Mini 443 - Tapioca Mafia - Game over!!

[MightyFireball]

Vote: Shadyforce

, he looks a little shady to me.

[MightyFireball]

Did that Bobness thing just originate in this thread, or has that been a running joke for a while? If it just started, I feel kind of special.

[MightyFireball]

*Cries* Just because you said that,

Unvote, Vote:Kabenon007

[MightyFireball]

You may have the voice, but I have the fro!

I'd bet my fro pwns yours by about 10,000 times.

Also, this bandwagon is forming fairly quickly, which is usually something to look out for, but since we haven't really gotten started yet and we need a stimulant,

Vote: Ripley

[MightyFireball]

So lemme get this straight: you're calling your own vote scummy?

Was that actually a serious accusation or were joking. It's so much harder to tell the tone of people online than in real life. Sorry.

[MightyFireball]

MightyFireball: Yes, that was a serious accusation. You say a wagon is growing suspiciously quickly but jump on it yourself?

Uhm, you what? I like random bandwagons. It's fun. Espeically day 1

Ummm... I'm sensing a slight hypocrisy here. You're suspicous of my jumping on a day 1 bandwagon, but then you say that it's fun and you like it? Anyway, in my post, I said that bandwagons are generally suspicious. However, exceptions can be made for day 1 bandwagons, especially when the game hasn't really gotten started yet, as this one has.

[MightyFireball]

Hmmm... excellent point. It's amazing what you find when you read back through the game.

FoS: Khelvaster

I didn't want to be super ironic and start a bandwagon on him.

[MightyFireball]

I think we've said more or less all we can about Khelvaster's inconsistancies, so I guess we have to wait for him to respond before taking further action.

[MightyFireball]

I think we should probably hear what Khelvaster has to say for himself before we add any more votes.

[MightyFireball]

I'm not entirely convinced that Khelvaster is scum, and am perfectly willing to remove my vote on him upon his explaination of his inconsistancy. However, until then, my vote stays. The inconsistancy probably isn't worthy of a lynching, but it needs to be explained. Also, it's slightly suspicious that he posted and didn't explain his actions or declare his intentions to do so in the future despite the fact that I, among others, had been calling for his explaination.

[MightyFireball]

Any reasonable townie would want to quick-lynch someone who he thought was mafia.

Not unless said townie was absolutely sure that said person was Mafia. If it turned out the person was innocent, the townie would probably end up getting lynched, which would not be good for the town.

If I were a mafia, I'd be bouncing my vote around as many people as possible, and then if someone who I voted for was falsly accused of being mafia, I could switch my vote back to that person without seeming overly suspicious.

Well, since that's generally accepted as scummy behaviour, I would just as soon say that it wouldn't be done by a scum member. That statement doesn't seem like hardcore evidence of pickem's guilt.

[MightyFireball]

D8p, I did indeed make the first analysis of Khelvaster's post in which he incriminated pickemgenius. That analysis post was post number 102. It may not have been particularly elaborate, but it wasn't based off of anyone else's analysis. I'm not entirely sure if you missed that one, or if you just didn't think it was good enough to count.

[MightyFireball]

Well, I generally don't want to appear too aggressive, lest someone think I was scum trying very hard to get an innocent lynched. I do see your point about mild attacks, but the opposite, overly aggressive attacks, are not without suspicion either.

[MightyFireball]

d8p wrote:
As I said, I'm most suspicious of MightyFireball because he continues to go along with what is being said without any attempt to make his own analysis. That shows lack of interest. Yet he has quite a few posts.

Lack of interest in helping the town plus maintaining a high post count equals trouble.


Oh No you didn't! You're saying, in the same breath, that you're not interested enough to post as nothing's happened, but you say that someone else doing the same thing is scummy. That's not good. I don't buy it, d8p. Too hypocritical for my like.

