I'm hosting a game!

[Winston Hughes]

You were quite rarin' to go on D1 and were quite on board with the Visor lynch. You 'bailed' off it and then switched back later, allegedly to stop a townie lynch, but your phrasing of "has to be" seems very off to me if that was indeed your goal.

What? That makes no sense at all. The words 'has to be' indicate precisely what I was thinking: that there was no better viable lynch.

Since then, you've simply sat on voting for GH without really putting much explanation into it, a tactic I've used myself plenty of times as mafia. It makes you seem less random and like you actually have a goal when you really just want to toss a vote somewhere so people won't accost you.

Again, what? No explanation? The reasons behind my vote have been stated more thoroughly and more clearly than any other vote around right now. The reason I've not continued to explain it is because everyone already knows it, and GH has offered only a handwave of a defence to what was said before. I could restate it all, but what's the point if he's not going to engage?

Anyway, khaan's logic on Winston looks pretty solid and I agree that the tactic mentioned is something I've done in the past as well. Therefore:

Vote: Winston

I'm not going to defend myself over my D1 actions any further, fyi, as I believe the argument's been played out and nothing new will be added.

Voting for me on khaan's logic - that I'm just parking my vote without further discussion - whilst refusing further discussion on the subject?

If you're not scum, I have no idea what you've been trying to do in this game.

[seireikhaan]

What? That makes no sense at all. The words 'has to be' indicate precisely what I was thinking: that there was no better viable lynch.

Sorry, but for me that didn't really indicate much at all. The only thing I get out of that is that you think he has to be the lynch, which could be for multiple lynches; in other words, it meant nothing.

Again, what? No explanation? The reasons behind my vote have been stated more thoroughly and more clearly than any other vote around right now. The reason I've not continued to explain it is because everyone already knows it, and GH has offered only a handwave of a defence to what was said before. I could restate it all, but what's the point if he's not going to engage?

Humor me, sweetheart. I don't really get the suspicion over PM'ing. It was pretty clearly a stupid bandwagon waiting to be made, so GH wanted to see if any bad guys would latch onto it. So as far as I am concerned, you haven't really explained much in terms of exactly *why* you think that's scummy. Neither myself nor GH have played a game in... damn, what 2, 3 years? He got friendly with someone who was almost certainly not the mafia. So what's the deal?

And regardless, I just really didn't like your vote today especially. It's nothing personal- it's just that you are voting in a pattern I frequently use myself when I am mafia. Find something to latch onto, pretend you're tunneling so you don't have to consider other options, and hope people don't call you on it. It's surprisingly effective for a while.

[Winston Hughes]

Sorry, but for me that didn't really indicate much at all. The only thing I get out of that is that you think he has to be the lynch, which could be for multiple lynches; in other words, it meant nothing.

They indicated my thoughts at the time: that Visor had to be the lynch. I'd tried pushing someone I thought might actually be scum, but it hadn't worked, and (iirc) the only real alternative looked to be BSmith, who I thought very likely town (because he's much better at avoiding suspicion when he's scum). All of which I thought was pretty clear at the time.

Humor me, sweetheart. I don't really get the suspicion over PM'ing. It was pretty clearly a stupid bandwagon waiting to be made, so GH wanted to see if any bad guys would latch onto it. So as far as I am concerned, you haven't really explained much in terms of exactly *why* you think that's scummy. Neither myself nor GH have played a game in... damn, what 2, 3 years? He got friendly with someone who was almost certainly not the mafia. So what's the deal?

It's pretty simple really. The idea that the scum would threaten Visor was never a viable one, imo. What they might very well do, however, is offer a subtle wink in his direction - a hint that his survival chances might be improved by playing nice.

Have to go now, but I'll try to get back on later to address some other points.

[Winston Hughes]

For those who don't remember, here is the original case on GH:

*He threw a very gentle vote at Visor right at the start of D1, an obvious vote placed where it was least likely to generate suspicion.

