Suicide Squad Mafia, Game Over: Number the Dead

[Dark Holy Elf]

Hmm. Well, in theory, you're right - when you're resigned to your fate, as town, you should do everything you can to help. In practice, it doesn't always work that way. You're angry at being eliminated from the game, and sometimes you let your judgement be clouded and lash out. We've seen it before. Hopefully, the fact that you can still help town tempers your anger and stays your hand here.

I just see no reason that temperance would have taken hold in Meeple's case. He's not just being killed, he's losing the game, and gains nothing from the usual townie-facing-death calm.

[Laggy]

Yeah, actually, the fact that he claimed Vanilla Townie Miller (as opposed to his actual third-party miller role, which okay, would be writing his own death warrant but shows that he still had a sliver of hope left) cements that further. Like I said previously, I was also alluding to past Mafia games where third-party roles, more often than not, lean protown than other way around, but that's a dangerous assumption and this further makes me rescind considering his last thoughts seriously.

[QuietRain]

I've managed to muddy the waters for myself, too (lovely), since I've put the scum in a damned good position to attack me by simple application of Lynch All Lurkers, and I can't argue that it isn't a valid argument. In fact, looking over the posts I missed yesterday, QR's comment that "I think we're past LAL" looks very off to me. Scum lurk when they can get away with it. Just look at my play in the anonymous game. Now, I know you're not scum defending a scumbuddy here, which makes me unsure of exactly why scum would argue that way, but it still feels off, and I'd still love to hear the thinking behind it.

As requested, in response to the above and...I think it was Bardiche's comments earlier related to this (how he thought I was pushing for his lynch because I mentioned the thought that he might be a third party), I think it's fair enough to explain what my thought process is in this regard.  The below are in order of people I will go after from first to last:

1 - Someone I am convinced is scum
2 - Someone I am convinced is a third party
3 - Someone I really think might be scum
4 - Someone I really think might be a third party
5 - Lurkers
6 - Someone acting as a distraction to town to the point where nothing can get done they are acting so strangely
7 - Only when given no other alternatives, whoever gives us a lynch so we don't lose one (this is for games where we have days last only a certain amount of time, not applicable in games such as this)

For example, if I have seen Person A slip up and am convinced they are scum and yet I had some investigative role and knew Person B was a TP, I would work to lynch Person A before lynching Person B (although they would both need to go, obviously).  And either of them would need to go before people I only suspected or those who lurk.  Given Meeple's actions, I flung him a lot higher on the list than lurkers.  Thus, my vote and my saying that taking out lurkers should be a secondary concern.  Could someone give me a counter argument where taking out someone who is lurking is a better idea than taking out someone you think might be scum?  I would like to hear it because I am not having an easy time making that mental jump on my own.  

Hmm, maybe it was just my phrasing?  My use of 'past LAL' was in the Day, not in the game.  At that point in the Day there seemed good indications that Meeple was either scum or TP and thus it didn't make sense for me to go after lurkers at that point in the Day.

Onto Day 3 stuff, I am a little confused by the single kill compared to last night's two.  But speculating on the hows and whys is such WIFOM territory.  I think Ashdla's death likely to be a scum kill simply because it gives us very little in the way of actual information.

EDIT: Ninja'd by many posts, but nothing that I need to add to before going to bed.  I will post more at work tomorrow (how sad is it that I get more of a chance to post for work than home...)

[Shale]

Okay, working backwards, still assimilating the flow of the day, but one thing jumped out at me right quick, namely Snow. That last post he had yesterday rubs me all kinds of wrong. Why? Weeeeeellllll....

Now, for Meeple, I... still don't see it the way Corwin or others do. It seems to, as Laggy said, to be an attack more against his posting style and behavior than his actual content. I've seen him get lots of flak for it more than once in Mafia and get picked apart for it, which is why it bothers me. It's pretty much metagaming at this point, but analysing playstyle and patterns isn't too bad a lead in the DL Mafia environment, or at least so I find.

In short, "The argument here isn't post content, it's style and metagaming."

Which leads me to the explanation on why Corwin bothers me: yes, it's because you act like your usual self the reason you nag at me. I'm being as blunt as you characteristically are. In fairness, I OMGUSed against you, and I'll be ready to admit it. It's not even because you attacked -me- (I deserve the flak), but because your typical aggro style sets me off due to pregress DL Mafia history showing that the aggro serves scum far better than it serves town. Aggressiveness in Mafia is a fine strategy! Just not when used with reckless abandon in this kind of environment, since it breaks town down more easily than scum, and the engagement into Aristotelic (or was it Platonic? Regardless, greek logic) logic of "he broke down, he MUST BE SCUM" ends up nailing townies instead. And the insistence also serves as a smokescreening device, which ends up configuring a trap to fall into. I'm not one to talk, of course, but it's food for thought as a general idea. Regardless, you're hardly the worst offender for it this game, and your current history has far less precedents for a vote (and, regardless of what I think of your style, you have been productive and insightful, for better or worse), so I think this needs to be done. I was unfair and I lashed out at the closest target when I voted, so:

"The argument here isn't post content, it's style and metagaming."

Now, the one person that still consistently bothers me for the general sum is the rodent. I can't shake off the feeling that he is hiding something under his sleeve with the no-voting issue, and I can't help but feel he's getting too comfortable with the sudden freedom he seems to get with it. Call it metagaming, but his situation is pretty oddball in and out of itself, and the idea of a role only having this sudden, crippling drawback and no sort of compensation, either on alignment or underlying power, doesn't seem right. Coupled with his usual aggroness -and- the knowledge on how poorly it works for town in the DL Mafia environment, this sets me off particularly badly.

"The argument here isn't post content, it's style and metagaming."

I've been lurking like mad, but that is high-word-count-low-content at its finest. You took a full page of text to say the same thing three times, never actually bringing scuminess into your assessments, and then cast a vote against someone who doesn't have post content to analyze. His earlier tangent about Puppetmaster Corwin manipulating me and Meeple into conflict is also kinda odd, and the roleclaim and resignation to doom with four votes on him ...eeeeh, could just be depressed townie, but it's a null read at best, leaning scummy at worst. Aside from the circumstances, the only noteworthy text in the claim seems to be...

Whether you decide to believe me or not is not even my concern other than the fact you'll be lynching town knowingly, which is just about the stupidest someone can be.

Because if we believe you're a roleblocker we therefore must believe you're town?

QR: Hm. Well, at what point does lurking become scummy in your eyes? The point of LAL isn't "lurkers are dumb, throw rocks at them," it's "lurking is something scum tends to do."

[Corwin]

Jesus fucking Christ! How the hell did this come to pass? "Oh, that ploy never works. Those who try it are always quickly lynched and end up town!"

Yeah, better update that scoreboard, there, cause JR just pulled a fast one and ESCAPED HIS RIGHTFUL LYNCHING.

Okay. Okay. I can't get tunnel vision, I can't get tunnel vision, I have to at least look at other people in case they are FAR SCUMMIER than the SCUMMY JR.

First, though, thoughts on Meeple's flip. Well, then. I recall musing that one of the Meeple/Shale pair flipping as scum would be informative. With Meeple's flip, I can at least now dismiss such a link as accidental. And what irony, too. While I was blasting the more passive and feel-good players for playing like survivors and not as town, I had no idea we had an actual survivor in our midst.

Okay. Moving on.

DHE: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg25083#msg25083

People as active and aggressive as you deserve a good look. They can be very helpful as town, but as scum... well, I don't need to finish that thought."

