Moriya Shrine Revolution Mafia - Game Over!

[Ouja]

When was I absolute sure that Steven Stone is scummy?

[Ouja]

EBWOP: absolutely sure of him being scum, not scummy.

[Ryuki]

Sure, I'll roll up my sleeves for a bit. I voted for Shoe in part because I wanted to see how far she'd run with this weak argument against Stone. As much as you espouse D1 as important, you sure are wasting a lot of time on Stone instead of explaining your other 'probabilities'.

Why the hell are you morons voting Stone Mason? He has at least a 75% chance of being town at this point! Seriously, it's a damn good thing Wacky brought me in. Without the power of the mathemagic lattice, you all would be lost, and lynching a likely innocent.

I'd say Mr. Stone has reached approximately 50% chance of being scum, assuming a starting chance of between 25 and 33%, as is normal for this game. Sailor Moon is probably 40ish%. Stone Mason, the good Stone, is at about a 20% chance given the early wagon. There are other percentages involved but this should give you basic idea of my probability based scumhunting.

You seem to be a bit fond of the Mason, and put SM at 40% yet never bothered to elaborate. You used a whole lot of words to say "Stone's roleclaiming is kinda scummish and bad play", and put him at a whopping 50% chance of being scum. Yet I don't see a comparable argument for having such a high confidence rating in Mason, especially when the only thing he's done so far is NotVote and get early wagoned. Unless you're already softclaiming that is, which I think we've already been over why that's a bad idea.


Ninja'd: He was talking about Miyako, that not this Stone that you guys seem to be fixated on so badly.

 

[W]

Fantastic Shoe. I'd be right there with you if I wasn't busy lynching the incredibly scummy Miyako. Steven Stone is now my second candidate. GJ

If he's scummy, you should be lynching him. If he's scum you should be lynching him. You sound like you wouldn't lynch him for being one of these. Your vote switch remains a pathetic veil to actual scumhunting.

[Kick Hopper]

@ ShOe: BrO, i rEaLlY CaNt sEe nO FuCkIn sCuMmY InTeNt iN StEvE'S PoSt, JuSt nUlL TeLlS AlL Up aRoUnD. HiS BlUrB AbOuT MaSoNs aCtUaLlY SeEmS MoRe lIkE An oVeRcAuTiOuS NeWbIe tO Me tHaN ScUm aTtEmPtInG To rAiLrOaD Us iNtO OuTiNg oR DiScUsSiNg rOlEs, EvEn iF It wAs uNnEsSeCaRy aS MoThErFuCk. PlUs iT Is hIgHlY UnLiKeLy hE WoUlD HaVe sUcCeEdEd eVeN If hE WaS TrYiNg tO OuT RoLeS, aSsUmInG ToWn hAs tHe fUcKiN GuMpTiOn nOt tO ClAiM Or sEt-uP SpEcUlAtE As sOoN As sOmEbOdY BrInGs uP MaSoNrY. sTiLl ThOuGh. i aM NoT VoTiNg yOu bEcAuSe yOu'rE VoTiNg sOmEbOdY FoR DeRp, I'M VoTiNg yOu bEcAuSe i fEeL LiKe yOu'rE TrYiNg tO PaInT DeRp aS ScUmMiNeSs fOr aN EaSy mIsLyNcH.

AlSo, ThE MaFiA ThEoRy wAsN'T WhAt i wAs tAlKiNg aBoUt wHeN I SaId yOu wErE FlUfFy, UnLeSs tAlKiNg aBoUt wIs aNd iNt aNd sHiT LiKe tHaT Is cOnSiDeReD "mAfIa tHeOrY".

[Punch Hopper]

@Evangaline: Ah, so that's the issue. I reserve the right to keep towntells secret, since it makes them less useful in future games. It's not too hard to figure out with a bit of effort though.

* Shoe thinks a bit

Hmm...actually, this towntell fluctuates enough anyway and it's hard to control. It's also not strongly reliable. So I'll grant you it. He was an early wagon and reacted to it decently. Hence the 75% of being town. Do not forget that most players have between a 66 and 75% chance of being town at the start of the game anyway, given simple probability. I'm giving him the higher end of that because of the early wagon. Be thankful the great Shoe has parted this gem of wisdom to one such as yourself.

Ah, that fluff my illiterate friend. Well, this setting is conducive to being ourselves, ne? I've tried to mostly separate out from the meat of what I'm saying. Usually a fluff paragraph is purely fluff, and then I get to the meat. I hope this pattern assists you in the future. As for the "getting an easy mislynch for derp reasons", I really don't see how that is at all happening, or how I could hope for that to happen? Honestly, you and everyone voting me is far more guilty of that than I am. Is hypocrisy a "fukken miracle" as well?

