288 replies to this topic

[Narsis]

well...no. we can't just lynch you tomorrow. if the person turns out to be a townie(or even worse a mafia), then the town has little to no chance of winning. we need to hit a druggie today.

however, feel free to share your suspicions anyway. it won't hurt.

[KevinH]

Two cases here:

1) Mole's a townie.

He uses his superior skills (gets lucky) and identifies a druggie or maybe he's unlucky and names another townie.

2) Mole's a druggie.

He knows the other one. He might sacrifice his partner to "prove" he's a townie. Or he might name a townie and then hope the remaining mafia gets lynched the next day.

I'm interested to see whom he names. If we choose to lynch his choice, regardless of the outcome we'll still be debating whether Mole is a druggie.

[molestargazer]

Two cases here:

1) Mole's a townie.

He uses his superior skills (gets lucky) and identifies a druggie or maybe he's unlucky and names another townie.

2) Mole's a druggie.

He knows the other one. He might sacrifice his partner to "prove" he's a townie. Or he might name a townie and then hope the remaining mafia gets lynched the next day.

I'm interested to see whom he names. If we choose to lynch his choice, regardless of the outcome we'll still be debating whether Mole is a druggie.

1. If I'm right, the odds are on my side. With some scumhunting, I should be able to pluck a druggie.
2. When I go for a lynch, I will go for the person who has the strongest case against them. Hopefully this can help prove my alignment.

Time to read through again with my new Slipknot CD and see what I can pick out.

[Curufinwe]

Sorry been busy with war and RL and all that, prime exam season in England.... umm through looking at all of the above arguements I pick Narsis. To me your arguement seems a bit weak. However you are coming up with stratagies, could you be stalling the town?


Vote: Narsis

[molestargazer]

So, I think a good starting point from here would be who else was on the Falzis lynch besides me.

Official Mod Vote-count:
Falzis: 5 (Electric Mango, Molestargazer, KevinH, Narsis, Captain8track)
Molestargazer: 3 (curufinwe, CanucksDynasty, Falzis)

Please bear in mind my Vote Counting skills have been known to be pretty dire. If you wish to redo this yourself if you spot any problems, feel free.

Discount me, and EM (Dead), we have three people for investigation in suspicion of being DRUGGIES. So, if both druggies were on the wagon (Which seems fairly likely), then I have a 66% chance, which can with a bit of luck be increased by some scumhunting. Which is pretty heartening.
- KevinH
- Narsis
- C8T

Now, I'm thinking of doing this on a kind of points system - where each scummy post or thing that happens to a person gives them +1 scumminess points, anything I deem to be pro-town gives -1 scumminess points. I will be able to add or take 2 points from whoever at the end of ALL OF my rereads to account for gut instinct, general scumhunting, and anything I feel noteworthy (But only 2 as to not bias the results too much).
Of course, if I point something out you are free to respond to it - I probably won't be casting a vote quite yet.

Rather than going over a general reread and pointing out what I see, it might be better to do a post-by-post analysis of each person within the game, and pick out any off points that I see.

KEVINH
A read I'm not really forward to. I have a feeling it's not going to be easy to get a read on him.
(Alright, this forum really sucks how you can't get a link to an individual post.)

The streets must be cleaned of all scum!

This is an interesting setup.
Since the drug dealers know the mafia, they would want to be emphatic about killing them.
But if they are emphatic about killing them, then the rest of the players will know they are drug dealers.

The town has no cop so the no-lynch debate is moot. We must guess correctly and lynch to win.

Not really much to see here. Just stating fact and starting off with your generic "Go Town!" kinda thing. So, +/-0.
Shortly after this, Falzis agrees with KevinH's post, says to let RVS continue, but doesn't vote. I don't really know what to make of this, but if we see any more of it, it could be worth a mention.

KevinH's second post is used to spell out theories of how druggies would react (Jesus christ, my chair just nearly collapsed. I'm only 50kg or so.) to voting patterns on Day 1, and comments on how a druggie might die overnight - this was based on the idea that the scum would try and kill someone on the wagon, which they did. Also a nulltell.
The third post is reply to me, also in this vain.

Interestingly in Post 4, KevinH places his trust in NKs...

We need to hope that the mafia night-kills a drug lord. That presents a much better scenario.

In this scenario, a scum is labelled as being killed D2. Here we have no possibility of mentioning a druggie lynch.

Post 5 finally concludes this (Mentioning said druggie lynch), then states 'Let's find out who they are', but states that the dealers couldn't force the lynch of a townie - which EM disagrees with. There's an explanation as well, so KH is looking good. -1 for general pro-town posts so far.

I'm convinced our best course of action is to lynch a mafia, then lynch a drug lord.

Just putting this here. It could be useful in future.

I don't mind WIFOM-type analysis, so I won't condemn anyone for it.

To answer the question: In this case I would say no, this is not WIFOM.
First, the drug lord will want to lynch the mafia in a subtle way such that suspicion is not arised.
Second, the mafia will night-kill the drug lord without revealing himself.

