VOTE COUNT

Falzis (4): Martino, Theophilos, KevinH, sojourner

KevinH (3): Sir Jesus, Aquinas, Narsis

Nerau (1): Electric Mango

sojourner (1): Falzis

 

Not Voting (3): Nerau, partyin01, Kaziocore

 

With 12 alive, 7 votes are needed to lynch.

4 needed to lynch at deadline.

 

- Sir Jesus is V/LA

- partyin01 and Nerau are being replaced.

- Narsis will be replaced from June 29th.

- Falzis will be V/LA from July 1st - July 11th

- Deadline is MONDAY.

 

My Windows 7 installation is lacking office software that can read my Excel file containing the list of replacements.

I'm downloading OpenOffice now, I'll send out PMs to replacements today or tomorrow.

Sorry for the delay.

Edited June 25, 200917 yr by molestargazer

a few things:

 

first, you are right that at least one scum didn't vote for soj yesterday. if there are mafia in the game then there is absolutely no way there could only be 2. not in a 12 person game. i know mole and his modding way to well for that to even be an option.

 

however, this doesn't mean you and EM weren't scum. assuming at least 3 scum, then both of you could easily be scum and be voting.

 

and now we get to the WIFOM. you are assuming that all the scum would either not vote or that all the scum would vote. yet i've often seen it where only one or two scum voted, and often for different sides of the debate and others just sat by without voting(D1 at least). the scum's intention may be to not lynch, but knowing that voting on D1 is an acceptable strategy by many vets had some of their members vote. you also assume that scum want to lie low, which is generally the case. but i have often been surprised by what scum do. EM is one case of a player putting his neck out whether as scum or town.

 

however, what you have proven is that KevinH's logic of scum wanting to lynch because it is bad for the town is false unless soj is mafia.

 

that said the case is well grounded in logic and imo is stronger then other cases we have had.

 

Unvote

Vote: Sojourner

VOTE COUNT

Falzis (4): Martino, Theophilos, KevinH, sojourner

KevinH (3): Sir Jesus, Aquinas, Narsis

Nerau (1): Electric Mango

sojourner (1): Falzis (now plus Narsis)

 

Not Voting (3): Nerau, partyin01, Kaziocore

 

---

 

With these votes, there is a high chance that I will still be the one to be lynched by deadline even if sojourner gets 4 votes to tie mine since I got to 4 faster (that's in mole's rules) unless:

 

1. SJ, Aquinas, and EM all switch to sojo

2. Nerau or Kaziocore votes (hopefully against sojo)

3. One of the 4 people voting for me switches vote

4. We switch back to KevinH

 

I say this because the weekend is fast approaching and activity during that time is near null so I implore to all town to vote already, even if against me (at least we'll know where your vote is).

 

I again reiterate my belief in case I die that at least 2 of the 4 people voting for me are scum, maybe even 3. I fairly believe that SJ and Aquinas are townies along with EM although Narsis is consistently trying to portray EM as maybe a smart scum hiding in town.

i'm not trying to portray EM as scum. i just used him as an example...Neimpie(for those that remember), KevinH, betsy...a lot of the older guys easily fit the example as well.

My vote on Nerau isn't doing much good anymore. I haven't made up my mind for sure on who is more guilty between KevinH and Sojourner. I know Falzis is in the mix too but I have a good feeling about him still. I'm moving my vote to Sojourner for now. I was suspicious of him Day 1 anyway and at least Kevin is being a lot more open and posting more. I still have until Monday to switch my mind and I hope we get more interesting theories to develop by then.

 

Unvote

Vote: Sojourner

hmm...i've seen sojourner positng elsewhere and on irc since falzis' post. i was wondering what he thinks of it...

hmm...i've seen sojourner positng elsewhere and on irc since falzis' post. i was wondering what he thinks of it...

 

 

That's been 7 hrs since Falzis' post. I would think that he would have seen this by then. I would think that if he did that he would have commented by now.

He's probably thinking of something to prove his townieness. I'm going to add pressure to this guy.

 

Vote: Sojourner

He's probably thinking of something to prove his townieness. I'm going to add pressure to this guy.

 

Vote: Sojourner

FOS Kaziocore

If you think he is scum, you should say so. But I find putting some pressure on him a lousy reason for your vote. He had already been voted twice since his last post. That should have been more than enough pressure.