I respect your decision to disagree. Honestly, it's not impossible you're right. I've interpretted it my way, you've interpretted it yours. Neither really furthers a scum agenda. I still don't see how I'm scummy for my attacks, and do not accept your reasoning. It still reads as noob reasoning as opposed to scum reasoning. I implore you to think this through and actually analyze things, rather than derping onto my wagon because it's popular.

I suppose the crux of it is, what makes my actions more likely to be pushing for an "easy mislynch" than anyone else's thus far?

[Ryuki]

He was an early wagon and reacted to it decently. Hence the 75% of being town.

... he reacted to it? You and I must be looking at different Stone Masons.

[Kick Hopper]

... he reacted to it? You and I must be looking at different Stone Masons.

fOr ThAt MaTtEr, WhY tHe MoThErFuCk WoUlD hE rEaCt PoOrLy To An EaRlY d1 WaGoN aNyWaY? iT wOuLd TaKe a FuCkIn MiRaClE fOr SoMeBoDy To GeT lYnChEd OvEr A rAnDoMvOtE wAgOn In ThE rVs.

[Punch Hopper]

Memory fail. I rolled a 1 on that INT check. As I said, I'm only right 95% of the time .

You are quite correct he has, indeed, not actually posted a reply yet. How disturbing. The early D1 wagon still implies he's more likely to be town in my eyes, but, as I said, only to the extent of reaching the higher bound for "natural" towniness. i.e. 25% chance of being scum or 75% chance of being town. For the sake of simplicity I count third parties are scum. I think the wagon on him was silly. I think the wagon on me is sillier though. I think wagons on Mr. Stone would be quite awesome right now :3c.

@Gamzee: Well, I'm sure subtlety is hardly something you understand, my illiterate friend. There would be a subtle difference between a scum and town reaction to the wagon. I mistakenly thought he had provided such a reaction when justifying my town read. Admittedly, the stronger basis for my town read is that he's an early D1 wagon, which more often land on town by sheer probability. Given the probable bounds I've outlined, this is not inconsistent.

That clear enough for you all? I'm guessing now you are going to say the fact I misremembered Stone Mason's participation is a clear sign I'm scum with cognitive dissonance, I bet? It'd be foolish to go there, since, amazingly enough, inconsistency isn't actually scummy, just irritating. I'm sure this theory will blow your minds, but it's true. Inconsistency is actually more likely to come from town. There exists scummy inconsistency, of course, but it's not a broad brush you can use. So, if you choose to use the argument outlined, please theorize for me why my misremembrance advances the cause of scum, i.e. where my scum intent would be.

In fact, while we're at it, I'd like to see an outline of where I've demonstrated scum intent and why, from everyone voting me. It'd be really helpful. I'm kinda sick of the vague accusations that actually make no sense for scum to engage in.

[Ouja]

If he's scummy, you should be lynching him. If he's scum you should be lynching him. You sound like you wouldn't lynch him for being one of these. Your vote switch remains a pathetic veil to actual scumhunting.

Note that the one who has now earned my vote posted directly after I posted that. If someone else seems more curious to pursue, then it stands to reason I'll pursue that person. Day 1 begins with jokes. Then someone makes an oops. Someone will capitalise on the oops and others will agree or disagree. I happen to agree, but also aim at an alternative who I thought a worthier choice of pursuit. Why? Call it a hunch.

I see no reason why I should be putting Steven higher than Evangeline (or should've, now that she's explained herself, which I will get to in a moment), given that the D1 First Case is always built on sloppy reasons, and Scummiest Person is Scummiest Person, even if 2% scummy is Scummiest in light of 1% scummy on everyone else.

It isn't rocket science that it's easy to change people's minds Early D1 on Who Is A Good Person To Pursue.

[Ouja]

Sure, I'll roll up my sleeves for a bit. I voted for Shoe in part because I wanted to see how far she'd run with this weak argument against Stone.

I'm going to put a question mark here: you say "in part"... what is the other "part" to voting Shoe?

[Kabuto]

Saki: Eh. I guess that makes enough sense for now. ##Unvote

Shoe's whole probability deal feels like she's been caught trying to roleplay a little too hard by listing all her suspicions as probabilities. Evangeline is overselling it a little, and again it doesn't read as scummy, but rather as what the internet would call 'LOLcat'. I know, I've been stuck in the cruddy thing for who knows how long.
Explaining what Stuff was trying to say in the ninja here is also offputting from the little girl.

Gamzee, Gamzee, Gamzee. You're really starting to look pretty cruddy to me now.
All the reasoning for a case on Saki followed by jumping on the easy Shoe case? Check.

i aM NoT VoTiNg yOu bEcAuSe yOu'rE VoTiNg sOmEbOdY FoR DeRp, I'M VoTiNg yOu bEcAuSe i fEeL LiKe yOu'rE TrYiNg tO PaInT DeRp aS ScUmMiNeSs fOr aN EaSy mIsLyNcH.

OK, I'm going to have to ask you where exactly there's a line here. No-one is cruddy well going to say 'I think Steven is a moron, and for that reason alone I'm going to ##Vote: Steven'. This is all in all a pretty cruddy reason to jump on a rather cruddy wagon.
And perhaps most blatantly, this post here has him jumping on Evangeline's point, which was already derp. So it's a player blatantly borrowing from a derp case on a derp player, which is one derp too many to just be plain derp.

##Vote: Gamzee

[Den-O]

Alright, let me get this out of the way first off.  YOU PEOPLE ARE POSTING TOO MUCH SHIT!  I had high hopes that maybe people were starting to realize that giant walls of text and petty post-by-post bickering only leads to an easy game for scum, but I guess I must be an optimist after all.

I'll keep this concise.  Saki's sarcasm is annoying as hell but not scummy.  Steven Stone's mason comment is derp but not scummy.

Shoe's the one that raises my hackles.  That abrasiveness, that stubbornness, she's playing it up way too much to be believable.  I don't see any townie intent there, and I'm not going to believe that she's just making an ass of herself "to try and draw out scum."  Grandstanding like that is never pro-town, and I don't believe that Shoe is enough of a newbie to think it is.

##Vote: Shoe

[Kick Hopper]

Admittedly, the stronger basis for my town read is that he's an early D1 wagon, which more often land on town by sheer probability. Given the probable bounds I've outlined, this is not inconsistent.

It iS, hOwEvEr, CoMpLeTeLy mOtHeRfUcKiN RiDiCuLoUs. HaViNg a eD1 wAgOn lAnDiNg aLl uP On sOmEbOdY ShOuLd iN No wAy mAkE ThEm lOoK AnY BeTtEr, BeCaUsE ScUm cAn hAvE Ed1 WaGoNs lAnD On tHeM ToO. yEs, ScUm aRe a mInOrItY, bUt tHaT DoEsN'T MeAn a eD1 wAgOn cAn't lAnD On tHeM. iN FaCt tHeRe aRe a lOt oF ThInGs tHaT CaN HaPpEn oN Ed1 ThAt aRe mOrE LiKeLy tO HaPpEn tO A ToWnIe tHaN ScUm sInCe tOwNiEs oUtNuMbEr sCuM, bUt iT Is cOmPlEtElY IlLoGiCaL To aCtUaLlY ThInK BeTtEr oF SoMeBoDy bEcAuSe sOmEtHiNg lIkE ThAt hApPeNeD To tHeM BeCaUsE ChAnCe iS InCrEdIbLy mOtHeRfUcKiN ShItTy lOgIc.

I AlReAdY SaId tHaT I BeLiEvE YoUr vOtE On sTeVe wAs sCuM InTeNt, BeCaUsE It cOmEs oFf tO Me tHaT YoU WeRe pAiNtInG HiS BaD PlAy aS ScUmMy pLaY In aN AtTeMpT To gEt a mIsLyNcH.

[Punch Hopper]

Oh my! It's another fool! They seem to be coming out in DROVES today. So, lemme get this straight. I'm scum because...I'm supposedly a little too abrasive and stubborn? And this makes me scum how? Um...how does this further the scum's cause? You use my nice little turn of phrase regarding intent, but, um...are you really using it properly?

Let's go to mafia 101. What is townie intent? What is scummy intent? How am I not displaying one? How am I displaying the other? You're going to have to answer those to get away with voting me, you know.

As for "drawing out scum", no, actually, it appears a side effect of being me is to draw out people who can't think. It's really quite depressing to know there are five of you so utterly FOOLISH as to try to get this bare bones case off the ground on me. You have nothing. If you have something, state it. If not, shut up and scum hunt.

