However, given the way the scene is written, it appears a group (as implied with "we") is responsible for this death - the mafia.
With that said, let us pursue the scum.
Barromán, 46 wrote:a.)Elias, you are just saying that Random votes are useless??
b.)Well... but, why have you done a random vote if they're useless??
c.)And why you don't answer this?Ancagalon wrote:How much time passed? Your post was at 5:00 on a Friday Night. Then there was another post, then your post again at 10:00 on a Saturday Morning. Hardly enough to call a slow game. That's weak reasoning there.Elias wrote: now, my first vote was my random vote. but when i saw that nothing was happening in this game, I switched it in order to get the game going again.
Is there a particular reason why I am "annoying the hell out of you"?omg_im_innocent_wtf wrote:and before you ask i dont have any reason to think javert is scum, he is just annoying the hell out of me
Just so I am clear, who are you proposing Ancalagon is defending?Nocmen wrote:As ac1983fan said, I willUnvotebecause some tells are starting to come out with other events, and then I willVote:Ancalagonfor what seems to be using made up statistics with no background, with most likely seems to be in defense of his scum partner.
Firstly, Barroman asked Elias_the_thief three questions, not simply one. Secondly, the game was (and still is) just creeping out of the random voting stage. I am much more content with a vote with some reasoning behind it (as my current vote) than a vote with no reasoning behind it (as was my initial vote).The Shadow wrote:I think Javert's kinda jumping it a bit on Barroman. He asked Elias a simple question. Regardless of whether it should have been fairly clear, that's hardly cause for a vote, I'm thinking.
Barroman, do you agree with this? If not, what questions do you think were unanswered in-thread? And if so, why did you accuse me of being a 'poor lawyer'?Elias_the_thief wrote:while barromans questions were kind of dumb seeing as they'd already been answered, they dont really seem to be much of a scumtell.
Could you tell me what in particular is annoying about my posts? It may be possible for me to alleviate whatever offense you are taking in my posting.omg_im_innocent_wtf wrote:javert is annoying entirely because of his posts, i dont have a clue what his pic is.
None of these are 'answers' to any of your questions posed to Elias. He is still free to answer your questions, since his actual responses (which, to me, appear clearly in-thread) are much more detailed than what I have shown here.Javert wrote:a.) Any layman reading Elias' posts can tell that he did not say that random votes are 'useless' - just that they will not be taken completely seriously.
b.) See above.
c.) This is an absurdly silly "question". Ancagalon makes the answer entirely explicit by laying out the timeframe - a direct response is completely unneccessary.
Your questions simply struck me as having self-evident answers - and questions with such simple answers do not seem to me like somethingHypothetical Interaction wrote:X wrote:I believe Y is suspicious for reasons A, B, and C.Z wrote:You said you are suspicious of Y. Butwhyare you suspicous of Y?
The Shadow, in addition to my earlier questions posed to you, please inform me whatThe Shadow, 65 wrote:I think Javert's kinda jumping it a bit on Barroman. He asked Elias a simple question. Regardless of whether it should have been fairly clear, that's hardly cause for a vote, I'm thinking.
Regardless of whether or not you think kilmenator is scum, taking a position such as this is folly. If kilmenator asks you a question and you choose to ignore it, you are doing the town a disservice. Should you ignore such questions solely on that basis, you can rest assured that I will personally re-ask those questions so that you will be compelled to answer them.omg_im_innocent_wtf, 70 wrote:im not answering any more questions or comments for this game ever from kilmenator.
I agree with MeMe on this. Calling somebody "lazy or stupid" is not an appeal to emotion - if anything, it is more of a personal attack (perhaps bordering on the realm of ad hominem, but I don't see it as having crossed that line).kilmenator, 84 wrote:I am not scum, and the fact that you are calling me lazy or stupid (an appeal to emotion) really ticks me off and is sometimes used by scum to get people playing on emotion rather than with logic.
