A Gentleman's Game of Guile, Subterfuge, and Intrigue (Fin)

[AurorusVox]

Greetings gentlemen, and most humble apologies for my earlier tardiness.

I had been keeping my eye trained on the proceedings here via telescope for roughly one half of the soiree. As it stands, I will be checking the past ten pages of minutes as recorded herein, before offering my insight into the happenings and goings on.

I will try to accomplish this as soon as possible, gentlemen, but may not be able to do so until tomorrow or the following day. If there are any pressing matters that you would like to bring to my attention, please do so, and I will give it due consideration.

Yours sincerely,
~A. Vox, pHD

[AurorusVox]

Incoming Collection of Most Observant Utterances

I have included any points that struck me about any dear gentlemen who are unfortunately no longer with us to give an idea of where I would have stood had I been fortunate enough to have been in attendance yesterday. Much of it can probably be skimmed over since it relates to early play, but will be posted for later reference if desired. I've prefaced the most important elements with asterixes.

Apok

#68 - this gentleman seems somewhat like a rapscallion for pushing Imaginality when his opinion regarding TS as expressed around here was a fair one.

Caboose

#98 - why this gentleman would spoil his ballot to leave the eclectic democratic process is something I will never understand - nor why he would not position himself against any other scoundrel is beyond me. Doing so completely reduces the pressure and velocity that may have built up earlier in the game.

SC

reads as a true gentleman for #107

**

Imaginality

strikes me strongly as having gentlemanly concerns at his heart for his interrogations (#114 especially gave me such a feeling in my stomachregions)

*** I very much like the pressure on that dastard

Krob

, and he seems to be flailing under very little pressure, as has been mentioned by a number of players.
This slightly alters my opinion that Apok is a rapscallion, as he was one of the gentleman who contributed to this pressure.

*

TS

reads as a scoundrel through his posting, and

Sir Hoppster's

concerns in this matter seem to me to be genuine.

SC

betrays my confidence in him a little for #151; his reasoning seems an excessively poor one for a shift in support.

Apok

as above - moreso since Vezok did enter into vocal conflict with Kr0b, the absence of which was Apok's criticism.

Caboose

nullifies my read of himself as a scoundrel for his #157.

*

kr0b

reinforces the low opinion I hold of him with #202.

*

Vezok

comes out worse for wear from his debates with TS; and indeed,

Hoppster

begins to look less genuine with his #208. I feel that this could unfortunately be coloured by a veracious isolated interest in TS (I know how difficult that can be to circumvent) but TS's "how have I hidden in the shadows" post is not fluff, but conversely, a rebuttal.
That said,

Hoppster's

#213 makes it clearer what his problem is, and his criticism now makes sense.

*** Post #225 by

Hoppster

is eyebrow raising. He spoils his ballot placed upon TS and then proceeds to submit his own name for ruination? The reason that he seems to offer is that the TS wagon might decrease velocity should he ever reach the brink of death? What-ho? I also find the question he asks disturbing - why need he ask "If I flip scum...?" if it's never going to happen?

#234 seems to show

Hoppster

pressuring other people only once his isolated focus has been commented upon.

TL

&

inHim

have been making their way through the conference rather silently. Many people commented on this and I am pleased.

*

Inhim's

#252 is somewhat concerning, depending on the alignments of certain other gentlemen (which, under the correct circumstances, could point to a scoundrel acknowledging a confluct between gentlemen?), but on the other hand, I find reason to smile when reading his #253 and #254 so I am willing to see what else this gentleman has to offer.

Indeed, #255 is very suspect by

TS

.

Feysal

went on to call this action most gentlemanly which surprises me.

*

Caboose

#269 looks like a scoundrel using the "burden of proof" soundbyte as a tactic allowing him to weasel out of commenting on the TS carriage...

#333

is most clearly an accidental revelation of TS' identity. I'd bet my top hat on it.

***

Hoppster's

#358 strikes me as a VERY gentlemanly request. If he was a rapscallion, he could have simply leant on the approaching deadline to have TS lynched very easily. He is now out and away holds my strongest confidence as a true gentleman.

RE: TS being involved in a most unfortunate scandal, and my top hat bet. Oh dear. I am glad that no one was around to take me at my word!

RE: 2 murders -- this is indeed a troublesome turn of events. I can see the possibility of one of those murders being the fault of a serial madman, or a maverick gun owner, and so I will wait and see what the rest of the conference offers in the way of clues and evidence.

***

Lord_hur

#417 - I react badly to his Hoppster ballot. It seems an easy place for a scoundrel to rally around, based on Hoppster leading a the unfortunate erroneous vengeance on TS, and lord_hur's campaign truly looks like one placed for the sake of ease.
As a sidenote,

ToastyToasts

is not quite so heinous since he mentions all players in his summary.

Lord_Hur

#433 also sounds badly in my soul. "How could anyone else call my case weak?!" - is this a challenge to anyone who might "dare" question him?

Lord_hur

#454 - you say that Sir Hoppster's Vezo ballot switch was intended as a misguided trap - what then do you make of him saying that it was in fact not a gambit, in that case?

---

Too lengthy; did not peruse;

Gentlemanly

+++++ Sir Hoppster
++ imaginality
+ Feysal

Persisting with no extreme prejudice in either direction

Reya Cookiebringer (Apokalyptika)
vezokpiraka
DemonHybrid (GMan)

Scoundrels

- inHimshallibe
-- ToastyToast (kr0b)
----- lord_hur (Caboose)

---

Vote: lord_hur

[AurorusVox]

Dear sir, your roguishness is more down to the scandal of your predecessor's play than anything you yourself have done since your arrival. Indeed, I would warrant that you have actually lowered the distaste I felt for your slot.

Your suspicions may well be genuine; only time shall tell. I do not declare that my listed suspicions are irrefutable and infallible, nor do they truly take any potential connections into account. These more subtle considerations are reserved for my future endeavours. I had simply wanted to give a very basic - one might say, surface - overview of my feelings about the attendees.

[AurorusVox]

This one positively baffles me.

He didn't comment on it until pressed further. He used the fact that burden of proof is on the one making the case to excuse this fact, when a simple comment would have sufficed. He maintained a fencesitting position through this tactic until it was commented on and disallowed.

I was referring to votes like imaginality's hammer on Sir Twistedspoon, that apparently wasn't criticized by others than me despite its utter lack of reasoning. That someone would consider my case with contempt without questioning the many other votes in these minutes who were cast without any reason, or one reason that is rather indicative of bad play, strike me as quite unfair.

I see - in this case you are criticising hypocrisy; not the direct attacks on your own votes. Consider this matter settled.

I'd be very interested. Can you direct me to the minutes? I will comment right after.

Tis found here.

[AurorusVox]

Sorry, but I think you are in the wrong. There was no fencesitting. He clearly said in his message #5 that he did not see any value in Sir Hoppster's attack, and this same #5 is the first time he is asked about his opinion on the case. Personally, I would not comment on a case I do not believe in, unless to attack its author (if there is reason to), particularly if I were making a case of my own (like Sir Caboose).

My good sir, surely you can see the difference between voicing a basic opinion on a case, and actually expressing one's feelings about it? This much should have been clear from Sir Hoppster's insistence - "why does it have no merit?" - in pursuing the matter. To simply dismiss a case but to not reveal why one would do so - 'tis most rougish, I dare say. To then refuse when asked explicitly and directly, to my mind, reveals your predecessor's true cowardice and your slot's innate murderous streak.

I'd be very interested. Can you direct me to the minutes? I will comment right after.

Tis found here.

You were right. As you asked for what I would derive from the fact that I was wrong about it :
- from your point of view, I may have been lying to cover Sir V. Piraka (but that would be very stupid, since anyone could verify it at any time) ;
- from both yours and mine, Sir inHimshallibe could be guilty of putting too much trust in my affirmation, which can be viewed as alignment knowledge.

Do you feel Sir inOneoneshallbe's interest in your doubts about his line of thinking to be disproportionate to the interest he has in his line of thinking? To put the same in a different way, he had allegedly just found a line of enquiry that would lead him to catch an uncouth rapscallion redhanded in the act of most unpleasant trickery and misdirection; and you, sir, had expressed a means to undo his hard work. Would he not then be most intrigued as to what you may possibly have to say? Let us not forget that you yourself were the one who expressed a "burning" desire to speak up. Should there be a trap around, I do not wonder if it is you who are laying it.

---

But enough of that balderdash. My main reason for asking was because you, sir, find Sir Hoppster to be a most probable candidate for a rapscallious vagabond. Thusly, I had to assume that you were using the word "trap" in its most menacing and malevolent meaning - a trap for the poor, innocent TS to fall into and suffer a fate most dreadful, worked at by a Deus Ex Machina to further his ends of lodge-domination. At first I was interested in whether or not the change in view of this noted ballot would garner any change in view of Sir Hoppster. But I have since realised, that a more pertinent question lies at the heart of this issue. Presumably, if Sir Hoppster is thought by you to be receiving his entertainment from killing off the guests of this most exhilarating soiree, then his own comments on the matter would hold no water for you? Your response could have been as simple as "the man is a liar and a beast, he eats his food with a spoon and I see no reason to listen to the misguiding words he most garrulously spouts forth!" And yet you admit your wrongdoings, acknowledge the lack of a link (that to my mind does not exist irregardless!) between you and Sir V. Zo, and deflect upon Sir inOne. You do not mention Sir Hoppster at all, beyond accepting the truthfullness of his intentions as expressed by his own good self. Sir, I find this to be most unnerving, and I hope that my own case of waterfall words has not obscured the cold, hard core of my concerns herein.

Too lengthy; did not peruse

- You find Sir Hoppster to be a most unsavoury rogue
- You claim he has laid out a hunter's trap
- He claims it was no such thing
- You immediately accept his explanation

Sir, I find this most unsatisfying.

[AurorusVox]

If you will permit me a moment of non-interrogative conversation, I would like to bring to your attention my true gentlemanly nature by sharing a set of images that I had commissioned many moons ago for use amongst a different gathering of people;



I dare say that if I could manoeuvre my hand with artistic flair and were not so fond of my bright lemonesque persona, I would sign my wage-slips and autographs with this striking resemblance.

[AurorusVox]

That... thing gave me quite a headache. Sorry, but I prefer clearer bullet-points :

Indeed these linguistic forays can be quite the mind-number.

- I never said I was sure that Sir Hoppster is an imposter (I even said so in my case's message). If I had to use a scale, I would say he is at about 75%. Much to my dismay, he is still the highest, so I cast a ballot, because true gentlemen have to voice their doubts for the case to advance ;

You need not be "sure", the point I raise is valid even when you simply suspect the old chap. If you suspect him, it follows that you should suspect the words he says too. For what else does "suspect" mean?

- I have personally used traps as a gentleman (on at least two occasions in my last game), so, bluntly, cut the "evil" stuff. I'm beginning to think you're trying to play on emotions, which is usually done by rogues.

My mistake, it seems that you suspect Sir Hoppster but believe this particular guile to be the game of a gentleman. Very odd indeed. If he is, to your mind, the most suspicious member of our collection, how then could you think his "trap" be intended for the betterment of our lodge? If you think he be a rogue, well then by god, his trickery must also be to that end!

The "evil" banter, my man, is done with the theme in mind. I do not really see what emotion I am appealing to here - fear? I doubt that members of the lodge will quiver at some light-hearted embellishment! I was simply expressing the above in more...shall we say, fanciful, terms.

- Why would he lie about that, even if he is an imposter? Traps are a perfectly valid strategy for both sides. It only serves to provoke reactions that would not have happened. I would agree with you if it was to cover anything incriminating, but it is clearly not the case.

Trappings may well be perfectly viable for rogues and gentlemen alike. However they must, by definition, be to different ends. A gentleman's trap is intended to catch a rapscallion in the act of most heinous subterfuge; for a vagabond, his trap cannot aimed as such, for he would be catching his own chums. A vagabond's trap must be made with the intent of besmirching a true gentleman's name and honour. Should you be suspicious of Sir Hoppster, you would doubtless of seized upon this latter possibility; or perhaps theorised about a different reason for his quick ballot-shift - distancing, perhaps, or testing the proverbial waters of a Vezo wagon before being drawn inevitably back to TS. The fact you dismiss the scoundrel-motivation behind such shenanigans is also disconcerting.

Your comment is equally bad about my answer on Sir inHimshallibe. You do not address at all what I have said. I could have been covering Sir V. Piraka, so he should have verified my deduction's credibility. He did not. It could be oversight (you can't expect town to verify *everything*), or it could be alignment knowledge. Basic logic, nothing else. It could have been a trap, but I did not intend it as such. I am not suspecting Sir inHimshallibe enough.

Are you suggesting that you ought to suspect him more; or that your lacking suspicions do not allow you to attempt to trap him?
My point about Sir inOneshallonebe is that you claim he may have alignment information at work in his considerations; but I claim that his eagerness to hear your opinion is understandable due to the circumstances surrounding his request. I was asking if you agree with this assessment or not, but I see that I needed to clarify my rampant tongue somewhat.

In this post, I think you are guilty of appeal to emotion and bullshit logic. A reread of your predecessor is in order.

