Oops. Move along, nothing to see here.

@stuart9001 - Actually Zchinque acknowledges the vote on post #346

Very clever post and on the surface a good point.

Whats not sitting right with me is how much this feels like a set up. I agree that Stuart is leaning Town - like you say, for a Newbie has taken a good part in the game, even with the resignation he seemed to exude as he got close to Lynch. It would take balls of steel for a newb to pull off that sort of ploy if he were Mafia in his very first game.

What I'm not liking is the way you are using it to attack someone else. You say the Mafia instantly forming a wagon on Stuart is a sure scumtell - well, it could be, but a) its very early in the day for them to be showing their hand, and b) its far too obvious a ploy for me. What I think is far more likely is Scum coming up with a plot to use Stuart today in this very way - attack whoever targets him. This looks very much to me like a little scheme cooked up between scumbuddies overnight - in this case, you and Itai.

Itai sticks a vote out on Stuart early, then you come in and attack whoever jumps on the wagon.

Ideal way to get day 2 off with a bang for Scum - use someone who had pressure first day as bait to try and cause further trouble second day.

If I were scum it would be exactly the sort of play I would be making. like Vitek says, I think you slightly over-egged it and came over a bit too keen, which makes it stink all the more..

vote Muttly13

You guys do realise that day 2 is runing, don't you?

Heres the crux of the argument...

_______________
"So even though is a terribly flimsy choice, I blame the holidays due to lack of time for discussions and evidence gathering. Lets hope this lynch and night brings new info of interest. "

How does voting hours after the NK for the easiest train out there without adding an iota of new thought to the case count as "hoping for new info"? One would have assumed you would use new info for new thoughts, or at least allowed new info to present itself.
______________

If you can validate that against your theory, youre a better man than I Gunga Din. You voted contradiction before, how are you bypassing one that clearly points at Baron? This is clearly an actual contradiction as it applies to both a NK and D2 lynch yet you take no notice. Also, notice Vitek didnt vote me, nor I Baron. Assuming I am pressing Baron for information, what is it exactly you are trying to get out of me? Other than to deflect attention and allow Baron to avoid responding.

We do agree on one thing though, I also think Itai is leaning scum. Although the case to me isnt as easy to detect as it was with Baron.

Have read this several times and it still doesn't make sense to me. Who's the “we” you're referring to?

Curious what you mean by a lurking lyncher. Also why do you think that about Zchinque?

I'm evidentially worse at this game then I thought. That's a real shame about Zchinque, and I agree we should examine his past posts closer to see what scared the mafia. My lunatic theory is that his muck raking and discouragement of non-informative posts (despite being hypocritical) probably encouraged a night kill simply because he tended to discourage mafia friendly activities. This is just a bizarre initial thought though, I'm still trying to suss my opinion out.

That being said, I definitely agree that Stuart seems less suspicious than ever. Even if he was scum he wouldn't get away with a simple revenge kill for Zchinque pointing the finger because, in theory, the other scum would probably discourage this kind of behaviour. This makes me slightly question Red Baron and Vitek, but I'm not sure where I'm going to go with that.

Sorry I can't post more, I had to run off from my home/computer due to a family emergency. I'll try to keep up with the updates and investigations and such, and should be back to full game playing free time on Thursday.

Oh wow!
I just got what stuart means by strangely prophetic. I only read the "we" as referring to town (which is presumeably what the baron meant).

Pazzer : We were having a go at Vitek because after Zchinque voted NMillar without giving reason he also voted NMillar and gave no reason. The possibility was mentioned that Zchinque and Vitek were working together - masons or lovers or mafia or something.
Zchinque denied it.
Now Vitek points out that we know Zchnique's role so it's not possible for them to have been conversing.
I keep thinking this makes Vitek scummy but... I dunno.
He's being pretty brazen. Is anyone else reading him like that? Sort of sure of himself maybe vaguely mocking.
Usually in games I am Vitek's number one fan but this game I am very wary of him. Has his style changed or mine?

Did you manage your re-read Vitek? It was ambitious of you to attempt it I think, I'm not sure I would manage.
Argh! it's getting late but I've got to finish this post before I go to bed.

Rob's "If I were scum it would be exactly the sort of play I would be making." causes me discomfort... I dunno it seems a BIT ridiculous a scheme.
Can you tell me similiar sort of things you attempted to make when you were mafia in game #7? Or any other time you've been mafia Rob? Is that an unfair question?

Oh yeah - RedBaron. I asked you before what you meant by that I am LEARNING something in this game? Could you clarify?

