Mini 593- Freedom Force Mafia- GAME OVER!

[aioqwe]

Whether or not he is the Time Master really has nothing to do with it, even though Time Master might seem to be the most logical choice for an SK. This is the OGM thing again, and admittedly, so is the conclusion that there is an SK at all.

Well, no. Right now, I'm reconsidering a bit at what the exact implication is. The evidence is that he misrepresented TM, made TM appear as a bigger threat than what I would interpret TM as and introduced the possibility of a cult. Thus, it might imply that he is TM (a baddie) and attempting to paint his character otherwise. However, I believe he would attempt to paint his character in a positive manner.
Thus I'm thinking of alternatives such as he is a 1) cult cop introducing that there may be a cult, 2) he is an SK but not TM, 3) he is a just a baddie who is unrelated to TM and paints him as a cult leader (knowing that they are powerful) and thus leads to the town to look for the CL of over other baddies, 4) a cult leader who is not TM, or 5) simply a speculating townie. I think 3 and 5 are the most plausible taking into account motives and whether or not a cult exists.

[WileECoyote]

@JJ

I was really looking for a 'speechless' emoticon, but shocked & confused work almost as well.

How do you start to defend against:

“He is the Time Master

because

he thinks the Time Master could be a cult leader when I think he should be a Serial Killer or the Godfather.” ?

[WileECoyote]

aioqwe is now back-tracking. I am no longer the TM, I am now just a goon who is presenting a bigger threat to distract the town. Or maybe I am just a speculating townie.

All this arose from aioqwe asking everyone to speculate on the game setup.

[Patrick]

JimmyJammas, I voted Coron non randomly because he was one of the two who was last to confirm, despite being around. I take it as a minor scumtell, and better than voting randomly.

aioqwe's argument about WileECoyote seems like a stretch to me, as I can't see why an SK would try to paint their character as a cult leader. However, the vibe I get from aioqwe is one of impatience rather than trying to deceive with this argument.

[aioqwe]

aioqwe is now back-tracking. I am no longer the TM, I am now just a goon who is presenting a bigger threat to distract the town. Or maybe I am just a speculating townie.

All this arose from aioqwe asking everyone to speculate on the game setup.

Oh, so when I realize my argument is flawed I'm supposed to continue pushing it?

[aioqwe]

aioqwe's argument about WileECoyote seems like a stretch to me, as I can't see why an SK would try to paint their character as a cult leader. However, the vibe I get from aioqwe is one of impatience rather than trying to deceive with this argument.

I would like to point out I know it's a bit of a stretch. Hence, no vote. It's early game and I'm willing to jump on anything.

@Wile: If there's nothing to defend against then there's nothing to defend against. It's not like I'm even voting for you.

[Seol]

Oh, so when I realize my argument is flawed I'm supposed to continue pushing it?

Of course not. Arguments develop, and positions change. Abandoning an argument when you realise it's flawed isn't backtracking, it's simply sensible. Backtracking is when you

deny

previous positions, like this:

I would like to point out I know it's a bit of a stretch. Hence, no vote. It's early game and I'm willing to jump on anything.

@Wile: If there's nothing to defend against then there's nothing to defend against. It's not like I'm even voting for you.

This

is backtracking. Nothing to defend against? "It's not like I'm even voting for you"?

Just because you never voted for him doesn't stop it being an attack, and your attempt to mischaracterise your own behaviour is noted. You FOS'd him and presented arguments that he was the serial killer. That's an attack.

Yes, it's arguable there's nothing to defend against - but that's because your arguments are, frankly, nonsense, not because there's an absence of attack. And it's not like you've moved away from those theories entirely either - sure, you acknowledge your original conclusion makes no sense, but you're still pushing that angle. Let's get back to your previous post about Wile's speculation.

Well, no. Right now, I'm reconsidering a bit at what the exact implication is. The evidence is that he misrepresented TM,

Evidence? All you've cited is a difference of opinion. We don't even know you're right about the TM, let alone that Wile was misrepresenting (which would require him knowing/suspecting TM being something other than cult leader when he proposed that theory).

made TM appear as a bigger threat than what I would interpret TM as

You seem fairly confident that you know what role attached to the Time Master. How come?

