Clue Mafia - Game Over

[Meeplelard]

And ok, I've decided to go through the Alex vs. Rat scenario some, seeing if I can shed some light on the argument.

First post after we got out of the joke phase is one page 2 where Alex responds to the actions by Carth, Soppy and Cor.  He basically says that my actions weren't alarming, and that Soppy's case is flimsy, but understandable, since it gets the ball rolling.  He also gives Cor a nod for helping with it.  This is where he first calls out Rat, who he says is mistaking (in a loose sense) for how transitions from Joke to Serious phases are gradual, when Alex objects by saying they are actually pretty sudden.
Alex also says this:

Edit:  Rat's response makes it enough for a vote from me, for sure.  Definitely looks like he has a problem with Sopko/Cor taking things out of jokephase.

That's not all that different than what I said, yet Alex gets a mere "no, I didn't mean that!" and we move on, as evident by Rat merely defending his position.  Rat also tries to say "In my experience its gradual!"  Alex says that its more the opposite and that this fact doesn't largely matter anyway.
He then follows up with this:

Though somewhat moreso since you're continuing to press it after Sopko's latest post.  A flimsy, less-than-founded lurk charge is, as he says, as good as anything for starting discussion.  If he tried to turn it into a serious case, yes, but that's not happening.  It's fluff to give people *something* to talk about.

Here, Alex openly admits that his suspicion is mild day 1 suspicion, cause there's nearly nothing to work with.  He says Soppy's attack was pretty much in the same vain, and it'd have been suspicious if Soppy tried to turn it into a serious case...but Soppy didn't.

Then Rat continues to go on claiming his reasoning on Soppy is just, cause Soppy tried a flimsy, incorrect reason.  Ok, so to Rat's credit, he is being consistent with the mistake issue, since he's calling Soppy out for something obviously wrong.  He also says Soppy's reason remains suspect cause its the very first thing that is said.  This...seems like Rat is taking Soppy a tad too seriously; Soppy openly admits that he was just trying to get the ball rolling, yet he still feels strongly AGAINST the action?

Rat's next action is calling out Cor for keeping his vote on just for the sake of not looking suspicious, instead of changing it and "putting his money where his mouth is."  He basically explains why its weird Cor keeps his vote when there's absolutely no justification behind it.  Cor then changes his vote to Rat, at this point.

Next post, Rat gets defensive cause I called him out on something (this is the mistake), and he goes on about how he wasn't actually stifling the argument.  He again uses the word "Wrong" here when explaining why he attacked Cor as well.
He also says that Alex is still claiming he stifling discussion here.

Note he basically used that term"Stifling discussion" (in that he wasn't) for both Alex *AND* Myself.   At this point, it strikes me he is viewing both mine and Alex's attacks on him (for lack of a better word) as equal.

Alex finally responds again!  He basically explains that the votes are flimsy now, and that's to be expected since its Day 1 and there's very little to go on; flimsy votes are about the best you'll get for a while.  He also brings up this point:

The first case is *always* going to be flimsy, so attacking the guy who brings up the first case because it's flimsy is, well, pretty pointless, unless he's trying to push that case as more than a day 1 discussion starter.

The logic is simple here and straightforward.  He *THEN* follows up a few lines later with:

And that said, my vote for Rat was also more of a discussion piece than a serious case.  How could it be otherwise, with only four players participating in serious discussion at the time?

Self explanatory.

After this, he says it wasn't completely non-serious, and claims there might be a connection between Rat and Excal, changes his vote to Excal since he seems scummier of the two with his playing with numbers aspect.
Ends that post with saying Kilga needs to talk and Cor's joke vote was overstated.

Alex's next post starts off with a response to Kilga:

I was attacking Rat for attacking Sopko for Sopko attacking Meeple as a discussion starter, on the premise that attacking people for starting discussion with a flimsy case on day 1 is unproductive because any starting day 1 case is understood to be flimsy and less of an attack than an issue to spark discussion.  On day 1, especially at its start, flimsy cases are all we have to talk about, and attacking people for making them equals attacking people for starting discussion, as the only way to avoid being attacked for this is to make no cases at all.  Ergo I find Rat's position anti-discussion and antitown.

Translation: Alex is saying Rat attacked flimsy cases that existed for the sake of discussion, and finds Rat's stance antitown as a result.

Alex follows up by talking about Excal and alarmism and how Excal's trying to possibly paint his own situation to others to avoid suspicion.  he follows up by saying there's the whole Rat/Excal connection based on a Soppy vote, and that Excal's was a joke vote which he recently pulled.  He mentions Excal not having a problem with it is weird cause its the "clever scum tactic" Excal was talking about, but he isn't convinced it clears Rat either.

Following post is Alex clarifiny things:

I should clarify, then, and say that I'm not seeing a link that explicitly points towards them being scum together.  I am seeing a link of interaction that doesn't look like town+town.  At this point, it looks like Excal's trying to put forward a line on discouraging voting because of possible shenanigans while ignoring that Rat pulled the exact shenanigan in question, and the two of them are otherwise agreeing with each other.

AHA! Suddenly, something fits in.  Alex is now indicating he doesn't feel scum buddies perse, but its either Scum/Town or Scum/Scum interaction.  He's got his vote on Excal now, mind.

Alex's next post is saying how QR missed his point about why he didn't think Cor was scum.  He says that all Cor did was put a vote on someone to help further discussion based on a nonsense reason, and he said he doesn't find it scummy at all, since its not dissuading discussion.

Next up is Rat's post...

Rat first says he doesn't understand how his vote is being held against him still, goes into a bit about that.  Then talks about Alex, which is the usual "How is my attack on Soppy bad?" and such.

THEN he goes after me, and frankly, comes off as rather, excuse me for saying it this way, a bit of a jerk.  He basically says "No, Being wrong is NOT allowed!" which as I said is the same as saying "People MUST be perfect!" which is, in actuality, asking too much.  Rat has been ignoring how there were other mistakes, maybe more minor, being made.  Then he basically says "DOn't blame them on people calling you out"! even though I *DIDN'T* do that.

He basically then says "Yeah, Meeple admitted he was wrong...BUT HE'S STILL WRONG SO I'M VOTING FOR HIM!"

Alex's post immediately after states how he disagrees with Rat.  Rat's stance is "a vote isn't justified if its to get things going!" and Alex counters by saying that it is, especially on Day 1.  It feels vaguely like, based on Rat's wording, he conveniently forgot how we do this ALL THE DAMN TIME, such like voting someone for lurking to get their attention, and then unvoting the instant they do this.  This is probably looking too into it though, but the fact remains, that statement feels off, so I definitely agree with Alex's stance there.
Alex then states this:

And this is why I unvoted you once you were no longer the most suspicious.  My view of you at that point quite pales in comparison to the issues that have arisen since, and I'm not sure why folks are still making a big deal of it.

So now Alex is saying its no longer a big deal anymore, which is to say, he's dropping it some.