Can't really understand why Mt. Sharim has voted for stuart again. What's your thinking?

And RedBaron what do you hope to gain from voting stuart again?

I'm asking loads of questions again... Last time I asked sort of meaningless questions, I think these questions have relevance and meaning am I right? (that's another question... I'm going to bed goodnight.)

Okay, figure its about time to burst your huge overblown bubble of the "solid scum-tell" muttly13.. and why did you have to even create that bubble? I had the feeling that it was just my usual scum read from you I've gotten and actually written you of as leaning town - and then you come out and do this, which pretty much says: I am 100% scum. Makes me wonder why? Over excitement?

Anyway, on with it - And sorry if this gets a little huge.

Yes, I've considered that. But still stuart never gave a good explanation and only changed the vote due to the deadline. And yes that idea you just proposed can be used in both ways, I believe Robbeasy have already stated that. So honestly judging anything from what Zchinque was after is tough and if you read my post I am actually stating that even though he was also after Orryrro I don't know how to judge that as I myself doesn't have the info. So no, my vote is not based on the fact that Zchinque started the train, its a follow-up on the actions that was going on before we needed the lynch (I assume your aware that a no-lynch would be bad for town right?). Good moving on:

Actually yes, I know I did that very thing when I was mafia, because I was excited about the whole deal. I know of several others who have done the same and some who hasn't. Since its also highly likely to depend on the person and the freetime they have as well. So quite a big assumption your making here.

Well denying to respond to votes and accusations is not a town move either. No matter if he is noob or not. And by the way: playing noobish is not equaling being town. Though it might earn him a break due to such actions, which it has - just take a look who at who was lynched.

True, if not for the fact that every mafia game has arguments like that. And that Crazy was mainly lynched for being a lurker and we needed a lynch. So judging stuart's votes from that is hard and I kinda believe that stuart would have been the lynch, if the deadline had been longer and Crazy hadn't vanished as he did.

Great Scott? Are you trying to prove just have eager you are to lynch me? Hmm I wonder why? A good target? Something I know? No matter. Lets pull this pile of rubbish apart.

First of: Your using the word it was universally agreed that the contradiction was weak and he was only a target due to deadline. Yes, completely true, however his reaction to the votes he gained from that argument meant that I felt a need for further discussion/reactions, so hence I revoted on day two - which the action I would have liked to have the time to take on day 1. But Crazybear gained votes faster, he was close to being modkilled for inactivity and as such seemed a much better target for the flimsy lynch it was on day 1. So now lets return back to the other argument of yours. My hammering of the "confirmed" town. Now lets first note that at that time, he wasn't a confirmed town and I had no way of knowing that. Secondly, allow me to use your words: It was universally agreed that we needed a lynch - and Crazy was a better target, as you state yourself: The argument against stuart was weak, but the best until Crazy's lurking came up. Lets move on: I didn't hammer him. stuart did. I simply got the hammer because I forgot to unvote before voting. If not, stuart himself would have been the hammer. I gotta say that makes it a bit hard for me to be called on that one.
And how can I revote stuart "within hours of the hammer" when we had 36 hours in between? Thats not a very sound argument and as to why I voted for him again on day 2, I believe I've already stated that.

So moving on to the last part of that quote: How can I be voting for the easiest train out there, hours after the nightkill. When the only easiest train I have voted on was before the nightkill. There is no train on stuart and I would hardly call it the easiest train, when I am simply following up on my own actions and the "train" only have two votes...

As to the new info: Well we got one, but not what I was hoping. You see thats the case with a mafia game. Your always lacking knowledge. We got the knowledge that Crazy wasn't scum and that Zchinique wasn't scum. The person who had something going on with both of them, was stuart - why would that info not make me try to pry a reaction from stuart? But do we hit on a goldpile of info, no. So purely going with what I have of knowledge myself from the game and seeing who was town, I saw it a perfectly fit vote. Saying that I didn't use the knowledge is thereby also unfounded (Do notice as well, my pondering over the nightkill, which was my first post for today, you seem to have missed that). And yes, as said: the vote was to do just what your saying: get new info to present it self, its kinda part of mafia to help that along by for instance...surprise: votes.

Let me get this straight; the entire mafia has made a misstep due to two persons voting for stuart: one of which you for some odd reason have nothing against and doesn't even comment on even though he was the very first to vote for stuart today... Thats interesting.
Moving on: Then you say that he can be used as a backup lynch? Thats not a town I hear talking, thats someone saying that stuart should be saved for later, as he will be easy to get lynched... So come again: your argument here is that: I am scum, because I am voting too quickly for someone it would be good to save for later, as he is an easy lynch? And that makes sense how??

