong absence and a playerslot lying inactive for over a week, we do not need more discontinuity in players.

1) because my reasons for being suspicious of Ford were pretty horrible in retrospect, and I'm worried that i'll prejudice myself one way or the other by questioning you too much before Vector gets back. also, I still haven't done that re-read.

2) because I was making an on-the-spot decision to not lynch a claimed cop without a counterclaim, but I still thought he was scum. the RVS question was to apply pressure on his hypothetical scumbuddy. at the time I was gearing up for a re-read and interaction-based scumhunt.

3) the first time, it was because I knew I was emotionally compromised before making the post she referred too, and based on Day's response he wasn't feeling pressured at all by my actions. this meant I wasn't going to convince anyone of his scummyness in ,my current state, nor was I making progress in pressuring him into revealing anything new to show his scummyness. I also was quite frankly fed up with the situation, and I have trouble getting accurate reads on people in general while I'm mad. her suggestion to take a break made sense.

the second time... well, to be quite frank, it was what I wanted to hear. I was fully convinced that Ranger was scum, and I honestly thought that we were wasting our time keeping him alive for an extra day. When I was given a reason to go ahead and vote him despite his claim, I jumped on it. Evidently that was a mistake, although I did ask ford for his input, and his failure to say anything on the subject is part of why I want to be suspicious of him. of course, that's him not being active while requesting a replacement because he can't be active, so... yeah.

also, in general, my read on her has been that I can't get a read on her, but she's been the only IC here. I hadn't found her doing anything scummy, but I wasn't expecting to ever find her doing anything scummy. so when I had to ask an IC a question, I went to her, and trusted her judgement as an IC, because I figured that even if she was scum, she would still give good advice because there were so many eyes watching her every move. I wasn't expecting her to turn out of be scum, I just knew that if everyone else read to me as town, that she would have to be the scum by process of elimination, even if she didn't read as scum to me, or even if she read as town to me.

I don't get the same feel from you by the way, and I'm not sure if that's a scumtell or a towntell, but I think it's one of the two. I suspect either you or Vector is scum, but not both, and I don't know which yet. I don't think I will know which until vector has come back and responded to your accusations.

Last) ... fine. remove conditional replacement request

[Toaster]

Isn't the policy for inactive scum that the scum IC dictate the nightkill?

Bwahaha.

[griffinpup]

Spoiler: griffinpup (click to show/hide)

griffinpup: 1. Why are you piggy-backing off of Griffionday's reasoning without actually voting or accusing me?  Your last post essentially seems to amount to an insult and nothing more.  In fact, why aren't you voting anyone at all today?

2. In post #520, you say that "it'd be silly to hold you [TWS] accountable for shinigami not answering questions".  However, SK and TWS definitely have the same alignment.  So, if SK did something scummy, would that not also imply that TWS is scum?

3. You are not voting, nor do you appear to be trying to change anyone's mind.  Does that mean you are happy with the votecount as it currently stands, pointing towards a Vector lynch?  If not, why aren't you trying to change it?

Lastly, I think I have to some degree answered your question - you can keep going after the person and ask them to try and explain why their predecessor may have acted the way they did, as well as other players.  It's obviously less good than having the actual person there to explain themselves, but it's better than allowing their predecessor to get away with scummy actions.

1.  I don't necessarily think that you are scum.  I just think that you are a lazy IC.  My last post was to illustrate your bad, but not necessarily scummy, play and reasoning.    Griffionday has made a few good points, and yes, I borrowed a few of these in my last post.  I wouldn't actually call it piggy-backing, because I'm not actually voting you or making a case on you.

2.  My argument between Shinigami was based on his empty posts and vague statements.  Since Shinigami bailed, I can't press him anymore on those vague opinions or empty posts.  A conversation about these would go about like this. 

Spoiler: The Conversation (click to show/hide)

"Why was Shini's posts so empty?"
"Because he had no time."
"Prove it."
"He asked for a replacement for that reason."
"OK.  Why did Shini have this opinion?"
"I don't know.  Here's mine."

