[Lock]

Eloth, come on, you can tell us, we're all friends here. Are you a little scummy symp to Kenshiro?

This post has been edited by Lock: 24 April 2014 - 11:14 AM

[Lock]

I have a feeling Eloth pointed to Ampelas as a possible warlord and that's why Ampelas was the target last night. Eloth outright said in the middle of their case on Ampelas that the mention of warlords might be Ampelas wanting to talk about the role that he has. Why would you say that and highlight a potential target for the killer on thread?

[Okral Lom]

Tiamatha, on 24 April 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

caught up. My blinkers are on, its shadow or denul for me

OK, slow down for a minute. There are 8 players remaining. WCS is that there are three scum remaining and this is D-Day, so rushing into something seems like the wrong tactic.

Having said that, you have made me think that maybe I've been giving Denul a bit too much of a free ride. In my mind I had put him near the bottom of my list of suspects because of how he backed up Ampelas' claims about role speculation (if multiple players are spinning the same yarn, they're either both scum or both inno, it seemed to me). But looking over what he actually said, I'm not sure I made the right call on that front. Need to do a re-read. But then I need to do a re-read on everyone *sigh*.

[Shadow]

After reading that last day. I feel that we should have lynched Denul much earlier in the game. Also that Eloth and Lock seemed to be directing things. As much as I would like to vote for Denul again. I shall hold off while I look at other players. Since today is another cluster fuck at work again. Do not expect a case. Probably just a short write up and a vote.

[Galayn Lord]

Okral Lom, on 24 April 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

Tiamatha, on 24 April 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

caught up. My blinkers are on, its shadow or denul for me

OK, slow down for a minute. There are 8 players remaining. WCS is that there are three scum remaining and this is D-Day, so rushing into something seems like the wrong tactic.

Having said that, you have made me think that maybe I've been giving Denul a bit too much of a free ride. In my mind I had put him near the bottom of my list of suspects because of how he backed up Ampelas' claims about role speculation (if multiple players are spinning the same yarn, they're either both scum or both inno, it seemed to me). But looking over what he actually said, I'm not sure I made the right call on that front. Need to do a re-read. But then I need to do a re-read on everyone *sigh*.

Ok so the underlined is an interesting read. So are you saying by changing your mind here that Denul was fake symping an inno player(Ampelas)? I mean I'm not very clear on this myself but i had the feeling Denuls repeated support of logical town play placed him in a less scummy bracket than the players incessantly after him, .

[Galayn Lord]

I'm thinking we have to be careful if we actually have 3 scum then thats a 37% chance of hitting scum. Maybe we adopt the WCS and look at it like this:

I have in my mind two candidates that looked gray all game: Denul and Shadow.

I also agree, Eloth is starting to look a lot more active, pushing the direction of focus. I think theres a chance he's playing an excited symp role?


Of the remaining players I'd expect these three to be the most likely candidates for scum. If OL is saying what I think he's saying maybe I should get behind a lynch on Denul because I'm starting to second guess myself. I can't see anything in my re-reads to peg OL or Bek as scum. I already highlighted how helpful Locks posts were and maybe if I look at Denul as scum Tiam fits the profile for angry but dedicated town.

Ok I'm gonna


Remove Vote

I'm on for a few hours. Who would you guys say make your top 3 and who has your vote? I'm thinking we need to vote for the master but nailing any scum would be best and maybe we need to vote for the most common candidate?

[Lock]

Galayn Lord, on 24 April 2014 - 02:52 PM, said:

I'm thinking we have to be careful if we actually have 3 scum then thats a 37% chance of hitting scum. Maybe we adopt the WCS and look at it like this:

I have in my mind two candidates that looked gray all game: Denul and Shadow.

I also agree, Eloth is starting to look a lot more active, pushing the direction of focus. I think theres a chance he's playing an excited symp role?


Of the remaining players I'd expect these three to be the most likely candidates for scum. If OL is saying what I think he's saying maybe I should get behind a lynch on Denul because I'm starting to second guess myself. I can't see anything in my re-reads to peg OL or Bek as scum. I already highlighted how helpful Locks posts were and maybe if I look at Denul as scum Tiam fits the profile for angry but dedicated town.