Well your getting it.. since I would love to hear you explain why the heck you have posted such a mess of an excuse and gone as far as to call it a solid scum-tell, when clearly its not.

Okay so your argument for your big rubbish of a accusation is that you got excited because the very same overreaction which vitek is referring to, is a clear scum-tell........ what?? Could you at least try a little to explain yourself with some logic reasons. And no, stuart is not easily lynchable, he got two votes and how his defense as you so oddly mention is going to end up, we have no idea unless we judge his reactions - So how come you mention hardly a strong defense? Of what?. Which is something that appears due to votes. And lets mention this again; you pick on the one who voted second, with no hint of caring about the first voter. But yea, already refereed to Robb's post for the ploy I now very much believe you to be part of.

Post apparently too long, never happened before. uhh - More coming then.

Okay 14 minutes or so should be enough, since I couldn't find anyone online to make a filler:

So yea, last part of the wood to your selfmade bonfire:

Thats the crux of the solid scum-tell? That I mention in my vote that I hope we'll learn something from this out of need lynch, that was being performed on a person that was close to being modkilled for lyrking?

And when the info we gain doesn't seem to point the finger at anyone and if anything can be used to slightly support the idea of stuart being scum, you take me voting for him as second, to be a sure scum-tell, even though I comment on the night actions and the lynch as well? Thats a terrible case if I ever saw one.


Allow me to do the work for vitek: What contradiction? Saying that I hope we gain some new info of use from the otherwise pointless lynch and the eventual loss from a night kill, and then when we do get the flavor: discuss it and then go ahead and follow up on my own actions from day one which was never fully solved due to deadline. Thats not a contradiction. You might call it stubborn that I am not letting stuart of the hook with complete ease, but a contradiction? Thats grasping for straws to put it mildly. And let me get this straight: Its a contradiction because it also applies to the night kill I have every reason to believe will occur doing the night? Of course I am hoping that the night-kill even while being a loss to town will tell us something we can use to find scum with. But now to the interesting part: Since you seem to find it a contradiction that I assume a night-kill to occur and as such hope for info from it. Can I then assume that you have knowledge about the night kill not taking place?? That seems to be the direct implication of what your saying and if thats the case. Then you good sir. have just confirmed yourself to be 100% scum as only the mafia would know that no night kill have occurred and that we might be dealing with something else.

Great, so you call me a 100% confirmed scum-tell and your excited about the matter. And yet you still don't vote and call that an argument for saying that your not pressuring me/trying to get info from me where was tat mentioned by Robb?? The only thing your doing is putting a target out there, which seems to be based on reason hoping that someone will follow up on it, but without voting for it yourself in order to appear innocent. Thats honestly the only reason why you wouldn't vote for someone you stated yourself have made a 100% scum-tell. And thus again, the only reason you wouldn't wanna vote, is because you know that I am not scum - and only scum would know that.

And btw: I responded, so puff there goes another odd theory of yours..


Great you made your first comment about Itai, but don't actually say anything as to reasons, just coming back to me being so obvious. Yet you still didn't vote?? And the reason your blaming me scum, is almost the same as could be said about Itai, yet your still not mentioning him at all, except after Robb have called you for it?

But you did get a result: You made me gain a reaction, not one I was expecting, but a reaction none the less.

And that reaction from you, immediately removes my vote on stuart and places it firmly on you. Not to be changed until your lynched - I hardly believe anything you can say from now on can save you from the above mess. (And thanks for this time providing a solid case, unlike the testing of waters with stuart).

As such
unvote

vote Muttly13

Finally I should note that stuart isn't high on my scum list, he is on it and I would like some more knowledge about him later, but for now I gotta clean this certain scum of my list.

Now back to what others asked:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
I believe he is referring to the theory that someone (can't recall who) mentioned about him and joe being in together with Zchinque due to voting pattern. (Pre-Edit: Noticed he already explained it - left it in none the less)

Damn, thats the completely wrong thing I managed to post there. Meant a lurker to lynch - which is rather different than lyncher. Sorry, note to self not to try to grammatically bend words which aren't supposed to be bended like that..

Final note before posting: Hope it ends well, whatever emergency your having Penut.

And that I haven't made any odd spelling errors or sentences, it has been a rather long post, but if thats should be the case. I'll be happy to elaborate.