Since pretty much all of Shini's behavior can''t be explained by his replacement or can be explained by Shini's lack of time, questioning TWS about this would be futile.

3.  We are at an infinite extension, therefore I'm taking my time cementing my opinions and deciding who I think is scum.  I'll have to see how Vector reacts when he gets back until I make a judgement call on whether or not he should be lynched.  I'm not going to defend him however, seeing as he'll be perfectly capable of doing that himself when he gets back.  I disagree with your idea that you should be voting someone or defending someone, but have no middle ground.  I'm not going to be pressured into voting Vector, nor am I going to start defending everyone that I'm not currently voting.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Hey, everyone.  I should really get back to packing, but first: lynching RangerCado was a really bad move.  There is no point at all in lynching a cop claim day one, and that applies double if the cop may the only town power role and the mafia has no roleblocker.

Don't lynch cop claims day one

You don't really need "random" votes - just asking them about the important aspects of the game should be sufficient.  If lynches have already happened it would be good to ask them what their opinion on the lynch and the people driving it are, for instance.

How to deal with replacements

More stuff about lynching or not lynching cop claims

I do sortof get the logic, but bear in mind that if you absolutely refuse to vote for someone who isn't posting then "Don't post at all ever" becomes the perfect scum strategy.

Don't let scum get away with it because they're not posting - I continue on this theme in a lot of posts responding to Gday

2. Tiruin would not allow the night to end with someone unreplaced and one scum remaining, as that would lead to possibly confirming the replaced slot as town/scum

Don't think that inactive scum will give you a night with no kills, Gday quibbles with this so I talk about it in several other posts too.

I have also in several posts attempted to bring up the idea that you should actively push for lynches on people you think are scum, and this is both better at lynching scum and getting reads (people are less able to fake a town response if they know they are in danger).  For example

This feels like a failure of the BM teaching process.  Part of mafia is questioning people, yes.  But ultimately you also need to get scum lynched.  If you spend the whole day "questioning" you will basically always lynch town.

I am aware my advice is different from what you're used to (which is why you spent a post mocking it without any actual argumentation against it), but that doesn't mean I haven't been giving it.

Also, you advice is always either part of a case or a direct response to a question.  You never seem to offer it unless prompted or it makes your case stronger.  I never noticed your 'advice' abut the lynching of the cop day one because that was your main case on Vector.  Your misquoted example was a response to a direct question from Lenglon, which you gave a good answer too.  Your next example is actually unsolicited advice, which is apparently unusual for you.  Your 'quibble' with Griffy was actually initiated by him, not you.  In fact, you didn't even clear it up.  Your last point... I mean your last piece of 'advice', was merely a direct disagreement with Griffy on one of his points.  All of my points come together to see that you gave two actual pieces of advice while you claimed six.  Why do you consider points made in cases to be advice?  Are you planning on only giving advice to people who ask for it?

[Leafsnail]

1) because my reasons for being suspicious of Ford were pretty horrible in retrospect, and I'm worried that i'll prejudice myself one way or the other by questioning you too much before Vector gets back. also, I still haven't done that re-read.

I accept your point regarding Ford, but what do you mean by prejudicing yourself?

3) the first time, it was because I knew I was emotionally compromised before making the post she referred too, and based on Day's response he wasn't feeling pressured at all by my actions. this meant I wasn't going to convince anyone of his scummyness in ,my current state, nor was I making progress in pressuring him into revealing anything new to show his scummyness. I also was quite frankly fed up with the situation, and I have trouble getting accurate reads on people in general while I'm mad. her suggestion to take a break made sense.

I acknowledge it.

2) because I was making an on-the-spot decision to not lynch a claimed cop without a counterclaim, but I still thought he was scum. the RVS question was to apply pressure on his hypothetical scumbuddy. at the time I was gearing up for a re-read and interaction-based scumhunt.

the second time... well, to be quite frank, it was what I wanted to hear. I was fully convinced that Ranger was scum, and I honestly thought that we were wasting our time keeping him alive for an extra day. When I was given a reason to go ahead and vote him despite his claim, I jumped on it. Evidently that was a mistake, although I did ask ford for his input, and his failure to say anything on the subject is part of why I want to be suspicious of him. of course, that's him not being active while requesting a replacement because he can't be active, so... yeah.