What is this uncouth speech?! I am shocked and appalled at your use of the scoundrel's vernacular.

I will restate my earlier question here: Which emotion do you feel my embellishment has appealed to?
I will add to it: Do you feel that my "logic" is reprehensible on purpose or through misguided zeal?

[AurorusVox]

You need not be "sure", the point I raise is valid even when you simply suspect the old chap. If you suspect him, it follows that you should suspect the words he says too. For what else does "suspect" mean?

Preposterous. There is no innocence, only degrees of suspicion. In other words, I suspect everyone that has not been proved to be a gentleman. That does not mean I will go and question everything they say, or I would not be able to carry out any investigation, since I could not base any reasoning on anything. I only question affirmations that imposters would have a motivation in altering.

Now my dear sir,

this

is misrepping (or perhaps strawmanning, I have never entirely understood that term but I believe it may be pertinent here). I did not say that you should question everything that every person should say; I merely indicate that you have good reason to question the words of your top suspect. I have also demonstrated ample motivation for scum to lay down a trap and not wish it to be thought of as such.

My mistake, it seems that you suspect Sir Hoppster but believe this particular guile to be the game of a gentleman. Very odd indeed. If he is, to your mind, the most suspicious member of our collection, how then could you think his "trap" be intended for the betterment of our lodge? If you think he be a rogue, well then by god, his trickery must also be to that end!

Yes, he did use this trap to obtain Sir Twistedspoon's death. There is, in my opinion, a 25% chance he did it as an honest mistake, and a 75% chance he did it with ill intent. What is your point?

Please recall that this whole argument is based on Sir Hoppster saying that he did

not

vote Duke Vezo as a trap. My initial qualm is that you believed him when he said he was not trapping despite finding him suspicious, and now here, you are once again calling it a trap. My head is positively in a spin.

The "evil" banter, my man, is done with the theme in mind. I do not really see what emotion I am appealing to here - fear? I doubt that members of the lodge will quiver at some light-hearted embellishment! I was simply expressing the above in more...shall we say, fanciful, terms.

There was nothing fun, or light-hearted there. You depicted something that is not inherently scummy, as scummy. This is deceit, lying if you prefer, meant to present your... case... in a more favorable light, and to depreive me of the means of my defense.

If one should consider my doom-harbinger words as anything more than embellishment of a basic point, then he is free to quake as he sees fit for he is a fool and there is no teaching him. The point itself alone still stands as you being involved in a rougish act, beyond any "terrifying" language I employed: put plainly, you find Sir H suspect, yet found no reason to doubt his word of honour. With him as your top suspect, you should have realised the potential for suspicious intent in his actions (as you claim you do - at the rate of 75%), and it logically follows that you should then see the potential for misdirection in his voiced account of that action, which contradicts your own beliefs. If you think that there is a 75% chance that he trapped TS with ill intent, that is also thinking that there is a 75% chance that he was lying about it not being a trap in the first place, surely?

It is as I said, which is not anywhere near either proposition. Thank you for clearly demonstrating (yet again) your uncanny ability to twist words.

I am afraid I was merely asking for confirmation. I do not understand what you are saying in the terms in which you have expressed them. Please, clarify.

I will restate my earlier question here: Which emotion do you feel my embellishment has appealed to?
I will add to it: Do you feel that my "logic" is reprehensible on purpose or through misguided zeal?

- I suggest you refer to the nearest encyclopedia : appeal to emotion rarely appeals to any emotion in particular. But you saw immediately what I meant : that you depicted something as dastardly (while it is not so), while linking me to it, and distancing yourself from it (so I appear as evil, and you as good). It is not logic, thus it does not stand well with me.

[/quote]
I believe that the act that I depicted was dastardly. I have expressed why that is, and how you have interacted in it. Moreover, I cannot be said to distance myself from something when it was not I who engaged in the activity in the first place.

- This is very hard to answer. It is like you are scraping at everything you can find, regardless of the value of the argument. This is an attitude typically associated with malevolent intent, but in some circumstances, I saw well-intended people using this tactic (much to my dismay, as for lying). So, I will reserve my judgement for now. I need to see more of your interventions, and to reread your predecessor's messages in this light.

[/quote]
I do not feel I am scraping; I feel that there are contradictions and I am pressing at them to see what I can garner from it.

[AurorusVox]

Dear lord_hur, if I am repeating myself it is only because you are denying that the very opinions that I have held forth hold any water, when I have demonstrated on numerous occasions that they do. Please respond to the following crystallised points as they at least were direct questions;

If you think that there is a 75% chance that he trapped TS with ill intent, that is also thinking that there is a 75% chance that he was lying about it not being a trap in the first place, surely?

It is as I said, which is not anywhere near either proposition. Thank you for clearly demonstrating (yet again) your uncanny ability to twist words.

I am afraid I was merely asking for confirmation. I do not understand what you are saying in the terms in which you have expressed them. Please, clarify.

[AurorusVox]

I meant that I do not suspect Sir inHimshallibe substantially more than the rest.

And this is regardless of your point about him seeming to "know" that you are a true gentleman, or what you have referred to as "alignment knowledge"?

Also, I hate to be impertinent here and yet I feel it is my duty to point out that Lord Toasty was saying that your point stuck out as scandalous, not mine, ergo his communique and stated opinions are quite in line. Perhaps you can reread the message in question, and tell me if you still think he is acting in your defence?

[AurorusVox]

He pointed out a mistake, thus encouraged me not to do it again. This is help.

Dear lord! This would mean that any time one would make a case on another, he is helping them!

Incidentally, does this mean that you accept the accusation as a highlighting a valid mistake that you have made? That it was indeed you who were being "Incredibly antagonistic" and "attempting to undermine [my] arguments with this"?

[AurorusVox]

But to undermine an argument does not necessarily disprove it. It is merely here an

attempt

to make something look weak when it may in fact not be. Moreover, you have admitted that your doing so was a mistake.

[AurorusVox]

But why, sir, would it make you look rougish if it was, in fact, a correct proposition?

---

These past couple of pages have been stodgily unappetising and difficult to digest.

I apologise for my hand in that, sir. I am ordinarily verbose, and this most gentlemanly tongue is exacerbating that to perhaps overwhelming degrees.

I feel the best way to increase the illumination is to build on the pressure being applied, and to that end,

Vote: lord hur

to add weight to this wagon.

Do you currently find lord_hur to be of a scandalous nature, or is discovering your feelings as regards his allegiance that the aim of your ballot?

[AurorusVox]

Good sir, that isn't the accusation that TT has levelled at you. He has found a different reason for recoiling from your post.

[AurorusVox]

Good lord indeed. You -initially- said that you would look rougish in the context of your attempt to undermine me, which was the accusation TT levelled at you. And since then you have changed your story to say that you would look rougish due to OMGUS.

[AurorusVox]

And my point thus has the additional purpose of conveying how you look scandalous not due to reactionary "OMGUS" attacks as you claim to have feared, but to something else entirely.

Ergo, you have turned the "mistake" that you accept into something

other than

the "mistake" that was first expressed.

[AurorusVox]

(but, sir, what you posted in the first place

was

the undermining, from which the accusation was drawn)

I will remain silent in the matter from here on out, sir. We are at an impasse, with two irrevocably opposing views.

[AurorusVox]

Scum :
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go

Town, 100% mislynch rate :
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go ***

Town, 66% mislynch rate :
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go

Incidentally, one of those previous parlour games that you've referenced as me belonging to a gentleman's class (I've asterixed it) is in fact a game in which I paraded as a scandalous rogue. I find it most interesting that the following gentleman's games didn't make it onto your list, considering that there are some glorious examples of verboseness contained within them:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... er_sort=Go
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... er_sort=Go
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... er_sort=Go
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... er_sort=Go

Perhaps skewing the data in your favour, hmm?

---

That he was on Twistedspoon's can then also be explained by his below-par town play, not only by him being scum.

What does this mean? I am positively baffled, as I wasn't around yesterday to cast a ballot for TS's immediate execution or otherwise.

From his meta, he looks quite smart, so I have trouble making sense of these walls of nonsense, except as an overconfident scum. Judging from his posts when he wins as scum, he looks quite smug about his abilities as scum (with reason, it seems), so I can picture him jumping on my wagon and never letting go, confident in his ability to grind me with his walls of text despite his arguments wearing thin.

After I had discovered Fate to be most ungentlemanly in "Advance Wars Mafia 2.0", I pursued it with dogged determination despite the fact that I lacked support from the rest of the gentleman's gathering; and thus, if anything, tunnelling can be a slight gentlemantell for me. I don't think you'll find me to have tunnelled excessively on any one person as a rogue, unless they were my scumbuddy in the case of Umbrage in "High Seas". And anyway, my communiques may be balderdash to you, but they make perfect sense to me.

[AurorusVox]

DEFCON 1.0 presented rogues against knaves...people just happened to be in possession of nuclear weaponry, is all. But pray tell, why include Stars Aligned if you only intend to use confrontations with standard mechanics? I ask this because in SAIII, any gentleman could give into his primal urges andbecome a serial killer.

As for my record, yes, I am often erratic and vote for multiple people, but I'm also often on the right track;

Spoiler: A. Vox's True Knave-Voting History

Newbie 929: I was the only one on the case of one of the rogues (I Am Innocent), though I WIFOM'd my way out of following it through.
Newbie 940: I was brutally killed off N1, and indeed, I didn't vote for either of the two rogues during D1, so that is indeed a 100% mislynch.
Newbie 961: Incidentally, I believe I did have a couple of minor walls in this session. I also caught a knave (Me=Weird) and voted him appropriately in this one twice.
My Name Is Earl: I voted for the rapscallion (Beefster) a couple of times during the course of this game.
DEFCON 1.0: I voted for the serial killer (Doombunny9) and then was murdered that very night.
TxtMafia: I voted for Tasky, who turned out to be a most ignoble vagabond, but WIFOM'd my way out of it once again.
Cults vs Masons: I voted for the Cult Leader (Exe) D1, and then was heinously killed off N1.
Advance Wars 2.0: I caught and voted for Fate without town support, also voted for Implosion, and comically enough RVS'd Sociopath (that's all three knaves)
SAIII: I voted for MoI (who was unfathomably taking the murderer's route) twice, as well as the cultists BabySpice (twice) and SpyreX.

I agree that I vote for gentlemen more often than rapscallions, but that's because I like my vote being active - unless I find someone who I'm sure is scum, in which case I'll pursue it for as long as I find it pertinent to do so. I have WIFOM'd my way out of scum lynches before, and I aim not to repeat that mistake again!

[AurorusVox]

As for who I find suspicious besides yourself, I have had my eye on Toasty and inhim since my re-read, but their presence has been...shall we say...less than optimum for the developing of those reads. I have noticed a number of people slipping onto your wagon - should you be town, then you can rest assured that my eye will be cast in their direction with more diligence.

[AurorusVox]

That ballot puts lord_hur at the brink of a hanging. If any gentleman has an intention of hastening his demise, then he should so declare it so that our guest here can present us with documents of identity.

This gathering needs more Cookies Brought to us. I have not had a cookie for almost five days!

---

Feysal, Imaginality, and inOneshallibe; yesterday you all seemed most suspicious of Mr. K r0b; what is your current opinion on his business partner, ToastyToast?

[AurorusVox]

I feel the best way to increase the illumination is to build on the pressure being applied, and to that end,

Vote: lord hur

to add weight to this wagon.

Do you currently find lord_hur to be of a scandalous nature, or is discovering your feelings as regards his allegiance that the aim of your ballot?

Imaginality; yesterday you all seemed most suspicious of Mr. K r0b; what is your current opinion on his business partner, ToastyToast?

[AurorusVox]

AurorusVox asking for a claim, why am I not surprised?

Please try harder to twist the words that I spake.

I said that should anyone desire to exacerbate your situation (i.e. hammer you) then they should declare it so that we have time for a revelation of identification document (claim) before sending you to the gallows. I in no way asked outright for your documents; I only asked for them

in the event of someone wanting to finish you off

.

Mudslinging like this is simply more evidence against you, sir.

[AurorusVox]

There are certain gentlemen whom I want to hear more from:
-Imaginality
-jilynne1991
-Cookiebringer

I am taking a temporary business trip to my good aunt's for the next few days;
As such I am going to be "Vaguely Limited (In My) Access" on the following dates 28th-30th

[AurorusVox]

Snatching a taste of that most glorious technology, known as "internet," for a few brief moments before setting off on the road that will eventually take me to my familial function. I will now point out why lord_hur is indeed a rogue;

Instead of trying to turn the tables on my case through the game itself, he is now pointing to inaccurate "meta" information, which is nowhere near as reliable as the information he could garner from this game itself. He is engaged in a terrible dance wherein he will refuse to call me scum because that would ruin his precious meta case. He also ignores my rebuttal to his heinous accusations, and does not stop to consider what an "average" % of scum votes over a player's entire game history would be. I do not have that data to hand, but I can presume it would not make favour his case.

4. AurorusVox's meta says about 95% of the people he votes for (as scum and town) are town, since he's a terrible hunter.

