Mini 735 - Bad Times In Kuribonia- Game over!

[MonkeyMan576]

/confirm

[MonkeyMan576]

Vote: Polymorph

because Random.org told me to.

[MonkeyMan576]

Eh? That's ALL model. No displacements, took awhile to render.

Vote: Ting

for being friendly.

Is that a random vote or are you actually suggesting being friendly is bad?

[MonkeyMan576]

lol, okay fair enough, why not let it be me who is pressured first.

Ill defend myself. I do believe in pressuing people. Whats the point of a collection of random votes. What can assertain from that? We must push people, check their voting styles, make them sweat, even if that sweaty player is me.

Also keep your eyes open for people bandwagoning on me. Me being pressures isnt just a tell on my game but the people who vote for me.

I won't OMGUS vote on Tovarish, as I can understand his reasons for voting for me. However I hope you are open to the idea of retracting your vote when you see my innoncence.

Unvote
Vote: Kieraern

In my opinion random facilitates discussion and puts pressure on people. And it's much better than lurking.

[MonkeyMan576]

lol, okay fair enough, why not let it be me who is pressured first.

Ill defend myself. I do believe in pressuing people. Whats the point of a collection of random votes. What can assertain from that? We must push people, check their voting styles, make them sweat, even if that sweaty player is me.

Also keep your eyes open for people bandwagoning on me. Me being pressures isnt just a tell on my game but the people who vote for me.

I won't OMGUS vote on Tovarish, as I can understand his reasons for voting for me. However I hope you are open to the idea of retracting your vote when you see my innoncence.

Vote Kieraen

saying to watch out for people bandwagoning seems a little scummy

You know why he's saying that right? It's because a lot of the bandwagons (not all, mind you) suddenly get accellerated by those who

a) want a quick lynch, because of their personal suspicion

or

b)want a quick lynch and are scum, because that person has become a lot easier to lynch.

Usually the initial bandwagon consists of 3-5 people (at least, that's what I consider to be a bandwagon in the random stage), depending on the person's defense (or lack thereof). Now, if there are some reasonable doubts about his town/scum status, usually people will want to withhold voting to make sure that it's not going to end up with a dead townie, especially if it only takes 2 or less votes to lynch. But sometimes people act of their own accord and decide to lynch him anyways.

Now say you were part if that accellerated voting and he turned up town. How does that reflect upon you? You'd probably be the next bandwagon. Would you want to be the next person in the noose because of some rash action? Certainly not. Not many people would be willing to have that chance of death upon them.

Unvote Ting
Vote houseofcards

It takes what, 7 to lynch, and we should be afraid of voting because of what would happen if someone that's acting suspicious turns up town? That doesn't make any sense, and if we went by your advice, no one would ever vote on anyone.

The reasonable approach is to apply pressure to people acting suspicious or scummy through voting, although not enough to lynch them. That being said, anyone casting a vote needs to be prepared that the vote could eventually result in a lynch, but as long as you are voting for who YOU think the most suspicious person is, you shouldn't be afraid of voting out of fear of retalliation.

[MonkeyMan576]

After rereading all the posts, I found quite a few times MonkeyMan576 raised my eyebrow of suspicion a few times (even if by only a little). His first vote felt like an overly optemistic hope for a bandwagon, and his following posts (eg post 23) he has tried to throw suspicion for almost nothing, but not voting untill the bandwagon is 'safe' to stay uner the radar. Though I wouldn't say trying to stay under the radar in itself is necessary scummy... staying under the radar and suspicion casting is.

Also, I find the bandwagon people are putting on Kieraen mildly suspicious. Reecer and houseofcards seem a little eager to bandwagon, so

Fos: Reecer & houseofcards

But

Unvote: Ting =) ; Vote: MonkeyMan576

I didn't say staying under the radar was good, I said you shouldn't be afraid to vote in fear of retaliation. Vote on who you think is most suspicious, not because someone else threatens you. You're totally misinterpreting what I said. I'm not casting suspicion, I'm giving my opinion. And I'm hardly staying under the radar.

[MonkeyMan576]

I never said you said staying under the radar was good, I was never challenging anything you were saying.

... I'm saying I think you

are

staying under the radar, to me it feels as though you're throwing some suspicion in the midst in the hopes others will jump on it, and thus jump on each other while you sit back and stay safe. I do agree you shouldn't be afraid to vote in fear of retaliation, but again, that's not what I am arguing.

And the type of 'under the radar' I was referring to is not when you try and stay unnoticed by not posting; but when you post often enough, but in a conforming manner so as to not to draw to much attention to yourself. (Also note I am not saying playing under the radar by itself is necessarily suspicious.)

I've noticed when people "rock the boat"(like by self voting or saying they don't like random voting), they have a tendancy to get voted on and attacked. There are ways to go about scum hunting besides being overtly confrontational.

[MonkeyMan576]

How was that even slightly relevant?

Well, it was to me.

[MonkeyMan576]

I didn't have time to elaborate on why I didn't like monkeyman's post 49 at the time I mentioned it.

Vote: Kieraern

In my opinion random facilitates discussion and puts pressure on people. And it's much better than lurking.

This strikes me as a rather contrived reason for a third vote. You're voting kieraern because he doesn't like random voting and you do? And how does random voting even apply any pressure at all? And yes, of course it's better than lurking, but how does that even reflect anything on kieraern's alignment? And as far as facilitating discussion goes, there are far better ways, like pressuring people as kieraern suggested.

It seems to me like you just wanted to hop on the kieraern wagon and cooked up something that doesn't even apply to do so.