Also, if TM is SK, that's a plenty big enough threat as is - it's not like your position suggests that the Time Master is harmless or anything. Is a cult a bigger threat than an SK? Probably. Either way we'd need TM equally dead.

and introduced the possibility of a cult.

No, he didn't - he wasn't the first to mention cults. That doesn't

necessarily

constitute a malicious misrepresentation, but in context it doesn't look good.

Thus, it might imply that he is TM (a baddie) and attempting to paint his character otherwise. However, I believe he would attempt to paint his character in a positive manner.

Well,

duh

. I was confused when you seemed to think a scum role would draw attention to the possibility that

their rolename

would be scum, and particularly dangerous scum at that - it would be a singularly stupid setup as a piece of misdirection as

it can't possibly benefit them

. It's especially true when you have that rolename being a baddie, who (if he's in the game) is almost

inevitably

going to be scum of some sort (barring some peculiar bastard-modding).

It was a very curious conclusion to come to in the first place, and it was also curious when I first pointed out what I thought was the obvious objection to it (that scum wouldn't want to prepare a cover-story which would get them just as lynched as the truth would) that you didn't even seem to register that it was a problem.

Thus I'm thinking of alternatives such as...

This is where it gets interesting. You've acknowledged that it makes pretty much zero sense here for Wile's actions to imply he's TM, and yet you continue to draw conclusions from his "misrepresenting" of TM. How can he be misrepresenting TM if he has no knowledge of TM?

he is a 1) cult cop introducing that there may be a cult,

Apart from the fact that he

didn't

introduce the possibility of a cult, how does this follow from your prior reasoning? Or is it simply "he mentioned cults, he might have a cult-related role"?

2) he is an SK but not TM,

How does this follow?

3) he is a just a baddie who is unrelated to TM and paints him as a cult leader (knowing that they are powerful) and thus leads to the town to look for the CL of over other baddies,

How does one look for a cult leader specifically, as opposed to scum generally? When do you ever

stop

looking for Mafia? In other words, how do you see your presumed motive here as applying?

4) a cult leader who is not TM, or

How does this follow?

5) simply a speculating townie.

This one at least fits the evidence.

I think 3 and 5 are the most plausible taking into account motives and whether or not a cult exists.

Do you believe the other positions you put forward were plausible? Did you at the time you wrote the post?

You're not pushing the Wile is TM as SK angle any more, but you're still using his speculation as a basis to attack him. This all feels like you're trying to find ways to justify an attack and then present the reasons as the basis, rather than actually

having

reasons. It's all backwards logic.

You're thinking like scum.

unvote, vote: aioqwe

.

[aioqwe]

This

is backtracking. Nothing to defend against? "It's not like I'm even voting for you"?

Apparently, there is something to defend against.

Just because you never voted for him doesn't stop it being an attack, and your attempt to mischaracterise your own behaviour is noted. You FOS'd him and presented arguments that he was the serial killer. That's an attack.

Okay, it's an attack.

Yes, it's arguable there's nothing to defend against - but that's because your arguments are, frankly, nonsense, not because there's an absence of attack. And it's not like you've moved away from those theories entirely either - sure, you acknowledge your original conclusion makes no sense, but you're still pushing that angle. Let's get back to your previous post about Wile's speculation.

I might post slightly random accusations early on. It helps get discussions going. I'll consider this to a be a case where it did pretty well.

Do you think misrepresentation is scummy? I think its scummy, and I'm just trying to figure out how its scummy. If my original conclusion begins to not make sense, I look back and examine and see if given the evidence can make sense in a different case. If multiple conclusions fail, then the evidence might not be a scum tell at all and I move on to something else.

Evidence? All you've cited is a difference of opinion.

Evidence might not have been the best choice of words.

You seem fairly confident that you know what role attached to the Time Master. How come?

He's the ultimate villain, a cosmic-entity and wants to freeze the universe in time. That matches what I would look for in an SK (opposes everyone and more powerful than your average villain).

Also, if TM is SK, that's a plenty big enough threat as is - it's not like your position suggests that the Time Master is harmless or anything. Is a cult a bigger threat than an SK? Probably. Either way we'd need TM equally dead.

If there is an SK and a cult and the SK sees the cult as a bigger threat than the town, then might the SK be interested in taking out some cult members? Eventually we'd want to kill both but in the meantime we might want to focus on the bigger threat.