Then when can we expect any contribution from you? You have (as of now) added nothing to the game whatsoever. Games are not somehow ensorcelled to be either exciting, fast-paced, or bland - it depends entirely on the players. When there are players who lurk or do not comment, games become less and less enjoyable.ac1983fan wrote:I feel there's actually very little to talk about.Javert wrote:Vote: ac1983fan. Care to comment on the game? There should be plenty to talk about.
So how oftenThe Shadow wrote:Apparently you just vote people more than I do.
Voting Summary, with Lost Data wrote:Javert votes The Shadow (1)
Ancalagon votes omg_im_innocent_wtf (1)
omg_im_innocent_wtf votes Javert (1)
ac1983fan votes Elias_the_thief (1)
MeMe votes shadowdeath (1)
shadowdeath votes omg_im_innocent_wtf (2)
kilmenator votes The Shadow (2)
Elias_the_thief votes Ancalagon (1)
Nocmen votes The Shadow (3)
Elias_the_thief unvotes Ancalagon (0) and votes omg_im_innocent_wtf (3)
omg_im_innocent_wtf unvotes Javert (0) and votes kilmenator (1)
Ancalagon unvotes omg_im_innocent_wtf (2) and votes Elias_the_thief (2)
Barroman votes Elias_the_thief (3)
Elias_the_thief FoS: Ancalagon (I)
ac1983fan unvotes Elias_the_thief (2)
Javert unvotes The Shadow (2) and votes Barroman (1)
Nocmen unvotes The Shadow (1) and votes Ancalagon (1)
kilmenator unvotes The Shadow (0) votes Barroman (2)
shadowdeath unvotes omg_im_innocent_wtf (1)
shadowdeath votes Ancalagon (2)
Javert unvotes Barroman (1) and votes ac1983fan (1)
Barroman unvotes Elias_the_thief (1)
kilmenator unvotes Barroman (0)
Barroman votes kilmenator (2)
MeMe unvotes shadowdeath (0) and votes ac1983fan (2)
Nocmen FoS: ac1983fan (I) and FoS: MeMe (I)
kilmenator votes omg_im_innocent_wtf (2)
Elias_the_thief votes Ancalagon (3)
ac1983fan FoS: Barroman (I) and votes omg_im_innocent_wtf (3)
omg_im_innocent_wtf unvotes kilmenator (1) and votes ac1983fan (3)
-- Lost Data –
omg_im_innocent_wtf unvotes ac1983fan (2) and votes Ancalagon (4)
MeMe unvotes ac1983fan (1) and votes Ancalagon (5)
Barroman unvotes kilmenator (0) and votes ac1983fan (2)
Javert FoS: MeMe (II)
omg_im_innocent_wtf unvotes Ancalagon (4) and votes kilmenator (1)
Javert unvotes ac1983fan (1) and votes kilmenator (2)
Barroman unvotes ac1983fan (1) and votes kilmenator (3)
Would you please explain to me how you get this vibe in particular? Did you read what was lost during the server move? And if so, how well doNocmen, 141 wrote: Wait...your response to the first quote is saying "we lost data thats a problem because I cant use it", and then you said after the third quote that you did read it.If you read it, as most of us also did, your putting out a vibe to me that reads "im a scum that needs to nitpick exact details to get you off my back".
Why are you trying to draw more connections between people on Day One? Your first reaction to everything seems to be "you must be X's scum-partner".Nocmen, 165 wrote: Ancalagon: Why are you complaining over the fact that someone unvoted you? Distancing yourself from fellow scum?
I made it quite clear Sunday evening that I would be back and talking again after I recollected my thoughts on this game in a day or so – now it is Tuesday evening, and I am true to my word. Surprisingly enough, I do have schedules and deadlines and things to do outside of playing an on-line interactive text-based game. If you are willing to vote for me on other bases of reasoning, feel free to say as much, but if that is your sole foundation it is weak indeed.MeMe, 170 wrote:... orJavert(who says he is here but has stopped talking in a very unJavertlike way).