Random voting facilitates discussion, first of all, by showing who is lurking and who is not, and second of all, to see if anyone is jumpy and gets overly defensive. My reason for voting is valid.

[MonkeyMan576]

Putting pressure on people is good for discussion, but random voting is also good for discussion. I just disagreed with Kierans logic, and often poor logic is a sign of scumminess. I'm not saying he's scum, just scummier than everyone else at this point. If a better candidate comes along that's scummier, I'll gladly change my vote.

[MonkeyMan576]

Now, now. Let's not be hasty. Poor logic is not necessarily scummy. It's entirely possible that a poor argument is merely a result of the arguer's inarticulation or of the lack of evidence, given the small amount of elapsed gameplay time.

Poor logic is scummy. Mafia is a game of logic, and the best way for the town to win is to use good logic and to point out poor logic. Does it mean someone using poor logic is scum? No. But poor logic is scummy compared to good logic.

That being said, there are ways the mafia can use logic to their advantage, but, by and large, logic is the towns friend and the mafia's enemy.

[MonkeyMan576]

Why would you be able to PM Kierian if he wasn't your mason from the beginning?

Unvote:
Vote:

Reecer

[MonkeyMan576]

I agree there's nothing to be gained by a quick lynch. Might as well look for more scum.

Unvote
Vote: Prof. Guppy

Lurking

[MonkeyMan576]

I agree there's nothing to be gained by a quick lynch. Might as well look for more scum.

Unvote
Vote: Prof. Guppy

Getting a full eight hours of sleep like a sane person should.

Fixed.

I'm not getting a clear read on Reccer. He's not scummy, he's just stupid. Right now I'm think Tovarish is scum, for votehopping.

Here is your post history so far...

4 - confirm
22 - refuse to random vote
46 - refuse to vote for Tovarish, "enough votes already"
78 - Denies lurking charges
92 - Asks what the "law of DNFTT" is.
96 - Asks for a vote count
106 - Advises reecer not to roleclaim.
135 - Claims "reccer not scummy, just stupid"

basically you've gone out of your way to avoid saying anything substantial, and you're defending reecer. That's enough to make me think you might be scum.

[MonkeyMan576]

So I guess our strategy, should be to avoid lynching people based on scummy behavior:sarcasm:.

[MonkeyMan576]

Ok, I do think Prof. Guppy has been quite suspicious, in a sense. He has been lurking, and defending Reecer. However, I checked his past games, it seems lurking is just what he does... (oh btw, ambiguous question to anyone, is checking peoples' past games poor sportsmanship?)

... But monkeyman, so far on posts 23, 49, 72, 132 and 136 you have attempted to force suspicion on others, by using sometimes flimsy logic to make agressive accusations in hopes of a bandwagon. In posts 59, 61 and 139 (and others) you have twisted words, by making them mean something they don't. E.g.

So I guess our strategy, should be to avoid lynching people based on scummy behavior:sarcasm:.

Prof. Guppy was saying that all townies make suspicious sounding comments every one and a while, which is true, half of the players so far have said something 'scummy', and I'm pretty sure there isn't 6 Mafia (That would be scary). But your comment is borderline irrelevant, and is arguing againts something he basically didn't even say.

Don't get me wrong, I think Prof. Guppy is suspicious, I am

not

defending him (or not trying to), he would probably be the 3rd person I would vote for, right after you.

And technically, in your attempt to get Prof. Guppy lynched, you're defending Reecer. If that doesn't scream mafia, I don't know what does.

I'm not defending Reecer at all. I'm all for a Reecer lynch. I just think it's too early in the day. If there's something that screams mafia, it's trying to end day too quickly when we could get more info.

[MonkeyMan576]

So who do you think is mafia, reecer?

[MonkeyMan576]

@tov.
I'm fairly convinced reecer is scum. I'm relatively certain that both, or at least one of Kier/MM are his buddies. It's possible reecer was just trying to implicate them with his posts, but I really don't think so.

Since that's three, I'm guessing the prof is probably town. We might have 4 scum, but I think I've only ever been in one mini with 4 scum.

It's day 1, and you're "relatively certain" that you know who 2, possibly 3 mafia are? You're sure you don't want to revise that?

My reason for saying so, is if reecer is actually scum, then what he is saying about other players should be taken with a grain of salt. No?

[MonkeyMan576]

Why is reecer refusing to say who he THINKS is guilty? Protecting his scumbuddies?

[MonkeyMan576]

I think it's about time to hammer reecer?

[MonkeyMan576]

Anyone have any objections to me hammering?

[MonkeyMan576]

I'm just not sure than anything more useful will come up, but I don't have any problem with waiting, either.

[MonkeyMan576]

Unvote:
Vote: Reecer

I'll explain tomorrow. If I'm alive.

[MonkeyMan576]

Looks like we have a pro-town killer, at least.

Anyways, the reason I hammered was I knew if we kept Reecer around as a cop, we pretty much couldn't trust anything he said, the fact that Reecer refused to say who he thought was guilty, and that coupled with the fact that Ting said he was "pretty sure" that reecer was scum, and then said he was ready to believe he was town the next page, gave me reason to believe that we'd be better off figuring out info from night action results than carry on the current course of discussion.

That being said, I am willing to take full responsibility for the lynch, and regret that we lost a cop, but still feel we're probably better off, given reecer's unreliable nature, provided we get some decent night action results.

[MonkeyMan576]

FoS:

Quanqan

For voting HoC for lurking in the same post that he says he'll be gone for 10 days.

But I want to see what night action results there are before committing a vote.

[MonkeyMan576]

Just a brief overview for now.

