unvote

Yes, since nothing has changed (that we know about....) since day one, I think the best bet is to follow Telikas reasoning from back then.

Vote Flub

My reasoning for voting CSPVG ?

My reasoning for temporarily switching to Flub at the last minute because of the deadline ?

Or my reasoning for finding the "he's too scummy to be scum" statements very scummy (Amok, CSPVG, and [url=http://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_forum_mafia_21_the_end_of_the_world/post355]sometimes only) ?

Can we have the votecount at the deadline, please ?

Now that post almost makes me return to my love for voting you :P He didn't vote for flub with any lengthy reasoning other than out of need (from what I read).

Pre-post edit: Ah Telika already answered him - Oh well, I agree and thats what happens when you get caught watching videoes :D

no, the one where he tries to hard to be lynched - means that he should be lynched. it was you? was it not?

Ok yes. You had changed your mind on post 276, but have actually stayed consistant since.

In brief, because I am worn out (got roped into landscaping work the past couple days), a few of my most notable reads:

SirPrimalform - Leaning scum. I haven't seen that much out of him so far, and much of what I have seen is just saying that he agrees with other people or filler posts so he isn't entirely lurking.

P1na - Leaning scum. Not his fault at all, it is because cmdr_flashheart seemed so convinced that I am not scum. The only people who can be that certain about faction on Day 1 is scum.

Robbeasy - Leaning scum. Although not as strongly as SirPrimaform, but he also seems to post many of the filler/agreement posts.

Telika - Seems very pro-town to me, especially on Day 1. Lot's of good analysis, and doesn't seem to be trying to steer or bias town with his arguments (as would be expected if he were scum).

So, yeah, there isn't a lot to go on, so these are obviously just my gut reactions so far. Especially where Rob and SPF are concerned, since it is hard to point fingers at folks for not analyzing in the face of little to no data. Still, I gotta call it like I see it. For posterity, if nothing else.

EBWOP

Oops, forgot to vote.

Vote SirPrimalform

As noted above, it is a weak vote scum-vibe, but he is at the top of my list. If it looks like someone else has a better chance of getting lynched (e.g. flubbucket]), then I will move my vote appropriately; we need a lynch of someone to gather information.

Lastly, I forgot to mention nmillar in my list of reads above. This one is a really tough call, because he doesn't talk that much in Mafia games anyway, but I am getting a sort of 'fly-under-the-radar' vibe from him more than usual this time around. I can't put my finger on why exactly.

Thanks Krypsyn.

Any thoughts regarding 01kipper??

I didn't, but at your question I went back and reviewed all his posts. On Day 1, he mentioned that he didn't feel this was a cult game, and that the 'swaying' in the OP is probably just flavor. Also, he was one of the first (the first?) proponents for a mass reveal of faction membership. He made am OMGUS vote on amok, which is rather 'meh', but not all that bad in and of itself. He was also targeted for jumping on the 5foote bandwagon during the RVS, but I might have done the same; she dared him to vote for her, and it was still RVS.

Then, Today, his first post was one of those 'weird, nobody died' posts, which occasionally rub me the wrong way. It often just seems like scum stating the obvious to seem active and be 'helping'. However, he was active during Day 1, so I don't hold this against him too much in this case.

All in all, he has been active (pro-town) but has made some analysis that might be designed to reduce the effectiveness of town (anti-town). Without context, I am not sure if his discounting Cult and asking for a mass faction reveal is scummy duplicity, or an honest town appeal (I could see it go either way). For now he remains solidly in the 'neutral' category for me, maybe even leaning a little pro-town.

Does that answer your question?

Yes thank you.

I'm struggling with a clear scum list. I have a list of "least likely to vote for" but the ne'er do well roster is long due to no night kill or any other information for that matter.

For now, I put back my vote on CSPVG.

I have two axis of investigation : 1° people who don't seem consistant in their own implicit assumptions about baddies being cultists or killers (and this, no matter if baddies ARE cultists or killers), 2° people who argue that flub is too-scummy-to-lynch (and this, no matter if flub IS scum or not). CSPVG qualifies on both accounts. Plus there is the lurking and the avoidance of my direct question.