Spoiler: A. Vox's True Knave-Voting History

Newbie 929: I was the only one on the case of one of the rogues (I Am Innocent), though I WIFOM'd my way out of following it through.
Newbie 940: I was brutally killed off N1, and indeed, I didn't vote for either of the two rogues during D1, so that is indeed a 100% mislynch.
Newbie 961: Incidentally, I believe I did have a couple of minor walls in this session. I also caught a knave (Me=Weird) and voted him appropriately in this one twice.
My Name Is Earl: I voted for the rapscallion (Beefster) a couple of times during the course of this game.
DEFCON 1.0: I voted for the serial killer (Doombunny9) and then was murdered that very night.
TxtMafia: I voted for Tasky, who turned out to be a most ignoble vagabond, but WIFOM'd my way out of it once again.
Cults vs Masons: I voted for the Cult Leader (Exe) D1, and then was heinously killed off N1.
Advance Wars 2.0: I caught and voted for Fate without town support, also voted for Implosion, and comically enough RVS'd Sociopath (that's all three knaves)
SAIII: I voted for MoI (who was unfathomably taking the murderer's route) twice, as well as the cultists BabySpice (twice) and SpyreX.

[AurorusVox]

- You're 70% scum in my opinion, so cut that bullshit about "dancing" ; and it doesn't ruin my meta, since you vote for town both as town and scum ;

Sir, if you gave this process of "meta" the due attention that it deserved, you'd find that I in fact bus my buddies rather frequently.

[AurorusVox]

Moreover, your selection of data is skewed. If I am killed off N1 in a number of games as a gentleman, what's the average for scum lynches on D1? What about anti-town third parties, do they not count? If I vote for someone but the rest of town do not follow it through, and that person happens to be scum, why does that not count in my favour? If I vote for someone and then convince myself I am wrong, does that not speak favourably for my gut instinct?

No, sir. Your meta analysis has no merit for it is nowhere near objective enough.

[AurorusVox]

If I vote for someone and then convince myself I am wrong, does that not speak favourably for my gut instinct?

^should have continued to read:

If I vote for someone and then convince myself I am wrong, when in fact I was correct, does that not speak favourably for my gut instinct, and indicate that it is instead only later, when I let my head dictate, that I may falter?

(thus implying that my gut is correct about you)

[AurorusVox]

[/OOC whilst I catch up]

AV: Who do you think lord_hur is scum with? You were tunneling a bit.

At the moment, I'm not sure, because of the amount of lurking going on has meant a lot of players are floating at null, or they're individually scummy for active lurking without allowing us to draw connections. I acknowledge that I've been tunnelling and will do a proper read-through-since-I-replaced-in and/or a string of ISOs when I get the chance. I remember imaginality did something naughty earlier (dodged questions as far as I can remember), and thinking about it, I wouldn't be surprised if lord_hur voted him for distancing (especially when he sounds so sure that I'm scum but won't vote for me - what other purpose could his imaginality vote serve?) That's where I'll be focussing first.

---

Sorry. The one vote I like the *least* is AurorusVox's. I don't like gut votes, as there is no way to determine is they are genuine or not, so they are utterly anti-town. And on top of that, he brought it up well after his vote. So basically, i can picture it being : "oh well, I have no reason to vote for this guy except that he's being attacked by everyone, so I'll just latch at him with walls of doom until he gives in. Damn, he's resisting, I need to find something else. Hmm, he brought up my history of town voting... *browses* yeah I remember, I let that guy off the hook because my reasoning sucked, but I was right at first! Hey, I can use gut voting as an excuse, it makes total sense given my history, and you can't unprove it anyway!".

Excuse me, but I've been making cases on you along with my vote. The ONLY person who was "attacking" you at the time I voted was Hoppster. This is

extreme

misrep - how can my vote be "gut" but also a "wall"? Are you honestly saying all I said in those walls was "Yeah, it's gut"? Really? You're saying those entire "Walls of Doom" contained zero reasons? By jove, you've basically nailed your own coffin shut.

Where have I said I need to find anything else to justify my vote? My vote was justified before you misrepped my voting history. And my reasoning never sucked when I voted scum (how could it?) - I said that I WIFOM'd my way out of it. I.e. I read him as scum, then thought about it too much and argued my self away (this is my common problem as town - Feysal might recall I caught a lot of flak for arguing both sides in SAIII). I'm tunnelling now because I'm trying to change that. Dogged persistence, what ho!

Town (at least, as I play as town) would have thought they have not enough against me, and, at least, looked for an alternative wagon. Only scum would stick to a very promising wagon with teeth and claws, changing completely their voting reason on the way (especially for something as despisable as gut voting), and tunnelling as if there was no other player.

Why would I go to an alternative wagon when you're scum? "AV can only be town if he changes his vote" - uh, nthx. And what? Where have I changed my voting reason? Show me?

---

As much as I agree with what you're saying, the tone of this post is reading to me as scum who feels he has been caught out for a completely wrong reason.

^QFT.

---

Just out of curiosity, why don't we lynch vezok? He seems to not help much even if he is town, and if he's scum, yay!

This has already been addressed by others explaining why its a bad idea. But.
Do you think vezok is likely to be scum? Do you think he helps more or less than Cookiebringer?

---

No, that was L-1. Next vote would be the hammer, so don't. I have a town read on Lord Hur, and I really don't want to lynch one of our few members who actively contributes.

I don't like the second part of your reasoning. Why should we

focus

on lynching people who contribute less? Is lurking a scumtell for you, or is it null? If you think we're engaged in TvT, do you think that lord_hur isn't misrepping me in places? Because I sure do, and that's a sure marker of scum in my opinion.

Also; "so don't" rubs me up the wrong way. Why is your town read worth more than five peoples' scumreads?

---

I'm going to have less time to get on over the next few weeks so don't expect me to have the same level of activity. I'll manage to post at least once a day, but I've neglected my studies whilst I was away and I need to catch up there too >_>"

[AurorusVox]

Exactly. Zero reasons. I affirm every reason you gave was crap, and I never lie as town.

I offered PLENTY of reasons...

And I said gut, because you said you would lynch me no matter what. It is illogical, so it is gut (or scummy intent, but it's hard to tell one from the other).

...therefore it's not gut.

It's like me turning around now and saying "lord_hur, your entire case is gut and thus not valid". That's not how this works.

ALSO, I'd like to point out. You say you're 70% sure I'm scum...but you can't tell if it's gut or scummy intent? Ha, yeah, okay scum.

I also never said I'd lynch you no matter what. Keep misrepping.

Where have I said I need to find anything else to justify my vote? My vote was justified before you misrepped my voting history. And my reasoning never sucked when I voted scum (how could it?) - I said that I WIFOM'd my way out of it. I.e. I read him as scum, then thought about it too much and argued my self away (this is my common problem as town - Feysal might recall I caught a lot of flak for arguing both sides in SAIII). I'm tunnelling now because I'm trying to change that. Dogged persistence, what ho!

Tunnelling is anti-town. Period. Good town always look for alternatives, because they know that they can be wrong. Saying you're sure that someone is scum is immensely presomptuous. I myself typically vote for 2 or 3 persons before I commit to a lynch (mainly because I'm always very active, so I analyze and vote fast).

Nice dodge scum. I asked you where I said I needed extra reasons. I also asked you and notice you didn't reply where I said my reasons for finding you scummy had changed.

I'm 99% sure you're scum. How's that?

[AurorusVox]

Whatever. I just said this to clarify my stance about you when I flip town.

What ho? So, they possess the attributes of reasons now, but won't have that formality at a later date?

I also never said I'd lynch you no matter what. Keep misrepping.

Yes you did :

I said that I WIFOM'd my way out of it. I.e. I read him as scum, then thought about it too much and argued my self away (this is my common problem as town - Feysal might recall I caught a lot of flak for arguing both sides in SAIII). I'm tunnelling now because I'm trying to change that. Dogged persistence, what ho!

You do say there that you will not change your vote for whatever argument you may find in my favor.

No, not in the slightest, sir.
I'm saying forthwith that I'm not letting you wriggle free. If there was a decent argument for not running you up the proverbial, then I would not submit a ballot in favour of that action. I am saying that it will take a strong, solid argument to change my mind; and I have not yet seen such.

Nice dodge scum. I asked you where I said I needed extra reasons. I also asked you and notice you didn't reply where I said my reasons for finding you scummy had changed.

I explained what I think your reasoning was, so no more explanation was needed.

You have failed to supply the required information because it does not exist.

I notice that lord_hur professes that he "does not care," but also conveys to us that he cares enough to be "bitter" that he's getting lynched "as town".

lord_hur, if you never get lynched as a true gentleman, why do you think that it is, that you are close to a lynch right now? Your entire carriage cannot be solely comprised of dastardly rapscallions.

[AurorusVox]

Sorry dear fellow guests, I have been piled under a truckload of volumes recently, and have had little time for frivolities. Here are my most recent musings;

I don't know why, but something about Feysal leads me to conclude that Lord_hur is townie.

Right now, you're kind of leaning scum for me...but Feysal's got me pretty well convinced.

Baroness Jilynne, can you please clarify how certain you are of lord_hur being a dastardly rogue? On the one hand, your posts seem to say with some considerable strength ("conclude", "pretty well convinced") that you believe him to be a true gentleman; yet on the other, you sound unsure and in fact find him a rapscallion ("I don't know why", "kind of leaning scum") - plus, it should of course be noted that you are still voting for him.

---

It's a rather abrupt change from me, I'll admit that, but I am thinking perhaps it would be better to send Reya Cookiebringer to the firing squad.

If there is no support to get lord_hur swinging today - and by that I mean we

honestly

cannot cobble together the required ballots - then I will offer my hand in this matter.

---

I don't like the second part of your reasoning. Why should we

focus

on lynching people who contribute less? Is lurking a scumtell for you, or is it null?

Definitely a scumtell. I've been part of enough many towns that lost because of infighting to say this. One good example is Cold War Mafia which just ended, where both scum teams spent day one lurking, while the town was tearing its own guts. I also know that I tend to lurk myself as scum, since I can't seem to summon the same enthusiasm as when I'm town.

I myself find the lurking to be null, since I have seen numerous townies do as much, and have found myself sparse for time in many occasions. I can see the logic behind lurking as scum, but I feel that it would be imprudent to ignore the (il)logic of lurking as town also. That said, as I expressed to Sir Hoppster, Reya is a fine compromise vote if we truly cannot see lord_hur in the gallows.

Also, on the site I moved here from, there is an epidemic of suspecting and lynching active players, and I'm seeing the same symptoms here. Active players such as Lord Hur tend to stand out, especially if they have controversial ideas or suspects, and may end up being wrongly suspected simply because of it. Add confirmation bias and plain stubbornness, and you have the makings of a mislynch. By that point all you need is some lazy townies or scum to vote with the majority.

I fully understand the doubts here, yet I am truly convinced he is a rogue, as opposed to myself being stubborn. From your point of view, I can see why that might be frustrating, should you truly be a gentleman with a gentleman's read on lord_hur.

If you think we're engaged in TvT, do you think that lord_hur isn't misrepping me in places? Because I sure do, and that's a sure marker of scum in my opinion.

Fair enough, you can suspect him if you think his trust implied knowledge of Hoppster's alignment, but I don't think this was a misrep.

Still, I have to grant you that you did give some reasons for your vote in the same post you voted, so perhaps this one is a mild misrep, though I don't think it is nearly so extreme.

I acknowledge these responses and settle for agreeing on a difference of opinion.

Your past performance is not a reliable indicator either way on whether you've caught mafia now.

I can agree with this much. I did feel that lord_hur was trying to smear me by picking through my voting record, and I was keen to indicate back to him that should one wish to be selective with their searchings, one can paint anyone in any light. "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics" after all.

If you say you're persistently tunnelling him that is not so far from the truth. Deadline is in six days, and apart from Lord Hur, we seem to have no potential lynches to speak of.

Well I truly believe that there is a significant difference between pursuing someone whilst seeing nothing to deflect you from your path; and saying that you will ignore everything raised against you and your ideas of that person being a rapscallion.

Perhaps I should try to remedy that:

Vote: imaginality

I just read through his posts, and there is not all that much there. He agreed with the vezokpiraka policy lynch, made the case on kr0b (incidentally, this means that it is very unlikely for both him and kr0b/ToastyToast to be mafia), defended Twistedspoon with meta, but ended the day by sealing his execution. It is this last action that seems most peculiar, and today he has been mostly inactive. His V/LA ended two days ago, and he has not been seen since.

Can I ask why imaginality over the Cookie Monster? Reya has "not been seen" for much longer.

Also; "so don't" rubs me up the wrong way. Why is your town read worth more than five peoples' scumreads?

It's mine. The five other people can be wrong, or they can be scum. What would be the point of having town reads if I just let them be lynched without comment? I could be wrong myself of course, but that is no reason to blindly follow the majority. Maybe at deadline if there was no better choice, but we're not there yet.

I will explain why this "rubbed me up the wrong way"; I have fears with the post I responded to in the quote herein, that it was a working example of the process known as Impersonating a Saintly Gentleman at War; or "White Knighting". If lord_hur flips town, you would naturally look excellent by extension. Your "1 vs 5" stance here conveys you as a hero, and being solely responsible for preventing a mislynch - should it be as much, that is. Of course, this is but one interpretation of events. I am not entirely convinced that it's an accurate assessment myself, but it has been one of the first twinges of repugnance that I have felt for your communications, and I had wanted my voice to be heard, lest I should perish before the morrow.