Rat's next post is about my "You are allowed to be wrong" rant.  He's basically saying  "that's giving people too much leeway!" which...is false.  He's basically, again, saying any mistake, even incredibly minor ones, are important...which of course isn't true.  By this logic, you can hold it against someone for a typo of a word that can somehow change the meaning of a sentence to be something they didn't want.  He basically is ignoring how Magnitude of the mistake is what needs to be looked at, NOT just that it exists.  I know I didn't indicate the quality thing in my rants, but I DID indicate the Quantity thing, as I showed with how Super in NR constantly made the same kind of mistakes over and over again to the point where something was definitely no kosher.
Now, Rat then says "Its more likely to be scum if you read quickly!" which is basically feels to me similar to saying "MAFIA IS LIFE! YOU MUST READ EVERYTHING CAREFULLY!" He also forgets that due to reading things quickly did get me Modkilled in NR game where I misunderstood what was being discussed and managed to do the one idiotic thing people just talked about not being allowed (after talking about it with a few others, they said it was reasonable given how much I was catching up on.)

Next off, something jumps out to me...
He calls *ME* out for lines COMPLETELY UNRELATED to what he was talking too.  He basically quotse a line regarding me saying "This is how I am"...which was in response entirely to Kilga's whole "Meeple's acting the way he was in Suikomafia, where he was scum" Metagame strategy.  He then says its reading like I'm claiming its their fault for following it up...well then, isn't that weird; he's holding something against me for lines that don't even correspond with the statement at hand...

He then says "getting outright facts wrong."  Looking back at my posts...the only difference in what I did and what Alex did was the wording involved.  He holds basically that entirely against me.  He then talks to Cor a bit which feels more justifying his actions more so than anything else, nothing really stands out one way or another there, not going into detail.

Alex's next post is going person to person.
He restates he doesn't find anything wrong with Cor; this is consistent with what he's been saying all along.  He then notes that Rat is doing the exact thing he's being accused of (Over-defensiveness, though this is the first time I think Alex is bringing that point up exactly.)  He also says he fits in his own case for me...and doesn't agree with it.
This is the first time he says the Me/Rat thing isn't a hugely relevant.  He does state that 

Kilga's case on him is not flawed, but not very convincing to me at the moment either.  Would not support his lynch.

Other things worth noting is how Alex completely disagrees with Kilga, and says while he's insightful, its unconvincing; he ends with a neutral read.  He says most people are neutral due to being hard to read here, beyond Excal, who he supports lynching (and still has his vote there) and El-Cid for LAL.  His last line is saying how any of the 3 he'd support, and states which order he finds them suspicious (with El-cid being the lowest due to it being purely an LAL situation vs. actual cases.)

Rat's last post on Day 1 responds to the whole Excal thing, mostly just summarizing his past thoughts on it; nothing really new here.  He ends by saying "I'd rather lynch Meeple."

Ok, so day 1 is over...

Day 2, Alex responds to QR's big post, questioning some of her thoughts, and responds to her "What do you think of the flip?"  Alex still thinks Excal was the best day 1 case, despite flipping town, due to how he was.
Alex then brings up how he never once said Excal/Rat were a scum pair...which is true.  Look up in my post, I actually quote him saying how he thinks its simply not Town vs. Town, so from his perspective, at least one of them is Scum.  With Excal gone, its no surprise he goes after Rat later, really.
Next up, he brings up the case against me.  States he doesn't quite understand what the mistake is exactly, and if its what he thinks, its not a big scum tell (and compares to Super.)  He also says the me-too claim could be a scum tell, except he simply doesn't see it the way Kilga does.
(this could be, as an added side, that Alex simply knows me a lot better than Kilga, hence expects that kind of talk out of me, while Kilga is basing entirely off Metagaming only, not sure if this means anything though.)

He votes for El-cid just to get him to speak up, and it works (this, again, goes back to Alex believing that Voting to get things roling is a good thing; why the hell else WOULD you vote to get someone out from lurking?)

Alex's next post is mostly him defending himself from QR's supposed misinterpreting what he said.
He also says Cor's flip did nothing for him; he always saw him as town, so it says nothing to him really.  He finishes that small part up with "kill analysis is WIFOM-y" so just kind of brushes it aside as not being useful.

The last thing he says is this:

Excal's, like I've said, increases my suspicion of El Cid and Rat.  El Cid because it's the only case he made, and Rat because of what I see as odd interactions between the two of them.  With Excal = town in place, it feels like Rat could have been scum tagging on a vote to start a Sopko case, then just sitting back, defending himself, and preying on a minor Meeple error.  It is only a small part of what I find off with Rat, though.

So Alex states a few things he finds wrong with Rat...and says that's not ALL he finds wrong with him.  At this point, I would like to see everything that Alex finds wrong with Rat, since this strikes me that, alongside of the early game stuff (which Alex ultimately said was just to bring up more discussion), I can't really see all that he finds wrong going through his posts.

From here on, its more or less Alex being called "Not being Alex-like" and Alex responding that he honestly sees nothing wrong with what I did.  Rat is definitely part of this.  Rat still has his case against me, even though his whole reasoning is "hasn't said a lot" and such.  Alex is staying firmly with this whole "people are turning one mistake into a big deal!" and Rat disagrees...
Well, the end result is I think Rat's just getting a bit aggressive, and Alex is being himself (despite claims of other people.)  I can't really say whether they're town, but after reading through all of it, it seems more like people throwing stuff at each other, and not letting certain aspects drop, etc.

The fact that Alex has let up on Rat recently shows to me that he is NOT having the same tunnel vision. 

I am pretty much convinced that there is at least one scum among QR, Sopko, Kilga and Cid.

Now, don't get me wrong; I'm not saying Alex is dropping the case entirely on Rat, more that he's let up on it, and as shown here, he thinks at very least, these 4 are better candidates than him.

My vote stays on Kilga since I feel he's the worst.  He makes a big deal on something that only one other person really does (again, El-cid's vote against me feels like multiple factors, my mistake being just one of them), and his reasoning is getting a bit TOO insightful.  His latest statement is claiming that Alex said "You are defending the right to play poorly!"

...no, he's not.  What Alex is doing is "Defending the right for people to be human!"  He also called him out for Alex not being Alex...which is false.  Alex not being Alex was back at Random Mafia, which Alex actually ADMITTED was unlike his play style.  He eventually got lynched by it when he was being way too Tunnel Vision about things (and Alex is definitely not tunnel visioning here, let alone to the extent he was in RandoMafia where he was dead set on killing Smodge, and once that was done, instead of reading into it, went after Ciato in an OMGUS manner, with some shaky claims otherwise, rather than actually feeding off the Smodge lynch like he said lynching him would help.)

Basically, THIS is what Alex is saying:
Mistakes happen.  ALL THE DAMN TIME.  IF they're noticed, they get called out, the person explains why, etc.  One mistake *IS NOT A BIG DEAL* cause it happens by *ANYONE* and its not a case of bad playing, per say. What Alex did say, however, is that it happening on a CONSTANT BASIS, like Super in NR Mafia, or the person adhering to the mistake and not giving in, does matter.  Similarly, he's saying a massive mistake that is unforgivable (voting someone who is clearly dead, unless you're OK in Suikomafia who basically did this big massive post, and didn't know Soppy had died while making it, is the example he uses.) also stands out.

You're looking too into what Alex is saying; he's not advocating bad play.  He's advocating a margin of error, in that this happens, and its not always a good scum tell as a result.  There needs to be more beef behind it.