Well, I think the main difference between he and I in this situation is that he didn't make as many posts. That's probably why that post didn't seem hypocritical to him, but you're right, it is. In fact, having fewer posts is probably as bad or worse than having more with little information in them. It, as he said, shows a lack of interest in the game.

No, MightyFireball I hadn't missed it, but I'm not saying it was not good enough, for goodness sake. I marked it down as unhelpful, which, to be fair, was a little harsh.

Mild attacks always worry me more than strong ones - I can't help thinking the defender and attacker are in cahoots, firing blanks.

It's this statement that has me very suspicious. D8p made two posts saying he wanted to pressure me, saying in the first one, "I want to light a fire under MF and see what colour the smoke is". It is illogical, therefore, that he should remove all pressure against me after I provided just one example against his argument. If he really was suspicious of me, he probably would've kept the pressure on and not folded at the slightest resistance. In fact, it reminds me of the mild attacks that he mentioned in the latter half of that post. Now

that

is hypocritical, unless I am much mistaken. This leads me to

Unvote

and

Vote: d8p

[MightyFireball]

I'm sorry I haven't posted in a little while, but I really didn't have much to contribute and didn't want to make it seem like I was posting without content. However, on the Earwig issue, I feel that he is probably lurking, due to the fact that he's made 11 other posts without posting in this game. I can see no other reason for the lurking other than the possibility that he is scum. Not too many accusations had been made against him until Ripley made his post about his lack of content in his posts. Therefore, he had no reason to lurk, unless he had something to hide.

FoS: Earwig

[MightyFireball]

I also found a problem with what he just said because it brings up a contradiction between his last post and post 126 that's impossible to argue out of:

(emphasis added)

MightyFireball wrote:
I'm sorry I haven't posted in a little while, but I really didn't have much to contribute and didn't want to make it seem like I was posting without content.


Quote:

In fact, having fewer posts is probably as bad or worse than having more with little information in them.


Because of this, Vote:MightyFireball

Khelvaster, I think you misunderstood me here. While I think it is true that having fewer posts with no content is equivilant to or worse than having more posts with more content, that doesn't mean that I support posting without content. Posting without content is, in most cases, worse than not posting at all. Therefore, I explained my choice to not post at all as opposed to posting when I didn't have a definate opinion, which would turn into a post without content.

Now, if his own thoughts are exactly the same, and we can't know for certain whether they are or not, that's fine, but that seems highly unlikely.

Kabenon, while my post was very similar to posts made by others, I did add my own thoughts in after stating the fact that he had made 11 other posts and none in this game. I continued to say that Earwig had no reason to lurk other than if he had something to hide because no accusations had been made against him. This, to my knowledge, had not been said in any previous posts.

[MightyFireball]

In both of these quotes, you are saying that you don't have anything to contribute, and that's why you aren't posting that frequently. Thus, you are saying that it's better to post rarely and have useless information than to post frequently and have useless information.

That's not what I'm saying at all. By not posting when I had nothing to contribute, I'm saying that it's better to not post at all then to post with nothing to say. I have, in fact, made two seperate statements. The first is, making fewer posts with nothing to contribute is as bad or worse than making more posts with nothing to say. The second statement is that it's better to not post at all than to post with no content. I think these two statements have been confused by Khelvaster.

Also, I'm sorry that this whole argument is so confusing, but it's hard to make it clear, with several things being discussed at once.

[MightyFireball]

Wow. I just read that huge post of Amiee's, and I'm frankly too tired to add much to it. I'll try to add some of my own analysis tomorrow. However, I would like to announce that I probably won't be available until tomorrow afternoon.

[MightyFireball]

Ooook. I went through each of d8P's posts, in an attempt to find a link between him and Khelvaster. After looking through them, I'm starting to think there isn't much of a link. D8P has made a total of 8 posts, which I will now highlight.
1. Random votes Shadyforce

2. Comments that the pace of the game has picked up since he last played, but that the content may have gone down. Points out that no one has three votes, with only Kabenon007 and Bob voting for pickemgenius.