Falzis, I am extremely happy with your post. I challenged you to find some new information and bring it up rather than let us drown in a another he said she said debate. I am delighted to say, you exceeded my expectations. I was waiting for either you or KevinH to do something productive outside yourselves and you nailed it. Very good work. This deduction, although the logic is not as sound as you quite believe, is the most concrete evidence I have seen thus far in either day. I feel that the town now has a quality of evidence we can vote on without serious worry of regret. Even if Sojourner turns out to be townie, at least we lynch him with a string of evidence not just their lynch or no lynch opinions. This seriously sets a new bar for evidence and I am glad to move past the "good enough" sort of evidence.

 

I would like to add that the

 

After reading the Wiki on no lynch I am going to use that knowledge and my gut to vote...

vote-Falzis

 

sort of posting from D1 is exactly what got him into hot water. His inability to make a clear rational argument and clearly unthought out rationale should get him lynched. I troubles me we have people still basing their vote on the lynch no lynch debate. Especially, when there vote hinges on the verbage of wiki rather than evidence from peoples actions and responses to it.

 

Seeing as Sojourner has made no development in his ability to create a clear and effective argument against a potential scum;

Seeing that Sojourner is voting based on out of date material and has not seemed to pay attention to any day two information;

Following Falzis' deduction and explanation of the situation;

 

Vote Sojourner

Sorry, I posted out of format.

 

UNVOTE

Vote Sojourner

Wow Falzis, that is some pretty awesome detective work. While your argument is not bullet-proof, it is far more substantial than anything we've seen here so far. Keep in mind that if scum sometimes do not want heat brought on them by dropping the hammer vote, but I still don't see why they wouldn't push for an extra dead target so early in the game. Thus, there is a bit of WIFOM in play here but I do believe that Soj is scum.

 

Vote: Sojourner

 

Also, the fact that he has not come in here and defended himself also adds to my conviction to vote.

 

 

Also, mole you can remove me from V/LA my health has improved a lot.

uhhh yeah ....

 

Unvote

Vote: Sojourner

I think that puts him at lynch -1. Please, let's at least give him the opportunity to respond before we lynch him. While I would really like him to defend himself, I will say that I am not as impressed with the case against him as the rest of you seem to be.

 

First of all, the theory doesn't hold if KevinH is scum. He would never vote, no matter whether you guys were about to lynch a townie or his scum buddy. Secondly, and more importantly, the case against Sojourner on D1 was weak at best. I am always greatly in favor of a lynch on D1, but I found the case to be so weak, that it would have just been a random lynch. That wouldn't help us, so I didn't vote. Assuming that he is town, do you really think that the scum would have come out and hammered him based on virtually nothing? I think that would have been a great way for them to get into trouble. Further, you assume that the mafia would be in favor of a lynch. While they would of course like to lynch a townie, I certainly don't think a no lynch is in the disadvantage of the scum. So again, it seems plausible to me that the scum just decided to lay low together with most townies.

 

It really puzzles me that so many immediately voted for sojourner. I have become mighty suspicious of the last few people to jump aboard the bandwagon. It seems like you guys are not even willing to give him a chance to defend himself.

I think that puts him at lynch -1. Please, let's at least give him the opportunity to respond before we lynch him. While I would really like him to defend himself, I will say that I am not as impressed with the case against him as the rest of you seem to be.

 

First of all, the theory doesn't hold if KevinH is scum. He would never vote, no matter whether you guys were about to lynch a townie or his scum buddy. Secondly, and more importantly, the case against Sojourner on D1 was weak at best. I am always greatly in favor of a lynch on D1, but I found the case to be so weak, that it would have just been a random lynch. That wouldn't help us, so I didn't vote. Assuming that he is town, do you really think that the scum would have come out and hammered him based on virtually nothing? I think that would have been a great way for them to get into trouble. Further, you assume that the mafia would be in favor of a lynch. While they would of course like to lynch a townie, I certainly don't think a no lynch is in the disadvantage of the scum. So again, it seems plausible to me that the scum just decided to lay low together with most townies.

 

It really puzzles me that so many immediately voted for sojourner. I have become mighty suspicious of the last few people to jump aboard the bandwagon. It seems like you guys are not even willing to give him a chance to defend himself.