No, he didn't - he wasn't the first to mention cults. That doesn't

necessarily

constitute a malicious misrepresentation, but in context it doesn't look good.

Bad sentence; I'm full of them. JJ mentioned them before him, but he also said he doesn't believe in cults in minis.

It was a very curious conclusion to come to in the first place, and it was also curious when I first pointed out what I thought was the obvious objection to it (that scum wouldn't want to prepare a cover-story which would get them just as lynched as the truth would) that you didn't even seem to register that it was a problem.

Perhaps I'm just not bright. If something I jump to makes sense I'll just post it and see how the idea flows?

This is where it gets interesting. You've acknowledged that it makes pretty much zero sense here for Wile's actions to imply he's TM, and yet you continue to draw conclusions from his "misrepresenting" of TM. How can he be misrepresenting TM if he has no knowledge of TM?

I like my theories. It hadn't gotten completely shot down yet. In my eyes the "evidence" was in tact just the conclusions were a bit off.

1) Perhaps he was trying to bread-crumb a bit?
2) Aren't sk's usually the weakest of the possible scum groups? It's not unthinkable that he might just be trying to send us on a hunt for non-existent scum (presumed to be stronger than himself) so that he can blend in easier.
3) From what I hear GF's (or other powered mafia roles) and CL tend to play more quietly. Goons or cult recruits might play a little scummier as they are sacrificable compared to GFs or Cult leaders. We don't stop looking for mafia. If someone is all but claiming to be mafia, go ahead and hang em' high, but if other scum groups exist it might change our perspective.
4) Investigative roles that identify someone as being someone (i.e. role name cops) are plausible. If someone pops up as TM then he becomes an obvious lynch choice.

Do you believe the other positions you put forward were plausible? Did you at the time you wrote the post?

Yes, but I constrained my ideas to those where a cult doesn’t exist. Actually, considering the point you brought up earlier

Wile was misrepresenting (which would require him knowing/suspecting TM being something other than cult leader when he proposed that theory).

I’m throwing out most of my logic.

You're not pushing the Wile is TM as SK angle any more, but you're still using his speculation as a basis to attack him. This all feels like you're trying to find ways to justify an attack and then present the reasons as the basis, rather than actually

having

reasons. It's all backwards logic.

True, but I don’t think there’s any reason to attack anymore.

You're thinking

illogically

I could be scum or I could be drunk or just on a lack of sleep. Perhaps I’m misrepresenting my situation

Am I Coron's scum buddy? Do you still think Coron is scum?

And ew to long posts, please don't ever make me have to come up with something that long ever again.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Are the battle lines drawn ? Where does everyone else stand on this ?

[Patrick]

Where do you stand on this?

[Albert B. Rampage]

I'm unopinionated.

[Seol]

And ew to long posts, please don't ever make me have to come up with something that long ever again.

I'll try to focus on what I consider the most salient points, and why they lead me to believe you're scum. If there are any points I ignore which you want a response on, just let me know. I'll warn you now, though - this is a long post regardless. That's just my trademark, I guess.

You're thinking

illogically

I could be scum or I could be drunk or just on a lack of sleep. Perhaps I’m misrepresenting my situation.

Logical errors could be a result of being drunk, or loss of sleep. Only thing is, I didn't accuse you of thinking illogically (you modified my quote). I accused you of thinking like scum, which is different. It's not about errors in your thought process, it's about your thought process operating in a fundamentally different way to an enquiring mind. Specifically:

This all feels like you're trying to find ways to justify an attack and then present the reasons as the basis, rather than actually having reasons. It's all backwards logic.

Thinking backwards isn't explained by simply being sloppy. It's explained by thinking backwards. Town don't need to think backwards - they see behaviour, they judge behaviour, they draw conclusions from it. Mafia don't draw conclusions from behaviour, because they're not looking for scum - they're looking for people to lynch. What they look for is things to attack.

Town see anomalous behaviour, and they try to work out whether it's scummy or not. Scum see anomolous behaviour, and try to find a way to attack people for it. You did the latter. The fact that a) your conclusions didn't follow from the premise and b) when challenged on it, you then found a bunch of

other

ways to interpret that same anomolous behaviour that didn't follow from the premise as scummy showed that you weren't trying to work out if Wile's actions were suspicious or not, you were trying to find a way to argue they were.