Despite saying he's giving up on the theory, at this post, KevinH isn't contributing to the ongoing myself-Falzis debate and airing his opinions on the subject, but is indeed contributing to theory again. +1.

The whole exchange between Narsis and Falzis makes my head spin such that I'm not going to really try to understand it.

Which actively puts control in those who DO read, which could be druggies. I don't think it makes you scum or druggie, but it's not a good, pro-town action.

However, I think the following logic is wrong.

If he is a druggie, he would want to kill a townie first than a mafia so to have better chances of winning later.

No, a druggie would want the mafia dead so he could get the power to night kill.
Is this a deliberate attempt to mislead?

-1 for pointing this out.

My point exactly ...

I'll make it official.

Vote: Falzis

This seemed a fairly pro-town post to me. He gave the reasonings Re. Falzis, kept it short and to the point. -1.
More theory posting, with little else being added to the discussion. I would've liked to see more. Does this make him more likely to be a drug dealer? I don't know.

So now we move onto D2.

Mole was right. That might put suspicion on him as a drug lord. Of course, I will consider that he is just a good scum-hunting townie.

However, I have to ask why the remaining mafia killed Electric Mango rather than Mole.

Nothing to say here.

One of Curufinwe or CanucksDynasty is probably the remaining mafia because I don't think a mafia would have voted for his partner.

I don't like this. Bussing can happen, as I mentioned. It was, however, explained. So fair enough.

Captain8Track switched from Mole to Falzis and secured the lynch of the mafia. His would be the case of lynching a scumbuddy to look townie and riding out the game. It's possible.

This is very much worth mentioning. It could also be C8T being a druggie and switching to finalise the lynch will good reasoning.

I said I thought that either CanucksDynasty or Curufinwe were mafia. Based on their responses, I'm going to put Curufinwe at the top of my list.

In addition to their responses, also consider the timing of Curufinwe's vote on Mole. Falzis (now a known mafia) was appearing scummy and collecting votes. Curufinwe attempted to save Falzis by switching his vote to Mole.

I'll put my vote behind my suspicion.

Vote: Curufinwe

Here, KevinH is voting for people who he thinks might be mafia - despite the fact that HE pointed out in D1 we have a fair need to lynch a druggie today. +1.

I can't disagree with that!

Unvote: Curufinwe


I was also half-hoping I could get some band-waggoners to jump on my vote and accuse them of being druggies. No luck with that.

This could be an honest mistake.
It could also have been a failed attempt to mislead. I've already put a scumpoint™ for this saga, so I'll leave it for now.

The post on May 14 gives me a strong town-tell. -1.

Nevertheless, I'll put Mole at the top of my list of potential druggies, too. I'd like to see some discussion before I place a vote, though.

Agreeing with C8T without adding anything to it, and simply sliding me to the top because of it. I've spotted one or two problems with said post, which I'll point out in my analysis of C8T to come later.

This puts KevinH at a ScumPoint™ score of -2. With the odd blip, I've read him as fairly pro-town.
Feel free to respond to any points I've made. There may be problems or typos. Please just point them out and I'll explain them, don't just jump on me for them.
The other 2 analyses will come when I've written them. You'll have to bear with me though, I have an exam on friday.

[molestargazer]

NARSIS
This read may be a little more insightful - especially since Narsis has gathered a vote or two for the whole 'druggie' thing.
Narsis' first 2 posts show nothing. Clearing up the mod thing and agreeing with KevinH's basic theory ideas.
Random vote on me. Fine.

vengence voting is totally legit. it's called meta. basically, looking at past games what are your tendencies?

This I disagree with, as I mentioned on my post at the bottom of the page. This was never answered. +1.

the thing is that scenario works against the drug lords. meaning they probably won't follow it...at least not now. of course you get into the whole WIFOM thing...but still.

Not much of a comment here. At this point in the game, theory discussion is still largely ongoing.

Narsis steps into the Myself-Falzis debate shortly afterwards. Let's look at the post.

i'm sorry to say it but that doesn't make him a drug dealer. not 100%. the drug dealers could be laying low for all we know. you could be a drug dealer and mole the mafia for all we know. but we don't. thus we must go by what we do know. and what we know is that mole suspects that you placed a breadcrumb. looking at your post myself...it could very well be a breadcrumb. the interesting part...: you never actually voted meaning that if it is a breadcrumb then you are saying your partner is laying the vote. thus either:

1. you are a drug dealer and your partner has placed a vote on a mafia and you are trying to draw attention to it.
2. you are townie and that post wasn't a breadcrumb.
3. you are mafia and that post wasn't a breadcrumb.

so is it a breadcrumb or not? we will only know when Falzis dies. the interesting point is that if he is a drug dealer then we should be able to easily guess who his partner is out of those who voted in the RVS. if he is mafia...then the likelyhood of mole being a druggie increases. if he is town...well...that would suck.

Basically outlining the possibilites, but it's good logic, and does prove a flaw in Falzis' argument.
Another good post pointing out flaws in Falzis' argument. -1 for these two.
Still more. I'm not going to bother quoting them, but there's good arguments being presented. Another -1.

anyway...i've thought about it a bit more. i think our best bet is to kill one of Falzis or mole. if they turn up druggie...then the other is likely mafia. if they turn up mafia...the other is likely druggie. if they turn up town...well i dont know what to think.