I see.  That seems fairly credible.

also, in general, my read on her has been that I can't get a read on her, but she's been the only IC here. I hadn't found her doing anything scummy, but I wasn't expecting to ever find her doing anything scummy. so when I had to ask an IC a question, I went to her, and trusted her judgement as an IC, because I figured that even if she was scum, she would still give good advice because there were so many eyes watching her every move. I wasn't expecting her to turn out of be scum, I just knew that if everyone else read to me as town, that she would have to be the scum by process of elimination, even if she didn't read as scum to me, or even if she read as town to me.

I don't get the same feel from you by the way, and I'm not sure if that's a scumtell or a towntell, but I think it's one of the two. I suspect either you or Vector is scum, but not both, and I don't know which yet. I don't think I will know which until vector has come back and responded to your accusations.

I understand the general thrust of your reasoning, but I'd be wary of falling into a "one of the ICs must be scum because that happens fairly often" trap.  I'd also advise you to be more wary of players you can't get any kind of read on.

1.  I don't necessarily think that you are scum.  I just think that you are a lazy IC.  My last post was to illustrate your bad, but not necessarily scummy, play and reasoning.    Griffionday has made a few good points, and yes, I borrowed a few of these in my last post.  I wouldn't actually call it piggy-backing, because I'm not actually voting you or making a case on you.

Ok, but the aim of the game is to find scum rather than bad ICs.

2.  My argument between Shinigami was based on his empty posts and vague statements.  Since Shinigami bailed, I can't press him anymore on those vague opinions or empty posts.  A conversation about these would go about like this. 

Spoiler: The Conversation (click to show/hide)

"Why was Shini's posts so empty?"
"Because he had no time."
"Prove it."
"He asked for a replacement for that reason."
"OK.  Why did Shini have this opinion?"
"I don't know.  Here's mine."

Since pretty much all of Shini's behavior can''t be explained by his replacement or can be explained by Shini's lack of time, questioning TWS about this would be futile.

I don't think having no time causes you to active lurk - that's what makes it a better scumtell than lurking.  But if you really think your previous case a) cannot be used against the replacement to provide adequate answers and b) is not sufficient to build a lynch case on its own, then your aim should be to try and find new material from the replacement.  If they're scum then it should be possible to have them provide the material, and if not then it would be a bad thing to get them lynched anyway.

3.  We are at an infinite extension, therefore I'm taking my time cementing my opinions and deciding who I think is scum.  I'll have to see how Vector reacts when he gets back until I make a judgement call on whether or not he should be lynched.  I'm not going to defend him however, seeing as he'll be perfectly capable of doing that himself when he gets back.  I disagree with your idea that you should be voting someone or defending someone, but have no middle ground.  I'm not going to be pressured into voting Vector, nor am I going to start defending everyone that I'm not currently voting.

It doesn't need to be explicit defense so much as commenting on the case.  Asking other people to talk about your suspicions is better than either waiting and doing nothing while your suspects are absent or attacking people you don't suspect, in my opinion.  Nobody seems prepared to talk about it, though.

Also Vector is female.

Also, you advice is always either part of a case or a direct response to a question.  You never seem to offer it unless prompted or it makes your case stronger.  I never noticed your 'advice' abut the lynching of the cop day one because that was your main case on Vector.  Your misquoted example was a response to a direct question from Lenglon, which you gave a good answer too.  Your next example is actually unsolicited advice, which is apparently unusual for you.  Your 'quibble' with Griffy was actually initiated by him, not you.  In fact, you didn't even clear it up.  Your last point... I mean your last piece of 'advice', was merely a direct disagreement with Griffy on one of his points.  All of my points come together to see that you gave two actual pieces of advice while you claimed six.  Why do you consider points made in cases to be advice?  Are you planning on only giving advice to people who ask for it?