3. Unvotes Shadyforce, makes his first speech about why he dislikes posting much on day 1. He then defends the supposed inconsistancy by Khelvaster as pointed out by others. However, and I find this a little odd, he still put a FoS on him.

4. Says that random bandwagons are normal on day 1 and says that pointing out that the bandwagon has shifted quickly from one player to another doesn't help, yet forgives Khalvaster for doing just that, saying that it was a newbie mistake. Votes me for lack of content.

5. Repeats and explains his dislike of posting on day 1 because he could end up defending someone that isn't on his side, then have to defend himself for it later. This, he reasons, is more of a trouble than it's worth. He then repeats his suspicion of me.

6. He apologizes for his discrediting of my analysis of Khelvaster, saying that mild attacks are worrying to him because it seems to him that the attacker and the attackee are in cahoots.

7. Tells bob he agrees with Anthrax's article on how to be a good townie, tells BBB that not all day one posts are valuable, contrary to what BBB said, then once again explains his apparant inactiveness. He then responds to what BBB thought was a lack of precision in his acusations of me. He says that he doesn't understand why BBB thinks he's hypocritical because BBB claimed he showed a lack of interest in the game, due to his low post count. He then goes on to say that BBB is consistantly misinterpreting his posts. He rounds all this off by confirming his vote on me.

8. Compliments Aimee's analysis, then makes the call that Aimee and Ripley are town and I am scum.

The main suspicious thing, to me, in all of this is post number three. I don't really get exactly why d8p defends Khelvaster, only to put a FoS on him. A clarification on that would be greatly appreciated. Other than that, d8p never really went against Khelvaster. Another time that Khelvaster is mentioned is in his fourth post. He says that pointing out the shift in bandwagons is not helpful, but forgives Khelvaster for doing it because he is new. There really isn't enough here to make a link between the two.

The another thing I'm a little concerned about at the moment is that d8p didn't follow up on his suspicions of BBB that were sited in post number 7. This may be his style, or he may just not have anything to follow up on. That post was really repremanding BBB for his bad analysis of d8p's post, so there's probably nothing to follow up.

[MightyFireball]

Khelvaster, I went back and looked at post 173, and didn't really find much to respond to. This is what you said in the last paragraph of that post:

Since #3 was the logical conclusion based on his statements, if it is true, I will retract my argument against MF for the time being. If it is false, I will advocate wholeheartedly that we lynch him, because scum tend to make arguments that turn out to have bad logic far more than townies do. What are your takes on this?

It seems to me that you are asking the opinion of the community at large and not specifically me. In fact, I'm not sure if I can respond to it at all. I will agree that your third statement makes logical sense based on the two statements that I made, and that I agree with it. However, I have a problem with this line:

scum tend to make arguments that turn out to have bad logic far more than townies do.

The argument that I made had logical sense, as far as I know. Also, you drew a logical conclusion from it. I don't see where the bad logic you mentioned comes into play. Could you explain that please?

[MightyFireball]

These posts make me think of scum chatting with each other.

Did anyone else draw this conclusion? That interpretation of the conversation didn't even occur to me. Earwig, what exactly about those posts caused you to draw that conclusion?

[MightyFireball]

I still don't really see the case that has been presented saying that d8p and myself are scum buddies. It seems like the only two pieces of evidence that are held against us are that we had a string of posts going back and forth in a short time period, and that d8p mentioned that mild attacks worry him. As to the first, I really don't think this is scummy, more of a coincidence. We both happened to be on at the same time, so we made several posts responding to each other. As for the second, I can see how it would open your eyes to the possibility of a mild attack between us, but if that was really the case, it probably wouldn't have been mentioned to prevent you from drawing just such a conclusion.

[MightyFireball]

I'm thinking his deadline push isn't that suspicious. It's his first game on this site, and the deadline he proposed would give us plenty of time. I don't think the vote distribution has anything to do with it either. It was probably a suggestion of something that he has done in previous games elsewhere, and he didn't know that pushing for a deadline as town wasn't really supported much here.

[MightyFireball]

Yeah, I went back and skimmed d8p's posts, and I didn't find a defence against a possible pairing of he and myself. Khel, could you give a post number where d8p denies this? Thanks.

[MightyFireball]

Not at all. I was confused by what Khel had said, and I was asking for an example as a clarification. Also, Khel, when you said this,

Assuming d8p is scum, Earwig is guilty until proven innocent.

Where did you get the connection between d8p and Earwig? There hasn't been much of a connection between them as far as I can tell, so you can't really just assume one is guilty if the other one is. I'd like some clarification on this if you don't mind. Thanks.

[MightyFireball]

d8p, it seems you must have supported George Bush in the 2004 elections.

I just thought that was really funny, so I decided to quote it.

Khel, regarding your agenda of lynches, I acknowledge that you said that you're willing to be convinced against the agenda, but having a definate one in place seems a little too concrete to me. I would assume that most people don't even make lynching agendas becaue they acknowledge that so much more information will be gathered on following days. To me, setting up that agenda seems like you're not going to be as open to that information on upcoming days. That would probably lead to less discussion on your part, which is certainly anti-town.

[MightyFireball]

I don't completely get WIFOM, but is it possible that BBB's continued repetition that he is scum kind of WIFOM? If it's not, then it's at least a form of reverse pshycology. Anyone have thoughts on that?

[MightyFireball]

Good luck to Kabenon with his jazz trumpet endeavor.

there is nothing as direct as that linking d8p and MF

Khel, are you going by the "connection" that Earwig pointed out? If so, then I really can't see your case. I'm pretty sure d8p and myself have satisfactorily disproved the connetion. However, if you have other evidence, that's another story.

[MightyFireball]

Flat-out asking someone who suspects you as scum for a defense seems...weird, to say the least.

Khel, I wasn't asking you to defend me against your suspicions, I was asking you to provide an example of something you said. You said, in your accusation post, that d8p had denied the accusation. I had not seen any such post. Therefore, I was asking you for an example of what you had said. I wasn't asking you to defend me from yourself. That

would

be weird.

He doesn't contribute anything after that until Earwig resurrects and accuses him and d8p of scumchatting.

I would hope that I had contributed something in 8 pages of text. Here is an example of my analysis of d8p's posts. I view this as something that has been helpful.

Ooook. I went through each of d8P's posts, in an attempt to find a link between him and Khelvaster. After looking through them, I'm starting to think there isn't much of a link. D8P has made a total of 8 posts, which I will now highlight.
1. Random votes Shadyforce

2. Comments that the pace of the game has picked up since he last played, but that the content may have gone down. Points out that no one has three votes, with only Kabenon007 and Bob voting for pickemgenius.

3. Unvotes Shadyforce, makes his first speech about why he dislikes posting much on day 1. He then defends the supposed inconsistency by Khelvaster as pointed out by others. However, and I find this a little odd, he still put a FoS on him.

4. Says that random bandwagons are normal on day 1 and says that pointing out that the bandwagon has shifted quickly from one player to another doesn't help, yet forgives Khalvaster for doing just that, saying that it was a newbie mistake. Votes me for lack of content.

5. Repeats and explains his dislike of posting on day 1 because he could end up defending someone that isn't on his side, then have to defend himself for it later. This, he reasons, is more of a trouble than it's worth. He then repeats his suspicion of me.

6. He apologizes for his discrediting of my analysis of Khelvaster, saying that mild attacks are worrying to him because it seems to him that the attacker and the attackee are in cahoots.

7. Tells bob he agrees with Anthrax's article on how to be a good townie, tells BBB that not all day one posts are valuable, contrary to what BBB said, then once again explains his apparent inactiveness. He then responds to what BBB thought was a lack of precision in his accusations of me. He says that he doesn't understand why BBB thinks he's hypocritical because BBB claimed he showed a lack of interest in the game, due to his low post count. He then goes on to say that BBB is consistently misinterpreting his posts. He rounds all this off by confirming his vote on me.

8. Compliments Aimee's analysis, then makes the call that Aimee and Ripley are town and I am scum.

The main suspicious thing, to me, in all of this is post number three. I don't really get exactly why d8p defends Khelvaster, only to put a FoS on him. A clarification on that would be greatly appreciated. Other than that, d8p never really went against Khelvaster. Another time that Khelvaster is mentioned is in his fourth post. He says that pointing out the shift in bandwagons is not helpful, but forgives Khelvaster for doing it because he is new. There really isn't enough here to make a link between the two.

The another thing I'm a little concerned about at the moment is that d8p didn't follow up on his suspicions of BBB that were sited in post number 7. This may be his style, or he may just not have anything to follow up on. That post was really reprimanding BBB for his bad analysis of d8p's post, so there's probably nothing to follow up.

I've also provided several defense posts for myself and others when I felt they were necessary. Examples of this include posts 160, 170, 201, 219, and 240. Also, there was the WIFOM/reverse psychology thing that I brought up against BBB. I don't really get where you got the idea that I hadn't contributed anything.

[MightyFireball]

Hmmmm.... I was looking at pickemgenius's posts, and I've noticed a few things about him. First, the only person he has really attacked throughout the whole game is Khelvaster. Also, he repeatedly said that he doesn't take stock in random voting. I'm not quite sure why he did that. It seems as though he was trying to clear himself of any suspicion regarding those random votes. This is fine, but he does it a total of four times. I'm thinking this is a little bit of overkill.

Aimee's main contribution was her huge summary post followed by the analysis of each player. These have been amazingly helpful. She spent several posts justifying her comments in said analysis when they had been contradicted by other players. Also, she brings up the point of not lynching a vigilante because they are aligned with the town.

The option of lynching vigilantes was brought up by Kabenon. This I find to be very suspicious. Wanting to lynch a player on the town's side is something that no townie would want to do. The fact that a vigilante may kill a townsperson doesn't mean that we should lynch them. After all, doctors might protect a Mafia member at night, but we don't lynch them for it. What was your reasoning behind this?

I may have a look at the posts of other players later when I have more time.

[MightyFireball]

BBB, what exactly do you mean by things of interest?

[MightyFireball]

What would that have served, had it been true? It would have increased his post count by one and maybe encouraged players to join the newer bandwagon. So, while it's apparently helpful, it's pretty much just fluff. I think scum are far more likely to make posts like this than townies.

D8p, are you referring to me or Khelvaster in this post?

[MightyFireball]

I'm not sure I agree with you there, Shanba. If Khelvaster was trying to distance himself from d8p, then he probably wouldn't have started about 8 pages in. If you have other examples of this distancing, then that's another story. However, I think that he wouldn't have "suddenly realized" that he had to start distancing. Also, could you restate your case for the d8p-Khel pairing?

[MightyFireball]

And now, we return to the game!

[MightyFireball]

What would that have served, had it been true? It would have increased his post count by one and maybe encouraged players to join the newer bandwagon. So, while it's apparently helpful, it's pretty much just fluff. I think scum are far more likely to make posts like this than townies.

Very well. Now that I know you were talking to me, I can answer this. It seemed inconsistent to me to defend a player and then FoS him within the same post. What would that have accomplished? I suppose it would have generated discussion around the inconsistency, and possibly flushed you out, had you been scum. I don't really get what you're saying, about scum being more likely to post the way I did, because all I did was try to point out an inconsistency. I don't think that's labeled as scummy behavior, is it?

[MightyFireball]

Ah, yes. I got that now. I suppose that was my main case against you, and now that it's been disproved,

Unvote: d8p

.

[MightyFireball]

I do get what he's saying about lynching an inactive townie being a win/win situation. In fact, I see it as a win/win/win situation. Let's look at the possibilities here: 1. Earwig is actually scum and we lynch him. (win) 2. He's a townie, but we get someone speedlynching him, then we lynch that person the next day. (win) 3. Even if he's a townie and no one speedlynches him, we still got rid of a player that's not contributing anything, and is therefore no help to the town. (win). I suppose the only bad situation we could have here would be that he has a power role, and we'd lose a cop or something. However, I view this as extremely unlikely.

[MightyFireball]

That's not neccessarily a win, as a townie can easily vote for him thinking he is scum (which for sure isn't a stretch of the imagination) and then you would lynch another townie. Eww.

This is true. I suppose I should retract that from my win/win/win situation.

Mighty Fireball, why is it extremely unlikely that Earwig is a powerole in your opinion?

It's more of a gut feeling than anything. However, he's not acting like any cop or doctor that I've ever seen. It is true that doctors generally tend to lurk, but certainly not as much as he has done, especially without contributing as little as he has.

[MightyFireball]

You think so? I'm judging by the experience I have had in other games, and in none of those did a cop or doctor act the way that he is acting. I suppose he could be some other kind of power role that I haven't seen as of yet, though.

[MightyFireball]

Hmmm... it's also likely that scum know that quicklynching is a dead giveaway, and therefore, will be far less likely to do it. Khel, you seem to think that scum are far dumber than townies. This certainly isn't the case.

[MightyFireball]

I suppose we can test the theory when it comes, but now might not be the best time to do it. Even if Earwig is scum, and thus in control of the scumkill, we could give him a name, and control who the scum kill for that night.

[MightyFireball]

Also, MFB, if Earwig is scum, why on earth would the town have any effect on the scum nightkill?

Well, if Earwig wanted to convince us of his innocence and he was scum, it is likely that he would convince his fellow scum to kill the person that we told him to kill. I realize that there are other variables, depending on what powers the scum have, but it's certainly a possibility.

[MightyFireball]

Also, even if a cop did investigate him, there's no guarantee that he would be a confirmed vig. Some games are set up so that the cop only gets pro-town/anti-town results. If this was the case, then we would only know that Earwig was protown, not neccissarily (sp) that he was the vigilante.

This role is one that really can't be confirmed easily. I'm not entirely sure what to about it at the present time.

[MightyFireball]

@MFB:
That's a pretty strange assertion. If a cop finds EW to be protown that should be enough, assuming sanity/usefulness* has been sorted out etc.

I don't think there are many legitimate reasons for protown roles to lie, especially on day one, but I can think of one: if I'm the doc and I need to avoid being lynched d1, the last thing I should do is claim doctor as it guarantees death-by-scum that night.

I don't understand where you're going with that.

Hmmm... I suppose you're right there. I hadn't thought that we could assume a protown result would confirm him as vig. However, that is certainly a legitimate and probably correct conclusion to draw. I apologize for not thinking of it myself. However, as you say, we can't rule out the possibility that the cop is insane, or that Earwig is the godfather or some other role that is anti-town but comes up innocent.

*Also, along this line, what did you mean by usefulness? It's been generally stated that a town player is valuable just by being town. Do you disagree with this, or am I just misunderstanding?

[MightyFireball]

Which is actually pretty close to what I think about MFB myself; a vague sense that he's been one of the scummier people but without any real conviction or hard evidence to back it up. Maybe I just think it because so many people have said so...

Hmmm... so, is that... subconscious bandwagoning?
BBB, it was d8p who said that. I can add names into my quote tags from now on if it's helpful to you.

A question I would like to ask Earwig is whether he has a restriction on how many times he can nightkill. If he has a limit of one or two, I don't think we should use it until we're fairly sure of catching scum, perhaps as a late-game bonus (if he lasts that long). Even if he doesn't have a limit, I don't think we should order him to kill someone simply because we can. This is statistically inadvisable because we're more likely to hit a pro-town player than an anti-town one. I think we should wait on the kill until we're sure who to kill, with evidence to back up our choice.

