Excalibur 2.0: Day One

[Darkdragon]

Rockford is certainly putting his reputation and possibly life on the line if it turns out that Ensign Pewter is in fact innocent. I wish to hear more from both before proceeding with my vote.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. I didn't make up the fact that he said he is scum. Not sure how this is putting my reputation on the line, I'm trying to bring a little bit of actual facts to this day filled with nothing but looking for clues under every pixel and coming up with nothing but conjecture. If by innocent, you mean town then there's nothing I can do about it if he says he is scum and he isn't - well maybe he shouldn't say things like that because I can't think of a more damning piece of evidence.

I feel like I've given him plenty of time to tell us what's going on, he's gone totally silent since I mentioned what he said. He hasn't said a word here or by PM, so what else can I do but assume he was telling the truth about being scum and then trying to cover it by saying it was a joke?

Vote: Ensign Brian Pewter (Palathadric)

[Shadows]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. I didn't make up the fact that he said he is scum.

He means that we're taking your word on this without anything to back it up. If it turns out untrue, we'd be left to figure out what happened and one of the possibilities is that you lied. Another is that he's a complete moron.

Hopefully he will reply and at least clear up that matter.

[Scouty]

Weren't other folks also contacted by Pewter? Perhaps they can quote/paraphrase their conversation so we can get a better idea on Mr. Pewter's intentions.

[Palathadric]

Wow! Sorry, I wasn't able to get online for a while, but Toby Rockford, you really should have posted the PMs.

Who the hell do you think you are stealing my avatar? I believe you're scum because only scum would try to disguise themselves as sweet and harmless townies.

lol you are funny. Rufus stole my avi

Don't worry. I'm going to PM him about his scummy hairstyle. I forgot to PM you last game, but I did PM Peanuts and I already PMed Fhomess this game. We gotta vote out those dudes with thost freakishly scummy hairstyles. We can't go wrong that way.

Oh yeah, good idea. I hear that photos is where all the clues are.

How, did you know this? Did the admiral tell you something he didn't tell the rest of us? You must be scum.

Wouldn't that be super-scum? I am the admiral, this is his shell account. I've said too much, need another beer

I have a feeling that I'm going to die soon. ...I don't know why.

everyone has that feeling. at least we aren't wearing red shirts.

I see nothing bad about wearing red shirts. With red shirts the admiral would not be able to tell if we were dead or alive, so we could just go on voting.

You have a point there, but then again I think the Admiral is way smarter than that. Maybe if we had red shirts and red flowers he wouldn't know.

Do you have any of those? I'll happily borrow one of them.

I would loan if I could, but I have to be careful in case you would be scum, but it's moot anyway because I don't have a red shirt or flowers.

I am scum. Once you give the shirt to me, I will kill you, and then the shirt will be mine. You hear? Mine! My precious! I will wears it always...always!

You are? :oh2: Please don't kill me. Why would you say that, are you joking? I don't think you can have my red shirt now (although I still don't have one, I wouldn't give it to a scum).

I never joke about such matters. Don't worry about the shirt. It's almost night time, so I'll just kill you then and take it...oh wait, for some reason our team doesn't have a scum killer. Just my luck!

Huh I could have sworn that :oh2: was an emoticon. sorry, I'm on my phone and only thing that's not hard to do is read (and that's only easy because flipz isn't making wot)

A scum team without a killer? is that normal? I'm so confused. but no seriously why would you tell me that? you are messing with my moral compas here. :/

Okay, not I'm worried that I'm actually confusing you.

I was joking the whole time.

:oh2: is an emoticon, but it's with * not :

see?

Oh the stars! Those oddballs always throw me off. Thanks

Now you are not scum for reals? Everything was so much simpler when I was a town cop in mafia school!

Fox Moulder always advised me to trust no one.

Okay, If I were serious I would be the worst scum in the world right now. No, I was joking entirely. Sorry for the confusion.

ok. phew, you had me scared. that's not a good joke, but yeah I guess that would make you the worst scum ever hmm unless you were planning to convert me tonight. then I'd be even more confused.

So you still want a red shirt?

Granted, it probably was not the best idea to joke about this, but I never thought anyone would take it seriously. In fact, I was almost getting suspicious of Toby Rockford for how he did not seem bothered at all that I was telling him this and actually seemed to think I was serious.

In fact, what struck me as odd was that when he seemed to think I was serious, he said nothing about it, but as soon as I clarified that I was joking he posted here. I don't really understand, but anyway...

I feel like I've given him plenty of time to tell us what's going on, he's gone totally silent since I mentioned what he said. He hasn't said a word here or by PM, so what else can I do but assume he was telling the truth about being scum and then trying to cover it by saying it was a joke?

I hadn't gotten online in that time :shrug:

He means that we're taking your word on this without anything to back it up. If it turns out untrue, we'd be left to figure out what happened and one of the possibilities is that you lied. Another is that he's a complete moron.

Hopefully he will reply and at least clear up that matter.

Toby Rockford did not lie, I am a moron.