Actually, I would request you to finish that thought. "If scum is talkative, this is bad for town because..." of what, exactly? Since town now has that much more to analyze and poke holes in, as scum inevitably lies due to having more knowledge than they have any right to?

I'm not sure if we have a difference of playstyle opinion, here, or a sinister attempt at making participation of the more active part 'suspect', thus plotting the course for easier lurking and taking things easy.

Regardless, don't get too defensive about it. You have no requirement to defend yourself from "I'm going to pay attention to you!" If anything, you should welcome it, it means you are participating in the game, and, if you are town, you should have no problem defending yourself from any ACTUAL concerns if looks turn them up.

Yes BUT we all know that saying "I'm paying attention to you" is pretty much a form of FoS and if people say that about you and get lynched and suddenly flip as townies people start to believe there's something actually there! And that's total bullshit unless those people looking at you with such an analyzing eye actually had anything to say about you.

Like with promising content after some event in the game and not delivering afterwards, this is the lazy, shortcut way to claiming credit for participating.

Am I taking this a bit too far and too personally? Maybe. But geez, what else do I do when people invoke gut and eyeing? Just sit there and take it and let it fester until someone starts quoting it the next day as if it were gospel cause I haven't challenged any of it at the time? It's a damned if you do and if you don't case.

Bardiche: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg25088#msg25088

I grouped the two of them together because QR said, explicitly, that we should narrow down the list of suspects and... IDK, but to me, Corwin really seems to be sniping people and being generally rather aggressive in play. Being aggressive is a good way of shifting points on people that make some ambiguous statements, thus clearing the stage for aggression on a few choice targets and allowing QR to close the train by getting the town to eventually zone in on two. Obviously you can disagree with this, but that's why I put the link between the two of them.

Two problems with this paragraph. First of all, the two are not the same. Actively narrowing down the field and the potential possibility of it somehow happening while playing aggressively, that is. In fact, if you had an actual example rather than a vague hypothetical, you would have brought it up, I'm certain.

The second one rises from the criticism of an aggressive play. By which I don't mean playstyle which is mean and nasty to people and gliding into personal lines; I'm talking about not letting go of so-called 'minor' slips and investigating every damn lead we get our hands on. I believe in that one, and saying it is easily used for misdirection and thus suggesting this playstyle's use should be discouraged is something I disagree with, yes.


JR. My main suspect. Need it restating that I don't believe him?

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg25127#msg25127

In this post, JR opens with saying he wants to move past playstyle issues, only to revisit them in paragraph 3 as his defense.

You also contradict your own post (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg25017#msg25017) where you tried to build a weird case on me, by admitting in the newer post that it was OMGUS all along.

There's also your unhealthy obsession with me.

Now, for Meeple, I... still don't see it the way Corwin or others do.

Um. You did realize, at the time, that I was not voting Meeple nor have I been advocating a vote on Meeple that day? In fact, why I was arguing with Meeple and demanding him to explain certain things, I haven't been actually pushing for his lynch. Other people were, however, and yet you call the lynch mob 'Corwin and friends'. I find it troubling, especially given the previous point of you admitting to OMGUSing me.

And then you happened to voice suspicions on Andrew and Rat... and voted Shale.

Hum. Huuuum. And your reasoning for this?

But this is just food for thought. I guess that I'll just go with what seems more immediately worrying now. Since unwanted roles have managed to get under the radar for excess lurking time and again, and I think his absence has reached the point of insufferable by now...

Glance at the boldened text. Shale has an 'unwanted role', which you claim is worrying to you enough to warrant a vote. You claimed partial roleblocker. How could you be possibly know anything about Shale's role to worry about him more than the people you yourself suggest as 'food for thought' for looking scummy to you, or Meeple, who was acting weird (yes, he was!) and the town's main target at the time?

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg25251#msg25251

Your first day 3 post lands a second vote on Shale within 8 minutes of Laggy's! It's Shale, again! Even though you claim to have roleblocked Rat (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg25259#msg25259), whom you said you considered having a scummy role (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg25269#msg25269), and the night phase only listed one kill instead of two.

Let us consider this in silent contemplation.

You have every reason to believe, if you have the power you've claimed and have done what you said you had, that you had a direct effect on the night phase, and yet you don't even mention it and go...

Whatever brought down two night kills in a row last night seems to not have attacked this time, at least, but I have no idea what does this say as of now (since OK or delta may have been the extraneous killer? I dunno).

Okay, let's go look at the flips!

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg24654#msg24654

Deltaflyer2k8--The Thinker, AKA Cliff Carmichael (Town Messenger)--was killed overnight!

OblivionKnight--Deadshot, AKA Floyd Lawton (Self-aligned Jester)--was killed overnight!

JESTER. MESSENGER. I don't see serial killer or vigilante or anything remotely plausible here. How could you possibly miss this?

By only paying passing attention to the game. By coasting. Which is what scum do.

Screw this, how can you find someone scummier?

##Vote: JR

I'm at work, etc, next post will cover Shale (who seems to have reemerged, I'll need to read thoroughly to see if I buy the absense excuse), Rat (there seems to be something connecting him to JR, or more like JR trying to connect himself to him, it's weird) and QR because she's pretty much been central in making two lynches that mislynched in a row take place.

[Taishyr]

...

I am currently very irritated, but I feel one thing needs to be noted, regardless of my opinions of the rest, positive or not;

QR was central in making two lynches mislynch? MOD MISTAKE on the second, and you were one of the first to lead the charge on Tom! This is I what that's arrrrrgh set fire to the world. I don't really care if you look at her or not - she's done nothing to make me wary thus far, but maybe you'll actually find something of note - but speaking of "careless reading" and "coasting", that's one huge slip, there.

I am working on a post, before someone goes "lol Tai where's your FUCKING POST FROM YESTERDAY LOL LYNCH". 

[Excal]

I would also disagree on calling QR out.  While she was instrumental in culling targets, we've by no means been limited to the folks she has suggested, nor has she just unilaterally decided who it is we should focus on.  In both cases, she came in near the end of the day, said we should start looking at a lynch, and then picked out the two people with the most votes and best cases.  This is highlighting what we've done, not taking charge and deciding for us.

[Taishyr]

To Corwin:

Firstly: Congrats, Corwin, you have pulled together a full case on Snow that bears everyone's consideration. I've given it my own, below.

You have also managed to bitch that we didn't lynch him (oh so obvious!) last game day (because it was so clear that he is {according to you} scum that clearly no one else could have had a case)! And you rant, despite putting forth the case after that day is over, and pretty much saying beforehand "I feel this is suspicious and I doubt this is feasible!"

Right. Um. Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Right or not that pisses me off to no end, as it's pretty much the same blatant level of dismissal of everyone else's abilities and analysis that would have lead people to the conclusion they reached (Meeple).


Secondly: Your comment toward DHE seems to be there solely to incite suspicion toward him. Active and leading scum can successfully drag town into the abyss, merrily leading them by the nose. Lurking and inactive scum slip under radars and are of no help. This seems blatantly obvious - but I may be overestimating the effect such a mindset has on someone, be you on town's side or not. Scum that leave everything to town give full control of town's only weapon to them; active scum can make definite moves to wrest that control away, and often-times do so.


Thirdly: what do you do when someone invokes gut and eyeing? Well I guess you get to do what most others do with agressive bumrushing and rudeness; ignore it and continue on, present your point frankly and politely (or not, knowing how this works) and move on! Yay! Resolution!