I was pretty annoyed when you hammered, Monkeyman. I still maintained that it was too early. Thats why I removed my vote. In fact the town as a whole was far too quick and I feel we should slow down a little bit. Day one shouldnt be that quick.

However in defence of the town, from the outset Reecer played like a guilty fool in this game, I fail to see his logic or gameplan.

Still, Ill be back to comment on the day one action, I've forgotten what happened.

However first question. Why TOVERISH? He was a loud player so there should be loads of reads and tells. I am aware that due to an early argument with him, I could be in the frame, but what others?

okay will post later with my read of the game.

I understand your frustration with the quick hammer. I just felt the discussion was going in the wrong direction and that reecer was never going to be less guilty looking, so it was in our best interest to move on. Obviously, I was wrong on Reecer, but all indicators pointed to him being guilty, or at the least, unreliable, so it was the best move given the circumstances.

[MonkeyMan576]

Why was it the best indicator?
I don't understand the need for speed?
I was fully prepared to vote for him as a suspicious person, but not to lynch yet, he was a crap player and i wanted to see him start using logic. When he cop claimed as far as i was concerned it was 50:50, and it was our duty as town to ensure that we got a full argument from him, and why waste day one by quicklynching, we could look for alternative targets?

Im sorry Monkeyman, but you and Ting gave the town 10 hours to object to a lynch against Reecer before you hammered. One other town member (TOVARISH) objected (apart from me and Ting who UNVOTED) and no one else even had time to comment. for me 6 of those hours were between 12 midnight and 6 am. I dont think a timeframe like that is indicative of someone who wants to avaoid a quick lynch

I agree there's nothing to be gained by a quick lynch. Might as well look for more scum.

Unvote
Vote: Prof. Guppy

Were you afraid more time and more targets would result more people thinking against a quicklynch? Maybe discovering your mafia?

Also after your hammer you said

Unvote:
Vote: Reecer

I'll explain tomorrow. If I'm alive.

but today you provide this explanation:

Looks like we have a pro-town killer, at least.

Anyways, the reason I hammered was I knew if we kept Reecer around as a cop, we pretty much couldn't trust anything he said, the fact that Reecer refused to say who he thought was guilty, and that coupled with the fact that Ting said he was "pretty sure" that reecer was scum, and then said he was ready to believe he was town the next page, gave me reason to believe that we'd be better off figuring out info from night action results than carry on the current course of discussion.

That being said, I am willing to take full responsibility for the lynch, and regret that we lost a cop, but still feel we're probably better off, given reecer's unreliable nature, provided we get some decent night action results.

For me this is totaly unsatisfactory. Why do you decide we cannot trust his cop suspicions. In retrospect his going with the flow was to avoid undue attention from the mafia (something i completely disbelieved and missed unfortunetly) . I do not think we are 'Better off' with him. He was erratic yes, but the chance of cop claim might have believed had the logic returned to his game.

So for me it absolutely has to be

VOTE: MONKEYMAN

will be rereading the game for more tells, and defense.

@TING

I find a case against you also.

Unvote.

We're in page 5. I don't think I'm comfortable with anyone being at L-1 so soon.

Then why, when finaly REECER becomes more forthcoming and role reveals a possible (and ultimetly truethful claim) do you then have no problem in a quicklynch?

I need to reread your game before any further questions however...

FOS:TING

On day one you defended yourself by saying you were one of reecer's greatest attackers, and now you are defending him, knowing he was town. Convenient, no?

[MonkeyMan576]

Thats rubbish. I did say that I attacked him, however I withdrew my vote, I constantly asked him for confirmation of his posts, their meaning, his logic, explained to him why cop claiming was insificient etc

In short I investigsated his actions

I didn't just quicklynch him. In fact whilst attacking him (with my previous argument of causing pressure) I withdrew my vote not wanting a lynch yet.

When he claimed and started to chat more, I felt we were starting to see a bit more. In trueth I still had him down as number one suspect, but myself as well as TOVARISH asked for no quick lynch!

So you admit that he was your number one suspect, yet you vote for me for voting based on my convictions? If I had not voted for him, and he had ended up being scum, then I would have been attacked for withholding my vote, while stile having him as my top suspect. I am comfortable with my vote, and suspicious of you attacking me for voting with my convictions.

[MonkeyMan576]

In my first game on this site, I came under heavy suspicion and was backed into a role claim. I claimed Cop, cuz I wuz. Everyone pulled their votes off of me, except one guy, who kept saying that a cop claim shouldn't save me from the noose. This guy was lynched, and he turned up Mafia.

I have every reason to believe the same thing is happening again.

So you believe that claiming cop should prevent you from being voted on no matter what your behavior?

[MonkeyMan576]

MonkeyMan, you're continually confusing voting for with lynching. No one is saying that putting pressure on Reecer was a bad idea, but you hammered after someone specifically asked you to wait.

You seem to be saying that you didn't want the town talking itself out of a lynch. That would have been a good thing. (But only in hindsight) More importantly, we would have more information to work with.

I also don't like your evaluation of what happened overnight. I didn't and still don't see anything that would have caused a vig to go after 12.

vote: MonkeyMan

It could have been a sk, I was just thinking since scum was killed maybe he was a vig.

I don't think reecer would have been any help to us, because if he was town we wouldn't have trusted him, and if he was scum, well, he was scum. I think it's better to get rid of a possible scum/possible untrustworthy townie than to lynch someone that's reasonable. I think we can have a far more reasonable discourse without Reecer in the mix, than with him, and in the long run we'll be much more efficient this way in finding and lynching scum. Reecer was only setting us back. I regret the cop being lynched, but I don't regret Reecer being out of the game,

Could we have had more information, possibly, but more than likely it would have been more of what we already knew, and this way we have night action results to work with(if people speak up), and we don't have reecer to deal with. Like I said, I take responsibility, and if you think lynching me is the best thing, then that's the towns perrogative, but I still think I made the best move, even if going out on your own isn't always popular, especially when you lose a town cop.