Now I admit I could be misinterpretting some lines here, but I feel that this sheds some light on both.

EDIT: Rat, you're also going off based on a mistake I made...which was still fairly early game from what I recall.  Just the error wasn't brought up as an actual error until MUCH LATER and that's when you really harped on it.

[Ranmilia]

Alex: Way to list over half the current players still alive and say "I think one of these guys is scum!" Anyone can do some basic probability and put out that stuff. I note both of my suspects (being yourself and Meeple) don't appear on that list. This seems like a ridiculous way of trying to strongarm discussion into all the parts of the game that don't include you; instead of really accusing others, it seems to say "Meeple and I are not scum!" more than anything else.

Thanks, I'll be sure and... not post my thoughts next time on the subset I find most suspicious for a certain behavior?  How on earth does it strongarm discussion?  How is it not really accusing others when it's coupled with a vote and specific case on Kilga, out of that pack?  Most oddly, how are you getting "Meeple and I are not scum" and a "blatant link" out of this when there's a third person not named - you?

[Kilgamayan]

All right, Meeple, you want "consistent basis mistakes"?

They're both the only ones attacking Alex over how he's not looking at my mistake as a big deal.  No one else really brought up much either, but they go after Alex, only cause it "Does not look like the Alex we know!" or "Its odd he doesn't view it much!"

Bold is added by me. The use of "we" implies that both Rat and myself hold the "This doesn't look like etc." stance. I want you to go back and find where Rat said he agreed with this stance and show it to me.

What happens if you can't? Well, there's another strike against you in the name of misinterpretation or not reading closely or whatever.

[Sierra]

Alex: Say what you like about metagaming, but when you have a group this size involved in continuous games it's pretty much inevitable that certain posting styles and tendencies will be noted in the more frequent players. Trying to act like the current game exists in a vacuum is, I think, quite futile.

<irritation>DL Mafia Metagaming drinking game!  Take a shot every time someone says "This isn't the Alex I know!"  It happens every single game, I know for a fact it's people making stuff up every time, and I'm getting just about tired enough of it to sympathize with Ciato and quit for a while.  Or run/play in an anonymous game.  Metagaming is a fallacious and extremely weak argument even at its best.</irritation>

Throwing out metagaming, you're saying that I'm downplaying mistakes and that's scummy. 

A.  Right, because I sure did downplay Excal's mistake, and boy howdy!  No, wait, I attacked him for it, people agreed, and it wound up being a mislynch.  As the game progresses I am trying to grasp at straws less and playstyles more.

Just taking the bit of that post I feel is relevant to this point. He talks about Excal a bit after this (and I've already stated that I agreed with the reasons for day one Excal votes).

The last sentence in that quote block jumps out at me. Alex hits Kilga for analyzing him in a metagame sense--and then, in the same post, says he himself is trying to focus on playstyles more. Which presumably involves noting how people have tended to play in previous games at least to some extent. What, precisely, is the difference here, apart from the fact you use a Bad Word to describe when Kilga does it? Are we simply not allowed to "metagame" when you're the one being questioned? I note that you throw in some metagaming yourself in your defense of Meeple, a bit below the post quoted above (comparing Meeple's mistake to that of Super in NR).

The below quote is taken from his response to me, and addresses a different issue:

Sooo, a case on me based on my initial, starting day 1 argument vs Rat, where I wasn't even considering anyone who hadn't posted seriously yet.  Calling it fabricated.  When the argument in question is me voting someone who voted someone else over a fabricated case.  And I've explicitly admitted that my vote there was also a discussion starter and not a serious lynch Rat now attack.

I was doing a topic reread and throwing things out as they occurred to me. There's less to take you to task for in the second half of the day because that was mostly Excal/Cor stuff and I generally agreed with that. Nevertheless, I don't feel that the post was phrased as a discussion starter; for one thing, you repeated the argument in subsequent posts and even declared at one point that Rat's self-defense flat out didn't matter. That looks to me like something more than a discussion prod. But I'll agree that the whole argument has been pretty well hashed-out by now. I don't intend to go into it further unless I see similar slips from you and need to outline a pattern of behavior.

I do need to weigh in on Sopko and Kilga, yes. I will say that I agree with most of Kilga's points against you, as well as the Kilga/Rat offensive against Meeple.

As for Meeple, I'll start another post for him. It'll take a bit of work to break down that monster post of his on the start of this page.

[Sierra]

You say this, El Cid, and you totally ignore how I did in fact add my own content by indicating that Excal's playing with numbers was just he being himself, and not enough of a tell by itself.   I tried to take a stance that I felt people were exaggerating a bit too much on...and look, suddenly, Excal flips town after a lynch!  Now, it was Day 1, and there was little to work off of, so I can see WHY he got lynched, just I still felt like people were attacking him for no reason.

I have to agree with Alex's statement about "This is not the Alex I know!" thing kicking in.  It was vaguely brought up in Random Mafia where Alex had this immense tunnel vision on Smodge, and it seemed unlike him, so when Smodge was flipped Town and the exact role he claimed even, people went after him.  Alex plays games differently and works off situations that present themselves.  He's been consistent about THAT much.  Just going "Alex hasn't been himself, SCUM!"...well, you're basically using the OPPOSITE logic against me, in a sense:

"Meeple's acting like Meeple, SCUM!"

I don't see where this fits.  So for Alex, he's expected to act a certain way and if he doesn't, he's suddenly Scum, yet for me, if I DO act the way I always do, I *AM* looking scummy?  That just rings circular, inconsistent logic.

Nope. I never said anything resembling this. I addressed your playstyle strictly in the context of this game, and nowhere in this thread can you find me drawing the comparison to other games that you're going on about here. You may be confusing me with someone else who attacked you earlier (Rat, maybe? I'd have to go back and check). More in a moment, but I had to correct this first.

[Sierra]

Stuff from the Giant Meeple Rant. First off, a couple reiterated Alex arguments that Meeple agrees with. I'm not trying to draw a connection between the two of them; it's just convenient to be able to tag two people I'm suspicious of at once:

The first case is *always* going to be flimsy, so attacking the guy who brings up the first case because it's flimsy is, well, pretty pointless, unless he's trying to push that case as more than a day 1 discussion starter.

The logic is simple here and straightforward.

The point is pretty much repeated here:

I was attacking Rat for attacking Sopko for Sopko attacking Meeple as a discussion starter, on the premise that attacking people for starting discussion with a flimsy case on day 1 is unproductive because any starting day 1 case is understood to be flimsy and less of an attack than an issue to spark discussion.  On day 1, especially at its start, flimsy cases are all we have to talk about, and attacking people for making them equals attacking people for starting discussion, as the only way to avoid being attacked for this is to make no cases at all.  Ergo I find Rat's position anti-discussion and antitown.

Translation: Alex is saying Rat attacked flimsy cases that existed for the sake of discussion, and finds Rat's stance antitown as a result.

So, what exactly are we supposed to do with the initial "discussion starter" votes? Ignore them? Nod along? Smile and wave? They exist to start discussion, and countering them with a vote is, I think, a very valid way of continuing that. It continues to baffle me that the above arguments were ever seriously made.

On an unrelated note:

He's basically, again, saying any mistake, even incredibly minor ones, are important...which of course isn't true.

