[Kessobahn]

Shadow, on May 31 2009, 01:58 PM, said:

On that last one, several people were talking about D'riss, Liosan and Mockra, whilst me and D'riss were challenging Korv, but more like disputing what he was saying as non-sensical, not so much accusing him of scum. If Fener is indeed scum, then for that circumstance I'd say he was either trying to help the D'riss case get going because Korv might've been about to be threatened, or else he was just being eager to support HP.

Well, actually, after reading some more I realized that it was actually HP who had hopped onto Fener's case, so of course he'd be an eager little beaver to support it.

[Korvalain]

I'm not scum. You are barking up the wrong tree here.

[Kessobahn]

Korvalain, on May 31 2009, 02:47 PM, said:

I'm not scum. You are barking up the wrong tree here.

That may be so, but I was simply pointing out Fener's interactions and suggesting that, if he is indeed a symp, that you were the second person I'd look at. First now after I found that HP was actually symping...Fener...wait, are we barking up the wrong tree here?

Oops, perhaps should've changed my figure of speech, but I think you see where I'm taking this.

This post has been edited by Kessobahn: 31 May 2009 - 07:02 PM

[Korvalain]

Well, Shadow as well is questioning me. Which is fine, I need to be pressured. But, I'm just saying it's not going to lead to scum.

And, I didn't understand the end of that statement (other than why you might need to rearrange words )? And maybe I just misread the last two posts where it sounded like you were talking about me. I just woke up a little bit ago, so that is a definite possibility.

[Kessobahn]

Perhaps. I was simply remembering that just because two people might be paired, it doesn't make them scum...

[Korvalain]

True, but scum try to disassociate with each other so that taking one down, doesn't take them all down.

[Shadow]

You're getting awfully defensive all of a sudden Korv, seeing as we're talking mostly about Fener and you only insofar as Fener relates to you...

[Korvalain]

Am, I really? I don't think so. Just saying it's not a fruitful search. But, I did tell you to go ahead and continue the pressure, Shadow, so... continue the pressure.

[Kessobahn]

Korvalain, on May 31 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

True, but scum try to disassociate with each other so that taking one down, doesn't take them all down.

True, but that only works to a point, and roled innos do the same. For a pair to be effective yet remain inconspicuous there has to be some interaction. That's one reason why I don't buy the idea that Meanas and Fener were paired, because they never spoke to each other. It makes it too obvious. Its more likely that Meanas did this specifically to one person (Fener) who he picked at or near the beginning who would be singled out as an easy lynch after he died. If so, he's getting exactly the reaction he wanted.

Wow, a crosspost. In this game? Maybe conditions are improving.../wild hope

This post has been edited by Kessobahn: 31 May 2009 - 07:24 PM

[Korvalain]

True, Kesso. I had to read that a couple times to wrap my head around it. Lol. But, my reason for wanting to look at Fener in the first case wasn't built around anything with Meanas, and more around (what I saw as fairly) clean play and coast-like behavior.

Edited to add parenthetical.

This post has been edited by Korvalain: 31 May 2009 - 07:30 PM

[Shadow]

Kessobahn, on May 31 2009, 03:23 PM, said:

Korvalain, on May 31 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

True, but scum try to disassociate with each other so that taking one down, doesn't take them all down.

True, but that only works to a point, and roled innos do the same. For a pair to be effective yet remain inconspicuous there has to be some interaction. That's one reason why I don't buy the idea that Meanas and Fener were paired, because they never spoke to each other. It makes it too obvious. Its more likely that Meanas did this specifically to one person (Fener) who he picked at or near the beginning who would be singled out as an easy lynch after he died. If so, he's getting exactly the reaction he wanted.

Wow, a crosspost. In this game? Maybe conditions are improving.../wild hope

Yes, but of course, Meanas could (and should've) do that whether he was paired or not and regardless of whether he even knew his own teammates or not!

[Kessobahn]

Korvalain, on May 31 2009, 03:28 PM, said:

True, Kesso. I had to read that a couple times to wrap my head around it. Lol. But, my reason for wanting to look at Fener in the first case wasn't built around anything with Meanas, and more around (what I saw as fairly) clean play and coast-like behavior.

Edited to add parenthetical.

Ahh, thats true. But whether you were the first person to mention him or not, somebody mentioned that connection (actually, lack thereof) and it sorta stuck in my mind. Also have you noticed how for the last 6 posts both of us have begun with "true comma argument?" Its like fuckin political debate. Made me laugh.

[Kessobahn]

Wow, 6 anons all at once. That's the most I've seen all game. And of course, they're all lurking...

[Korvalain]

True, but... Lol.

It didn't jump out at me, but I figure we had to notice it at some level, because we kept doing it!

[Hood's Path]

All right, so I did a reread. I was mainly looking for Shadow references, but I'll get to that later.

So first:

D'riss, on May 28 2009, 09:25 PM, said:

Korvalain, on May 28 2009, 09:23 PM, said:

D'riss has made my eyebrows raise as well. But, then again, so did Kesso and Shadow.