Re: Bardiche, I've no issues with your comment as it stands, though no doubt you can guess with my tone that I have issues with how it's been implemented.


And then, the Snow analysis. Okay, let's look at this for a moment, and I'll see how I think it hashes out.

Okay, first quote:

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg25127#msg25127
In this post, JR opens with saying he wants to move past playstyle issues, only to revisit them in paragraph 3 as his defense.
You also contradict your own post (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg25017#msg25017) where you tried to build a weird case on me, by admitting in the newer post that it was OMGUS all along.

Okay um a few notes here already.

1) Post referenced, he said he would address playstyle issues "at a later moment". The same post, while something is being typed, likely constitues a "later moment" to not only the writer, but also most readers.

2) He admitted to a reactionary vote. Congrats. This is a valid point.

3) You also seem to have skimmed over the reasoning why he launched that vote; his reasoning for this was stated in both, though in the second example you cite, far less clearly, that he found the aggressive attacks on people, from previous games he has witnessed, to be effective smokescreens for not only activity but also as a way to get camoflague as a good townie.

Granted, that is all weighed on an OMGUS vote, and while I feel his point is valid the situation makes it null at best.

There's also your unhealthy obsession with me.

Now, for Meeple, I... still don't see it the way Corwin or others do.

Um. You did realize, at the time, that I was not voting Meeple nor have I been advocating a vote on Meeple that day? In fact, why I was arguing with Meeple and demanding him to explain certain things, I haven't been actually pushing for his lynch. Other people were, however, and yet you call the lynch mob 'Corwin and friends'. I find it troubling, especially given the previous point of you admitting to OMGUSing me.

Counter: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg25000#msg25000

Indeed, you were not voting for him! You were voting for Snow, as you are today. The OMGUS relevance is also worth note. However, the post I reference above is a rather scathing note on what Meeple had been doing, though apparently you had another reason for throwing that analysis of Meeple out there, that of people saying they'd do things and not do so. While vaguely fair, aren't you supposed to be hunting scum, and not just pointing out things that annoy you? Oh, but...

The issue I brought up was that some people find it easy to make promises of detailed analysis after a given reveal, and then don't deliver. This might allow them to coast and both gain cred as they are there on the scene and act all businesslike with their intent to investigate thoroughly, while not actually forcing them to own up to their own words and invest time and effort in said analysis. And that is something you are likely to see a scum do. Scum lurk, but they must also have the pretense of a presence. This is one of the ways to gain it.

From the post I linked above. So by this, Meeple had a pretense to be hiding under! (One that everyone else had kinda been saying as "Shorten the damn posts Meeple", but hey, another small note). Oh, but wait...

It's true that our job as town is to avoid getting other townies occupied with false positives on us and not letting scum exploit them... but our number one goal is still to HUNT SCUM. Seriously, does it need repeating? Do people still forget it as the play the game like a survivor and not like a townie? I suppose that if nothing else, this pushes Meeple a bit towards 'town that makes me headdesk' rather than 'scum flailing'. I suppose I'll have to watch and see.

So it's pretty much "hey, I consider this behavior scummy, but he just makes me headdesk". Right. Your main point is noted, but I can't say that I don't see this post as an advance on Meeple. Thusly, I can see him grouping you into that set, especially since you were the one his supposed anger, truthful or not, was pointed towards.

And then you happened to voice suspicions on Andrew and Rat... and voted Shale.

Hum. Huuuum. And your reasoning for this?

But this is just food for thought. I guess that I'll just go with what seems more immediately worrying now. Since unwanted roles have managed to get under the radar for excess lurking time and again, and I think his absence has reached the point of insufferable by now...

Glance at the boldened text. Shale has an 'unwanted role', which you claim is worrying to you enough to warrant a vote. You claimed partial roleblocker. How could you be possibly know anything about Shale's role to worry about him more than the people you yourself suggest as 'food for thought' for looking scummy to you, or Meeple, who was acting weird (yes, he was!) and the town's main target at the time?

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg25251#msg25251

Your first day 3 post lands a second vote on Shale within 8 minutes of Laggy's! It's Shale, again! Even though you claim to have roleblocked Rat (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg25259#msg25259), whom you said you considered having a scummy role (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg25269#msg25269), and the night phase only listed one kill instead of two.

Okay, handling the first part of the post... wow, that's either a horrible misread or a blatant twist of the words. "Unwanted ROLES[/i]". As in "SCUM AND THIRD PARTY." Not as in "I KNOW SHALE IS THIS" but "I KNOW UNWANTED ROLES LURK, SO LET US STAB THIS LURKER."

Continuing on, so it's completely unimaginable there's, you know. OTHER ROLES out there, Cor? Sheesh. Rat was blocked, there was a kill missing. Congrats. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IN HELL CAUSED IT. You, drawing the line from Snow to Rat and pointing madly at it? If anything that draws a line between you (You know rat's scum and that the kill was blocked by someone, and that Rat was the one out!) and Rat (scum killer, natch, assuming this little paranoid scenario.) As it is, I'm still ambivalent on the Rat but this makes you stick out like a sore thumb.

Let us consider this in silent contemplation.

You have every reason to believe, if you have the power you've claimed and have done what you said you had, that you had a direct effect on the night phase, and yet you don't even mention it and go...

Whatever brought down two night kills in a row last night seems to not have attacked this time, at least, but I have no idea what does this say as of now (since OK or delta may have been the extraneous killer? I dunno).

Okay, let's go look at the flips!

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg24654#msg24654

Deltaflyer2k8--The Thinker, AKA Cliff Carmichael (Town Messenger)--was killed overnight!

OblivionKnight--Deadshot, AKA Floyd Lawton (Self-aligned Jester)--was killed overnight!

JESTER. MESSENGER. I don't see serial killer or vigilante or anything remotely plausible here. How could you possibly miss this?

By only paying passing attention to the game. By coasting. Which is what scum do.

Screw this, how can you find someone scummier?

1) Certainly he should be suspicious, but there's also the noted-above fact; other roles. Remember, they might be out there. Should be basic.

2) You are right in pointing out that Snow seems to have been completely oblivious to the Night 1 results, assuming we were told everything. I think it's a fair assumption, mind, and thus I'm not calling you out on that. It's definitely something to keep in mind overall.


This posts borders on the obscenely long, which forces my apologies; I plan on addressing other things later, but I felt Corwin's post deserved this much comment after a few rereads of it. Right now? I'm unsure who to vote for as Cor and Snow are both beginning to ping wildly for me after all this, and Shale's quiet lurkering isn't much better.

[Corwin]

More DHE: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg25277#msg25277

-Yay, voting Rat! Too bad it's only a 50% roleblocker, since that's probably the best use I can think of for a town roleblocker really. (Trying to nail the scum killer in a game with a potential Vig seems really pointless.) This doesn't, of course, confirm Snow as town, but I hope he continues to report his Roleblock targets, since that helps. I can't say I've forgotten Snow's actions yesterday, for one, though I haven't yet seriously thought about top lynch candidates yet.

O-kay. Let me say the problem I see with this.

Roleblocker is neutral at best. Even if you believe Rat and think this proves Snow's role, why do you trust him? Despite the obligatory 'this doesn't confirm Snow' thing, you're doing exactly that, and it's extremely puzzling. I would be ecstatic to live in a world where JR and Rat were townies happily working together towards building a scum-free utopia, but that's total bullshit because JR is very scummy. Why are you taking this particular view?


