DL, are you keeping your votetracker updated?

@bo, I leave from work 30 minutes prior to the deadline and will be on the metro heading home, so poor connection which is scaring the heck out of me right now. I hope that I do not get screwed over by any such last minute voting, but who knows. Hopefully something comes up in the next 2 hours that changes the trains, atleast I know that if I am lynched, peoples reads will change based on how they read me, and that some good people will still be here to help the town.

I am really hoping that I made the right call by trusting guak, but I don't want to simply coward out and no lynch to spare myself.

@Tr shit. I completely forgot about that.To make it worse, I keep using trust. Shit. None of that was intentional, I just am not in the habit of saying Town or using the terminology you prefer.

Espi, if you're genuinely worried about that, cast a real vote, justify it, and hope that the wagons stay where you think they should be.

@bo, DL hasn't been keeping the vote tracker updated at all. I have been doing more of the logging then he has so far. He even still has my voting for bo on there which I never did. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PRQW6YgyqroUVJHm80NrPYcyWn3Kp6j82K98mo2Eues/edit#gid=0

@bo thats the thing. I am not as good at making reads, I have been heavily dependent on others to make the claims I have hinted at, before I even believe my own reads. Right now, all of our voting is Random. We have evidence based on posting, but until D1 is over, none of it really means much. I don't have enough evidence right now (any thoughts of mine would amount to they are either really good town or really good mafia) as my previous attempts have likely shown. I don't think that I have enough that I am able to say to begin the kind of conversation I feel needed to not 'waste' my vote on someone that no one has yet voted for. I jumped on with guak as I felt he might be a driving force that I could follow to justify my own read.

None of my attempted reads of people have been commented on yet so far.

Just reread everything. I still feel like there's absolutely no case for Espi. As I see it, Espi made a few newbie mistakes, and then decided to sacrifice himself to give us a better idea of who would jump on the "kill the innocent" bandwagon.

If anything, I think it's slightly more than 75% likely that Espi is innocent. I'd really rather not see Espi die at this point, but I think that Espi's death will give us more evidence than anyone else's, so I'm a bit conflicted about whether I should change my vote.

I'm tempted to go with TrPrado, but I'm not at all sure that that's the right decision.

@bo: espi can't have been trained by his mafia buddies yet though, so that is part of why I think it is a strong town read. Obviously that can change in the long run, but from what I have seen so far there is no reason for him to be town.

@Saladin: I just saw a question you asked me a couple of pages back. Yes, usually the top vote getters early on end up being town. I think that was the case in this game too with me and Espi leading the charge. I know I am town and believe Espi is way more likely town than not.

@Everyone: will you look at that? Another really crappy set of reads from Tr. Funny thing is that he has yet to address my case.

@TrPrado: hey, master deflector, how about responding to my case instead of diverting attention to crappy reads?

Even TR's descriptions suck. What the hell is slight moderate scum??? I think that is just his mafia way of saying vote for guak but when he flips town I only had him as slight scum so don't lynch me

By the way, love this phrase: 'My recent sort of case thing against him'

It perfectly illustrates why Tr is scum. Lots of fluff, no content. His cases are so bad that even he cannot call them cases.

@town: TrPrado is feeling the pressure. His reads are scum-laden. He has guak on his radar (no surprise considering his case), but he also has 5 slight scum. Seems to me he wants someone, anyone else, to be lynched but him.

Three of those scum reads have a tinge of OMGUS--guak, Espi and me--possibly because of our votes against TrPrado himself?

As for my voting history, bo had 3 votes on him when he arrived, including yours, and he started contributing immediately. That was enough for me then. Maybe I need to re-read him since he began playing in earnest.

Then I switched to you because you were moving your vote around. You answered, then I switched to presssure ND who was in the middle of a long quiet spell. After you buddied up to me and started vacillating a lot, I thought that looked scummy, and now you have my vote. Does switching my vote back to you, someone I was focused on previously, seem to be designed to intentionally confuse others?

And as I said earlier, if I need to break a tie so the town gets a lynch, I'll move it to Espi. That's still my plan. I don't read guak as scum, but others seem to think that's the right way to go on Day 1. Fair enough.

