Print

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

[Simple]

Now after rereading D1 i could easily say that was the most unproductive first mafia day i read up to this time. And with the whole bastard bussines that obfuscated every single serious attempt at scumhunting it makes me feel like we wasted it completely.

Dariush your D1 play consisted of slight rolefishing,meta-theories and you start this day with semi-random vote. How long do you want to prolong this type of play ? Do you even have some suspects at this point ?

Urist: I still don't understand how asking two questions on the same topic is scummy... Unless that's not the core argument in your case agains me ? Or your just bad at playing as Lyncher ? D1 you were pretty consistent about going after me but you never voted even when you were claiming you have no other leads, that's bit suspicious don't you think ?

Think0028: i have no idea how you did that but you managed to go trough D1 with nothing but one notable post in which you just go with the max voting trend. I understand that you could be suspicious of him but why you did completely nothing else D1 ?

Jim Groovester: I belive you are our SK. That's all.

Nuke9.13: Why you chosen Think if you have no leads ?

Simple

I'm still standing by my case from yesterday for now, though I'm definitely curious about what's going on today.

So despite of today events you will not change the vote ? What makes you so sure nothing will change your decision ?

[Jim Groovester]

What are you getting at? How is this a reason to suspect somebody, especially in a bastard game?

She votes LNCP, sees it doesn't work... and immediatly switches to Inquisitor, which doesn't work either. I want to see her explanation why she didn't make a real vote. Consider it a pressure vote.

But why her instead of a bunch of other people who voted non-lynchable entities?

And why do I feel like you only voted Flandre because Toaster voted her?

Actually, that's wrong. Or are you implying that I attempted to jump on a bandwagon (with an entirely different reason)... consisting of a whopping one vote?

That's exactly what I'm implying.

Hypocrisy is when you berate someone for doing something, then doing that same thing yourself. In mafia, it can be a scumtell.

Hypocrisy is not a scumtell. It just makes you a hypocrite.

Jim Groovester: I belive you are our SK. That's all.

Cool story.

You can't just throw that out there without saying why.

[NUKE9.13]

Nuke:  Does getting stomped flat sound like a vigilante to you?

Not really, but it sounds better than getting blown up in a demonic ritual.
It could be a vigilante. Just because someone is very big doesn't necessarily mean they are evil. Its probably a SK, though.

In this situation, I berated you for voting for a stupid reason. I then voted for a sensible reason.

Voting someone for not posting full flavor is sensible reason?

In this situation, you removed the actual reason for me voting Think, thereby making it seem like I said that I had no better leads than OMGUS'ing him.

I read your reason, deemed it un-sensible and saw no need to include it in my response. I wasn't even aware Think was voting you when I made that post. However, now that you bring it up... You really did OMGUS him with a ridiculously weak reasoning. It looks like you're desperately scraping every surface for future attack, and overdefend yourself while doing it.

Hmm hmm, hmm.
Wait a minute.
What do you mean, Not Posting Full Flavour? There's more? Well, that's not what Think said. I thought there probably was, but the way you phrase it, seems like you're quite certain.
Almost as if... you know there's more.
Say, would you mind terribly reminding/telling me what your flavour is?

-Sensible? Yes, yes it is. It has been stated by the mod that analysing flavour is important. Everyone got a couple of things. Presumably, the witches got a couple of things too. Except most of them were about the witchey things they do. And only, say, their day job (baker?), was suitable for revealing to everyone. Hence, people who only reveal one thing are suspicious.

-Ok, so, you just admitted to not reading my post properly:

I wasn't even aware Think was voting you when I made that post~Then why the FLAMING FUDGE would I say 'Not to OMGUS, but'

Which, you understand, makes your attack of me seem hasty and poorly-founded.

-Ah. Overdefending. Accusation of last resort for weak attacks. However, a word of advice:
OVERDEFENDING.
IS.
A FALLACY.
'Overdefending' is not a scumtell. Being able to explain your actions in meticulous detail just means that you had a good reason for performing said actions. Pre-emptively explaining your actions saves people time. If the action has no reason/a stupid reason, it cannot be explained.

Nuke9.13: Why you chosen Think if you have no leads ?

Here we see a victim of selective editing. What Dariush could have quoted, if disinclined towards bullshit:

Jim: My PM talks about my bakery and not much else, unfortunately.