I'd agree that my actions were probably questionable or dubious but it's mostly been due to trying to get some useful information off in a post in the few moments I could spare today.

I'm mostly annoyed at Emur's attitude, to be honest, but the Silanah case is sound enough for my vote and I've joined that chorus, small as it may currently be.

After rereading this post, in the context of more recent things that have been said, I guess D'riss did make some sort of admission of fault. His posts since this have been contradictory to that, but for now I'm inclined to believe he is just a silly person who was trying to avoid a lynch. I am still suspicious, but not as suspicious.


Other thing (the most alarming thing I found in the reread):

Tellan, on May 29 2009, 01:04 AM, said:

Looking at it best case, someone blocked/guarded?

Worst case, we did have a night 1 vig

Edit: Or healed, I suppose.

This was after the second night where there was only 1 night kill. Korv immediately called Tellan out on it, and Tellan responded, but the response didn't really make much sense. Despite what may actually be going on with the night kills, I think we can all agree that best-case is that scum have one night kill, which means there was a vig night one. So I'm trying to figure out what would cause Tellan to say a block or heal would be the best-case scenario.

The only thing I can of is if Tellan is scum and there are 2 scum kills a night. So for him, the worst-case is if one of his kills gets blocked or healed (obviously there would be no other case for him, but I think what I am getting at is clear). Tellan decides he needs a reaction post to the single kill and so posts the opposite of what he is thinking because he thinks that will make him look innocent. But for us, worst-case is a guard/heal because we don't know how many scum night kills there are.

Of course, all this hinges on there being two scum night kills, which seems to be contradictory to last night's events, but it seems fully possible that the vig kill last night in some way interfered with the scum kills.


Oh, and also Shadow: Guy posts a lot of spam day 1, but once it's clear people aren't posting a lot, he seriously tones down his posting. Obviously more active posters would help team inno smoke out the scum, so why would he tone it down unless he realizes it's the best way to hide?


And one more thing @ Kesso:

Kessobahn, on May 31 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

Shadow, on May 31 2009, 01:58 PM, said:

On that last one, several people were talking about D'riss, Liosan and Mockra, whilst me and D'riss were challenging Korv, but more like disputing what he was saying as non-sensical, not so much accusing him of scum. If Fener is indeed scum, then for that circumstance I'd say he was either trying to help the D'riss case get going because Korv might've been about to be threatened, or else he was just being eager to support HP.

Well, actually, after reading some more I realized that it was actually HP who had hopped onto Fener's case, so of course he'd be an eager little beaver to support it.

Fener doesn't even mention D'riss before I make a case and throw a vote on him day 2. I realize that may make me look worse, but I'd prefer that people were operating with the correct information.

[D'riss]

Ugh giant quotes. Most of your response is just "Well I said so because I'm inno" but here's a response to a few choice bits.

Fener, on May 31 2009, 01:17 AM, said:

The bit about watching the interactions of the person you choose to vig on night one because you are so absolutely sure they are scum! And as for not interacting much...did you even look at yesterday? There was no-one to interact with except Korv. And before that I was not on much due to RL

It looks more to me like you selectively watched who you discussed more than just being a victim of low thread activity.

Fener said:

I believe my exact words show what I really said. I said that a vig with no more kills should reveal. They are then CI, and we can get confirmation of whether killers have one kill or two. As I put in my post, if they have other vigs, then no, they should not reveal
*snip*

More to the point, if the person who had it was a use it or lose it vig, then there is no need for them to stay quiet about it, yes? (And yeah, I have just made two posts asking for the vig to reveal themself - they probably shouldn't if they have an additional vig...even if they were a tad silly about the first one).

Scum play this game all the time. "Oh I'm just innocent making sure you give us as much information as you can about why you vigged so we can CI you and figure out how the scum operate." The 'overly helpful' approach. I know it well, I've run it a few times myself. Truth is, innocents pretty much all dislike each other and don't want to help each other because they don't trust each other. The scum gains little information other than knowing who a CI is to kill them. The innos go, "Oh so you're CI oh wait you're dead now."


He finally offers a case on yours truly... (left out the actual case)

Fener, on May 28 2009, 11:47 PM, said:

I'm going back to read D'riss now - can't remember.

... but in the end doesn't seem convinced enough to throw on the first vote. Scared maybe of leading another inno train?

Fener said:

That, my good D'riss, be strawmanning. I said no such thing. I said the case was flimsy, not that HP might be a target. If you are talking about the "threat of a potential lynch" then you have misread - I was talking about that towards you. And yes, I was adding to HP's vote on you, in the hopes of putting pressure on, supporting my own case that I'd made against you. What's so strange about that, when another person seems to share your views?

Saying a case is flimsy NOW is a way of saying that LATER when the CF comes up inno that you'll look into and maybe go after the guy who threw down the vote.

Fener said:

Yep, I don't vote. Because Mockra has the thing with the crazy coincidences, whereas your case, to me, was stronger at the time and had more chance of getting a lynch in.