At this point the wagon on me is coalescing a few probabilities. We've reached the barrier where it is incredibly likely someone is scum on it. Before you claim I'm claiming that I meant to draw out scum, no, that's not the case. It was a side effect as well, it seems. My knee jerk response is our friend Sandor is the scum, seeing a healthy wagon and jumping on it for shit reasons. Evangeline and Gamzee looks kinda sucky though at this point too, for different reasons. John is pretty solid, despite his reasoning being flawed, I have no issue with him. Sailor Ditz hasn't posted enough to determine the intent of her vote, but I lean town just because it was fairly early on an uncertain wagon.

So, here's what we have. Out of Gamzee, Evangeline, and Sandor, we have scum. I know it's early D1 but now we're actually getting somewhere, I think. I'm...actually too low on information at this point to pick which one. I think once all three elaborate on their reasoning, we'll have a stronger bead. After all, if I'm so certainly scum, you all MUST have good reasoning, right? Good, solid, townie intended reasoning? Don't be shy now, out with it :3c.

Ah, ninja:

See, Gamzee, you still prove yourself illiterate. I've said SEVERAL TIMES it's a minor town tell. i.e., not major. He's not a good lynch today. Anyway, you still haven't demonstrated how I'm "painting Stone as scum for an easy mislynch". That's part of intent you know. You've asserted something that has NO backing. That's not acceptable.

Quite frankly, if anyone is going for an easy mislynch...

It's you.

Either way, one more chance. How am I painting Mr. Stone as scum illogically? How am I pushing a mislynch on him? Where does my logic fail? Where is the misrepresentation? You've provided none of these. Please come up with them or I'll be forced to assume you don't have the town's interests at heart.

[Ouja]

While I'm on it still...

@Stuffman: I'd still like to know how you arrived at the idea that I "was sure Steven is scum". Your initial vote on me queries why I moved my first vote to a "prod vote". This implies, to me, that you do not see how "voting with bad reasons" is worse than "jokevote is third on bandwagon". I'd like to ask why you take issue with me moving my vote from "jokevote is third on bandwagon = scum" to "voting on someone for having crappy reasons with a crappy reason = scum". You've devoted all your attention to me so far, so I think it's only fair you explain why I take priority over all else.

[DiEnd]

Holy fuck you guys post a lot. If I had to read all these walls I'm not going to get any work done for PoSR.

QFT

I don't really see why Shoe looks so scummy, although I do think she's trying too hard to find scum and falling into MotK tradition of ultimately lynching derptown. I think someone already stated this, actually. Her play reminds me strikingly of a certain someone who tends to be transparently town *shifty eyes*

I don't agree with Shoe's vote on Stone, but I don't think she's scum either. ##Unvote

This was originally going to be the rest of my post except it only takes a moment to realize how incredibly stupid it is. It's logic is so circularly incriminating and ridiculous that it makes my head spin. But it's also really amusing to look back at.

The more recent turn of events leads me back to looking at Gamzee, whom I was also looking at during my last post in the game. Yeah, Gamzee has brought up lots of good points, but... at the same time, he just seems to be a late jumper onto the Shoe wagon that I've voiced my feelings on earlier in this post. He's also, IMO, exaggerating Shoe's fluffiness to make it seem bad when, really, it's pretty tame and accompanied by plenty of actual contribution.

##Vote:Gamzee

...oh dear. Did it really take that long to make my post?

[Kick Hopper]

LiKe i aLrEaDy mEnTiOnEd, I InTeRpReTeD StEvEn's mEnTiOn oF MaSoNrY As hIm sImPlY BeInG An oVeRcAuTiOuS NeWbIe, WaNtInG To bRiNg sOmEtHiNg uP WiThOuT AnYbOdY GeTtInG On hIs cAsE If a rArE PoSsIbIlItY (iE MaSoNs) CoUnTeReD It, AnD He wAs oVeRtHiNkInG As a rEsUlT. iT SeEmS LiKe yOu aRe tRyInG ToO HaRd tO PaInT ThIs aS RoLeFiShInG AnD As iF He wAs uSiNg iT To tRy tO StEeR ThE DiScUsSiOnS ToWaRdS MaSoNrY RaThEr tHaN JuSt pOiNt oUt hOw yOu aNd sToNe mAsOn hAd dEfEnDeD EaChOtHeR. tHoUgH HoNeStLy, I'D NeEd a mIrAcLe tO ClEaRlY TeLl sTeVeN'S InTeNtIoNs cOnSiDeRiNg tHaT He hAsN'T MaDe aNy pOsTs sInCe. BuT ThE WaY He wEnT AbOuT It hE MaDe iT SeEmS LiKe hE WaS UsInG PoTeNtIaL MaSoNrY To eXpLaIn wHy hE WaS NoT GoInG ThRoUgH WiTh hIs pOtEnTiAl vOtE (wHiCh iSn't aCtUaLlY ThAt mOtHeRfUcKiN GrEaT, bUt lAsT I ReCaLl tHaT'S NoT WhY YoU JuMpEd oN HiM) rAtHeR ThAn uSiNg hIs pOtEnTiAl vOtE To dRaW OuT MaSoN ClAiMs/dIsCuSsIoN.