Really? Not to question you, but, well, I question this. Everyone else has had at least a few random background things aside from their profession. A hobby, a rumour heard about witches. Frankly, I consider your PM containing nothing other than "you're a boring baker" so unlikely as to consider it suspicious to state that this is the case.
Are you absolutely sure you don't have some hobby or rumour? You don't read books or invest in coffee? Your character was totally uninterested in the rumours of witches that permeated the countryside?
Not to OMGUS, but I have no better leads than this, so, Think0028

See, I did have a lead. Not that Think voted for me, but that think claimed to have an exceptionally bare role PM. This is not an especially damning piece of evidence, but enough, I felt, to vote for Think until he explained this stunning lack of flavour.

Hypocrisy is when you berate someone for doing something, then doing that same thing yourself. In mafia, it can be a scumtell.

Hypocrisy is not a scumtell. It just makes you a hypocrite.

I pose that a town player has no reason not to play by his own best judgement; scum may be inclined to accuse people of things they consider acceptable behaviour just to get mislynches.

[Reverie]

I actually have an evening to myself, now. Yay! There is much catching up to do, and I will post shortly.

[lordnincompoop]

Votecount

Think0028	- 1 -	NUKE9.13,
Toaster	- 0 -
Dariush	- 2 -	Jim Groovester, Simple,
Pandarsenic	- 0 -
NUKE9.13	- 1 -	Think0028,
Urist_McArathos	- 0 -
IronyOwl	- 0 -
Flandre	- 1 -	Dariush,
Simple	- 2 -	Urist_McArathos, Toaster,
Jim Groovester	- 0 -
-
Not Voting	- 3 -	Pandarsenic, Flandre, IronyOwl,
No Lynch	- 0 -
-
Extend	- 1 -	Pandarsenic,
Shorten	- 0 -

The Day will end Friday, 9PM GMT.

You need 4 players to Extend and 6 players to Shorten.

[Think0028]

Simple: I was flailing for leads D1 and hoping I could eventually get a rise out of someone, but I really had nothing to go on until Max.

NUKE9.13: You're voting me because my PM wasn't informative enough for you? How do I respond to that, 'oh, woops, didn't notice this part of my PM, here's some more info!'? I'm a baker, plain and simple. I make bread, I sell bread, it's a good life.

Not that Think voted for me, but that think claimed to have an exceptionally bare role PM. This is not an especially damning piece of evidence, but enough, I felt, to vote for Think until he explained this stunning lack of flavour.

How does my PM only talking about baking mean a 'stunning lack of flavour'? Not to overly praise LNCP, but it's a good piece of writing about the life of a baker. I just don't happen to have any magical information that you seem to think everyone should have. My hobby is baking bread. I didn't hear anything about witches beforehand. I'm focused on my work.

What are you even trying to get out of this? It sounds like you're expecting an answer out of me, but I don't see what answer I could possibly give you, bar lying about my PM to come up with information that isn't there.

I also disagree with you about overdefending and preemptive defense, they both seem like scumtells from my limited experience.

[Urist_McArathos]

Everyone asking me questions

I am at work until 9, and the recent flurry of activity requires more than a hurried phone post.  I will reply tonight.

[Reverie]

Because obviously riding one failed bastardwagon is not enough, right, Flandre?

Dariush: I see nothing wrong with making unorthodox votes at non-player entities, even if I was not the one who came up with the idea. I agree that these were bandwagons, and that I have jumped aboard the both of them, but it is not quite the same as voting to lynch another player on borrowed evidence. The worst that could have happened in the latter case (for example) was the lynching of an inquisitor townie, but a breakthrough like that would have been invaluable regardless.

This is very silly. Very, very silly. Are you messing around, figuring that we are still in RVS and things need shaking up, or do you know something about flandre? Because I refuse to believe that you seriously think this is a good enough reason to vote for someone.

NUKE: I don't think that it was that silly. He was probably looking for something to attack, and my bandwagon-hopping was the shiniest. I almost can't really blame him, because most of D1 was unspectacular and dull by comparison. Are you suggesting that I was bussed?

Hmm hmm, hmm.
Wait a minute.
What do you mean, Not Posting Full Flavour? There's more? Well, that's not what Think said. I thought there probably was, but the way you phrase it, seems like you're quite certain.
Almost as if... you know there's more.