That's just it. You made a case on me but waited for Hood's Path to vote before you did. You made a case on Mockra and then let other people like Korv and myself go after it.

Just looks like a big act to me, TBH.

[D'riss]

Shadow, on May 31 2009, 08:57 AM, said:

Fener, on May 31 2009, 04:17 AM, said:

Fener's gigantic quote post

So all in all, Fener, basically you have a bunch of excuses for not sticking your head out the slightest bit all game. Some of those excuses could perhaps be valid, but the overall tendency that you just pop in for wee bits at a time, make enough promises to sate us and then flee without willing to expose yourself in the least just reeks of scum to me.

Vote Fener

Quoted for the lulz 'gigantic quote post'

[D'riss]

Kessobahn, on May 31 2009, 10:06 AM, said:

Yes, agreed, Fener you've exemplified the style of play that I've been criticizing from day 1, namely the guy who comes and goes so infrequently that you can barely be said to have played at all. Now, that being said, I don't understand the scumminess of such play, if anything your play style suggests to me that you've been given a role that you dont like, or don't know how to play, and so are basically ignoring it and posting when you feel like it. I've done that before as inno and symps, mainly if its a game that I don't have time for and I'm RI I just ignore it unless I have nothing better to do. And symps I can't play for shit, so I just let myself be modkilled half the time. I'd be more inclined to think you're a symp than a true scum, and am going to look at your interactions with others before putting a vote down, but do try and post some more.

Honestly this looks like a huge WIFOM defense-of-Fener post. Chastising Fener but not taking the step to vote him. Then again, why would you make it so obvious if you're his partner?

[D'riss]

Korvalain, on May 31 2009, 12:28 PM, said:

True, Kesso. I had to read that a couple times to wrap my head around it. Lol. But, my reason for wanting to look at Fener in the first case wasn't built around anything with Meanas, and more around (what I saw as fairly) clean play and coast-like behavior.

Edited to add parenthetical.

Curious to know why you wanted to look at Fener but waited for someone else (me) to do so.

[D'riss]

Hood's Path, on May 31 2009, 02:43 PM, said:

All right, so I did a reread. I was mainly looking for Shadow references, but I'll get to that later.

So first:

D'riss, on May 28 2009, 09:25 PM, said:

Korvalain, on May 28 2009, 09:23 PM, said:

D'riss has made my eyebrows raise as well. But, then again, so did Kesso and Shadow.

I'd agree that my actions were probably questionable or dubious but it's mostly been due to trying to get some useful information off in a post in the few moments I could spare today.

I'm mostly annoyed at Emur's attitude, to be honest, but the Silanah case is sound enough for my vote and I've joined that chorus, small as it may currently be.

After rereading this post, in the context of more recent things that have been said, I guess D'riss did make some sort of admission of fault. His posts since this have been contradictory to that, but for now I'm inclined to believe he is just a silly person who was trying to avoid a lynch. I am still suspicious, but not as suspicious.

I know all about going for blood if you smell it so I'll forgive you

Hood's Path said:

Other thing (the most alarming thing I found in the reread):

Tellan, on May 29 2009, 01:04 AM, said:

Looking at it best case, someone blocked/guarded?

Worst case, we did have a night 1 vig

Edit: Or healed, I suppose.

This was after the second night where there was only 1 night kill. Korv immediately called Tellan out on it, and Tellan responded, but the response didn't really make much sense. Despite what may actually be going on with the night kills, I think we can all agree that best-case is that scum have one night kill, which means there was a vig night one. So I'm trying to figure out what would cause Tellan to say a block or heal would be the best-case scenario.

The only thing I can of is if Tellan is scum and there are 2 scum kills a night. So for him, the worst-case is if one of his kills gets blocked or healed (obviously there would be no other case for him, but I think what I am getting at is clear). Tellan decides he needs a reaction post to the single kill and so posts the opposite of what he is thinking because he thinks that will make him look innocent. But for us, worst-case is a guard/heal because we don't know how many scum night kills there are.

Of course, all this hinges on there being two scum night kills, which seems to be contradictory to last night's events, but it seems fully possible that the vig kill last night in some way interfered with the scum kills.


Oh, and also Shadow: Guy posts a lot of spam day 1, but once it's clear people aren't posting a lot, he seriously tones down his posting. Obviously more active posters would help team inno smoke out the scum, so why would he tone it down unless he realizes it's the best way to hide?

Imagining that there are 2 scum kills a night almost seems pointless right now. You've had a clear vig last night. I'm one of the people who was pretty sure it was a vig night 1 simply because people always want to vig on night 1.

Think of it. We've had 1 clear vig and 1 probable vig and then 2 nights of only one inno kill. We know roles can exist in more than a singular fashion so why not two vigs, maybe paired or not, but each one can vig once. Someone was stupid. Someone guessed right.

Far more likely we have one scum kill a night imo.

edit: typo

This post has been edited by D'riss: 31 May 2009 - 10:14 PM