[Darkdragon]

Wow! Sorry, I wasn't able to get online for a while, but Toby Rockford, you really should have posted the PMs.

Granted, it probably was not the best idea to joke about this, but I never thought anyone would take it seriously. In fact, I was almost getting suspicious of Toby Rockford for how he did not seem bothered at all that I was telling him this and actually seemed to think I was serious.

In fact, what struck me as odd was that when he seemed to think I was serious, he said nothing about it, but as soon as I clarified that I was joking he posted here. I don't really understand, but anyway...

Well yeah you are right about I should have posted them, but like i said before I don't like posting PMs, but I guess you don't mind. You posted them though, so there it is done and my moral code over posting PMs is still intact. So there you go everyone, the complete PM thread.

Anyway, like I mentioned in my PMs I was on my phone - at the time I couldn't post here and after I got back to my computer I posted.

We have to take everything seriously, or at least with enough caution to bring it out and share the information with everyone. So, that's what I did as soon as I got the chance.

[Inconspicuous]

Looks like the Pewter issue is cleared up - it really was a joke! Earlier, I considered changing my vote to make sure we lynched today, but after seeing the full conversation, I don't feel comfortable voting for Pewter. My vote for Mandel still stands.

[Palathadric]

I don't feel comfortable voting, because Mandel does have some points regarding George, was it? I also don't feel comfortable voting for George. There is no need for me to vote for Toby unless he really is a scum and was hoping for an alliance until I said I was joking, in which case he found it as a great opportunity to get rid of me, but I don't think this is the case, so I won't vote for him. I wish you had come out with the PMs earlier though, Toby, as that would have made the situation more clear in everyone's mind early on and not just a few hours before the day is done with. Get my drift? Your not posting the PMs benefited no one, not you, nor me, nor anyone else. Just something to keep in mind.

[Brickdoctor]

I'm not sure that this defense changes anything to make the case stronger or weaker. If he did say he was Scum, and we now know that he did, the only, for lack of a better word, pro-Town explanation for that is that he was joking. It's the obvious answer anyone would give, Town or Scum, and we're still at the same place as far as determining whether he was really joking or not: our interpretations of the tone and emotion he attempted to convey using text and emoticons.

(he could have claimed that Rockford was lying, but he didn't, so...)

[CMP]

I'm not sure that this defense changes anything to make the case stronger or weaker. If he did say he was Scum, and we now know that he did, the only, for lack of a better word, pro-Town explanation for that is that he was joking. It's the obvious answer anyone would give, Town or Scum, and we're still at the same place as far as determining whether he was really joking or not: our interpretations of the tone and emotion he attempted to convey using text and emoticons.

Exactly. His defense is just too simple to draw any real conclusions or information out of.

My vote, again, is going to stand. These are our only two leads, and both have spoken. It's all a matter of who people will vote now - if they do at all.

On the bright side, we don't have a clear-cut lynch target, but on the bright(ish) side we have two very different ones with very different defenses. Voting patterns might actually be drawn later, despite it being day one.

[Tamamono]

So, yes, I've explained now, so you can unvote me

Jokes on you, buddy, I've already unvoted. Hah.

Anyways, as for Mandel, his defense makes sense - I've definitely been there, and trying to get scum lynched without second guessing yourself is nerve wrecking at best. I honestly don't see the virtue of the "scum wouldn't do this" defense, but the rest of it seems genuine, so I think I'll Unvote: Timothy Mandel (Dannylonglegs)

As for Pewter, he seems like nothing but enthusiastic town to me. I mean, hell, even I joke about being scum.

I hate to use this, but the truth is, if he was scum, he would walk a fine line and not joke about such things. [how to read Tammo]Truly, when I'm scum, I take all accusations (even joking ones) quite seriously and try to brush them off with my ego, and would never even dream of joking about being scum. However, when I'm town, I'm always joking about something or other. I must have told at least 4 people this game that I was scum even when I'm town. [/how to read Tammo] Being aggressive as scum is one thing, but being blatantly stupid is another entirely.

Alright, looking at everything that has happened, and we need a lynch, I am voting Ensign Pewter / Palathadric.

As important as it is to get a lynch, there's really no point if we're all just like "Oh, well, I don't think he's scum, but I'm going to bandwagon and prevent all reads against me and everyone else while losing what's probably an innocent townie." This kind of attitude is nowhere near town.

Donna is scum like 90% because of this post. "I'm going to bandwagon because a lynch is necessary". Nope, not gonna' cut it, sport.

If we need a lynch, then I hope you won't mind too much if it's on you. I'd like to urge everyone to switch to Donna before the day ends - even if she isn't scum, this sort of apathy by her will make her a threat to the town. If you're not helping out, you're part of the problem.

Vote: Donna Willis (KingoftheZempk)

And no, I am not going to show mercy on you because you were killed first last time.

[CMP]

I don't think it's helpful to suddenly start up a vote this late, with Donna unlikely to be here in time to make a defense, and likely just end up splitting the votes, McAndrews. You're assuming a lot from one poorly-worded statement.