Your response:

True, but I don’t think there’s any reason to attack anymore.

Doesn't help your case. That argument wasn't an argument that the attack was flawed, it was an argument that you're approaching the problem from a scum mentality, not a town mentality. That you don't see any need to contest my assertion your thought process is about finding an attack,

then

finding a justification

is acknowledging that you are thinking like scum

. When you say things like:

Do you think misrepresentation is scummy? I think its scummy, and I'm just trying to figure out how its scummy. If my original conclusion begins to not make sense, I look back and examine and see if given the evidence can make sense in a different case.

Again with the deciding the conclusion before you reach the reasoning. What he was doing wasn't misrepresentation anyway, as you later admit.

You, however,

have

been misrepresenting - case in point, your quotehack from "you're thinking like scum" to "you're thinking illogically". I'm pretty sure you weren't trying to do that on the sly, as you italicised it for emphasis, so it's blatant rather than covert misrepresentation. There, you were representing my argument as being one of your arguments being poor - which was only a part of my argument, and not the crucial part either. That was you misrepresenting me, and that

was

scummy - it was clearly deliberate, and taken at face value it changed the nature of my argument.

Another example - you misrepresented your own prior positions when you said Wile had nothing to defend against (a point you have now conceded). Again, scummy, because you're attempting to evade accountability and further focus on your prior position as that position becomes untenable.

Yes, misrepresentation can most definitely be scummy, especially where it's clear, deliberate, and can benefit the user. That's true of you, and not of Wile.

It was a very curious conclusion to come to in the first place, and it was also curious when I first pointed out what I thought was the obvious objection to it (that scum wouldn't want to prepare a cover-story which would get them just as lynched as the truth would) that you didn't even seem to register that it was a problem.

Perhaps I'm just not bright. If something I jump to makes sense I'll just post it and see how the idea flows?

Firstly, I don't think you're stupid. Not at all. You've been arguing coherently and intelligently that last post of yours, and you've been measured in what you chose to concede and what you chose to contest (interestingly, it's often on the most defensible points as opposed to the most indicting points).

You can identify a bad argument when you see it. What's interesting is you didn't appear to take that approach then. You didn't want to "see how the idea flows". You

reinforced

your position instead of exploring it.

That's not what people do when they don't have faith in their argument, and when people

do

have faith in a

reasoned

argument they address the objection. You're capable of both of these, but you did neither. So a) your behaviour isn't explained by a lack of ability, and b) if it was, you've shown that you're sufficiently flexible and capable of reasoning that the explanation doesn't fit particularly well.

One last point, seeing as I'm done with the Coron wagon for now:

Am I Coron's scum buddy? Do you still think Coron is scum?

I never thought Coron was scum. My reasons for voting him, and then pushing the wagon on him, had nothing to do with anything he'd said or done. I was much more interested in what effect the wagon had on other people. I think I got some interesting results, but it's inconclusive thusfar.

I'm unopinionated.

Piffle. You might not yet be totally convinced by my arguments, but you've got a stance, or you wouldn't be asking. Such statements are

far

more useful to us when there's uncertainty, where there isn't a cut and dried winner. Firstly, we don't want anything decided on the basis of who's a better arguer, we want this decided on the quality of the arguments - they're much more likely to tell us who's scum. Secondly, it's a waste of a day if it boils down to two people talking and ten people watching. This isn't a spectator sport.

Why are you afraid to state your position?

Same goes to Patrick.

[Albert B. Rampage]

I might find a drop of scummy water in aioqwe's cup due to his wording at certain times; he doesn't seem to have developed an ego around his theories, which might be an indicator of an easily interchangeable set of opinions.

Fluidity is essential in side-stepping detection for the mafia faction, and the excuses he provided could have the long-term effect of achieving this scum-desirable purpose. Any townie should think of himself as capable enough to process logical reasonings, not forced to hide behind a veil of presumed idiocy. He has only faintly begun to drop the first jigger of these self-discreditating hints, so I will not press the matter unless he continues to thread down this line of thinking.

Despite this, I still consider latching on to his arguments, despite the error of his conclusion, innocent behavior, which constitutes the larger part of the liquid in his cup. Let's see whether or not this single drop disseminates as his bandwagon progresses.