I don't see any reason to move my vote off Espi at the moment. I would encourage everyone to read my read of him and analysis back between 16-18.

Rebuttal to guak's case, point by point:
1) Hahahaha, what? Your evidence is cherry-picked shit coated in dung and chocolate. I wasn't seriously "accused" of anything until Jeff voted me for the first time, and my actions weren't really different after that. It was because my reasons and intentions were pure that I attracted attention from Jeff, so it's not like I had to change anything. I may be kind of loud, but I've been able to explain my thinking whenever people have had serious questions, and the people who asked have said I'm reasonable.
2) How is it you can even make this point? I've brought up several times why I think this point existing contradicts your own statements, so I hope you already have seen that and can better explain why it's not too early to accuse specifically me of tunneling.
3) You're high. There isn't a connection between me and Balki. He feels more town to me, but I don't really know. And, again, your evidence is shit. I'd say Balki has actually been buddying up to you here.
4) At least I had an early reads list. Again, I'm not experienced. And I think I've made worthwhile cases against you and others. I've been trying to get and understanding of everyone and question when I feel something needs to be addressed. I do hope I'm getting better.

Haha, guak wrote about how I wasn't responding to his case while I typed my response to his case. Irony is beautiful.

Unofficial vote count.

Espi (5): phil_a_s, Balki Bartokomous, ND, SaladinSmith, DeathLlama9
guak (3): Lucland, , americaslacker, Trprado
TrPrado (3): Jeff Kuta, guak, Espi
SaladinSmith (1): Yoyoyozo,

Not voted: bo_sox48

SS, if you vote for Tr right now, the pressure between he and I will be on. I am willing to take the D1 fall, but I want more information on him. Do you mind doing this at all, you who continue to think I am town? You can always switch back to me later.

Jeff: "As for my voting history, bo had 3 votes on him when he arrived, including yours, and he started contributing immediately. That was enough for me then." It was for me as well, but it was my switch that caught your eye as scummy.

I'm going to stay on Espi. I still think he's town, but I'm inclined to think that TrPrado and guak are town too, and like I said, I think we'll learn a lot more from Espi's death, even if he's town.

@SS, good luck then, I accept your response and hope to that a lot is gained.

@Espi: I think your unofficial count is off. Llama voted for Lucland to pressure a lurker.

What makes my reads crappy, guak? I mean, I was actually considering including in my post asking why you hated my reads, since I knew you'd do that. What's wrong with them? Is it the worthwhile evidence?

Sorry, copyed and pasted the wrong way.

EDIT:

Unofficial vote count.

Espi (4): phil_a_s, Balki Bartokomous, ND, SaladinSmith
guak (3): Lucland, , americaslacker, Trprado
TrPrado (3): Jeff Kuta, guak, Espi
SaladinSmith (1): Yoyoyozo,
Lucland (1): DeathLlama9,

Not voted: bo_sox48

@TrPrado: "It was for me as well, but it was my switch that caught your eye as scummy." You are correct. Because you bailed on bo almost instantly. I waited to see who bo voted for after making some contribution.

I should have refreshed the page before I posted that. But oh well, it's too late to change to TrPrado now. My vote wouldn't convey any threat at this point.

Assuming that Espi is town, I disagree with TrPrado on nearly everything. That initially made me want to suspect him, but assuming that Espi is not town, I can see where TrPrado is coming from. So at this point, I'm inclined to think that TrPrado is mistaken, but town.

bo: "would you propose fakeclaiming cop as town right off the bat if you were mafia?" I don't know, possibly. I don't think I'd rule out too much. It's very WIFOM.
Jeff: I was fine with his opening post. It seemed like he was going to be getting involved, so I didn't see the point in waiting any longer to switch. And his behavior didn't really raise any red flags for me when he showed up the way slacker's did. Why wait for him to cast a vote?

RESPONSE TO GUAK'S MAFIA READ OF BALKI

This is my response to Guak’s Balki/TrPrado scumteam theory, which can be found at 20. I’m responding because I want to be on the record right away with why the theory is wrong. Though, I do agree that TrPrado is scum.