This is a stretch. Withholding everything that did not involve being a baker would qualify as 'not posting full flavor'. Or am I missing something?

[Jim Groovester]

-Ah. Overdefending. Accusation of last resort for weak attacks. However, a word of advice:
OVERDEFENDING.
IS.
A FALLACY.
'Overdefending' is not a scumtell. Being able to explain your actions in meticulous detail just means that you had a good reason for performing said actions. Pre-emptively explaining your actions saves people time. If the action has no reason/a stupid reason, it cannot be explained.

'Overdefending,' or incredibly reactionary defenses, is a scumtell.

You actually seem pretty reactionary about Dariush's comments towards you, especially if you're going to shout about how something you're doing isn't a scumtell (which it totally is by the way). Why are you getting so hostile about it?

I pose that a town player has no reason not to play by his own best judgement; scum may be inclined to accuse people of things they consider acceptable behaviour just to get mislynches.

I have no idea what you're talking about but I don't really care enough to ask further.

[Pandarsenic]

NUKE9.13, what exactly would get your vote off of Think? It seems like you're putting him in a situation where he can't win in regards to freeing himself of your suspicions.

[Toaster]

Simple:  Did you know continued focus on third parties is a scum tell?  Some new scum don't quite get the art of acting town, so they go after those that both town and scum distrust- third parties.


Nuke:  You really think that about there being no such thing as overdefensiveness?  What kind of reaction to an accusation would you consider scummy, then?

[Urist_McArathos]

Urist: I still don't understand how asking two questions on the same topic is scummy... Unless that's not the core argument in your case agains me ? Or your just bad at playing as Lyncher ? D1 you were pretty consistent about going after me but you never voted even when you were claiming you have no other leads, that's bit suspicious don't you think ?

I felt your narrow interest in discussing the cop was useless at finding scum and very odd.  I then felt you were highly reactionary and defensive when I pressed the issue, far more so than you needed to be.  I based my vote on the fact that you seemed: overly defensive, passive (I felt your play was meant more to look busy than find scum), and overly interested in special roles and how they would behave.  I also didn't like how you were twisting what I said into strawman arguments, kind of like you've done TWICE already today.  I never said asking the same question twice was scummy, I asked why you were so interested in cop behavior (rolefishing for a cop IS scummy, FYI).  I also NEVER said nothing happening today would change my mind, or my vote.  Stop with the strawman arguments, you're pissing me off.

As for not voting, that's patently false.  I was voting you, well before day's end for that matter.  You even responded to that vote, AND quoted me.  I resumed my vote immediately when I could post on Day 2 because nothing really had happened yet, and therefore I was just as suspicious as you at the outset of day 2 as I was at day 1 close (to answer your other strawman question, THAT is why I resumed my vote; because it would make no fucking sense to vote for someone else when nothing had happened yet to clear you, would it?).  I agree that if I hadn't voted for you at all, despite claiming you were my only suspect, it would be odd.  As that did not happen, however, I feel my behavior was normal for trying to find a scum on a rather pathetic Day 1 overall.

I feel I have a much better suspect now, though.  You're number two on my list, mostly because you won't stop twisting my words.  It's a tad scummy for my tastes, and it's really getting on my nerves.  Watch your ass.  Unvote

Dariush: I felt you hadn't been too active as Day 1 wore on; like you were fading into the background once it was clear we had other suspects.  I was prodding you by asking your suspects at that time.  I didn't think you were scummy at the moment, but I wanted to hear more from you since I felt you had been oddly silent.  Your activity today since my last post has shown me you're not lurking (at least not anymore if you were).  It's not really important now; when I asked it I felt very little had happened, so we were close enough to end of Day 1 as it is. 

However, seeing as Simple has also asked for your suspects, you could if you like.  As for me, I have another, new question I'd like answered instead, while we're on the topic:  Flandre was not the only person to vote for LNCP or the Inquisitor; I don't believe she was even the only one to vote for both.  Explain why you found her more suspicious than the others who tested this theory.