An interesting post here.
He has stated most of the way through D1 Falzis' faulty logic and the fact I make the better argument.. but here he's willing to kill me. Quick change of thoughts? +1.

seriously though...i'd like to see why Canucks, captain, and curu are voting mole. like he said they seem to be very general very vague reasons. fence-sitting/vague reasons don't help the town one bit.

I like this scumhunting though. -1.
More general good posts give Narsis another -1. Seriously. Read through his posts if you don't believe me. There's good arguments and scumhunting going on here.

Narsis is also at a Scumpoint™ score of -2. Quite frankly, I'm getting even more of a pro-town feeling from Narsis than I am from KevinH. Any blips are less serious, and there's more logic and good scumhunting going on. I'm feeling this more than I did KevinH's -2.
As with last time, feel free to respond to any points I've made. There may be problems or typos. Please just point them out and I'll explain them, don't just jump on me for them.

[KevinH]

we have three people for investigation
- KevinH
- Narsis
- C8T
...
(Alright, this forum really sucks how you can't get a link to an individual post.)
...
The other 2 analyses will come when I've written them. You'll have to bear with me though, I have an exam on friday.[/size]

I'm looking forward to the Captain8Track analysis. Good luck on your exam!

You can quote multiple individual posts on this forum.

• Click the button at the bottom of each post that you want to quote.
• Go all the way to the bottom of the page and click the button

[molestargazer]

CAPTAIN8TRACK
The one that will be most interesting of the three. With both KH and Narsis at -2 ScumPoints™, this read will certainly determine who gets my vote.

This was C8T's first post after Curufinwe's random vote on him:

What the?! But I haven't even posted here! I've given you literally NOTHING to base that decision on. Why would you do that?

Unless... unless you're looking for a scapegoat. Unless you're seeking to sow discord and chaos amongst the ranks, dividing the populous so you can conquer them with ease. Yes... that's exactly what you'd want to do.

Vote: Curufinwe

Now, this would usually be classed as huge OMGUS. There's only so many points I can excuse with the NewbieCard, but I think this is one of them.
It does make me want to keep an eye on C8T though - the fact he didn't notice other 'random' votes and note this might be one of them...
Could be Newbie or Nervous Scum.

And that was his only post in 3 pages. +1.

Nope. Getting the hang of it. Thanks for the links everybody.

unvote: curufinwe

Not random vote, but pretty close to it-

Vote: molestargazer

Just a hunch so far. Short version: methinks you doth protest too much.
Not exactly iron-clad reasoning. This may be revisited.

There's not really much to pick up on here. What I will say in his favour is that he's voting using what he has.

This was his THIRD post in 6 pages. I've already added a point for the lurking, so, I'll leave it as it is.
I have coloured in orange points that I will be replying to.

The two I'm focused on now are Molestargazer and Falzis.

Of course, it's because they've been driving the conversation. The logic employed by both of them seems convoluted and filled with gaps. That could be unintentional, but I think it is likely a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Then again, as experienced players it makes sense that they drive the game forward with conversation. They're trying to get this thing off the ground. So the question would become: why aren't all the other experienced players (CanucksDynasty, KevinH, perhaps Narsis?) participating as much? Perhaps they are laying low, content to let the attention focus elsewhere? Perhaps they are quiet because there isn't enough information yet upon which to base meaningful inferences?
It would seem that, no matter how far along this game progresses, it is still at heart an exercise in the WIFOM dilemma. Meaning that there IS no time when there's enough information to make meaningful inferences; therefore, those not contributing now would appear to be scum trying to evade detection.

Right now, though, I'm confident in selecting between either Molestargazer or Falzis. And with my vote already set on one of the two, I'm content to let it remain.

(vote not changed)

1) Interesting how he thinks BOTH of mine and Falzis' points could have been an intentional thing to mislead.
C8T - At this point, did you think we both might be anti-town because of our constant posting?

2) Interesting also how he points out the other players for 'lurking' when he is doing just as much. Being new doesn't excuse you from posting. He might be trying to divert attention from himself.

3) This, however, is a good point.
Quite frankly, there's good and bad points in this post. The WIFOM thing is good, but he appears to be making no solid case and simply fence-sitting between myself and Falzis, and calling out all the others for not posting. For this, I'm going to give him a +1. But it's a close call.

Now, the post which may be really quite interesting.

Unvote: molestargazer

I first voted for Mole because I scanned through the first few pages of this thread, and saw all his spilled ink across the screen. Frankly, I thought "where there's smoke, there's fire." And when you don't understand the rules of the game, that's about all you have to go on.

It's still my first game. But I understand it marginally better now. I understand that the druggies know who the scum are. And that they want to kill the mafia because then they'll get the NK. I also understand that you're never going to get real "evidence" here. All you're going to get is finger-pointing. "He posted this, so he must be scum." So there's going to be an element of uncertainty. That's unavoidable.