Since I've noticed Joe's new post and the question I forgot to reply to. What I meant as learning was mostly meant as you learning more about how to play mafia hence also doing things which you were inspired to by others, in this case Zchinque. And then I stated I didn't know what I believed you to be. But might have been a odd way of saying it. I like how you misunderstood it though. Hope your other question is explained above together with my reasons, some of which I also shortly mention below.

Finally if it weren't clear: "strangely prophetic post" is rather obvious, that I am assuming a night-kill will take place is pretty much part of any mafia game and I am certain others believe the same. However with what muttly13 stated as contradiction and with the added doubt that I am being prophetic by assuming a nightkill to take place, then it once again hints to me that he knows something more than I and others do about todays night-kill.

Yeah, I do, however I don't really have time to read the thread and post my thoughts until tomorrow, so I'll be more productive then.

OK, I'Ve got spare time tody so I think I'll get to reading. I am sick and was in the cinema so I didn't make it yesterday.

I like Red_Baron's last posts.

So your entire case against me boils down to...

1 - You took immediate action to get another weak lynch moving on D2.
2 - I called you on it.
3 - You responded by claiming I executed the same action as you (meaning a quick accusation).
4 - You vote me.

Only problem is, youre the one that took action here and I have simply shown people the method to your scum activities asking questions. And you have responded like you have been cornered You clearly stated you wanted more info, no new info was presented and you jumped on board anyway. No wall of text will make that fact otherwise.

I believe folks can see through your attempt to steer the train back on me. If anyone thinks my original post was an over-reaction, I cant imagine what they think of yours. You felt the need to go sentence by sentence trying to warp them to your view. To me, you are in a corner and are throwing anything out there to defend yourself, much like Stuart should have done if he were scum.

Side note : I am far and away not the only one confused by the vote. Multiple people mentioned immediately after your vote that it was over. I myself asked for some clarification. And per the official vote count (which admittedly was incorrect), you were the hammer and your statement leads me to believe you thought so as well "Lets hope this lynch and night brings new info of interest." Meaning, you also thought you had completed the lynch. I could be wrong I suppose, but I am not. Lets see what people think.

vote red_baron

I have just read through red barons post and I have to say it contains a few very strange points.

"I didn't hammer him. stuart did. I simply got the hammer because I forgot to unvote before voting. If not, stuart himself would have been the hammer."

According to the votecount posted just before, which is the one I noticed that my vote had not been registered on (for obvious reasons), I was listed as voting for CrazyBear. My subsequent vote placed that vote properly on that list, so claiming that I hammered him is a little far fetched isn't it, as the general assumption is that I was voting for him already?
Your words when you voted seem to indicate that you thought you were dropping the hammer.

I would also like you to explain this. I am struggling to find any point, or any interpretation of anything that muttly says that indicates that a night-kill did not occur. Why are you saying "that no night-kill have occured and that we might be dealing with something else" can you point it out to me where muttly says or means this.

I am getting distracted but slowly proceeding.
I've got few questions meanwhile.
It will be a bit in Joe's style.
@ stuart: You think I am scum, right? Could you give reason? Who else do you think is scum? What do you think about muttly?
@ muttly: What do you think about stuart? What about pazzer?
@ nmillar: Who do you see as towniest player?
@ pazzer: What are you thoughts about Red_Baron? What about muttly?
@ peanut: What are your reads on Robbeasy?
@itai.sharim: Could you get avatar, please? :-)

So you want to keep going at this? Sure I'll be happy and yes, you don't really have any other course of action to take in this case, as even if you admitted to a mis-read you would still be on my scum list.. But lets move on to my reply - And yes, I do make longs posts - You¨ll notice that its a habit of mine, please do read them anyway:

No, it does not. If you really wanna keep it in the simplified style then lets do it - But highly recommend that others reading this read my post above, in order to know what I am talking about:

1- Itai votes - which you ignore, even though he also voted for stuart on D1 and stated that he'll keep his vote on stuart.
2 - I vote for stuart, following up on my uncertainty about him from D1
3 - You react by calling my actions a certain scum-tell and continue to elaborate on that with some very weak accusations and some which in my eyes plainly places you as scum, due to hinting at knowledge I only see scum having. And finally you don't vote based on this on post 100% certain scum-tell.
4 - I called you on the terrible case you were making and based on your own lengthy and scummy accusation I vote for you, meaning mine is based on reason, its not the same action as you and I haven't claimed that.
5 - Your reaction to me calling you out, and pointing out that you didn't vote for your 100% certain target (how scummy it appeared), is to blatantly ignore some of my reasons and instead just claim it all to be a wall of text with attempts at manipulating people and an action taken due to your post. Well of course it is an action taken against your post, since as I write in the beginning of my "wall of text" it was that very post of yours that made me do a 180 turn in regards to you.... and then of course, you have to do the only thing you can do in order not to be 100% scum in the minds of all: you vote for me.