Apparently you have a weird definition of advice, where it stops being advice if a) somebody else wants it, b) it's directly relevant to lynching somebody or c) it's correcting someone who disagrees?  That's odd, because I think those three categories would include the most important advice.

[griffinpup]

You didn't answer my questions.  Since it was probably because I didn't write your name in front of them, here they are, name included.
Leafsnail:
Why do you consider points made in cases to be advice?  Are you planning on only giving advice to people who ask for it?

2.  My argument between Shinigami was based on his empty posts and vague statements.  Since Shinigami bailed, I can't press him anymore on those vague opinions or empty posts.  A conversation about these would go about like this. 

Spoiler: The Conversation (click to show/hide)

"Why was Shini's posts so empty?"
"Because he had no time."
"Prove it."
"He asked for a replacement for that reason."
"OK.  Why did Shini have this opinion?"
"I don't know.  Here's mine."

Since pretty much all of Shini's behavior can''t be explained by his replacement or can be explained by Shini's lack of time, questioning TWS about this would be futile.

I don't think having no time causes you to active lurk - that's what makes it a better scumtell than lurking.  But if you really think your previous case a) cannot be used against the replacement to provide adequate answers and b) is not sufficient to build a lynch case on its own, then your aim should be to try and find new material from the replacement.  If they're scum then it should be possible to have them provide the material, and if not then it would be a bad thing to get them lynched anyway.

... OK.  TWS, what's your current opinion on Leafsnail and his case on Vector, his communication with Griffy, and my current discussion with him?  I've been trying to get you to participate, so hopefully this works.

3.  We are at an infinite extension, therefore I'm taking my time cementing my opinions and deciding who I think is scum.  I'll have to see how Vector reacts when he gets back until I make a judgement call on whether or not he should be lynched.  I'm not going to defend him however, seeing as he'll be perfectly capable of doing that himself when he gets back.  I disagree with your idea that you should be voting someone or defending someone, but have no middle ground.  I'm not going to be pressured into voting Vector, nor am I going to start defending everyone that I'm not currently voting.

It doesn't need to be explicit defense so much as commenting on the case.  Asking other people to talk about your suspicions is better than either waiting and doing nothing while your suspects are absent or attacking people you don't suspect, in my opinion.  Nobody seems prepared to talk about it, though.

You could specify that.  Asking people about what they think of your case is far different then demanding that they defend their own position if they're not voting the same person as you. 

Also, you advice is always either part of a case or a direct response to a question.  You never seem to offer it unless prompted or it makes your case stronger.  I never noticed your 'advice' abut the lynching of the cop day one because that was your main case on Vector.  Your misquoted example was a response to a direct question from Lenglon, which you gave a good answer too.  Your next example is actually unsolicited advice, which is apparently unusual for you.  Your 'quibble' with Griffy was actually initiated by him, not you.  In fact, you didn't even clear it up.  Your last point... I mean your last piece of 'advice', was merely a direct disagreement with Griffy on one of his points.  All of my points come together to see that you gave two actual pieces of advice while you claimed six.  Why do you consider points made in cases to be advice?  Are you planning on only giving advice to people who ask for it?

Apparently you have a weird definition of advice, where it stops being advice if a) somebody else wants it, b) it's directly relevant to lynching somebody or c) it's correcting someone who disagrees?  That's odd, because I think those three categories would include the most important advice.

 
Apparently we do have different definitions of advice.  I will define and limit my definition of advice in this conversation to helpful content given to another player for the primary intent of increasing said players ability.  you definition is more along the lines of "information given to another player regarding the play of Mafia. 
Leafsnail:  Do you agree with the rough definition I gave to your usage of advice? 
I realize that I can't get exact because I'm not you.  Do you have an alternate definition to supply for advice in this context?
Also, Griffionday originally called you out on not answering my question.  In your response to that post, you said nothing about your lack of a response.  In fact, you said nothing about it whatsoever.  Why?

[Leafsnail]

Leafsnail:
Why do you consider points made in cases to be advice?  Are you planning on only giving advice to people who ask for it?

I thought I answered these?  Yes to the first, no to the second (as you saw there were multiple cases of me giving advice in cases where people hadn't asked for it).