---

He asks me why I messaged it anyway if I found it suspcious. I then answered that it is because he thought that would be seen as "OMGUS", and then he attacks me again saying that it was not what Sir Toastytoast suspected me of, while it is clearly not what he asked of me.

I know that this matter is beside the point now, but my whole argument with this line of questioning was that you claimed that you knew you were acting suspiciously, and used that foreknowledge to neuter Toasty's accusation against you, saying that you were a true gentleman behind the rougishness of your post that TT had discerned; and yet, ToastyToast found you suspicious for something else. As such, your perception of you coming across as a rapscallion due to "Oh Good Heavens, You Are Most Incompetent!" (OGHYAMI) was meaningless is addressing TT's suspicions. That is to say, I perceive you as trying to draw attention away from the different, legitimate displeasure that TT felt towards your play by pointing at something else entirely. And that is why I cursed at you for a break with TT's original suspicions.

It could have been a trap, but I did not intend it as such. I am not suspecting Sir inHimshallibe enough.

Sir AurorusVox is obviously very smart. How could he not understand that this means I did not suspect inHimshallibe enough to try to trap him? Yet, he questions me about it, making two propositions that are not like what I said.

Perhaps too smart in this instance, I fear. "I am not suspecting Sir inHimshallibe enough" is not a (fully) grammatically correct sentence; if we read that sentence in isolation

as it is

it could indicate that you feel that you should suspect him more - hence my questioning.

@AurorusVox: I am in the process of possibly reevaluating my stance towards you, sir. And... er... I indeed apologize for the tone of some of the answers I gave you, if you are a true gentleman. Anger and frustration had, I fear, too much of a grasp on me. I have a few questions for you, if you will answer them:
- Did you ever use traps as town?
- Do you have any way for me to ascertain your willingness to pursue doggedly your suspects, before or during your lenghty attack at me? Or maybe in a previous lodge?

1) I most certainly do. I believe my string of questions about why you felt you were suspicious was a sort of trap. However, my concern with you was not to do with the act of trapping or otherwise. It was with you being suspicious of Sir Hoppster, and yet immediately believing his word when he said it was not a trap.

2) I spent most of TxtMafia ranting about Chamber being scum but was wrong (one of my worst games) so I know it has its drawbacks; I honed in on ExeCultLeader (thought he was scum though, oops) and tried to get him lynched (town insisted on mislynching someone else) in CvM mafia which was the first baby steps of the doggedness; I thought I'd caught Fate out as scum with my ability (it wasn't anything too concrete, just some things were slightly off with when abilities were claimed to have been used) in Advance Wars, and though he claimed SpecialFateGambittz + bussed

both

his partners with fake cop reports + no one else wanting to lynch him, I still stuck at it until he killed me off (and yeah, he was scum). Gradual progression.

[AurorusVox]

Why do you need "the okay"?

[AurorusVox]

I think any gentleman who is indeed willing to run lord_hur up the gallows should make that intention clear by signing their ballot now, or indicate as much if lord_hur reaches the liminal space of a hanging.

Then, if there are not enough people by (sometime to be decided between 5th and 6th June), we can organise to do away with the rapscallion in charge of the Cookies.

[AurorusVox]

Also, lord_hur and reya should probably claim, as it seems these are our only two options 2day (running out of time)

Why both, when only one will be sent to the gallows? I do not like this, sir.

[AurorusVox]

If you guys don't mind, sorry, but I'd like to unvote Lord_hur, since I hate lynching unless logic and my gut feeling tells me too...

M'lady, you need not our permission. If you want to revoke your ballot of lord_hur, then do so posthaste and ink your vote upon someone else's name, but be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions for yourself. The way you're asking makes it look as though you wish to say, "Oh, but you guys said it was okay!", which does not sit well with me.

I believe there are also unanswered questions directed at you, by myself, and would appreciate a response. Much obliged.

[AurorusVox]

2. It gives info to scum. For example, if I were to claim cop, I would surely die next night, while if I were to claim vanilla townie, they would kill someone else, increasing the chance a power role dies.

Sir, I'm surprised that you did not claim that the above was part of your breadcrumbing.

Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that your comment about VIs being "unreadable" was a legitimate investigation-crumb, considering it only came about because Jilly didn't know what you meant by "unreadable" in a previous post. I think that if you had really wanted to crumb your investigation report, you would have taken the initiative yourself, not waited until someone happened to ask about VIs.

[AurorusVox]

Sir, I recalled that post because I went back to look at the context of your Vezo-investigate crumb in your ISO to see how soon into the day you tried to reveal your information. I searched "unreadable" and that post I quoted was the first to come up.

Moreover, I quite clearly say that I find it hard to believe that you used that post as an

investigation

crumb. Why, then, do you react as though I said anything different?

Nevertheless, it seems that in my ISOing, I inferred a post requesting clarification where none existed. That those two posts came immediately one after the other with no prompting lends an element of credence to your argument. I still would have believed it more had the post come earlier, but that is of little consequence at the moment.

I am willing to be persuaded to cast my ballot with Reya's name marked, going into the night, if the support for executing this fellow withers with his claim. What say you, lodge?

[AurorusVox]

Additional Question:
lord_hur, your signature leads me to conclude that you despise lurkers and believe they should bring about their own demise, post-haste. Why is Reya receiving special treatment here?

[AurorusVox]

But that's retroactive logic.

You think all lurkers should die.
Deadline approaches, a bunch of people decide that The Lurker should die.
Those people are now scummy.
You now think The Lurker should not die.

Can you see my problem?

[AurorusVox]

^WOAH

I didn't know was actually a tag >_>"

[AurorusVox]

Are you suggesting that Reya is not a lurker?

[AurorusVox]

Oh. Your signature led me to believe otherwise, sir. Never mind that line of enquiry then, I have been misled.

[AurorusVox]

Dearest inOne; I have been treating Sir Hoppster as though he has practically confirmed gentleman status due to his request for a deadline extension near the end of the first day. His lynch target was the leading horse-drawn carriage at the time and as a rogue he could have kept exceedingly quiet and allowed a deadline flurry of activity to see the (mis)lynch through with little worry or problem.

[AurorusVox]

I'm not willing to lynch outside of {Reya/lord_hur} with deadline so close.

[AurorusVox]

Restated at your behest;

I don't know why, but something about Feysal leads me to conclude that Lord_hur is townie.

Right now, you're kind of leaning scum for me...but Feysal's got me pretty well convinced.

Baroness Jilynne, can you please clarify how certain you are of lord_hur being a dastardly rogue? On the one hand, your posts seem to say with some considerable strength ("conclude", "pretty well convinced") that you believe him to be a true gentleman; yet on the other, you sound unsure and in fact find him a rapscallion ("I don't know why", "kind of leaning scum") - plus, it should of course be noted that you are still voting for him.

[AurorusVox]

Cast my ballot upon that most unfavourable rogue (Vote): Reya

*grumble mumble grumble*

[AurorusVox]

lord_hur; investigate me if you wish. If you should survive the night, you will either have to clear me as a gentleman or reveal yourself as a most contemptible liar.

[AurorusVox]

Also, lord_hur. Your most recent post makes little sense. How could I ask you why you were giving Imaginality a free-pass for lurking, when you

weren't

giving him a free pass for lurking?

[AurorusVox]

._." Goodness gracious...

lord_hur...if you did indeed investigate me last night, you should know how awful I'm feeling right now. At least you have maintained your town-lynch record

Time to analyse your carriage. Surely there were scum encouraging me to pursue your death fully, whilst maintaining a quiet attitude themselves. These rapscallions will be weeded out!

Farmer Vezok

Cleared of all wrongdoing a'la lord_hur's lack of incrimination.

Baron Feysal

Labouring under the False Pretence of a Holy Gentleman at Arms or Truly Concerned and Gentlemanly Citizen? I am finding Feysal hard to read, because he appears so clearly gentlemanly that I am harbouring suspicions. Point of reference is Wickedestjr in SAIII, whom I protected from death two nights in a row, despite him being a terrible knave - and I slowly began to doubt his credentials as the match of wits continued until my own untimely demise. I am gaining similar feelings here. Okay, scratch that, Feysal gives off major gentleman tells for voting Imaginality here; as scum, he could simply attach himself to the Reya wagon.

Sir Hoppster

I still read this slot as heavily town. His attention shift to Vezok when lord_hur is at L-1 is a towntell. His attempt to divert the wagon onto Reya yesterday prior to a claim from lord_hur also scores him a plethora of gentlemanly accolades. Having a history of voting lord_hur would have allowed him to leave his vote in place and secure a claim, in my humble opinion.

The Right and Honourable ToastyToast

He maintains support for the carriage during the walled battle of wits; seems to ride it as an easy carriage, I do not see much from him that sticks out greatly over the course of the day. He does ask for a claim early (i.e. before a gentleman had declared an intention of taking up a labourers tool and applying it to lord_hur), and does so in a half-hearted fashion; still harps on about the TS stuff from D1...is there not anything better to discuss about Hoppster by this point? Thing is I liked his points against lord_hur wrt to me; though he then goes on to say he'll look at me more today, despite contributing on my side throughout mine and lord_hur's war of words. He also fails to mention looking closer at imaginality, despite imaginality being the focus of lord_hur's vote. Now he tries to get

TWO

claims for the price of one. I mentioned this yesterday and said I did not like it, and I'll mention it again.

Colonel Imaginality

Despite his military achievements, I find Imaginality to be extremely yellow-bellied, not joining the carriage due to true feelings of rougishness on lord_hur's part but because it is the leading wagon. He continues to display his cowardice here by striking his ballot clean - knowing it was a mislynch and wishing to gain a safe distance, as from a soon-to-detonate grenade? Then again, as a rapscallion, why not leave his vote and demand documents of identity? Wow, this was a long absence, and he returns just in time to contribute to a lurker's wagon when he himself has been lurking. He also completely avoids answering questions asked of him earlier in the thread, when he does return to post.

inOneShallOneBe

Similar to Feysal, he maintains distance from the popular carriage despite appearances of not being caught up. He seems to develop that read later at least. Odd that both Feysal and inOne found me decidedly gentlemanly despite both disagreeing with my attack on lord_hur (imaginality goes as far as to call my posts ":good:" whilst presumably believing them to be entirely misguided). I doubt that these two gentleman are knaves-in-arms; one or the other, at the very least, and after re-reading yesterday's interactions, I would lean inOne as the rogue of the pair if there is indeed one. Doesn't like Reya but never really mentions Imaginality, not to mention most of inOne's posts are "catching up, brb", one after another after another...Now, look here. There is clearly support for a Reya wagon, and lord_hur is at L-1, saying he will only claim should someone indicate a willingness to do away with him; in rides inOne, claiming he will hammer. Since lord_hur was a townread of his, with the support for the Reya lynch rather clear, I would have expected something different - it now looks as though he was fishing for the claim!

Dame Jily

She seems to be very much in a tizzy. She has bad gut feelings about me but reads me as town; I demonstrated later in the day her potential fence-sitting wrt: lord_hur's scumminess. I could see her as a newly ordained knave trying to give nothing away by being evasive; or I could read her as a newly ordained gentleman struggling to cement her reads. I understand the irony of this Janus-faced assessment, but as in poker, newer players tend to be harder to read because they do not respect convention! Surprisingly, here she claims that she relies a lot on gut...but why then did she not follow her gut suspicions of me?


---

Assessment of rapscallions:

::KNAVE:: Imaginality - InOneshallonebe --- ToastyToast --------- Jily ---- Feysal ------------------ Hoppster --- Vezok ::GENTLEMAN::

Corresponding casting of a ballot:

Vote: Imaginality

[AurorusVox]

Unvote

LYLO herp, I missed Vezok's vote >_>

[AurorusVox]

I make that 3 pseudovotes on Imaginality now.

'tis entirely possible for the vig claim to come from an odd-night SK, let us not forget. Do not yet clamour to heap confirmed town status upon whomever should make that claim - after all, were TheLonging or StrangerCoug what one might consider "good" vigilante shots? I cannot say with any certainty.

But I agree that the additional shooter should make themselves known. T'would help immensely in narrowing our suspect pool.

[AurorusVox]

Sir Hoppster
ToastyToast
Feysal
jilynne1991
inHimshallibe

Why am I not on that list?

Which would leave a scum-three group of {ToastyToast, inHim, Feysal/AVox}.

Why is Jilynne not on that list?

[AurorusVox]

I can certainly understand that Mme. Jilynne looks like a true Dame from her revelation of Imaginality's identity. But I have masqueraded as a rapscallion and confirmed a friendly neighbour before, and though I agree that she may be too new to handle it in a non-transparent way, we should not preclude the possibility outright. She is not a lynch target today by any stretch of the imagination, but regardless, I had wanted to gauge SirHoppster's reasoning - he is essentially declaring that this as much as confirms her as town.

I know that I shouldn't be on Toasty's list, as I am not scum. But I want to know why HE believes so strongly that I do not belong there, especially given his vow to look at me in more depth upon a lord_hur townflip.