I assume this because a good deal of Ancalagon's posts seem to be focusing directly on the lost data. I agree that he should be commenting on the latest happenings and the past posts, however, which I have already mentioned in [172].MeMe wrote:But as long as Ancalagon can't even be bothered to comment on the stuff that isn't missing, why would you assume he'd be more productive if we provide him with even more to ignore?
Highlight added for clarification.Javert, 176 wrote:I assume this because a good deal of Ancalagon's posts seem to be focusing directly on the lost data.I figured once he was presented with something tangible to respond to, he would have no reason not to comment on other things, and would hence begin to do so.I agree that he should be commenting on the latest happenings and the past posts, however, which I have already mentioned in [172].
Please inform me how I 'overreacted'. Is there a proper way I should react when I think putting somebody at Lynch -1 when I don't feel there has been enough discussion? How I reacted was to get MeMe to explain her vote, and then we had a discussion based largely on whether or not we believed it was 'safe', whether it would encourage 'discussion', and whether that was a good way to go about getting said discussion. Since the particular line of discussion was lost in the server move, I unfortunately cannot link you to my specific posts - but if you could show me how I was overreacting, please do.Kilmenator, 185 wrote:The discussion between Javert and Meme is interesting, mostly just talking about getting discussion going and such. The way I read it, it seems like Javertover reactedto meme's little joke about the lynch -1 thingy.
I am tempted to vote Kilmenator, for a few reasons, but I also feel that unvoting ac1983fan before he even explains how the posts he cites are scummy would make my action more ineffective than useful. Instead, I'll list the reasons I'm considering switching my vote below, wait for her response, and then decide.Javert, 204 wrote:Please inform me how I 'overreacted'. Is there a proper way I should react when I think putting somebody at Lynch -1 when I don't feel there has been enough discussion? How I reacted was to get MeMe to explain her vote, and then we had a discussion based largely on whether or not we believed it was 'safe', whether it would encourage 'discussion', and whether that was a good way to go about getting said discussion. Since the particular line of discussion was lost in the server move, I unfortunately cannot link you to my specific posts - but if you could show me how I was overreacting, please do.
Portion highlighted. This just seems like trying to comfort somebody when you are actually planning to stick them with a needle. I just keep getting this same feel whenever I read this particular post.kilmenator, 29 wrote:actually, no, I did not miss that part, to me it seems like an afterthought, like, "oh wait... that was a stupid reason for a vote, crap, what can I say now.... ummm.... he is gone, yeah, he IS gone, so that will work... Not anything to be overly anxious about, I havent even moved my vote to you yet, I just found it interesting the way things played out.And your vote generated discussion which is very good for the town, the only people who are scared of discussion are generally non-pro-town players.
This particular comment seems a little bit like an attempt at entrapment. omg_im_innocent_wtf indeed voted spectrumvoid along with the comment "I don't care about his role. I am not putting up with this bs any more" – but this is not equivalent to saying "he won't vote anybody else until spectrumvoid is dead". But even if thatKilmenator, 210 wrote:So you are not voting anyone else until spectrum is dead, but then hop back on me? (BTW- you still did not use a colon after your vote) But then offer no reasons? Is it because no one else seems to be putting heat on SV and you need to get your vote on someone that you think can be lynched?
This does not, however, change the fact that you tried to vote for spectrumvoid. A technicality in how votes are counted in this game in no way absolves you for your action (if your action even requires absolution in the first place).omg_im_innocent_wtf, 211 wrote:1. i never actually voted for spectrum.
Portion highlighted. Although I agree with this on one level, I disagree on another. This reads to me like somebody who is support of policy lynches – i.e. "you are always either unhelpful or scummy-looking, so I will lynch you every time I play with you". I think this type of attitude just as likely to hurt the town as it is to help it. I might as well just ask: are you in favor of policy lynches?Kilmenator, 240 wrote:Also, I do not buy the too scummy to be scum argument.If someone plays scummy, they are not helpful to the town, so they are just a liability, and it is smart to be done with them IMO.
