894 replies to this topic

[Sir Jesus]

Sir Jesus hasn't really done anything "scummy" but I just get a weird feeling about him. He put on one of the final votes to pretty much guarantee that soj. would be the one lynched. Either that or he just threw his vote in with the rest of the crowd to play along. Either way he's playing too close to the vest. Also on day 1 and day 2 he's been unusually quiet. I know he had medical issues so this may give him a pass but I still expect more from him after he said he was feeling better. Even when he does post he doesn't really say anything too controversial.

I assume this is what you are referring too.

Personally, I believe this is very weak reasoning. The only thing I've done "wrong" was vote for the person I thought was the scummiest, and I happened to be a little late in getting to my computer... Lets consider my options in this situation.

-Vote Sojourner ... The person I believed was by far the scummiest, this will result in a sure lynch of sojourner.
-Vote No-lynch ... Not even really an option for me, this will result in a lynch of sojourner.
-Vote Falzis ... Not the scummiest choice, Day ends with a no-lynch result and scum pick one more of us off.

Essentially my choices were 1) Sojourner is lynched 2) No-lynch reult

Which would anyone here choose?


EM, you know my playing style very well. Whenever I see concrete evidence I will push and push for someone's death, and if there is not I generally play by intuition. If I see any glaring scumtells I will be the first to point it out, and I will equally defend someone I believe to be townie. So far this game I haven't seen much "real" evidence, which I partially blame on the Day 1 no-lynch.

VOTE COUNT
Falzis (2): KevinH, Theophilos
Kaziocore (2): Martino, CanucksDynasty
Sir Jesus (1): Electric Mango

Not Voting (5): Nerau, Sir Jesus, Falzis, Kaziocore, Aquinas

- Falzis will be V/LA until July 11th.
- Nerau still needs replacing, I have no-one lined up, they're all busy. Anyone knows someone / anyone dead wants to do it, shoot me off a PM.

Edited by molestargazer, 08 July 2009 - 08:24 PM.
Vote count.

[KevinH]

I don't see why scum would want to kill someone inactive though. It would favor the scum to go after the active players IMO. Inactive players wouldn't be much of a threat to the scum.

We only had 2 players that didn't vote yesterday. Neither of those 2 got night-killed so in a sense, the scum did go after an "active" player. Narsis would have replaced by somebody agreeing to play so that would have been another "active" player coming in.

The scum know if the active players are on the right track and if they are not, then the scum would be well-served to keep them alive.

I almost just talked myself out of my vote on Falzis. Almost, but not quite.

[Electric Mango]

I assume this is what you are referring too.

Personally, I believe this is very weak reasoning. The only thing I've done "wrong" was vote for the person I thought was the scummiest, and I happened to be a little late in getting to my computer... Lets consider my options in this situation.

-Vote Sojourner ... The person I believed was by far the scummiest, this will result in a sure lynch of sojourner.
-Vote No-lynch ... Not even really an option for me, this will result in a lynch of sojourner.
-Vote Falzis ... Not the scummiest choice, Day ends with a no-lynch result and scum pick one more of us off.

Essentially my choices were 1) Sojourner is lynched 2) No-lynch reult

Which would anyone here choose?


EM, you know my playing style very well. Whenever I see concrete evidence I will push and push for someone's death, and if there is not I generally play by intuition. If I see any glaring scumtells I will be the first to point it out, and I will equally defend someone I believe to be townie. So far this game I haven't seen much "real" evidence, which I partially blame on the Day 1 no-lynch.

This entire reasoning is only valid if we believe you a townie.

If you are scum then your options look like this

1) Lynch a townie and pick up a night kill
2) Night kill only

Obviously it would be in the scums best interest to kill two, not one.

Also it's not fair to not vote on day 1 and then blame the lack of "real" evidence on the day 1 no lynch is it not?

As far as your playing style goes, I think I do know your playing style well and hence my vote on you. You say that you will push hard for someone's death and defend someone you think is innocent but you have been very quiet this game. You say it's because of a lack of evidence but how are we to gain evidence unless we get more aggressive. You have been very conservative and seem to be just going along with the crowd. I could say this about a few others as well but I just expect more from you. CD has only been playing for a few days but has already begun to lead discussions and has been asking very good questions.

[Electric Mango]

We only had 2 players that didn't vote yesterday. Neither of those 2 got night-killed so in a sense, the scum did go after an "active" player. Narsis would have replaced by somebody agreeing to play so that would have been another "active" player coming in.

I still don't see Narsis as an active player though. There's no guarantee that the person replacing him would be any more active. Also we are still looking for a replacement for Nerau, and that's been for some time now.