QR and criticism on me giving her a look. Several things QR has done rub me the wrong way. Yes, culling targets is no sign of scummines, Excal. However, in both cases, she has come after considerable time has been spent without decisive action (which you noticed yourself) and her actions ended up sealing the fate of the lynch. Attribute that to luck or accident if you wish, but I won't because QR is a very good mafia player and so I'm wary of someone like her doing it twice in a row without any guarantee that she's doing it for the good of town.

I'm not entirely sure there's a way to talk to Tai without getting WAHLOOKATME attitude right back, but here goes anyway. How does me finding Tom scummy and working to get him lynched (a mistake, we all know now with the powers of HINDSIGHT) contradict in any way QR also being instrumental in that? You talk about large slips and misreads and what not, but I just don't see how that works.

Could I be wrong? Yes. But seeing the strong opinions I got here just for mentioning the possibility only made me more determined to take a second look.


Shale.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg25287#msg25287

I agree with him on... pretty much both JR and on his clarification to QR.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg25273#msg25273

I've managed to muddy the waters for myself, too (lovely), since I've put the scum in a damned good position to attack me by simple application of Lynch All Lurkers, and I can't argue that it isn't a valid argument. In fact, looking over the posts I missed yesterday, QR's comment that "I think we're past LAL" looks very off to me. Scum lurk when they can get away with it. Just look at my play in the anonymous game. Now, I know you're not scum defending a scumbuddy here, which makes me unsure of exactly why scum would argue that way, but it still feels off, and I'd still love to hear the thinking behind it.

This is a troubling passage for the following reasons. Shale admits he was lurking by any reasonable definition, and then goes on to say scum tend to lurk. And brings himself as an example (from another game, right). Then, he says the phrase I've boldened out, and my only question is 'how'?

After this, and taking his extreme lurking into consideration, Shale is now my suspect #2.

General caution to everyone to treat yesterday as a mislynch for analysis purposes.

I do agree with this sentiment, at least, as must be apparent.

Another thing that jumps at me is that Shale mentioned Bardiche as one of the people of interest to him, but we've heard nothing on Bardiche from him yet. Did he change his mind? Is he working on a post to address that? Mystery. Noteworthy because I believe his day 2 criticism of Bardiche were justified, and not following up on them is strange.


The Rat section is pretty small, I'm afraid. While I can feel something off about him (specifically, I don't believe Rat was being entirely truthful with us), I don't actually see any slips on his part, and his participation, while on the scarcer side than I'm used to from him, is sufficient content-wise. He also doesn't merely go for the conventional targets. Even though he made the third lurker vote in several minutes for Shale, I can't blame him because Shale is pretty damn suspicious even without lurking. If JR flips as I expect him to, there would be more here.


And Tai posts again, I'll deal with it in a separate one.

[Corwin]

Re: Tai's second post:
Yeah, whatever. Look, man, I'm not putting together a case after the fact. I am placing arguments from late day 2 (past my bedtime) and early day 3 that support my day 2 case of JR being scummy. As said case was obviously not enough to convince people not myself to lynch JR day 2, and he continued to act scummy afterwards, said further arguments were posted. I don't dismiss everyone's abilities, I just question everyone's judgement late day 2. Some people voted Meeple with the intention of having the day just end already, and I question that. It's what I'd call a momentary slip in judgement, not massive fail as a human being or mafia player, and I think you're inventing reasons to enrage yourself there. Finally, what exactly SHOULD I do in response to eyeing and gut feels? I've already explained why I feel it necessary to defend myself from such accusations, and it's pretty much the accuser that needs to explain their feelings clearly and frame them into argument, not me who should just bend over and take it silently. You lecturing me on politeness just takes the cake, though.

I'll address what feels relevant from your defense of JR/attack on me (done as part of making a case on JR, to boot, as Tai says in the opening paragraph).

1) Post referenced, he said he would address playstyle issues "at a later moment". The same post, while something is being typed, likely constitues a "later moment" to not only the writer, but also most readers.

It reads as dropping them in lieu of discussing more productive things. Apparently, only I show utter arrogance and disregard for the combined abilities of others by informing them how they should think.

Counter: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg25000#msg25000

Indeed, you were not voting for him! You were voting for Snow, as you are today. The OMGUS relevance is also worth note. However, the post I reference above is a rather scathing note on what Meeple had been doing, though apparently you had another reason for throwing that analysis of Meeple out there, that of people saying they'd do things and not do so. While vaguely fair, aren't you supposed to be hunting scum, and not just pointing out things that annoy you? Oh, but...

This is a counter... how? I did not want to go into that after a simple Meeple section in a post that grouped those who promised analysis, which took a look at whether they delivered on it. Meeple kept on hounding me with demands to show exactly where he did not deliver. I finally decided to make such a post to prove it to him and to anyone who might be taken in by his denials.

Case in point, and not the only time Meeple asked: "Also, Cor, you still haven't answered my question.  You claimed I haven't made good on what I claimed I would.  Care to, you know, point out specific examples?" (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg24895#msg24895) So I did point out those specific examples.

I also noted the following at the beginning of the Meeple section in the post you reference, Tai: "I suppose that if nothing else, this pushes Meeple a bit towards 'town that makes me headdesk' rather than 'scum flailing'. I suppose I'll have to watch and see."

While I am hunting scum first and foremost, I cannot ignore people who ask me for explanations. Letting those thing stand would muddy the waters and open the floor to attacks on me on the grounds of being evasive. I clearly had no reason to be evasive, as my points re: Meeple were sound and legit. They just weren't enough for a vote, nor did I call for one on him.

"While vaguely fair". This had to be quoted specifically. Niceties aside, is this a grudging compliment, there, or do you actually have issues with the way I presented what I had?

From the post I linked above. So by this, Meeple had a pretense to be hiding under! (One that everyone else had kinda been saying as "Shorten the damn posts Meeple", but hey, another small note). Oh, but wait...

You know it (and me) better. I clearly referred to content. Content is not post size. I likewise called on Meeple to condense his posts better to reduce post size. You are trying to look for contradictions where none exist.

So it's pretty much "hey, I consider this behavior scummy, but he just makes me headdesk". Right. Your main point is noted, but I can't say that I don't see this post as an advance on Meeple. Thusly, I can see him grouping you into that set, especially since you were the one his supposed anger, truthful or not, was pointed towards.

This is a deliberate misreading or misrepresenting of my words, take your pick. In my posts prior to the one you quote from, I considered Meeple a suspect and said as much. This post (the one you quote, made later) said that my suspicion of Meeple remained, but had lessened as a result of his more recent posts/behavior. So it's not that he makes me headdesk for acting scummy. It's that the less scummy he acts as we get to the end of day 2, the more I want to headdesk as he looks better on the town/scum scale (but worse on the 'good play' scale).

Okay, handling the first part of the post... wow, that's either a horrible misread or a blatant twist of the words. "Unwanted ROLES[/i]". As in "SCUM AND THIRD PARTY." Not as in "I KNOW SHALE IS THIS" but "I KNOW UNWANTED ROLES LURK, SO LET US STAB THIS LURKER."

Continuing on, so it's completely unimaginable there's, you know. OTHER ROLES out there, Cor? Sheesh. Rat was blocked, there was a kill missing. Congrats. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IN HELL CAUSED IT. You, drawing the line from Snow to Rat and pointing madly at it? If anything that draws a line between you (You know rat's scum and that the kill was blocked by someone, and that Rat was the one out!) and Rat (scum killer, natch, assuming this little paranoid scenario.) As it is, I'm still ambivalent on the Rat but this makes you stick out like a sore thumb.