NUKE

First off, I argued (I think successfully) yesterday that if flavor contains leads to who might be witches, it's plausible it contains leads to who might be a cop, doctor, etc.  That means that describing full flavor should be done just as cautiously as role-claiming.  You can bet your ass a doctor or cop makes a prime target for a NK, and pushing someone to reveal information that could be VERY useful to scum for NK purposes is unwise, at best.  Maybe not everyone agrees with me, but I think it's scummy to continue to argue that everyone should reveal all they have in their backstory "to help the town".  Would you pressure a cop or doctor to claim as soon as possible?  No, because then you've got the best targets out in the open where the scum can get them.  Don't use some BS about "Town have nothing to hide" to pressure people, because they damn well might have something to hide (from the SCUM), and I'd rather not get a power role lynched because you were too thick to understand why it was a bad idea for them to keep it a secret.  So, considering you've now harassed TWO people for their background info (which might contain critical pro-town secrets), I'm really not liking your investigation so far.  Don't act like this angle is unreasonable either: you logically deduced witches might have tells to their role in their PM, so you know it's pretty sound for a cop or doctor to as well.  Pressing people to reveal most or all of their PM details is EXACTLY the same in that case as pressing them to claim their role.  It's called rolefishing, NUKE, and it's scummy as all get-out.OV

I also don't like how quickly you changed your tune.  In the SAME DAMN POST, you state you  "don't really have any suspicions", then immediately vote Think.  How the blue FUCK is that not having a suspicion?  Did you get suspicious of Think in the course of writing three fucking sentences, and forget to delete your own words from earlier in the post you were IN THE PROCESS OF WRITING?  I mean sweet Jesus, NUKE, talk about inconsistent behavior.  You couldn't keep your story straight in the same paragraph.

Next..ahem.

OVERDEFENDING
IS
A SCUMTELL.

You have good reasons for your actions?  Fine.  Post them when someone gives you a good reason to.  Responding to any accusation or prodding remark with a "How DARE you!?!" response is overkill, and makes it seem like you have something to hide.  Ditto for pre-emptive defense.  You're not saving anyone time.  If you post a defense before anyone asks for it, it makes it seem like you KNOW you're going to be investigated, and want to reassure everyone that yes, you're really town.  It makes you seem overly concerned about your image.  You know who else is overly concerned with looking town, and squashing investigations on them?  SCUM.  Pretending that these things aren't scumtells is absurd.  Town have better things to do, like investigate scum.  Even a mislynched townie knows that his words and arguments will be re-examined and hold greater weight after death, so there's no reason to EVER be hyper-defensive.  Worst case scenario?  You get to give your accusers the biggest "I told you so" and give them some material to hunt with after you're gone.  Best case scenario?  Your hunting reveals the true scum, and clears your name FAR better than some roundabout argument ever could, AND it saves time since instead of getting bogged down in your defense, the Town catches a scum.

I am not to say the first about this, but you DO seem awfully determined to keep your vote on Think.  I'd find this suspicious enough on it's own, but seeing as how you made it clear you had no suspects when you voted him in the first place, it seems REALLY scummy that you're basically grabbing a random person and shouting "It's him it's him, omg you guys why aren't we hanging him already!?".

It wasn't easy acting scummier than Simple, NUKE9.13, but dammit you gave it your all.  Enjoy your noose, you've earned it.

[Dariush]

Dariush your D1 play consisted of slight rolefishing,meta-theories and you start this day with semi-random vote. How long do you want to prolong this type of play ? Do you even have some suspects at this point ?

Let's see... Nuke is a scumbag (more about him below), Flandre became less suspicious after her answer, but I'm still not entirely satisfied (more below) and Pandar is lurking and parroting, as per usual.

Dariush: I see nothing wrong with making unorthodox votes at non-player entities, even if I was not the one who came up with the idea. I agree that these were bandwagons, and that I have jumped aboard the both of them, but it is not quite the same as voting to lynch another player on borrowed evidence. The worst that could have happened in the latter case (for example) was the lynching of an inquisitor townie, but a breakthrough like that would have been invaluable regardless.

But why didn't you change your vote after seeing that both votes ended up being counted as unvotes?

Jim and Urist, I voted for Flandre above others because she was the only to vote both LNCP and the Inquisitor. That is the sole reason.

Pandar, do you have any suspicions besides Nuke now?

Now, Nuke...

You bullshitvoted Think.

You OMGUSed Think and me.

You overdefended to such an extent that I actually cringed while reading your last post.

You take other people' wording that you don't like, twist it and attempt to paint it as scumtell.