[MonkeyMan576]

People have a lot of opinions on what happened. This is good. We learn a lot more having this discussion than discussing Reecer.

[MonkeyMan576]

In my first game on this site, I came under heavy suspicion and was backed into a role claim. I claimed Cop, cuz I wuz. Everyone pulled their votes off of me, except one guy, who kept saying that a cop claim shouldn't save me from the noose. This guy was lynched, and he turned up Mafia.

I have every reason to believe the same thing is happening again.

So you believe that claiming cop should prevent you from being voted on no matter what your behavior?

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just saying, the mafia saw reecer's scummy behavior, they knew his cop claim was probably legit, they knew they could get him lynched and pass it off as a pro-town thing, and they probably couldn't resist.

The implied part of your statement that you're not saying, is that there are probably only 3 mafia, and it would have taken 4 townies at least to get enough for the lynch. That means that a majority of the votes on Reecer were pro-town. Why? Because he was acting scummy.

I'm not saying hammering a townie isn't naturally suspicious. I'm saying trying to cast excess suspicion on an easy tartget doesn't make you more pro-town. You should at least admit that reecer was highly suspicious, and that hammering someone that's acting that anti-town is hardly the most suspicious thing in the world.

[MonkeyMan576]

No, but hammering a claimed cop after someone specifically asks you not to is very suspicious.

You obviously didn't read my sentence.

[MonkeyMan576]

Yes but the likelyhood is that the mafia are contained in the group voting for REECER. and MONKEYMAN and TING are my top suspects.

Well, for what it's worth, I targeted ting with my night action, which I'd rather not reveal at this point.

[MonkeyMan576]

And Monkeyman? as vague as you can be (as it is your night action) but was the action/result positive or negative?

I actually didn't get a pm back from the mod. I guess I'll have to find out night 2 if there was a reason for that or not.

[MonkeyMan576]

And Monkeyman? as vague as you can be (as it is your night action) but was the action/result positive or negative?

Holy role fishing batman! Not all night actors know the results of their actions. Barring a kill not happening, the only roles that would know this are investigative ones.

FOS: Kieraen

Monkeyman, I'm really confused why you answered the question when you're not revealing your role. I can see a couple reasons for your target claim, but not any for giving more information.

Information helps the town in most circumstances. If I can still protect my identity and give the town information at the same time, I'll do it.

[MonkeyMan576]

qwints, hence my asking for it being vague.

Okay monkeyman, your role isnt going to save you, same as it didnt save reecer. You have to use logic and reason. I need a better reason for your hammer than you gave or I maintain my vote.

I never asked for my role to save me. Reecer was my #1 suspect and I still feel it was the best move.

[MonkeyMan576]

Vote: Prof. Guppy

He was high on my suspicious list yesterday, and now he's going after me(suprise!)

[MonkeyMan576]

Is an OMGUS vote supposed to make you look more town?

It's not an OMGUS vote, I had very good reasons for thinking Prof Guppy was scum yesterday. Him voting on me is total bandwagoning.
Here are what I think are the key day 1 posts.


Post 64: Ting defends Kieraern anti-random voting statement.

Post 67: Kieraen defends his anti-random voting stance.

Post 78: Prof Guppy denies lurking. Agrees with Ting that you can't pressure someone with 3 votes.

Post 106: Prof Guppy encourages reecer not to claim.

Post 107: Kieraen encourages reecer not to claim.

Post 108: Reecer says Kieran is innocent and implies they have permission to pm.

Post 109: Kieraen votes Reecer

Post 126: Ting says Reecer looks like scum.

Postg 129: Kieraen is worried about "sounding supsicious"

Post 136: I unvote Reecer and vote Prof Guppy and accuse lurking.

Post 137: Prof Guppy admits that he looks scummy but that "townies act scummy once in awhile."

Post 147: Prof Guppy attacks Tovarish for scum hunting.

Post 159: Prof Guppy states Reecer is his #1 suspect after being forced into giving info.

Post 160: Reecer rc's as cop.

Post 161: Tovarish advises against hammering, but says he doesn't believe his rc.

Post 162: HoC votes Prof Guppy.

Post 163: Ting says he doesn't believe Reecer's RC.

Post 168: Ting says he thinks Reecer is scum and Prof Guppy is town, and that Kier and MM are Scum with Reecer.

Post 169: Ting says that if Reecer is scum, MM is #1 scum choice and Kier is #2.

Post 170: Prof Guppy says he "has never been good at this game". Appeal to emotion?

Post 178: I note that reecer refuses to say who he thinks is guilty.

Post 181: Ting agrees with me that it's time to hammer Reecer, but mistakingly says it's L2 when it's L1.

Post 188: I hammer.


So, to summarize, Prof Lurks most of the 1st day, I along with several others are pressuring Reecer, Reecer makes a scummy looking play. Prof Guppy advises Reecer not to RC. Prof Guppy says "even townies act scummy some of the time." Then Prof Guppy says Reecer is his #1 suspect. Prof Guppy's "I've never been good at this game" is a huge appeal to emotion IMHO. Then Ting mistates his vote being L2 when it is L1.

