Mini 579 - The Plagues of Egypt Mafia - Over

[HackerHuck]

Vote: Mr Stoofer

I've always wanted to do that

[HackerHuck]

Could someone write a brief synopsis of what that argument was all about? I didn't see how Mr Stoofer was out of line with his questioning and I'm not sure I like how quickly Lord_Hur backtracked on his initial statements.

I wouldn't get too fancy thinking about the food thing, but remember that the scum have probably had a chance to discuss their individual lunch preferences and whether they might all be the same. These are the kinds of things that should be discussed once we've got known scum. I'm of the opinion that it's just flavour

[HackerHuck]

That discussion seems to be winding down with the agreement that we need more info first.

We need more info ? On what then, if we must keep roles secret ?

If I'm reading it right (and this is my position by the way) he is saying that we shouldn't bother speculating on tidbits in the opening posts until we actually have some information about those tidbits.

I really don't like this post. When I read it, it made PyroDwarf look really scummy, but when I looked at his actual post I got absolutely no scum-vibes.

[HackerHuck]

Could we get a prod on SlySly please?

Unvote: Stoofer
Vote: Guardian

How can SlySly be the other scum when he hasn't posted yet? It has yet to be a week and this game hung on N0 for a while, so he may not have noticed that it opened yet. While I like the effort of your posts, it seems pretty early for a lurker witchhunt.

I'm going to write-off Lord_hur and Pyrodwarf's speculation on flavour as newbishness. I remember doing the same thing in Old Maid mafia - one of my first couple mini games - and I was quickly (and falsely) labeled as scum. It did help me survive to endgame though.

I don't like the play of the vampire so far. His inconsitent attacks are quite scummy, but I almost get the feeling he's playing like TCS and just trying to stir the pot. IGMEOY Herr Kürten.

Shin is just playing a little too safe for me. It's very early on day one and no one is even close to a lynch. I don't see any reason not to be putting votes to people because you don't want a quick lynch.

I do find it interesting how a few people did want to move past the discussion about the early speculation on mechanics/flavor. As long as we're not speculating, but discussing the scumminess/towniness of those who speculated and attacked others for speculating, I think it's a very valid discussion.

[HackerHuck]

Well, you picked up on hasdfgs with an actual case and the other person you identified as scum is SlySly, hence the "other scum".

[HackerHuck]

@HackerHuck, whose only 2 meaningful posts before his attack on Guardian had been attacks on me for reasons I qualified as quite defective. You just wrote off your first attack, but do you still think the second was justified ?

Do I really come off that mean?

I didn't really think I was attacking you the second time, so I'm not sure what to say. When I read your quote of PyroDwarf, it made him sound scummy. Rereading your post I'm not feeling it as much as I did the first time, but that doesn't discount my initial impression. I think you're overreacting to a rather minor point I made.

I would like Mr. Stoofer and Guardian to explain why they said that SlySly should be lynched when he had yet to post. I'm also curious why Lord_Hur implied that SlySly was lurking when he had yet to post.

[HackerHuck]

I'm finding myself a little more suspicious of Mr. Stoofer than I originally was. I think perhaps TVoD's odd attacks made him a sympathetic target, but I'm following what SlySly said and I can see some truth in there.

I definitely get the feeling that his arguments now about Jeep's scum tells and his early posts are a bit forced. I think we're beyond the point of getting any value from that discussion and he and TVoD almost feel like they're not part of the same discussion. Unfortunately, I'm not following Guardian at all and his vote against Mr Stoofer is a little troubling. I'll keep in mind that you two could be scum bussing each other.

[HackerHuck]

What harm is there in placing one vote to pressure someone to appear and address concerns? It's true that both Townies and Scum will lurk, but scum tend to lurk a little more and it never hurts to pressure scum.

Guardian, I'm not getting any of your cases right now. What's up with your SToofer suspicion?

[HackerHuck]

What I meant was this: there is a big difference between (a) making a point about another player, listening to the guy's defence, thinking about it, and then saying "OK, I don't think my point was a good one"; and (b) making a point about another player and sticking to your guns even when it becomes clear that you are wrong.

Case (b) is well worth a vote (even a lynch on Day 1) while case (a) is much less lynch-worthy. So I wanted to make sure you realised my point about lord_hur falls into case (a).

I don't really agree that stubbornness is a scumtell, but if your point is really that it is vote-worth on day one, then I won't disagree.

hasdgfas - how is your posting in response to a prod any better than "posting just to post"? You made it sound like you didn't need to be prodded, yet you show up just after a prod.

[HackerHuck]

Vote: SlySly

I actually thought the same thing as Stoofer did when I read SlySly's post. It did scream out scum to me. The only troubling thing is that SlySly was attacking Guardian (scum suspect) and Mr Stoofer (slight scum suspect) saw it as a scummy post. My general feeling is that SlySly made a lot of noise about scummy guardian is, but there really wasn't much there.

Guardian's still not clear in my book. I could also see that as a bussing post, since there wasn't too much to make any kind of case stick to Guardian.

[HackerHuck]

Usually. Are you implying that I've been avoiding your questions?