You are scum. Go hang.

[Urist_McArathos]

Dariush: I see nothing wrong with making unorthodox votes at non-player entities, even if I was not the one who came up with the idea. I agree that these were bandwagons, and that I have jumped aboard the both of them, but it is not quite the same as voting to lynch another player on borrowed evidence. The worst that could have happened in the latter case (for example) was the lynching of an inquisitor townie, but a breakthrough like that would have been invaluable regardless.

But why didn't you change your vote after seeing that both votes ended up being counted as unvotes?

I distinctly remember asking the mod for a votecount after that nonsense started, just to prove that the votes weren't counted, and LNCP did not respond until the day was over.  There was no way of knowing the second round of votes weren't counted until the day ended.  I just wanted to point that out because I wanted everyone to see their votes were being wasted, but it didn't happen that way.  Just FYI on that point, Dariush.

Jim and Urist, I voted for Flandre above others because she was the only to vote both LNCP and the Inquisitor. That is the sole reason.

Ah, my mistake.  I could have sworn someone else voted in both cases as well, but I admit I didn't bother to reread and make sure.

[NUKE9.13]

Orright, yeah.

Spoiler: Re:Think (click to show/hide)

NUKE9.13: You're voting me because my PM wasn't informative enough for you? How do I respond to that, 'oh, woops, didn't notice this part of my PM, here's some more info!'? I'm a baker, plain and simple. I make bread, I sell bread, it's a good life.

Not that Think voted for me, but that think claimed to have an exceptionally bare role PM. This is not an especially damning piece of evidence, but enough, I felt, to vote for Think until he explained this stunning lack of flavour.

How does my PM only talking about baking mean a 'stunning lack of flavour'? Not to overly praise LNCP, but it's a good piece of writing about the life of a baker. I just don't happen to have any magical information that you seem to think everyone should have. My hobby is baking bread. I didn't hear anything about witches beforehand. I'm focused on my work.

What are you even trying to get out of this? It sounds like you're expecting an answer out of me, but I don't see what answer I could possibly give you, bar lying about my PM to come up with information that isn't there.

I also disagree with you about overdefending and preemptive defense, they both seem like scumtells from my limited experience.

-I was voting you because you seemed suspicious. I believe that that is how this game works?

-How you respond is up to you. Forgive me for asking questions which you have difficulty responding to. However, if all questions can be answered easily, how would town answers differ from scum answers? The answer is not/less important. How one answers is important.

-I was slightly hoping that you would do just that, make up some extra detail. This would make you obvscum.

-Sticking to your story. Fair enough.

-If one examines the claimed flavour of others, one notices that many contain more information than yours, or at least more varied information than yours. I made the reasonable assumption that this pattern would be continued throughout the unrevealed flavours. Can you really not see how yours seems strange in comparison?

-Sticking to your story. Fair enough. Also, repeating yourself.

-I wanted to see how you answered to my accusation. Based on your reaction, I would determine whether I considered you more or less suspicious. A suspicious reply would lead to further pressuring of you, and thence to a general call to lynch (if suspicion remained high).

-How you respond is up to you. Forgive me for asking questions which you have difficulty responding to. However, if all questions can be answered easily, how would town answers differ from scum answers? The answer is not/less important. How one answers is important. Also, repeating yourself.

-I was slightly hoping that you would do just that, make up some extra detail. This would make you obvscum. Also, repeating yourself.

-Well, my word against yours (and apparently everyone else's), it isn't. More on that later on in this post

Anyway. Thank you for your response. I am satisfied. unvote

Spoiler: Re:Flandre (click to show/hide)

This is very silly. Very, very silly. Are you messing around, figuring that we are still in RVS and things need shaking up, or do you know something about flandre? Because I refuse to believe that you seriously think this is a good enough reason to vote for someone.

NUKE: I don't think that it was that silly. He was probably looking for something to attack, and my bandwagon-hopping was the shiniest. I almost can't really blame him, because most of D1 was unspectacular and dull by comparison. Are you suggesting that I was bussed?