[Tamamono]

I don't think it's helpful to suddenly start up a vote this late, with Donna unlikely to be here in time to make a defense, and likely just end up splitting the votes, McAndrews. You're assuming a lot from one poorly-worded statement.

As long as we pull together, I think we can lynch Donna, and frankly, I think she's a great lynch. I may be assuming a lot from her statement, but am I assuming too much? Definitely not. That kind of attitude is not town, so it would be a good idea to kill her.

[Peanuts]

I don't think it's helpful to suddenly start up a vote this late, with Donna unlikely to be here in time to make a defense, and likely just end up splitting the votes, McAndrews. You're assuming a lot from one poorly-worded statement.

I don't think it's too late to start a bandwagon. We still have about 17 hours left (correct me if I'm wrong), so we can still bring up new suspects. We should avoid splitting our votes, though, once time runs out.

My vote goes for neither Mandel nor Pewter, both seem loyal to me, and I won't vote for someone who I believe to be on our side.

About Donna, I don't know. I have a gut feeling that she is town, but i wouldn't count on it. My gut feelings haven't quite proven reliable in the past.

The only person I'm really suspicious of (and, yeah, here comes another late accusation) would be Ensign Campbell.

He was the rather quick to follow Mandel against Gordon, with an argument that was all metagaming and didn't really add to the accusation.

Being called out for this, he said, that he didn't think him to be scum, but simply wanted a reaction. Later he said, that Gordon' defense was sufficient, which simply pointed out how ridiculous his staement was and counter-accused him.

Right after that he voted for McAndrews, who he quickly unvoted him.

He also jumped on the almost-bandwagon against Pewter, not because he said he was scum, but because one of teh scum team always jokes, which isn't even true. This somewhat also goes for anyone else who voted for Pewter, before he had time to defend himself, of course, which I find strange, but I'm sure they aren't all scum.

Oh, I completely forgot:

Vote: Ensign Campbell (Dakar A)

I'm willing to vote someone else if I find them suspicious and voting for them might help us achieve a lynch. But for now, I'm going with Campbell.

[Dannylonglegs]

Warning, wall of text:

What kind of logic is that? Everyone makes mistakes.

Of course everyone makes mistakes. I'm not saying that, scum or not, I am infallible. I made three big mistakes today.

1. My first mistake today was trying something new--taking the lead. Before playing scum, I behaved sheepishly and waited for others to make arguments with which I agreed. Upon connecting with a seemingly logical leader of the town, I'd mostly follow him and try to help as best I could. I used to do this because I do not have a very high opinion of my own ideas, and having never been scum, I didn't feel I had the experience to figure out the scum on my own. That changed when I connected with the wrong guy during the holo-vid Jedi Temple Mafia, and I vowed never to be so trusting again, especially of those who made themselves seem to be powerful Town leaders. That further changed now that I actually have been scum. I now know to some extent what actions a reasonable scum might make considering the current "scumtells" and the affects of working in a group. I picked up on Gordon's actions earlier in the day and convinced myself that they were scummy without thinking too hard about the possibility that I was just seeing what I wanted to see. Essentially I got a massive ego boost from playing scum (I now know how you feel regularly Tammo .) which was eventually corroded by self doubt. Allowing myself to put myself in such a confidence requiring position was a mistake because I'm not an egomaniac. I'm quite the opposite; I'm insecure, which is not a good quality for one trying to lead the Town to lynch a scum without a great argument. I overextended myself by Launching an attack without back-up on day one. I simply shouldn't have tried to help the town in that way if I wasn't sure I could follow though with it.

2. My second mistake was not following through with my first mistake. If I thought he was scum, I should have stood by that, even if I had self-doubts, even if I was standing alone. By dropping the attack A. I let Gordon's scummy behavior (as I still think it may be. Naturally, I'm not as sure anymore) slide by without anyone listening anymore because "the primary proponent of this argument no longer believes it", and B. I drew un-helpful attention to myself. Now both my argument is in question, and my loyalty, and that's only helpful to the scum.

3. My third and likely worst mistake was re-voting Gordon after I myself had been voted for. I did not respond well to the argument brought against me, and at that point, I had already lost the argument against Gordon, and reviving my attack without new points was useless. I'm not sure what I was thinking revoting him, but I was certainly thinking too fast for my own good, and not taking a step back to look at the situation objectively. That last sentence is the primary failure today. Had I just sat back and looked at the situation calmly, I might have realized how bad my ideas were.

A good scum knows exactly what you just said but I would take it in a different direction. Using reverse psychology would be a much better strategy. In other words, pretending to be insecure as to appear that you don't have all the info. That's how you've been behaving - insecure.