Ok I'm gonna


Remove Vote

I'm on for a few hours. Who would you guys say make your top 3 and who has your vote? I'm thinking we need to vote for the master but nailing any scum would be best and maybe we need to vote for the most common candidate?

My current top three for scum are Eloth, Shadow...and probably Tiamatha. Do I think all three can be scum? No. Do I think at least one scum is in there? Hell yes.

I'm going to do a read of Eloth and see what might come up.

[Tiamatha]

well assuming wcs I don't think I could give a top three, Shadow/Denul outside of that the other player I would have put in was Amp, and he's dead.

[Eloth]

Lock, on 23 April 2014 - 10:31 PM, said:

And going back to the good old scum-in-the-middle-of-post-numbers theory, either Eloth or Shadow are the big bad.

I don't have a lot of time at the moment but the irony here is astounding, so I'm just going to point it out.

Lock, you have 61 posts currently; not including this post, I have 49. I think you unfortunately forgot to include yourself.

You've made 12 posts since the lynch occurred; Shadow and I have made 1 each. Let's do some math.

At the time of the lynch:

Lock's post count = 61 - 12 = 49 posts
Eloth's post count = 49 - 1 = 48 posts
Shadow's post count = 45 - 1 = 44 posts

So if we're going with your "good old scum-in-the-middle-of-post-numbers theory" (which seems to be the case, you've named me and Shadow again as your top suspects), then you fall right there in the middle with us. How convenient that you were able to pad your post count before presenting your brilliant theory....

All 7 of your 12 posts post-lynch/pre-resolve are pure interaction with Ampelas (who is now dead), and looking back at it, it reads kind of oddly. I mean, it seems ridiculous to me that scum would do this after killing Amp, but just rereading it makes it seem like you knew he was going to die.

Lock, on 23 April 2014 - 09:42 PM, said:

Ampelas, on 23 April 2014 - 09:37 PM, said:

Lock, on 23 April 2014 - 09:35 PM, said:

Ampelas, on 23 April 2014 - 09:33 PM, said:

Lock, on 23 April 2014 - 09:32 PM, said:

Ampelas, on 23 April 2014 - 09:28 PM, said:

I think I'm more lost in this conversation than I have been the whole rest of the game

It's REALLY not important

Now I'm getting paranoid

Whatever you do, don't look behind you.

Why not? What's there?



Damn it, I've looked and saw nothing.


Maybe because I turned my head, therefore behind me became in front of me? It must be fast, like real fast.

I told you NOT to look! Now you've gone and done it. Oh you've really gone and done it.

Lock, on 23 April 2014 - 09:49 PM, said:

Ampelas, on 23 April 2014 - 09:46 PM, said:

I didn't listen, I'm sorry - this Mafia thing is making me so paranoid I didn't believe you for an instant.

I can't see it at all, no matter which way I turn.

What have I done?


No, still can't see it. It must have gone somewhere.

Under the desk? Behind the sofa?



Not there. That can only mean it's in the cupboard.


I'm going to check.




No, no, don't try to hold me back, I have to know.

Oh Jesus fuck no, that's the very worst thing you could do! Doom!

However, as long as you're on your way to the cupboard, if you could brink back some of those chocolate chip cookies, I'd be much obliged ta.

It's clearly joking back and forth, but the content of your replies is different from the tone. Of course, it only looks odd when looking back at it with context.

And then you made 2 more of your 12 posts, giving you a solid 9 post lead (of total bullshit and no content) on me/Shadow before you say "And going back to the good old scum-in-the-middle-of-post-numbers theory, either Eloth or Shadow are the big bad."

Well, that seems pretty convenient to me. Just using your logic and going back to the good old scum-in-the-middle-of-post-numbers theory, either Lock or Shadow are the big bad.

Looks to me like you need a reread as well.

[Lock]

I was wondering who might bring up my interaction with Ampelas just before he died, and I'm not surprised that it's you, Eloth.

So your theory is that, as a possible scum killer who's not drawn any attention thus far, I've decided to blatantly tease and taunt Ampelas on thread just before killing him off? Thank you for your lack of confidence in me


I didn't include myself in the middle-of-the-road post because, duh, why should I? I don't suspect myself, funnily enough.