It looks to me like Prof Guppy and Ting might be working together, and that Ting may have lied to get Reecer lynched. Ting is defending Prof Guppy despite his supsicious play, and Prof Guppy is voting for me after voting for him, which IS an OMGUS vote, and conveniently fails to mention anything suspicious Ting has done. It's nothing concrete, just a heavy suspicion.

[MonkeyMan576]

[quote="Prof. Guppy
[/quote]

First of all, how am I OMGUSing you, when I voted for you first?

I voted you first day 1. You don't get away with an OMGUS vote just because it's a different day.

And as far as I'm concerned mafia players have a duty to vote for whoever is acting the most supsicious. To suggest otherwise is popostrious.

Revote: Prof. Guppy

[MonkeyMan576]

oh i see, oops yes i meant to put prof guppy instead of the second monkeyman. lol i was thiniing about how guilty hé is.

So you don't think Prof Guppy and/or Ting are guilty then?

[MonkeyMan576]

I'm not planning on roleclaiming, I think I have enough support that anyone who hammers me would have something to answer for.

[MonkeyMan576]

After thinking about it, I'll go ahead and RC, at least I can get some protection from the doctor, if there is one.

I am the

roleblocker

[MonkeyMan576]

After thinking about it, I'll go ahead and RC, at least I can get some protection from the doctor, if there is one.

I am the

roleblocker

I hate roleblockers. They interrupt cop investigations and doctor protections. They usually can't stop the mafia from killing. Give me one good reason why we shouldn't get rid of you because of your role.

The roleblocker is one of the most valuable roles in the game. Do I really have to explain this? *sigh*

[MonkeyMan576]

If I wasn't suspicious of PG before(which I was), I most definatley am now, and think trying to get the town roleblocker killed is a lynchable offence.

[MonkeyMan576]

at least I can get some protection from the doctor, if there is one.

Directing power roles = bad.

I don't see how, if I have advice to offer someone, I should be able to do that. In the games I play offsite, roleblockers and doctors are given pm results.

[MonkeyMan576]

Why directing power roles is bad.

For the purposes of this post, let's assume I'm mafia.

Hey vig - kill HoC, k? Thanks.
I'm cop! Doc, you should protect me tonight, alright?
RB, I'm pretty sure that the claimed doc is lying. You should block him tonight, I'm sure he's the last mafia.

We have no way to ascertain that any player here is town. If you're scum, you could have claimed a power role to get the doc(if any) to protect you. That'd both waste the doc protect and give an explanation for why you, a claimed power role, is not yet dead. Long story short, there's no good reason to ever direct a power role. I can think of only a few situations where it'd be okay, but this isn't one of them.

@last bit.
Ah. It depends on the mod here, but the convention is generally to not give pm results if nothing happens.

It's up to the player to decide if he thinks I'm town or not, but there's nothing wrong with providing advice. Obviously, I know I'm not scum, and I think protecting the town roleblocker would be a good idea since the cop is dead. I disagree with your aversion to giving advice on night actions. The player is under no obligation to follow advice, nor is any other player under any obligation not to give advice. If the players really think I am scum, I should be lynched. Otherwise, I should be free to give pro-town advice, I'm not going to talk on the basis that I may be scum, because I know that I'm not.

[MonkeyMan576]

After thinking about it, I'll go ahead and RC, at least I can get some protection from the doctor, if there is one.

I am the

roleblocker

I hate roleblockers. They interrupt cop investigations and doctor protections. They usually can't stop the mafia from killing. Give me one good reason why we shouldn't get rid of you because of your role.

The roleblocker is one of the most valuable roles in the game. Do I really have to explain this? *sigh*

Yes, please do, because I have a hard time believing your role is benifical to the town when all you do is stop the pro-town power roles from acting.

The idea is you target mafia, and stop the mafia people from acting.

[MonkeyMan576]

The idea is you target mafia, and stop the mafia people from acting.

Even if you do target a Mafioso, you won't stop the kill. So, what's the point?

Obviously you don't understand what my role does.

http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... oleblocker

[MonkeyMan576]

The idea is you target mafia, and stop the mafia people from acting.

Even if you do target a Mafioso, you won't stop the kill. So, what's the point?

Obviously you don't understand what my role does.

http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... oleblocker

Don't insult my intelligence. In this game, I highly doubt that the mafia really have to choose someone to make the kill. Especially if (and this is the most likely scenario) they are all vanilla goons.

Even if that was true(which it's not in my experience as being mafia in other games, the mafia DOES select someone to perform the kill), you don't think that it's possible the mafia has other roles which would be worthy of being blocked?

[MonkeyMan576]

The idea is you target mafia, and stop the mafia people from acting.

Even if you do target a Mafioso, you won't stop the kill. So, what's the point?

Obviously you don't understand what my role does.

http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... oleblocker

Don't insult my intelligence. In this game, I highly doubt that the mafia really have to choose someone to make the kill. Especially if (and this is the most likely scenario) they are all vanilla goons.

Even if that was true(which it's not in my experience as being mafia in other games, the mafia DOES select someone to perform the kill), you don't think that it's possible the mafia has other roles which would be worthy of being blocked?

In a mini game? Possible, yes; probable, not so much.

If the mod included a roleblocker role, with only one role to roleblock, that would be very shortsighted imho.

[MonkeyMan576]

ok, prof we shouldnt lynch mm if he is a role blocker, because if hes not sure if some one is mafia or not he doesnt need to block anyone he can wait until he gains suspicion on someone and then block them, and hes protown so theres no reason to lynch him.

It's just that he knows I'm supsicious of him, and he's worried that he won't get his (probably scummy) night action to go through.