[HackerHuck]

Stoofer's "outside" information was just to help you understand his playstyle. I'm not sure I like how he was trying to be so helpful there, but I don't see it as a contridiction of his earlier comments that scum know more than townies.

slysly - For someone who doesn't like it when another player isn't answering their questions, I don't like how you are pussyfooting around my question. There's no need to play games. If someone isn't answering your questions, put it out in the open because I really don't want to have to reread your posts to see exactly where you did it. Just tell me who you think is avoiding you.

Herr Kürten - what do you mean by Guardian being lynch bait? Is he scummy and should be lynched or is he just doing things that make him an easy target for scum to try and get him lynched?

[HackerHuck]

This is what I consider pussyfooting around the topic.

Usually. Are you implying that I've been avoiding your questions?

Not at all.

Read my posts and see who I have asked questions of and who has avoided answering those question and I think you will see things in a better light.

It is not only my answers that one of the people in question has avoided answering.

Use as many pronouns as possible and not be clear at all about what the questions are and whether they are relevant. I don't feel the need to be chasing down a whole bunch of other posts to see what you were getting at. It's like how some people use metagaming. It's a rather easy way to make a poor case, because you are counting on the other people to not be bothered to dig up the same things you researched.

Why did you take the long route and not just say - "Stoofer didn't answer this question: [question here]"?

Why is it suspicious for us to not answer questions?

It gives the impression that you don't want to answer the question(s) to avoid incriminating yourself.

In the real world, people miss questions.

Also, in the real world, scum avoid answering questions.

So do townies if they feel that the question is either rhetorical or not worth answering. I've done it before, but if someone repeatedly asks the question, I'll probably answer it.

[HackerHuck]

Millers are bad news for the town.

I agree that you've gone on with very poor play Guardian. Didn't you realise that "playing" as the cop would only make you a bigger cop target?

I'm pretty sure this is unnecessary, but I want this on the record again.

Vote: Guardian

[HackerHuck]

I'm not sure if I need to repeat any of the things that everyone else has said about you Guardian. It should be obvious to you why Millers are bad news to the town. It's a crappy claim because the only way to prove it is by lynching you. Scum would never kill a miller, which means that the town has to do it at some point. The only good news is that cops won't bother wasting an investigation on you, but you pretty much blew that by crumbing cop to begin with.

Like the others, I think you forgot that I was already voting you, so my vote was more of a confirmation than anything else - hence the context.

If you're town, then I guess you did us a favor by claiming miller so we can kill you sooner rather than later, but that's small comfort.

[HackerHuck]

Jesters are pretty darn rare and I sure would hope that self-voting invalidates their win condition.

Guardian, I don't like how you keep trying to portray my vote on you as one that is based on your supposed millership. I had voted you prior to that and your claim has only cemented my vote. My comments were all related to how millers are bad news for the town. If you can tell me one good thing the miller does for the town, then I will admit I'm wrong (but I still won't pull my vote).

I've seen scum claim miller as often as I've seen town do it. It's not going to get you off the hook in my eyes.


I don't like how TVOD reacted by pushing the jester angle, but I'm not sure if it should be chalked up to newbishness.

[HackerHuck]

I've read and reread the lynch and nightscenes and I'm not getting it either. I'm pretty sure he was scum, but that's only based on how he acted.

[HackerHuck]

lord_hur, who did you think was a jester?

hasdgfaas seems a little too over the top with his conviction in that post. I also don't like how tvod just starts pushing for Stoofer.

[HackerHuck]

I am paying attention to the Stoofer/Musher interaction, but I'm more intrigued by the Singing Librarian's actions. Yet again I see her playing it safe and speaking in more hypotheticals about the game, rather than trying to nail down suspicions. That gives me the feeling that she's trying to appear helpful.

Vampire, it just doesn't feel good to me to have you just come right back in and go after stoofer like we didn't have a big ol' lynch and nightkill in the way of it. There definitely was a break, so a little segue back into your case would be helpful.

[HackerHuck]

Wouldn't a miller just want to appear the most towniest so they would be nightkilled?

Hinting at or claiming cop are two things likely to get the real cop eager to push your lynch, which is something that the scum want to see - the real cop hinting at his identity. I don't agree with Mr Stoofer's hardline on this one, but I find it to be more of a scum play than a real miller play.

I say we get back to looking for scum in those who are still living. This game theory discussion is getting us away from the topic at hand.

Now I'm stuck thinking the people I disagree with are scummy.

Looking at the player list, I need to hear from PyroDwarf and Shin.

Prods please on those two

unless I'm so tired that I missed them posting this game day.

Reactions to this discussion that are not making feel good - from Mr Stoofer and Hadsgaf. Both TVoD and Lord_hur are consistent, but the jury's still out on whether that means anything.

[HackerHuck]

Good point Mr Stoofer and one that I did not pick up on. In reviewing his posts, I also note how he was not pushing for a Guardian lynch and was pretty persistent in his attempts to tie Mr Stoofer to Guardian. All of that would point to scum behaviour is Musher didn't know about the no-reveal and Guardian is scum.

Bravo, but I'm very nervous that I'm being sent down the false path. You seemed to lay that out for me quite nicely without making it too obvious.

[HackerHuck]

Ah well, anyway there are still a lot of players and he has no vote on him.

Vote HackerHuck

Way to vote with one foot on the way out the door. You're being awfully non-committal for placing a vote.