 

 

the same thing i've been thinking, but this is a far better case then the ones against Falzis and KevinH. it also has...other benefits, the majority of them requiring hindsight(which we have yet to get in this case).

If sojo is killed and turns out scum, don't look at me, look at Martino. Martino was the one who said on D1 that it is VERY VERY IMPT and favors a lynch rather than a no lynch but when it came time to COMMIT to a vote, not even to vote sojo, it could have been a vote on anyone, Martino didn't vote.

 

First of all, the theory doesn't hold if KevinH is scum. He would never vote, no matter whether you guys were about to lynch a townie or his scum buddy.

 

Now that is just fishy. How sure are you that he would NEVER vote? That's a very strong word. Plus, it wouldn't be logical. If the choice came down to voting for a fellow scum or a townie, a scum would almost always (except in very very extreme circumstances of smart plays to fool the town) vote for the townie.

 

Your statement also implies that you think a scum would vote for a fellow scum (by saying that he would never vote no matter...). Scum wouldn't vote for fellow scum generally except in special circumstances such as the evidence too insurmountable for the accused scum and to hide as town. That could be what is happening right now so no free passes to people voting for sojourner.

 

Secondly, and more importantly, the case against Sojourner on D1 was weak at best. I am always greatly in favor of a lynch on D1, but I found the case to be so weak, that it would have just been a random lynch. That wouldn't help us, so I didn't vote. Assuming that he is town, do you really think that the scum would have come out and hammered him based on virtually nothing? I think that would have been a great way for them to get into trouble. Further, you assume that the mafia would be in favor of a lynch. While they would of course like to lynch a townie, I certainly don't think a no lynch is in the disadvantage of the scum. So again, it seems plausible to me that the scum just decided to lay low together with most townies.

 

First off, I want to repeat that you could have still voted. With 13 pages before D1 ended, you could have voted for someone aside from sojourner. See first paragraph above.

 

The point isn't whether the case was weak or not. The point is how close sojo was to being lynched, and didn't get lynched. No matter how weak the case, scum could always jump in and create reasons and then try to pass off the finger of suspicion to the other voters if the lynched person turned out to be townie.

 

Why is that? Because contrary to your rebuttal, mafia will always be generally assumed to favor a lynch. Mafia goal: kill all townies. Mafia tools: day lynch and night kills. This is the most basic and fundamental assumption - that if there is an opportunity to kill a townie, scum will take it.

 

But you are correct. A No Lynch is not in the disadvantage of the mafia. That is because they know there are veteran players here. The other basic and fundamental assumption - to avoid detection as long as possible - will lead them to not just not lynch on D1, but not vote altogether. And this is what happened on D1. A lot of people didn't vote, so a lot of people can't be traced for patterns.

 

So at the end of the day, the tl;dr of this is, after your post, there can only be two possible scenarios:

 

1. Sojourner is scum that's why scum didn't jump on him.

 

2. Sojourner is townie but scum didn't jump on him because they wanted to avoid detection.

 

Which is more convincing? The first one. Why? Because even if there are two fundamental assumptions, the first assumption will always take precedence and priority logically. That is, that the drive of the mafia to wipe out the town is greater than their drive to hide and avoid detection as long as possible.

 

But of course, the above will only hold true if the scum are novices or amateurs. Veteran scum could choose hiding as a higher priority than killing since they would still have NKs anyway and make it harder for the town to kill them off (due to lack of information). Plus, role fishing on D1 that there is/could be a cop in this game could have made them more cautious so they lied low.

 

But Occam's razor would tell us to accept the simplest explanation, the one with the least logical links to make a conclusion. And that would be that Sojo is scum that's why he wasn't lynched on D1. The second one just takes too many explanations.

 

VOTE COUNT

sojourner (6): Falzis, Narsis, Electric Mango, Kaziocore, Aquinas, Sir Jesus

Falzis (4): Martino, Theophilos, KevinH, sojourner

 

Not Voting (2): Nerau, partyin01

 

With 12 alive, 7 votes are needed to lynch.

4 needed to lynch at deadline.

 

- Sir Jesus is no longer V/LA. Glad you're OK!

- partyin01 and Nerau are being replaced. I really, really need to get onto this.

- Narsis will be replaced from June 29th.

- Falzis will be V/LA from July 1st - July 11th

- Deadline is MONDAY.

