Mini 430: Villagers and Vampires (GAME OVER!)

[Phoebus]

here.

[Phoebus]

vote: yesterdays

Why are you posting and not voting? What good is your "input" at this point in time?
Do you think we care what your RNG says if you're not going to act on it?

Put out or shut up!

[Phoebus]

I think I graduated from that ^^ to aude omnia

unvote: yesterdays ; vote: aude omnia

[Phoebus]

waste time - use time effectively - there's a difference.


with "wasting", especially after the post loss, we run the risk of fostering apathy.
take our time, yes. waste it? no.

[Phoebus]

Adding to what Elias said - we still need to find only the leader. The main post seems to suggest that catching him is the key as all others might die with him.
Since vampires seem to be used as cult with a mafia flavour, this is true of a fair number of cults. Get the leader, destroy the cult.

So lynch today - if it's the leader. Game over. Excellent.
Tomorrow, look for weird behaviour. Defensiveness and even if we find one converted vampire, his reactions and playing off other players should give us clues towards who the head honcho is.

[Phoebus]

because he keeps suggesting that we no lynch and give the vamp a freebie.
something he himself has admitted to being a "poorly thought out suggestion"
well, that admission does not count for much in my book, given his prior insistence about the idea. for now, that's as good as any lead as far as i see.

[Phoebus]

I can't resurrect posts lost in the crash. Sorry.
If the loss starts a new timeline for you, with nothing committed to memory, I can't help you.
My vote is based on what I remember.

[Phoebus]

you just seem bent on misrepresenting my intentions.

IIRC, he mentioned/defended his position at least on three occasions before the crash.
I concede that he has called it "poorly thought out" now but apart from that, he hasn't done anything else, (nor has anyone else for that matter) for me to consider removing my vote.

there is no such thing as a mislynch today. who're you going to out? The head vampire at best.

now you seem to be using the lack of posts (i.e. the ones lost in the post) to build a tenuous "case" against me.

where is this coming from?

[Phoebus]

Dang. Three votes against me. There is no way to prove my identity. However kill me, I dare you.

You'll find what I really am...

*deep sigh*

What?


Icky WIFOM fodder.

[Phoebus]

i'd be worried about that post ^^^ if the game didn't state there was no informed minority at this point in time...

[Phoebus]

nice one scotmany.

unvote: aude omnia ; vote: yesterdays

this is due to aude's current posts + yesterday's weird posts yesterday (you know what i mean)

[Phoebus]

[Phoebus]

Modalicious:

Vote count?

[Phoebus]

Exams.

It is unlikely that I will post again before Saturday or Sunday.
I will make it a point to post on one of those days.
Replacement will not be necessary.

[Phoebus]

I don't think enough people realize that if we mislynch, that's 2 townsfolk lost-- 1 to death and 1 to the vampire.

I find this point appealing but I would still rather take a chance on getting the scumlynch and a day 1 victory.

If that doesn't work, there are always connections to work on.

I will not switch back to aude yet since his reasoning is slightly appealing but his insistence is rather appalling. In my view, it does not help that he was willing to to vote someone else and then switched back.
With such (apparently) well thought out rules, I'd stick to my guns about a NL in your place. In the same way, I am sticking against a NL at this time.

[Phoebus]

back sometime wednesday

[Phoebus]

back and *yawn*

[Phoebus]

You're not going to get too far if you ask questions only of those who are active...

[Phoebus]

and if the active people have already spoken their mind, where do we get new stuff from?

[Phoebus]

I take exception to being called a lurker.

I have been active where it was required.

This is day one. I have said all I have to say because there are no other stimuli for me to react to other than Yesterday and Aude Omnia.
both have been attended to by me and my opinion is known.

I don't care to add too much spam to an unremarkable day, making it difficult to analyse later.

[Phoebus]

I have been unable to come online for a couple of days.

If you'd like to meta game, please check the whole forum for activity levels over the last couple of days.

I don't see what I have to defend here.

My opinion has been unequivocally clear.

I am

not

lurking in plain sight, I have said all that I have needed to say.