There is indeed a horrible misread. On your part.

But I don't mind explaining it. Let's say you're town and a roleblocker (everything JR claims, and I don't believe). Fine. Let's then proceed to say that you find someone to be the likeliest scum in the game. He worries you enough to have you land your vote on him twice, across days. (I've done this with JR, myself!)

And you don't roleblock him? Even as you cite the strong possibility of Shale having a role?

So our Town JR thinks Shale is likeliest scum, is worried Shale might have a role, and his reaction is... to block someone else. Please, please, please tell me how that computes.

Or JR is, you know, scum. And is worried about Shale's presumed role, which he or his teammates could've found out. I won't speculate, but I see the possibilities.

1) Certainly he should be suspicious, but there's also the noted-above fact; other roles. Remember, they might be out there. Should be basic.

2) You are right in pointing out that Snow seems to have been completely oblivious to the Night 1 results, assuming we were told everything. I think it's a fair assumption, mind, and thus I'm not calling you out on that. It's definitely something to keep in mind overall.

I believe I've addressed the former above.

And as for the latter, I don't see a point to Cid lying. As matter of fact, we could go ahead and ask him to make a mod post. Are flip posts fully truthful? [y/n/can't say]

[Ranmilia]

Current votecount:

Shale (3): Laggy, Jo'ou Ranbu, Carthrat
JR (1): Corwin

With twelve alive, it takes seven to lynch.

If you think you see errors in the votecount, please mention them to a mod.

Flips contain full standard role names.

[Taishyr]

I'm not entirely sure there's a way to talk to Tai without getting WAHLOOKATME attitude right back, but here goes anyway. How does me finding Tom scummy and working to get him lynched (a mistake, we all know now with the powers of HINDSIGHT) contradict in any way QR also being instrumental in that? You talk about large slips and misreads and what not, but I just don't see how that works.

I am saying that you made such a statement when QR was in truth -incidental- to both; you say she was instrumental, when in truth day 2's lynch only makes her notable due to mod error, and day 1 she was pretty much just another person in the train. As I said, investigate her as you will, but saying she's "instrumental" as your reasoning is rather badly fallacious.

Also fuck you too. As much as you may consider this self-fulfilling prophecy, I read that and no longer have any interest again thanks to assholery. Funny how that works, eh? Back later, too angry to think again.

[Corwin]

Fine. Was I over the line? Yes. Was it because the moment you posted you attacked me and my playing style while injecting emotions into the game? Yes. I'll avoid it in the future if you could manage to keep your private life out of this as well.

Day 1, QR made the Tom train prominent and gave it momentum. Day 2... what does a mod error have anything to do with it?

[Carthrat]

1) Me having a vote is nothing special. Only I should be terribly excited by this. That DHE says it's the best use for a friendly roleblocker is weird, because it's.. not really, the best use for a friendly roleblocker is to pay one mana, tap target scum. At least, not until you think we're hitting LYLO and my vote could indeed spell the difference between life and death. But that's not here and I doubt anyone really thought it could be.


2) Remember, everything Tai says about 'I don't care, you guys suck, hate this game' and shit is stupid. He joined. He saw the playerlist. He knew what he was getting into. I have absolutely no sympathy for 'I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE' in a game like this, and it continually baffles me as to why people get surprised by the way they are treated. His whole indignance shtick is really tiresome. (And for fucks sake, I'm like one guy who can't even vote under normal circumstances. Why you cared so much about what I thought of you is retarded, with so many other players there to convince- most of which, I believe, do not subscribe to the same school of thought I do. No matter how much I wish they did.)

Secondly: Your comment toward DHE seems to be there solely to incite suspicion toward him. Active and leading scum can successfully drag town into the abyss, merrily leading them by the nose. Lurking and inactive scum slip under radars and are of no help.

What the heck does this even mean? "Convincing scum are convincing?" "Active people are more likely to be scum because scum must be active to win?" "Any given scum is more likely to be active than not?"

Being active and argumentative is just good play regardless of what side you're on or whether you subscribe to 'aggressive' or 'not aggressive' or whatever. You don't actually say if what he said about DHE was unwarranted or not, so where the heck were you going with this?


3) Jo'ou said the right things that lead me to think he's less scummy at the start of the day, which is why I wasn't on his throat to begin with.

Unfortunately he doesn't have a case on me at all and he absolutely needs to if anyone is going to take him seriously. I am with Corwin, here. Night actions need to match up with day actions once revealed. He's had ample opportunity but he barely even tossed out a case in the slightest sense at me; nor has he really given any hint of these feelings in day two.

Remember, he...

-Ramped up suspicion on Bardiche for a perfectly sensible claim.
-Seemed to ignore the obvious ramifications of Bardiche's role to start.
-Behaved like an idiot at a lousy time on day 2 when things were still up in the air.
-Gunned after Andrew instead of Shale on the basis of 'not being useful', to sum it up.
-And, of course, today, plays his roleblock card and followup in an inexplicable fashion.
-Who did he try to block on night 1, anyway? Did I miss this somewhere? Did it work? Why did we all forget to ask this question?

##Unvote, ##Vote: Jo'ou


4) QR goes into a long and detailed post about how she thinks on Shale's request. Am I the only one who isn't really getting anything useful from this at all? She's happy enough to respond to barely relevant questions in florid detail, but not, y'know, make case etc blah.

[Shale]

I've managed to muddy the waters for myself, too (lovely), since I've put the scum in a damned good position to attack me by simple application of Lynch All Lurkers, and I can't argue that it isn't a valid argument. In fact, looking over the posts I missed yesterday, QR's comment that "I think we're past LAL" looks very off to me. Scum lurk when they can get away with it. Just look at my play in the anonymous game. Now, I know you're not scum defending a scumbuddy here, which makes me unsure of exactly why scum would argue that way, but it still feels off, and I'd still love to hear the thinking behind it.

This is a troubling passage for the following reasons. Shale admits he was lurking by any reasonable definition, and then goes on to say scum tend to lurk. And brings himself as an example (from another game, right). Then, he says the phrase I've boldened out, and my only question is 'how'?

Because if I were scum, I think I'd have noticed, and that question was going through my head - "it looks weird, definitely, but why would scum defend a townie that way?" And in general, I can't really make that point without highlighting the ways I'm suspicious. Like I said before, I'm not going to turn my back on LAL just because I've played poorly in this game.

Another thing that jumps at me is that Shale mentioned Bardiche as one of the people of interest to him, but we've heard nothing on Bardiche from him yet. Did he change his mind? Is he working on a post to address that? Mystery. Noteworthy because I believe his day 2 criticism of Bardiche were justified, and not following up on them is strange.

Working on it. I went to sleep after my last post, and just now woke up. Like I said, I've got a backlog to work through. I'd cut to the chase and post something on Bardiche now, but I've got about forty-five minutes of cardio to do and I wanted to get something out there rather than fall into a habit of infinite procrastination again.

[Bardiche]

Don't have much motivation to write WOTs (wall of text fyi) everywhere, so just responding to Rat for now. Response to other people's suspicions pending.

-Is really interested in his own role and presenting it in a townie-friendly fashion. In fact he has pointed out he avoids doing certain things in order to avoid being scummy several times. He is very, VERY concerned with his image.