I actually did comment on Mr. Stoofer. I'm quite torn about his alignment because I actually agree with much of what he's said, but I have this nagging feeling that he's playing me/us. I'd really rather not place a vote based solely on gut right now, so I'm not going to vote for Mr Stoofer.

Yet again, I agree with Mr Stoofer about Musher. When I read his post asking to slow down, that really rubbed me the wrong way. We've been handcuffed by a useless discussion at the beginning of the day and a lack of activity - I'm well aware that I'm a major contributor to that inactivity. Sitting around not talking can be fixed by getting a wagon going, especially with someone who appears scummy.

Vote: Musher

[HackerHuck]

I'm not sure if Stoofer is acting that way to try and get the game moving, but I'm getting an uneasy feeling about him now. I still believe that Musher is a good choice for a lynch, but I'm keeping a close eye on Mr Stoofer now.

[HackerHuck]

Without knowing Guardian's alignment, that's not much of a case. Guardian claiming Miller caused more than just Stoofer to go after him.

[HackerHuck]

Stoofer, you're totally discounting the possibility of Guardian as miller or are you just thinking it quite unlikely?

[HackerHuck]

Translation to Lord_hur's defence: "I can't be scum because scum wouldn't be posting as much as I do"

I've seen it happen many times where scum carry a passive game and move it in the direction they want to go. It's a crap excuse, but I don't think you're experienced enough to take advantage of the town that way. I could however, see Mr Stoofer doing that.

springlullaby's post seems to come out of nowhere and she's giving lord_hur the full court press. It seems a bit contrived to me.

[HackerHuck]

springlullaby's post seems to come out of nowhere and she's giving lord_hur the full court press. It seems a bit contrived to me.

Quantify 'come out of nowhere'. Does it mean you don't agree with me? Contrived? What exactly are you implying?

I want a wagon on lord_hur now.

Can't really "quantify" out of nowhere. It just seems that you're coming on the attack very strong for having just replaced in. Given the tone of your initial post, the aggressiveness seems out of place and not genuine. I'm not commenting on the merits of your case, but I think that you're faking your emotional response. That is pretty scummy.

hasdfgas - I agree that my choice of words is probably not the best for a replacement, but I think my explanation should make it clear what I meant.

[HackerHuck]

@HackerHuck: The whole point of this game is to make cases against other players you find suspicious.

Why do you criticise anyone who makes a strong case against anyone else? Hoe do you propose we end this day (never mind the whole game) if people don't make cases against each other.

Really, this game is soooo slow and boring because so many people either won't make cases or criticise people who do. I'm tempted to join springlullaby's bandwagon on lord_hur because I just can't see this game ever ending any other way...

I'll restate this for you. I wasn't criticising the content or the fact that Springlullaby is suspicious of anyone. I called scummy the fact that the case seemed phony to me.

You're basically guilty of doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. I was making a case against Springlullaby and you say that I shouldn't be?

I really don't like how you're dismissing my case as if I've done something wrong. That also seems scummy to me.

[HackerHuck]

Hackerhuck, I can see what you are getting at but I'd prefer you criticize the content of my case and that you make clear your opinion on lord_hur.
What's phony in my case apart from the aggressiveness - which I can assure you is genuine?

The implication of my post is that you are scum bussing your scumbuddy lord_hur. I believe you are faking anger/emotion at him being scummy. I'm not disagreeing with what you said, rather how you said it.

I could move this along with a

vote: Lord_hur

[HackerHuck]

I also find it interesting that he voted for me and not for her, without an explanation on the choice.

I could

move this along

with a

vote: Lord_hur

The implication being that a single vote on Springlullaby is not going to do as much as a second vote on Lord_Hur. That happens to be our only wagon at the moment now.

[HackerHuck]

Hackerhuck, I can see what you are getting at but I'd prefer you criticize the content of my case and that you make clear your opinion on lord_hur.
What's phony in my case apart from the aggressiveness - which I can assure you is genuine?

The implication of my post is that you are scum bussing your scumbuddy lord_hur. I believe you are faking anger/emotion at him being scummy. I'm not disagreeing with what you said, rather how you said it.

I could move this along with a

vote: Lord_hur

The way that you phrase this makes me think that you don't think Lord_hur is scum. Why would you vote for someone that you don't think is scum?

I phrased it this way so I wouldn't get the kind of question that SpringLullaby asked me - "If I'm scummy, why didn't you vote for me?" Considering my subject of my post was Springlullaby, I chose to use those words to explain why I picked Lord_hur as my vote. When choosing between two of my likely scums, I will go for the scummier of the two or the one who is likely to be lynched. I think a wagon will help at this point in the day.

I'm still getting the feeling that lord_hur and SpringLullaby are not very genuine in their interactions.

[HackerHuck]

A Musherwagon now? I'm not sure what to think about that one. I'm going to be away from the computer for a few days, but I'll have chewed on that before I get back.

[HackerHuck]

OMFG how have we not lynched Musher yet? Do you guys not understand the fact that he gave himself away, by accusing me of being scum

for defending Guardian

. That means that

he knew that Guardian was scum

. And the only way he could have known that was if he was Guardian's scum buddy.

FFS guys, can we get this game going please?

I'm not buying this one right now. Mr Stoofer is making the case that Guardian was scum, so I don't see how this is a smoking gun on Musher. He only seems to be using Mr Stoofer's argument against him.