nInjA'd By SaIlOr MoOn. It iS PrEtTy fUcKiN WeIrD ThAt sHe iS AlL FlAuNtIn' An oLd pOsT Of hErS ThAt sHe aDmItS Is bAd.

[Punch Hopper]

<Good.>

The thoughts have been clarified, and I can now explore it. The first part is entirely possible. I've never said it's not. In fact, I think I stated our respective opinions on his behavior, at this point, are null tells. Now, if he was overthinking, that bugs me. Generally town can be more transparent and just play things straight. Scum would be more interested in overthinking to cover their ass. So, I'd argue that in and of itself is scummy, but we'll go on. OK.

iT SeEmS LiKe yOu aRe tRyInG ToO HaRd tO PaInT ThIs aS RoLeFiShInG AnD As iF He wAs uSiNg iT To tRy tO StEeR ThE DiScUsSiOnS ToWaRdS MaSoNrY RaThEr tHaN JuSt pOiNt oUt hOw yOu aNd sToNe mAsOn hAd dEfEnDeD EaChOtHeR.

This is the crux of things. This is where we differ heavily. I don't see how it's NOT rolefishing. I also don't see how it is scummy to paint it as such. I don't see any scum intent in calling him out on rolefishing and railroading, especially when I admitted I'm amenable to an explanation, which as of yet has not been provided.

Also, going to split hairs here. The only defense going on so far is me of Stone Mason for what I perceive to be a weak town tell. That could be important in the future.

Anyway, my understanding is that you think I'm scum for calling Steven Stone out on what I perceived to be rolefishing, and trying to push his lynch. You believe it was noobish overcautiousness. What's missing here is how this is at all an "easy mislynch", or how my accusations translate to scumminess, since you've never directly discredited them, merely offered an alternate theory. There's a missing link I'd like. How does it go from "Shoe accuses Steven Stone of rolefishing and railroading with scum intent" to "Shoe is pushing an easy mislynch". Further, how does this logic work with your own admittedly dubious actions of jumping on a wagon with less than stellar reasoning? As far as I can tell, the case on me doesn't exist in the realm of logic, and is further hypocritical given your own position. Why am I not an easy mislynch whereas Steven is? What makes your case on me stronger than mine on Steven? I believe that this is part of the key to understanding your loyalties and thought process. So, let me clearly delineate my questions:

1. You are voting me because I called out Steven on rolefishing and railroading, where you have an alternate theory where he's just noob town, and thusly I am the one going for an easy mislynch?

2.  How does it go from "Shoe accuses Steven Stone of rolefishing and railroading with scum intent" to "Shoe is pushing an easy mislynch"? What is the missing link here?

3.  How does this logic work with your own admittedly dubious actions of jumping on a wagon with less than stellar reasoning?

4. Why am I not an easy mislynch whereas Steven is?

5. What makes your case on me stronger than mine on Steven?

(Most of these are ripped straight from the above paragraphs.)

All I want is a logical case, and to understand how your thoughts work. It will both help me determine if you are the opportunist, as well as help us move on from this silliness and catch scum.

[Kiva-la]

I didn't sign up for this 'vacation' to read all day long.  Nor did I sign up to have to wade through this crap; Arguments about fluff are, themselves, fluff. As for the rest of what you all have to say, I'll get back to that tomorrow, when I have more time. Until then, let me give you all a helping hand:

- Stone Mason isn't any more or less likely to be scum just because a wagon was built on him, that's WIFOM.

- There is at least one scum from the Shoe train, and more than likely one from the Stone Mason train as well.

- Don't just look at what is being said--it is scum's MO to lie and deceive you into an early grave--look beyond that.

- Bad play (newb play) is a null tell, pure and simple. Anybody who tries to argue otherwise is just smokescreening, and likely scum, since seriously what could ever convince you that bad play is a tell in either direction.

There is more, but I am short on time. Until then, folks.