I voted for Mole because I thought he was the first to lead discussion to try and lynch someone. I thought that was a sign he knew who the scum was, and that therefore he too was scum. Frankly, though, his first serious vote ("RVS is over...") still seems flippant. No rationale is provided there.

Who seemed to cast the first serious vote? Probably still Mole. He did claim "RVS is over," indicating he took it seriously. But the absence of rationale there seems to show that he did it to try and feel Falzis out through his reaction- not something you'd need to do if you were certain. The next "serious" vote seems to be Falzis- firing back at Mole.

What else is there to go on? I keep coming back to Falzis quote from early on in the thread:

I think the drug dealers have something to ride on with the random voting stage. They can vote "randomly" but in reality are voting for Mafia and hopefully create a trend of votes. So as of now any "random" vote could actually be not random at all. Hopefully this will give us hints as to who are druggies and scummies.

At that point, he was laying low and hadn't cast any votes yet. After things picked up, he's been driving conversation ever since.

Earlier I wrote that I was leaning between Mole and Falzis. I still am. But now I'm leaning towards Falzis.

Vote: Falzis

Now, I'm not really sure what to make of this.
Since this was SO close to the end of the day, and that may(?) have been the hammer vote, I can certainly agree with calls that he's druggie switching to quicklynch scum.
However, the reasoning is THERE. I don't particularly like how he plays the newbie card again, but I can let him off for that, as the rest of it really is quite good. -1 for this post.

And now we reach DAY 2.

Right now my focus is on Mole. He started the focus on Falzis. Who wound up being a mafia.

The druggies know who the mafia are. Mole started the focus on Falzis, who was found to be mafia. What are the odds of that? (...about 25%.)

Still, the fact that he brought the focus, so early, towards someone who was eventually revealed to be mafia is a clue. This is exactly what a druggie would want to do.

It's a blatant move- quite possibly too blatant. It might just be an unfortunate coincidence for him. But what the hey, it's a sign, and somebody's gotta die. We've got too many ropes here.

So I haven't cast a vote just yet, but if I did, it'd probably be for Mole.

Of course, the reasoning is fair. And indeed, it'd be normal for someone to think that.
I don't like how he called my lynch blatant when just the day before he said that Falzis cast the first serious vote, and my first vote on Falzis was 'flippant'. Tempted to give a point, but I won't.

-I've cut some stuff out of here because it's irrelevant. -Mole -

No. That's not true. You voted for Falzis with your "pressure vote." You went right to him. Your "pressure vote" was right on the money. That's either luck, or *exactly* what a druggie would do. I don't think you're that lucky.

My focus was split between you and Falzis last round. I went with him, and he turned out to be mafia. I think you're a druggie.

Vote: molestargazer

Once again, further belief that he doesn't believe my pressure vote - when yesterday, he thought it was very convincing. I'm going to give a +1 this time for that continued push.


And now we enter the final phase in the game - the whole debate between myself and C8T, with the whole 'ad hom' business. So let's gogogo.

My thoughts on the remaining players so far:

Molestargazer- I think he's a druggie. I think he "pressure voted" Falzis in a genuine attempt to get everyone to focus on him, and I think he did that because he knew Falzis was scum. And he knew it because he's a druggie and knows who the mafia are.

KevinH- very insightful. Seems to be an experienced player. Seems like he hasn't posted that much, but he's made substantive points that really further the discussion. If he's scum, on either side, he plays it close to the vest. So far, the only reason I have to suspect him is because of how good of a job he's done at flying under the radar.

CanucksDynasty- also insightful. Posting possible game outcomes teaches newbies the mechanics and helps this game flow smoothly, as well as making future games more enjoyable. By posting that list of scenarios he seems like a trustworthy figure giving good advice. The advice was good. He may have posted it to gain credibility, to get above suspicion, and ride the game out.

Curufinwe- so far I think he's inexperienced. I haven't seen reason to suspect him as scum. He "changed" his vote to Mole, true, but his vote hadn't been on Falzis- it had been on me. When he switched it to Mole, he was the second vote there, and Falzis was already leading with a total of three votes- his wasn't the deciding (tie) vote. Seems like a possibly normal shift to me. Plus, that initial vote (on me) was, he admits, placed as a blind guess. So his first deliberate vote was on Mole, where he left it.

Narsis- again, like KevinH and CanucksDynasty, he makes good points but overall seems to be playing it close to the vest. Hard for me to get a read on him so far.


KevinH just made a good point:


The following people voted for Falzis:
Electric Mango- dead.
Captain8track- I know I'm not a scum, so I know not to vote for me.
Molestargazer
KevinH
Narsis

I'm already suspicious of Mole as a druggie. So this logic would suggest I should focus on KevinH or Narsis as some type of scum.

(For the record: I shifted my vote from Mole to Falzis because KevinH pointed out that in the event of a tie, nobody is lynched. I did the math and realized we were at a tie. I felt confident that Mole and Falzis were scum, and I was comfortable with lynching either one. I changed my vote because, if I hadn't, neither one would have been lynched. Now that that's done, my focus is back on Mole).