Vote: aioqwe

[Erg0]

aioqwe: In answer to your earlier question, my experience with Albert has been that he plays in a more overtly "strange" manner as town than as scum. That's a pretty old meta though, and probably unreliable at this point.

aioqwe's "I'm not attacking you" is a decent tell. He was asking some pretty innoccuous questions to begin with, but speculating on the existence of groups other than mafia can be an indication of mafia trying to direct attention towards other scum. WileE makes a fair point when he says that aioqwe raised this subject in the first place, and FoSed WileE essentially for disagreeing with him.

That said, I still like my vote on Albert right now. His initial avoidance of opinions, followed by a jump onto what will probably be a popular wagon, look bad in my eyes. I think that he and aioqwe are both good wagons.

[WileECoyote]

Wow.

After my first read of Post #86, I thought that was the definitive post on scum-hunting that I have been searching for since I starting playing mafia last month.

I haven't changed my opinion on my second read.

I think that this a BW worth joining.

Unvote
Vote: aioqwe

[Seol]

I

really

don't like Albert's last post.

[Patrick]

Quick check in, unfortunately home access seems to have gone for the time being and I'm in a rush.

Same goes to Patrick.

My short answer is that I did give one, if not in great detail. I see alot more has happened, it looks juicy, and I'll get stuck into it as soon as I get a quiet hour or so.

[aioqwe]

I'll try to focus on what I consider the most salient points, and why they lead me to believe you're scum. If there are any points I ignore which you want a response on, just let me know. I'll warn you now, though - this is a long post regardless. That's just my trademark, I guess.

I'll finish this game with you because I think I'm learning some things but if I ever see you in a player list, I'll seriously think twice before signing up

I accused you of thinking like scum, which is different. It's not about errors in your thought process, it's about your thought process operating in a fundamentally different way to an enquiring mind.

From this post

This all feels like you're trying to find ways to justify an attack and then present the reasons as the basis, rather than actually having reasons. It's all backwards logic.

You are accusing me of thinking with backwards logic or illogically (for town). You made the jump that that illogical (for town) and hence scum. All in all though, the quote was mostly intended as a joke. I indicate these things with smiley faces to show a more playful behavior in my tone.

Town don't need to think backwards - they see behaviour, they judge behaviour, they draw conclusions from it. Mafia don't draw conclusions from behaviour, because they're not looking for scum - they're looking for people to lynch. What they look for is things to attack.

Oh well that's just my play style which I should probably change. I tend to look for points to attack as town. This is probably because the first two games I played on MS were as mafia and I just never bothered to change my play style when I started playing a town role.

This seems a lot shorter although, I think I addressed the majority of your points. I think the way you contrasted what a townperson should think versus what scum think made me think of why I play like a scum. The reason why I originally pointed out that it might just be an inability of mine was because you've squashed the majority of my points.

-----

One last point, seeing as I'm done with the Coron wagon for now:

Am I Coron's scum buddy? Do you still think Coron is scum?

I never thought Coron was scum. My reasons for voting him, and then pushing the wagon on him, had nothing to do with anything he'd said or done. I was much more interested in what effect the wagon had on other people. I think I got some interesting results, but it's inconclusive thusfar.

Aw. I'm going to have to retract my former statement though. I think total information disclosure is good for the town. The two exceptions are when you observe a possible tell in someone and wish to observe them to see if they continue to act in a scummy manner or if you are a cop and have gained a result. In both cases, telling the town does not help. I presumed that you had observed a possible tell in Coron and simply wished to observe to see if he continues to drop scum tells. However, I now think that you shouldn't point out what you have observed because it changes how he will behave. The more optimal strategy would have been to not vote.
That's null though, since your vote seems to be to test the water to how people act towards wagons and such.

----

Is ABR buddying?



With all the discussion can we get some posts from Dave, Mikami, and Atropine. Others haven't posted that recently as well, but I forgot that the above were even playing.

[JimmyJammas]

Good Weekend! (PS - I'll hardly ever post on weekends)

---

Also remember that this is a game featuring twelve people, and is best described as a battle between the uninformed majority and the informed minority, and perhaps you'll appreciate that trying to approach such a conflict looking only at the persons cited can be, well, a touch narrow.

Just to clarify, this is because

I was much more interested in what effect the wagon had on other people.

, right?