Are you being serious?omg_im_innocent_wtf wrote:QUICK WAGON KILMENATOR I CANT BE LYNCHED IM A POWER ROLE AS ALWAYS
Edit by way of double post.Javert wrote:But as it is - assuming no kills are stopped and that the mafia will bethe only thingkilling (neither of which will necessarily happen) - No Lynching brings the town's total lynches down to 4, whereas lynching today assures us 5 lynches. I would rather the town have more control over who dies if possible.
You simplyac1983fan wrote:prodded, not much going on here though.
Elias_the_thief, 250 wrote:It really is. ok, I dont agree with your plan to just lynch the shadow based on his lurking.What if we end up lynching the doc , or possibly a roleblocker? then we'd be screwed.
These confuse me. Set me straight if I am interpreting you incorrectly, but this is what I am seeing:Elias_the_thief, 265 wrote:That worked out for the best. Anyways, on the topic of OMG's claim, its the same thing he did in my last game with him. He claimed power, then claimed scum then got lynched. (he was a roleblocker). I dont think you can take anything he says at face value. That being said, I think lynching OMG would have been a better idea as opposed to shadow. shadow was inactive, so he was replaced.Since OMG is active, we cant really justify replacing him, but its clear he's going to be no help to town.I think if we dont get the extension, I'd be much more confortable lynching him then I was with lynching shadow.
I don't believe I've ever seen a mini game with two doctors. Feel free to link me to one if there is an example of such.MeMe, 275 wrote:I'm not so sure calling for counter-claims is a good idea. A couple of possibilities: we might have more than one doctor. If omg is scum, he might be trying to draw a counter-claim to point out the real doc.
As he said, he should be a prime kill target tonight if his claim is valid. If he doesn't die, we can discuss that tomorrow.
Two immediate points.ac1983fan, 295 wrote:ughh,,, Your gonna make me go back, reread every post I listed, and write a paragraph about everyone? I though most of them were obvious.
I also though OMg's claim was a joke which was why i didn;t say anything about it.
If you think No Lynch is better than Lynching, you need to support that conclusion. I have already gone over exactly why I believe Lynching is better than No Lynching - and to make your life easier, this is my post [260]. I would much prefer the town have 5 lynches than 4 lynches, especially when there are probably a minimum of three scum. Regardless of whether we lynch or no lynch today, the town will have 4 lynches left - except by lynching, we haveac1983fan, 303 wrote:vote:nolynch
at the moment, it seems like no lynch may be the best option. with the deadline fast approaching, we have very little information to work on. It doesn't help that I need to get a grade in a class FROM AN F To at least an b- by tomorrow, so I can't be on here to see any additional developements.
"We are to blame"?omg_im_innocent_wtf, 306 wrote:no. you people are to blame for putting me as a leading wagon AGAIN
you people are to blame for starting a game with no deadlines and then adding one in with its own set of little rules, then blaming me for not spending hours reading fine print.
ac1983fan, 393 wrote:look, I'm busy right now and won't be able to make an in depth anaysis for the next week and 1/2.sorry,
kilmenator, 397 wrote:Still around, something to come later, only I dont know how much later...sorry...
Quite a bit of "sorry"-ing going on lately.Barroman, 398 wrote:Sorry, sorry and SORRY.<snip>
Here, Ancalagon gives two 'suspicions'. The first – and more strongly worded – is on omg_im_innocent_wtf, who has been shown to be town. Note how Ancalagon says he can "see him coming up town", which he also reiterates in a later post.Ancalagon, 197 wrote:That's because I want you to answer my questions as well. I am analyzing, but some of the stuff that isn't missing is also attacking me, which I must defend.MeMe wrote:I've still not seen any analysis from you on the stuff that isn't missing.
From the most recent behavior, omg comes off as the most scummy. However, I can see him showing up as town, since his behavior has been consistent all game. Omg, perhaps insulting and yelling at people isn't the best way to play.
kilmenator comes off scummy, but not very. I can't see much hard evidence on his posts, they just don't seem right.