Yes, that is how I've been behaving, but that's how I am. Usually I don't make such a big scene of it because I don't try to take the lead, which is what I guess I was trying earlier today. That doesn't change the facts that a good scum wouldn't draw this much attention to himself! And, Reverse psychology is a very dangerous game to play, and one that I'm sure I wouldn't be able to pull off. That doesn't mean "a good scum would behave sheepishly," or, "A good scum would lie low," it just means a good scum wouldn't do anything so horrendously attention grabbing as what I did. The scum want positive attention, and unless their prospects are looking down, they're less likely to actually try the reverse phychology gambit because it's less likely to succeed. (Accept maybe you if you're bored with a plain game ) If anyone, you and Burbank should know that I'm not gutsy enough to try reverse psychology as a scum, unless we're really in a bind, and that this isn't reverse psychology. You're really over thinking my defense. I don't have the guts to rely on reverse psychology or trust my intellect! I don't even have the guts to stand alone by my guns in attempt to lynch a scum!

This statement could be equally true if you replace "find a scum" with "start a bandwagon". And the only difference in that case would be your allegiance.

Yes, it's semantics. Honestly, Starting a bandwagon is the objective of both the scum and the Town. No one can get lynched if there's not a majority of people ready to Lynch that person. The Town win the day if their bandwagon gets a scum, which the scum, of course, try to stop. The Scum win the day if either a Townie gets lynched or no one does. I was indeed, trying to find a scum, and form a bandwagon around said scum. No one else, it seemed to me, thought I was right however, and I began to question if I was right, so I dropped the case. I then brought it back up, because of my uncertainty, which would make no sense for a scum to do because even with the case dropped, I (hypothetically a scum) could have easily argued against the one person who voted for me, instead of making a huge scene and inviting several others to vote for me as well. Furthermore, in the current cannon "uncertainty" is thrown around as a huge "scum-tell". It would be incredibly stupid of me not to realize that as a scum, and even stupider to commit it. If I was scum, I'd win as long as I or anyone on my team was not lynched, so why even bother revoting? Why not just answer the argument and say something like, "I was pretty sure at first, but now I'm really not so sure, and I'd hate to off a townie because of my own tunnel-vision?" I could then fly below the radar for the rest of the day and glob onto any other big bandwagon and add, "I was suspicious of him/her earlier today, and the way he/she responded to my earlier argument made me even more suspicious of him/her."

No, I don't think you're dumb. I think you made a mistake, like all humans are prone to, and are using your intelligence to gracefully cover that up. The problem for you is, actions speak louder than words. And words said ex post facto carry less weight.

Yes they do. I agree with you 100%, but I disagree that my actions are saying scum. I'm not stupid, but I am, as you put it, insecure. I am of the opinion that if my actions are looked at logically they will say either Insecure Townie, or Stupid Scum, not Insecure Scum. Not to toot my own horn, but I don't think I play scum stupidly.

I know from the simulation that you're uncomfortable being scum. So to me, it seems like you tried to pull a scum move but chickened out and made the situation worse.

It's not that I'm uncomfortable playing scum, I personally find it harder, and less rewarding to manipulate people as opposed to using logic, behavioral patterns, and knowledge to determine one's alignment. I'm better at the first than the latter it seems from my track-record, as the only game I've actually won (and the only in which I lived to the end) was when I played an ant-town role, and I thought I had a pretty good chance of making it to the end during the simulation too, or at least winning. (Until Flipz got that crazy idea. ) If you had payed much attention to my behavior during the simulation, which you didn't really have to as a scum, you'd have notice that I never once chickened out from the moves I made. I was even ready to back us all up when Flipz flipped! I'm not however, so bold when I don't have a team I can trust to back me up or advise me.

That's why they're probably flipping out right now. You made a mistake of barking without a bite, and covered it up with a kneejerk reaction that made you seem silly.

Yep, that's what I did, but I'm not scum. I also have no doubts that at least one scum voted for me, maybe more, but certainly not all of them. A few likely folded their hands and tried to start another Lynch in case the one against me failed, perhaps even defending me to further differentiate themselves from those who voted against me. Also, I suspect someone who said "None of the arguments made yet are particularly compelling," or something to that effect, could be scum planning to vote at the end of the day to seem reluctant to vote for a case in which he or she did not particularly agree with: the case against a Townie.

I know you like to play it safe. That's why I think you made a genuine mistake, not a calculated action.

And you'd be right. This is not a calculated action!

Mandel himself claims that in the simulation, he was perfectly comfortable voting for a player unlikely to be lynched. Just because his scum buddies didn't jump on board doesn't mean they aren't there.

But that's the point of coordination! The scum are working in another board planning their actions, or at least discussing them. If I had a team, I doubt I'd be in this position right now! I'd have asked for advice if I felt self-conscious, and I wouldn't have re-voted or listened as much to the thoughts of those in this board, because I'd be listening to the thoughts of those in the other board!

I don't know if we'll have any stronger leads at this point, so my vote will go to you for the following reasons:

1) You built a case against Gordon, but were quick to unvote. Insecurity is natural, but the quick withdrawl made the accusations seem superficial.

2) After this was pointed out, you quickly revoted. I think this was your true mistake today. The reflex didn't pay off.

3) For the rest of the day, you've had the "bunker mentality" - trying to defend your action with words. Unfortunately, actions speak louder than words, especially when the words are defensive. And the logic you've used seems clear but slightly twisted in your favor.