Lord_hur - how have I been non-commital? I believe I locked onto Guardian and stuck with him almost all of day one.

[HackerHuck]

Actually, that's another thing I have against you, thanks for reminding me : you voted for Guardian while at the same time saying you didn't know if he were town or scum.

Quote please.

But here, I was talking about day 2 :
- your only attack this day (springlullaby bussing me) is pretty weak and hard to give credit to in my opinion - though I might be biased, so if someone else could comment on this...
- your Musher333 vote was only following Mr Stoofer with no additional argument -> weak vote
- you basically voted me just because someone else was voting me (and someone you're apparently suspecting of being scum, at that), while implying that you voted just to get the game going -> weak vote

How is this non-commital?

I also wouldn't characterise my vote on you as just to get the game going or just because someone else was. I just picked you over Springlullaby for those reasons. It doesn't make you less scummy.

[HackerHuck]

First off, I think there's an interpretation issue. I'm not sure how literal you are being, but the only way I could be certain that Guardian is scum is if I were too. The crux of my arguments that rub you the wrong way is that I felt there was no downside to my being wrong. I've bolded the parts that support I felt Guardian was scum.

Actually, that's another thing I have against you, thanks for reminding me : you voted for Guardian while at the same time saying you didn't know if he were town or scum.

Quote please.

These are the two post you did after your actual vote :

I'm not sure if I need to repeat any of the things that everyone else has said about you Guardian. It should be obvious to you why Millers are bad news to the town. It's a crappy claim because the only way to prove it is by lynching you. Scum would never kill a miller, which means that the town has to do it at some point. The only good news is that cops won't bother wasting an investigation on you, but you pretty much blew that by crumbing cop to begin with.

Like the others, I think you forgot that I was already voting you, so my vote was more of a confirmation than anything else - hence the context.

If you're town, then I guess you did us a favor by claiming miller so we can kill you sooner rather than later, but that's small comfort.

In this one, you're only considering Guardian being town.

Jesters are pretty darn rare and I sure would hope that self-voting invalidates their win condition.

Guardian,

I don't like how you keep trying to portray my vote on you as one that is based on your supposed millership. I had voted you prior to that and your claim has only cemented my vote.

My comments were all related to how millers are bad news for the town. If you can tell me one good thing the miller does for the town, then I will admit I'm wrong (but I still won't pull my vote).

I've seen scum claim miller as often as I've seen town do it.

It's not going to get you off the hook in my eyes.


I don't like how TVOD reacted by pushing the jester angle, but I'm not sure if it should be chalked up to newbishness.

In this one, Guardian was right (in my opinion) to believe you voted him for being a miller. We don't know what's in your head, but that's actually the way it appeared to me too. And you nail the "vote for townie" further by saying you won't unvote, even if he proves you you're wrong.

I think that saying I won't unvote even if he convinces me that a miller is not bad for the town just proves that I believe he's scum and I'm not just voting him to get rid of a miller.

I'm also not happy with Mr Stoofer's press to lynch Musher to get the game moving. Especially with a replacement, I think fresh blood might reinvigorate this game a bit and I'm certainly not buying the case on Musher. If this were a full reveal game, I would agree that a lynch is helpful, but I don't believe that to be the case here.

[HackerHuck]

I totally get what Mr Stoofer is saying. I'm now thinking Musher is likely scum from that claim and it's not because his name is weird.

Lord_hur - I believe that Musher brought up the topic of claiming before anyone else, so I don't see how Springlullaby can really be accused of rolefishing. Maybe you're the nervous scumbuddy who was afraid his partner didn't have a good claim thought up yet.

[HackerHuck]

Vote: Musher33

I didn't buy his claim at first and you guys are convincing me that it's pretty suspect. I was hoping to hammer, so I'm really not happy with SpringLullaby's unvote.

[HackerHuck]

A mass name claim or a name origin claim is a bad idea. We know that the mafia are Hebrews, so we only get lucky if someone claims a name of Hebrew origin. Other than that, it just gives the mafia a better idea of what they should claim or who might be the power roles.

lord_hur - please don't just read my posts in isolation. Musher claimed in between those posts you quoted.

[HackerHuck]

I find it very interesting how some people find Musher's claim perfect and others find it faulty.

When I say that your efforts are making me feel more like his claim is rubbish, it's because no one has come out with a good reason for why his claim is good. Using the word physician makes it believable? Having an obscure background proves it's a real claim? Putting it out piecemeal is a sign of truthfulness? Show me perfect flavor please! And now Musher himself can't even remember how he claimed. He said healer. Or was it doctor? Maybe it was medical specialist?

Come on now, it's time to drop the hammer.

[HackerHuck]

I can't believe what I've seen in the last three pages. The first post of the game gives us the generic townie post - remember, that's why everyone asked him to claim his name.

He's also claiming not to be a generic townie. so how could asking his win condition do us any good? It will either be what is in the first post or it would be something different related to his role which we couldn't confirm.

If you guys want to lynch someone else, you need to come up with an alternate and present a case. I really think Musher is a good target, but I could also go for a SprinLullaby or Lord_Hur lynch as I previously mentioned.

I'm also going to take a closer look at how people reacted to this current Musher wagon.