1.) If they are not both confirmed innocent to each other and one is scum, I can assure you the scum would be quite pleased to be connected to a dead, confirmed, mason. We'll see if this could even possibly the case soon enough, however, when they respond to my question.spectrumvoid wrote:I believe Nocmen and kilem, because I see no reason for scum to tie themselves together.
Perhaps this is my own bias speaking, but I don't particularly care for giving players "pats on the head", which is essentially what this is doing.Barroman, 92 wrote:Javert - I'm happy to see your "unvote". It seems that you really think the things. That's a good point.
His next post (which was [398]) says he "thinks that ac1983fan could be a pro-town role", and he also says he can see suspicion on Elias_the_thief due to his placement on the Ancalagon wagons. Basically – if I am following his suspicions correctly – his top suspect should be Kilmenator. When three people vote for her, he says "don't be so hasty!!!".Barroman, 388 wrote:I think that Javert is right.
And another thing to say; Kilmentantor and ac1983fan always look to me suspicius... and that lasts votes were suspicius... and the both voted him. Probably to look like they were inocent?
Both of these questions seem rather silly – rather like the Elias_the_thief questions at the game's commencement (numbered for efficacy):Barroman, 413 wrote:Vote: Kilmentator
I don't understand what you have said...
4a.Did you wanted to say, that you vote Ancagalon just because the deadline was near, and you want to lynch anyone, the one with more votes??????
4bAnd now... you have voted ac1983fan?? I think he said he was the role-blocker, dind't he?
My apologies for not answering this earlier, although this response is largely for the sake of argument at this point, and not because I suspect it to be the case.kilmenator, 411 wrote:To-Javerts vote because of the self admitted rather weak connection with ana, Do you not think that Ana would have tried to make connections between himself and others (innocents and scum alike) in the thread, being that he was scum and would try to take them (innocents) down with him?
Is this meant to imply you were "acting" at the beginning of the game – or is this more of a translation problem here? If you could link me to this other forum so that I might do a background check on this claim, I would be much obliged.Barroman, 432 wrote:1.I hope, all your reasons to vote me, aren't like this one. From the forums I come, people usually "acts" a little. So if I see a pro-town role death I'll be sad, and if I see a powerfull-pro-town role death I'll be more sad. And, obiously, I will do this, if I was PRO-TOWN or PRO-MAFIA. So THIS is not a reason to vote.
You are more than free to agree with things. However, agreeing when somebody unvotesBarroman, cont. wrote:3.If I'm agree with something, I'll say it. If I'm not agree with something, I'll say it. What's the problem?
No – players are only lynched in this game if they reach the required number of votes. The player with the most votes could feasibly not be lynched if they do not hit that number. If kilmenator wanted to assure somebody was lynched, she would necessarily have to use her vote to do so – which she did. This has been discussed earlier.Barroman, cont. wrote:4aI believe that if the redline reaches, the one with more votes, get linch, don't he?
Before I respond in more detail, I would like a clarification. Are you saying that [388] was made before you even read the last two pages – and hence you never saw either of the last votes on Ancalagon for yourself by that time? And you also never saw that ac1983fan had claimed role-blocker and was not counter-claimed? I would like very precise answers to these if possible.Barroman, cont. wrote:4bI beg for your pardon, because my post 388, was like that because I didn't readed the last to pages. Obiously, if I see someone guilty, and we said that he is role-blocker, and nobody say "that's not true"... I will believe him, and I will change all my thoughts from this player.
One of the best ways to get a genuine reaction from somebody is to put votes on them. Three quick votes are bound to catch the eye - and since it takes 5 votes to lynch, kilmenator was in no real danger.Barroman, cont. wrote:4c.That was a difference here. You must read (in order, of course) all this posts. 399, 400, 401, 403. In 403 was where I said "don't be hasty". At this moment Kil has 3 votes on him, and you didn't let him to speak.
Then Kil posted 411 & 412. In a difference of 2 minutes, something thant always look scumish for me, and he said two things that seem scumish for me.
So I wanted him to explain that and I voted him.