So, he's still my prime suspect for now. I'd still join the flub bandwagon if needed, and, I guess, the robbeasy and (maybe) amok ones too. Amok was on my list, but he has either changed his mind or his strategy, in a kinda coherent way so it may very well be innocent (the night duration thing too made me raise an eyebrow but the "mod pm" story can be indeed either a coverup or a honest explanation). Robbeasy seems to have changed his mind the other way round, though, going from

to

which I find a bit more disconcerting. Especially the way it's all "more than comfortable", "best lynch candidate by far", and "definitely putting me off". With, unless I've missed it, no posts inbetween hinting at doubts or any transition.

Robbeasy, can you tell us about this evolution ?

Interesting take on things and I admit your treatment of Primal Form educated me a bit (the notion that someone could lean scum not by their vote patterns but by "fluff" / avoiding-lurking-only-posts). I haven't been paying too much attention to Robbeasy but the one of yours that has me most curious is Telika. I'll be honest he's been the one that has MOST triggered my warning sensors as he seems to be constantly manipulating situations (painting far too many people as scum or "steering the crosshairs" to individuals, especially Flub).

And he was also probably most responsible for our non-lynch on day one (everyone that issued a vote was "scummy" and thus every other person proceeded to at best totally back off or at worst lurk even more). However I am colored by the opinion that a quick day one lynch is a good thing, to see who jumped on the bandwagon and when, and then what happened at night relative to who said what during the day - though this game is going a long way toward blowing that theory up in my face! ;)

I'm sorry for not responding earlier. I fell asleep during the Nigeria-Iran game and I've just woken up.

As for your direct question, I haven't been avoiding it. I merely did not spot it on the first day, and saw that you posed it to me again today, but (for reasons I explained in my previous post) I haven't been able to respond to you.

To answer it, then: This goes back to the whole too scummy to lynch argument. It's a fine line, that too scummy to lynch, and I would have pushed said line of reasoning harder if flub had responded 'yes' to that question.

So, in short, I do not think that if flub wanted to be lynched, he would have answered 'yes' to that question. It would make him seem too overtly eager, and I for one certainly wouldn't have voted for him. I do not believe that anyone that wants to be lynched, should be; there are very few possibilities for what roles would want this to occur and, from what I remember reading at least, they're all third party neutrals that do not necessarily lean town.

Would you have taken a 'yes' answer from flub to mean that he was definitely scummy?

Mainly due to having a night phase to think about it. there isn't a role that wants lynching that can be any good - third party roles, nothing that is good for town anyway.
I hadn't fully considered the Mason thing first day either when i posted he was my choice. A normal mason is considered Town, but this game appears to be anything but normal.

First day - I was going for who I considered had posted the scummiest.

Second day - considered more why those posts were the scummiest.

Don't get me wrong - he's still right up there on my scumlist, but not at voteworthy stage

Really.

Post 343 : 349 01kipper votes ishoot4lolz
352 rwall votes ishoot4lolz
353 nmillar votes ishoot4lolz
354 telika votes flub
356 cmdrflasheart votes ishoot4lolz
360 cmdrflasheart votes flub
361 cspvg votes ishoot4lolz
365 vitek votes cmdrflasheart
368 sirprimal votes flub
370 rwall votes flub

end of day :

Robbeasy has 2 votes (cast by nmillar, flubbucket)
amok has 1 votes (cast by Dustfinger87)
Vitek has 1 vote (cast by IShoot4lolz)
flubbucket has 7 votes (cast by Robbeasy, DarkoD13, amok, telika, cmdrflashheart, sirprimalform, rwall)
TwilightBard has 1 vote (cast by Ixamyakxim)
cmdr_flashheart has 1 vote (vitek)
Telika has 1 vote (cast by TwilightBard)
IShoot4lolz has 3 votes (cast by Red_Baron, 01kipper, cspvg)

And keeping in mind those who didn't vote flub BECAUSE he was scummy (and my criticism of it), care to explain me :

a) How i was the one preventing the lynch ?
b) How your vote was helping it ?

No, I would have taken it as an answer that he was definitely wanting to be lynched. Scummy, town, or neutral, someone who wants to get lynched must be either lynched or replaced, there is no point in keeping him in the game, he is only parasitic (for all the rest of the game) if neutral or bored, and useful to kill if town-with-a-plan or scum-even-with-a-plan (our victory GOES through lynching all scums). There is zero reason to not insta-lynch/replace someone who is wanting it.

And I have clearly stated that wanting to be lynched would warrant lynching, in my very question to him, If he wanted to, he would have answered yes. We wouldn't have kept him.

And the whole "let's lynch all the scummy ones except that one because he is scummy and when i mean the scummy ones i don't mean the scummy ones" argument is town in no way.