[MightyFireball]

One question that comes to mind here is whether or not we want the cop to investigate Earwig. Personally, I'm thinking he should. We've got someone that would be a great asset to the town if confirmed. I guess the only problem is that he'll probably get killed tonight and not be much use to us. Also, this would require the cop to claim without a confirmed scum to report. What are other people's opinions?

[MightyFireball]

If the cop found EW innocent, he may come out to confirm that he is indeed the vigilante. That was one of the negatives in my argument, that the cop would be revealed. The cop could, of course, investigate EW and not share the result, but then only one person (besides the scum) would know of his innocence. Also, I was assuming EW was innocent for the purposes of the example. I'm not at all sure if he actually is or not.

[MightyFireball]

I'm fairly sure that at least one of them is lying, because, as HungryJoe said, it's highly unlikely that the two major suspects end up being two of the most important power roles. I'm more inclined to go towards Khelvaster right now, but I'm not confident enough to place a vote.

FoS:Khelvaster

[MightyFireball]

Well, I think that a 1 for 1 trade off cop for scum is favoured by most cops. If it wasn't, why would they claim with only one scum to report? I've seen this in several games and it seems to be the accepted strategy for cops. The opposition to this is that they hope that there is a doctor out there that can protect them so they get more results. While this is certainly probable (for this game, at least), it isn't guaranteed. In my personal opinion, a 1 for 1 cop/scum trade favours the town simply because the town have greater numbers.

[MightyFireball]

He placed that capital letters in a specific order that he could refer to later as an early claim. (although I think it was kind of silly, it was still inventive and original, albeit no more real proof than my actual claim)
It spells : I-M-C-O-P

Ah! I've done that in games where I was a cop. Therefore, I am inclined to believe the claim and disbelieve the claim of Khelvaster. On the subject of who Earwig should kill, I think, upon hearing evidence on this point, that he should probably decide himself. If he feels that he has enough suspicion on someone so that it merits a kill, then he should do it. However, if he really has no idea who to go after, then he should probably holster his weapon and not nail anyone because there is a great risk of hitting a pro-town player.

[MightyFireball]

Sigh. I suppose that means we're not gonna get the Day 1 page record. So uhhh.... what do we do?

[MightyFireball]

Well, this is an interesting scenario for someone who has never modded before! Good Luck Ectomancer!

[MightyFireball]

So, should we decide what to do with the Vigilante kill before lynching Khelvaster?

[MightyFireball]

That is interesting. Perhaps it was allowed for your replacement to inform you as to certain things before he departed.

Mod: Could we get a confirmation on the rule regarding that?

Thanks.

[MightyFireball]

Yeah, I'll have to agree with d8p here. I did an analysis of all his posts, and that led me to believe that there was no link between him and Khelvaster. There really hasn't been anything since then to make me change my mind, so I'm inclined to trust him.

[MightyFireball]

It's ok. We're probably not going to lynch you just because you made an honest mistake. I think you're safe for now. Also, I don't believe that Aimee is Khelvaster's scum buddy. I'm fairly sure he was lying about at least one of the names that he gave us. However, my conclusion about Aimee was drawn from her play, not from what Khelvaster said.

[MightyFireball]

I would question the sanity of HungryJoe, but there only seems to be one cop in this game, so I doubt he would have sanity issues. I suppose we could confirm the sanity problem by lynching d8p and seeing how he comes out. I'll

Vote: d8p

for now.

[MightyFireball]

So... are you advocating your own lynch? In normal circumstances, I'd say that kind of defeatist attitude is scummy, but I think your reasons are valid. I guess I'm with you here, saying that we should lynch you today without your alleged mason partner coming out. That way, we can have confirmation on Hungry Joe's cop status, and the scum won't know who the other mason is, if indeed you are a mason. Also, if you're really scum, then you'll be dead.

[MightyFireball]

Bagh! Go Town!

[MightyFireball]

Well played everyone!