[HackerHuck]

I didn't get that from his post. I thought he was trying to say that his food choice is what clears him - a hebrew would not eat pork for lunch...

[HackerHuck]

A question to all of you interested in the "name" claiming. When guardian claimed to be a miller - he said he was jewish - why did no one press him to reveal his name? We debated Guardian's claim quite a bit, but that one was thing not asked of him.

[HackerHuck]

To restate the case for not lynching Musher

He's definitely not played the last 10 pages exceptionally well. However:

He has claimed Doc. A good scum-claim no doubt, because lynching a claimed doc on D2 is a Bad Idea.

He has given good flavor (albeit in pieces), such as 'Physician' and 'Eats Fish.' Both of these bits of flavor fit in very well with the game, and the fact that they aren't countered almost proves he's town.

He played out the last 3 pages as if he had no idea that scum knew about townies having food. Supposedly he forgot that the townie PM was in the first post. Yet he was still able to state the townie win condition (eliminate menaces to the integrity of egypt). Either he was clever scum playing aloof, or he actually has that role PM. I'm VERY inclined to believe that Musher-scum would not be clever enough to do something like this (no offense musher), and thus I'm considering him to be essentially confirmed doc.

Were you not really paying attention closely? He never claimed fish - that was Stoofer. Musher's claim was pork. He also didn't claim the townie win condition exactly like it was posted. I don't see how physician and/or fish/pork are in any way good claims. Do you think that the scum don't have a food in their role PMs? And if you recall, Physician didn't come out right away but after his initial claim of doctor.

Lastly, you really need to consider the effectiveness of him as a doctor. If he survives today without being lynched, he's basically the same as someone who claimed townie. The scum are going to kill him tonight, so we won't get any benefit from his role.

[HackerHuck]

I prefer Hackerhuck lynch, his contribution is on the minimum side and I typically don't like his votes, he does more commenting on the game while agreeing with one wagon or another, then coming up with case of his own.

I'd like to see an example of this. Actually, more than one example since that's what I supposedly do more of...

Lord_Hur - would you rather that I restate (and restate) my position on you and SpringLullaby? I've even recently mentioned that I would switch back to either of you if I cannot get the lynch on Musher.

Lastly, you really need to consider the effectiveness of him as a doctor. If he survives today without being lynched, he's basically the same as someone who claimed townie. The scum are going to kill him tonight, so we won't get any benefit from his role.

Yes, but if we don't lynch Musher, we put the scum in a good position for us because they either have to kill Musher, which saves anyone else from being killed that night, or they have to kill someone else and we get a possible save from the doc still. If we lynch Musher and we're wrong, then we've erroneously lynched one with a second town death during the night.

So if we're wrong about a random townie, we've erroneously lynched one and there will be a second townie death during the night. Really, the only difference is that we will either see Musher die tonight or we will see someone else die tonight. I'm still not sure how that makes it a bad idea to lynch Musher if you think he's scum.

[HackerHuck]

Let's be a little more careful in our assumptions here. We cannot yet assume that someone we lynch will not have their role revealed.

Lynching lurkers is always a copout in my opinion and it's often a scumtell.

[HackerHuck]

Since we're a couple of days from deadline I wanted to post these so that everyone is aware of the deadline rule.

2. Should a deadline be placed, a majority is no longer required to lynch a person. At the end of the deadline, the person with most votes will be lynched. If there is a tie, nobody will be lynched

That said, of course I will oppose my own lynch, but I won't oppose a lynch of Musher (my first suspect), Lord_hur, or Springlullaby.

Strife- what changed your mind? This post references Lord_Hur.

As I've already said, I don't want a Musher-lynch or a no-lynch. When I did my full readthrough on replacing, HackerHuck did not ping my scum-dar. Upon re-reading him, I still didn't see anything that made me think he was likely scum.
When I did my full readthrough on replacing, you did come up nearer the top of my 'potential scum' list. And relative to HackerHuck and Musher, I think you're a good choice. When I have some more time, if SL doesn't hammer Musher, I'll present a full case.

[HackerHuck]

That's enough to swing me around. After reviewing the Singing Librarian's posts, I find enough defence of lord_hur that I would characterise as too risky for scum to do. If it weren't for that and the flavor of the claim, I would still be quite suspicious. A no-reveal game is the perfect opportunity for scum to claim masonry and get away with it. Unless we see a contradictory statement from the singing librarian, I would strongly oppose a lynch of lord_hur now.

That also lessens my suspicion of SpringLullaby, so I'm firmly in the Musher camp now.

Strife - my question was more related to what I bolded in the quote:

I'd take a Hur lynch over a HackerHuck lynch no problem.

Surprising. May I know why ?

As I've already said, I don't want a Musher-lynch or a no-lynch. When I did my full readthrough on replacing,

HackerHuck did not ping my scum-dar. Upon re-reading him, I still didn't see anything that made me think he was likely scum.

When I did my full readthrough on replacing, you did come up nearer the top of my 'potential scum' list. And relative to HackerHuck and Musher, I think you're a good choice. When I have some more time, if SL doesn't hammer Musher, I'll present a full case.

How is it I'm now scummy enough to vote for in your eyes?

I think at this point Lord_Hur should not claim any more from his role PM unless he feels that it would benefit the town.