1) I voted Yesterdays for reasons already outlined.
2) I voted Aude Omnia for his insistence on voting no lynch. While his explanations behind his actions were decent enough, I have mentioned that we might as well make use of a chance of catching the vamp on day 1. If that is not successful, then we can look for connections later, which will appear regardless as people get recruited.
I told Aude to stick to his guns, as I did to mine in voting yesterdays.

Consistency is the key. It avoids people from getting manipulated.


Given the amount of lurking in this game, there has been

absolutely

no one

else

on whom to focus.

Given the fact that I have already stated my opinions on Aude and Yestedays (and I'm repeating myself here) who are my

only

subjects, I see no reason to be accused of lurking in plain sight.



At this point in time I will

unvote: Yesterdays ; vote: Elias the thief

You can call this OMGUS if you like.


I have been around all day.
You have disappeared for a while, to return conveniently, near a deadline and using my presence to persecute me. Talk about hypocrisy.

I have already stated my opinions.

They are out there. They have been made about the only people on whom judgment could be passed by me since the rest of the lot are lurking.


How many times must this be repeated before it permeates through to you?


If we didn't know this game started with one scum, I'd say Snichkin was your mate for falling in line (again) so quickly. In fact, I would almost rather vote Snichkin over Elias, except for the fact that Snichkin had pointed fingers at me earlier with the same pathetic excuse but he has been around and not dropped off, only to come back with ridiculous accusations.


At least now I have three suspects as opposed to your one (i.e. me) who you are going after on the most tenuous of arguments.

Give me a break!

What else do I say?

I have been around.
I have been voting.
I have aired suspicions.
I have been unable to log on but that is across the board.

How is this lurking?

[Phoebus]

And who has been helpful then, by your definition of helpful?


Your view appears jaundiced to me.

Elias was away, posted, was suspicious of me.
I was around, posting, was suspicious of Yesterdays and Aude, now of Elias.


Where is the problem?



According to what you say and seem to prefer, I should go inactive for a few days and come back with one person to point a finger at, and then you'd follow me?

Seriously confused here.

[Phoebus]

back.

i will read elias' post and respond within 24 hours.

[Phoebus]

Wow.


Talk about a tenuous case.
From what I read of Elias' case file, I get a sense of grasping at straws.

Part One of the case

Look here. I've said this earlier, repeated it earlier and repeating it again.
I do not speak more than what is necessary.
I have outlined my suspicions against people.
They were Aude Omnia and Yesterdays.
I do not see where it requires you to have a certain minimum number of suspicions in any given time frame.

One I had stated my opinions, I don't see why I need to post anything else.
You are using this "lack of content" to persecute me?
Of course it makes an "impressive" case when thrown against me in a supposed PBPA but the fact remains.
When you look at my posts, their content and your case in the proper context, I have done nothing "suspicious".

I have posted suspicions, voted, and contributed where it was necessary.
That is what is required of a mafia player.

Being a post whore, is not.

If there are no more suspicions in my mind at this time, where do I bring them from?

Pulling something out from my ass (especially when not required) is liable to get me into more trouble than stating my opinions and sticking to them.

Add to this the fact that there is only one evil person in this game at this time.
There are no allegiances to detect at this time, no connections between multiple people to ferret out.
How are multiple suspicions possible at this time?

Also, with terrible activity, there is nothing to pick up on.
I am a victim of actually being interested in playing the game, and not lurking?
That's really ridiculous.

Part Two of the case

This should be read in conjunction with the last two paragraphs above.
With only one scum, limited activity and no connections to look for, how is voting for only two people suspicious?

Part Three of the case

You're wondering why I am upset about you?


You have given tenuous reasons for voting me.

You have called me dumb multiple times.

You have used sarcasm in your attack against me.

You are picking nits where lice don't even exist.

You are painting me a villain on false grounds.

I repeat. I have stated my arguments. They are limited. Fine. Since when is that a crime?


Put yourself in my place.
What would you do?


Given these points, I'm fine with my current vote.

[Phoebus]

Go ahead and do that.