4) Previously, you've been insecure as scum, and if I had to describe your action today with one word, I would use "insecure".

5) If we don't get a vote together for someone, our power as a town is diminished.

Vote: Timothy Mandel (Dannylonglegs)

Sorry, former brother. It's nothing personal.

1) I realize that now. Hindsight's 20-20. I really wouldn't have even come on so strongly against him if I had thought that I'd loose confidence in the vote like I did! At that point it was superficial as I had convinced myself I was wrong, and my heart wasn't in it.

2) You're certainly right about that!

3) You're wrong here. I have not been defending my actions at all! They were mistakes! And of course the logic I use is slightly in my favor, the logic you use is slightly twisted against my favor!

4) My sentiments--what you paid attention to in the scum board--were insecure. My actions--what everyone else saw--were anything but! I lead two almost lynches, one on "Flare" and the other on "Awesomestar," and never once did I back down. I chose the targets because public sentiment was not in their favor.

5) That didn't work out so well for us during the sim did it!? Free night my megablocks! Really though I agree with you here. Even though the simulation's not a great example in this circumstance, it's the exception to the rule. If we don't Lynch anyone, we'll be back where we started, arguing if I'm scummy or not, with no extra information to go on besides whatever metagame kill the scum make tonight. If it's for the best, I suppose you could Lynch me if you all think you can accurately determine who the scum are when I flip Townie. I haven't been a great help today, so you really wouldn't be losing anymore than the regular confusing townie on day one. I understand that it's nothing personal, I don't know how it could be. I'm a Townie, and this vote is misplaced.

End Wall of text.

Simply put, logical scum try to act like sensible Townies. Gutsy Scum draw attention to themselves and try to act like super townies. I play safely, and logically. I made several mistakes. None of them indicate that I am gutsy or anything but alone with no one to trust.

[Rufus]

I am scum. Once you give the shirt to me, I will kill you, and then the shirt will be mine. You hear? Mine! My precious! I will wears it always...always!

Okay, not I'm worried that I'm actually confusing you.

I was joking the whole time.

:oh2: is an emoticon, but it's with * not :

see?

Why on earth would you joke about this?

Perhaps the most telling quote of this conversation is this one:

I never joke about such matters. Don't worry about the shirt. It's almost night time, so I'll just kill you then and take it...oh wait, for some reason our team doesn't have a scum killer. Just my luck!

This reminds me of a situation in the distant Japanese past on Earth, where a second mafia team were without a scum kill. Could it be that Pewter was telling the truth here, and fishing with Rockford to try to join two teams together? It's a long shot, but the only way I can make any of this make sense.

This may or may not mean anything, but the number of people reluctant to vote for Pewter but happy to try to start any other vote with the flimsiest of evidence is worrying indeed. Pewter's behaviour is bizarre and unhelpful, and I still think he's the best choice we have today for a lynch.

[Dakar A]

I don't think it's too late to start a bandwagon. We still have about 17 hours left (correct me if I'm wrong), so we can still bring up new suspects. We should avoid splitting our votes, though, once time runs out.

My vote goes for neither Mandel nor Pewter, both seem loyal to me, and I won't vote for someone who I believe to be on our side.

About Donna, I don't know. I have a gut feeling that she is town, but i wouldn't count on it. My gut feelings haven't quite proven reliable in the past.

The only person I'm really suspicious of (and, yeah, here comes another late accusation) would be Ensign Campbell.

He was the rather quick to follow Mandel against Gordon, with an argument that was all metagaming and didn't really add to the accusation.

Being called out for this, he said, that he didn't think him to be scum, but simply wanted a reaction. Later he said, that Gordon' defense was sufficient, which simply pointed out how ridiculous his statement was and counter-accused him.

Right after that he voted for McAndrews, who he quickly unvoted him.

He also jumped on the almost-bandwagon against Pewter, not because he said he was scum, but because one of teh scum team always jokes, which isn't even true. This somewhat also goes for anyone else who voted for Pewter, before he had time to defend himself, of course, which I find strange, but I'm sure they aren't all scum.

Oh, I completely forgot:

Vote: Ensign Campbell (Dakar A)

I'm willing to vote someone else if I find them suspicious and voting for them might help us achieve a lynch. But for now, I'm going with Campbell.

Well, in response to your first claim, I trust Mandel, and was also suspicious of Gordon. By voting, I expected either A: A defense (Townies always would perfer to defend themselves, vs. death ), B: or a lynch. The metagaming was one of the things I based my vote on, since I perfer having a basis behind my vote (more than just "They seemed suspicious, and the fact that a lot of other people voted for them is damming"). As far as I know, everyone has a reasonable chance of being Scum, but voting (and the subsequent pressure on that person) puts them ounder a magnifiying glass, and forces Scum to either play VERY well, or, more often, crack.

As for Pewter, I have palyed with him before, and his Scum playstyle is quite different from his Town version. As a Scum, he seems to roleplay quite a bit, and be more easy with jokes and the like. While this is purely metagaming, it is more than just a joke in a PM (Which can still add to the accusation). If you would kindly noticed, I haven't changed my vote, nor do I plan to, unless someone is brought forward whom I belive to have a much greater chance of being Scum.

