Mini 751: Suzumiya Haruhi Mafia (OVER)

[Percy]

FoS: Budja

OMGUSFTW!

I suggest everyone have a look at the closing credits of the anime. I'm sure this is the tone that Tar is trying to set.

*dances*

[Percy]

STOP

What the

HELL

guys.

I understand that Seraphim wants a lynch. Maybe it will benefit us. But as far as I'm concerned, racing through a game is

never

good for town.

Seraphim has ended the random voting stage (and almost the entire day), and now I have no read on anybody going into Twilight/Day 2. I only posted once to throw out a random vote, and others have only posted once to reluctantly contribute to the self-induced seraphim wagon.

What are the advantages of ending the day now, rather than in a week? Give me one good reason why we

should

do this

now

- I haven't heard one. Not one. From anyone voting.

We can still hit Seraphim in a week, or even a day.

Why is it a good reason to do it now

?

UnFoS

FoS: malthusis

- For being willing to hammer (even though you can't - it seems even more odd that you wouldn't count first).

Vote: afatchic

- I don't like your latest post. Seraphim says "vote for me!" and you say "oh, OK seraphim, I'll do what you say. But you'd better not be kidding me around!!!". We're playing

mafia

here, why are you trusting him even a tiny, tiny little bit? Is it because you're scum who's glad to have avoided attention on Day 1?

[Percy]

EBWOP: malthusis got in before me. My reasons for my FoS on him still apply, but refer to his penultimate post.

[Percy]

@Percy

After the day's interrogations are done, do you plan on having me lynched or would you rather target someone else as today's lynch?

You started off saying that you should die before Day 4, and I understand why it would be best for you to die on Day 1 if there is something nasty coming - that is, it saves us having to lynch you rather than some obvscum on Day 3, or whatever.

Still, if the town gets more info from lynching someone else, then we should lynch them. In all probability, we'll all have a nice little chat, and then shoot you. But I personally will not

commit

to lynching you. It seems bizarre to make that guarantee, as it blunts any investigation we can do of other people today (as other people have identified).

The only answer to "why was a quick lynch good" seems to be "oh we could have done it and it wouldn't have been that bad". Thus, every person who wanted Seraphim lynched

quickly

wanted it for bad reasons.

Now we're looking at twiddling our thumbs and whistling away the day, because everyone "knows" that we're lynching Seraphim. Well, if you "know" it, then vote. No-one is going to feel the least bit threatened by your votes if they know you'll switch it to someone else. I'm suspicious of both afatchic and malthusis, so my votes are staying where they are. Seraphim falls under the 'lynch if there's no-one else to lynch' category.

[Percy]

DGB, could you explain this to me:

OK - I don't like to delay treats.

This was your votepost on Seraphim. Was this a typo, or am I missing something? Are you referring to the lynch as a 'treat'? I don't get it.....

Also, forbiddanlight, could you explain what changed your mind from here:

I'm still debating whether I'll join this wagon or not. It will basically deprive us of a lot of D1 information.

...to this:

Ta hell with it.

Un FoS, FoS Seraphim
Unvote, Vote Seraphim

... in 5 posts and less than 2 hours? You identified correctly that this move would deprive us of information, but decided to push for the lynch. You say that you were backing up your words with action - if that's the case, then great. However, you did put him at (what you thought was) L-2, which is horribly close to an early lynch. How could all this go through your mind in that time? What was the winning argument?


Hypothetical: We lynch Seraphim, and a townie gets NKed.

If we're looking at 3 scum, we'll be at 8v3 at the start of Day 2. If we mislynch, we'll be at 6v3 at the start of Day 3. Mislynch again, and we're at 4v3 - LYLO. This is a worst case scenario, and in this instance it is (probably) in our advantage to have killed Seraphim early.

If we're looking at 4 scum, we'll be at 6v4 on Day 2. Mislynch, and it's game over. Day 4 never even comes close.

Or, you know, there are other combinations, such as 3 mafia and an SK, which would make things even more complicated.

The point is, lynching town might not be a great idea right now. I'm totally down with killing Seraphim before Day 4, but let's start by looking for scum, yes? Otherwise we'll be two townies down on Day 2 with no info. I don't like the sounds of that at all.

[Percy]

forbiddanlight is scum. We'll lynch her tomorrow.

Quoted for emphasis.

[Percy]

Awesome.

We don't even get to confirm his alignment. Perhaps a Jester role, perhaps townie, perhaps even scum with a special ability.... we have no information on Seraphim.