Since I'm dumb, I will wait for you to do what I could not.
Throw the net further and come up with fishies.


I am not appealing to emotion. I could not care tuppence about emotion.
I am appealing to reason.

Tell
Me
What
More
I
Should
Do

[Phoebus]

I've asked MeMe to poke the mod.

Inactive players and inactive mod is a combination I don't much care for.
Unless there is some decent effort on the part of the mod and players before the next day dawns, I will most likely ask to get replaced.

This is not fun anymore. I don't know/think that the mod can fix that.

[Phoebus]

Um...wow.

OK. Post by this time tomorrow.

[Phoebus]

Well...the modkills throw my theory out of the window.
Both people who were my suspects are dead and proven innocent in their deaths...


Having read over somewhat, I'd agree with Shanba about Snichkin.
Originally I read into his ramblings more as a function of his English but taking a closer look at his posts makes it seem to me as well that he was looking for a place to hang his vote and wherever the tide was flowing, he was happy to go...


In all honesty, my vote on Elias earlier was slightly OMGUS. I was frustrated by his faulty insistence that I was lurking in plain sight...


scot's post just before the mod did his thing was a little reminiscent of reverse psychology but I'll let it slide for the time being...

vote: Snichkin

[Phoebus]

I think we perhaps need Snichkin to come back and elaborate on his suspicions of scotmany and we need scot to talk. Period.


Otherwise, I have said what I needed to say and unless another issue comes up, which needs to be addressed, don't expect much from me.

[Phoebus]

I'm here.

Sorry. Couldn't log on at all yesterday.

vote: Snichkin

He has been all over the place.
He seemed to want to follow whichever bandwagon was moving.
He hasn't been providing impeccable reasoning for his votes.
He has lurked.
He is still lurking.

[Phoebus]

What?

[Phoebus]

Er...there is no doubt in my mind that you are not scum.
If I were scum, I would've tried that strategy also. Lurk for a hammer.

Given that I'm voting for Snichkin, he won't come out and hammer himself.
So...
Draw your own conclusions.

[Phoebus]

I shall respond in about 24 hours.

[Phoebus]

At this point in time, I do not know whether I will be responding in one post of two.
The original idea was two but I think I will combine now for lucidity and efficiency's sake.

vote: Yesterdays (I described the reason before the downtime).

This is a similar sort of post to mine in which Snichkin accuses me of over-defensiveness.

The posts he used for evidence of my defensiveness contained similar content.
I was talking about my suspicions of aude omnia, which I had outlined in the posts prior to the crash.
Elias was on my case based on his suspicions about the validity of my reasoning.
The reasoning existed. The crash ate up the posts and there was a long break in between. It is not possible to resurrect the exact reasoning and words after that occurrence and the ensuing gap of time.

The second post that is supposedly being overly defensive is a rant at Elias because he refused to look at reason.

Snichkin has marked that post with two asterisks.
The first one with the question: What else should he do?
I am assuming this is aimed at (the now dead) Aude Omnia.
What should've Aude done then?
Well, after conceding that his plan was poorly thought out, it would've been prudent to suggest a plan which was better thought out.
I don't lay the onus of this entirely at Aude's feet alone.
However, when one votes no lynch, then retracts it and says that the no lynch plan was no good and then simply stays mum on anything else, not even sharing suspicion - that is ineffective. In my view ineffective people have a good chance of being scum because that stance or attitude of ineffectiveness might be deliberate.
However, given the subsequent mod kills, the reasoning that was present then and this subsequent argument is moot.
We have other information now.

The second asterisk is for over defensiveness again.
The marked sentence is me explaining my perception minus any vehemence which might be taken as being defensive.
The fact that I saw was that Elias was being obtuse, deliberately or otherwise.


The next two posts as seen in "View all posts by Snichkin" show that he continued to vote for Yesterdays because he didn't like the way he [Yesterdays] was playing.
Fair enough...until we come to the big texted post asking people not to put Yesterdays at L-1
Yes, I understand the need for more information but if you don't like the way he is playing, it's a fairly harsh change in tune from voting for someone (which I assume is an intention to lynch) and then suddenly turning interrogator...
Those questions could've been asked earlier.
It all forms the basis for your dislike of his play.
From what I see, this can be an attempt to appear "fair" and pro town.
Where is the vote though?
And what appeal follows?