Edited June 27, 200917 yr by molestargazer

If sojo is killed and turns out scum, don't look at me, look at Martino. Martino was the one who said on D1 that it is VERY VERY IMPT and favors a lynch rather than a no lynch but when it came time to COMMIT to a vote, not even to vote sojo, it could have been a vote on anyone, Martino didn't vote.

Why would we even want to look at you if sojourner turns out to be scum? If sojourner is scum, it will pretty much clear you. You've been the one to lead the charge on him since D1.

 

Now that is just fishy. How sure are you that he would NEVER vote? That's a very strong word. Plus, it wouldn't be logical. If the choice came down to voting for a fellow scum or a townie, a scum would almost always (except in very very extreme circumstances of smart plays to fool the town) vote for the townie.

It's pretty much common knowledge on this board that KevinH won't vote D1. If he did, alarm bells would go off all over the place. So yeah, unless we have a scum confession, I am pretty sure that he would not vote. I don't know why you chose to attack me over the word never though.

 

Your statement also implies that you think a scum would vote for a fellow scum (by saying that he would never vote no matter...). Scum wouldn't vote for fellow scum generally except in special circumstances such as the evidence too insurmountable for the accused scum and to hide as town. That could be what is happening right now so no free passes to people voting for sojourner.

You're not making much sense here either. I said that KevinH wouldn't vote. Even when the town is about to lynch his scum buddy, then he still wouldn't vote to save him on D1. It would simply raise too much suspicion.

 

First off, I want to repeat that you could have still voted. With 13 pages before D1 ended, you could have voted for someone aside from sojourner. See first paragraph above.

Yes, I could have also voted on someone else without a case. Wouldn't have been any more help to the town though. A random vote is a random vote, no matter on who I cast it.

The point isn't whether the case was weak or not. The point is how close sojo was to being lynched, and didn't get lynched. No matter how weak the case, scum could always jump in and create reasons and then try to pass off the finger of suspicion to the other voters if the lynched person turned out to be townie.

I disagree. Yes, they could try to make up a reason and they could try to shift the suspicions to the other voters. But just because they could, doesn't mean that they will. I just don't think that they would risk exposure by bandwagoning on a very weak case, just to get a townie lynched on D1. Perhaps if there were two players with 3 votes each and one of them was scum. Then I could see the scum try to save their buddy. But with the alternative being a no lynch, which hurts the town, I don't think they would risk exposure.

Why is that? Because contrary to your rebuttal, mafia will always be generally assumed to favor a lynch. Mafia goal: kill all townies. Mafia tools: day lynch and night kills. This is the most basic and fundamental assumption - that if there is an opportunity to kill a townie, scum will take it.

That is way too simplistic. You're basically assuming that the mafia won't use any kind of a strategy but will just blindly go in for the kill whenever they can. Also, I've always seen the day lynch as a town tool to get rid of the mafia.

But you are correct. A No Lynch is not in the disadvantage of the mafia. That is because they know there are veteran players here. The other basic and fundamental assumption - to avoid detection as long as possible - will lead them to not just not lynch on D1, but not vote altogether. And this is what happened on D1. A lot of people didn't vote, so a lot of people can't be traced for patterns.

 

So at the end of the day, the tl;dr of this is, after your post, there can only be two possible scenarios:

 

1. Sojourner is scum that's why scum didn't jump on him.

 

2. Sojourner is townie but scum didn't jump on him because they wanted to avoid detection.

 

Which is more convincing? The first one. Why? Because even if there are two fundamental assumptions, the first assumption will always take precedence and priority logically. That is, that the drive of the mafia to wipe out the town is greater than their drive to hide and avoid detection as long as possible.

This isn't some movie where the bad guys are idiots. The mafia are just as intelligent as the rest of us. They aren't some bloodthirsty monsters who can't control their temper and have to go in for the kill whenever they have an opportunity. So I really don't think their drive to kill is greater than their drive to survive. In fact, a townie-scum tradeoff would be a terrible trade off from a mafia pov, so I would expect survival to be a higher priority than killing.

But of course, the above will only hold true if the scum are novices or amateurs. Veteran scum could choose hiding as a higher priority than killing since they would still have NKs anyway and make it harder for the town to kill them off (due to lack of information). Plus, role fishing on D1 that there is/could be a cop in this game could have made them more cautious so they lied low.