You could specify that.  Asking people about what they think of your case is far different then demanding that they defend their own position if they're not voting the same person as you.

I think it amounts to the same thing, but ok.

Apparently we do have different definitions of advice.  I will define and limit my definition of advice in this conversation to helpful content given to another player for the primary intent of increasing said players ability.  you definition is more along the lines of "information given to another player regarding the play of Mafia. 
Leafsnail:  Do you agree with the rough definition I gave to your usage of advice?

Yeah, but I don't think it actually disagrees with the definition you have given much.  I guess my advice is "advice that I think will help win this game, and thus provide you with experience to help in future games", though, which is a little different maybe.

Also, Griffionday originally called you out on not answering my question.  In your response to that post, you said nothing about your lack of a response.  In fact, you said nothing about it whatsoever.  Why?

Immediately after making post #558, I began writing what would later become post #560 (I split them in order to avoid having a single dauntingly long post).  #558 was intended purely as a response to Griffionday, and I didn't think that answering your question in that one would have addressed the points he was making.  Instead, I decided I'd put the answer to your question in my next post (which took a lot longer than I thought it would, allowing you to put a post between what I had originally intended to be a double post).

[griffinpup]

You could specify that.  Asking people about what they think of your case is far different then demanding that they defend their own position if they're not voting the same person as you.

I think it amounts to the same thing, but ok.

Asking about your case makes people think about the validity of your case and the comparative scummyness of the person accused.  Forcing them do defend their own position makes them more defensive, less open, and focused on themselves.  Instead of explaining points about your case, they'd explain their own choices.  They'd explain that they were voting someone else scummy, or have been too busy to make an informed decision.  They wouldn't necessarily talk about your case at all.

Apparently we do have different definitions of advice.  I will define and limit my definition of advice in this conversation to helpful content given to another player for the primary intent of increasing said players ability.  you definition is more along the lines of "information given to another player regarding the play of Mafia. 
Leafsnail:  Do you agree with the rough definition I gave to your usage of advice?

Yeah, but I don't think it actually disagrees with the definition you have given much.  I guess my advice is "advice that I think will help win this game, and thus provide you with experience to help in future games", though, which is a little different maybe.

Ah.  That's where our disagreement is.  You see yourself giving advice by trying to win the game, kind of acting like an example, where I see you as trying to win the game while ignoring your responsibilities as an IC.  Is my analysis correct?  In the meantime, I'll get used to a different style of IC. 

Next portion of you post. ( too lazy to quote)
OK.  That makes sense.

P.S.  I know Vector is a girl.  I feel stupid for messing that up.

[TheWetSheep]

Sorry for low activity, school is really intense and will be until Tuesday. After that I should be good though.

Leafsnail:

Spoiler: TheWetSheep (click to show/hide)

TheWetSheep (formerly Shinigami_King): 1. I am sympathetic to having your prime suspect missing, but could you not at least ask other people what they think about that suspect, or chase up your secondary suspect (Griffionday)/null read (me)?

2. Have you got a read on Dem yet?

1. Yeah, I should be doing that, but I really don't have the time. The indefinite extension is really convenient for me, actually. I'll pressure people when I have more time. You are now reading town to me, actually, if only because I agree with your scumpicks and reasonings.

2. Yes, if I had to pick a scumteam it would be Vector and Dem. You bring up a really good point there, and in my reads post I go into a bit more detail on his jumping on Griffion.

Griffinpup:

... OK.  TWS, what's your current opinion on Leafsnail and his case on Vector, his communication with Griffy, and my current discussion with him?  I've been trying to get you to participate, so hopefully this works.

I completely agree with his case on Vector, as can be seen by me voting her as well. Because I agree with him, I think he is more likely to be town.

A lot of their conversation revolved around whether it was worth voting for people who have disappeared, and centered more upon game mechanics than opinion, and I don't think I can get much out of that. Griffion's vote is based mostly upon Ford's actions, but since Ford was really busy and felt the need to replace, I don't really see it as that scummy. I'll get back to you on your current discussion, should finish this post.