[HackerHuck]

A no-reveal game is the perfect opportunity for scum to claim masonry and get away with it. Unless we see a contradictory statement from the singing librarian, I would strongly oppose a lynch of lord_hur now.

I don't understand what you mean here. I'm also unsure why it lessens your suspicion of SpringLullaby?

These are two separate thoughts. Basically in a no-reveal game, we won't know whether the lovers or masons are scum, so we can't really confirm the other one when the other turns up dead. On the other topic, I was suspicious of SpringLullaby primarily due to her interactions with Lord_Hur. Since I believe him to be town, that lessens my suspicions on Springlullaby.

How is it I'm now scummy enough to vote for in your eyes?

I was voting you because I strongly opposed a Musher lynch, and you were the only person with any sort of wagon on you. I felt Hur would have been a better lynch, hence why I switched to him when I saw the opportunity to lynch someone other than you or Musher. However in light of the claim I'm starting to regret my stance. It seems highly unlikely that Hur and SLibrarian would both be scum pulling a huge gambit here. I guess it doesn't matter if Librarian checks in or not, they're either lovers or gambling scum-buddies, and I don't see the latter as likely.

Just about any other claim and I would have kept my vote. However, I see no reason why not to believe it. Which unfortunately means, I have to

Unvote, Vote: Musher

, as Hur and SLibrarian have become my least favorite lynch candidates due to the claim.

Another question for you Hur. Why would revealing your role harm town in anyway? If you thought you were going to be lynched, SLibrarian was going to die as well. How would that help scum?

I think you should explain why you think Singing Librarian would die if Lord_Hur was lynched.

[HackerHuck]

Musher appears to be scum grasping at straws now...

[HackerHuck]

Sorry about the delay. I read through yesterday and I'm still pretty puzzled by the goings on.

I'd like to think there's some method to the role reveals, but I can't figure anything out there. I'm also baffled by last night's kills. There's really no reason not to kill one of the masons - I haven't really seen much in the way of doubt that they're town. Besides, with the chance of a no-reveal it's not like they would be isntantly cleared from someone's death. That leads me to believe the scum either knew there would be a reveal last night or they just wanted to create more confusion.

Oddly enough, the more I find myself agreeing with Mr Stoofer, the uneasier I get. i don't really see him as scum, but I think he'll need to go when we get closer to endgame.

Here's a question for you Mr Stoofer - Given your assertion that Guardian is scum, what do you think about Guardian's suspicion of hasdgfas? Do you think it was bussing or just a red herring?

I would really like to get more insight on SeraphicMirth. Between her and Shin, that's my biggest whole at the moment.

[HackerHuck]

Well Mr Stoofer, that's quite a nice list you've got now. If I just look at who's left alive and assume that the nightkill victims were townies, then we don't have too many people left that you think are scum.

The living:
HackerHuck
hasdgfas
lord_hur
Mr Stoofer
springlullaby
SeraphicMirth
Singing Librarian

You seem to believe the claims of lord_hur and Singing Librarian, you've asserted that hasdgfas wasn't partners with Guardian scum, and I'm sure you consider yourself a townie. That just leaves me, springlullaby, and SeraphicMirth as your scum-probables. With the belief that there are two more scum alive, why haven't you been able to make a case on one of us three (that's a 2/3 chance of randomly hitting scum)? In fact, you haven't seemed to comment much on any of us. I find that rather odd.

[HackerHuck]

thanks undo!

Just a note that I'll be gone for a few days. I'm looking forward to reading some good posting when I return on the 7th.

[HackerHuck]

Lord_Hur - are you implying that Stark is scum bussing his last partner really hard?

I think that his replacing in and the day ending are coincidental. I cannot imagine anyone would use that kind of a power immediately after replacing in.

I also think it's premature to assume that the scum are responsible for the day ending quickly. It's also possible that some kind of game mechanic triggered the day ending, but it's not really worth debating in my opinion.

I'm intrigued by the Stoofer as scum idea - I have been mildly suspicious for quite a while now. I'm just a little surprised by the sudden interest in him as a suspect.

[HackerHuck]

The setup looks clear now on the scum side : extraordinary powers (ending a day ? OMFG). With this kind of stuff, it is impossible that they are more than 2.

Seriously? The Town started the game with a pair of masons and a doc, and we don't know what other roles. Do you really think that the Scum would have only 2 players against a town with several power roles? I don't see this as feasible.

What you aren't seeing is that we've already seen a number of things stacked against the town, so I really don't think it's a stretch to believe there could only be two scum.

Partial-reveal is definitely not helping the town any and it could actually nullify the benefits of a mason. We don't know why Singing Librarian's role was revealed; it could have been random luck. Any mechanic that causes day to end without a lynch is also not pro-town.


Lord_Hur - I'm not necessarily trying to shut down discussion of the mechanics, but I'm trying to make sure we focus on hunting scum. We don't know how many scum there are or if we've even killed any yet. I just don't see how talking about whether the day ending suddenly is a random event or scum driven will help us find scum.

Vote: Mr Stoofer

[HackerHuck]

I really didn't like Musher's claim for a number of reasons. At a high level, it seemed like a poorly thought out fake claim. He did the slow reveal, couldn't remember what he had said about it, and then didn't even offer up his name until prompted.

Who did we lynch for speculating about the setup?