[Kick Hopper]

MoThErFuCk, OkAy, FiRsT Of aLl, I ThInK I MaY Be uSiNg tHe tErM "eAsY MiSlYnCh" InCoRrEcTlY, oR At lEaSt mEaNiNg sOmEtHiNg eLsE WhEn i sAy iT. wHaT I'Ve bEeN MeAnInG Is tHaT I FeEl iF He's a tOwNiE, sTeVeN Is gEnErAlLy iDeAl fOr sCuM To pUrSuE Or sTaRt a wAgOn oN, sInCe hE StArTeD OfF WiTh bAd pLaY/GeNeRaL DeRpInEsS ThAt wOuLd bE ReAlLy eAsY To cOnStRuE As sCuM-MiNdEd, WhIlE It iS In rEaLiTy sImPlY BaD PlAy. It gOeS FrOm "ShOe aCcUsEs sTeVeN StOnE Of rOlEfIsHiNg aNd rAiLrOaDiNg wItH ScUm iNtEnT" tO "sHoE Is pUsHiNg aN EaSy mIsLyNcH" bEcAuSe i bElIeVe yOu aRe uSiNg tHe fIrSt tO Do tHe lAtTeR.

I DoN'T SeE HoW My rEaSoNiNg wAs wOrSe tHaN, sAy, JoHn's, CoNsIdErInG ThAt iF I'M ReAdInG HiS PoSt cOrReCtLy, My mAiN ReAsOnS FoR VoTiNg yOu aRe pReTtY SiMiLiAr. I... rEaLlY DiDn't eXpLaIn tHeM VeRy wElL At fIrSt pRoBaBlY (wHiCh iS LiKeLy tHe mAiN IsSuE HeRe, BuT UgH), BuT I FeLt i wAs aT LeAsT LeAdInG Up tO ThEm iN #38 (tHoUgH At tHe tImE I WaS ReFrAiNiNg fRoM AcCuSiNg aNyOnE SiNcE I WaNtEd tO SeE A BiT MoRe fRoM YoU AnD StEvEn).

I FeEl tHe cAsE On yOu iS StRoNgEr tHaN YoUrS On sTeVeN BeCaUsE WhAt yOu dId tHaT Is bEiNg aCcUsEd oF HaViNg sCuM InTeNt wAs aCtUaLlY DoNe, WhIlE StEvEn's rOlEfIsHiNg tHaT YoU ArE InTeRpReTiNg aS ScUmMy dOeSn't aCtUaLlY CoMpLeTeLy eXiSt. ThE CaSe oN YoU OnLy hAs oNe aLtErNaTe iNtErPrEtAtIoN, tHe cAsE On sTeVeN HaS TwO (nAmElY ThAt hE MaDe hIs pOsT WiTh sCuMmY InTeNt, AnD ThAt sAiD ScUmMy iNtEnT WaS To rOlEfIsH).

[Ouja]

Please, for the sake of humanity... can you stop your random capitalisation, Gamzee? Please?

[Kick Hopper]

i could, but man, it feels all fuckin unnatural and shit. i'm pretty sure there's a program out there that all translates stuff like that into normal text, but i guess i can stop until i find it.

[Punch Hopper]

INCORRECT! Your first paragraph is laughable since by all means anyone attacked for any reason is an "easy mislynch". Again, you have not adequately demonstrated how this at all differs from my situation, quite a more obvious case of being an "easy mislynch", since, as you know, I'm at L-3 for really shitty reasons. If Steven is so ideal, why has my vote been the only one on him all game it seems?

Your reasoning was worse because it wasn't all on the table, as well as the fact it sounds like you're making it up as I press you, whereas John showed his work within the first couple posts. Or maybe I just like John better :3c. Either way, fact remains that it took quite a few posts of back and forth between us to get to the crux of your "case". Why did it take so long for you to get to explaining the situation clearly? That's what bugs me about the way you've attacked. That and your position on the wagon.

And your last paragraph is laughable because it is BLATENTLY FALSE :O! You've decided suddenly that your word is LAW, and it is not. Your "interpretation" of my actions is the ONLY version of events that allows for your conclusion. I haven't DONE anything except pushed a case on someone who was scummier than the others for awhile. Your argument is INHERENTLY subjective, since it requires both me to be scum and Steven to be town, two things no one except scum would know. It's quite easy to see my early actions as trying to get the game moving and trying to find scum, cause guess what? That's what they WERE. Just as it's easy to see Steven's action as rolefishing and railroading. Or, as you interpret, overcautious noobiness. But, you know what's great about that? You even admit yourself the fact Steven was using the mason to refrain from a vote is scummy!