What?
No.
Why would you say that. Do you think that, if you two were scum, Dariush would do something like that to bus you? (Not rhetorical, please respond)
And what you did isn't bandwagon hopping. It was trying to outsmart the mod. Bandwagons can only be on things that the scum want dead; if victory was to be attained by lynching the mod/his lackeys, the scum wouldn't want to do it. Scum don't bandwagon themselves.
No, your actions were not bandwagon hopping, and voting you for them is silly. What I said was that it only makes sense as a basically random vote to shake things up (in which, to be fair, it has succeeded), or a vote based on extra knowledge, such as investigation results*

...Voting someone for not posting full flavor is sensible reason?...

Hmm hmm, hmm.
Wait a minute.
What do you mean, Not Posting Full Flavour? There's more? Well, that's not what Think said. I thought there probably was, but the way you phrase it, seems like you're quite certain.
Almost as if... you know there's more.

This is a stretch. Withholding everything that did not involve being a baker would qualify as 'not posting full flavor'. Or am I missing something?

Yes it would. It would indeed. But Think did not claim to withhold anything. The way Dariush said it sounded like he thought that Think had claimed to be withholding things, a mistake which would be easy to make if he knew that he was, on account of sharing a scumteam. You see?
And yes, it is a stretch. Hence why I didn't make a big deal out of it. I just wanted to see how Dariush would respond to this. Interestingly, you respond to it.

Which is fine. But may I ask why? Are you trying to build a case against me? Just trying to clear up a misunderstanding? Did you think I was being to hard on Dariush?
Honestly, I am curious.

Spoiler: Re:Jim, also, Overdefending =! Scumtell (click to show/hide)

'Overdefending,' or incredibly reactionary defenses, is a scumtell.

You actually seem pretty reactionary about Dariush's comments towards you, especially if you're going to shout about how something you're doing isn't a scumtell (which it totally is by the way). Why are you getting so hostile about it?

I maintain that it is not. However, I will concede that perhaps we disagree on the meaning of overdefending. Allow me to clarify.
In the past, when I have been accused of overdefending, it has been because of what I am doing right now/have been doing: metric shit-tonnes of text, explaining my actions, thoughts, and thoughts on the actions of others, in high levels of detail. Litterally over-defending, providing too much defence. I maintain that this is not scummy; I find that often, emotions run high due to one action or opinion being misunderstood, detracting from everyone's ability to scumhunt properly. By explaining things in a way which is hopefully impossible to misunderstand, I seek for only those who don't want to understand my actions to be left angry at them, revealing them as scum, and allowing others to move on to scummier targets. However, this doesn't seem to work very well. I am accused of over-defending, by town and scum alike. I believe that this is because 1)They don't want to read everything I've written and 2)They figure overdefending must be a scumtell, because why else is there a word for it?

'Incredibly reactionary defences' is not something in which I try to engage. Stupid avenues of defence, plied merely for the sake of deflecting attacks, is a scum/noobtell. Posting a lot of stupid defences, in an incredibly aggressive way, would not look pretty. The important thing is that defences must be stupid. WIFOM, OMGUS, appeals to emotion; one of these is bad, loads of them is worse, shoving them down your attackers throat pretty much amounts to a confession (unless the player is stupid/new).
If you think any part of my defences doesn't make sense, or is stupid, accuse me of that. As I am not scum, and my defences are/ought to be all sensible, I will be able to explain why I defended myself in that manner.

Spoiler: Re:Pandar (click to show/hide)

NUKE9.13, what exactly would get your vote off of Think? It seems like you're putting him in a situation where he can't win in regards to freeing himself of your suspicions.

See Re:Think. Also yes, he cannot free himself completely from my suspicions- no matter how incredibly town he seems, that his flavour is less adorned than others is odd. However, it is not necessary that he become completely free of suspicion. Heck, at this point, 1/3 or more of you are scum, so everyone is pretty suspicious. But a town-feely answer will still make me less suspicious of him than a scum-feely answer.

Spoiler: Re:Toaster (click to show/hide)

Nuke:  You really think that about there being no such thing as overdefensiveness?  What kind of reaction to an accusation would you consider scummy, then?

-No such thing as defending too much, anyway

-I'm glad you asked:

• Not reacting at all
• Acting like the accusation is a joke, and not taking it seriously
• OMGUS
• Appeal to emotion/inexperience (in some situations inexperience does work as an excuse)
• Deflection (responding, but not answering the question by way of drawing attention to something else)
• Begging and scraping (taking back the action in question, asking the attacker what to do)
• Responses which don't make sense
• Lying
• ...and general scuminess, which is subjective.