[MonkeyMan576]

It's just that he knows I'm supsicious of him, and he's worried that he won't get his (probably scummy) night action to go through.

It's not that. I just don't like roleblockers. They usually help the scum more than the town.

And where the hell is Polymorph?

Couldn't you say the same thing about Vigilante's? If so, do you think they should be lynched, too?

[MonkeyMan576]

It's just that he knows I'm supsicious of him, and he's worried that he won't get his (probably scummy) night action to go through.

It's not that. I just don't like roleblockers. They usually help the scum more than the town.

And where the hell is Polymorph?

Couldn't you say the same thing about Vigilante's? If so, do you think they should be lynched, too?

Okay, what part of "you win" do you not understand?

So is that, you win, as in you are admitting you are scum?

[MonkeyMan576]

@MM

Your twisting my words again. I have been convinced that having a roleblocker around is not such a bad thing after all. That's what I meant by "you win".

I will never admit to being scum. You will have to prove it.

No, I don't have to prove it, everyone else just has to believe your the scummiest one out there, which to me isn't much of a stretch.

[MonkeyMan576]

I must admit I'm a little suprised that this is a difficult decision for so many people. Definatley taking a note as to who's taking their time voting.

[MonkeyMan576]

Reread complete.

I am happy to finally replace someone who doesn't look like obv-scum.

Even if MM is a RB, it doesn't mean he's pro-town. Most RBs I've seen are mafia, and they often claim townie-RB. His initial claim offer seemed too premature to be honest. He is the only one that dropped the "woot! the killer is pro-town" SK tell and his quick-hammer is more indicitive of SK than mafia. Too bad these clues add up to different conclusions, or we'd have a done deal. Luckily, he made that threat in #293 with the intention of rushing yet another day...

QoH is an alt, and scum, and needs to die... but I guess we can wait for her to be replaced in case I am wrong.

I don't like Ting's L-2 misstatement, but that's all I have against him.

Kier is probably town, though there is one niggling post that tells me otherwise.

Guppy seems to suffer from the belief that not defending himself will somehow help the town. Is it just me, or does it seem like he's trying to appear cool and aloof? And I don't like the role-fishing.

I suppose I'll turn up the heat under MM, see what boils...

vote: MonkeyMan576

.

Could each of you state, with or without reasons, whether you think the secondary killer is protown or not? I think it's a SK.

There's no way to know at this point, so there's no real point in speculating. I'm not trying to rush the day, I'm saying I'm suspicious of people that are defending Guppy at this point, and at this point to me not voting him is defending given his level of scumminess. He's all but admitted to being scum. We have to vote on the people that are acting scummy, not avoid voting on people on the off chance they might not be scum. Eventually, hopefully sooner rather than later, the scummy acting people are going to be scum.

[MonkeyMan576]

There's no way to know at this point, so there's no real point in speculating.

But there was a way to know in #192 when you speculated unbidden? If I thought there was no reason to ask, I wouldn't have asked and, FTR, I already knew your answer... I was asking others.

I'm not trying to rush the day, I'm saying I'm suspicious of people that are defending Guppy at this point, and at this point to me not voting him is defending given his level of scumminess.

Absolute crap. You've been forthright with your reasoning on other topics, yet you kept this complicated motivation (not voting = defending) tacit? It's more likley that it was afterthought.

"I must admit I'm a little suprised that this is a difficult decision for so many people. Definatley taking a note as to who's taking their time voting," is a threat. It says that you will hound the people who don't vote with you immediately. Furthermore, it assumes that you will be alive tomorrow: not a believable sentiment from claimed town-power in a game with two killers.

It implies no such thing. It merely means that I am taking note of it, and will consider it along with other things. If someone is not voting for what I see as the scummiest person out there, it's well within my rights to do so. I'm not sure what the number of killing roles has to do with my roleclaim.

[MonkeyMan576]

Stop strawmanning. Why do you assume you'll be alive tomorrow?

Because I know I'm innocent, why else? Why are you twisting my words into false implications?

[MonkeyMan576]

I'm just going to let that hang there.

FOS: YThill

for twisting words, poor logic regarding roleclaiming, and refusing to answer questions.

[MonkeyMan576]

Are you actually a monkey? Sorry if that's offensive, but you have convinced me that assinine rhetorical questions are suddenly important, so I figured I'd ask one.

If you are "innocent" then you are town-power and a RB. If you are town power, you are the obvious NK. If you are a RB, there is probably no doctor. Ergo, if you are telling the truth, you should know that you are likely to die tonight. This would be true even if there was only one NK. We have two, which doubles the liklihood that you'll be gone before tomorrow.

Yet you expect to live, because you are "innocent"? See why I let that dangle for people to read? Tired of assinine rhetorical questions yet?

I replaced in with a five-point accusation against you. You ignored four of the points, cherry-picked one, and posted a defense that sounded dishonest. I pointed out why it sounded dishonest and showed how your PoV was indicitive of a scum alignment. You ignored the first part, trying to pretend that I was twisting your words, and you played dumb in response to the second part.

Where's my poor logic?

I'll take my chances on there being a doctor. I don't agree with your logic on my rc. Based on your "theory", I guess I shouldn't have roleclaimed then. But guessing on unclaimed roles is definatley not pro town. My defence isn't dishonest, my roleclaim isn't dishonest. You have no evidence of either, yet you keep on throwing the words out there like they are supposed to mean something.

[MonkeyMan576]

Not at all what I was saying. You said you were taking note of those who weren't voting for your PE#1. That's a threat for future days but, if you're telling the truth about your alignment, you shouldn't believe you'll be alive on future days. Of course you'll take your chances, but anyone in the shoes you claim to be wearing would understand how slim those chances are. You don't seem to.