So, from my perspective, I see no difference. What we have here is blatant hypocrisy. Allow me to chain the events!

Shoe attacks Steven Stone for rolefishing and railroading. She quite reasonably leaves the door open for counterargument. It's early D1, it's not likely anything will stick, but pressure will lead to information.

Others attack Shoe because supposedly she's picking on a newbie, which is unfounded given the very format of this game. Gamzee jumps in uncertainly testing the waters. When the wagon appears to be taking off, he jumps on.

Gamzee provides minimal reasoning, mostly piggy backing off of the supposed "easy mislynch" logic, as well as trying to add fluff to the situation. Overstating the fluff, for that matter. He backs off this tangent when it appears to not stick. I wonder why.

After several posts of back and forth between Shoe and Gamzee, we finally get to the crux of his argument, being that Shoe is supposedly going for an easy mislynch. Gamzee has nothing to support this claim, except the idea that Steven Stone is "an ideal scum target". He has provided no evidence to support this claim, and in fact the voting records HEAVILY imply otherwise.

Gamzee further claims that Shoe "actually did what she was accused of", despite the fact that what's she's accused of is quite speculative and subjective, JUST AS THE CASE ON STEVEN STONE!

Gamzee then claims that the situations are different, demonstrating a strong case of cognitive dissonance and ignorance of the facts at the least, and scummy hypocrisy, wherein he accuses Shoe of the very thing HE HIMSELF is guilty of!

DO YOU DISPUTE ANYTHING IN THIS CHAIN OF EVENTS, GAMZEE MAKARA!!!!

* Shoe glows with an unearthly light, appearing to prepare to cast a spell at Gamzee, firmly aware of her upper hand.

I await your response, but I also would like to interrogate Evangeline and Sandor as well, as the other two scum suspects. As I said, there's still a possibility you are unaware of your hypocrisy and were somehow quite mislead on the voting facts.

(I think I've been playing too much Umineko T_T;)

[Sasword]

Pile up the votes, get a lynch, and look at the bandwagon and vote switches afterwards.  This is the way to play D1, not by some weird and useless theorizing.  Past games have proven that very little of the info gotten out of suppsedly 'serious' D1 discussions in the previous games have actually mattered at all in later days, so why are you guys still intent on all of this sadness?  Motives come from bandwagons, not from 'serious cases'.  Also, it's not as if a random L-5 vote is the end of the world, Razeluxe.

##Unvote: Stone Mason
##Vote: Gamezee

Defending Steven Stone was uncalled for.  You could say that it was a springboard for a case against Shoe, but why encourage Saki to vote for Steven in that case?  If she did, would you have voted her too?

[Skull]

You windbags with the flapping jobbers don't make following this easy.

Response to wagon: I ain't afraid of votes, I got nothing to hide. I'm afraid of knife kills without being able to protect the shrine. Also of putting the smack down on folks who don't deserve it.

One bit of warning towards Shoe: Be agreeing with your logic, but incorrectly thinking I had a response prior makes me think you know something. You are correct however, I have a Town alignment. You seem to have a head on your shoulders, but one's always got to be wary of the smart ones.

Be looking at everyone individually if time permits. Those with lower participation, kindly do an old man a favor and interact a little. Gives me more to consider.

For now, want to pressure Gamzee. And thank you for stopping the alternating capitalization. Figured it would be one of dem ROT13 dealies.
##Gamzee Makara

[Decade]

I-I'm very sorry that I have arrived so late.......I've brought tea for everyone!  O..Oh, Mr. MacStew, if there is anything you would like I would be happy to fetch it for you.

I am unsure of what to think of Mr. Stone.....I apologize, but he has made two posts and it is hard to tell what he's thinking from those two posts.  Right now, I agree more with the people that say he is more....what's the term?  derp?  derpy?  than he is scummy, so I don't find him worth pursuing right now....I'll keep an eye on him, but I think he would be a bad lynch at this point in time.

However, since he is difficult to read, I don't think the people that find him scummy are traitors for that reason alone.  I....I really do not understand why people are attacking Miss Shoe for this (Is Miss correct?  I-I am not not too familiar with cats).  While, if Mr. Stone is town, such a move would be easy to attack I do understand why people would think he is trecherous for it.  Miss Shoe has also seemed very interested in rooting out the traitors so that Miss Moriya's glorious name can remain on her shrine, so I do not understand why people are attacking her for this.  In fact, her wagon has grown worryingly large.....I agree that there is at least one traitor on this wagon....