Well, yes. I don't want to give off the wrong image like last time, which left most town in jeopardy over my true alignment, but due to others being apparently more scummish stayed their hand and left me until the end. (at which point, I believe, Taishyr targeted me with roleblock in case I was scum, meaning they still didn't trust me!) I'm aware now, in hindsight, that trying too hard to come off as town comes off as being scummy instead, but that's just playstyle error on my behalf then.

-When he initially goes after Meeple, he offers very little reasoning, as seen here;

Moving on, I'm more suspicious of Meeple at the moment. The entire assault on Ciato seems uncalled for. It also doesn't sit well with me how you defend Shale. I mean, sure, I defended Deltaflyer, but I think I was much less zealous on it to the point of attempting to null suspicions on him by saying things he should've done himself.

Apart from this he says very little about the State of the Game, as it were, preferring to focus on just how he's going to implement his super awesome role and such.[/quote]

Of course, my super special awesome role is more important tha-- wait, what? Yeah, I mentioned sometime that day, I was rather lost on suspicions at the time because everyone tossed to and fro with arguments, some which seemed reasonable enough to me to not want to press further accusations. I also didn't see much reason in attempting to start up a new case with nothing but little straws, since they never seem to be a good foundation for a case.

-Later, he jumps off Meeple here -

Meeple, in general, I always believe that one should defend himself in Mafia. Others providing your defense indicates that those others feel confident enough about your alignment that they shoot to your defense. This is alright if you are a Mason or something, and you're guaranteed of another's alignment. But in this case, you're defending someone you (likely) have no alignment read on, quite frankly, unless you have some investigative role or are scum. I don't want to hear if you have the former, but that's my explanation for why I take such problem with your defense of Shale.

Even after you were called out on it you remained over-zealous to his defense. A little defending of others is okay (ie: I didn't get that read out of it, how come you hammer on that point so zealously? as a defense) but when you take over the defense... Yeah. Anyway, I'll keep this in the back of my mind.

##UNFoS: Meeple

The thing is, he takes problems with how Meeple defends Shale, ok fine whatever, but then he jumps off of Meeple for this action, pretty much drops the case, and doesn't really pick up a new one or FoS anyone else for a while. Yet it still reads as if he remains somewhat suspicious of Meep.

Yes, I took Meeple's defense. I agreed with him upon re-read of his posts where he argued he wasn't defending Shale's alignment but attacked the people who attacked his posts for straws.

After Dread Thomas throws his thoughts out there, though, Bardiche leaps upon them with what can only be described as savage glee, repeatedly hyping to us that it's fine to just go where some dead townie of questionable ability directs us (I believe 'getting yourself lynched apparently on purpose on day 1' counts as 'questionable'), and seems to use this as a way to jump over at QR on minor points (like not caring that Delta died, um, did *anyone*?). I'll admit he has something about her speculating over third party roles but not doing anything-

-take note, QR: scum, 3rd party, it's all good to us if we lynch them since their intentions aren't aligned with our own-

-but then calls that stuff minor, anyway, in lieu of going after Shale for lurking.

Yes. Would any of you consent to a case on QR based on what I presented? I don't think so; I wouldn't even pursue such a case based on such shoddy reasoning. I threw that out there for when I die.

He seems to take his own mistakes rather harshly, which is weird when it really came down to a choice of word and not actual intent or content. It didn't seem like much of a reason to get all tense to me. In general I feel he hasn't really been adding to the cases floating around and rather just tagging on to whatever seems convenient at the time. What I find particularly troublesome is that he doesn't seem to present his votes/FOS's and cases and such with any confidence, either.

What exactly is troublesome about not being confident in your own cases, since they are guesses based on people's words? As someone who says questionable things even when town, I recognize that people may err and am unwilling to lynch someone based on a minor err myself.



I'll post something of substance about the day itself, the flips of the other day, re-evaluation of the last day and such at a later time, when I feel more up to it. I just wanted to defend my actions before it'd get buried under the present argument.

[QuietRain]

BEWARE WALL OF TEXT.  Today will NOT be a day where I can reliably post here at work because our internal audit group decided to give us a surprise inspection.  Yay.  Luckily I started this post this morning before I came in and should finish before they start.  I want to get in some comments before my day is shot to heck.  Luckily I should be able to make a couple posts from home tonight.

QR: Hm. Well, at what point does lurking become scummy in your eyes? The point of LAL isn't "lurkers are dumb, throw rocks at them," it's "lurking is something scum tends to do."

Lurking is one of those things that I fall back on, not something that I rely on.  Frankly, we all have periods where things happens and we just frankly don't have TIME to post.  To my eyes, a lurker has only a bit better chance of being a scum than it does a townie who just frankly has RL issues or is just having trouble wrapping their heads around the current situation enough to post.  It's certainly the best yardstick to use when no one else is giving off scum/TP vibes.  If there are precious few cases going on for me to analyze, then that's the point I turn to LAL and push for content.  But if there ARE cases for me to analyze, I would always rather focus there until I feel relatively safe that the cases in point aren't believable.  Does this make sense where I'm coming from?

and QR because she's pretty much been central in making two lynches that mislynched in a row take place.

Since when did 'lynching a third party' start equating 'mislynch', Cor?  A mislynch, correct me if I'm wrong, is when we lynch a townie thinking they're scum.  Lynching a TP is actually *gasp* almost as good as lynching scum (and some would argue that there IS no difference).  And necessary to do in the long haul anyway.  What are your reasonings for thinking a TP lynch is a mislynch?

4) QR goes into a long and detailed post about how she thinks on Shale's request. Am I the only one who isn't really getting anything useful from this at all? She's happy enough to respond to barely relevant questions in florid detail, but not, y'know, make case etc blah.

I find that NOT responding in good detail when asked a question or made a point upon usually leads to a quick lynching or at least a quick slide up the scumometer by most people (and myself included.  I find it very off setting to ask a question and get either no response or just a cursory one).  If asked, yes I will respond with as much data as I can to hopefully resolve people's questions.  As to not making cases, if you're speaking historically I find that really odd considering Cor's frantic push to paint me scummy for making cases on people that are front runners in my mind.  And if you're speaking about that post in particular, sorry I didn't stop to make a case last night, but getting a semi-decent night's sleep before work is always a good idea.  The day had just started and the morning is soon enough to start commenting on issues.

Now, my thoughts for my vote today.

I think Shale's starting to provide some content and I'm glad he's shown back up.  I don't see the need to pressure him with a vote at the moment as he already has quite a few on him and we're still very early in the day.  His disappearance does put him a few notches up on my meter and I'll be watching his content rather closely today.

Now as for the 'something else targeting Carth'?  Well that was me.  Phearz the power of my pie tossing.  Which does jack and &*^%.  It's for game flavor and that's all.  I can only toss it at people who vote for me (which Day 1 meant I had to toss it at OK but his death meant no one actually knew it) or if no one votes for me in a day then I get to toss at it at whomever I chose or not toss it at all.  I chose to toss it because frankly, this &*^% is bananas and he was as good of a place to express this opinion as anywhere else since it doesn't really do anything.  Oh, and if the bananas part made little sense, I hit him with a banana cream pie.

Now, considering Ashdla's flip I went back over her posts, trying to see if she left anything for us to pick through later in regards to whatever her information role told her.  She snarks a bit at Snow for his attitude, but I'm not sure if that's anything other than annoyance.  Mostly, she sticks to the Meeple lynch pretty securely once she takes a stand on the lynching issue which doesn't tell us much since he did turn out to be TP.  I'm not sure if she was swayed by the evidence or garnered a clue through her role.  Either way I'm not seeing much to go on further in that regard, more's the pity.

My own vote today is that of the two people I found most scummy yesterday, one still lives.  And no one has really surpassed that level of scum on my meter yet (although Cor's attitude of fanatical lynch is slowly getting there. I think Snow looks suspicious, too, but frankly the overzealous attitude is actually making me re-think the decision rather than cement it because tunnel vision training is usually where we go wrong as town).  So, for now, ##Vote Snow.

I'll be back tonight when I get home to post more.

[Corwin]

QR! Hi!

Since when did 'lynching a third party' start equating 'mislynch', Cor?  A mislynch, correct me if I'm wrong, is when we lynch a townie thinking they're scum.  Lynching a TP is actually *gasp* almost as good as lynching scum (and some would argue that there IS no difference).  And necessary to do in the long haul anyway.  What are your reasonings for thinking a TP lynch is a mislynch?

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg25307#msg25307

General caution to everyone to treat yesterday as a mislynch for analysis purposes.

I do agree with this sentiment, at least, as must be apparent.

Proper context, etc.

For those of you who actually wonder why and can't be bothered to get said context, I'll provide it here along with another reason: a survivor is one of the less harmful TP roles; in this particular case, we even had Meeple post his list of suspects and his reasoning. I happen to believe he was being sincere and trying to help town in that pre-death post, and not spiteful as has been suggested. I believe this further suggests he was trying to survive alongside us, at least to the endgame, which clearly made him a viable target for scum. And speaking of scum, the most important reason this should be treated as a mislynch: scum likely wouldn't know about Meeple (barring investigations, etc), and would therefore see him as not-them. Getting TP lynched in most cases is hardly something that gives town cred; in some cases, it even moves the weights in the direction of scumminess.

Now, to the point. Does being what I consider prominent on both lynch trains make you SCUM? No. Does it warrant a second look from me? I feel so. Do the reactions suggesting that you being scum is beyond the pale worry me? Yes, and warrant that look even more, given we shouldn't trust each other too much without damn good reasons.

My own vote today is that of the two people I found most scummy yesterday, one still lives.  And no one has really surpassed that level of scum on my meter yet (although Cor's attitude of fanatical lynch is slowly getting there. I think Snow looks suspicious, too, but frankly the overzealous attitude is actually making me re-think the decision rather than cement it because tunnel vision training is usually where we go wrong as town).  So, for now, ##Vote Snow.

Fanatical? I was clearly not emphasizing the level of JR's scumminess enough yesterday. Okay, I've accepted that, and he survived. If he's truthful about his role, that means scum had use of that power role one more night. I honestly don't know what else I can do. So if I look a little bad as a result but we get the scum, it's fine by me.


Moving on to a glance through QR's posts:

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg24406#msg24406

QR votes Tom, putting him to 3 votes. Delta swiftly follows, pretty much cementing it. Huh. I recalled it the other way around, with QR being the fourth vote. Aha! There was an unvote along the way. Well, it does lessen my suspicions to a degree, but she still placed Tom ahead of everyone else.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg24468#msg24468

She's going after Tom and convincing others as, yes, I was. Tom lying day 1 before didn't help there.  >_<

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg24503#msg24503

The first consolidation of suspects post. I discovered what grates at me -- this time, the third suspect feels artificially inserted. It is as if QR has decided just two wouldn't be enough, and is suggesting a third, just picking at random from the weaker targets while mentioning herself she doesn't feel particularly convicted ("I have a harder time seeing that one, but I'd hear arguments about it. "). This feels off about her, to me, and finally I can put it in words.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg24667#msg24667

Day 2 stuff, now. QR mentions not feeling bad that Delta the player is gone (ditto, really) and pleased that OK is gone. I find it puzzling that she both thinks his flip isn't surprising and at the same is surprised someone would target him. Why? If you thought he was trying to get himself lynched to win, why couldn't someone else? Someone with a night phase role?

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg24810#msg24810
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg24862#msg24862

Promises thoughts and delivers on it to a point. She only really covers five players, and not to a very great detail. Bardiche worries QR. I haven't seen her return to it yet during day 3. Are you planning on it?

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg25034#msg25034

The second consolidation post. Nothing actually questionable about the subject matter, but the last line makes me pause.

Also, I am looking forward to Tom's post for the Day.  I think there are a lot of things being brought up that I would like to see what he has to say on the matters.

Having reread your day 1 thoughts on Tom, it strains my disbelief that you were truly interested in Tom's insight.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=1398.msg25082#msg25082

The 'past-LAL' post. I don't really want to get into an argument over playstyles again, so I'll just let it go. Seeing lurking as a condition below regular scumtells in importance is kinda wrong (given how many scum statistically lurk), but we could leave that debate for after the game.

And I've pretty much caught up on QR's posts. Before I give my tl;dr summary, I would like to hear from QR on the matters I've raised.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

3) Jo'ou said the right things that lead me to think he's less scummy at the start of the day, which is why I wasn't on his throat to begin with.

Unfortunately he doesn't have a case on me at all and he absolutely needs to if anyone is going to take him seriously. I am with Corwin, here. Night actions need to match up with day actions once revealed. He's had ample opportunity but he barely even tossed out a case in the slightest sense at me; nor has he really given any hint of these feelings in day two.

Remember, he...

-Ramped up suspicion on Bardiche for a perfectly sensible claim.
-Seemed to ignore the obvious ramifications of Bardiche's role to start.
-Behaved like an idiot at a lousy time on day 2 when things were still up in the air.
-Gunned after Andrew instead of Shale on the basis of 'not being useful', to sum it up.
-And, of course, today, plays his roleblock card and followup in an inexplicable fashion.
-Who did he try to block on night 1, anyway? Did I miss this somewhere? Did it work? Why did we all forget to ask this question?

Okay, I'll respond to this first because it's less daunting than finecombing Corwin's Unlimited Wall of Text right now.

The justifications for not roleblocking Bard are simple: why, from an objective standpoint, would try to roleblock the extra voting at this point? He gave me no reason to believe he has an underlying night power which could be potentially harmful - and, as such, my roleblocking would be hilariously pointless on him (ohnoes, now he can only weigh in once! zomg). I haven't eased much on my impression of his roleclaiming, it still feels gratuitous. But the kind of attention he deserves is hardly the attention my role can give. However, I had the gut feeling your own role would have bigger odds of having underlying assumptions. Feels pretty simple and self-explanatory to me. I could also try to ZOMG ROLEBLOCK SCUMKILLS, theoretically. But unless I turned psychic overnight, don't see how that is happening outside sheer dumb luck. I acted out of honest kneejerk suspicion against your role and just went from there to see how would it affect the next day for discussion and possible hindsight leads. Also, when did I gun at Andrew? I gunned at -Corwin-. I know that OMGUSes generally look all the same, but I expect you to make more careful assumptions about me.

Now, you may give me flak for "ignoring" the ramifications of Bard's role, but, IIRC, I got flak for actually -pondering- the ramifications of the role, but in a way you all disagreed with. As such, I just laid it down, since I'd probably get into more issues if I started trying to pull leads out of it while under negative scrutiny anyway. Of course, this hardly mattered considering I behaved like a moron later on, and no matter what, my behavior there will give good reasons for me to get lynched until the end of the game. It's okay, though, I have no one to blame but myself.