The next couple of posts are repeating questions at Yesterdays and then saying that he would FoS Yesterdays because his play was still unsatisfactory, yet we should have a long day.
It seems fine when we look at the context of this game, the need to have discussion, but from start to end of the vote/unvote Yesterdays spiel, I see different motives. [vote, shout about L-1, appear to discuss, appear to be townie, unvote, FoS]

zchinque, if you want you can vote who ever you want to, I just didn't want we lynch yesterdays before he answer my questions.
I think we should have long day one and because of that I'll unvote. I still not happy with the answers Yesterdays gave me so I would FoS: Yesterdays.

This is a really interesting post.
What does it establish?

*Lynch whomever you want
*Not Yesterdays till he gives answers though
*Not happy with answers
*Yet unvoting
*FoS

In my book, unsatisfactory answers should strengthen resolve.
Is this a setup to appear pro town when Yesterdays turns up pro town?
Remember that scum know who is and is not evil. So...
There are some contradictions in those actions, which all seem to occur in one breath...

I think that Phoebus is just trying to look "right" by unvoting aude omnia and voting yesterdays. He did that just after scotmany post about watching him (and even added strange reference to scotmany).
vote: Phoebus

maybe but still.

These two posts need to be read together.
I had explained why I unvoted Aude. He finally started making some sense, even though I did not like his backtracking too much and he [Aude] was swaying between his opinions all the time, even then.

As far as voting me with reference to scotmany goes, scot rightly picked up on my sarcasm. Scot wanted to vote for someone whom he didn't find suspicious. Hence the irony used.
Snichkin says: maybe but still.

But still what?

aude aumnia, you're wrong. If you think that this discussion is leading no where you would be suprized to see the discussion in day 2 when there are 2 vampires trying to distruct us

(and they would manage to do this)

. I still think that phoebnus is the scumy. The post that I already quoted (see above) is very scumy. He reaturned to the Yesterdays issue although we closed it already.

Emphasis added by me.
Are we sublimating here?

Did we really close the Yesterdays issue?
Two posts later, Snichkin puts an FoS on him...
This FoS follows a vote for Shanba. The reasoning for the vote is a lack of comprehension for Shanba's actions?
Should he demand more clarity? Or a lynch?

sorry Elias I wasn't here between your two posts. I compleatly agree with you. I don't think I saw anything useful from phoebus although he posted some posts. as for yesterdays I don't think that he is the vampire so I think no harm would be if he just won't play.
unvote, vote:Phoebus

Have we noticed the rampant vote switching at this time?
Here, we go back to using Elias to rile me up and place a vote on me, based on reasoning used by Elias, which was false in its base.
Lurking is one thing. Having nothing to say beyond a couple of things is another.
At this time, Elias was attacking me for voting only two people in the game during that time.
Why in the world should I vote someone whom I'm not suspicious of?
I voted (and explained my votes) for people whom I thought were suspicious and was done with it.
Unlike Snichkin, I had no interest in going with the flow and trying to vote where it was convenient. Nor was I interested in playing someone off on another to piggyback on his reasoning and/or votes.
I was being attacked with obtuse logic and I was responding.

Phoebus, if no one will unvote you, you will die so I sugest you would try to defence

Another go at appearing "fair"?

I did rebut Elias' arguments and it has led to me being called over defensive...and also repetitive.
I cannot help being repetitive if the attacks against me are repetitive.
Elias was unwilling to listen to reason, I was unwilling to concede my position.
What would you do in this position?

And I really take offense at being called a lurker when I am doing nothing of that sort. Posting when you have nothing to say adds fluff to the game.
Fluff impeded analysis.
Fluff raises suspicion.
I don't like either impediments or futile suspicions.
So I said what I needed to and shut up.
Being precise and to the point is lurking?