No doubt there are many more; this is a bunch of the top of my head.

Spoiler: Re:Urist (click to show/hide)

NUKE

Sweet zombie jesus but you can write. Going to break this one into chunks.

First off, I argued (I think successfully) yesterday that if flavor contains leads to who might be witches, it's plausible it contains leads to who might be a cop, doctor, etc.  That means that describing full flavor should be done just as cautiously as role-claiming.  You can bet your ass a doctor or cop makes a prime target for a NK, and pushing someone to reveal information that could be VERY useful to scum for NK purposes is unwise, at best.  Maybe not everyone agrees with me, but I think it's scummy to continue to argue that everyone should reveal all they have in their backstory "to help the town".  Would you pressure a cop or doctor to claim as soon as possible?  No, because then you've got the best targets out in the open where the scum can get them.  Don't use some BS about "Town have nothing to hide" to pressure people, because they damn well might have something to hide (from the SCUM), and I'd rather not get a power role lynched because you were too thick to understand why it was a bad idea for them to keep it a secret.  So, considering you've now harassed TWO people for their background info (which might contain critical pro-town secrets), I'm really not liking your investigation so far.  Don't act like this angle is unreasonable either: you logically deduced witches might have tells to their role in their PM, so you know it's pretty sound for a cop or doctor to as well.  Pressing people to reveal most or all of their PM details is EXACTLY the same in that case as pressing them to claim their role.  It's called rolefishing, NUKE, and it's scummy as all get-out.OV

I know about rolefishing. I know that one could read my actions as that.
Now I am going to use some bullshit about town having nothing to hide. Observe:
Town have no reason to lie unprovoked. (its slightly different)
If there was a mass-flavour-claim, or Think was straight asked about his flavour, lying to hide his power role would be fine.
However, Think responded voluntarily to an unpressured question by Jim asking for any information on the witches contained in flavour.
Town would have no reason to lie at this point, certainly not so specifically. Heck, it would be smarter not to lie, as bringing attention to your curious lack of filler-flavour might tip off the mafia to your role. Hence, Think was either telling the truth, or scum.
As for me harassing two people for their background: I maintain that I had good reason to 'harass' Think, and I hardly call

Say, would you mind terribly reminding/telling me what your flavour is?

harassment.
I was not rolefishing. I did not think Think had a role, and believe that was a reasonable thing to think.

I also don't like how quickly you changed your tune.  In the SAME DAMN POST, you state you  "don't really have any suspicions", then immediately vote Think.  How the blue FUCK is that not having a suspicion?  Did you get suspicious of Think in the course of writing three fucking sentences, and forget to delete your own words from earlier in the post you were IN THE PROCESS OF WRITING?  I mean sweet Jesus, NUKE, talk about inconsistent behavior.  You couldn't keep your story straight in the same paragraph.

-Tough shit. Its a thing I do.

-I will concede that it may be a tad confusing, and I regret that it confused you. Was I being silly? Yes. I write my posts in chronological order. I could've, and, perhaps, should've, gone back and said 'yes, I will get to them in a moment'. I didn't.
Is this such a big deal?
If, indeed, I was not keeping my story straight, then it would be. I would be the most incompetent of scum, revealing that my actions are essentially on-the-fly made up bullshit, seeking only to get innocent folk lynched.
Does that mesh with my playstyle, sir? Does that sound like me? Can you not concede that, even if I were scum, I would have the modicum of competence required not to do something so mind-numbingly stupid?
In other words, yes, it is inconsistent, no, it isn't because I seriously didn't have any suspicions and just voted folks at random.

Next..ahem.

OVERDEFENDING
IS
A SCUMTELL.

NO.
IT.
ISN'T.
See Re:Jim for reasons why. Then again, what follows is a case against actual overdefending, so let me deal with that as well.