[HackerHuck]

I understand what you're saying HH, but he

did

claim doc. And I agree, his claim was super suspect, but

he should have atleast been unvoted before lynching him.

What are you trying to say in the part I italicised?

[HackerHuck]

I haven't gone back to look, but I don't think I even voted for him until after his claim.

[HackerHuck]

Thought I'd bump this with all of the thread locking going on today.

I'm also getting buried in real life and may be a little less active for a while. Since this is my last game, I should be able to keep up.

[HackerHuck]

I would say the more interesting question is why wait to kill one of the masons. It wasn't like Strife was considered a townie by most.

Lord_Hur - do you think we've already killed a scum or all of the dead "unknowns" townies?

[HackerHuck]

My top two are Stark and Stoofer, but I'm doubtful they both are scum. I am also of the belief that Guardian was scum.


Lord_Hur - think about this situation. There are four players left - three are town and you are the final scum. Would you rather have:

Three vanilla (no masons alive)
Two vanilla and one confirmed mason
One vanilla and two masons (they're ultimately confirmed because if they were both scum then the game would be over)

Change it to five remaining - four town + one scum. What happens if you end up with two vanilla and two unconfirmed masons? If a vanilla is lynched, your only choice is to kill a mason otherwise they will join up to vote you out. At that point, the the mason is confirmed so you're left trying to convince the surviving mason that the other townie is the scum. It's obviously better off for scum when no one confirmed is alive at endgame.

[HackerHuck]

Lord_Hur, look at post 102 for my explanation of that comment.

Stark, please look at post 103 for where Guardian hints at being a cop or other investigative role.

and yeah, slysly is a hunch. or something.

[HackerHuck]

Stark, you've been playing the game long enough to have seen cops pull that kind of comment on more than one occaision. I'm not saying I was convinced at the time, but it was definitely a possiblity that ran through my mind.

[HackerHuck]

Lord_Hur, look at post 102 for my explanation of that comment.

Of course I read it, and no I don't find it satisfactory. You said "the other scum", which can only refer to the number of scums in the game, and not to the number of suspects.

Unless your wording was really really off. You didn't say "You can't also suspect Slysly because...".

No. You said "THE other scum". It cannot be any more clear.

Well sure it could be more clear. It's not as if I said THE

only

other scum. If you look at the context of that discussion, Guardian mentions two suspects. When referring to two people, it's common in English to use "one and the other". Would it have been clearer had I appended the word "suspect" to the end of my statement?

Basically your argument boils down to the fact that you believe Guardian is really town and Mr Stoofer and I would be the two scum. How is it that you know there are really only two scum? That would imply that you have some knowledge that Guardian is certainly town.

[HackerHuck]

lord_hur, could you please be a little more clear in your comments? I'm not sure whom you are referring to.

Yes, my vote didn't have any specific comments regarding Mr Stoofer, but if you would looke through my post history, you will see that I have had my eye on him for quite some time. I think at this point based on some of the things I've seen, a vote for him is warranted.

[HackerHuck]

*bump*

Maybe we should get some prods on everyone who hasn't posted in the last week days. I realise Stark might not be back yet, but it wouldn't hurt to prod everyone.

[HackerHuck]

Mr Stoofer, you must be very confused. I don't recall ever accusing you of knowing how many scum there are. My only discussion came in to play when I was debunking Lord_Hur's assertion that both you and I are guilty of that.

My suspicion comes down more to a lot of little things - your play is just a little too poor and I'm not buying the whole "I'm not really that good at this game" act. You manage to put together a lot of defencive metagaming, but you can't seem to do a good job of scum-hunting. I think my post where you had nailed down all but a couple suspects is a good sign of that. In fact, after you mentioned that you would look into it, I don't think you ever followed up.

Combining all that with touting how much you're keeping the game moving, I think that it's pretty obvious that you might be doing a lot to keep yourself visible, but you're not really doing that much in the way of good scum hunting. I don't really see any better option for scum than you right now.

[HackerHuck]

Unless I missed an unvote, that's a lynch.

I'm not so sure we could only have two scum (in total). It seems like a really risky proposition, even with the special lynchless day and some no-reveal. Having the Lovers/masons makes it even less likely in my eyes to only have two scum. Regardless of total scum, I'm pretty sure that we're down to two now (hopefully one with Stoofer gone).

Lawrencelot's meta review of Guardian did get me thinking a bit. If I recall correctly, he was town in a large open game and foolishly fake-claimed doc. Although that establishes a precedence of him doing something like that, it had such disastrous results that I can't believe he would repeat that as town. I'll take a look for it to reference, but the game was modded by LoudMouthLee and was called "The New C9". I'll try and post a link if I can before this gets locked.

[HackerHuck]

Then who do you think the mafia are?

For those interested in the Guardian point I brought up, here are the details.

His claim of doc. Then just do a sort by posts for Guardian. This one was his post 118. He comments on the breadcrumbing in 123 and comes clean about his lie in 187.

Take it for what you will and I'm not really sure how important it is at this point whether we believe Guardian was scum.

[HackerHuck]

Lets go back to post 910 where I asked you about your narrowed list of scum.

Since then, I've gone through all of your posts and you have done absolutely no scum hunting. Instead, I've seen a lot of theorising and misdirection. I don't know how you can think you've been pro-town, when all you've been doing is making a lot of noise. How about you actually tell us who you think is scum now. I'm still waiting on the results of your reread from back then...