@scotmany12
The only "helpful" things that he did wer to oppose no-lynch and change his vote. Although I agree with the first it's hardly enough considering that the second isn't really helpful.

Define helpful.
Is posting fluff when you have nothing better to do helpful?
Is putting points forward clearly helpful?
Is doing your dirty work by adding to confusion helpful?
I dare say it is.
Yes, I'm insinuating things here.

What did

you

do that was so helpful?
Next post you say that you agree with everything Elias said, except for his tone.
Where exactly are you standing on your own two helpful feet here?


Next few votes are a switch (again) to scotmany when I seemed to have fended off Elias for the time being and when Elias seemed to be warming up to Scot for speaking up on my behalf. I daresay Scot saw more of my reasoning than Elias did.



Now we come to today and the king of all contradictions.

Shanba is confirmed towny so: vote: Phoebus
now Suanba have to decide which one of us is scum. I'm going to sleep. will provide PBPA on Phoebus in 12-15 hours. Phoebus - please do the same on me and Shanba would decide which of them is better.

One of the points used against me is as follows:

put me on L-1 when we are at LYLO without either enough discussion or enough arguements

What in the world?
He knows you're town.
I'm convinced you're town.
He did the same thing to me i.e. vote without discussion and now he's pointing a random finger at you in order to grasp at anything that might help string me up???


Now we come to his PBPA of me:

I didn't participate in posts 69 -81.
These included a number of players responding to prods and people waiting on Yesterdays.
People were waiting. I was waiting. I was voting Aude on the reasons given.

Next discussion I did not participate in was 82-91.
What to do next?
My vote was on Aude. My reasons were compounded by the sudden concession of his stand. My thoughts were that perhaps he felt he'd been caught with his pants down and was attempting damage control.
However, subsequent sensible posts by Aude and lack of the same from Yesterdays earned Yesterdays my vote.


The next three or so points in the PBPA just point fingers at me for being a lurker.
I have explained until I have gone blue in the face, how that is wrong.
I am not about to do it again. Look above if you want to refresh your memory.
However, I will address his temporal indicators. Five days, one month etc.

This game was uniformly slow.
I had said what I had to say.
Are you sure those delays are fair indicators of just my activity? Or should they be taken in context of everyone's activity? Or lack thereof...



Appealing to emotions, repetitions and so on...
I have already addressed this.
I was repeating because I was being repeatedly attacked by the same thing.
Emotion? because i was getting irritated at the repetition.
And see? I'm repeating the same things again...


Final summary

1) voting only 2 players although one of them was just stupid noob (yesterday) and the other just made a little mistake (aude)
2) being over deffensive
3) lurking
4) jump on bandwagons (for example: yesterdays wago)
5) appealing to emotions
6) repeating the same argument over and over
7) seems only care for staying alive (OMGUS vote is an example of it)
8) put me on L-1 when we are at LYLO without either enough discussion or enough arguements

1) That is a crime, how?
Given the time context when that happened, I didn't see anyone else suspcious.
2) Addressed
3) Addressed
4) What?
5) Addressed
6) Addressed
7) Hello? Isn't the purpose of townies the whole staying alive thing?
8) Grasp at straws much?

[Phoebus]

Er?

[Phoebus]

I've been on a hiatus for about a year.
Whatever meta gaming you want to do will have to be done in double mafia run by bird1111.
Otherwise...
a very old harry potter mini
fantasy mafia
are some choices for you.

[Phoebus]

??

[Phoebus]

Don't hate me Shanba! I still owe you!

1) Berry, please make sure you're going to be interested in modding a game when you're up for it, rather than just hanging about in Mish Mash.
2) A day start with a single recruiting scum? Did you really want a very definite possibility of this game ending day one?


I was not going to post at all once this was over but I think I just wanted to tip my hat to Shanba for being a rat in scumchat.

I still disagree with that stupendous "active lurking" theory but I don't wish to pursue this thread any longer.

[Phoebus]

Oh and I did ask the mod to flavour it as me converting you but I guess he didn't like the idea...
some consolation