[Eloth]

Lock, on 24 April 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

Eloth, come on, you can tell us, we're all friends here. Are you a little scummy symp to Kenshiro?

Lock, on 24 April 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

I have a feeling Eloth pointed to Ampelas as a possible warlord and that's why Ampelas was the target last night. Eloth outright said in the middle of their case on Ampelas that the mention of warlords might be Ampelas wanting to talk about the role that he has. Why would you say that and highlight a potential target for the killer on thread?

So you want to get cutesy? I skirted the Ampelas/Warlord issue when I did my reread on him and mentioned it only as an aside. Unfortunately someone decided to come and cut that little piece out and state it all in plain English:

Denul, on 23 April 2014 - 02:37 AM, said:

Eloth, on 22 April 2014 - 11:16 PM, said:

Just as an interesting aside, Amp's second post is the only one with real content and Tiam replies immediately:

Tiamatha, on 15 April 2014 - 08:42 AM, said:

who mentioned warlords Amp??

we've been discussing possible sympage of scum entirely, stop trying to muddy the water further and derail our conversation

Good point - who had been mentioned Warlords up until then? Amp may have been the first. The obvious two answers when a new topic comes up like that are that people usually talk about their role or people try to redirect the thread with a new focus. Neither is clear with Amp at this point since it's early on in his play, but it is kind of odd to bring up something like that in your first "real" post after checking in. Tiam calls him on it and Amp not only acts like he forgot he ever mentions Warlords but doesn't respond to Tiam either. Instead he disappears for about 12 hours.

I'm curious to your explanation of what you're getting at here? Because it sounds like you're presenting the notion that Amp is a warlord because he talked about warlords first and I can't see any reason you would do that except if you were scum trying to point it out to Kenshiro...

Nice one Denul. I didn't even respond to this because of the attention it would already draw. Why the fuck he would make a post like this when I clearly said I was in the middle of my readup and had not made up my mind about Amp yet is beyond me. Not only this, but Denul has actually already had this argument with Amp before, where Amp himself pointed out that he was the first to say this, and Denul was like, "Oh yeah...my bad." So Denul pushes on the same topic as Amp and gets corrected about his analysis...then points it out yet again. That doesn't make sense in the context of my writeup on Amp, which was at that point incomplete.

And finally, as OL astutely pointed out, there was NO NEED to imply that Amp was a Warlord or Warlord symp, etc. because his day 1 post pretty much stated it on thread as plainly as could be. Tiam is the only one who responded to it (immediately), and that's primarily why I included it during my readup. I found Tiam's response to Amp odd (especially when no one else commented on it), and I included it for that reason.

[Okral Lom]

Galayn Lord, on 24 April 2014 - 02:35 PM, said:

Okral Lom, on 24 April 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

OK, slow down for a minute. There are 8 players remaining. WCS is that there are three scum remaining and this is D-Day, so rushing into something seems like the wrong tactic.

Having said that, you have made me think that maybe I've been giving Denul a bit too much of a free ride. In my mind I had put him near the bottom of my list of suspects because of how he backed up Ampelas' claims about role speculation (if multiple players are spinning the same yarn, they're either both scum or both inno, it seemed to me). But looking over what he actually said, I'm not sure I made the right call on that front. Need to do a re-read. But then I need to do a re-read on everyone *sigh*.

Ok so the underlined is an interesting read. So are you saying by changing your mind here that Denul was fake symping an inno player(Ampelas)? I mean I'm not very clear on this myself but i had the feeling Denuls repeated support of logical town play placed him in a less scummy bracket than the players incessantly after him, .

What I meant was that previously I had been thinking about Ampelas and Denul as necessarily having the same role by virtue of how they backed each other. However when I went back to look at the posts involved, it wasn't quite as clear to me that this was actually what was going on. As you say, I hadn't considered that Denul could have picked up the implication of Ampelas' post and proceeded to symp him.