On the contrary, many a case is made from a collection of minor tells. This game would be damned easy for town if the scum were just massively incompetent. This is more of a general point, really. The accumulation of small details is actually quite vital.

My vote stays on Kilga since I feel he's the worst.  He makes a big deal on something that only one other person really does (again, El-cid's vote against me feels like multiple factors, my mistake being just one of them), and his reasoning is getting a bit TOO insightful.  His latest statement is claiming that Alex said "You are defending the right to play poorly!"

Too insightful? How does that work, exactly? Anyway, Kilga's issue with Alex looks to me like he's worried about Alex being inconsistent. Not because of how Alex played in this or that game, but because we know him to be perceptive and thorough, and him glossing over a mistake (I don't believe he even addressed your oversight until other people called you on it) looks off.

[Sierra]

So, general Hunter Sopko stuff: I can't fault him for not posting, certainly. He chimes in on a pretty regular basis with his thoughts on whatever the current issue is and nothing he's said leaps out at me as being off. Hasn't pursued any single case very strongly, which is odd. Bears looking at, but he's not one my main suspects at the moment.

Okay, off for a bit. Will check for responses one more time before going to work (~an hour and a bit).

[Shale]

Update!

El Cideon (0): Sir Alex
Sir Alex (2): QuietRain, Kilgamayan
Meeplelard (2): El Cideon, Carthrat
Kilgamayan (2): Meeplelard, Sir Alex

With seven alive, it takes four to lynch. Day 2 ends in 26.5 hours.

[Meeplelard]

Quick word in before class, just want to clear something up:

Nope. I never said anything resembling this. I addressed your playstyle strictly in the context of this game, and nowhere in this thread can you find me drawing the comparison to other games that you're going on about here. You may be confusing me with someone else who attacked you earlier (Rat, maybe? I'd have to go back and check). More in a moment, but I had to correct this first.

This wasn't geared at you at all.  My post was first responding to you, then going off on a different point entirely.  *GRANTED*, the way I structured it, I can easily see confusing it in a sense that you thought I was claiming you did, but beyond that first paragraph, I'm working off a different paragraph.

Bold is added by me. The use of "we" implies that both Rat and myself hold the "This doesn't look like etc." stance. I want you to go back and find where Rat said he agreed with this stance and show it to me.

You say that line once.  Rat says something along the lines like "The Alex I know would be jumping all over this!"

(and I find it bizzare that Alex, in particular, is willing to call the whole mistake argument irrelevant; this just isn't the attitude I've seen from him in past games at all; I generally associate him with stomping on the attitude Meeple took quite heavily.)

Rat's quote.  Yeah, sure, he doesn't use that exact line, but he does say he finds it odd and not normal.  This is saying the same thing but lighter.  YOU TWO ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO EVEN BRING THAT UP.
So yeah, he DID in fact say something that meant the same thing.

I was putting too much emphasis on you two making that *HOWEVER*, from what I've seen, you two still are the only two who put ANY emphasis at all ON it.

So, what exactly are we supposed to do with the initial "discussion starter" votes? Ignore them? Nod along? Smile and wave? They exist to start discussion, and countering them with a vote is, I think, a very valid way of continuing that. It continues to baffle me that the above arguments were ever seriously made.

Alex stated that he mainly did that move cause he wanted to push forth discussion and I guess he felt odd that Rat would even bring up the Joke Phase -> Serious Phase transition, in a style that wasn't even true (to him.)

I didn't say "Alex is cleared" now did I?

On the contrary, many a case is made from a collection of minor tells. This game would be damned easy for town if the scum were just massively incompetent. This is more of a general point, really. The accumulation of small details is actually quite vital.

Yes, a collection of them.  The supposed collection on me is:
One Mistake
Me being myself, just cause it was similar to how I played in the one game Kilga learned I was scum (which was also my FIRST GAME EVER, as a side note.)
Not contributing as much as I could

At least, from what I gather.  I can see holding two of those points against me (first and 3rd), just I was mostly against the Mistake thing alone being held against me as heavily as it was.  The 2nd, though, is basically someone else not paying attention to me as a person at all, and simply linking it to me being scum the one time I was scum, cause I acted the same way...when I always act this way.  It doesn't really add up.

(I'm aware point 2 is twisting words around, but that's effectively what happened with Kilga calling me out on the "me-too" statement.  He's focussing on my acts as scum, and not my acts as MYSELF, which super actually noted in NR Mafia, are pretty much one and the same, and that's why basing an argument off that won't get you very far.  It was actually a joke in chat that I'd be hard to read for this reason, and people would want me dead ASAP just to not have to deal with it <.<)

Too insightful? How does that work, exactly? Anyway, Kilga's issue with Alex looks to me like he's worried about Alex being inconsistent. Not because of how Alex played in this or that game, but because we know him to be perceptive and thorough, and him glossing over a mistake (I don't believe he even addressed your oversight until other people called you on it) looks off.

Yes, cause its not impossible to look TOO MUCH into a point to bring out hidden meaning that was never actually there.  Look at what some people do with poetry; they come up with these bizarre meanings of what the poem means, using words and linkings that just make me eye roll, cause I can't fathom that the creator of the poem actually thought that.  A famous one is The Road Not Taken (I think that's the name?), which, believe it or not,w as originally written as a LITERAL POEM, yet people still felt the need to analyze it to hell.

This is what's meant by too insightful.  You look for something too hard in a statement, you can pull out anything.  Simply brushing that fact off is awkward.

And I don't think Alex addressed my oversight mostly cause he felt I was viewing Rat in the same light he was.  Again, if you compare what Alex did and what I did, Rat actually responded to both with "I am not stifling the argument!" (he used that twice), so the difference was the wording, and apparently mine was a bit more blatant than I had intended it.

[Carthrat]

Re: Alex

You say it's a 'subset' you're calling out on suspicious behaviour when it comprises of over half the game! There's no direction there, and I can't read it as anything but a scattershot ploy.

As far as the link goes. It's that you two are the ones I'm most suspicious of at the moment. It was a snap reaction to calling out the people I thought were *least* likely to be scum. It felt like you were trying to get everyone arguing amongst themselves, away from yourself and Meeple. The fact that you actually considered mentioning that out of half the game, there's probably scum baffles me when you could say the same thing for any group of similar size and be just as likely to be right *by odds alone*.

As far as ignoring that I'm the extra third party, I think that gives me a better position to judge your accusation-of-everyone than others. I'll grant that the link was stupid.

Re: Meeple

I can say that I came away from your post more confused than I was to start. For instance...

Then Rat continues to go on claiming his reasoning on Soppy is just, cause Soppy tried a flimsy, incorrect reason.  Ok, so to Rat's credit, he is being consistent with the mistake issue, since he's calling Soppy out for something obviously wrong.  He also says Soppy's reason remains suspect cause its the very first thing that is said.  This...seems like Rat is taking Soppy a tad too seriously; Soppy openly admits that he was just trying to get the ball rolling, yet he still feels strongly AGAINST the action?

So... you again ignore why I was against the action at that time, which was because it was *right after you, yourself posted*. The flying under the radar thing *didn't make sense to me* in that context. It was a small thing; I don't put much stock in it now. But at that point in the game, there was almost nothing! I felt it was weird and I said so.