Also, as I recal, you seemed to be advocating not voting (or, not voting for Pewter)

don't feel comfortable voting for Pewter before he had a chance to defend himself. His behavior has been distinctly odd, but I can't really assess him right now.

While this is undobtely wise, it really doesn't help us. We must find someone to lynch in less than 14 hours. hat is definetly NOT enough time to go through and analyse the very limited information we have, and so we must act fast.

[Inconspicuous]

Thanks for the long, well thought-out response. It was certainly worth the wait!

You're really over thinking my defense. I don't have the guts to rely on reverse psychology or trust my intellect!

Once you're under fire, you HAVE to trust your intellect - there's nothing else stopping your lynch! "Reverse psychology" might not be the best term... more like twisting words in your favor. And that's what Mafia is all about: using your words to trip up and persuade others.

I think you're a more than capable player, so I'm not buying the whole "oh no I'm too helpless to defend myself, I must be innocent" defense.

Starting a bandwagon is the objective of both the scum and the Town. No one can get lynched if there's not a majority of people ready to Lynch that person.

True. I admit, that wasn't the strongest accusation of mine.

I am of the opinion that if my actions are looked at logically they will say either Insecure Townie, or Stupid Scum, not Insecure Scum. Not to toot my own horn, but I don't think I play scum stupidly.

Yes, I definitely agree. And you're not stupid. That's why I was leaning towards Insecure Scum.

You're wrong here. I have not been defending my actions at all! They were mistakes!

But my point is your actions were mistakes.

Your seemingly sincere and logical response has definitely weakened several of my arguments. I'm still puzzled by your strange voting pattern, so I'm keeping my vote where it is. Besides, I think it's clear that flip-flopping my vote around without a compelling reason is a bad choice.

[Peanuts]

Well, in response to your first claim, I trust Mandel, and was also suspicious of Gordon. By voting, I expected either A: A defense (Townies always would perfer to defend themselves, vs. death ), B: or a lynch. The metagaming was one of the things I based my vote on, since I perfer having a basis behind my vote (more than just "They seemed suspicious, and the fact that a lot of other people voted for them is damming"). As far as I know, everyone has a reasonable chance of being Scum, but voting (and the subsequent pressure on that person) puts them ounder a magnifiying glass, and forces Scum to either play VERY well, or, more often, crack.

It's always good to base your vote on something, but shouldn't you first look at the evidence and then decide wether you vote, instead of looking for something to back up your vote? Because that's what that sounds like. I, of course, understand that, if aren't sure about someoen, you first vote for them, and then look at their defense to see if it's scummy, but if you don't have a good accusation before-hand, the defense will never yield anything. A baseless accusation doesn't call for serious caution for a scum player.

The problem is, your accusation wasn't the kind of metagaming, which would justify an accusation.

As for Pewter, I have palyed with him before, and his Scum playstyle is quite different from his Town version. As a Scum, he seems to roleplay quite a bit, and be more easy with jokes and the like. While this is purely metagaming, it is more than just a joke in a PM (Which can still add to the accusation). If you would kindly noticed, I haven't changed my vote, nor do I plan to, unless someone is brought forward whom I belive to have a much greater chance of being Scum.

That's also pretty much pure metagaming. His last scum performance, as far as I know, was Bedtime Story, and I should check this one up, since I forgot some details about that holovid. Though, I can somewhat respect that argument. Voting for him because he's merely joking and not helping makes sence, voting for him because he said he was scum doesn't.

Also, as I recal, you seemed to be advocating not voting (or, not voting for Pewter) While this is undobtely wise, it really doesn't help us. We must find someone to lynch in less than 14 hours. hat is definetly NOT enough time to go through and analyse the very limited information we have, and so we must act fast.

I never advocated not voting. As you see, I voted for you, and there's no point in not voting (unless voting is done completely randomly). Not voting is undoubtly unwise. I said, I won't vote for Pewter, because I don't think there is anything that indicates he is scum. You said everyone has a reasonable chance to be scum, and so does he, but I'd rather vote for someone I'm suspicious of.

Your defense seemed sincere, but what you haven't addressed, as far as I can tell, is the question how the Gordon's (Scubacarrot's) reply to your accusation was sufficient for you. While I don't think it was scummy, quite the opposite, it was in my eyes indistinguishable from his previous playing style.

You've satisfactrily justified your vote against Pewter, but right now I'll stay with my vote, just because you jumped from one accusation to another during the day, but I'm far from sure about your scummyness.

[Dannylonglegs]

Crap, I just finshed writing and hit the back button! Let's try this again.

Thanks for the long, well thought-out response. It was certainly worth the wait!

Thank you for your well-thought out accusation. It's much easier, and more fulfilling to respond to logic as opposed to "his actions have been 'scum-tells.'" (Doc )

Once you're under fire, you HAVE to trust your intellect - there's nothing else stopping your lynch! "Reverse psychology" might not be the best term... more like twisting words in your favor. And that's what Mafia is all about: using your words to trip up and persuade others.