---

Aioqwe - Maybe this is a null point because you've taken back most of what you've said, but I still don't understand how this has anything to do with the Time Master, besides the fact that he's mostly likely a "baddie". Your argument was based on

After reading the Freedom Force wiki, I think a that if we have more than 1 mafia group then a cult is more likely than a SK. It fits the flavour better (possibly the Time Master as Cult leader).
This is all just speculation on my part.

A misdirection - as you originally argued - would be WileE as SK, suggesting that a cult is more likely than his existence (as SK). He throws out Time Master as cult leader, but it really doesn't mean anything. Your argument (and Seol called you out on this too) should have been based on WileE-as-SK, not WileE-as-TM. Long story short, if WileE claims Frank "Minuteman" Stiles (or anyone other than Time Master, really), that doesn't mean he's not the SK, regardless of how it fits flavor-wise.

Does that make sense?

---

I like Patrick's "What do you think?" line of responses. He did it to me earlier and to Albert over the weekend. It's easy to throw out questions to the group in general and get towncred for your perceived scum hunting - I like him forcing the questioner to answer his own question first.

It is interesting to note however that Patrick spared aioqwe in this regard when aioqwe posted "A broader question to anyone, do you believe we just have a 'mafia' group?" in his post #55.

---

Going back to aioqwe, I have a few things on him:
1) WileE-as-TM theory.
2) Quoting something Seol never said.
3) "I could be scum or I could be drunk or just on a lack of sleep".
4) "JJ mentioned them [cults] before him [WileE], but he also said he doesn't believe in cults in minis."
5) Backing off most opinions when challenged on them.
6) Backtracking / Flow of argument.
7) "And ew to long posts, please don't ever make me have to come up with something that long ever again."

And here's how I feel about them:
1) I think the misrepresentation theory isn't a bad one, he just came to the wrong conclusion. I appreciate him being active in pursuing theories, I just think he messed this one up. Leaning slightly town here.

2) Maybe this didn't have a big impact right now, but this is very dishonest play and I don't like it at all. Scummy.

3) Was this supposed to be an argument as to why we can't conclude that you're scum? So if I don't believe you're drunk or on a lack of sleep does that mean you're scum? Leaning scum.

4) I never said I don't believe in cults in minis. Another misrepresentation of what somebody else said. I even double posted what I thought because the wording the first time was awkward, and neither one was close to "I don't believe in cults in minis". Directly from #56 comes "I don't think a cult exists in this game", followed by "At least, I don't think one exists in the way I've just explained", which was referring to dead people coming back as cultists. Actually, I even said that I was reading Adel's Nightmare (a mini) and that's where I got the idea of a cult from. So, I don't know how he took all that and made it into "JJ doesn't believe in cults in minis". Scummy.

5) I can see both Town and Scum doing this, especially when challenged by Seol. Null tell, especially because the theory wasn't sound to begin with (I'd have backed off it too).

6) Seol has elaborated on most of this, and I do see the scum mentality in action. At the same time I don't believe that everyone scumhunts the same way, and I can put some weight in aioqwe's argument that he was scum his first two games and that's how he's used to thinking. Like I said before, one person alone can't get someone lynched, the majority has to agree. Scumhunt the best way you know how. All that said, he still gets scum points for backtracking.

7) I noted the lack of a smiley face at the end of this sentence. More info is better for town, suppressing info is bad and suggesting suppression is scummy.

So I'm on board for a

Vote: aioqwe

.

---

As for everyone else:
- I think Seol could easily take the game over as scum, I don't have anything on him but I'll always be wary of him;
- I don't like Albert's play, regardless of if that's just how he plays. I did like "Any townie should think of himself as capable enough to process logical reasonings, not forced to hide behind a veil of presumed idiocy" though;
- Patrick is here but I'd like to hear more from him;
- Unsure about WileE, Erg0 and GhostWriter;
- Don't even know who everyone else is, and that's bad for them.

[Patrick]

Ok, caught up on this.

aioqwe's "I'm not attacking you" type comment is something I've used as a tell before, since it's basically disclaiming his position whilst still working in a suggestion, but a recent game has caused me to start doubting that tell (Portal Mafia for anyone who's interested).