I do agree that Denul's behaviour taken at face value has seemed reasonable. However, Tiamatha's point about deflection holds some merit with me - Denul started talking about warlord symps, and this essentially cast doubt on the validity of any investigation into symp connections. I know I stopped looking for that sort of thing as closely once that became the dominant paradigm I was viewing the game through. (Or rather, I didn't really talk about those connections on thread for fear of giving scum unnecessary hints).

[Eloth]

Lock, on 24 April 2014 - 04:16 PM, said:

I was wondering who might bring up my interaction with Ampelas just before he died, and I'm not surprised that it's you, Eloth.

So your theory is that, as a possible scum killer who's not drawn any attention thus far, I've decided to blatantly tease and taunt Ampelas on thread just before killing him off? Thank you for your lack of confidence in me


I didn't include myself in the middle-of-the-road post because, duh, why should I? I don't suspect myself, funnily enough.

Yeah, actually, my confidence in you has been shaken fairly hard by your play since Rikkter was lynched. Why aren't you surprised? Why does it look so convenient that you upped your post count with a player about to die so that you wouldn't be obviously included when you call out the players who are in the middle of the post count?

And uh, duh, you don't SUSPECT yourself but you don't pretend you aren't playing either. If I come out and say "Let's look look at the low-posters, probably one of these two low-posters are scum"...and yet I'm actually the lowest poster in the game, that is pretty fucking suspicious. You almost can't make an argument like that without deliberately turning it on yourself.

[Lock]

I don't disagree that Denul also talking about that is suspicious-looking, and I will be looking at them also, but to call your own post, which brought it up in the first place, as a mere "aside" is disingenuous.

I saw what you had written back when you posted it, but I kept quiet because I didn't want to highlight it any further, in case Ampelas really was a warlord. But at the time and even more so now, I couldn't help wondering what in the fuck made you say that out here on thread. If it was a mere "aside", it sure as fuck could have been a dangerous one, and one you should have known not to mention at all and kept to yourself if you are town.

You saying, 'Nice one Denul' is pure hypocrisy. You're either an idiot who dodged a bullet because Ampelas turned out not to be a warlord, or more likely - considering the rest of your play has been solid - putting the thought out there, in the middle of a 'case' on Ampelas (a case which ultimately even by your own admission went nowhere, making it look even more like a case set up solely for a single purpose) was done while fully cognizant of the potential repurcussions.

[Eloth]

Galayn Lord, on 24 April 2014 - 02:52 PM, said:

I'm thinking we have to be careful if we actually have 3 scum then thats a 37% chance of hitting scum. Maybe we adopt the WCS and look at it like this:

I have in my mind two candidates that looked gray all game: Denul and Shadow.

I also agree, Eloth is starting to look a lot more active, pushing the direction of focus. I think theres a chance he's playing an excited symp role?


Of the remaining players I'd expect these three to be the most likely candidates for scum. If OL is saying what I think he's saying maybe I should get behind a lynch on Denul because I'm starting to second guess myself. I can't see anything in my re-reads to peg OL or Bek as scum. I already highlighted how helpful Locks posts were and maybe if I look at Denul as scum Tiam fits the profile for angry but dedicated town.

Ok I'm gonna


Remove Vote

I'm on for a few hours. Who would you guys say make your top 3 and who has your vote? I'm thinking we need to vote for the master but nailing any scum would be best and maybe we need to vote for the most common candidate?

This is a really quick vote/remove vote, without much logic other than "Oops, I guess I should have waited to vote..." Nothing else really stands out but the vote/remove is the scummiest thing I've seen from you all game.

Tiamatha, on 24 April 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

well assuming wcs I don't think I could give a top three, Shadow/Denul outside of that the other player I would have put in was Amp, and he's dead.

Tiam, why did you suspect Amp? I don't remember you saying this before. I did a full reread on Amp and didn't come up with much - in fact, as is being hotly discussed at the moment, in the end it did seem like he was a Warlord symp (if that exists) based on his comments on Day 1. Personally I think that if there is a such thing as a Warlord symp in the game, they are going to CF as RI, otherwise a) 6 out of 14 town players would CF as roled, and if they don't CF as RI, then none of them have died yet and all 3 are left among the 8 of us alive. So that doesn't seem very likely.