This makes analysing his lynch even more difficult. It built (initially) with terrifying speed, which should have made everyone suspicious, but it really didn't. No-one was really interested in following up on these leads. The general vibe then changed to "everyone else has already decided (without thinking it through) to lynch Seraphim, so I don't think I can change that! I'll just not think it through and go along with the crowd". Now we're left with

two thirds

of the players, and virtually no more info.

In the absence of anything to work with, I'm going to construct cases against other players. Re-read Day 1, and post your thoughts on your scum suspects. Maybe we can actually play mafia and even kill scum today.

[Percy]

Oh, game, I'm sorry. I will post tomorrow for sure!

[Percy]

Does anyone else apart for Trumpet of Doom actually want to scumhunt?

I do.

afatchic has been the most inconsistent player. He changed his mind about the Seraphim lynch, and posted this:

Okay i have a new idea, since this situation seems to be spurring conversation, and would probably lead to some good scumhunting, i don't like the idea of settling with a seraphim lynch. i think we should scumhunt like normal, and not worry about seraphim. If no one seems scummy enough for a lynch by deadline, we can always lynch seraphim then. But i think real scumhunting, and lynching scum here would be best.

Congratulations on your "new" idea....
His next post, six days later,

after the Seraphim lynch had already happened

:

So just curious... what happened to FL? was she day vigged, mod killed, or something she said got her killed? was it something to do with her role as the reason she died, or was it something else?

I'm really confused at the moment.

Firstly, his position was that scumhunting needed to happen - yet he did none of it. I can't really blame him too much on that, since I've done a similar thing today (though I certainly wouldn't have let today go to a lynch I wasn't supportive of without saying something).
However, and more importantly, he didn't scumhunt at all

today

. He had no thoughts beyond his own defence.
Now he's been replaced by zwet. I will therefore

FoS: zwetschenwasser

until he delivers some scumhunting and analysis. Then, and only then, can you shake off the horrible stench of afatchic's anti-town BS.

What are the chances that Seraphim was scum? I'm starting to think it's quite possible.

Honestly, we have no idea. If he was scum, and the mafia knew what would happen, then the scum would want to support his wagon. However, many players (such as, for example, the confirmed townies roffman and DGB) were participating in the wagon for lazy, irresponsible reasons. This environment is perfect for scum to hide in.
Even though the flaws in the plan were laid out quite clearly, others chose to ignore it and give up the Day.

Here is the Seraphim wagon:

Seraphim votes (L-6)
DGB votes (L-5)
afatchic votes (L-4)
Panzerjager votes (L-3)
forbiddanlight votes (L-2)
malthusis votes (L-1)
My post 46 condemns the wagon as hasty and unnecessary
veerus agrees
Budja agrees
forbiddanlight unvotes (L-2), but thinks L-2 is appropriate
afatchic posts, does not unvote
DGB posts, does not unvote
malthusis posts, does not unvote
Panzerjager unvotes (L-3)
roffman votes (L-2), describing result as inevitable
Budja votes (L-1), who has come to the same conclusion.
ortolan votes (Lynch), same conclusion.

I don't think the dissappearance should have happened after the lynch, as the mod claimed - the votes add up with ortolan, the hammerer in this instance.

Note that the wagon formed and then was dying down. Three players did not unvote, implicitly standing by their votes. They also thought that L-2 was appropriate, even though the person who said that also said this:

L-2 is very easy to make L-0. L-1 just makes it easy for scum to end discussion.

Three more people decide to jump on and spun us a story about a prophecy, without mentioning that it was self-fulfilling.

Both Budja and ortolan made the wrong moves, both in calling it inevitable and actively participating. Then again, so did roffman. Both afatchic and malthusis should have unvoted, or at least participated in the discussion about the lynch rather than just defending themselves. Then again, the same applies to DGB.

Of all the lynchers, afatchic (now zwet) is top of my scumlist, but the others are not far behind.

Percy, in light of posts 129 etc. expressing you dislike Seraphim being lynched so fast: Do you disagree with the argument that if Seraphim's lynch is a foregone conclusion, then one can't really engage in any meaningful scum-hunting for that day anyway, so we may as well stop wasting time? If so, why?

Do I agree with the argument? Yes, of course, it follows logically from its premises. If the lynch is a foregone conclusion, then no others need to feel scared of being lynched. As this is the town's only daytime weapon, we are left with nothing to do for the Day. Therefore, it does not affect the town's ability to find scum by ending the day and just getting on with it.

What I have a problem with is the 'foregone conclusion' part. In what way was the lynch a foregone conclusion? Saying 'it's inevitable' and actively making it so is bad enough. Not addressing the arguments of why it's

bad

,

not inevitable

and therefore

should be actively stopped

is ridiculous. It's either pro-scum or anti-town.