Also you said,

The scum know if the active players are on the right track and if they are not, then the scum would be well-served to keep them alive.

This could all be WIFOM and is very similar to the situation in which you said this.

Ah, the ol' "if a vet is alive, he must be scum" argument.

I don't put much faith in that because it's prone to WIFOM. Scum can leave the vets alive and then they'll be lynched because they are alive.

So when is it ok to believe in WIFOM and when is it not? Your reasoning seems to contradict itself, does it not?

[CanucksDynasty]

I assume this is what you are referring too.

Personally, I believe this is very weak reasoning. The only thing I've done "wrong" was vote for the person I thought was the scummiest, and I happened to be a little late in getting to my computer... Lets consider my options in this situation.

-Vote Sojourner ... The person I believed was by far the scummiest, this will result in a sure lynch of sojourner.
-Vote No-lynch ... Not even really an option for me, this will result in a lynch of sojourner.
-Vote Falzis ... Not the scummiest choice, Day ends with a no-lynch result and scum pick one more of us off.
Essentially my choices were 1) Sojourner is lynched 2) No-lynch reult

Which would anyone here choose?


EM, you know my playing style very well. Whenever I see concrete evidence I will push and push for someone's death, and if there is not I generally play by intuition. If I see any glaring scumtells I will be the first to point it out, and I will equally defend someone I believe to be townie. So far this game I haven't seen much "real" evidence, which I partially blame on the Day 1 no-lynch.

That is incorrect. Look at the rules again. A tie would have resulted in the first person getting the most votes to be lynched. Aquinas vote was the 5th. Yours was the 6th. Essentially....it would take both Nerau and my votes plus someone else to unvote soj in order for Falzis to be lynched. With the deadline so close...that's unlikely.

[Kaziocore]

Since Falzis won't be back anytime soon...I will add some pressure on the ones I suspect.

Vote: Kaziocore

Aside from pressuring me and my reasoning for voting sojourner is bad what else is the reason why you voted for me?

[Kaziocore]

Is it because I don't contribute that much?

[CanucksDynasty]

Aside from pressuring me and my reasoning for voting sojourner is bad what else is the reason why you voted for me?

Mainly cuz when you voted...it just seems like you joined the soj lynch bandwagon. Your reasoning was weak. It was only provided when Martino had to ask for it (twice). You post very little as to not draw attention to yourself. You are not actively scum hunting (although this is not indicative of townie behaviour...but most of the time it is). I typically give newbies a pass on D1. However, we are in D3...no more free passes for anybody.

[Electric Mango]

Kaziocore 9
CD 26
EM 15
SJ 3
Theo 2
Aquinas 4
KevinH 7
Martino 3
Nerau 0
Falzis 0


You all know that I love activity. This is everyone's post count so far Day 3. As Kevin said before it does not take into effect quality of posts, merely the number of times you have posted.

As you can see we have some who are contributing much and some not so much at all. Day 3 is very important and if we don't get a good lynch in today our chances of winning will become very small. I encourage everyone to read over today's posts and share your thoughts and ideas.

[KevinH]

So when is it ok to believe in WIFOM and when is it not? Your reasoning seems to contradict itself, does it not?

Reminds of the liar's paradox ("Everything I say is a lie. I am lying" Am I a liar or not?)

To answer your question, I always believe in WIFOM; just some times more than others.

[Kaziocore]

Mainly cuz when you voted...it just seems like you joined the soj lynch bandwagon. Your reasoning was weak. It was only provided when Martino had to ask for it (twice). You post very little as to not draw attention to yourself. You are not actively scum hunting (although this is not indicative of townie behaviour...but most of the time it is). I typically give newbies a pass on D1. However, we are in D3...no more free passes for anybody.

I voted for him because at that time sojourner looks the scummiest. If I did not vote for him and it turns out he's a scum people will suspect me and I don't want to waste my vote again.

[KevinH]

I still don't see Narsis as an active player though. There's no guarantee that the person replacing him would be any more active.

At a minimum, a vote got placed that might have hit scum. That's better than not voting.

Since Narsis was leaving, and it didn't really matter to the scum whom they killed, Narsis was as good a choice as any.

Any other townie that was killed could have come back to replace Narsis, but the effect is the same.

[CanucksDynasty]

At a minimum, a vote got placed that might have hit scum. That's better than not voting.

Since Narsis was leaving, and it didn't really matter to the scum whom they killed, Narsis was as good a choice as any.

Any other townie that was killed could have come back to replace Narsis, but the effect is the same.