I don't know what you mean by Sopko's reason being suspect because it's the first thing he said. I do mean that the *first semi-serious reason for a vote given* was not great, but I have not argued crap like 'he said something first! VOTING HIM FOR TALKING'. People keep bringing this up, and then they wonder why I keep refuting it.

This is similar to your original mistake that I talked about, too. On the other hand, you say I'm being consistant in pointing out mistakes, which would seem indicative that I'm doing exactly the opposite.

Rat's next post is about my "You are allowed to be wrong" rant.  He's basically saying  "that's giving people too much leeway!" which...is false.  He's basically, again, saying any mistake, even incredibly minor ones, are important...which of course isn't true.  By this logic, you can hold it against someone for a typo of a word that can somehow change the meaning of a sentence to be something they didn't want.

Now who's exaggerating things? I clearly wasn't talking about crap like typos in that post, but people making *factual errors*. You're twisting the whole thrust of my post into me just being excessively nitpicky.

In general, you bring up stuff I said and the words I choose all the time with no real conclusions drawn from them. Stuff like how I use 'wrong' when talking to Corwin, how I end day 1 by saying I'd rather have lynched you than Excal, and I just don't get why it was mentioned. It reads like a stream-of-consciousness rant and doesn't present your case clearly.

I'd like you to try and summarize the conclusions you've drawn from your analysis in a shorter format, basically. If you can actually signpost your argument I think I'd do much better at interpreting it. I still think you're repeatedly twisting things I've said.

<->

Kilga: A-ctually I DID think Alex was playing differently and wanted to call him out on it. See here-

And speaking of Alex himself, it isn't even the fact that Meeple made a mistake he seemed to think was fine that grips me- it's how he ignored the content of Meeple's post that seemed to say making mistakes isn't *that bad*. Alex's biggest tell as scum, by his own admission, include what he *doesn't* say. He's complained about how people do this to him every game. Tough- you're the one who pointed it out to me in the first place, way back in Touhou Mafia.

The issue has kind of been dropped since, and Alex has done other things I've found more worthy of pointing at. This is a metagame argument, and I'm frequently loathe to draw on these, but Alex is often inscrutable to me and I find myself wanting to compare his play now to his other games. I do believe his main tell is generally in what he doesn't say, and as he's always struck me as someone who loves to shoot down flawed game philosophy, I wanted to point it out.

<->

Edit for Meeplepost! Mostly in reply to Kilga? One thing catches me eye- when he says ME AND KILGA ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO EVEN BRING ALEX'S PAST GAMES UP. Well, actually, QR talked about how that kind of analysis isn't invalid. For another, so what? Is this actually a big deal in and of itself?

I find it ironic that Meeple of all people says 'you can find anything in a statement if you look hard enough', given my earlier comments on his post.

[Kilgamayan]

Rat's quote.  Yeah, sure, he doesn't use that exact line, but he does say he finds it odd and not normal.  This is saying the same thing but lighter.  YOU TWO ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO EVEN BRING THAT UP.

Two can play at this game: You two are the only ones refuting it.

That aside, Rat's metagame (what a weak word to hide behind, by the way) is duly noted.

[QuietRain]

Stealing the last 20 minutes of a really hideous luncheon to respond (rather than network with ppl stranger than *I* am <_<).

Thoughts on the currently raised issues (and yes, Alex, it was always my intent to do so once more people had added to the conversation):

MEEPLERANT post: *headdesk*  Well, that ate way more into my alloted time for this than I wanted.  Long post is long to read.  Basically, the things I took away from it were that saying Alex is not acting like Alex should not be a scumtell (which I agree with, Alex' actions in this game are another matter to me and I look forward to your implied follow-up about your thoughts on Alex in your note on feeling I'm justified), regarding Kila/Rat he thinks they were after Alex on a strictly playstyle basis (which I don't agree or disagree with really, they both said it, but just because they didn't quote my reasons or anyone else's for thinking that Alex looks scummy doesn't mean those issues weren't factored into their thinking), and that his reason for voting Kilga was ... I'd like a bit of clarification on that really.  Why Kilga over Carth?  What actions by Kilga are you thinking put him over the scummy threshold more than the other person you think is doing the same thing in your paragraph before the vote?  I think that would really be helpful for me to understand.

I agree with Alex on his interpretation about Soppy's pinning down a definitive list of suspects.  Even if you're not to the point of voting, I'd like to see your serious contenders laid out with your reasonings.

And to Alex' later comment: 'I desperately want El Cid and QR to post more': ...So do I.  HATE for conferences.  Especially boring ones that make me want to fall asleep.

[QuietRain]

I only made it to post 120, so if stuff is answered after that, I'll be seeing it tonight.

[Ranmilia]

The last sentence in that quote block jumps out at me. Alex hits Kilga for analyzing him in a metagame sense--and then, in the same post, says he himself is trying to focus on playstyles more. Which presumably involves noting how people have tended to play in previous games at least to some extent.

Your presumption is wrong.  I do indeed mean analyzing playstyles for empirical protown/proscum tendencies as if the current game exists in a vacuum.  There is a vast difference between pulling specific examples from random past games (me making a mistake in Wolverine vs Super's mistakes in NR) and saying "Person X acted like this when they were town/scum, and they are/aren't this game, so they're town/scum just because their behavior is the same/different from how they personally acted before!"

You say it's a 'subset' you're calling out on suspicious behaviour when it comprises of over half the game! There's no direction there, and I can't read it as anything but a scattershot ploy.

Nonsensical.  First, I included further direction towards Kilga, which you seem to be ignoring.  Second, I'm still vastly failing to see how "these four people seem scummier than the other two on the basis of their playstyle" is in any way a scummy statement. 

Kilga: A-ctually I DID think Alex was playing differently and wanted to call him out on it. ..... I do believe his main tell is generally in what he doesn't say

Metagaming, bad, etc.  The second part you've mentioned before.  It does not mean what you seem to think it means.  Which is decidedly odd because you were scum with me in the game I made it about, you should know this.  What it means is "If there are people acting empirically horribly scummy and Alex is brushing over them, something may be wrong."  Examples include Gate and Cid in Touhou, or Otter and Andrew in WaDF.  What it does NOT mean is "If Alex's posts aren't an encyclopedia that comments on every issue and player from every possible angle, he's scum." 

I'm no Mafia god, if you look hard enough you're always going to be able to pull up some random argument I didn't see or make, and be able to argue that I should have.  Clearly this means I am always scum!  No.  Distinguish.  Nobody in this game is acting at anywhere near the level of scumminess in question - except possibly yourself, your last couple of posts have been chock full of grand mal scummy mistakes (yeah I went there) and if I had a second vote to drop it'd now be on you.  Actually I'd drop mine on you right now, except that I still want more people to comment on Kilga.   