Note that thats just a hasty summation, one should really read both mine and muttly13's posts in order to make their own picture, as at least my summation is only intended for muttly13 and his irrelevant post).

But lets move on to what you say:

Eh what? If anyone took action it was you.. claiming that after posting several posts stating how 100% certain scum I was, you didn't take an action because you didn't vote until now? Yes, I made the action of voting second on a person who now has 1 vote (after my vote at that time he had 2). I doubt anyone would call that taking action and yours not to be. You haven't shown anything, you have tried to prove something/get a lynch going and that good sir is certainly a very real action. And way more of an action than mine, simply being a vote to see how stuart would react.

Hmm is that now I should point out that one of your earlier arguments for me being scum and Robbeasy being my buddy is that I wouldn't respond and Robbeasy was trying to draw attention away by posting how your posts reeked? Nah, I guess your allowed to change your mind as long as it suits your purpose. I just nail your name even tighter to the scum list. And yes, a wall of text, making it so much easier for me to be judged as fake appearances to my experience is very tough to keep up if one makes a long post, so creating a long post that must be the reason I am scum. And responding to how weak a accusation you have going is also be scum, even your trying your damnedest to get me lynched? Hmm so according to you: If I don't respond, I am trying to get my "scum buddy" Robbeasy to draw attention, but if I reply that means that I am cornered due to you being correct.. So the solution would be to? Make a very very short post stating that you were wrong, not giving any reasons what so ever? NO.. Thats not how a mafia game is played and thats not how a town should play it. Posting ones thoughts and reasons is the only tool we have to catch scum by allowing other players good as bad, to make judgments in regards to ones character.

By the way, I notice that you and Itai have both voted on day 1 for my supposed scum buddy, that being before he called you on your accusation on day 2. But yea, you unvoted him stating and I quote from 309: "That said I am content to unvote Robbeasy in an attempt to find someone by the deadline", so basically you just want to find someone? Not a scum, but just someone. Couldn't that have been robbeasy being the someone as well.. or did you feel that this lynch wasn't going anywhere. You call me for changing to Crazy before the lynch, but does not have any trouble doing it yourself? Well, this is just something I noticed and I might be reading your unvote out of content from others posts, but your additional sentence after the unvote stands out - with the belief I currently hold in regards to your alignment.

Well, I hope they'll judge fairly. Because if they do, they'll spot how weak your case is and the odd points of it. But lets be straight here.. What TRAIN? Do you call everyone having 1 to 2 votes on them for a train? Thats a not a train. Lets be very straight here. I can't steer a train back on you if there is none. And yes, your post is a clear overreaction as you have called it a 100% scum-tell based on one post where I assume that we'll have a night kill after the lynch and state that I hope we'll gain something useful to find scum/judge posts from both, as we have a high risk of losing a town at night and maybe also one from the lynch.

And no: A town should always defend themselves, not doing so is very odd. Hence stuarts reaction to the votes is more one of giving up, but be it scum or townish we don't know. And cornered? If I was cornered it wouldn't be so freakishly easy to pull your posts apart and I wouldn't be sitting here sniggering over the stupidity of the posts. But hey, at least I am getting some enjoyment out of this.

"I could be wrong, but I am not" Damn thats a bold statement.. so your still 100% sure that I am scum, based on one post.. Bravo. And your basing it on the fact that I hammered someone who was almost getting mod killed and was a complete lurker, at a time where everyone agreed that we needed a lynch before deadline and his was the most likely one. And that I made the assumption that he would be lynched so I stated that I hoped we gained something for it. And yes, I had a feeling I was the hammer, but slightly unsure mainly due to the mix-up in votes. When I clarified my vote I was however fully aware of this, but I was clarifying a vote made before stuart unvoted/voted for Crazy. Since then according to what stuart said, he was actually just confirming his vote as well due to not seeing that he was already on the vote for Crazy, but it did cause me to assume that he was the hammer. So yea, that weren't the case, but why wouldn't I hammer him? He was the agreed upon best lynch at a time where we needed a lynch. Calling me on that is complete bullshit and I clearly states in the post your so fond of quoting that we need a lynch and my reasons for changing my vote - by the way an action several other people took as well..

Bloody hell, the post is too long again.. how come muttly13 have now twice managed to get me to make too long posts.. Because of the sheer volume of stuff I feel an urge to comment on of his? :P