All we knew was that Narsis was gonna be replaced. There was no mention prior to the night scene that a killed off townie would be acceptable replacement. It was only during the night scene that mole said "anyone would do." So that means mafia had targetted Narsis intentionally. I don't think mafia would kill off Narsis just cuz he would be leaving/inactive/replaced. To me...that would help the town. Speaking as a replacement player...I'm having some difficulty following the game on D3...as opposed to someone that already started the game on D1.

Yes Narsis was a good choice as any. But I have to wonder...why not some of the more experienced players?

[Theophilos]

Electric Mango. I disagree with his vote on Sojourner, but he was the second to vote. Would he really vote immediately after his scum buddy? I doubt it, what if the rest of the townies would see right through their case? That would certainly cause them some problems. So that leads me to believe that they are not both scum. Also, he and Falzis have been buddying up since D1 and I doubt scum would play it this obvious. Therefore, if Falzis turns out to be scum, I doubt EM is his partner. On the other hand, if Falzis turns out to be town, EM would probably be a good next target. But for now I believe Falzis has the higher chance of the two to be scum.

The thing is that EM might well be scum as well. Especially if U take in to the account the style of playing Falzis took. He posts a lot he talks a lot but, as for as I'm concerned, doesn't contribute to finding scum. He goes to "extreme" lengths to show how pro town he is ... do I still maintain that that is exactly why he's scum --> the easier to mislead or lead a way townies. Now if that is true that he is scum. Than I can well see EM as scum as well ... as he is adding to the supposed credibility that Falzis is or appears to be townie, by "standing up" for him. Some re-reading of EM's posts on Falzis from d1 & d3 would be in order I think.

The scum know if the active players are on the right track and if they are not, then the scum would be well-served to keep them alive.

Even more so if that player is one of their own.

Yes Narsis was a good choice as any. But I have to wonder...why not some of the more experienced players?

I think he's approach was the most calm and analytical. And although he didn't vote against Falzis in the end he'd probably prove the biggest threat to him had he survived the night; as he would most likely turn on Falzis.

[KevinH]

But I have to wonder...why not some of the more experienced players?

It would take an experienced player to know the experienced players to kill.
So maybe it was an inexperienced player that did the killing.
Or maybe it was an experienced player trying to look like an inexperienced player...

[CanucksDynasty]

It would take an experienced player to know the experienced players to kill.
So maybe it was an inexperienced player that did the killing.
Or maybe it was an experienced player trying to look like an inexperienced player...

No...somehow I don't think so.

Whom I think are vets (not including myself):
Martino, EM, and KevinH.

From what I read...I'm pretty sure Martino is townie. As for EM and you (KevinH)...I'm not quite sure. Right now ... I'm thinking one of you might indeed be scum...with you (KevinH) being the front runner.

However...I still have stronger suspicions on the 3 suspects I named earlier.


For my own purposes (to collect my thoughts)...

Townies (that I think)
CD - me
Martino - only one that flat out said Falzis reasoning was weak.

Undecided
Kaziocore
EM
SJ
Theo
Aquinas
KevinH
Nerau
Falzis

[CanucksDynasty]

@Theo - looking back at D2...an arguement could be made that Falzis/EM are connected. On a lesser scale...I would have you (Theo) and KevinH as being connected as well (mainly for your voting patterns).

[Electric Mango]

I know that Falzis and I both voted for the same people on Day 1 and Day 2. I have also gone on record saying that I believed Falzis to be a townie, in fact I said that out of anyone, he was the person I was most sure was a townie. I've played enough games to know that this may subject me to scrutiny as it has done in previous games where I have taken a similar stance. Knowing this going in I still decided to act the way I did because as a townie I believe it is in the towns best interest if I show all my cards. I never try to hold anything back and pride myself on laying it all on the line no matter the consequences. I try to play as transparent as possible and hope the rest of you see me for what I truly am, a townie trying his best to help the town win. I have always said that the more information we have, the better position we will be in to win the game. I could play a lot closer to the vest and avoid doing anything that would draw suspicious eyes. I've played enough games to know how to do this, believe me.

I liked Falzis' playing style because he reminds me of how I play the game. He posts often, challenges people, and does not shy away from the spotlight. This is how I think townies should play the game and is why I put him up so high on my townie list.

[KevinH]

This is how I think townies should play the game and is why I put him up so high on my townie list.

Unfortunately, that's also how scum should play the game. He's got my vote.

[Electric Mango]

It will be interesting to see what Falzis has to say about all of this when he comes back tomorrow. As for right now, CD is the only person that I feel has a really good chance at being a townie.

I wish other people would start voting soon. It would give us a clearer picture of who is aligned with who.