[Lock]

Eloth, on 24 April 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

Lock, on 24 April 2014 - 04:16 PM, said:

I was wondering who might bring up my interaction with Ampelas just before he died, and I'm not surprised that it's you, Eloth.

So your theory is that, as a possible scum killer who's not drawn any attention thus far, I've decided to blatantly tease and taunt Ampelas on thread just before killing him off? Thank you for your lack of confidence in me


I didn't include myself in the middle-of-the-road post because, duh, why should I? I don't suspect myself, funnily enough.

Yeah, actually, my confidence in you has been shaken fairly hard by your play since Rikkter was lynched. Why aren't you surprised? Why does it look so convenient that you upped your post count with a player about to die so that you wouldn't be obviously included when you call out the players who are in the middle of the post count?

And uh, duh, you don't SUSPECT yourself but you don't pretend you aren't playing either. If I come out and say "Let's look look at the low-posters, probably one of these two low-posters are scum"...and yet I'm actually the lowest poster in the game, that is pretty fucking suspicious. You almost can't make an argument like that without deliberately turning it on yourself.

Why aren't I surprised? Because the person who I've openly said has jumped near the top of my suspect list now suddenly also has a boner for me? Yeah, colour me not surprised

You make waaay too much of me not including myself and trying to pin something on me through that - since when has not suspecting yourself been a cause for suspicion? If everyone else wants to include me in their suspect list, that's their business. I don't need to do it myself, for pretty damn obvious reasons.

In any event, I'm not going to make a case on the basis of who's in the middle of the post count (as you seem to be trying to do - but then, why aren't you including yourself, Eloth? ). That was, to borrow a nice word from you, an "aside" which you seem to have now seized upon in somewhat desperate fashion.



Edit: Changed 'not' to 'now'.

This post has been edited by Lock: 24 April 2014 - 04:41 PM

[Okral Lom]

Interesting post I spotted from Denul here (I've snipped some of his discussion of Korabas and Kessobahn):

Denul, on 21 April 2014 - 03:14 AM, said:

Other people-wise, Shadow still looks almost too scummy, while Tiam still pings my scumdar with his manner of always talking like he is pushing a vote but not always following through/responding to rebuttals of his accusations (albeit this was more of a thing days 1 and 2, not as bad day 3). I'd be happy to vote for either of them. On the other hand, a voice in the back of my head whispers "smoooooth" every time I think of Bek, Lock or Okral right now. Lastly, Amp and Rikkter continue to be low in both posts and content.

So there's lots to look at and I hope we can all get right back into the spirit of things after the long weekend break ends. I'm planning to do a full read-up tomorrow night and see what comes out of the woodwork for me. For now, good night!

I like this sort of post because I think it's a good way of gauging someone's thought processes about the other players. As scum, it can be difficult to produce them naturally (particularly if you have knowledge of fellow scum players that you are trying to hide). I would quite like to see this sort of list from other players (as I think it would be helpful), so I'll lead off with my own shortly.

Beyond that statement of appreciation, there are some notable things about Denul's list. First of all, he doesn't mention Eloth or GL at all in this post. Is there a good reason for that? Given that subsequently he was casting doubt on Eloth, we may be able to rule out that he was symping him (although, distancing?). I don't remember any interaction between him and GL though. Of the players he does mention, Ampelas and Rikkter have both bought it, but all the others are still in the game. There is perhaps a slight indication that he is trying to pull attention away from Shadow here (by calling him "almost too scummy"), but nothing to signify a bias towards or away from any of the other players.

In conclusion, I would say that if Denul is a symp, he is either symping GL or Shadow. I have not decided for myself whether I think that's actually what's going on, just throwing that out there as a hypothetical. I'll come up with my own opinion list shortly.


EDIT: Getting the parentheses to match up.

This post has been edited by Okral Lom: 24 April 2014 - 04:44 PM

[Eloth]

Lock, on 24 April 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

I don't disagree that Denul also talking about that is suspicious-looking, and I will be looking at them also, but to call your own post, which brought it up in the first place, as a mere "aside" is disingenuous.