GUAK ARGUMENT A: TrPrado said at 8 that Balki has “done some clear scumhunting and has tried to keep town in line and having them do the same,” whereas Guak says “Balki had done nothing at this point.”

RESPONSE: By this point (page 8), I had shared a list of opinions about good town play, weighed in on the random votes v. pressure votes v. actual pressure debate, challenged DeathLlama to improve content, challenged Espi to form better posts and not to make excuses for poor posts, asked DeathLlama for more detail on a meta-comment about Jeff, highlighted Espi’s “self-inquisition so I’m clear” strategy and already called it “suspicious or misguided.” DeathLlama posted a townread on me as well before TrPrado did. Guak’s assertion that “Balki had done nothing at this point” is just false, and this argument crumbles as a result. The statement that I had done nothing is particulalry hypocritical, coming from Guak.

GUAK ARGUMENT B: “Balki accuses DL of posting a lot and not saying much while not mentioning TrPrado who had posted even more and said even less.”

RESPONSE: My critique of DeathLlama was on page 5, and I stand by it. My post included “You're not alone in that, and there's not much to say yet, but you stand out the most for it so far, and I hope you get on task soon.” I agree that DeathLlama wasn’t the only one making content-less posts. Even upon a re-read, TrPrado still does not stand out to me as making content-less posts on those first few pages. TrPrado had some joke posts, but in general most of TrPrado’s activity was spent encouraging lurkers to participate. That is substance, and utility, in my book, and that’s why TrPrado was not the subject of one of my early lectures or reprimands. I don’t think that the fact that I called out one of 12 people, and did not call out the person with whom you think I have a relationship, is evidence of anything. It’s your confirmation bias.

GUAK ARGUMENT C: “[TrPrado] is targeting experienced players first. Balki is taking the opposite approach, going after the noobs, and defending th experienced players. Oddly enough top two lynch targets are driven by each of them and each one of them has defended the other's target. It is like they are so hard to try to distance themselves from each other that they have adopted opposite approaches to the game.”

RESPONSE: I don't understand Guak's point. Is Guak saying Balki/TrPrado had a strategy to target opposite-appearing players? Obviously, we received our roles when the game began and mafia has had no opportunity to confer. Are you saying we developed this strategy organically to try to hide an association that you say exists? That’s unlikely too, all of your evidence comes from before anyone pointed to any association, and I don’t think that a real Balki/TrPrado scumteam would be so concerned about an obvious and apparent relationship to try to formulate this strategy. Or are you just making an observation that is counter to your theory, and not giving it any weight? I guess I need Guak to spell out his point here. It does not make sense to me.

GUAK ARGUMENT D: Balki “sings the praises” of a TrPrado reads list that was actually thin and unhelpful.

Response: The post that you are referring to in which I “sing the praises” of TRPrado’s list is a post I made at 13 about TrPrado’s list at 8. My post was designed to improve town participation, as I made clear. I also said I wasn’t passing judgment on who was town and who was scum and that I was just trying to identify contributors and non-contributors so that the folks in the latter category would try to improve. I generated my list by scanning through the first 12 pages and looking for posts with substance and posts with no substance. TrPrado made my list as a contributor. The first reason I listed was that he “seems to be doing a sincere job at encouraging lurkers to begin to contribute.” I’ve addressed that above, and I stand by it. It struck me as sincere, and useful. I also pointed out his reads list, which I said was the “most detailed reads list we had seen to date,” which was absolutely true. I’m not sure anyone else at all posted a reads list prior to TrPrado’s at 8. And his analysis of Phil was detailed if not persuasive (especially relative to others, at that early stage on page 9).

I stand by my conclusion then that TrPrado was in the upper half of the town as far as contribution at that stage, and was not one of the people whom I felt I had to prod to get more from. I did not say that I read TrPrado as town. I drew no conclusion at all about that.

Guak argument E: “Just now Balki has said that he agrees with my suspicions of Tr, and that is Balki trying to distance himself from Tr now that he sees a risk of a mafia buddy lynch here.”