[HackerHuck]

I'm not sure that a massclaim will be all that helpful. However, if we go down that path, we need to decide what must be disclosed before hand so there's no stalling.

[HackerHuck]

OK folks, let's get down to business. I'm going to be on V/LA in about four days and I'd like to see this day wrap up before then. For the record, I'm obviously not opposed to a Mr Stoofer lynch, but I also wouldn't oppose a lynch of Stark. I'm on the fence with hasdfgs, so I don't think I'd bag off on that one either. Everyone else, I'm absolutely opposed to lynching today.

[HackerHuck]

hasdfgas - who do you think is scum? Please answer before the the claims begin - if you read this before your turn.

[HackerHuck]

Why does it take two pages to get such a simple thing rolling?

I'm not happy with the stalling or the half-assed way hasdgfas answered. Is there a reason you choose to not volunteer any information about your suspicions?

A massclaim really isn't rocket science and I'd like to get my claim in before my access gets limited. I really don't want to be the one holding things up.

[HackerHuck]

So you think that the reasoning behind your suspicions would influence Mr Stoofer's claim?

[HackerHuck]

Of course I'll care. The game's about making cases on people - as Mr Stoofer reminded me of earlier in this game.

[HackerHuck]

I'm assuming we're following Lord_Hur's order, so here's my claim. Apologies if I'm jumping ahead.

I don't really have a name, or at least I don't consider it a name as much as a title.

Name

: Pharaoh

Occupation

: Governor of Egypt

Game Role

: Can Veto Lynches (not my own)

Eats

: Cereal, Fish, and Figs

If I'm lucky, I won't have internet access from 13 - 22 August and I'll get to have a proper vacation.

My access will be limited during this period.

[HackerHuck]

OK, I'm back from vacation and it doesn't seem like I've missed anything.

Lord_Hur- think carefully about the information you're holding back. You are a very likely target for a nightkill and you need to weigh the value of not disclosing the information and letting it die with you.

I haven't seen anything in the claims to change my mind about Mr Stoofer, so I'm content to leave my vote where it is.

[HackerHuck]

I'm not really comfortable with how this is going down. Is it safe to assume that this little exercise will be fully explained after we're done?

I'm actually not sure what more I can say about my role, but I'd also like to wait until Mr Stoofer has returned. I believe his ten day absence should be over shortly, if not already.

[HackerHuck]

I'm afraid that Mr Stoofer might be waiting until deadline to post, so I don't want to delay things.

Here's what I feel that can be disclosed without fear of penalty.

I'm the Pharaoh who has called these meetings so that we can avoid these diseases and I have the final say whether someone lives or dies.

Other interesting facts about your pharaoh.

Moses is my brother, but not by blood - think of that great Ten Commandments movie (I'm Yul Brenner!).
I am the earthly representation of the god Horus
The Egyptians are my people, not the Hebrew Slaves who serve me.
My mental health depends on the variety of my diet.

[HackerHuck]

I believe that the sanity I refer to is simply for flavor explaining why I eat three things for lunch instead of the single item everyone else has claimed.

[HackerHuck]

Ooops, sorry about the double post.

I should also say that the word sanity was not in my role PM. I simply said sanity because it is synonmous to what was in my PM.

[HackerHuck]

Hmm, I'm more than a little surprised at the speed and change of this wagon, but I've had some suspicion about Hasdgfas for a while. I'm not sure that I believe that he could be scum with Mr Stoofer and I'm concerned by his absence. I'm certain that we're much beyond the ten days he indicated.

To avoid a no-lynch, I'll switch.

Unvote
Vote: Hasdgfas

I won't oppose this lynch, or Mr Stoofer's if things switch before deadline...

[HackerHuck]

Quoting the role PM isn't allowed under any circumstances. Let Undo make any announcements necessary to maintain fairness.

Thanks for replacing back in. Unfortunately, I'm going to need a reread, since I've forgotting too much about this game.

[HackerHuck]

I'd like to think that it isn't so easy to break this game.

I'm also not following the conversation around the locusts and it killing people or driving me mad.

The only thing that the flavor gives away is that the staff used to cause the plagues was found with Moses when we killed him. I'm assuming that means no more plagues, but that doesn't mean the scum can't kill.

[HackerHuck]

Interesting. I'm more than a little surprised at Stark's haste to lynch. I hope we're successful, but I'll be a little disappointed if that's the case. I'm not too keen on winning a game because we cracked the name code.

[HackerHuck]

I'm not stopping this lynch.

Although I'm bothered by Stark's behaviour, I'm not entirely convinced that Lawrencelot is town. I also don't think we're at LYLO, but that's not based on any knowledge about the setup or rules as he indicated above.

[HackerHuck]

I really wish I had got my reread in, because I was pretty sure about Stoofer until the name thing came up successful and then I forgot all about him with the replacement. Even now, I've got to go back and reread, because I didn't think there was any chance we were at LYLO.

I would say that this is one of those games that is a really great idea when you go back and look at it or if you know the details, but it's very challenging to play.

I really don't understand why there was so much difficulty in finding a replacement. This wasn't too long of a read and the illustrations are also a nice touch. I'm just glad that we were able to finish it, because it would have been a shame for it to go dark on us.