[AurorusVox]

Aha! I did not see the forest for the trees in your response. Well, sir, I can agree with you as far as Toasty is concerned. I am still tunnelling on Hoppster being town, however.

[AurorusVox]

AV, why do you have such a high opinion of Hoppster?

I've stated this numerous times now. Asking for a deadline extension was a sure towntell, as was looking for alternative lynch candidates to lord_hur before forcing lord_hur to claim - as opposed to you, asking for two claims >_>

The revelation of imaginality being town actually puts Jilynne in his scum category.

Where do I say this?

Their reasons for killing lord_hur are quite obvious. He was a claimed cop, and that cop found all 3 of them suspicious.

Claimed cop makes a good kill for any scum. I told lord_hur to investigate me so if there'd been a doctor, I was putting myself at a huge risk if I was scum.

[AurorusVox]

Huh. I could've sworn there were more players left than that.

Well. It just means InOne + Toasty are scum for sure, then. I really can't see a Feysal/Jily/Hoppster scumteam. One of them, sure. Strike Hoppster out for now, there's no way I'm lynching him today without reason.

If the Vig (or SK) claims, we'll be on 4/8 confirmed town, with 3/4 remaining being scum...unless Vezok is the vig (or SK) >_>" That'd suck.

Well. I motion for the vig (or SK) to claim. Pretty sure we can keep a confirmed town alive every day from here on out.

[AurorusVox]

With Messrs. Vezok and Imaginality as confirmed genteel, the rogues have got night kills lined up for the next few nights anyway. I remain stalwart in my favour of the "Gentleman Possessing an Antique but Useable Firearm" claiming for such reasons.

Expressing of opinion before the actuality of the event: Imaginality and Jily are devillish rogues, aided perhaps by the mastermind that is Feysal, and my two favourite residents for the gallows are both true gentlemen. /sigh

[AurorusVox]

I understand that point. It seems to be a Catch-22 situation, however;

-Should we misjudge the fellow we send to the gallows, if the vigilante retains ammunition he is our only chance to maintain equilibrium with the rogues and should remain hidden as such
-But revealing himself will reduce the chances of misjudgement and thus negate the need for a successful shot tonight

I will alter my previous request;

"If the shooter has another shot remaining, he should keep himself hidden for fear of interference tonight.
If the shooter has run out of ammunition, he would do well reveal himself due to being essentially no more than a regular gentleman at this juncture and the clearance would help considerably."

Does this seem a favourable corollary?

[AurorusVox]

Ladies and Gentlemen;

To prevent this delightful soiree from stagnating, could people be as kind as to indicate by means of a pseudovote who they would be voting for a this moment?

I.e.

Were I not terrified of rogues capitalising on a misplaced ballot, I would be voting for:

Then we can keep track of who is closest to a lynch and continue analysing carriages.

---

I will begin:

Were I not terrified of rogues capitalising on a misplaced ballot, I would be voting for: inOneShallOneBe

Presumably, with Feysal only listing inOne as a suspect, plus Toasty's own legitimate vote, that gives us:

Pseudovote count
inHimshallibe (3) - ToastyToast, Feysal, AurorusVox
Toasty (1) - inHimshallibe

[AurorusVox]

Pseudovote count

inHimshallibe (3) - ToastyToast*, Feysal, AurorusVox
Toasty (1) - inHimshallibe*


I now have indicated with stars the legitimate votes.
Also, since I am wary of being misconstrued, here is an emergency

Unvote

@mod, would what I posted in bold in #819 ever be accidentally counted as a legitimate vote?

[AurorusVox]

InHim: Case on Feysal?

[AurorusVox]

TT; what changed from suspecting Feysal most to suspecting me the most?

TT-inOne-Feysal scumteam*
(TT+inOne crossbussing; inOne suspects Feysal, TT doesn't)

*potentially replace Feysal with Jily, not prepared to lynch him today anyway.

[AurorusVox]

Actually, inHim's case on Feysal is quite compelling. The points he's picked out in Feysal's interactions with the kr0b slot are very non-committal. Is this InOne responding to me saying they're likely not scum together, providing more distance between the two, or is it indeed simply him having found a rapscallion? I'm not ready to tear away my scumread on the lewd gentleman just yet, but he has garnered a crumb of respect for his brief analysis.

imaginality's pseudovote pseudo-puts inOne at pseudo L-1.

[AurorusVox]

Going back to older posts...

AV or Feysal: Every scum team needs a leader, and leaders like to talk.

What do you make of Feysal only have 21 posts, then?

I just don't see AVox being scum.

Can you explain this townread?

[AurorusVox]

Jily, if he flips town, scum have likely won the game.

Can you rank the players in order from those you are most suspicious of to those you are least suspicious of?

[AurorusVox]

There's something quite disturbing about Jily.
Her ultimatum to InHim, whom she reads as suspect anyway, is really shaking my own confidence in her.

The question is, is this scum trying to stay away from bussing a partner? ("Don't make me vote you!")
Or is it scum trying to stay off a mislynch? ("I don't want to vote you!")
Or is it just a recently-introduced gentlewoman's struggles with voting confidence? ("I don't know if I should vote you!")

I struggle reading such players when I engage in the card activity known as "Poker" since I always lose to their fresh-faced uncertainties.

As such, I would like to poll players opinions on Jily specifically, please.

---

Regarding InHim:

Everyone here other than inHim himself wants to lynch inHim.
Now we have to decide whether this is scum bussing a partner who is likely going down anyway (Toasty, Jily as partners would be my guess; Toasty taking the firm stance with the vote, and Jily being reluctant to push it fully) or scum making the most of an easy mislynch.

But the thing is. There are 8 alive. Presumably that's 5:3.

Let's say we mislynch today. 4:3.
Scum NK = 3:3 and we lose
But add a successful vig shot in, and we bring it back to 3:2

So I can't see scum pushing a mislynch as hard as Toasty's been pushing on inHim today, which draws the following conclusions: inHim is not a mislynch, or Toasty is not scum.

This means if InHim is town, Toasty is town. InHim scum does not imply Toasty scum. Nor does Toasty Town imply InHim town. But Toasty scum pretty much seals inhim as scum.

But then if both InHim and Toasty are town it has to be a Feysal-Jily-Hoppster scumteam, and I can't get these blinkers off that tell me Hoppster is town. But...oh FML. I was so sure and now I'm thinking tinfoil;

What if it's a Jily-Feysal-Imaginality scumteam? I can TOTALLY see Feysal concocting a gambit where he tells Jily to claim Imaginality is modconfirmed town. Who would doubt pure, innocent Jily?

If InHim flips town...I honestly would read Toasty as town, and my vote would immediately be on Jily to get shot.
And if only one of them is scum, it has to be InHim. If both are scum then it doesn't matter which one I vote.

The net result of this rambling post is that the likelihood of InHim being scum is the highest, but by no mean feat a certain thing.
Having no scumflips at this stage in the game makes the whole thing so much harder.

[AurorusVox]

Pseudovote: ToastyToast

[AurorusVox]

The fathers of gods have been known to evade mere chunks of metal propelled by gunpowder.
Plus, if they're both town, fypov scumteam has to be Feysal-AV-Jily or [Feysal/AV]-Jily-Imaginality.

Now tell me if Toasty surviving a vig attempt makes him likely scum or not.

[AurorusVox]

As such, I would like to poll players opinions on Jily specifically, please.

Would still like this, gentlemen.

[AurorusVox]

I still believe he is scum, but for people to believe he is scum simply for surviving a NK is both ridiculous and very suspicious.

Well, sir, that is hardly the only reason I find him to be a most inglorious rapscallion. It is simply the proverbial iced sugar on the fluffy sponge delicacy.

Plus, if they're both town, fypov scumteam has to be Feysal-AV-Jily or [Feysal/AV]-Jily-Imaginality.

Now tell me if Toasty surviving a vig attempt makes him likely scum or not.

This in paticular is troubling me from your recent post.

If ToastyToast and inHim are town... so what? That hypothetical scenario has no relevance to the logic of how the failed NK supposedly implicated ToastyToast as scum, which was the matter at hand. Why are you trying to use this as an argument?

I was simply stating that if both ToastyToast and InHim are town, then the scum reside in the {Feysal-Jily-(Hoppster/AV)} pool first and foremost, and I highly doubt that this is the case for you, and know it is not the case for me. If gambits are being bandied around then we may sub in Imaginality. Both of these you have distanced from by virtue of finding Jily to be a gentlewoman. You have, I will admit, retained suspicions of Vezo, which I did not account for. But I was not talking about the failed NK alone, I was talking about the left-over players, and combining

that

with the failed NK. Together, they are suspicious, and contribute more decisively to my suspicions of ToastyScum.

[AurorusVox]

Hi guys, sorry I'm pretty busy this weekend (a pal has come to stay) so I'm going to be a low presence til Monday.

Most Proper but Unspectacular Man of Class.

Popcorn to Jily.

[AurorusVox]

Most disreputable that the lady would abandon us at this crucial stage in our investigations!

[AurorusVox]

(by which I attach no judgement of alignment, simply frustration, and, in all honesty, the desire to dodge a prod)

[AurorusVox]

Hmph, there's not much we can do whilst we await the end of the "mass identity parade".

[AurorusVox]

Oh rah-THER, Sir T. Toast, that would be most spiffing.

[AurorusVox]

Good sir, if inHim was RB'd that does not immediately end the game for us upon a Toasty lynch, since Toasty could have been a part of the dastardteam that blocked him!

[AurorusVox]

Feysal's bad logic + TT latching onto it makes me confident in TT's scumflip.

[AurorusVox]

Toasty: You claimed that EITHER you were a bulletproof godfather OR you were a townie who was going to be fortuitously mislynched due to a roleblocker framing you by sheer luck, and lynching you would result in a loss for the town.

That's just not true. You've tried to make it look like there's a greater chance that you'll flip town than there actually is. InHim being blocked by a RB'er in NO way clears you, which was what Feysal suggested and what you were quick to support.

Lack of quickhammering leads me to conclude

Vote: ToastyToast

[AurorusVox]

Jily; it's likely that there are three scum. 3-9 is standard fare in mafia, so who would your

three

picks be?

[AurorusVox]

What do you make of the fact that there was two kills on N1, and no one has counterclaimed InHim's claim of Vigilante?
I think Feysal is looking likelier and likelier scum at this juncture.

While you're here...what do you think of Vezo's hammer?

[AurorusVox]

O.o thought that was the lynch

Eh, my hand has been slowed by your response.
Nice gambit, Vezok. I saw what you were doing and tried to draw Jily's response to it heh.

Thing is if TT realised he wasn't getting hammered, he could play the "I'm town" card in an attempt to gain town cred from it...

Unvote

for now while I mull things over.

@AV:Lack of quickhammering in a game that has to go to night phase if town has a killing role isn't a stretch. Scum wouldn't want to risk being killed by vig/SK, regardless of claims.

Erm. If you were NOT killed and are town, presumably its because of a Roleblocker on the scum side. Therefore, why would they fear quickhammering a townie if they have a RB'er? This lessens the townread coming out of the gambit somewhat. Considerations, considerations.

Wraith: When's deadline?

---

I must say that, ToastyToast is speaking with such confidence that he's town when he though he was lynched, does that not unnerve you guys? Sure, he could be mafia really good at acting...but I don't think so.

Thing is, Jily, if Toasty isn't scum, from my point of view you 100% have to be on the scumteam. Either it'd be a scumteam of Feysal-Hoppster-Jily; or it'd be Imaginality-Jily-{Feysal/Hoppster}.

Not to mention that Jily could be scum

with

Toasty, and now I'm debating a vote in her direction.

[AurorusVox]

Laptop power cable has died, I have seven minutes of power left. I will be without access til Tuesday when I get another one delivered!

[AurorusVox]

A vig, regardless of having a roleblocker, can be emotionally off-putting to a scum team.

Losing townpoints.

Stating that right now, I am not quickhammering. I'd ask that we hold off for a while, because I'd rather we didn't rush when we have about a week left, and we can take our time to decide here.

---

VEZOK

If TT is town, that means he's not GF, which means Vezok

could

be a GF. If scum have no RB'er, TT/Vezok can't be scum together.

For Vezok to be scum, they would have {GF-RB} to town's {Flavour-Cop-Vigilante-Bodyguard-Miller}. Playing outguess the mod here but that looks scumsided; Miller, RB and GF to screw the

flavour

cop, Bodyguard and RB screw with the Vig...ugh too much modWIFOM for me to deal with.

Verdict: Vezok = town

---

INHIM

I see no reason to read inHim as part of a scumteam. He could be SK but that is it. The double-kill N1 makes him

confirmed non-mafia

.

---

IMAGINALITY

Primary (mis)lynch target today; however, he can only be scum if he had concocted a diabolical plan with Jily as part of the scumteam. That means we are 1/3 likely to hit scum with Toasty, based on numbers of non-clears (or near enough) alone. If we take Vezok as non-clear, then that trashes it to 1/4. I do NOT think that Vezok would have come up with the plan, however; I will need to consider Imaginality's scumgame to see if he likes pulling gambits or whether I need to focus on {Feysal/Hoppster/ToastyToast}. That said, Imaginality is

100% not today's lynch

.