*He then contacted Visor in private to tell him that the vote was only temporary, for which there is no townie justification yet stated.

*Once other people had posted more substantive and provocative cases for lynching Visor, GH switched his vote to BSmith, who was already shaping up to be the game's #1 non-Visor lynch bait.

*He then went on to claim that his accusation of Visor was just 'fishing for responses', which is deeply unconvincing, given how hedged and unprovocative his case was.

To all that, we can now add:

*He's offered only a handwaving defence to the above, apparently hoping that the matter will just fade away.

*He skipped his vote yesterday, and choose to hop on khaan's paper thin case against me today. Where's the scumhunting?

[seireikhaan]

Okay, this is silly.

For those who don't remember, here is the original case on GH:

*He threw a very gentle vote at Visor right at the start of D1, an obvious vote placed where it was least likely to generate suspicion.

What the heck is a "Very gentle vote"? He voted visor immediately after the reveal. Starting a possible bandwagon is neither gentle, nor a place that doesn't generate suspicion. If it didn't generate suspicion, why are you so suspicious of it?

*He then contacted Visor in private to tell him that the vote was only temporary, for which there is no townie justification yet stated.

For which you have also failed to provide a mafia justification- rather, you are simply parroting "he talked in private, that is bad". Wanting not to be lynched is an admirable quality of townies as well.

*Once other people had posted more substantive and provocative cases for lynching Visor, GH switched his vote to BSmith, who was already shaping up to be the game's #1 non-Visor lynch bait.

He was already shaping up to be the game's #1 non-visor lynch... when GH lodged the first vote of anyone to him. Right.

*He then went on to claim that his accusation of Visor was just 'fishing for responses', which is deeply unconvincing, given how hedged and unprovocative his case was.

So let me get this straight. You think GH, as a mafia, sent a PM to someone who he would know is innocent, saying he was fishing and would switch later... which is exactly what he did. What exactly does a mafioso gain from putting himself out like that on day 1? How bad at this game do you think GH is? And I think you confuse "concise" with "hedged". Hedged is what Bsmith was doing(and why he got lynched). One does not need a Pizzaguy thesis to fish.

To all that, we can now add:

*He's offered only a handwaving defence to the above, apparently hoping that the matter will just fade away.

What exactly is a defense for an argument that consists of "you did this, this is bad?" If you want a good defense, you should try a good offense.

*He skipped his vote yesterday, and choose to hop on khaan's paper thin case against me today. Where's the scumhunting?

And *my* case is paper-thin. You want scumhunting, I suggest you try it. Instead of basing your argument on "did x, x is bad because reasons", try basing it on experiences. Really, if you wanted a case against GH, the scummiest thing he's done is pointing out he wouldn't be on for a bit a few posts ago(something he did precisely the last time he was a scumbag).

[Winston Hughes]

What the heck is a "Very gentle vote"? He voted visor immediately after the reveal. Starting a possible bandwagon is neither gentle, nor a place that doesn't generate suspicion. If it didn't generate suspicion, why are you so suspicious of it?

But it didn't generate any suspicion until he retracted it and made the 'fishing' claim, and even then it was only from me, with Csargo eventually joining me. Nobody else seems to have had any suspicions about him. And I'm not at all surprised. Posting the first vote on Visor was never likely to draw suspicion, especially when couched in the half-jokey, half-confused terms that GH used. And, as we saw, it was an accusation with a preplanned excuse behind it, the only problem being that, if you look at it with any kind of critical eye, the excuse doesn't actually fit the accusation.

For which you have also failed to provide a mafia justification- rather, you are simply parroting "he talked in private, that is bad". Wanting not to be lynched is an admirable quality of townies as well.

Cosying up to third parties whilst posting 'fishing' accusations with no bait and a ready-made excuse at the ready is not even close to townie play in my book.

He was already shaping up to be the game's #1 non-visor lynch... when GH lodged the first vote of anyone to him. Right.

I'd already given BSmith a nudge that he needed to come out more decisive. I could see it was going to get him lynched, sooner or later, but I also recognised that it probably meant he was town.