Thoughts on the currently raised issues (and yes, Alex, it was always my intent to do so once more people had added to the conversation):

MEEPLERANT post: *headdesk*  Well, that ate way more into my alloted time for this than I wanted.  Long post is long to read.  Basically, the things I took away from it were that saying Alex is not acting like Alex should not be a scumtell (which I agree with, Alex' actions in this game are another matter to me and I look forward to your implied follow-up about your thoughts on Alex in your note on feeling I'm justified), regarding Kila/Rat he thinks they were after Alex on a strictly playstyle basis (which I don't agree or disagree with really, they both said it, but just because they didn't quote my reasons or anyone else's for thinking that Alex looks scummy doesn't mean those issues weren't factored into their thinking), and that his reason for voting Kilga was ... I'd like a bit of clarification on that really.  Why Kilga over Carth?  What actions by Kilga are you thinking put him over the scummy threshold more than the other person you think is doing the same thing in your paragraph before the vote?  I think that would really be helpful for me to understand.

I agree with Alex on his interpretation about Soppy's pinning down a definitive list of suspects.  Even if you're not to the point of voting, I'd like to see your serious contenders laid out with your reasonings.

And to Alex' later comment: 'I desperately want El Cid and QR to post more': ...So do I.  HATE for conferences.  Especially boring ones that make me want to fall asleep.

Bolded stuff is all about me.  You're doing it again!  Try and post more without the large majority of your content still being about me.  Bonus points if you can also do so without inflating the first 10 serious posts of the game. 

[QuietRain]

Alex, if you're wanting me to find you less scummy, you fail.  YES, I do find you the most scummy even after reading back through everything else!  So will my posts mention you?  YES.  Just because I want people to talk about things OTHER THAN YOU, doesn't mean I want people to NOT TALK ABOUT YOU.  Even me.

-----------------------------------------

Bonus points if I can do so without inflating the first 10 serious posts of the game?  Do you screen your posts for things you say that have no other purpose than to agrravate and anger someone?  It's helpful.  I deleted half my post due to it.  I wasn't even involved in the first 10 posts when the game turned serious.  If you need to take a break and calm down before posting, please feel free to do so.  Otherwise, that phrase was nothing more than fuel on a fire and I'll let it go as such.

Now, my reply about MEEPLE (please read the first word in the paragraph) was summarizing what I thought of his post where he mentioned YOU.  I am highly amused that the first part you pick apart of my post is where I mention you and actually say that I agree that you don't look scummy for the specific reason stated.  <_<

Now, my promised posts on other issues (and no, Alex, I won't promise not to mention you.  Until someone seems as scummy or more scummy than you, you're in my thoughts).

Reading through Meeple's post #125 on the Rat vs Kilga thing.  I'm in agreement with the line of thinking that a mistake does not make someone scum, much as some players would like to believe it possible (and no, that's not speaking to anyone in the game, it's a general comment).  EVERYONE is capable of making a mistake.  It's when you can not admit it, OMGUS when corrected or make more mistakes that the mistake you made can mean anything else.  And from our game's histories it sadly usually means a townie who doesn't pay attention.

I do agree with Kilga that the phrase 'too insightful' from Meeple is very...off setting for me.  It sounds very much like the classic slip of a scum, but I haven't felt one way or another about him before so, minorly scummy read from me there.  I can acknowledge the logic of why he says he chose the phrase (poetry does indeed get this all too often), but as it's my only leaning one way or another, I am not going to void it based on the explaination alone.  I will be watching Meeple's comments hereafter, though, for more of the same.  As for Kilga himself, neutral so far.

As for Cid, I don't think he's posting less often than I am at this point and his posts have been quite full of content.  I'm leaning towards townie at the moment.

As for Soppy, other than a desire to see him take some firm stances on people, I don't really have a read on him to offer.

From Carth, I get a neutral to townie read.  He's made a lot of good points and I've agreed with some of his logic (altough not all).
---------------------------------------
And a note that I leave directly from the conference tomorrow night for the airport for a redeye flight home.  Now, I will try to use one of those...internet...kiosk thingies I always see around airports to post before my flight takes off.  But I can't promise more than a single post at best tomorrow evening.  So I'm getting my time in tonight as best as I can.  Also I think I can squeeze a post in before lunch.  Maybe two depending on how the lectures are structured.

[Hunter Sopko]

I usually like to prod people for information as much as possible before I start taking firm stances. However, one of my stances should be pretty apparant by now. I'm suspicious of Alex.

The flip side of that though is that the only other person I'm suspicious of is Kilga. Meeple's situation at this point feels more like he's a townie who's had to get way too defensive, and I get a general town reading from QR and Cid. Rat's come a bit away from the slightly scum reading I was getting yesterday. He's middleground right now, but I don't have enough against him at this point to consider him on the level of Alex and Kilga.

The way the argument has been going, it just feels like one of Alex and Kilga is the scum. It's too thorough an argument on both sides to really be chalked up to town vs town. Obviously, this is a minefield and I'm not advocating that if we lynch one it clears/incriminates the other, but I'm just saying I think this is the best case for today.

[Sierra]

Quick word in before class, just want to clear something up:

Nope. I never said anything resembling this. I addressed your playstyle strictly in the context of this game, and nowhere in this thread can you find me drawing the comparison to other games that you're going on about here. You may be confusing me with someone else who attacked you earlier (Rat, maybe? I'd have to go back and check). More in a moment, but I had to correct this first.

This wasn't geared at you at all.  My post was first responding to you, then going off on a different point entirely.  *GRANTED*, the way I structured it, I can easily see confusing it in a sense that you thought I was claiming you did, but beyond that first paragraph, I'm working off a different paragraph.

Okay. It was indeed not very clear from the context, since the first time you directly addressed someone other than me in that post was just after the paragraph that set me off.

I do agree that Meeple has somewhat exaggerated the point Rat was making about mistakes and how to treat them. I never like to see things blown out of proportion in this manner, and it's something I'm inclined to reward with a vote.

Different subject, from an Alex post:

The last sentence in that quote block jumps out at me. Alex hits Kilga for analyzing him in a metagame sense--and then, in the same post, says he himself is trying to focus on playstyles more. Which presumably involves noting how people have tended to play in previous games at least to some extent.

Your presumption is wrong.  I do indeed mean analyzing playstyles for empirical protown/proscum tendencies as if the current game exists in a vacuum.  There is a vast difference between pulling specific examples from random past games (me making a mistake in Wolverine vs Super's mistakes in NR) and saying "Person X acted like this when they were town/scum, and they are/aren't this game, so they're town/scum just because their behavior is the same/different from how they personally acted before!"

This is something we'll just have to disagree on, then. I wouldn't countenance building an entire case on this kind of inference, no, but bearing in mind how someone has tended to play in the past in conjunction with other evidence doesn't strike me as particularly misguided. I think we're really disagreeing about a matter of degrees here. But this is delving into a discussion purely of preferences in playstyle and doesn't really help either of us.

---

So, we don't have a ton of time left here. And I am not gonna push for an extension with a group this size.

General thoughts on everyone at the moment:

Alex: Fairly suspicious of him. I've gone on about this already and my feelings haven't changed. Will switch my vote from Meeple to him if it looks like we're nearing the deadline without a majority.

Carthrat: Town read. I've agreed with most every point Rat's made this game...which isn't exactly a guarantee of trustworthiness, I know (especially since I've almost always been wrong in past games). But it's enough for me to overlook him for more pressing targets.