I don't even think it holds true for most novices. Even they should realize that they won't win this game if they don't survive.

But Occam's razor would tell us to accept the simplest explanation, the one with the least logical links to make a conclusion. And that would be that Sojo is scum that's why he wasn't lynched on D1. The second one just takes too many explanations.

I think both options are based on a single assumption:

1) Scum wants to kill everything in their sight

2) Scum wants to survive

 

I would say that the 2nd one is more realistic.

Why are we assuming that there are 2 scums here?

 

The patient's eyes, previously dull and submissive, became alert. He looked up quickly, and reached through the small window in his cell door and quickly plucked a key from the Nurse's back pocket. He withdrew his arm quickly before she turned around to check the cell had locked itself. A quick tug at the door, and she was satisfied enough, hurrying off to deal with the other patients.

 

It looks like from here that there's only 1 scum here.

It's been a day now and he has still not replied. Isn't that suspicious?

FOS Kaziocore

If you think he is scum, you should say so. But I find putting some pressure on him a lousy reason for your vote. He had already been voted twice since his last post. That should have been more than enough pressure.

 

Okay... I think he's a scum.

Why are we assuming that there are 2 scums here?

 

...

 

It looks like from here that there's only 1 scum here.

Hello everyone. I have returned.

 

My guess is 3 scum based on a typical setup.

agree with Kevin. 3 scum and maybe an sk.

I think that puts him at lynch -1. Please, let's at least give him the opportunity to respond before we lynch him. While I would really like him to defend himself, I will say that I am not as impressed with the case against him as the rest of you seem to be.

 

First of all, the theory doesn't hold if KevinH is scum. He would never vote, no matter whether you guys were about to lynch a townie or his scum buddy. Secondly, and more importantly, the case against Sojourner on D1 was weak at best. I am always greatly in favor of a lynch on D1, but I found the case to be so weak, that it would have just been a random lynch. That wouldn't help us, so I didn't vote. Assuming that he is town, do you really think that the scum would have come out and hammered him based on virtually nothing? I think that would have been a great way for them to get into trouble. Further, you assume that the mafia would be in favor of a lynch. While they would of course like to lynch a townie, I certainly don't think a no lynch is in the disadvantage of the scum. So again, it seems plausible to me that the scum just decided to lay low together with most townies.

 

It really puzzles me that so many immediately voted for sojourner. I have become mighty suspicious of the last few people to jump aboard the bandwagon. It seems like you guys are not even willing to give him a chance to defend himself.

 

I am more than willing to give him a chance to defend himself. My record will show that I vote for a person based on the evidence at hand but, I will remove that vote if they prove to me they no longer deserve it. This is the case with KevinH on D1 and then again KevinH on D2. I think that is mostly because I find a few play style differences with him and I don't seem to click. Point is, I will be more than certain to remove my vote if Sojourner gives me reason to, but I'm not counting on it. Thus, far Sojourner has not been able to conjure a single argument that I can still recall. I can not think of a time when he has been able to build a credible point to hold himself or his convictions upon. The evidence as presented is the best we have so far. It is not impervious, I admit, but, at least it is a clear thought path. I think it should be my motivation to encourage this type of evidence rather than the shallow accusatory sort we have seen thus far. Further, I have voted for Sojourner not because of the bandwagon but because he has not changed one bit of his shakey conviction cases since the beginning. This has been the case where he has made a serious decision of launched an opinion without demonstrating clear thought. He has also not proven significant activity. The last person I want around is someone who will barely show up but, when he does, launch a vote at someone without clear and thoughtful explanation. I feel that that participation fits multiple scum tells, low activity, pushing for a vote, voting without clear evidence. These traits don't make for a person I want around.

Okay... I think he's a scum.

Could you at least explain why? I put a FOS on you for giving a false reason for your vote. It seemed like a great way for you to get on that bandwagon and then, if he turns out to be a townie, claim that you never intended to lynch him and that you only wanted to put some pressure on him. Like I said before, there was already enough pressure on him after the other votes.

Why would we even want to look at you if sojourner turns out to be scum? If sojourner is scum, it will pretty much clear you. You've been the one to lead the charge on him since D1.

 

Yes if sojo turned out to be scum, that would pretty much clear me. But the point of the rhetoric was that if sojo turned out to be scum, for the town to look at you with suspicion because you were the one defending him.