So let me get this straight. You think GH, as a mafia, sent a PM to someone who he would know is innocent, saying he was fishing and would switch later... which is exactly what he did. What exactly does a mafioso gain from putting himself out like that on day 1? How bad at this game do you think GH is?

I don't think he's bad. I think he's very good, and has managed to fool nearly everyone here into giving him a free pass, despite the fact that he's not making any real effort to find the villains.

And I think you confuse "concise" with "hedged". Hedged is what Bsmith was doing(and why he got lynched). One does not need a Pizzaguy thesis to fish.

No, but one needs something substantive or provocative to act as bait. GH's accusation of Visor has nothing for a passing fish to go for, bar the sheer fact of the vote. And, let's be clear, posting the first vote on someone who's absolutely guaranteed to catch votes is the very opposite of provocative. It's the single best place to hide.

You want scumhunting, I suggest you try it. Instead of basing your argument on "did x, x is bad because reasons", try basing it on experiences.

In my experience, optimal scum play is entirely situational - the key thing is to tailor it to the audience. And I can quite believe that that's what GH has been doing here, as evidenced by the fact that nobody but me is voting for him, even though last night's kill has picked him as suspect once again this morning.

Indeed, seeing the Csargo kill, I bet most people's first thought was 'GH wouldn't be crazy enough to implicate himself like that'. Any notion of the kill implicating him is so bound up in WIFOM that it actually ends up making his lynch less likely. For that reason, whilst it can't be taken as any evidence of GH's guilt, the Csargo kill would be evidence of skilled play on the part of ScumGH.

Anyhow, that's me done for the day. Best guess, I'm probably getting lynched here. If GH really is scum, then I seem to have made a right old mess of this. I don't know why, but my town game seems to work fine everywhere else I play, but here at the org it just falls flat. Still, it's been fun, especially these last exchanges with khaan, so thanks for that.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Morning everybody. Fun little argument to wake up to.

In my experience, optimal scum play is entirely situational - the key thing is to tailor it to the audience. And I can quite believe that that's what GH has been doing here, as evidenced by the fact that nobody but me is voting for him, even though last night's kill has picked him as suspect once again this morning.

Indeed, seeing the Csargo kill, I bet most people's first thought was 'GH wouldn't be crazy enough to implicate himself like that'. Any notion of the kill implicating him is so bound up in WIFOM that it actually ends up making his lynch less likely. For that reason, whilst it can't be taken as any evidence of GH's guilt, the Csargo kill would be evidence of skilled play on the part of ScumGH.

Right now I think you've caught a bad case of confirmation bias. Take a step back, look at it from other angles, because you're twisting everything that's happened to suit your version of a story. For example, I wasn't aware that arguing for a lynch based off who was or wasn't killed was still in style.

Or it could be because you're a mafioso and feel "committed" to the cause of my lynch. I know I've certainly had that happen before, where I haven't been able to back down.

[Winston Hughes]

Clearly I'm barking up the wrong tree with GH. Everyone thinks he's cool, so I must be wrong.

Monty PM'd me to tell me to vote for Ishmael. No idea what to make of that.

I wish I was sober right now.

[Winston Hughes]

Aaaaand Ishmael is snuggling me towards a Monty vote.

Full bore paranoia here.

[Ishmael]

Clearly I'm barking up the wrong tree with GH. Everyone thinks he's cool, so I must be wrong.

Monty PM'd me to tell me to vote for Ishmael. No idea what to make of that.

I wish I was sober right now.

That actually sounds worryingly like town Monty.

[Winston Hughes]

Bottom line is that Ishmael has explained himself, whilst Monty has been Mr Taciturn. Neither has boomed scummy vibes to me. And with no idea of the meta for either, I'm left only with first principles, which would mean a Monty vote...

[Winston Hughes]

Well whadda ye know, I'm back before EOD. Been drinkin' Kwak for nine hours, though, so the coherence forecast is on the bleak side...