Response: This is ridiculous. Guak, you posted your “long-awaited case against TrPrado” on page 20. I posted my detailed scum-read of TrPrado on page 18. Look at my post. It is detailed and includes page citations. It took a long time, and I began it the day before (last night). My detailed description of why TrPrado is mafia was not a case of anyone “just now” “agree[ing] with [your] suspicions.” I am a leader on TrPrado being scum, and I’m certainly ahead of you in terms of making a detailed case.

CONCLUSION: Guak, this theory holds no water. But I appreciate the effort and hope other people emulate it.

SS, I think that your voting on him keeps the pressure up, and his responses to that pressure will tell you a lot after I am gone. I am not too sure how that post you made earlier makes you think that changing your vote won't convey a threat.

Wow! TrPrado, I am devastated, it seems like you have destroyed my case without actually saying anything and that you have proven me wrong. I am going to start questioning life's purpose after reading such a great response. There is no way I will ever be as great as you.

NOT.

1. Whether the accusation was real or not does not change the way you reacted, and you reacted like scum. Y2k was found as scum in M8 for a similar reaction to a similar accusation in p2-3. Go check that out. Also, nice try using your defamation tactics to try and make a solidly constructed argument disappear without actually responding to it. How about explaining why you have played so reactively? Why did you use the jokepost defense when you weren't really joking? Why don't you ever do anything proactively and are always reacting to your surroundings? Why do you discard significant amounts of evidence as cherry picking?

Also, I want everyone to know that cherry-picking is usually quite a good strategy to find scum or town. I did that four times last game and found two scum and two town. Weeding out the crap and recognizing the few posts that are actually alignment indicative (or cherrypicking in TrPrado slang) is actually quite useful.

2) Ah yes, but you accused me of tunneling because I was on bo for 5 pages and on Saladin for 5 pages. Two people I never even tried to pursue actively, but was just joking with or pressuring. You, however, have been on my case since my first posts of the game and have never wavered in your pursuit of me. That is the true definition of tunneling. granted that tunneling for one day is not as damning as for three, but it is only one piece of the puzzle. Also, the way you have tunneled, and my explanation of why it has been scummy are clearly much stronger than any lame tunneling argument you have thrown my way.

3) I may be wrong about the connection, but I am right about my analysis here. If you are not both mafia, then one of you is buddying up to the other, and that is equally scummy. The fact is that both of you read each other as town based on lies, and that is manipulation at its best. Manipulators = scum. Why don't you explain your early townread on Balki? How was he scumhunting more than anyone else before you posted your reads list? What had he done that was sooooo townie?
4) Worst defense ever. Having a crappy reads list is worse than having no read list. Also, you have yet to make a case, how can you say you have made 'worthwhile cases'. You have been attacking me all game and have not even bothered to make a real case of me. I also do not see how you are 'getting better' when you have done nothing of note all game long.

@TrPrado: I wasn't waiting specifically for bo to cast a vote. bo raised some questions, answered some questions, made some reads and then voted. Seemed to me the pressure worked and bo was contributing, so I moved onto ND.

@Balki: TrPrado said you had been scumhunting. How does anything you mentioned in argument A help support that statement? You had done things, just nothing that could be considered as scumhunting or particularly helpful.

Your response to argument B is the same response I would expect from a mafia teammate. 'You still do not see', same uclabb argument applies here to what I explained about Tr in my previous case. Both Tr and DL had posted similar style posts and with similar frequency. Singling one over the other is particularly scummy given that DL had townslipped and Tr had done nothing of the sort.

Argument C: I am saying that you reacted to Tr's game position by taking an opposite stance, thus making it harder on town to unearth the connection.

Argument D: you are still failing to explain why you found those reads of any use, or why you think phil's case is detailed. You mentioned that you agreed with my quest for finding out the why's, yet are not offering them yourself. How about some consistency here?

Argument E: are you seriously claiming that you started to suspect Tr before me? Only Jeff Kuta can make that argument, and his accusations were nowhere near as serious as mine.

Argument E: