Tic-Tac-Toe Mafia - GAME END

[WHMZakeri]

I'm in full agreement with Serela here. A Large part of my vote is actually in part Process of Elimination, which is strongly related to townies being allowed to defend townies. I know my casing on Sky is pretty bad, but I feel like it's the strongest of the ones I still feel like have a good chance of winding up scum.

[Polaris]

Vote Count:

ActionDan (1): Raikaria
Zakeri (1): Dr Rawr
Sky Paladin (1): Zakeri

Not Voting (4): ActionDan, Sky Paladin, Serela, Dormio
With 7 alive, it takes 4 to lynch.

There are about 26 hours remaining.

[Dormio Ergo Sum]

Howdy, pt. II.
Just going to put it out there that I still haven't read Sky Palladium's posts and I'm probably not going to. Anyway.

I think I'm pretty cool with this.
##Vote Raikaria
Making another post now and stuff.

[Dormio Ergo Sum]

First of all, let's start with what Raikaria has done today.
Most of it is building a case on ActionDan, which I have no qualms with.
The problem arises from the case itself, which revolves mostly around ActionDan's actions at the end of Day 1.
Now I'm pretty sure that it's been brought up by other people, so I won't go on for too long about how Raikaria's version of events don't seem to correlate to what actually happened.
He seems to actively ignore important aspects of the game state and cherry pick only the actions that he thinks will help him and present them without even bothering to consider how they are affected by the context.
For example, this shit:

I am not happy about the fact that we lynched CF7. Especially since it was following Actiondan. For example, a key part of Actiondan's case was a change in opinion on Dormio between #59 and #86.

The thing is, this is 27 posts. That's only just less than half of what existed at the time of the first post. More than half when you take out the mod posts. Opinions and game state can change, especially when there is 50% more content.

It's like, the fuck is this shit?
Raikaria completely ignores ActionDan's reasoning and the like and instead focuses only on the action.
Why would Raikaria feel the need to do this?
Is it because he knows his own case is bullshit since he's trying to make it up as scum?

Like, it happens further as Raikaria tries to argue that Dan is so scummy for lynching CF7.
Raikaria ignores the other people that voted for CF7, the case on CF7, and the fact that he himself was saying that CF7 was bad for the lulz vote on me and never bothered to update this opinion.
What's with this super selective memory and/or attention span?
Are you really grasping at that many straws for a case?

and honestly if you flip scum, I'd go after Dormio next.

I also really don't like this whole lining up lynches business.
Like, by doing this, you basically build a case to attack me instead of Dan today without actually building a case.
Again, are you that desperate for somewhere to put your vote?

Raikaria's most recent posts don't make me happier either.

Point still stands; CF7 was not the 'most viable' lynch. Sky was.

I never knew that mafia was about trying to lynch whoever is "most viable" as opposed to whoever is "most scummy".
I guess I've been doing it wrong this whole time.
I don't understand why you're trying to build a case like this.
The only explanation that makes sense to me is that you are scum and therefore know that the people you are building cases on are not scum and are therefore looking for anything that even looks bad in order to make yourself look like you have a solid vote for the day.

My head hurts looking at graphs and reading the handwriting. I'd argue that I did a pretty direct attack on Actiondan, but w/e.

I also really, really don't like this.
Like, why are you trying to justify yourself in regards to Sky Palladium's bullshit interactions chart which he himself has stated as arbitrary.
Mafia isn't a game that you can puzzle out like that, who would bother playing if it were?
However, you are acknowledging it.
Do you want to know why I think that you are acknowledging it?
It's because, in correlation with what I've said above, I think that you are getting desperate for cases since you aren't sure of how to build a genuine one as scum.
The interactions chart gives you an easy excuse to basically vote for whoever you want.
After all, any interaction can be seen as both positive and negative and it's all about what arbitrary numbers you want to stick onto it.
It really makes for a convenient replacement for an actual case, doesn't it?

[Serela]

Dan and Dormio are my townie friends. I shall take solace in this fact even though I cannot for the life of me come to a solid decision on anyone else here. At least I'm waging a war against bad logic, but, if you pay any attention it should be p.clear I haven't done basically any scumhunting. It's just not working out for me this game >_>; It's awful and I hope I don't get lynched for it d3 and lose the game for town in lylo.

Raikaria and SkyPal repeatedly use logic that is just wrong, or at least kind of weird, in order to reach their conclusions. They do this as town regularly, though. I want to vote them because it looks scummy, but I know they also do this as town, and it's hard to tell whether the logic is town!bad or scum!bad. Rawr hasn't said enough for me to get a read and Zakeri... I want to say he hasn't said enough either but in reality that actually isn't true. I'm rereading him right now though and it's still not going anywhere. Useless!Serela hasn't reared it's ugly head (past d1) in awhile, I guess it was about time >_>

Resorting to plan b and using my awkward touchy-feely scumhunting ability (which is probably better explained as "SUPER META TIER IS THIS WHAT BEING PESCO FEELS LIKE?") on Zak's posts tells me he's probably town, but I don't feel as strong about this result as I'd like to in order actually declare him town.

Man where is Bard when I need someone to sheep, it's my turn to do that now. Wait, he'd probably be telling me to lynch Zak. At least I narrowed it down to voting Raikaria or SkyPal, but I don't have any real justification for voting either other than the reason I already said is something they do as town >_>;

[ActionDan]

So I was most likely going to vote Raikaria for completely disregarding #201 despite mulling whatever over he was claiming to mull over and still thinking his best scumread was me along with the snipe about me doing little scum hunting.  Zak's case on Sky is at least defensible.

But then these come along:

Oh, I almost forgot. 

Zakeri, were you role blocked?

I can't say one way or the other if I was roleblocked. I wasn't given a message, and I don't have a role that provides me with results. I do agree that if Bard roleblocked anyone it would have been me, though.

Actual post coming soon.

This is full retard.  Certainly of Sky Paladin with the shittiest question imaginable, but for Zak to answer in a way that belies himself being not a cop/tracker (though possibly a jailkeeper) is beyond the pale.  No one says this.  as town. ever.  Literally freely giving away information to scum (if we are in the jailkeeper scenario only a jailkeeper would even think to say this) for the sake of answering the dumbest and most pointless of questions.

##Vote: Zakeri

This is in my opinion practically a confession.

[Serela]

I agree that it wasn't good play to give away whether or not he's any of the PRs since ~*~semi-open setup~*~ but it's really easy to imagine someone not thinking it through hard enough before responding to "Did Bard roleblock you last night?" with "I dunno, I wouldn't get a message even if he did."

[Polaris]

Vote Count:

ActionDan (1): Raikaria
Raikaria (1): Dormio
Zakeri (2): Dr Rawr, ActionDan L-2
Sky Paladin (1): Zakeri

Not Voting (2): Sky Paladin, Serela
With 7 alive, it takes 4 to lynch.

There are about 22.5 hours remaining.

[ActionDan]

And then I forgot doctor.  which does overlap with tracker.  in a mafia goon / mafia goon scenario.

still pretty shitty.

@Serela I'd never do it as town.  I might do it as scum if I were wanting to claim doctor/jailkeeper down the line, or else maybe VT for some reason and make it look more believable.  I am not sure, but I do know I'd never do it as town.

[Dr Rawr]

im not even going to humor a sky paladin lynch for the rest of this game

Spoiler:

im waiting to eat my words at the end of the game if i wrong

I'm in full agreement with Serela here. A Large part of my vote is actually in part Process of Elimination, which is strongly related to townies being allowed to defend townies. I know my casing on Sky is pretty bad, but I feel like it's the strongest of the ones I still feel like have a good chance of winding up scum.

using the excuse of PoE to force a case on sky paladin is what im getting from this. actiondan lets take this guy down 

[Raikaria]

Like, it happens further as Raikaria tries to argue that Dan is so scummy for lynching CF7.
Raikaria ignores the other people that voted for CF7, the case on CF7, and the fact that he himself was saying that CF7 was bad for the lulz vote on me and never bothered to update this opinion.
...
I also really don't like this whole lining up lynches business.
...
Like, by doing this, you basically build a case to attack me instead of Dan today without actually building a case.
Again, are you that desperate for somewhere to put your vote?
...
Raikaria's most recent posts don't make me happier either.I never knew that mafia was about trying to lynch whoever is "most viable" as opposed to whoever is "most scummy".

1: CF7 started the wagon. He made the initial case. He actively lied and spouted nonsense about it to encourage people to consolidate on it. As I said before: Serela called him out on it as well D1.

2: Actiondan was actively defending you and discouraging people from voting you. It is perfectly reasonable to assume in that case that you have a good chance of being a scumbuddy.

3: Wait what? I've already built my case on Dan. I've hardly even made a case on you except 'Dormio's not been that active and Dormio is being defended by Dan a lot'

4: I'm half tempted to use one of your earlier laughing GIFs that you used on Sky here; but I'm too mature to sink to that level. This is a complete and utter misrep. I am not saying 'Actiondan is scum for pushing a lynch with less people on it.'. I am saying 'Actiondan is scum for constantly pushing lynch viability as the reason that others should switch to CF7, rather than using his own points, and ignoring the fact his lynch is NOT the most viable.'

Firstly, I am calling Actiondan out for justifying his aggression on pushing the CF7 lynch based on 'other votes not being viable'. As I already said; Serela mentioned it at the time. Due to Actiondan's base of aggression being how 'viable' the CF7 lynch was over other lynches with the same, if not more people, voting for them.

Secondly, it's consolidation. Everyone is rushing to get a lynch. Actiondan spouting about viability makes sense until you realize he's spouting nonsense and saying 'This lynch is more viable. Ignore the fact other people have more votes on them. By the way, I'm not voting Dormio ever and I'd rather have an NL than that.'

And yet you somehow think that it's logical to turn this around and say:

Raikaria's most recent posts don't make me happier either.I never knew that mafia was about trying to lynch whoever is "most viable" as opposed to whoever is "most scummy".
I guess I've been doing it wrong this whole time.
I don't understand why you're trying to build a case like this.
The only explanation that makes sense to me is that you are scum and therefore know that the people you are building cases on are not scum and are therefore looking for anything that even looks bad in order to make yourself look like you have a solid vote for the day.

Maybe you should tell that to Actiondan; hmm?

[Raikaria]

Dormio's great wall of defending Actiondan makes me borderline convinced the scumteam is now Dormio/Actiondan, by the way. Like; half of their content in the entire game is defending each other.

Especially as said great wall contains a massive misrep.

And I do know how to fool everyone as scum. I seem to recall at least one scum game I had where my scumteam died D1 and N1, and I still made it to LYLO. [Unfortunetly by that point roles had confirmed me as scum]

[Raikaria]

1: CF7 started the wagon. He made the initial case. He actively lied and spouted nonsense about it to encourage people to consolidate on it. As I said before: Serela called him out on it as well D1.

Actiondan. Not CF7.

[Raikaria]

Also this would explain Actiondan's vote on Dormio in RVS; followed by nudgeing CF7 to join the wagon so early; when he knew Dormio wouldn't be lynched. Set up a little bus early to throw them off.

[Dormio Ergo Sum]

Hey, Raikaria, here's a little tip from me to you.
You know that thing where you build associations and the like.
It's literally useless until you have relevant flips.
Like, I know that you're probably going to try to use this very post as more ~damning evidence~ that Dan and I are the scum team that you're looking for, but I feel the need to say this.
This also applies to you, Sky Palladium, since you went crazy with the whole creating scum teams thing on Day 1.

Of course, this doesn't apply if you realize what you're doing is absolute bull and have no other choice because you're having difficulty coming up with anything resembling a proper case because you're scum, but could you try just a little bit harder?
It really is quite annoying to see that this pathetic association crap is the best that you can come up with as scum.
Like, here I was, hoping for members of scum to be a little bit more competent and this is the best that you can do?
Anyway, with that out of the way, let's address the rest of your hilarious post.

1: CF7ActionDan started the wagon. He made the initial case. He actively lied and spouted nonsense about it to encourage people to consolidate on it. As I said before: Serela called him out on it as well D1.

(I'm assuming that your responses correlate to the lines you've quoted from me, feel free to correct me if you're referring to something else)
This doesn't change the fact that you are not disputing what I said about you.
You are still failing to account for the actual case on CF7. For example, mine.
Are you saying that the CF7 lynch went through purely due to scaremongering from Dan?
Because I'm pretty sure that's not what happened and the fact that you're trying to use this as the crux of your case against Dan makes me think that your case is bullshit coming from scum.

2: Actiondan was actively defending you and discouraging people from voting you. It is perfectly reasonable to assume in that case that you have a good chance of being a scumbuddy.

lel. I don't really think that there's anything for me to say here.

3: Wait what? I've already built my case on Dan. I've hardly even made a case on you except 'Dormio's not been that active and Dormio is being defended by Dan a lot'

Are you even keeping track of your own post?
"It is perfectly reasonable to assume in that case that you have a good chance of being a scumbuddy."
You think that Dan is scum.
If Dan is scum you think that I am scum by virtue of Dan being scum.
This gives you an excuse to vote for me without a case today if my lynch becomes viable for whatever reason.
So, yeah, the fact that you are giving yourself the option of easily voting me while not having to actually bother building a case is pretty scummy.
So thanks for proving my point I guess?

4: I'm half tempted to use one of your earlier laughing GIFs that you used on Sky here; but I'm too mature to sink to that level. This is a complete and utter misrep. I am not saying 'Actiondan is scum for pushing a lynch with less people on it.'. I am saying 'Actiondan is scum for constantly pushing lynch viability as the reason that others should switch to CF7, rather than using his own points, and ignoring the fact his lynch is NOT the most viable.'

I am pretty sure that I'm not really understanding what you're saying here and I may have misunderstood the original premise.
Can you clarify this for me?

"Ermahgawd, Dormio is so scummy for chainsaw defending Dan right now! Those two must obviously be scum together!"
I'm pretty sure that this is going to be your response, so I'm going to say the following assuming that this is your response.
Maybe, next time, you should try not being scum so that you can build an actual case instead of the cheap imitation of one that you're presenting right now.
Also, what I said above about associative reads being useless until there are relevant flips. (I think that Serela said something similar to this somewhere but whatever)

Anyway, I'm going to play video games and then go to sleep.
Ciao.

[Serela]

Also this would explain Actiondan's vote on Dormio in RVS; followed by nudgeing CF7 to join the wagon so early; when he knew Dormio wouldn't be lynched. Set up a little bus early to throw them off.

This is just paranoia. RVS isn't going to make anyone think anything >_>

Also, Raikaria, did you look at the part where analysis showed that Dormio actually seriously wasn't viable even though he had more votes and it seemed like he should be? It turns out that was actually true due to where the AFK votes were (aka on Dan) You attacking Dan on going after viable lynches over scumhunting doesn't really seem to have any legitimate basis. I am going to need you to pull out examples of where Dan did these supposed things so that I can more accurately refute them.

cut by dorms

[Raikaria]

Of course you're not going to admit that taking this line completely out of context:

Point still stands; CF7 was not the 'most viable' lynch. Sky was.

And saying this about it:

I never knew that mafia was about trying to lynch whoever is "most viable" as opposed to whoever is "most scummy".
I guess I've been doing it wrong this whole time.

Is a misrep.

You only need to look at any part of my case on Actiondan to see the context of it.

Such as my entire #195

You're attempting to sell that as me saying 'we lynch based on viability all the time'. I'm only using Lynch Viability as part of my case because that's how Dan got CF7 mislynched. And he did so while ignoring everything else.

This is a massive misrep. Large enough that I'm seriously considering voting you over Actiondan, but as far as I'm concerned you're both scum anyway, the order of lynching hardly matters.

Serela; did you forget that you yourself called out Actiondan at the end of Day 1? It wasn't just the Dormio wagon he was ignoring, and I'm certain NNR at least could have been lynched.

[Raikaria]

Associative reads are not useless when you two seem to be tag-teaming everything and covering each others rears all game long. You two have hardly even done anything else.

[Raikaria]

And Serela; it's not Paranoia. It's not strange for scum to bus each other in the earlygame to throw off scumbuddy theories. Especially when Dormio was put at L-1 and Actiondan encouraged CF7 to vote Dormio.

[Raikaria]

Also Serela; I already posted those examples. 195; I think.

Now I'm more amazed at the frankly awful case Dormio is attempting to turn around on me which includes misrepping. Also, I'd like to echo one of Dormio's earlier posts which he used to justification for his vote on Serela:

This one

Now look here and tell me; is Dormio not doing that exact thing?

"Ermahgawd, Dormio is so scummy for chainsaw defending Dan right now! Those two must obviously be scum together!"
I'm pretty sure that this is going to be your response, so I'm going to say the following assuming that this is your response.

[Sky_Paladin]

I have a lot to catch up so rather than post it in one giant wall that nobody likes to read I'm going to post it in chunks. 

A point I see a lot of is 'worry about scum partners after you actually have a scum'. 

I think that's incorrect.  In the game where Schezo cop-gambitted NNR, I'd picked out the masons pair as scum buddies.  If it's possible to pick up partners in crime, then you should absolutely do it.  There's no masons in this game so looking at player interactions and associations, in particular for scummy associations, is a very valid strategy.  We want to know the intent behind player votes and actions.  Considering them in isolation is one tool.   Considering them with potential scum partners is another. 

Re:  Serela.  I'm basically seeing Serela town clear without reasons anybody who says they think Serela is town, and she thinks anybody who says she is scum is scum.  Since Raikaria and I are the only ones really pegging her as scum at the moment, that's probably why Serela reads everybody as town but the two of us.  More on this later, I think. 

Re:  Zak - I was prepared to sheep Bard on Zak because of one of Zak's posts being truly awful, until Bard used ad homein attacks, which made me reconsider my stance on Bard (and therefore elect not to sheep him).  OK let's get to the main part. 

Also I kind of handwave ignore Dormio's case on Raikaria because it relies on Raikaria making his case on ActionDan after I posted my stuff.  However, Raikaria made his case and voted at the start of the phase, and I posted my junk about halfway through.  I'll dismantle it in detail in a jiffy. 

Note I don't think people making bad cases is scummy, I think people using bad logic or false...situations...is scummy.  I said it in my second post. 

There will come a day when Shrine Maiden will lynch a player, not for the quality of their cases, but for their lack of content or failure to explain their vote

[Raikaria]

Are you saying that the CF7 lynch went through purely due to scaremongering from Dan?
Because I'm pretty sure that's not what happened and the fact that you're trying to use this as the crux of your case against Dan makes me think that your case is bullshit coming from scum.

Forgot this.

I'm pretty sure it is what happened. Dan kept refusing to vote for other people; encourageing people to vote CF7 by writing off at least equally-viable lynches as 'unviable' and we lynched the wrong person.

Unless the people who consolidated on CF7 would like to explain if it was anything except Actiondan's actions that made them do so. Because the thing is, if they were convinced by your case, and they were not, they would have voted CF7 after the case, not a load of badgering from Actiondan later.

[Raikaria]

Also; Sky; I think Serela is null. She's town by default I guess since there's 2 scum in the setup due to it being 7/2; and I'm pretty set on those 2 being Dan and Dormio.

[Raikaria]

And now you got me calling Serela a 'she' too. Dangit Sky.

[Sky_Paladin]

Cutting my next wall to add:  I did vote CF7 over Dormio because of sheeping Dan.  More to come. 

I don't really know Serela's gender, but she has a female looking avatar and a female sounding name and seems to want to identify as female, so there you go.  I misidentified Bard as girl because Bardiche + girly avatar but he corrected me. 

[Sky_Paladin]

Serela, as stated:  I think you town clear players who see you as town, and see players who think you are scum, as scum.  I think you're allowing yourself to be manipulated by your emotions.  It's not scummy, it's just a playstyle observation you may wish to reflect on. 

However, I'll respond to your points. 

229

1 - "It's clear at this point that Serela wants Sky dead for non scum-hunting reasons." 
You responded with, "We had FOURTY MINUTES LEFT", and " "This seems more likely to come from scum than be a legitimate town thought" " because the logic seemed 'strange'. 

As we recently discovered, I'm from a significantly different age background than all of you (apparently I'm ancient), so this might account for why we see things so differently.  Also, I'm a software engineer that believes people are just inconveniently shaped numbers, and if I can only figure out the right algorithm to stuff you in, I should be able to put in input x and get output y.  I think the reason my logic appears 'strange' is because I did statistical analysis over a decade ago, played mafia for about that long, and come from a different environment where I am one of the top scum hunters.  I did it using spread sheets and graphs.  What works there doesn't work here, but I'm doing my best to find out the right tools for the job. 

I concede that with less than two hours left, it's reasonable to consider consolidation; however we are now far in to the next day phase, so it's time to consider your scum picks on something more than 'somebody we could have consolidated on to in the previous lynch phase'.  You made a number of attempts to persuade other players to lynch me without making a case; and you continue to do so during this day phase.  What's the actual reason you want me lynched?  Who else do you see as scumbuddies with me?  If I flip town, who do you think would be scum? 

Point 2 - Serela has or has not been wagon jumping. 
You said;

Um no, that wasn't about wagon jumping, that was Dormio quoting the "do something stupid to end rvs" thing and saying I was going to use it as justification to do something scummy.

I'm totally saying it was about wagon jumping, and even if it is not, I am now accusing you of wagon jumping.  Perhaps it relates to the start of my post.  What do you think? 

You also mixed up quotes about jokevote and about the "do something stupid" being a joke to make it look like I was contradicting myself, when I was talking about completely different things.

I don't understand.  You did or did not jokevote or did or did not do something stupid, deliberately, to try to end RVS? 

Point 3 - Defending NNR
You said;
"A nnr lynch would have been awful and I am nowhere near the only person who said it was a non-option."
and (re: nobody said about lynching NNR)
"but if you were the only person who said it, then you must have said it a whole lot by then >_>; There's no way it had only been brought up once by then."

The first mention of an NNR lynch was Bardiche in #72.
The second is me in #73.
The third is me again in #78.
Your first defence of NNR is immediately after in #79.

FOR CONTEXT;
You said this (in #79, which I quoted in the earlier post which you are responding to)
"a lot of people have been saying we could lynch nnr, but I'm sorry, uh"
I said, "Nobody had really been saying it.  I think one person (maybe me?) mentioned it because he was afk."

What do you think about it now? 

[Serela]

Serela, as stated:  I think you town clear players who see you as town, and see players who think you are scum, as scum.  I think you're allowing yourself to be manipulated by your emotions.  It's not scummy, it's just a playstyle observation you may wish to reflect on. 

This is purely a coincidence. I actually haven't done basically any real scumhunting in this game and I'm floored that people are townreading me anyway, but that's beside the point. My reads in this game have no relation to the people's reads on myself, apart from maybe the fact that I'd think scum would be trying to mislynch me right now because holy shit. They'll probably do it tomorrow though, so whatever.

I have to get ready for work (which I put off until way too late again fffff) so I can't say much other than I seriously don't agree with any of Raikaria's viewpoints of the game at all. It's kind of awkward to have "BUT YOU SAID THIS" brought up on me by Raikaria repeatedly when I've cleared changed my mind since then. I'd refute Raikaria's stuff properly but I gotta go; if it's still necessary when I'm back from work tho I'll probably do it then!

reading skypal's post right before I leave and oh hey there's someone finally complaining at me for being useless I think :V Are you really asking me what I think now about defending NNR d1? Or do you mean his slot? Holy crap where are rawr's posts? That slot might actually not be a bad lynch at this rate, but I don't really think we're going that way today and that's alright with me atm. NNR was still a non-option lynch d1 if that's what you were asking.

The joke stuff is that the "doing something stupid" was a legitimate joke, and Dormio tried to use it against me saying that I was going to invoke it as a scummy defense to excuse scummy actions from myself (in this case probably the vote on Dormio in rvs) which I had never shown actual intention of doing. Anyway I really have to leave, I should learn to manage my before-work time better since I'm probably gonna be late.

[Serela]

cleared changed

clearly changed*

[ActionDan]

Dan, I'm not really interested in who you think is town or how bad somebody's case may be.  I'm interested in who do you think is scum and why. 

I'll note that you don't disagree that you have been defending players, only that the nature of the defence is not scummy. 

Let's elucidate on why I think it is scummy. 

#1 - It's easy for players to defend each other.  It's harder to make a case.  Anybody can defend anybody at any time, but it's harder for scum to make a case than town because scum have to lie at some point.  Therefore, we value scum hunting and case analysis (and even case destruction)* over defending as towny effort. 

#2 - Related to part 1, defending other players does not progress a case towards finding scum.  It's a way to appear very busy and fake content.  It's actually a non content post. 

#3 - Defending another player is inherently anti-town as it promotes the idea that a specific player is valuable to another specific player.  The easiest reason for that is that they are scum buddies.  When we see players mutually defending each other (as you and Serela just did, when he stated you were town and continued to be so in his response to me), it's especially concerning. 

#4 - Players are capable of defending themselves.  If you do it for them, that player may not post at all, and we miss out a valuable chance to see their intent. 

#5 - Defending other players often makes the defended player like the defending player, so they feel less inclined to make cases or lynch that player in the future.  Scum know this and exploit it. 

#6 - Excessive defending is known as buddying, and is often a scum tactic to get the defended player lynched should the defender flip at some point, when town looks back on interactions earlier in the game. 

Your defence of Serela, for example, is a chainsaw defend because you are attacking my analysis of the data but didn't challenge the data itself by going to the referenced posts and disproving a point or two. 

Before I get into your 6 points about defense on which I have a starkly different perspective, my scum reads are Zakeri and Raikaria and to a slightly lesser extent, you.  Reasons for Zakeri/Raikaria have been stated by me previously before your post.  You are a P.O.E candidate and because I don't assign any value into your posts what-so-ever, as in, they are mostly IIOA and the only attempt at some kind of insight was the serela case, which sucked.  Also I think Rawr, Serela, and Dormio are town.  And of them I think only Dormio has the slimmest chance to be scum.

And yes I don't disagree I have defended players (the most poignant example is again yourself at the end of D1), though looking back I'd only count posts #112, #114, and #151 as "defenses" of Dormio so where you count 5, I count 3. 

On to your points:

#1-2 Marginally at best is it harder for scum to make a case than town.  Also how they treat their scum buddy(-ies) is reversed following this logic: it'd be easier to make a case on them than defend them.  In actuality, the effort that goes into defending someone is in fact, effort and content generated, subject to criticism or else agreement or even something as mundane as follow up questions and plain discussion.  And effort and content is harder for scum to reproduce than town, which means it's hardly scummy of anyone to do so.

#3 Or both are town that mutually defend that have come to trust each other.  Moreover if scum do decide to defend a town player, it becomes harder for them to mislynch that player anyway without a drastically changing stance that's noticeable

#4 That's on them.

#5 Okay but it's helpful then if the player doing the defending is town isn't it? This isn't in itself scummy

#6 And if the defending player flips town perhaps that lends credence to the fact that the person they defended is town as they said.  You see the town motivation there, yes?

None of these points makes the action of defense scummy.

Your Serela case has little to do with your data considering you quoted things in full.  What I did is simply reference the specific content and based my criticism about that.

[ActionDan]

I'm pretty sure it is what happened. Dan kept refusing to vote for other people; encourageing people to vote CF7 by writing off at least equally-viable lynches as 'unviable' and we lynched the wrong person.

No.

Concrete suspicion of Cf7 was established by Me, Bard, and Dormio.