Using purely the same evidence against me again, without giving care to any of the logic I used in my scumhunt.
He sites KevinH as 'very insightful' - if I remember correctly, KevinH wasn't amazingly insightful during my reread - but he does pick up on the 'under the radar' thing.
If he flips Druggie, I think Canucks would be worth a read.
He suggests we should focus on 'KevinH or Narsis as some type of scum', which suggests he thinks they might be MAFIA - could be due to knowledge of who really is druggie, or it could be a mistake. Either way, by this point it had been mentioned several times that we needed to lynch druggie today.
He then explains his switch - however, I think that had he pushed he may have been able to get me lynched, so I'm not entirely sure I buy this.
+1 for the above.

You engage in ad hominem attacks. You attack me, rather than my logic. That's what someone would do when they want to distract others.
Before you say, "no, I never levelled any ad hominem attacks against you," here you go:

That's ad hominem. It's about the game, yes, but it's still ad hominem. It in no way refutes my logic. It simply casts baseless aspersions on me.

Meanwhile, I suspect you for a logical reason. Your first vote, which you claim was just a pressure vote, just happened to be for a mafia. Like I said, it could be luck. But it's also exactly what a druggie would do. You acted just as you would have if you were a druggie. That's evidence. Feel free to say "no" all you like. It still is.

-I've cut some stuff out of here because it's irrelevant. -Mole -

The 'Ad Hom' he quoted was me asking why he went with Falzis rather than me, and ended with 'Or were you just aligned with him?'. Yes, it's aggressive. But yes, it's a valid point. I can understand his points against me, though.
He refutes the SAME logical reason.
C8T - At the time of posting, was that purely the reason you wanted to kill me for? Because I haven't noticed any others during D2 you posted.

-I've cut some stuff out of here because it's irrelevant. -Mole -

Did that appeal to anyone's intellect? Was it an answer to any of the contentions I made?
No.
Did it appeal to prejudices, or attack my character, by simply inferring I'm scum?
Yes.

Why would I spend so much time focusing on this?
Because this entire game, to one degree or another, is WIFOM.
Someone says something. Then someone else says what the first guy said means he's scum. Guy1 says "Nuh-uh." Guy2 says "yeah-huh." Guy3 chimes and says Guy2 was a little too quick with that accusation on Guy1, and then suspicion shifts.
That's WIFOM. It's all WIFOM, to at least a small degree. That's the game.
Until you can prove somebody is lying. But nobody can read minds. So we can never tell if someone's lying. All we can do is judge people by their actions. Like we do in everyday life.
When you catch someone in a lie, you're really just catching them in a contradiction. Unless you get them to admit they're lying, all you're left with is the fact that they said/did something that's at odds with what you know the truth is.
This entire post so far has been about you being caught in a contradiction. You say it wasn't an ad hominem attack, but it was. It's not necessarily a lie. Because nobody can read your mind.
But we can all judge your actions. You said it wasn't ad hominem. But it is. It's textbook ad hominem. It's right out of the dictionary. You're caught in a contradiction. From the outside, it looks like you're lying.

I was suspicious of the two of you because it seemed like you were driving the conversation. And I figured that meant you were trying to guide it.
I also considered that you might be experienced players, and you wanted the game to be fun, rather than lame. And that you were simply trying to get it going.
But there's no definitive evidence either way. And when you get out in front, sometimes you wind up getting shot in the back.
Like I posted when I changed my vote from you to Falzis: I was focused on the both of you. Now he's gone, and my focus is on you.

I completely agree with these statements: that you can't prove anything in this game.
But this game isn't about proof. There's no proof in this game. There's suspicion, and deductive reasoning. Let's follow a classic syllogism here:

1. Druggies know who the mafia are.
2. Druggies want to kill the mafia.
3. Molestargazer was the first to truly focus the attention on Falzis.
4. Falzis was found to be a mafia.
5. Therefore, Molestargazer is a druggie.

Does that necessarily follow? No. You could be a townie. A lucky, lucky townie. A lucky, lucky townie who went right to the mafia. A lucky, lucky townie who went right to the mafia, claiming to have been suspicious of him based on the handful of posts already made. A lucky, lucky townie who went right to the mafia, claiming to have been suspicious of him based on the handful of posts already made, and now is arguing vociferously (rather than logically) about his own innocence. It's all possible.
That doesn't mean it's probable.

That's why I think you're a druggie.

1) The attack did appeal to reason. I asked you why you agreed with Falzis, and stated a possible reason. Yes, it's a bit of an attack you on. But there's logic in there too.
2) I disagree that all mafia games are WIFOM. WIFOM is trying to second-guess the mafia. Mafia is all about looking at what people post and deducting from that. It's not all trying to second-guess them, because that would never work.
3) Once again, you are absolutely right in that you can't prove anything, and I agree you're playing the odds. But I'm a townie. -1 for your reasoning here, despite it coming to an incorrect conclusion.

This puts Captain8Track at a ScumPoint™ score of ___. The end of Day 1 post I've read as fairly pro-town. His other arguments are often flawed, and he lurked during D1. My gut doesn't have an opinion either way about him. But my re-read shows more scummy than the other 2 on the Falzis wagon.
Feel free to respond to any points I've made. There may be problems or typos. Please just point them out and I'll explain them, don't just jump on me for them.

SO, TO CONCLUDE, IN SCUMPOINTS™:
KevinH: -2
Narsis: -2
captain8track: +2

This is WITHOUT my 2 'bias' points that I mentioned before I started with the KevinH. And if I could, I wouldn't use them both. I would, however, give another -1 to Narsis. But for now, that's pointless.

I'm going to cast my vote now - however, feel free to respond to any points. If it's done well enough I can still change my mind.
Vote: captain8track

[molestargazer]

Oh, bugger.

EBWOP:

This puts Captain8Track at a ScumPoint™ score of +2. The end of Day 1 post I've read as fairly pro-town. His other arguments are often flawed, and he lurked during D1. My gut doesn't have an opinion either way about him. But my re-read shows more scummy than the other 2 on the Falzis wagon.
Feel free to respond to any points I've made. There may be problems or typos. Please just point them out and I'll explain them, don't just jump on me for them.

[Curufinwe]

Ok, after reading all of the scum point things above I have to agree with moles conclusion... c8t did come on a little bit harsh in his first post, almost in my eyes pushing to be unvoted. So I take the following actions:

Unvote

Vote: Captain8Track

[Narsis]

hmm...good analysis. even so...what happens if c8t is a townie and you are a druggie? then the town will have little to no chance of winning. we need to get this right.

[molestargazer]

I've done a thorough reread. I have made my conclusions on C8T impartially.
There's not much I can add to it other than that. Read what I've said.
Trust me. I'm fairly confident in my result.

[Narsis]

hmm...i'd like to hear what c8t has to say first.

[molestargazer]

I certainly what to see what he says before we go for a lynch.

[CanucksDynasty]

@Mole - you've suggested C8T as a possible druggie. However, in your analysis...you have KevinH and Narsis with the same scum points. Given that you've suggested yourself as a townie...out of the 2...who's the other druggie? Unless you suspect Cur or me (CD) as the other druggie.

[CanucksDynasty]

hmm...good analysis. even so...what happens if c8t is a townie and you are a druggie? then the town will have little to no chance of winning. we need to get this right.

If we do happen to lynch townie...then scenarios I stated apply...

#4 - D2 lynch townie, N2 - mafia NK townie...left with 1 townie: 2 druggies: 1 mafia = D3 lynch
#5 - D2 lynch townie, N2 - mafia NK druggie...left with 2 townies: 1 druggie: 1 mafia = D3 lynch

[molestargazer]

@Mole - you've suggested C8T as a possible druggie. However, in your analysis...you have KevinH and Narsis with the same scum points. Given that you've suggested yourself as a townie...out of the 2...who's the other druggie? Unless you suspect Cur or me (CD) as the other druggie.

Quite frankly, at this moment in time, I don't know.
I am reasonably confident, right now, that C8T is the most likely to be a druggie. If we lynch him, and I'm correct, we can look at other players' relationships with him in the game and how people react to votes against him.

[Narsis]

If we do happen to lynch townie...then scenarios I stated apply...

correct. however let's look in them in more detail shall we?:

#4 - D2 lynch townie, N2 - mafia NK townie...left with 1 townie: 2 druggies: 1 mafia = D3 lynch

in this case...the town cannot win. if a druggie is lynched D3 then the mafia will win. if a townie is lynched D3, then it depends on the mod but most likely the mafia would win. if a mafia is lynched, then the druggies win. there is no possible way for the town to win.

#5 - D2 lynch townie, N2 - mafia NK druggie...left with 2 townies: 1 druggie: 1 mafia = D3 lynch

the more favorable scenario. if a druggie is lynched D3 then the mafia will win. if a mafia is lynched then the druggies will win. if a townie is lynched then the mafia win. however, if their is a no lynch...: mafia nk's druggie=town wins if they can lynch mafia D4. mafia nk's townie=kingmaker scenario.

thus a druggie must die if the town wants a fair chance at winning. granted they could still win if a druggie was nk'd...but it's not likely.

[KevinH]

I always like Mole's analysis.

Now I have to decide if he wrote it from the perspective of being a druggie or the perspective of being a scum-hunting townie.

The fact remains that he got it right with Falzis. Again, what perspective what he coming from?

[captain8track]

CAPTAIN8TRACK
This was C8T's first post after Curufinwe's random vote on him:

Now, this would usually be classed as huge OMGUS. There's only so many points I can excuse with the


And that was his only post in 3 pages. +1.

You're right, I'm a newbie. I didn't know how the game was played. Still don't, really. And I get the feeling you're rolling your eyes every time I mention I haven't played Mafia before, but it's the truth, so that's why I keep reiterating it.

My first post was so "oh my god you suck" because I had no idea of the proper tone for this game. I thought it might be "first person"-type response- you know, "post it like it's really happening." That elicited a bunch of "WTF" and "is this your first game?" responses, so those were clear signs that I was mistaken. So my tone changed.

This was his THIRD post in 6 pages. I've already added a point for the lurking, so, I'll leave it as it is.
I have coloured in orange points that I will be replying to.

Lurking for two reasons:
1) trying to figure out how it works
2) I actually *do* have a day job in RL

If you want to lynch me for taking my time to figure out how the game is played, you're certainly able to. But it doesn't seem logical.

1) Interesting how he thinks BOTH of mine and Falzis' points could have been an intentional thing to mislead.
C8T - At this point, did you think we both might be anti-town because of our constant posting?

Yes. I thought you two were constantly posting to try and control the conversation, and settle the focus on whoever you wanted- and that you were trying to lynch a townie. That was my suspicion.

2) Interesting also how he points out the other players for 'lurking' when he is doing just as much. Being new doesn't excuse you from posting. He might be trying to divert attention from himself.

I'm not the only one who wasn't posting. I don't recall Curu posting that much either. I got the impression that he was new(ish?) at this because his responses seemed, kind of like mine, to not "measure up" to the expectations of others on the board. At least that was the impression I got from responses to his posts.

I still think KevinH, CD, and Narsis haven't posted all that much. They've made good points- points mostly about how the game is played. I don't think I've got a strong basis for suspecting any of them as mafia or druggies so far.

The WIFOM thing is good, but he appears to be making no solid case and simply fence-sitting between myself and Falzis, and calling out all the others for not posting. For this, I'm going to give him a +1. But it's a close call.

It's not fence-sitting. I was saying I believe you are BOTH scum. I was suspicious of both of you, and I still am.
I would also point out that it seems to be impossible to make a solid case in this game. All you can ever do is quote somebody's posts back at them. That's not "solid," by any reasonable definition.

Now, the post which may be really quite interesting.

Now, I'm not really sure what to make of this.
Since this was SO close to the end of the day, and that may(?) have been the hammer vote, I can certainly agree with calls that he's druggie switching to quicklynch scum.
However, the reasoning is THERE. I don't particularly like how he plays the newbie card again,

I can see how that gets irritating. But it's the truth. And my actions don't make sense unless I tell you where I'm coming from.

but I can let him off for that, as the rest of it really is quite good. -1 for this post.

And now we reach DAY 2.

Of course, the reasoning is fair. And indeed, it'd be normal for someone to think that.
I don't like how he called my lynch blatant when just the day before he said that Falzis cast the first serious vote, and my first vote on Falzis was 'flippant'. Tempted to give a point, but I won't.

I didn't say that. Falzis didn't case the first serious vote. You did. Go back and reread my post. I said it was probably cast by you, because you said "RVS is over," and I trusted your words when you said that indicating you meant your vote seriously.
I used the word "blatant" because, from reading the Mafia wiki, your actions appeared blatantly what a druggie would want to do. You led attention directly to someone, kept the focus on them, and as a result the town wound up lynching a mafia.

Once again, further belief that he doesn't believe my pressure vote - when yesterday, he thought it was very convincing. I'm going to give a +1 this time for that continued push.

I didn't think it was "very convincing." I don't think it was "very convincing." Remember? I used the word "flippant." You cast a vote without providing any rationale. And I also remember you calling others out later on, when they cast votes without, in your eyes, adequately justifying them. You voted to lynch without providing any reason. That's flippant.

And now we enter the final phase in the game - the whole debate between myself and C8T, with the whole 'ad hom' business. So let's gogogo.

Using purely the same evidence against me again, without giving care to any of the logic I used in my scumhunt.

I can see why you're sick of readdressing my arguments. I'm a little sick of reiterating them against you. I've already done so above. I'll recap them at the end of this post.

He sites KevinH as 'very insightful' - if I remember correctly, KevinH wasn't amazingly insightful during my reread - but he does pick up on the 'under the radar' thing.

I wish I could see what # reply each post was, so I could just refer you to that post. But I thought he gave several insightful posts on page #2, including the flowchart of possible outcomes ("If we lynch a townie on Day 1," et cetera).

If he flips Druggie, I think Canucks would be worth a read.
He suggests we should focus on 'KevinH or Narsis as some type of scum', which suggests he thinks they might be MAFIA - could be due to knowledge of who really is druggie, or it could be a mistake. Either way, by this point it had been mentioned several times that we needed to lynch druggie today.

Actually, I didn't (and don't) have a clue if they're mafia or druggies- I was thinking they might be ONE of the two, but I don't know which. They might be mafia, they might be druggies. I can see why you'd want people to jump to conclusions that I thought they were mafia though.

He then explains his switch - however, I think that had he pushed he may have been able to get me lynched, so I'm not entirely sure I buy this.
+1 for the above.

There's no justification for that statement: "he may have been able to get me lynched."
I counted the votes. You and Falzis were tied. KevinH's post told me, in case of a tie, nobody is lynched.
I wanted one of you two lynched. I felt confident you were both scum (druggies? Mafia? Didn't know, but I felt confident you guys were scum) so I was okay with lynching either one.
I'd initially wanted to lynch you. But I was facing the choice of changing my vote and lynching Falzis, or nobody gets lynched. So I changed my vote for the greater good. So the town lynched 1 scum instead of 0. Turned out I (and all the others, including you) were right about him.
I don't believe, at that late point where everyone had voted, that anyone was going to read my post and change their votes before the final vote was tallied. So I acted.

The 'Ad Hom' he quoted was me asking why he went with Falzis rather than me, and ended with 'Or were you just aligned with him?'. Yes, it's aggressive. But yes, it's a valid point. I can understand his points against me, though.
He refutes the SAME logical reason.
C8T - At the time of posting, was that purely the reason you wanted to kill me for? Because I haven't noticed any others during D2 you posted.

At the time I posted that quote? No, I was still initially suspicious of you from day 1. But I didn't want to lead off with formalizing that vote because I thought it was improper. Nobody else jumped into voting. I figured I'd wait and read a few more posts, try and get some more information first.
I still voted for you based off my suspicions from day 1- from your actions on day 1.

1) The attack did appeal to reason. I asked you why you agreed with Falzis, and stated a possible reason. Yes, it's a bit of an attack you on. But there's logic in there too.

The logic was very weak. It's a classic ad hominem. I state my grounds for suspecting you as scum, and you simply reply (in about ten words or less) "maybe YOU'RE scum." That doesn't further the game. That doesn't help anybody decide anything. It's ad hominem.

2) I disagree that all mafia games are WIFOM. WIFOM is trying to second-guess the mafia. Mafia is all about looking at what people post and deducting from that. It's not all trying to second-guess them, because that would never work.

You're second-guessing me, I'm second-guessing you; everybody is second-guessing everybody else. It's WIFOM.

3) Once again, you are absolutely right in that you can't prove anything, and I agree you're playing the odds. But I'm a townie. -1 for your reasoning here, despite it coming to an incorrect conclusion.

You can always respond that way: "but I'm a townie." I don't think you are. Your words aren't convincing. Actions are convincing. Words are cheap.

This puts Captain8Track at a ScumPoint™ score of ___. The end of Day 1 post I've read as fairly pro-town. His other arguments are often flawed, and he lurked during D1. My gut doesn't have an opinion either way about him. But my re-read shows more scummy than the other 2 on the Falzis wagon.
Feel free to respond to any points I've made. There may be problems or typos. Please just point them out and I'll explain them, don't just jump on me for them.

SO, TO CONCLUDE, IN SCUMPOINTS™:
KevinH: -2
Narsis: -2
captain8track: +2

This is WITHOUT my 2 'bias' points that I mentioned before I started with the KevinH. And if I could, I wouldn't use them both. I would, however, give another -1 to Narsis. But for now, that's pointless.

I'm going to cast my vote now - however, feel free to respond to any points. If it's done well enough I can still change my mind.
Vote: captain8track

This entire post seems to be a "oh my god you suck" post, veiled in pseudo-logic. You claim to be making an impartial investigation of three suspects. The first two, you claim, more innocent than the last. But the third suspect? The one you save for last? The one who just *happened* to be loudly and logically stating the case for your lynching- *that one* just happens to be emphatically scum?!

Sure seems like "oh my god you suck" to me. Like you're saying, "Lynch me? Oh no, buddy, lynch you!"



I'm not scum. Not a druggie, not a mafia. I know that. And I know those words don't help convince anybody else.
So judge me by my actions. On day one, I thought Mole was scum. That's why I voted for him. Then, when it looked like we wouldn't get to lynch anybody because of a tie, I changed my vote to avert that tie. I settled on my next-most-suspicious candidate, Falzis. He was proven to be scum. That encouraged me to follow my instincts and refocus on Mole.
That's been my thought process the entire time.

Why did I focus on Mole?
Drug dealers know who the mafia are. They want to eliminate the mafia so they get the night kill power.
Mole was the first person to focus our attention on Falzis. Mole led the charge that resulted in the lynch of Falzis. Falzis was proven to be a mafia then. Lynching a mafia is exactly what a drug dealer would want us all to do.
Not only that- Mole went right to Falzis. His first serious vote was to lynch Falzis. His first serious vote just happened to be right on the money. And then he kept loudly, insistently, hammering away at that first vote, like he had all the certainty in the world.
I think he knew Falzis was mafia. I think he knew that because Mole is a drug dealer, and as a drug dealer, he knows who the mafia are. Now, I think he's trying to avert suspicion by getting the town to lynch me, thus killing a townie on day 2 (see KevinH's flowchart to remember where that gets us) and following his agenda on another day. Or, alternatively, killing a townie and then getting lynched himself, but his partner may be able to fly under the radar (call that "taking one for the team," if you will).

I'm voting for Mole based on his actions. Several of you previously posted that you felt he was the obvious choice. Let me suggest to you that day 2 is a critical day in deciding what endgame scenario we're faced with. Day 2 is no time to go for longshots. "Maybe it's this guy." "Maybe it's that guy." Use your common sense. Go for the one you have the strongest feeling about.
If you think I'm the one most likely to be scum, then fine, go ahead and lynch me. But if you think Mole is probably scum, and you'll just lynch him later, you should remember that unless we lynch scum on day 2, our endgame scenarios don't look that good.

Use your common sense. Mine still says, and has consistently said, that Mole is scum. I'm voting for Mole.