Granted. The point I was making, though, or at least the point I was trying to make, is that I hate needing to rely on my intellect and words to avoid being thrown to the wolves! I'd much rather prefer my actions say Townie than simply my words, because as you yourself note, even a Scum can contrive a convincing argument. I simply don't trust myself enough to allow myself to get into my current situation, which is why, if I had a team of scum to consult with, I wouldn't likely be here now. You know I'm a team player! I spoke more in the scum thread than even Flipz did. I constantly asked for aproval or at least informed the team of my actions before hand, and I would have consulted them before casting my re-vote, let alone my unvote! And do you honestly think no one in the scum thread would have stopped me?

I think you're a more than capable player, so I'm not buying the whole "oh no I'm too helpless to defend myself, I must be innocent" defense.

Well, thanks for the vote of confidence, but that's not the argument I'm using. I certainly hope I've been capable of responing to your arguments logically. In fact, I'm not sure why you even think I'm using that defence in the first place. I'm merely saying I'm not brave enough to put myself in the limelight like I did if I could have done anything else (which of course, I could have, had I not been so nonsensical in my actions and insecure in my argument, but more certainly I could have, if I had a team with whom I could confer.)

Yes, I definitely agree. And you're not stupid. That's why I was leaning towards Insecure Scum.

Thanks again, but even as an Insecure Scum, which is what I was last game, I would have no reason to behave insecurely in the day thread. Every question I had came to you guys, which is why I maintained face so well during the simulation. I filled the scumboard with my observations, opinions, plans, and notifications of my actions, to which you guys often replied. An Insecure scum could easily act confident, as I did. Twice, I lead parts of the Town in an almost Lynch. Neither time did my incertainty show. I knew it was for our best.

But my point is your actions were mistakes.

I agree, but they weren't scummy mistakes. I find it very hard to believe that a team of scum would let me behave as I did.

b

Your seemingly sincere and logical response has definitely weakened several of my arguments. I'm still puzzled by your strange voting pattern, so I'm keeping my vote where it is. Besides, I think it's clear that flip-flopping my vote around without a compelling reason is a bad choice.

Well, I was too. I was ligitimately confused and I made one mistake after another. I've learned that lesson now. I will say though, in my defence, there really is no particularly compelling reason for a scum to unvote. This is not a comment on your actions, but really, sticking to one's guns is a "clear Town-tell."

On another subject, while I fully understand how bad my own position is, I think this 'everyone vote for Dakar' idea is a really bad one. There is no way his death will be useful to the Town, unless he really is a scum, which I doubt. Even as a Townie, my Lynch would be a better plan because at least then you'd have arguments and voting patterns to examine. As it is, the only argument against him is that he's a sheep and a noob, and quite frankly, that argument reeks of scum. His behaviors strongly remind me of his behavior from last game. The reason he was against Gordon is that he trusted me, and I told him my suspicions, which he took to head in the day thread.

[Waterbrick Down]

...Also, as I recal, you seemed to be advocating not voting (or, not voting for Pewter) While this is undobtely wise, it really doesn't help us. We must find someone to lynch in less than 14 hours. hat is definetly NOT enough time to go through and analyse the very limited information we have, and so we must act fast.

I must disagree that there is plenty of time to analyse what has been said and to say otherwise is to either have a lazy or defeatist attitude, remember no lunch during mafia! What has puzzled me is your own continuous stream of voting and unvoting not that I think it's scum worthy it just is extremely confusing, but I guess everyone has their own style.

So here's what I've got so far, from my perspective.

Commander Gordon (Scubacarrot): Townie, he's to mean to be a scum.

Ensign Mandel (Dannylonglegs): Townie, I'm sorry but he's been going on for too long and his mistakes feel more like they were being pushed and poked at by possible scummies.

Ensign Pewter (Pathaldric): Townie, Would you cut the jokes please, they're only making everyone more confused.

Ensign Campbell (Dakar A): Townie, unless none of your scum team is telling you to stop your flip-flopping, your multiple votes and unvotes make no sense as a strategy.

I really don't know where to cast my vote, but I do know lynching is one of the few ways we have of deducing this entire mystery. I'm just going to go with my gut feeling, vote: Donna Willis (KingoftheZempk).

If I may add, I'm worried that us focusing on the simulation may pose a problem. If we're all focused on that, we're taking attention away from our daily investigations we have to conduct. The sim was just that, a sim. I don't think any of us can really relate a video game to our current life and situation. An online forum, maybe, but a simulation, no. The thin is, we need to focus on what has been said today, and in the private conversation that was mentioned earlier. Does a private communication before we even finish resting from the simulation mean that said person is a purist? Not necessarily, but it is something to look into. Can we please be enlightened more on this matter?

This entire statement is fluff and filler to me, especially that last part about how private communications may or may not be scummy but that we really don't know.