---

HOPPSTER

I gave him shovels of townpoints for his deadline request, and I still read him as the most townish out of the non clears.

I am not interested in a Hoppster lynch today

but may reread him to garner more interest on later days if necessary.

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

FEYSAL

Feysal strikes me as the sort of player who would come up with a {Jily-Imaginality} gambit, but I can't back that up beyond the fact that I read him as a very intelligent and methodical player who would be open to this. HOWEVER, Feysal scum implies Toasty scum - why else would he have not quickhammered? If Feysal is scum I wouldn't put it past him to feign ignorance over the L-1/Hammer gambit in order to save Toasty further down the line. If Feysal scum implies Toasty scum, he CAN'T be responsible for the {Jily-Imaginality} gambit, which takes that off the table. I would

consider a Feysal lynch, but I wouldn't push it

.

---

TOASTY

Toasty. Toasty toasty toasty. If he realised Vezok was lying about the hammer vote, or is the sort of player who keeps up the "I'm town" act until the modscene, then he's my top pick for scum. He's only played one scumgame, and he didn't post between the hammer and the modscene, but only about an hour passed between them. It isn't enough for me to judge from so that's incredibly unhelpful. The lack of quickhammer - from Feysal OR Jily, my other two main suspects now, really does not speak in his favour. Ugh. I want to believe he is scum, I really do.

Verdict: probable scum but niggling feeling I'm wrong

---

JILY

If Toasty is town, {Feysal-Hoppster-Jily} has to be our team; Toasty town heavily implies Jily scum FMPOV (Feysal-Hoppster-Vezok would be the only alternative, which...is not appetising). Hoppster has bashed Vezok as being "non-confirmed" and so I can't see them as a scumteam ('less he's only doing it because he KNOWS Vezok is scum, hmm). Jily scum is also a MUST if Imaginality is scum (low % but raises her number of possible teams).

If Toasty flipped scum, Jily is less of a sure shot at scum; Feysal-Hoppster-Toasty could still work, but {Feysal/Hoppster}-Toasty-Jily is MUCH more likely IMO. Reciproaclly, JilyScum makes ToastyScum more likely due to the lack of a quickhammer, and her dithering between "hammering near deadline" and "hammering tomorrow" looks like she's seeking a hint from her scumbuddies.

Verdict: Very likely scum

I think we're likely to be more successful with a Jily lynch, but that's only because I can take myself out of the equation since I know I'm town. You guys don't have that same luxury and I won't stand in the way of a Toasty lynch. In all honesty Toasty is probably also scum, but right now I am more certain about Jily.

Vote: Jily

---

Thing is,

both

of my two other suspects make Toasty a likelier scumshot. I'm more than happy to see his lynch today but I'd ask that we hold off just to consider other options for a while.

[AurorusVox]

Ehh. Lack of quickhammer on

multiple

fronts = very very very likely ToastyScum.

Is it worth delaying the hammer to discuss other people? Part of me says yes - more ideas from more people before someone dies, but part of me says no - more info to scum on who makes a good NK target + WIFOM following from it.

[AurorusVox]

Willing to hammer, effective immediately, but holding off for a few hours in the hope that Feysal posts something.

[AurorusVox]

Jily, what content do you think is going around?
I haven't really seen much from your last few posts other than your willingness to hammer.

When I asked you to give three suspects, you named them, but they didn't work as a team (if x is town, y is scum etc). I'd like your take on a FULL three-person TEAM. It doesn't matter if its right or wrong. It's just useful to have.

[AurorusVox]

Okay, thanks. Now, thoughts on Hoppster?

[AurorusVox]

Jily + Toasty + <mystery third member> sounds pretty likely imo.
I REALLY hope we've nailed the Godfather or Roleblocker, which will allow inHim another shot.

[AurorusVox]

>_> maybe if there'd been some movement on Jily we could have lynched her instead. Is this all WIFOM from Toasty, though?

[AurorusVox]

Ehh...possibly. I think it'd be more likely with inHim SK than town vig, though. Actually, since he can shoot every night, two scum might be the right bet (pulling things out of nowhere atm but thinking about it from that angle, one-shot OR even/odd night vig + three scum is more likely based on the number of kills per night and balancing against that, than a full vig would be...) - which would trash most of the scumteam theories I've been bandying around. Hmm. Not sure how to place a full SK in this situation.

ALSO, if scum have RB + GF + Goon like I said earlier, setup WIFOM makes me think its balanced in their favour. Just RB + GF though could be workable, though...and if Jily is scum it's also possible she slipped that there's two scum members rather than three. OTOH Feysal has said her games have had two scumzz in them so its tough to read much into it.

[AurorusVox]

Hmm. Is Jil not a better shot than Feysal? Or are you saying that you're confident that Jil is scum already, and the shot will help us determine whether Feysal is her partner?

[AurorusVox]

Submitting that we will wait and see does work. At this point, if there are three rapscallions, they can simply vote for a "laissez faire" approach every day anyway, thus our only hope is that it is indeed a two-man (or woman) team, and approach them with more favourable odds tomorrow (3:2 rather than 4:2).

I DO think tomorrow there will be a similar choice to make as today so we COULD go for it today, and treat Messrs. Imaginality & Vezok as confirmed gentlemen (one of those will probably just perish tonight irregardless), leaving a 2:2 ratio (same as tomorrow) but with the added confirmed gentleman's voice.

That is, of course, barring hijinks of the most foul nature from either of the aforementioned guests.

If I were to indicate potential two-man teams, Jily slips somewhat out of the Confirmed-Scum category, but she is still the most likely in my humble opinion. Jily does not preclude Imaginality shenanigans, she makes a good pairing with Feysal, and more importantly, she slipped about a two man team earlier in the game. I still strongly read Hoppster as town. The potential blind-side is Vezok, who, as has been made clear, could be of godfatherly nature, and thus evade lord_hur's investigation; it could be a Feysal-Vezok scumteam which would make my attacks on Jily most misguided.

I will trust in my heart here, though. Yesterday I had my doubts that Toasty was a rapscallion, preferring to witness Jily's true colours, only to doubt myself in the face of the conviction of my fellow guests. I admit, I feared that Toasty had played me for a fool, and that I was overthinking such a simple and obvious choice. Drat! Balderdash! Hogwash!

I submit the motion that we take an unofficial poll. Those who wish to allow fate to take its course, indicate as much by saying "aye". Those who wish to grab the reigns of the game for themselves, say "nay"

I myself am a Nay-sayer. I believe with two potential confirmed-town, a laissez faire approach will ultimately do us no good.

[AurorusVox]

Obv happy to lynch Jily today. I count three of us up for that (pseudo-wagon ho)

[AurorusVox]

I definitely agree that a Jily-Feysal scumteam makes the most sense.

I won't be voting until everyone has had a chance to speak since I don't want Jily quick-self-hammering to end discussion today.

Also feeling less paranoid about Imaginality today since he can ONLY be scum with Jily and I can't see a bus at this point.

[AurorusVox]

Yeah Jily's confirmed scum.

We only found out there was an SK today. In prior game-days when you were talking about 2/3 person scumteams, you didn't know there was an SK. Therefore it can't be the reason for your number considerations.

[AurorusVox]

How can the SK be your reason for thinking there were two scum on D2 + D3 when we've only found out that there's an SK today, on D4? That isn't an explanation. That's retroactively excusing yourself for a slip.

[AurorusVox]

Jily; if you felt that inHim was potentially an SK, why did you not mention this at all until now?

[AurorusVox]

These lies will get you nowhere.

"I thought he might be an SK."
"It should be obvious (why I didn't say it)."

i.e. he was "obvious[ly]" a vig, but "I thought he might be an SK" don't add up.

Where are Hoppster and Feysal? It does not become a gentleman to tarry.

[AurorusVox]

The curse of a successful run as a rapscallion once again rears its ugly head.

Sir Feysal; allow me to share with you my real meta, that I hid from you whilst we were battling against one another, and I were on the side of the knaves.
As scum, I regularly tunnel on my own buddies when I get the chance. But I never truly tunnel on town.
As town, it seems I

do

have a tendency to tunnel on town. I engage in TvT quite regularly. Here, I have not tunnelled on a buddy because I have none!

I have, however, brought attention to Jily when none was required. Ask yourself if, in TGtN, I brought undue pressure onto Krypt/Set, or whether I just intensified already-existing pressure? Bussing works, but its no good if its not needed. This is why Nacho thought I was scum; because I didn't

really

want to see either of them lynched.

Of course, I could be her partner. I cleared myself only from my point of view, since I know I am town. Of those left, it is your hanging that is the most likely to result in a dastard-flip. I am not calling myself confirmed town, far from it. I simply want to lynch rapscallions, of which I'm sure Jily is one, and, albeit less certain, I feel that you, sir, are the other.

RE: #995
It is my understanding, admittedly from another site, that if the rapscallions equal the gentlemen in number, the game does not yet end - they are forced to "no lynch" and shoot at night to achieve greater numbers. Is that incorrect?

[AurorusVox]

I've also correctly nailed jily as scum in [REDACTED - ONGOING], and boy, she sure was stupidly obvious scum. I'm not getting the same stupidly obvious scum-vibe from this game (having said that, while it's true her very late posts yesterday were fairly scum-tastic, it's really not the same stupidly obvious scum-vibe I've had from her before).

Now that I've seen Jilynne's mafia play in her other games, I agree that she is our best bet for mafia today.

So we have Hoppster saying her mafia play in other games is different to her play here, and Feysal saying the opposite.

Reconciliation of contrasting perspectives, plz.

[AurorusVox]

Jily: Vezok hasn't posted since your last few posts. What's changed to make him definite town now in your eyes?

[AurorusVox]

Two things:

(1) You had the flavour cop information from D2, so why is it only now that you're considering Vezok as confirmed town?
(2) Do you think Feysal and I could be scum

together

?

[AurorusVox]

2)No, you guys definitely can't be scum together. I'd like to lynch either you or Feysal.

Why can't we be scum together?
Do you have a reason for finding me and Feysal scummy?

[AurorusVox]

Well I think Feysal is scummy, because of PoE.

Okay, this is what I was after.
Feysal can't be scummy because of PoE because you think Feysal and I aren't scum together, i.e. if you have a reason for thinking I'm scum you shouldn't PoE Feysal as scum; you could say he's scum if I flip town, but logically your move would be to pressure me as scum first.

Can you explain why you think Feysal and I cannot be scum together?

The other thing about PoE is that it also implies you think everyone else (Vezok, Imaginality and

Hoppster

) are town. But Imaginality is confirmed town to you. Presumably you're clearing Vezok for the same reason as me (lord_hur investigate). What about Hoppster? If Feysal and I

cannot

be scum together, as you quite adamantly stated, PoE should indicate that Hoppster is 100% scum in your opinion.

Why haven't you followed up on this?
If you think Hoppster is town, PoE would indicate Feysal and I

were

scum together.

Your scumlists and reasons for finding people make little sense.
I believe this is because you're falsifying/fabricating them, i.e. you're trying to come up with reasons for finding people scummy that you don't really think are true (whilst forgetting that they don't really make sense) and thereby slipping that you're scum.

[AurorusVox]

I suppose Hoppster could be scum. I just doubt it.

If you doubt Hoppster is scum, and you think Feysal and I are not scum together, that means you only think there is ONE scum left.

Imaginality gets it. You're only looking for one other scum because you're factoring YOURSELF out of the equation.

[AurorusVox]

Well, ok, let's say I did think I was scum, then I wouldn't factor Hoppster into this.

What does this mean? Sorry~

@Hoppster, Idunno, to me it looks like she's only looking for one scum because she's forgetting she needs someone to replace herself.
How is her professed townread of you different from a NewbScum calling people who read her as town, town?

[AurorusVox]

If I thought that I was scum, I wouldn't think about Hoppster. I would just look towards you or Feysal.

My point is that you'd look to BOTH of us (i.e. "and", not "or"). Especially if you thought Hoppster was town. We'd HAVE to be scum together. Instead you've POE'd down to ONE scum. You said we can't be scum together, and everyone else you read as town. You're ONLY looking for one scum. This is why I think you've slipped.

---

Hoppster, you're leaving me in a quandry. If she's newbTown FMPOV that leaves Feysal + You (unless Vezok is flavour GF)

Hoppster + Vezok is more likely than Feysal + Vezok because Hoppster has been pushing the VezokFlavourGF angle for a LONG time and that could be inside info + white knighting Jily.
But Hoppster is such a townread that I don't want to believe it.

Screw you, Hoppster, for making me think you might be scum, screw you.

Need more thoughts from Feysal.

[AurorusVox]

Wait, so is this you saying jily could very well be newbtown?

This is me considering all possibilities and judging which is the most likely. JilyScum is more likely that HoppsterScum so I lean on JilyScum rather than a team with HoppsterScum in it. However, your constant affirmation of her being town (and worryingly, your previous crusade with Vezok as scum), is making me reconsider.

I don't see why I'm the only one who is actively considering the flavour-GF

You've done more than consider though, you've been pushing it quite a lot. At least that's the impression I get.

---

Save it. I don't recall anything good arising from use of self-meta. I have tried it, and even while I was being truthful to the best of my ability, I've been called a liar over differing interpretations.