You need to understand something.Barroman, cont. wrote:5.Well, I have HEAVY reasons from out the game that didn't let me read the game. If you don't believe that I think that is better if the mod search a replacement, because if all your attack is based on mi absence, it's better if I'm out.
... it certainly doesn't take a lot of imagination to wonder who you've investigated, or who you will claim to have investigated. There are only seven players alive - you claim an innocent on one, another is cleared, you clearly won't be suspicious of yourself, and that leaves 4 players. Since you are only mentioning 3 of those players as being possible scum, without mentioning MeMe whatsoever, it certainly doesn't take a lot of imagination to wonder, and there is really no point at 'concealment' unless you are taking the players of this games to be fools.spectrumvoid, 492 wrote:I am innocent. I think ac1983fan is innocent, pending his night result. Hence, I think the remaining scum come from are elias_the_thief, javert, and sweenytodd.
I've been liking javert's posts so far, so I'll be focusing on sweenytodd and elias today.
Please explain this comment now that you have claimed to be "the" Cop yourself. I find it wryly ironic that you seem to imply you think you are sane, by the by. Coming from a 'Cop' looking at Nocmen's claimed information, I'm quite interested in whatspectrumvoid, 420 wrote:Also, I don't see how nocmen's post 'clearly implies mason.' I've seen a LOT of cops assume they're 100% correct. (I have never played with nocmen before, so I have no idea whether he knew he could be insane/naive/paranoid etc etc.)
I will hold you to this.ac1983fan, 469 wrote:okay, I know I keep making promises... But after next week, theres no more school, so then I'll be able to make a new list of scummy posts with reasons.
Truly, I would not think you would even have to technically reread in order to role-block somebody from your position in the game at that point. Dead Cop, Dead Doc, Dead Back-Up Doc, 2 Claimed Masons; if you don't think there are any power roles other than yourself, the worst you're going to do is block a townsperson without a night choice and youac1983fan wrote:I didn't block anybody becuase I couldn't make a decision, and the first week of summer prevented me from rereading.
This, for whatever reason, does not include your investigation targets with reasons behind them. Please alleviate this problem.spectrumvoid wrote:Apologies, I was sick. Lucky it was only one day though.
2 nights ago, I investigated omg. I confused this game with another one, anyone who saw my sig during that time (my sig was something like: If I'm cop/doc in any game, will the mod please drop me a pm) can verify this. Yaw (another game mod) told me to change my sig.
I think I'm sane, but either naive or not naive. If I was insane, with 3 investigations, probability says I'd have received a guilty one somewhere.
I thought it was unlikely for a game to have 3 cops in it, hence why I was pressuring nocmen. I was baiting nocmen to fake-claim cop if he was scum, hence that: "I've never played with nocmen before bit", giving him an excuse.
If spectrumvoid is scum, she will come out with a guilty investigation tomorrow and try to have a townsperson lynched. That's rather the point of claiming Cop when you're scum - to stop from being lynched, possibly to stop partners from being lynched, and to lynch townspeople. Notably, it's much easier to have townspeople lynched if they claim to have an innocent on a townsperson who is eager to believe a Cop-claim (as happened in this case).ac1983fan's last post wrote:I am really against an SV lynch. She has claimed a powerrole. assuming the setup had only 3 scum, the current ratio of scum:town is 2:6. Even if we lynch town today and the mafia NK is succsessful, tomorow's scum:town ratio should be 2:4. that being said, I would rather lynch someone that is either townie or scum than lynch someone who is either cop or scum. And, since my only two real suspicsions are sweenytodd and Elias, and I find sweeny scummier than elias, I willvote:sweeny
Riddle me this, hand banana:hand banana wrote:...
if she [spectrumvoid] is not scum, and really is a cop, she would not survive the night, unless mafia gets roleblocked (and the big question is do we really have a RB-er, cause this town definitely has way too many power roles, and can guarantee we have a faker).
this post kinda sets some red lights in my head.
You're missing the point. The point ishand banana wrote:any guessing of which player gets killed by scum is wifom, and can only confuse us.