Hunter Sopko: I'm honestly inclined to throw him a lurker vote at the moment. He hasn't spoken up in around nineteen hours now. Maybe there's some quirk of his schedule I'm not aware of, since he contributed pretty regularly before that? But it's been hard to get a read on him in general and that's usually not a good sign. Actually...scanning through the topic, I'm not the only one saying this. Alex and QR also mention being unable to get a read on Soppy. And the guy's almost entirely managed to avoid getting any votes on him, too. This is weird. Intentionally or otherwise, he's slipping below the radar too easily. It's not enough for me to call him scum right now, but I'm starting to consider him a reasonable lynching target. Still, I think it's too late in this game-day to start a train against someone new and get a majority by the deadline, so I'll hold off for now. If there's quick agreement on the matter in the wake of this post, though, then there's a good chance I'll join in on giving him a vote.

Kilga: See Carthrat. I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Kilga's said this game. Of course, this can actually be dangerous if it instills the kind of bias that makes one unlikely to question another. I intend to look over all his posts for inconsistencies, but that's looking like a day three issue. I have other suspects right now and I don't think there's time left in the day to start off on another tack.

Meeple: I've voiced my misgivings about him. I'm not convinced he's scum, but I think he's a better lynch than most other people right now. Granted, QR's most recent post sums up his case pretty well and gives me pause somewhat. I'll reread his posts later tonight (oh, the agony--I'm sorry, but the Giant Meeple Rants give me migraines. I'm not holding this against you in terms of my vote, it's just something that needed to be said!) but for now my vote stays where it is.

QR: Being mostly absent day one makes it harder to get a read on her. And, as much as the "legitimate excuses are great for scum" argument rears its ugly head here, she did tell us about the absence before the game even started. So I can't really hold this against her.

EDIT: Ninja'd by a Soppy post. Better, but I'd still like to see him building cases in a more active manner.

[Shale]

Update!

El Cideon (0): Sir Alex
Sir Alex (2): QuietRain, Kilgamayan
Meeplelard (2): El Cideon, Carthrat
Kilgamayan (2): Meeplelard, Sir Alex

With seven alive, it takes four to lynch. Day 2 ends in 16.5 hours, although I'm not ruling out an extension.

[QuietRain]

Thank you modly one.

So, in taking the above to note, if Soppy and Cid are willing to turn their votes to Alex (at least in Cid's case he is if we get closer to deadline), then I'm curious for Meeple and Carth's opinions on the issue.  If we can reach a concensus before the deadline, I think that's always preferable.

[Hunter Sopko]

A more active manner? I was questioning Alex on things before Kilga even posted in the day.

As for scheduling, nothing overly bad. I've had work from 7PM-2AM for the majority of the game. I can post at work, obviously, but usually I get home around 3AM and do some stuff and conk out around 7-8AM, wake up at around 3-4PMish. My schedule is off, but it shouldn't conflict for 19 hours and you're right to call me out when that happens.

[Ranmilia]

... and now QR's scheduling a hammer on me, having still offered very little on anyone else all game. 

The case on me, as I've heard it:  (I'm not trying to spin this or leave things out.  If you think I'm missing a major point please bring it up.)

1.  In the very first phase of serious discussion, when less than half the game was actively participating, I voted Rat for his voting Sopko for Sopko voting Meeple.

2.  When other people pressed Meeple on his making a mistake, I did not join in.

3.  Metagaming, "This isn't the Alex I know!" extended from #2.

4.  "Strongarming discussion" with #1 and by saying I was suspicious of 4 of the remaining 7 people.

That's all I've seen in the way of major points.  Again, if someone has more, bring em up. 

#1 has been discussed to death, called scummy for reasons I still cannot fathom, and could (and has) been applied to everyone who was participating at that time in the game.  #2, I did say at the time I didn't see the case on Meeple, I hold by that and still do not see it, and honestly calling me out on not jumping in and explaining why minor mistakes =/= good case is absurd.  There is a lot of mischaracterization around #2 coming from Kilga, but I'll get to that in a minute. 

#3 (also from Kilga!) is never a good argument - and if you do choose to use it (you shouldn't), it should be taken into account that it is even more useless applied to me in particular, as I get accusations of this nature every single game, regardless of my own or my accuser's alignments.  See VtM for a most recent example, where I was saved from ridiculousness only by role madness.  It is impossible in general and even moreso for me specifically to defend against metagame charges.  They can be made against anyone for basically any reason.

#4, to be honest, I don't really understand entirely, and what I do understand of it seems to be flat out wrong.  I fail to see how my early vote for Rat stifled discussion.  I've said that it was intended, in fact, to *provoke* discussion, and it has done just that, though not in the ways I'd intended.    Rat's recent argument on my suspicions list is flat out wrong and incredibly scummy.  Read it again and think about it.  He's calling me suspicious for posting my thoughts on who I thought was suspicious.  Not for who I named, not for the reasons I gave, but because I called four out of seven people (six suspects, to me) suspicious.  This does not make sense in the slightest.  Is it wrong to be suspicious of over 50% of the game?  Would he call it magically nonscummy if I'd named only three?  Should I not post my thoughts on whom I find suspicious?  Should I limit my cases to only one or two people and not mention anyone else?  Well, maybe so - it seems to be working for QR this game, somehow.  But it didn't work for me in Random, that's a bad style for here and I'm not using it anymore.  Nor should anyone else. 

Notice, though, what's absent from the above.  Notice what people aren't saying.  Notice the one rational argument that could be brought against me, but hasn't, the one thing I've done that indisputably wound up hurting town.  I pressed for Excal's lynch.  Was the main person pressing for it, in my read of day 1.  Got it.  I was wrong and he was town.  Not a single person, not ONE, has brought this up as a point against me today.  QR mentioned it in a sideways manner at the start of the day.  I was prepared to defend against it, as anyone on a mislynch should be, and even started posting arguments to that effect.  And then... nobody ever mentioned it again.  It's not a part of the current case on me.

Why not?  What does this mean, why am I bringing it up now, when it has potential to add fuel to the fire on me?  I'm bringing it up because it says to me that the case on me is not being founded on rational arguments.  Instead of analyzing lynches, votes, and basic patterns and playstyles, people are more interested in metagaming, seizing on tiny perceived slips, concentrating on random single phrases and perceptions and flat out making stuff up.  This is an extremely dangerous attitude that should not be allowed the game. 

Yes, details can be important, but they can only function reliably as part of a larger case.  People here are missing the forest for the trees - and I think this nearsightedness is being pushed by scum.  If you really want to, you can find small mistakes, inconsistencies, oversights and slips in anyone's play, in any Mafia game, and spin them any way you want.  Scum LOVE doing this.  They ADORE town making mountains out of molehills, because it can be done so indiscriminately, and their own mistakes drowned out and blended into those of every townie - and we can't defend against them.  This is precisely the way WaDF Mafia was lost.  From start to finish town ignored major playstyles and chased tiny ghosts around, ending with OK voting Yakumo for something that *was* an antitown mistake on Yakko's part... but *should* have been superceded by Andrew and Otter's overpoweringly scummy styles. 

tldr - the case against me consists entirely of minor issues that may or may not be scummy (I think they're not, but don't take my word for it, everyone's throwing different opinions around) and inherently cannot be defended against, while my accusers glaringly ignore the largest real argument they could make.  WHY?  Probably because they know I could defend myself against a rational case and prefer to prey on paranoia and metagaming instead.  After all, they only need to get two people to buy into it.