If I die, I die. I'm not going to act on the premise that I'll be dead, though. That would be pointless.

Premise: it is in character for you to include sensical reasoning with your actions at the time they are posted. For example, in #49 you said you were voting Kier because you like the RVS, which you backed up without changing your story in #65. When you refuse to post reasoning for your actions, it is explicit (#188). Your defense vs. me is the one place where you say one thing (not voting Guppy is scummy) and then claim, later, that you really meant something more complicated (not voting Guppy is the same as defending Guppy and therefore scummy).

I'm not sure what your point is here, so I don't really have anything to argue.

Furthermore, you have already demonstrated (when it suited your argument) that you believe acting incidentally against the popular lynch is

not

the same as defending the candidate (#150), yet you suddenly claim to have this belief when it suits your defense.

You have to take things case by case, not use one all encompassing strategy for everything. I feel much stronger about Guppy than I did about reecer(at the time).

Let's look at #221, where you first "reveal" that you have a night action. You had two votes on you, which is hardly enough pressure to force you out, especially when you believe that role-claims shouldn't prevent a lynch (#s 180, 188, 192, 198, & 204) and think the scum could NK you (#s 188 & 256). You are unwilling to state your night action (#221) even though you are waiting to vote until night results are revealed (#194), suggesting that you're worried about a counter-claim.

I never said I was waiting to vote until night results are revealed. I was waiting to vote until I found someone I thought was scummy. Putting words in my mouth.

Now let's look at your target... During D1, your prime suspect other than Reecer was Kier. You attacked him first (#49) and continued to back up your attack on him until you voted for Reecer, during which you suggested that he was Kier's buddy (#112). Meanwhile, you mentioned Ting exactly twice: once to defend against a reasonable argument he raised (#65) and once to attack him for suggesting that either you or Kier were Reecer's buddy (#169). This is very odd because, according to #112, you agree with Ting about Kier. You're asking us to believe that Ting coming to a conclusion similar to your own made him look so scummy that you RBed him instead of the person you both agreed was scummiest second to Reecer?

Just because I agree with Ting about Kier with regards to random voting, doesn't mean I don't think he's scummy for mistating that we were at L-2 against reecer and for not attacking Guppy.

In #55, you threaten future suspicions, implying that you believe you have a future in this game, yet you have already demonstrated that your beliefs disagree with this sentiment (see above).

See my statement above.

Also, thanks for making that "no evidence" claim and inspiring me to gather the cites for my case, because doing so allowed me to find another clue. You attacked and voted Kier for "poor logic," yet when 12-scum opposed your view in a similar way, you didn't attack him at all. Instead, you coached him and dropped the subject as soon as he asked you to.

I'm not sure who or when you are referring to as "12-scum", so you'll have to enlighten me. It seems like you're trying to throw as much suspicion my way as possible, deserved or undeserved, and hoping something will stick. Just because you have a willingness to attack someone doesn't make you pro-town. I'm just as interested in who you are attacking and who you are diverting attention from.

[MonkeyMan576]

I want to see what night action results there are before committing a vote.

I could argue your other points as well and probably will eventually but, for now, I'm going to let brievity add more weight to your lie.

It's not a lie, I forgot about that post. At any rate, it was more hoping we would get some night action results, more than not wanting to commit to a vote. Are you arguing that night action results are not good for the town?

I'm not sure who or when you are referring to as "12-scum", so you'll have to enlighten me.

The guy named 12. That was revealed to be scum. You know... your scumbuddy.

That's a leading statement. He's not my scum-buddy. Just as likely to be your scum-buddy, if not more so. You have a severe case of tunnel vision, especially when there are other viable suspects. Add that to your leading statements, and putting my statements out of context more than once, and why don't you let other players decide if I'm scummy or not?

[MonkeyMan576]

Formatting error, where it says "Ytill wrote" in the middle section, and says "it's not a lie", that's my statement.

[MonkeyMan576]

Concentrate less on my "leading statement" and more on explaining why you just lied.

Why are you so afraid of having attentioned focused on you. I already explained my actions. It wasn't a lie.

[MonkeyMan576]

I already explained my actions. It wasn't a lie.

You explained that you forgot about a post that I cited in the very statement you were arguing. This from someone who has already shown himself to be a liar. Why should I believe you?

You're mischaracterizing my statements as a lie. I've never said I've lied. I really don't care if you believe me or not, but don't presume to assume that everyone else is going to believe you over me. I think I have a pretty strong case against Guppy. Most probably stronger than your case against me.

[MonkeyMan576]

You're mischaracterizing my statements as a lie.

Am I really? Let's look deeper. Here are the two contradictory statements...

Just because something is contradictory doesn't make it a lie. I don't keep track of every post off the top of my head.

[MonkeyMan576]

I really don't like how MM has handled himself in response to YTHill's accusations. He's played dumb to a couple of obvious points ("what/when is 12-scum) and has responded to detailed arguments with near-empty one-liners.

I want a detailed explanation of MM's contradictory posts or I will return my vote to him. Scum not fully remembering their previous posts is one of the key slips that allows us to catch them.

Me not recognizing what he was referring to is not scummy. There is nothing in the posts that implicates me as scum.

[MonkeyMan576]

Claiming that X was your motivation when Y was clearly your motivation is lying. Claiming that X was your motivation when you don't remember what your motivation was is lying. Lynch all liars.

Why does that sound familliar?

I wish you would use specific incendents instead of general principals when implicating a speicific person. I can tell you firmly I was not lying. I may have misinterpeted your accusation or not recalled what you were referring to properly, but I can assure you I was not lying. And there was certainly no mallicious intent. And I don't appreciate that implication.