Contradiction Discovered:
In TGtN you questioned WHY I wasn't using my previous scum meta to defend myself against Nacho. Why did you want me to use it then (when you were town) but don't want me to use it now (when I am town)?

I find your statement of engaging in town-versus-town regularly disturbing though. If you're aware of this tendency, why not try to correct it? Instead, in your fight with Lord Hur this game, I seem to recall you defending your mafia catching prowess. Lord Hur insisted that you vote town considerably more often than anti-town when you're town, a sentiment you apparently agree with... and yet you found Lord Hur suspicious for his belief. How does this work?

Eh? I tunnel on town, that doesn't mean lord_hur was right that I only ever lynch town and that this is a scumtell against me. Lord_hur's point was in part to call me scum whilst showing that I never find scum, whereas in fact the opposite is true; not finding scum is a towntell for me (imo). And it is something I'm trying to work on. Do you think I'm content with having a poor scumhunting town game? :\

I don't think it was necessary at all for you to maintain pressure on kryptinen, or to bus Setael. That was why I thought those actions made you town, yet now I know better. And for all I know, you could be concerned about being caught by process of elimination, leading you to seek town credit from pushing for your partner's execution, enabling you to survive to win for your team. (I've tried this once, in an off-site game which resulted in my loss as mafia, when my entire team was caught in a single turn by the most ridiculously overpowered mechanic I've ever witnessed.)

After this game we should both agree to drop meta on each other entirely. In part because I don't have the will to find a meta on you, and in part because even when I find scum (Jily) it'll just make me scummier than if I'd flopped around saying nothing

I disagree btw. I think I let the pressure on Krypt slide (see my shift to Powerrox/Quar D1, my Powerrox case D2, and my Regfan case D3), and I sided for a Seacore lynch before Setael's whilst I could. If it's a Jily-AV scumteam, there's no reason I couldn't have pushed you as the lynch over Jily today since I have proclaimed to read you both as scum, and Hoppster is here defending Jily town. Ask yourself, if you're town, why am I not doing to you what I did to Regfan on D3? The answer is simple: I'm not scum this time.

It is incorrect, and it would only take basic logic to see why. If the mafia at any point constitute half of the town, it means they control the vote, and it is impossible to lynch them. Therefore the outcome of any such situation is a foregone conclusion, and a game where that happens, or it happening becomes unavoidable, ends immediately in a mafia victory.

Fair enough. I thought they actually had to go through to process of voting "No Lynch" to clinch the victory.

Unless... you're not suggesting that there could be a town traitor in the game? That way I guess there could be three mafia remaining, and the game would not end because the mafia could not vote as a group.

I'm not suggesting that. I was merely mistaken about how 3:3 would have worked.

I've never played with Jilynne before, and I am in no position to compare her town and mafia metas. I went looking for her past games to see if there really were other games with mafia teams of two people, and while I was at it, I had a look at her play in some of those games. I did no extensive reads of those games, but even a cursory glance revealed that she was loquacious regardless of her alignment, and was unashamed to post even when caught as mafia. I'd believed her town because I expected newbie mafia to be more subdued and lurky, but she is clearly an exception to that tell, so I dropped my town read of her.

I like this. Your read of Jily as scum from previous games is more convincing than Hoppster's, and I like your point about Jily's indecisiveness in this game. The irony if this itself is a TvT >_>

[AurorusVox]

^Why did I ever doubt you were town?

{Feysal-Hoppster} is off the table then. This makes me immensely happy.

Jily-Feysal:

Feysal started to express concerns about Jily from near the deadline yesterday. It could be a soft bus as TT was very close to a lynch, but he's kept at it today. He's been using meta to paint her scummy when he could have just hopped on Hoppster's townMeta info, which gets him some townpoints. He has also attempted to turn the spotlight on me; if he was scum with Jily this could be an attempt to swerve the lynch away from her BUT he hasn't really pushed his case with the intent of voting me

instead

of Jily, which gets him significantly less scumpoints. However, he could be doing this to chain lynches; even if we lynch correctly today, a mislynch tomorrow secures scum the win. It's very odd that Jily thinks Feysal and I can't be scum together, too. Almost as though she KNOWS one of us is scum (Feysal) and wanted to appear right if/when we both flip...

Jily-Hoppster:

Hoppster has been a staunch defender of JilyTown, which could be an explicit attempt to save his buddy. But its risky, and a very obvious ploy. What concerns me is the difference between him and Feysal; I'll read over Jily's games myself and see who is telling a closer truth. I also think his push against Vezok could be an attempt to open another mislynch avenue; Jily's refusal to read Hoppster as scum could be a buddy trying to not show a scumread on Hoppster. I also shy away from his newbTowntells a little, because she's had plenty of nights where she can have been offered tips, and is playing in Newbies as an SE, so she's obviously got a few games under her belt.

Vezok-Hoppster:

If Vezok is scum, I'd point to Hoppster as his buddy. Hoppster would then have been White Knighting Jily (he seems sure she's town, and could be twisting meta to suit him [check this]), and soft-bussing Vezok. If Vezok was lynched, Hoppster would gain enormous towncred for being the only person to really push Vezok, and if Hoppster flipped, Vezok would look better by comparison. Vezok plays scummy all the time so I don't know how to judge him beyond the non-incriminating flavour report. To be honest, with a {Miller + SK + Bodyguard} in the setup, I'm going to guess that the flavour lord_hur searched for was whether or not the other player had the ability to kill (or in the case of the miller, seemed to have...), i.e. he'd have turned up suspicious results on the Miller, SK, and possibly the BG, as well as the scum. GF is possible, but...I think the cop is already facing enough screwing.

Vezok-Feysal:

This has all the poor parts of the above case with none of the real benefits. Unlikely pairing.

Jily-Vezok:

I would be amazed if Vezok was a scum GF bussing Jily. Mentioned mostly just so the whole set is here.

Jily-Imaginality:

Only scumpairing for Imaginality, and not very likely at all. He's been very pro-town since becoming cleared, and is helping to lead the charge against Jily. If they're scum together then well played, sir and madam.

[AurorusVox]

Isn't the existence of an SK and Miller and even potential BG, enough to convince you that a flavour cop would be used over a normal cop? :\

[AurorusVox]

Also I'm staying with a pal for the weekend so I might not be on much

[AurorusVox]

Isn't the existence of an SK and Miller and even potential BG, enough to convince you that a flavour cop would be used over a normal cop? :\

BG is a reasonable point actually, I didn't think about that.
While it does make it

slightly more

able to accept your line of thought, I'm still not convinced, as flavour-wise a BG doesn't make a lot of sense as having incriminating flavour (it's a noble profession).

SK in itself is not enough to convince me at all.

As for the

Altruistic and Honorable Gentleman Steadfast in Courage and Resolve

, as you so crudely refer to as a "Bodyguard," the occupation functions as it would in any normal gathering - should that Gentleman's protectee be targeted by dastardly deeds of death, the Gentleman would perish in his stead.[/color]

Actually you're right about the BG. I thought it might have been the sort of BG that could kill someone instead of their attacker, i.e. the cop could check whether the player was a potential killer or not.

I'ma go ISO Jily in Open 310. Let's see how that pans out.

[AurorusVox]

Okay so here's what I found of Jily comparing the ISOs:

+ Same lack of vote + leaning towns
+ Seems to be a similar attitude of a lack of confidence
+ Lack of suspects matches with her previous play

++EXACT SAME PHRASE ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING HER QUESTIONS TO GET HER BRAIN RUNNING AGAIN...DUN DUN DUNNN

She DOES call people scum here, but doesn't seem convinced when she does it + has no real "cases" beyond PoE and gut.
The other thing is she seems to be actively seeking halp here. That could be more to do with it being one of her first games (Open 310 came about 2 weeks later)

---

However, the real benefit of re-ISOing her here, is reminding myself that she reads as pretty scummy with some of her comments, and highly inconsistent regarding her suspicions today:

1) Because I didn't find anyone else scummy before just today.

Not quite true. You'd expressed concerns about the {AV/Feysal/Hoppster} trio before...Let's take a look:

The thing is, even though I have a reason for thinking you were scum, you still seem more town than scum. So let's just say I factor out you. That leaves me thinking that Feysal is the scummiest. Does that make sense to you?

She says here that

Feysal

is the scummiest; but after I put some pressure on her, this changes to:

I'd like AV lynched first, since to be honest, I never really trusted him. I always though he could be scum, because he seemed like a really good player and wouldn't slip up, but he looked townie enough.

Now let's see if she "never really trusted" me:

Aurous Vox seems very helpful to the town. I don't think a scum would gain much by being so careful and helping the town *that* much. Somehow, I have a bad gut feeling, but my gut feelings usually prove to be wrong. He's leaning town for me.

Okay, she seems to think I'm town, but has a bad gut feeling I'm scum; that could qualify as not trusting me #1. But let's take a quick sidestep into the second part:

my gut feelings usually prove to be wrong

Compare that with:

I have a gut feeling that Hoppster isn't [scum]...and so far,

my gut feelings have never turned out wrong.

More "

not

trusting AV":

I agree with AurorusVox on that

You're calling AV scum, yet everything he says seems to be true.

---

Now let's consider her relative placement of {AV/Feysal/Hoppster} as potential scum:

Leaning Town:
Feysal
Aurorus Vox
Sir Hoppster

She then goes on to say:

I also think Feysal, and possibly Hoppster [could be scum], not because I think hoppseter is scum, but because everyone esle looks more town.

Feysal and Hoppster become scumreads by PoE. Notice I'm not included here, and apparently am part of "everyone else" as looking town.

[AV], feysal, and tt

I can't see any other 3-person team. I don't find you scummy, but your the most likely to be scum.

Then puts me and Feysal above Hoppster (who was her third leaning town out of three), AND puts us in a scumteam together.

Ok, I so adamantly refused to believe Hoppster was scum, because he doesn't think I'm scum. So actually PoE tells me that Hoppster and Feysal should be scum together. I suppose Hoppster could be scum. I just doubt it.

PoE, which she has used to narrow to {AV/Feysal/Hoppster}, is fine for selecting three people but not for putting the nail in the coffin of Hoppster scum, which it would HAVE to do with a two-man scumteam.

---

tl;dr: Jily's suspicions of me have been all over the place, as have her potential teams and graded scumlists. This is because she can't keep track of who she "ought" to be suspecting if she were town; if she were actually town, she would have a clearer idea and be able to order her scum preferences accordingly.

[AurorusVox]

She DOES call people scum here, but doesn't seem convinced when she does it + has no real "cases" beyond PoE and gut.

Btw this was a point in favour of a potential TownMeta.

[AurorusVox]

Let's do this

Vote: Jilynne1991

[AurorusVox]

Ugh.

So Imaginality has been left alive for WIFOM Jily-team reasons.
I kind of want to NL to see who scum kill...

Feysal-Hoppster is so tough to distinguish.

Hoppster I have one solid reason for finding Town. But yesterday he defended Jily town quite hard.
Feysal has been my 2nd scumread at various points but he put Jily under the bus yesterday.

Ughghghghg.

[AurorusVox]

It makes sense, I'm just getting a little paranoid about you still being alive, Imaginality. You're doubtless more helpful to the town than Vezok was...unless them scummz really thought that Vezok was a PR...but based on "flavour cop" speculation, he likely wasn't due to appearing innocent to lord_hur. Ugh.

[AurorusVox]

Imaginality:

I'd like your take on Hoppster's defence of Jily yesterday and his request for a deadline extension on D1, and Feysal's hammer vote on Jily.

Feysal:

I'd like your take on Hoppster's defence of Jily yesterday and his request for a deadline extension on D1.

Hoppster:

I'd like your take on Feysal's hammer vote on Jily.

[AurorusVox]

I take slight offense with the two underlined statements, given how I was putting forward arguments for jily-town, but really, there's not a great deal I think is incredibly incriminating about the post. jilynne probably always was going to be the lynch, no matter what I said.

I was put off by the "further discussion is meaningless" as FeysalTown strikes me as the sort of player who would value discussion. The hammer initially looked to me like a quickhammer and I have to admit that for a moment I wished I hadn't voted, as I was sure Feysal-Hoppster had just won. For comparison, note this post where Feysal acknowledges his intention to hammer before actually hammering, and here where he again delays hammering to draw out the last little bit of discussion from the day.

---

Regarding Hoppster's request for a deadline extension, I never saw that as such a solid town tell. Obvious town tells are easiest to fake, therefore I find subtle tells more reliable, since they are more difficult to falsify and mafia rarely bother to try, since the town might not even notice them. Now that I look at the situation in which Hoppster made his request, I see no cause for concern why the mafia might not want the day to continue. All three wagons of the time were on town (Twistedspoon, Apokalyptika/Reya, kr0b/Toasty), and from a mafia viewpoint it should've looked like they had a mislynch in the bag.

This is a fair point.

As for his defence of Jilynne, at first glance it looks bad, save for one thing. Already in his first post yesterday Hoppster said that Jilynne was probably the lynch of the day, and even though he kept up his defence of her, he never tried to bring up an alternative to her lynch. Neither did anyone else from what I recall. I can't see the point of defending your partner if there is no viable alternative to her lynch anyway.