Part 1 of a series!  Posting this now as the second part will be going on the offensive against those who are pushing this attitude the most, and take longer to compose.

[QuietRain]

I know you're still typing more of that post and I look forward to reading it (figured there would be so I stayed up a bit late).  But for a quick note, you have 2 people with a vote on you and two people who just said they would be willing to vote you.  I hardly see what's so off about asking the remaining two what they think of the situation.  It's not like I said, 'well, time to wrap this up and kill off Alex'.  There are two votes sitting on Meeple and another two on Kilga so if the other two have serious pushes on why theirs is a better wagon to jump on, I'd like to hear it.  I don't know that it woulod change my mind at this point, but asking people's opinions seems to be what we should be doing, right?  We're getting down to the nitty gritty when it comes to time so we need to start consolidating our plans on who to lynch.

And feeding into paranoia and metagaming?  Alex, I've said all along that metagaming has nothing to do with why I find you scummy.  Why do you insist on twisting that like it's the gospel?  NONE of your #1-4 is what I'm finding scummy about you, anyway (at least they're not the REASON I find you scummy, they just reinforce the feeling rather than assuaging it).  It was the way you twisted Carth's comment back in Day 1 as the majorly scummy thing and ever since you've been hyper reactionary.  (I'd hardly call arguing with me when you're the only one I think is seriously scummy is hyper reactionary, that's just plain self-preservation.  It's your reactions to anyone else calling you out on it as part of their comments on more people than just you.)

As for your 'one reason', it's not.  Lynching someone who turns out to be a townie when you honestly think someone looks scummy isn't BY ITSELF scummy.  The fact that I find you scummy outside of that and THEN you were for the Excal lynch raises my red flags.

[Kilgamayan]

Alex, you forgot to mention your strawman argument here in your list of stuff you've done to be worth attacking:

Everyone makes the occasional stupid mistake.  See this for the people who were there for it, though I know Kilga wasn't.  A *pattern* of stupid mistakes, or one ridiculously massive one like making a case against a dead player, is scummy because it indicates a player is grossly not paying attention.  A single mistake where someone reverses two words, or types the wrong name once?  Scum or town can do that.  Brainfarts are equal opportunity.

I realize that no one before now has specifically said "that's a strawman argument" but I know I at the very least pointed out how it was a bad example here.

[Meeplelard]

Ok, first off, responding to QR's "Why'd you go for Kilga over Rat?" and all that.

Well, I went and looked back at Rat's posts and...well, at first, he's just forced onto the defensive.  As someone said, it was for something he didn't do.  Alex was pushing on him.  Kilga, meanwhile, when I looked at his posts, he looked...kind of out to get Alex in a sense? I'd have to go over them again, but after the joke phase was over, he goes after Alex, then goes after me for my mistake...now is back to going after Alex.  His reasons don't sound particularly sound either; as Alex has been bringing up, its Metagaming.

As I've said before, your case on Alex feels a bit fairer.  You're brought up reasons, and basically said he feels the worst compared to anyone (and now recently said he's only looking worse), and that got him your vote.  That's fine; that's what's to be expected.  Kilga...dunno, something feels off with him.

Though, Rat's latest action did spark my suspicion of him again; Alex mentions people he finds suspicious, Rat says Alex lists over half the people...and conveniently misses that Alex didn't list him, saying "you're saying only Meeple and yourself are not suspicious!"  That's a bit of an odd slip; its like he was getting rather paranoid and immediately assumed he was on the list, and looked specifically for people who weren't him on that list, which was Alex (who, frankly, is obviously not on that list; why the hell would you say "I am suspicious of myself!" That's like a ridiculous statement, barring MAYBE Day 1 Joke Phases, and even then, someone might try to hold that against you anyway.) and myself, who he's been consistent saying that I don't look suspicious.

Though, Alex being called out for not going after me feels like it'd be the same if people went after me for not going after Excal, but actually supporting him.  Not sure what this says, just noting the parallel.

Right now, feels like one of (though not both) Alex and Kilga are scum.  Given the way Alex has been defending himself, and Kilga has been going on about these minor things that Alex has been saying "Turning a mountain into a molehill."
Just like his LAST POST.  He says Alex has a strawman's argument...when his argument makes COMPLETE SENSE.  Its not a strawman argument, its one of logic and truth.  Discounting it is trying to, as I said, make it out that humans *HAVE* to be perfect, and mistakes are bad, irregularities that must be destroyed on sight.  There's a fine-line between "Big mistake" or conversely, "constant small ones" and "a minor slip which anyone can do on both sides."

Also, lately, Kilga did try to claim Rat didn't do something that he kind of did (just in a more subtle way, and Rat admitted he was planning on doing it at one point, but retracted for more concrete reasons, and it was meta-gaming anyway, something he prefers to avoid; all fair enough reasons), and instead of properly responding, he basically does a whole "Now I'll reverse it back to you!"  He then goes "Meta-gaming noted," to Rat...as though it felt like he ignored my quoting rat, in response to his asking for where I came up with that, and just noted when Rat verified it.  Probably looking too into that one post, but it kind of gives me that impression.

Alex brings up a good point too, but at the same time, the reason is a bit WIFOM; I'll get to that in a bit.  I also completely agree about his Metagaming comment.  The thing that always reminds me "Metagaming based on exact play styles between each game doesn't do much" is Super in the early Mafia games.
2 Early games, he was scum.  He played both games COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY.  One he played by lurking and observing, the other he was an active participant in the conversation (though shot himself in the foot early on too.)  Super strikes me as someone whose going to change play styles for each game just to avoid suspicions based on play styles; its the opposite of "play every game the same for the same reason," both are reasons why Meta-gaming fails in and of itself.

Meta-gaming is best used for exact examples, IOWs, referring to exact circumstances and events that were scum tells.  Going off playstyle alone doesn't go far.

Regarding the WIFOM thing?  Well, yeah, he pushes an Excal lynch...its a WIFOM situation since:
A. It works in Scums favor, since they got a mislynch off the bat.
B. Its a bit of a gamble too, however; it could yield suspicion going after someone like that, and they flip up town.

Its for this reason I don't feel its enough of an argument by itself, though it is a bit stronger than some of the other cases brought against Alex.  SIMILARLY, it could also be why Scum haven't brought the argument up either, since its a WIFOM situation; use that against Alex, he flips up town...now THEY look suspicious.  Too much of a gamble on all ends, so if anything, Alex pushing for an Excal lynch, and people overall agreeing, isn't much of a scum tell to me.

[Kilgamayan]

Just like his LAST POST.  He says Alex has a strawman's argument...when his argument makes COMPLETE SENSE.  Its not a strawman argument, its one of logic and truth.  Discounting it is trying to, as I said, make it out that humans *HAVE* to be perfect, and mistakes are bad, irregularities that must be destroyed on sight.  There's a fine-line between "Big mistake" or conversely, "constant small ones" and "a minor slip which anyone can do on both sides."

It's a strawman argument because he took a scenario I wasn't arguing for - a weaker scenario than the one I was arguing for - then refuted it and presented that refutation as if it applied to my argument as well. As a standalone statement, yes, it makes sense, but it doesn't apply to what I was arguing in the first place.