[MonkeyMan576]

It's not being opportunistic. I just forgot that I had said that I was waiting to vote. And, as I had explained, it was a case of me not expressing myself clearly, becuase it was less of me not wanting to vote and more me hoping we would have good night results to catch scum with.

[MonkeyMan576]

You forgot you said it. Fine.

Did you forget you were waiting? Clearly not, because you admit to waiting, and to having a reason. You simply forgot that the reason was X and then lied, saying the reason was Y. Meanwhile, I've pointed out that your play demonstrates that Y was not a valid reason at that time.

Yeah, I didn't know why I had said it, so I said it the reason was Y, when it in fact was not, because I didn't realize I had said X in the first place. I should have looked through the thread before posting. Lazienss, not scuminess.

[MonkeyMan576]

So why are you using fiction in your arguments? Laziness explains not having solid facts, it does not explain creating new ones off the top of your head.

I replied with what I thought I should have been thinking, rather than what I was actually thinking.

[MonkeyMan576]

That's obvious. The question was: why?

Like I said, my memory of the incident was incorrect and I hadn't bothered to look it up.

[MonkeyMan576]

(1) You say you targetd Ting last night because you suspected him. Why did you admit to targeting him in #221? What good did you think it would do the town?

I believe I was trying to show that I had a night action without actually roleclaiming, and then I was still pressured, so I felt I had to rc.

(2) You seem to think that power roles should all reveal their results on D2. Is this a fair observation? Why were you still wanting to keep your night action a secret while asking for others to reveal theirs? Can you post a link to a finished game where you espoused similar beliefs as town? If not, why not?

No, I do not think this is a good idea. I think it is helpful to get SOME night results on day 2, but you usually don't want to rc power roles unless forced to because of supsicion. I think if minor roles can give night action results, while power roles keep theirs secret early on, that is most helpful. And finally, since I'm not agreeing with you, there is no such game.

(3) When you hammered R, you said you'd explain in the morning. Why wait until morning for the explanation?

Because I didn't want the mafia to make any kill decisions based on my reasons.

(4) Briefly, what are your top five reasons for wanting to hang Guppy? If he was somehow immune, who would be your second choice?

Admitting he's scummy, refusing to defend himself, wanting to see town power roles lynched, and not attacking Ting are my biggest reasons. I'm sure there are others but I'd have to do another reread.

[MonkeyMan576]

Second choice?

Sorry, Ting. Since he either lied or mispoke about being on L-2 yesterday, and cause he's avoiding attacking Guppy.

[MonkeyMan576]

Just to clarify, your reason was that this would keep the pressure off of you? If not, please explain what you meant.

Well, I didn't want to roleclaim if not necessary.

[MonkeyMan576]

Second choice?

Sorry, Ting. Since he either lied or mispoke about being on L-2 yesterday, and cause he's avoiding attacking Guppy.

EBWOP: L-1

[MonkeyMan576]

Actually, they're both true. LOL.

Just to clarify, your reason was that this would keep the pressure off of you? If not, please explain what you meant.

Well, I didn't want to roleclaim if not necessary.

I understand this. What I want to know was, why did you reveal that you targeted Ting? Was it because you were under pressure? That's what it sounded like you were saying but it was somewhat unclear.

Yeah, I was hoping that if people realised I had a night action they would back off.

[MonkeyMan576]

Okay yeah I agree Ting the suspicion against you is much smaller than against MM. Its the mistaken L-2 claim that is suspicious. That mistake is a possible scumtell. However I do take on board the ultimate responibility of MM.
However you did advocate the lynch, and I maintain that was too early. He had began to talk and since we only had one target i don't think we had ascertained enough information from day one. Thats also a negative point against you.

So in conclusion.
Not enough information against you. Most is circumstantial. I need to reread earlier posts. But still a firm finger of suspicion against you, especialy if MM flips scum.

It sounds like you are presuming I am going to be lynched, or advocating that I should be without actually saying it. What do you think of Guppy's scumminess level compared to mine.

[MonkeyMan576]

I'd like to hammer MonkeyMan. If he comes up town, I'll totally take the heat for it. I'll keep my vote in my pocket until he's at L-1.

Since the mafia still has 3 players, I would hope this would be enough to convince other people to unvote me. It's nice of Guppy to take the heat for lynching the town roleblocker when he is scum.

[MonkeyMan576]

I'd like to hammer MonkeyMan. If he comes up town, I'll totally take the heat for it. I'll keep my vote in my pocket until he's at L-1.

Since the mafia still has 3 players, I would hope this would be enough to convince other people to unvote me. It's nice of Guppy to take the heat for lynching the town roleblocker when he is scum.

Well, if the mafia still has 3 players, that would mean there were 4 to begin with because we already killed one (12). And how do you know there are still three mafia anyway?

Forgot about 12. Just assuming since 4 would be too many(2:1 ratio) and 2 would be too few(5:1 ratio)

[MonkeyMan576]

If you are scum, chances are you will not be able to stand up to the scrutiny and will be caught in a lie (see MM).

I wish you would stop characterizing it as a lie, lie implies mallicious intent or knowingly making a misstatement, of which I did neither.

[MonkeyMan576]

MM, you still haven't explained your reasons behind the two inconsistent statements.

I already was interrogated regarding that, and I believe I answered the questions geniounly and effectively.

[MonkeyMan576]

No, you said that you forgot to check the thread for your previous posts. It shouldn't be an effort to stay consistent if you are town.

I'm not going through this again.