Um...I believe that Mr. Clegane is most likely treacherous.  He hopped onto Miss Shoe's wagon for reasons that.....I do not understand.  How does being abrasive make one more likely to be working with Miss Yasaka?  I do not even understand why you think that she is trying to draw out the traitors with this abrasiveness.  How would acting in such a manner draw anything but irritation from everyone?  In my opinion, she has been trying to root out who the traitors are....In fact, I think she is much like Miss Ange Ushiromiya in that regard....Difficult to be around sometimes, but they both work very hard to uncover the truth.  I find this to be a complete null tell, and since this is your only reason for voting Miss Shoe it looks like a very blatant bandwagon hop.  Why aren't more people making note of this?

##Vote Sandor Clegane

I am unsure of what to think of Miss McDowell.

I voted for Shoe in part because I wanted to see how far she'd run with this weak argument against Stone.

How does voting for Miss Shoe change whether or not she would stay on Mr. Stone?  Could you outline your entire case on Miss Shoe please?  I apologize if I am misunderstanding your words, but you make it sound like there is more to your case than that....

.....I also do not like the wagon forming on Mr. Makara.  He does not look good, but I find him unlikely to be a traitor.  The only things that are making him look bad are that he....um..."piggybacked" on Mr. McClaine's weak case and then continued to pursue the weak case.  I do not think the latter makes him treacherous since it is D1 and most cases made will be weak.  He is absolutely right that he and Mr. McClaine have near identical reasoning and yet no one is calling out Mr. McClaine for his, which is unsettling.....I do find it unlikely that either of them are traitors simply for sticking with such a weak case.  They both seem to believe in what they're saying, so I do not find them worth pursuing at this moment. 

I also find Mr. StuffMan troubling.  I understand that it is best for people to vote for the person that they think is most likely to be working against our gracious host, but....that is exactly what Miss Marimi is doing.  I thought it was quite clear that's what she was doing from this quote:

Yes, that puts [Miss McDowell] above Steven Stone's "I'm not going to vote because of unlikely reason x".

....I do not see how any other interpretation could come from that.  I  would also like to hear Mr. StuffMan's answers to Miss Marimi's questions.  I am also very....surprised that no one else besides Miss Marimi has said anything about Mr. StuffMan.

[Decade]

EBWOP:

I hit post instead of preview before I mentioned the people on the Mr. Makara wagon that troubled me.  My apologies.  I do not like Miss Miyamura's and Mr. Mason's votes.  Mr. Mason's vote looks particularly bad because it really is just an unreasoned bandwagon hop.  I do not understand Miss Miyamura's reasoning either.  Why is it wrong to defend someone you think is town?  Am I scum for defending Miss Shoe and Mr. Makara?  Why is Mr. Makara worse than Mr. McClaine in this regard?

[Halloween Alice]

The reason I've always heard is that you can't defend someone else cause there's no way of knowing which side they're on.  Personally, I think that's shit.  Bad calls are bad calls, and you don't need to know jack all about the person the call's made on in order to know what's being said about 'em is bunk.  Not to say that sometimes this ain't a terrorist out to help his buddy, but that just means the bastards are tricky, and you need to read carefully when something like that happens in order to see if they're attacking the call, which is what you should be doing if you're serious about hunting terrorists, or if they're defending the target, which is a classic terrorist ploy.

Also, glad to see Gamgee's speaking proper English now.  Swear that stuff was giving me a headache.

[Sasword]

The reason why I can't stand someone defending another person is because you have no idea whether that person is scum or town, especially on D1,  This is especially so when Stone has not put anything of note so far and when there is only one vote of him; there is no danger of him being lynched yet anyway.  Defending him when he's close to being lynched and when he has a substantial amount of townie credit (voting scum in past days, etc.), that's fine.  When he is not in anyway close to being lynched, and when he has had little to his name?  No.

If there are standing accusations against a person, then why don't you let that person himself answer to them and make the cases, even if you personally disagree with these accusations?  His personal reaction will tell you much more about his alignment than what you could even find out by defending him; if you think he's really town.   

 "Reading deeply" into the words of both the target and the accuser as a third-person gives far more perspective than your defense of defending anyway, McClane, especially when the person is nowhere near being lynched. 

---

@Shannon: As for you defending Shoe and Makara, yes, that is scummy.  So is McClane's.  If either of you had more votes I would have voted either of you, but since Gamzee for the moment is so polarized towards Shoe (and had more votes on him), I wouldn't mind having concurrent bandwagons between both of them.  I feel that this is the best way to make use of Day One, for the moment.  It's always good for post-D1 bandwagon analysis.