Seol, you make some interesting points, but I think townies working backwards is actually not that rare. (Not ideal, but that's another argument). I feel that he was impatient for the game to start in some way, and when he found something he jumped on it and immediately started reading too much into it. Erg0 did bring up a fair point about how he immediately started looking for an SK though, which doesn't feel like the most natural way to start. But I can't see this as a big issue.

I don't see the misquoting as scummy. When I read it I actually saw it as a partial response, as in, "No, I haven't been thinking like scum, I've just been illogical". It's clear that at least one or two people aren't reading it in the same way as me though. The fact that he added italics is what makes me think he wasn't trying to misrepresent the attack on him; if he was, I'd actually expect it to be done more subtly.

I've now done a preview, and wish I'd used this efficient JimmyJammas system of giving my opinions on this A few points here:

It is interesting to note however that Patrick spared aioqwe in this regard when aioqwe posted "A broader question to anyone, do you believe we just have a 'mafia' group?" in his post #55.

Fair point. I prefer people taking positions on points of scumminess rather than setup speculation at this stage, since we need a night here before we can really say anything much about the scum setup.

4) I never said I don't believe in cults in minis. Another misrepresentation of what somebody else said. I even double posted what I thought because the wording the first time was awkward, and neither one was close to "I don't believe in cults in minis". Directly from #56 comes "I don't think a cult exists in this game", followed by "At least, I don't think one exists in the way I've just explained", which was referring to dead people coming back as cultists. Actually, I even said that I was reading Adel's Nightmare (a mini) and that's where I got the idea of a cult from. So, I don't know how he took all that and made it into "JJ doesn't believe in cults in minis". Scummy.

Do you believe this alledged misrepresentation might serve a scum purpose? If so, what exactly?

Overall I'm not comfortable with the aioqwe wagon, firstly because I'm not sold on his scumminess, and secondly because of one, maybe two of the votes on there. WileECoyote's vote I'm a bit leary of just because he waited until it seemed like the aioqwe pressure would turn into a wagon before getting on there, despite finding him scummy at the top of the page (or at the very least, accusing him of backtracking). It might be legitimate since some new points have come up between now and then, so for now it's more intangible. ABR's vote looks really bad to me; both in the timing and the accompanying justificantion which looks like something he just made up.

Unvote, Vote: Albert B. Rampage

[Patrick]

Mod

: Can we have a votecount please?

[Albert B. Rampage]

His initial avoidance of opinions, followed by a jump onto what will probably be a popular wagon, look bad in my eyes. I think that he and aioqwe are both good wagons.

The first wagon is never a good one to ride out for scum. I have provided ample disclaimer clauses in my previous post, and I am comfortable pushing early wagons to push us deeper into the rabbit hole. I am not attempting to quicklynch poor aioqwe; I've made that clear. Instead, it is in my nature to be aggressive,

and make things happen

.

Is ABR buddying?

Short answer: no. I have no intention of riding out your wagon to death, nor for associating myself with any of you suspicious buggers.

- I think Seol could easily take the game over as scum

Not on my watch.

ABR's vote looks really bad to me; both in the timing and the accompanying justificantion which looks like something he just made up.

Unvote, Vote: Albert B. Rampage

My "justificantion" is comparable to that of Jimmy on more than a point, so your argument is nil. As for positioning myself at a tactically favorable angle, as I've mentioned, I'm both comfortable with and drawn to these types of high-pressure sharpshooter emplacements.

[JimmyJammas]

Do you believe this alledged misrepresentation might serve a scum purpose? If so, what exactly?

Good point (I can't think of any purpose it could serve).

I just see it as a very dangerous precedent. If he's winning points and arguments by making things up (putting words in people's mouths), I can't let him get away with that. I guess I come out the same as I did with the Seol misquote, maybe it doesn't have a big impact now, but I don't like it at all.

[The Fonz]

Act one, votecount two:

Albert B. Rampage (2): Erg0, Patrick
Patrick (3): Mikami, aioqwe, Coron
Seol (1): Dave
aioqwe (4): Seol, Albert B. Rampage, WileECoyote, JimmyJammas

Not voting: Atropine, GhostWriter

[JimmyJammas]

- I think Seol could easily take the game over as scum

Not on my watch.

Lol, that only works if I know you're town. This is at best a subtle implication that we need to keep you alive to fend against Seol. Not calling it scummy or anything, I just want to shoot it down before it gets any legs.