@ortolan: You were the hammerer. Was there any other reason, other than 'meh, it's inevitable' that led you to hammer Seraphim? If so, why didn't you state it in your post? If not, then why didn't you address the points that I and others had outlined about its evitability?

Okay, on a cursory reread, about the only thing I'm really getting caught on is this (post 54):

I felt it may actually be better if we just went ahead and lynched him and pretending it was more like a night start,

then

to talk about the possibility of a vig kill and stuff like that, possibly outing Power roles.

Emphasis mine. If that's not a typo, it's an incredibly bad slip (if afatchic is scum).

I think th

e

n=th

a

n. It's a common mistake, so common in fact that I wouldn't be surprised if afatchic completely missed it even on a reread. He probably thought he had communicated "than", and was utterly confused by your post.

Who exactly disappeared? I missed that part

*facepalm*
@Panzerjager: Now that you've done a complete reread of yesterday and all the posts leading up to the reply you're about to make, which players are scum, and why?


@malthusis: Why did you not address the arguments that I outlined?

@Budja: Do you still maintain that the lynch was inevitable?

I will say I'm very unimpressed by your conviction that "there must be scum in afatchic, malta, budja (and now ortolan)". Reaaaaaaalllllllllly? We are in a 12 player game which usually have 3-4 scum. 3 apparent townies and one unknown are "dead" or "removed". If you select any four random players I'm pretty sure the chance that there's scum among them is about 95%+ anyway. By your logic I could say I'm equally sure that there is at least 1 scum among the 4 players who were not on his wagon.

Firstly, you're not unimpressed with his conviction. In fact, you point out that his conviction is well founded - he's 95% likely to be right! There are almost certainly scum amongst those who did not participate in the wagon, I agree. veerus is just not confident for the right reasons. But your rebuttal doesn't address the faulty reasons he gave. This is a knee-jerk defence that hasn't been thought out at all.

Also, he doesn't even mention you as a suspect, even though you were the hammer. That's pretty weird.

So how about I do the work for you?

How pro-town his ability could've been? It must be AWESOME to justify the chance of losing 2 townies. Tar MUST have thought of all this. And I just can't think of a pro-town ability that would be that GREAT to compensate for reducing town to 8 on D2 while not being game-breaking, especially in a mini.

Tar probably did think about this, but accepted it as a reasonable risk. He may have expected more than what the town offered in terms of an analysis of Seraphim's claim. We could have waited, or he could have been NKed, or a million other things could have happened. Trying to out-guess the mod is not a good way to go, really.

Voting for the wagon was not inherently all that scummy - two of those who voted for him are now confirmed town. Rather than broad generalisations and modguessing, you should look at each player's motivations, their reasons (or lack thereof) for contributing to the wagon, and so forth. If you want to make an argument against each of those players, then actually do it.

[Percy]

My basic point was that scum-hunting is difficult in such a situation as it is hard to put pressure on any player. I assumed (badly its seems now), that we would get full knowledge of Seraphim's role and still have 10 players by this stage.

Basically, We didn't expect this to happen as a result.
So Yes, the lynch probably was inevitable.

I understood your point at the time you were making it - you thought the general atmosphere wasn't pressuring enough with the absence of the lynch. I just don't understand why you didn't consider the alternative - making it into a pressuring atmosphere by taking away the assumption of a Seraphim lynch.

I will repost this, edited for clarity.

Here is the Seraphim wagon:

Seraphim votes (L-6)
DGB votes (L-5)
afatchic votes (L-4)
Panzerjager votes (L-3)
forbiddanlight votes (L-2)
malthusis votes (L-1)
My post 46 condemns the wagon as hasty and unnecessary
veerus agrees
Budja agrees
forbiddanlight unvotes (L-2), but thinks L-2 is appropriate
afatchic posts, does not unvote
DGB posts, does not unvote
malthusis posts, does not unvote
Panzerjager unvotes (L-3)
roffman votes (L-2), describing result as inevitable
Budja votes (L-1), who has come to the same conclusion.
ortolan votes (

not counted due to lack of UnFoS

), same conclusion.
forbiddanlight disappears, so lynch occurs.

The fact is, you shouldn't be exempt from any analysis of the Seraphim lynch.

Then he makes the “sheep” call, and then decries the fact we've already lost a third of our players (you're forgetting this is a Tarhalindur game)

Yeah, I'm not comfortable with this idea being thrown around as if what makes a "Tarhalindur game" is well understood. Does this mean we can work under the assumption of different numbers of scum? Why?