You have good reasons for your actions?  Fine.  Post them when someone gives you a good reason to.  Responding to any accusation or prodding remark with a "How DARE you!?!" response is overkill, and makes it seem like you have something to hide.  Ditto for pre-emptive defense.  You're not saving anyone time.  If you post a defense before anyone asks for it, it makes it seem like you KNOW you're going to be investigated, and want to reassure everyone that yes, you're really town.  It makes you seem overly concerned about your image.  You know who else is overly concerned with looking town, and squashing investigations on them?  SCUM.  Pretending that these things aren't scumtells is absurd.  Town have better things to do, like investigate scum.  Even a mislynched townie knows that his words and arguments will be re-examined and hold greater weight after death, so there's no reason to EVER be hyper-defensive.  Worst case scenario?  You get to give your accusers the biggest "I told you so" and give them some material to hunt with after you're gone.  Best case scenario?  Your hunting reveals the true scum, and clears your name FAR better than some roundabout argument ever could, AND it saves time since instead of getting bogged down in your defense, the Town catches a scum.

-I will. I do. I have.

-HOW DARE Y-wait no that isn't a thing I do. If you think it is, could you show me where I do it?

-I am not hugely in favour of pre-emptive defence either; however the pre-emptive defence to which dariush reffered, to which I responded 'not a scumtell' was saying "Not to OMGUS, but-", which isn't really pre-emptive defence anyway. I do stand by what I said, that pre-emptive defence is not a scumtell: it does save people time. See above, in Re:Flandre, under the asterisk by investigations- if I hadn't put that there, would no one have called me for role-fishing for investigators? I'm sure they would have, and that would have been my response. See; time has been saved.

-Nope. Dying to prove your towniness is great, but it doesn't prove- at all- the validity of what you said. And mislynching is bad for the town. I believe that I can argue with enough strength to get scum lynched without having to be dead, and would rather no lynch is wasted on me for doing so.

-Worst case scenario I die, you lynch who I suspect, turns out they were town too and you've lost the game. And I don't like saying 'I told you so'.

-I will also concede that my policy of extremely detailed defence does not work as well as it does on paper, often leading to this sort of situation, wasting a lot of time, and making it hard for me to scumhunt at the same time. Which is not to say that I intend to do no scumhunting. Before this started I was scumhunting, after this is finished I will scumhunt, and what has happened in between will form the basis of many scumhunting accusations to come.

I am not to say the first about this, but you DO seem awfully determined to keep your vote on Think.  I'd find this suspicious enough on it's own, but seeing as how you made it clear you had no suspects when you voted him in the first place, it seems REALLY scummy that you're basically grabbing a random person and shouting "It's him it's him, omg you guys why aren't we hanging him already!?".

-Um, yes you are. And, how's that exactly? I was hardly going to unvote think before he responded, just because people had a slight problem with it. Now that would be scummy.

-no suspects; see above, unfortunate miscommunication, apologies.

-At what point, sir, have I called for a lynch of Think? At what point, in fact, have I called for a general cross-examination of Think? I was accosting Think on my own, engaging in independent scumhunting, and I do not like the way you represent me here. If this was all of your post I would make a point of this, but obviously you were pretty sure I was scum by this point, leading to the crack in your otherwise calm and sensible attack.

It wasn't easy acting scummier than Simple, NUKE9.13, but dammit you gave it your all.  Enjoy your noose, you've earned it.

I hope that I have convinced you otherwise.

Spoiler: Re:Dariush (click to show/hide)

Now, Nuke...

Interesting that you wait until I have three votes on me before voting yourself. None of these points have changed (much) since your last post. No, this is bandwagoning. Waiting for external support for your case before joining.

You bullshitvoted Think.

I believe I explained my reasons as clearly as possible. If you still think they're bullshit... well, each to his own.

You OMGUSed Think and me.

No I didn't.

You overdefended to such an extent that I actually cringed while reading your last post.

Not a scumtell, see above.

You take other people' wording that you don't like, twist it and attempt to paint it as scumtell.

What? Oh, that. I didn't paint that as a scumtell, but as freudian scumknowledge. And I didn't twist anything; I quoted what was there, and said that I 'thought it sounded almost like'. Interesting that you have no actual response to this accusation, but rather pass it off as a scumtell in itself.

You are scum. Go hang.

No U. Please respond to my response ASAP.

tl;dnr: I kindly ask that anyone who doesn't want to read this crawls into a hole and never plays mafia again. SUCK IT UP. If you don't have time, DON'T REACT UNTIL YOU DO.

HOLY FUDGE THAT TOOK ME OVER TWO HOURS.

Anyway. Those whom I answered, please respond. Regular scumhunting will resume once replies start coming in.