I'll ignore McAndrews' flirting for a second and the discussion on the scum hair (though that may be a way to lynch if we don't have a useful verdict by the end of the day)and go right to what our janitor just said. Regarding what you said, if this was a game of life, could that be considered meta-gaming if one of us who was scum in the simulation revealed what happened, would we unwittingly focus on those who were scum when they may not be scum? Like you said, relying on that info could be more detrimental. There's something fishy about this simulation that happened. I have a feeling we're in another simulation, a sim within a sim, a Simception....

No, we need to look at the personalities of us now, not our avatars second life characters from the simulation. As much as people are talking about private communication and hair, I'm thinking it's a combination of both, a hair-do comm unit that' behind all of it. A big hairy creature with a radio.

Again more on the simulation being worthless, can we please move on. More filler of how we may or may not focus on the scum due to it but we again don't really know. Then this fluff about a hairy radio creature, could we have a little more seriousness.

Yes it was in jest. Lynching based on hair is probably one of the oddest ways to lynch. As for the investigator for the hair radio creature, not sure. Well have to find out who it is first. I think though we are getting distracted, and as said before, look for those who are overly defensive, and no, not about their hair either.

You just said lynching based on hair was in jest yet you go on to jest about an investigator for a hairy radio creature.

When it comes down to it, I feel all of these posts have been filled with useless banter to appear active, at least when Lieutenant Hornby or Harper comment even though they don't appear active they tell us they are simply observing the behavior and are not spotting anything. Willis on the other hand doesn't say she doesn't find anything, no she merely reminds us that we must all be on the lookout and not become distracted.

[Shadows]

When it comes down to it, I feel all of these posts have been filled with useless banter to appear active, at least when Lieutenant Hornby or Harper comment even though they don't appear active they tell us they are simply observing the behavior and are not spotting anything.

It's true, there's been a lot of nonsense today, but I do think we'll get something out of all of this and am actually pleased with this as a day 1, it's given us a lot to analyze tomorrow.

[KotZ]

Sorry, been very busy with personal matters.

I made my statements about te hair as a joke, just being sarcastic. As for te bandwagoning, I'm a researcher. I have to separate facts and emotions. Am I happy I made my comment? Not really. But isn't it necessary?

[fhomess]

Honestly, Starting a bandwagon is the objective of both the scum and the Town.

This isn't really true. The objective of town is to discern the truth about people's allegiances so that they can eliminate the scum. The objective of scum is to sow confusion so that town can't meet their objective. Scum already know the truth about most people's allegiances (allowing for neutrals and any other factions). Bandwagons may be a part of either of those, but if you define a bandwagon to be "people voting because that's what everyone else is doing" rather than everyone voting together because they truly believe the person is scum, then it really benefits scum more in the immediate term. Longer term, there are town benefits that can be determined from voting patterns, but those are sometimes hard to discern. Anyway, that's how I think about it.

As for me, I'm going to go ahead and vote for you for the following reasons:

1. I believe your vote flip flopping to have been a mistake earlier

2. I believe your responses to it have been scummy enough to warrant strong consideration

3. I believe you are doing many of the things you suggest scum would do in the situation you are in, all while trying to tell us you aren't

Vote: Ensign Timothy Mandel (Dannylonglegs)

[Scouty]

So here's what I've got so far, from my perspective.

Commander Gordon (Scubacarrot): Townie, he's to mean to be a scum.

Ensign Mandel (Dannylonglegs): Townie, I'm sorry but he's been going on for too long and his mistakes feel more like they were being pushed and poked at by possible scummies.

Ensign Pewter (Pathaldric): Townie, Would you cut the jokes please, they're only making everyone more confused.

Ensign Campbell (Dakar A): Townie, unless none of your scum team is telling you to stop your flip-flopping, your multiple votes and unvotes make no sense as a strategy.

Most of those "Townie" readings sound logical and well-reasoned. However, that of Ensign Pewter's is not very convincing on why he would be Townie. Ensign Campbell's as well, I don't see anything that can clearly label him as scum or town. This is from your perspective, though, so I wont bother you too much about it (I'm only pointing this out because of your branding of folks who really could be either or, which struck me as odd.)

[Inconspicuous]

I feel like this dialogue has become a side matter in the day's proceedings, but I feel that it's important to slowly draw it to a close anyways.

I simply don't trust myself enough to allow myself to get into my current situation.

I'm merely saying I'm not brave enough to put myself in the limelight like I did if I could have done anything else.

I'm sorry but this statement doesn't carry any weight. All you're saying is that you'd never intentionally put yourself into your current situation. Thank you, Captain Obvious. No one in their right mind would either.

I constantly asked for approval or at least informed the team of my actions before hand, and I would have consulted them before casting my re-vote, let alone my unvote! And do you honestly think no one in the scum thread would have stopped me?

Well, you unvoted within 45 minutes of voting and revoted after less than 2 hours. To me, that's not much time to consult your scum buddies, assuming they exist. That's why I still suspect it was a knee-jerk reaction without proper consultation.

An Insecure scum could easily act confident, as I did.

In my opinion, a secure scum could just as easily act insecure. Especially when they've made a big mistake.