Also, I find nice that you probably didn't read my roleclaim in full and didn't notice NEB's assessment over my effective roleblocking. I have a 50% chance of not being able to roleblock at night at all, and the chance of not managing to do it kicked in at night 1. As such, I didn't roleblock anybody that night. That clears things up for you?

I'll try to digest Corwin and possibly respond him a bit later.
 

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Okay, I feel I got enough of a grasp on Corwin's content to try and answer his points, although I doubt it'll give him any change on prospects in his agenda.

Also: ##UNVOTE: Shale, since I believe that this pressure vote is no longer necessary.

First, Corwin, I don't think I need to reiterate how the case against me is very easy to follow through - there is rhyme and reason, and my behavior obviously set all alarms into red mode. However, why try so hard to press it on when it's basically given on a silver plate at this point? I'm halfway to lynch and I'm hardly surviving past today, but I'm putting all my cards on the table as you all request it and whenever necessary.

And I also never claimed my logic on voting for you was sound and sane, unlike you seem to try make it sound. I probably sound like two entirely different people comparing my breakdown posts and my post-breakdown posts, but that's what actual consideration post-suicidal momentum does to me. As such, there are glaring contradictions that will speak against me. I could try to explain them, but not justify. It was an OMGUS post, of course, which mitigates my words a fair deal. But, quite frankly? Your current content is leading me to believe my nagging concerns aren't a complete blow into the water.

So far, you've tried to pound harder the train on me (perfectly fair. If we were in switched situations, I would at least consider doing the same, albeit less scathingly) and essentially went into OMGUS mode against NEB and Tai. Your logic may even be sound (I see the meaning. "Good hard look" does feel like a soft-FoS, of course, but why respond to that so excitedly and furiously? It's almost as if this hits a personal nerve, which by all rights shouldn't), but the offense on Elfboy feels a little bit too defensive, which shouldn't be considering his logic - not to mention this is arguing over a rather minor point. And, while you have a point for being hard on Tai for his behavior, you... just answer him in a way that will feed -more fuel to the fire- of WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHLOOKATME, when it's painfully obvious that you know how to rub the buttons right or wrong.

As such, asides from the case on me, your actions have this vague smell of smokescreening and chaos induction, which scum thrives on. Hell, after your comment of "when I flip like you expect to" makes me half-inclined to vote myself just to get this done with and prove you wrong because of your utter blind arrogance - although I know better than that. It's almost as if you're eager for my blood for the sake of proving the size of your massive e-penis instead of actually bringing town the win. Which one is it, Cor?

Anyhow, I'm done with Corwin for the moment. I'll read some more arguments and posts on QR and try to unmuddle my thoughts here, since we have a bit of a fine mess going in this day.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Oh, forgot this addendum: I'm not saying you're scum for your behavior, Cor. What I mean is that the way you act is bound to be harmful to town regardless of your actual alignment, and you might want to reconsider your modus operandi. I know this is the pot calling the kettle black, but at least I'm admitting how stupidly I acted and trying to make amends - and hell, I even think that lynching me might be a solid clarifying action for town to do this day. But I'm not willing to give up the fight anymore.

[Sierra]

Current votecount:

Shale (1): Laggy, Jo'ou Ranbu, Carthrat
JR (3): Corwin, Carthrat, QuietRain

With twelve alive, it takes seven to lynch.

[AndrewRogue]

Was at the doctor's. Reading back and putting together a post right now.

[QuietRain]

Audits suck.  Anyway, finally out and going to make a post before heading home for the day.

I'll tackle Cor's hellalong post an issue at a time.

A - Cor, when quoting others, could you keep in your quote tags the name of the person you're quoting?  It is very difficult to determine exactly who said things for me when you quote without that context.  Just a request, thanks.

B - I'm not objecting to you looking at me or questioning me.  I haven't said that anywhere to date nor do I intend to do so.  EVERYone should be looking at EVERYone.  I'm not sure where you're getting that I am saying your poking at me is *gaspevil*.  I've done things that you seem to disagree with, so of course you're going to point them out.  That's the GAME.

C - I am not disputing the fact that Snow looks the scummiest so far (hence my vote), but as he has as much as admitted that he's not going to be able to change anyone's mind with his sudden loss of suicidal tendancies, where exactly is the harm in not Quick Lynching him and instead opening up discussion?  We're barely a day into the new Day and it's a little early for KILLLLLLL HIIIIIM.  Right now the only ones that helps is scum who get to have a day phase where we don't get much new input but they get to go ahead and make another kill.

Now we get into your analysis on my posts.

1 - If I'm reading your analysis of my Day 1 views on Tom correctly, you don't find anything hideously scummy there so I don't thing there's anything to respond to in that regard.

2 - You think my insertion of Delta into my list felt 'forced'.  I guess I can see your side of the issue there.  Personally, he was on several people's tongues because of his disruptive playstyle and antagonistic attitude.  Was he a Top Contender?  Perhaps not to you, but there were a lot of people voicing concerns.  That's why I said he was out there, but that I didn't feel the case there that much.  They were the only 3 people with more than a single vote to their names as well which is why I listed all 3.

3 - My comments on OK's flip.  My 'not sure what to make of it' was actually explained in the next 3 sentences following that phrase.  I didn't know whether to believe it was a SK/Vig taking him out because they thought the one who slid under the lynch was the true scum, whether a scum took him out because they thought he had some power role considering his actions, or whether it was either of those just being freaking scared of OK in general.  I wasn't surprised that he flipped with an ability and my unsure of it was strictly in the sense of why he was targeted, not that someone would find him worth targeting.  Sometimes if you can get a sense for why someone is targeted you can get insight into who targeted them.  This one left me with little clue there as there were too many possible 'why's.

4 - Why haven't I returned to Bardiche?  Because I haven't seen anything new out of him that worries me more or notches him up on my radar.  I don't feel it helps to constantly give the same points over and over.  I've made my comments about him.  That's all I can do until either he does something that makes him more suspicious in my eyes or else he does something that removes all suspicion of him from me.  Right now, he's still flying at the same level.  I have nothing new to add there.  Before the last lynch, he was about even in my mind between whether I thought him a townie or a TP, leaning just a tad to the TP side.  After the flip and with 2 TPs removed from the game, I am thinking maybe I was overanalyzing that because 3 TPs is a bit much.  However, this IS Suicide Squad and if there was ever going to be a game where there were more TPs than necessary, this would be it, so I am not removing the idea of him being a TP from my table completely, just giving it a tad less weight for now.

5 - Why would I look forward to Tom's post?  Because while I don't think he's any more or less likely to be right than anyone else, he is the ONLY one of you bunch whose words I can trust are exactly what he thinks.  He may be wrong, but he has NO reason to lie or mislead.  I weigh what he says with my own anaylsis and thoughts, but I do like having a voice that gives an honest thought.  Everyone here pushes for a lynch off an agenda.  For some, that agenda is to help town, for some it's to survive and for others it's to kill the townies.  I have no way of knowing who has what agenda except Tom here.  Doesn't mean I believe his anaylsis more than others, just means I believe he means what he says.

Yours was a pretty long post.  I hope I didn't miss anything.  If I did, let me know and I would be happy to answer it.

Day 3 is still young and I don't have anything new to offer yet on anyone else.  Perhaps there will be more posts when I get home for me to analyze.

[Excal]

Just a heads up.  The water heater at my place burst a seal sometime today, and it came to our attention a good deal after that fact.  I will be cleaning up three flooded rooms instead of posting tonight.