I saw what you had written back when you posted it, but I kept quiet because I didn't want to highlight it any further, in case Ampelas really was a warlord. But at the time and even more so now, I couldn't help wondering what in the fuck made you say that out here on thread. If it was a mere "aside", it sure as fuck could have been a dangerous one, and one you should have known not to mention at all and kept to yourself if you are town.

You saying, 'Nice one Denul' is pure hypocrisy. You're either an idiot who dodged a bullet because Ampelas turned out not to be a warlord, or more likely - considering the rest of your play has been solid - putting the thought out there, in the middle of a 'case' on Ampelas (a case which ultimately even by your own admission went nowhere, making it look even more like a case set up solely for a single purpose) was done while fully cognizant of the potential repurcussions.

Ok, first, about Denul - the comment was hypocritical, I'll actually agree with that, what made me angry is that he singled it out so clearly yet AGAIN for no apparent reason. I did mention it as well, obviously, but I don't think that justifies Denul's accusation when he has actually been the one discussing the subject the most ALL GAME.

I was doing a full reread on Amp and that is the only post of any worth that he made BEFORE I said I was going to read up on him. I mentioned it at the time because I honestly didn't think I was bringing up anything new - in fact it was Tiam's immediate response that caught my eye more than anything while looking at that interaction.

I was not even remotely the first person to notice Amp's post about Warlords - and you're saying I spent however many hours going through all of Amp's posts (as I said I would DAYS ago) just to highlight for the fourth or fifth time (on thread) a comment he made on day 1? Seriously?

[Eloth]

Lock, on 24 April 2014 - 04:40 PM, said:

Eloth, on 24 April 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

Lock, on 24 April 2014 - 04:16 PM, said:

I was wondering who might bring up my interaction with Ampelas just before he died, and I'm not surprised that it's you, Eloth.

So your theory is that, as a possible scum killer who's not drawn any attention thus far, I've decided to blatantly tease and taunt Ampelas on thread just before killing him off? Thank you for your lack of confidence in me


I didn't include myself in the middle-of-the-road post because, duh, why should I? I don't suspect myself, funnily enough.

Yeah, actually, my confidence in you has been shaken fairly hard by your play since Rikkter was lynched. Why aren't you surprised? Why does it look so convenient that you upped your post count with a player about to die so that you wouldn't be obviously included when you call out the players who are in the middle of the post count?

And uh, duh, you don't SUSPECT yourself but you don't pretend you aren't playing either. If I come out and say "Let's look look at the low-posters, probably one of these two low-posters are scum"...and yet I'm actually the lowest poster in the game, that is pretty fucking suspicious. You almost can't make an argument like that without deliberately turning it on yourself.

Why aren't I surprised? Because the person who I've openly said has jumped near the top of my suspect list now suddenly also has a boner for me? Yeah, colour me not surprised

You make waaay too much of me not including myself and trying to pin something on me through that - since when has not suspecting yourself been a cause for suspicion? If everyone else wants to include me in their suspect list, that's their business. I don't need to do it myself, for pretty damn obvious reasons.

In any event, I'm not going to make a case on the basis of who's in the middle of the post count (as you seem to be trying to do - but then, why aren't you including yourself, Eloth? ). That was, to borrow a nice word from you, an "aside" which you seem to have now seized upon in somewhat desperate fashion.



Edit: Changed 'not' to 'now'.

Whatever, it looks like you are trying to sweep whatever I said under the rug by falling back on just pointing the finger at me because I pointed the finger at you...because you pointed the finger at me. Did you even read what I said. "And uh, duh, you don't SUSPECT yourself but you don't pretend you aren't playing either." The suspicious part is that you actually were in the group you said needed to be looked at and left yourself out. If you even look back just through this game, any time people start separating players into groups (for example, who was or wasn't around during the Korabas reveal), everyone includes themselves - even if it puts them in the group that is "suspicious." Because it would be super fucking suspicious NOT to do that. That is why it seems that I have a nice round hard-on for you at the moment. I said "Oh, Lock or Shadow must be scum" to mock you. I quoted you directly, if you reread. I was simply illustrating how ridiculous that statement appears (thanks for confirming that for me), not making a real argument.

[Okral Lom]

Got halfway through my list then realised I was late for a pressing engagement. Will be back to post it in ~4 hours, apologies.