Really? Isn't what you've just said reason enough? If we sided with Hoppster yesterday and decided that Jily wasn't the lynch, if Hoppster was her buddy, they'd have probably won there and then since we'd likely have believed in Hoppster town if we agreed with his assessment of Jily.

I find it unlikely that imaginality would be the last mafia, as he was under heavy suspicion at the time he claimed friendly neighbour, and I don't see mafia sacrificing a player not under suspicion to save one who is, to obtain a clear that erodes the moment your partner flips.

Very true.

---

Last post for now: AV and Feysal, any thoughts on whether the way jilynne1991 overlooks Hoppster in 90/91 is a scumslip like the 2 scum comment was? Just wondering if she forgot him because he's her partner...

I think it's possible, but it's equally possible she was forgetting to include herself in the figures. It could actually be construed as a towntell - she doesn't paint a townie as scum because she forgets that she might need to do so. I'm kind of unsettled by her adamant notion that one of me or Feysal "has" to be scum. I'm wondering if she's saying this because she -knows- its true.

[AurorusVox]

The meta read was in part based on his play in There Goes the Neighborhood being similar to his play here, and I believed he'd be town in both games. I was wrong in that game, I could be wrong here, so that meta has become quite useless and unreliable.

Part of me wonders if you only really thought I was town there because you knew I was town here...do you ordinarily treat tunnelling as a towntell?

The difference is that this time I saw no discussion on lynching anyone other than Jilynne. The way vezokpiraka, imaginality and you endorsed Jilynne's death within the span of a few posts made it look like there would not be any either, and since I had nothing against her death myself, I hammered. I felt that we could continue the discussion of who her partner was today, and had we been proven wrong about her, having that discussion yesterday would have been a waste of time and effort.

There certainly was; Hoppster had put forwards a case on Jily town that might have been listened to, and you were building a case yesterday. In TGtN you didn't want to lose even a few hours, even though it was pretty obvious that Regfan was getting lynched. If you were town, I kind of feel you'd have wanted more time to make your case - hammering Jily could have lost town the game if she's scum, and TownFeysal surely would have wanted to maximise the opportunity to discuss alternatives, rather than just accepting that there were no alternatives. Plus the fact that AV+Imaginality+Vezok isn't enough to see a lynch through means that you had all the time in the world to discuss other possible lynches.

True, but they would still have needed a viable mislynch to push over Jilynne, and I can't see one.

If you're town, then you'd have been a viable mislynch as you were floating around near the top of peoples' scum-list; are you not considering that because you know you're scum and therefore wouldn't have been a mislynch...?

...Does anyone think InHim might have been lying about shooting Toasty to get the wagon off of himself?

[AurorusVox]

I can't recall if I've explicitly said so in any past games, but I would treat tunnelling as a town tell. Particularly stubborn tunnelling, where the player in question starts looking suspect himself because of it. Mafia have no motive to draw attention to themselves like that, or to provide a clear should they die before the target of their tunnelling. Town has that motive if they think they've found mafia, and they have less to lose from death if the tunnelling ends badly for them.

So is it purely because I tunnelled in TGtN that you're now no longer holding that view? What do you make of the fact that I tunnelled on my buddy, and not a townie? What do you make of the same tunneling-on-scum in my game Mutiny on the High Seas?

Really. Hoppster was the only one talking about Jilynne possibly being town, and the three of you made it abundantly clear you were not listening when you called for her death. As for my case, have you forgotten that I suspected you and Jilynne of being mafia together? Jilynne was by far my stronger suspect, so why would I even want to keep pushing you over her? I did have something to say about that, which I did and ended the day.

Ehh, you made it sound like you only hammered/considered voting Jily yesterday because you saw no other alternative, and that was - to an extent - something you wish hadn't been the case. If you were even a little confident in Jily scum, couldn't you have pressed her further (like I was doing) to name her "suspects" for future analysis after she flipped?

As for TGtN, the major difference is that yesterday we were at LYLO. In TGtN we were not. Had we been wrong about Jilynne, nothing I or anyone else could've said about other suspects would've mattered. In TGtN we had one more day regardless, so obtaining Regfan's final thoughts that day did matter.

I understand this in theory, but I still would expect you to try to get more from the day. You didn't even announce your intent and ask if there was anything else to say before dropping it.

To what end? As a serial killer he must have been desperate to kill the mafia before they killed him, so I can't see any reason why he'd lie.

Why does this matter anyway?

Just wondering for modWIFOM setup spec. The "end" would have been deflecting the lynch away from himself and onto someone else - after all, it was live that day or lose for him. I know some SKs might only be one-shot, and if he was lying, it would mean we might not have a RB'er after all; but if he was telling the truth, we obviously do, and we might be able to look to see who was under threat from InHim action (i.e. who might have been in trouble if he was a PR) on N2, and look at who he might have shot N3.

Is getting thoughts on these things a bad thing, Feysal?

[AurorusVox]

Just announcing that I won't be quickhammering~

I'm going to do a decent reread in the next day or so. In all likelihood I'll be voting for Feysal but I want to have another look over the thread to gather my thoughts.

[AurorusVox]

This is now an academic question though, as your lack of hammer makes my choice remarkably easy.

I'm glad I had an easier way of revealing my true colours than getting dragged into a meta-argument, since I

do

feel its relevant that I've never really tunnelled on town as scum (and being town here does kinda prove my point).

WARNING: I am highly capable of WIFOMing my way out of a winning hammer on scum and hammering town instead. Imaginality, please tell me what it is precisely that makes you lean towards Feysal scum over Hoppster scum?

I do think we're right on Feysal but I also thought we were right on Toasty so just want to make sure.

[AurorusVox]

Naw it's okay guys, thanks. I'll do as quick a re-read as possible.

[AurorusVox]

It all ends on July 19th.
I'm going to be voting today.

Stand by.

[AurorusVox]

I ran out of energy as I was going through this, but here's my quick ISO of Feysal. Gonna have a blitz at TheLonging and see if he made sense as a kill from anyone in particular but I reckon within half an hour the vote will have landed...

In particular, I see two of our distinguished guests accusing each other at the drop of a hat. I have encountered interpersonal feuds before, and I have to wonder if this could be an instance of such. The feud, if indeed it is one, would be something I would be weary to draw conclusions from.

I read the foregoing communique and perhaps betraying a subconscious awareness that Sir Hoppster's spat with our fellow gentleman TS was a most gentlemanly duel on both sides...thereby revealing Feysal's possession of interior- and superior-knowledge. This theme is continued here where Feysal seems to put faith in TS meta and Hoppster for self-voting. These seem rather weak reasons. I also don't particularly like Feysal's use of meta, but that will be reserved for later.

Having arrived at what appears to be the end of the stage reserved for votes of an arbitrary nature I see no reason to inscribe a name on my ballot at this time. More reading and background checks may be necessary if I am to divine the motivations of the gathered illustrious personages.

One cannot hope to change the flow of history without having one's voice heard, and it is infinitely better to speak than to remain silent in these matters...'tis a personal despair of mine, to see those who enjoy suffrage to throw their privilege away!

Only now I see Twistedspoon stands at L-1. I did not realize we were that close to lynch, and did not see the vote count until after posting.

This changes the situation somewhat. Under the circumstances, a claim from Twistedspoon is probably necessary. What that claim is might not be a great surprise though... I thought I had seen a soft claim from him earlier.

I have to wonder why Sir Feysal might want a claim when he's been trying to derail the carriage hurtling towards TS. Could it be because he secretly does not mind that TS is close to a lynch, and securing a claim is one of the easiest ways to see it through?

I see Sir Hoppster is being suspected for his involvement in Twistedspoon's death. The question I'm asking myself now is, is he the type of player to tunnel aggressively as mafia? That kind of zeal has the effect of looking very townish to many, but I've met few players bold enough to behave like that as mafia.

I am left agog that the tunnelling on town argument served the deduction that Hoppster is town, and yet for me, it made me more likely to be a knave, despite (a) it being null at the very least, and (b) actually being a towntell if you look into the meta properly. Since Sir Feysal seems to rely heavily on meta for guidance, I'm surprised he never acknowledged the difference between tunnelling on a scumbuddy and tunnelling on town in my defence, especially given recourse to this point he has made as regards Hoppster.

Surprisingly, it seems to me that Lord Hur emerges from this confrontation mostly unblemished. I have been at the receiving end of a scum attack where I was overwhelmed by large wall posts, and though I did well in my defense, my time allotted to hunting villains was so diminished that it convinced others to vote for my death.

An most odd post. Once more, Feysal seems to acknowledge the gentlemanly aspect of the battle between lord_hur and I - or at least it must seem that way since he does not go on to call me scum. And yet, he aligns the townread of lord_hur with coping under a "scum attack", without going on to call my participation scummy. Most interesting indeed.

Feysal, may I ask your first impression of me? Also, what could I do better? (Actually could as many people as possible answer this question? Thank you.)

Well, the first thing that caught my eye about you was your first two posts. You first said you would post after reading the thread, and only 26 minutes later you declared town reads on inHim, Sir Hoppster and myself. At that point I had to wonder what those reads were based on, I mean, I am not the fastest reader myself but I don't think anyone could read the game that quickly. Unfounded reads are a common mafia tell, just so you know, especially if they change when it seems convenient.

I see that Sir Feysal is potentially coaching Jily here. I see imaginality's point regarding Jily's association with Feysal too.

No, that was L-1. Next vote would be the hammer, so don't. I have a town read on Lord Hur, and I really don't want to lynch one of our few members who actively contributes.

Here is the potentail masquerading as a saint that I spoke of earlier.

AurorusVox

- The reasons I've mentioned before have not changed, and I continue to believe him town. I am aided in this by the fact that we are both in another ongoing game, where I did a meta investigation of him. This suggested that tunneling as he has done is a town tell for him, despite the fact that he was proven wrong.

It's interesting that all that meta changes from a single example out of however many counterbalanced it.

[AurorusVox]

Ehh, TL was probably killed due to DemonHybrid (it sounds like they've played together a bunch from his ISO).

Feysal, if you're town, please use the next half an hour to convince me as much. Otherwise, the hammer falls.

[AurorusVox]

Do I give him a chance to respond? :\

[AurorusVox]

Yeah, I was being overzealous with asking for it in "half an hour" xD

[AurorusVox]

[quote="Feysal]On the contrary, I feel that claiming is one of the strongest moves a town player can do in his defense.[/quote]
But doesn't increasing the number of claims "in the field" make life easier for scum?

[quote="Feysal]I looked at Hoppster's past games and found no examples of him tunnelling on town as mafia, therefore I considered it a town tell. I also considered it a town tell for you, until you so dramatically proved that your meta is not to be trusted. Any meta that a player is aware of can be played to and exploited, and after putting my faith in your meta once with disastrous results, I am not inclined to do so again.[/quote]
=_=" But you've still found no examples of me "tunneling on town as mafia" - this is my major gripe. I don't know whether to treat your adamance in the meta-aspect, especially when proven wrong, as a stubborn towntell or a desperate scumtell...ugh

[AurorusVox]

...oops I missed a " out and now my quotes are ugly.
The worst thing is that Wraith won't be here to change it back until tomorrow =3

Imaginality

- Feysal's still scum: Y/N?

[AurorusVox]

Vote: Feysal

En garde.

[AurorusVox]

I'm scum. I just wanted to be confirmed town by not quickhammering.

UMAD?

[AurorusVox]

Imaginality-AV-Jily scumteam ftw

I fully expect Hoppster to be scum.

[AurorusVox]

The number of "r"s that Hoppster utilises makes me sob into my kerchief with fear that my worksman's tool was misguided.

[AurorusVox]

I put a lot of faith into him asking for an extension. I tunnelled on him as town for that for most of the game. Outright defending TownJily would be very bold, but it did give me pause...but Feysal didn't really convince me he was town enough for me to turn on Hoppster at the end...ugh...maybe Feysal did his best and I was blinkered into tunnelling on town like with lord_hur...>_>

QQ Why this suspense?

[AurorusVox]

inHim you tried to shoot me QQ

Whew, after TWO town tunnelling long and hard on other townies, we managed something quite neat by the end.
Pretty pleased with catching a whiff of Jily scum and Toasty town on D3, and pleased that I didn't WIFOM myself out of hammering scum.

Proud to have gut rumblings over Feysal too
Though my natural state of paranoia almost screwed me >_>"

[AurorusVox]

Also! Inhim, did you claim the wrong target N1 because you wanted scum to know you were the SK and would be useful to keep around?

[AurorusVox]

DEFCON mafia <3

When people got nuked, they started partying.
They then spread like wildfire.

We're all out to get you

[AurorusVox]

Forgot to say: thanks for modding this, Wraith. I really enjoyed the formal flavour. It slowed the game down at first but it was great fun overall, and the mod scenes (and modding in general) were nicely done.

Indeed. I felt the need to loosen my tongue at certain points but when I felt able to maintain the Queen's language, it was most invigorating!

[AurorusVox]

I wish I'd pushed my Jily case harder on that day, but, the reason TT made sense was because at that point we all expected a 3p scumteam, of which TT had to be a part via PoE

[AurorusVox]

Good play from imaginality and Hoppster in the last two days