My point was that he is 95% likely to be right but trivially so, because you are very highly likely to get scum in any group of 4 players, so in saying he thinks there is probably scum among the four players on the wagon he is basically telling us nothing, and I wonder what his reasons for trying to isolate these players to begin with are.

Okay, I see your point now. What it boils down to is that you don't think those who participated in the Seraphim lynch should have any special scrutiny applied to them because of this participation.

veerus is just not confident for the right reasons. But your rebuttal doesn't address the faulty reasons he gave. This is a knee-jerk defence that hasn't been thought out at all.

I do not understand what this comment is based on. Please explain.

This is veerus' reasoning:

I'm having problems with Seraphim's role. 1) his ability may be great for town in the future. But 2) the town ended day 1 super-fast based on his claim and got absolutely no information out of it. On top of that, we lost 2 townies overnight. How pro-town his ability could've been? It must be AWESOME to justify the chance of losing 2 townies. Tar MUST have thought of all this. And I just can't think of a pro-town ability that would be that GREAT to compensate for reducing town to 8 on D2 while not being game-breaking, especially in a mini.

So based on that line of reasoning, I'm inclined to think that there were at least one scum on the Seraphim bandwagon.

Your reply was that there probably were scum in the wagon, but no information could be extracted from them about this issue. veerus seems to be saying that the lynch was great for the scum. I'm not so sure about the death of Seraphim itself being great for scum, but I certainly think that the waste that was Day 1 was great for scum. Do you agree with me or veerus, or do you have some other opinion?

After Seraphim claimed, what would scum want us not to do? Lynch Seraphim. What would want to do after he was lynched? Try to get the people on his wagon lynched, using justification like veerus'.

This assumes that the Seraphim lynch was pro-town, and those who opposed it were scummy. We don't even know if Seraphim was telling the truth, let alone whether it will be good for the town in the end. If Seraphim was revealed to be town, then you would be right - though statements that start with "If I were scum, this would (or would not) be my play" are fairly WIFOM.

I realise in fact the gist of Percy's 157 is entirely different. In fact it's pretty much entirely at odds with Post 129 where he suggests the manner of the Seraphim wagon was scummy as all hell.

Please point out where I make this accusation in 129. You'll find that I don't, at all.
I think the lynch was poor and deprived us of info, and proceeded in a fashion that should have made people more suspicious and reluctant to participate. Instead, it became a 'foregone conclusion', which means that voting for it is basically a null-tell.



@Panzerjager:

@Panzerjager: Now that you've done a complete reread of yesterday and all the posts leading up to the reply you're about to make, which players are scum, and why?

@malthusis:

Saying 'it's inevitable' and actively making it so is bad enough. Not addressing the arguments of why it's

bad

,

not inevitable

and therefore

should be actively stopped

is ridiculous. It's either pro-scum or anti-town.

You kept your vote on Seraphim without continuing to participate in the discussion of his lynch. I'd like to know why you continued to vote for him, given that your last discussion of your vote was post 66, which was a defensive post.

[Percy]

The Seraphim lynch gave us little info to work with (which is why I think it was a bad idea, incidentally, but I'm willing to let that slide).

Also, your post addresses the arguments of veerus, but it's directed at me. I don't suggest any of the things you say are 'problems'. I have said that the death of Seraphim was not inherently scummy, but investigating people's motivations for participating (and, I should add, for

NOT

participating) could reveal a willingness to let this happen. That is, I think we should analyse the wagon, as the manner in which it proceeded was (in my opinion) scummy.

I admit that the probability of all the scum being on the wagon is the same as all the scum being off it, all things considered. I'm trying to gather evidence. If someone leaves out their reasons to push the lynch, or does it for bad reasons, then that's questionable play. Questionable play does not equal scum. Not even scum play equals scum. But it

can

help to put pressure on people for their actions and establish a pattern of behaviour.

I am not tunnelling my search. It's just that the wagon is all I've got to work with right now.

If you think the search is tunnelling, then search in other places. Make people talk about other things. This discussion is getting us nowhere.

[Percy]

So, you think the wagon was scummy, but you equally want to investigate the people not on the wagon? Even if you hadn't contradicted yourself here you need to be far more specific- why was the manner in which the wagon proceeded scummy?

I don't see the contradiction.
Also, I've already stated why I thought the way in which the lynch proceeded was scummy. You can check them out in post 157. Oh wait, you already did:

Yes, I agree with this, and I wonder if we are talking at cross purposes. While you've contradicted post 129, I do pretty much agree with the content of 157.

That was the post where I said this in summary (after posing questions that are still unanswered):

Of all the lynchers, afatchic (now zwet) is top of my scumlist, but the others are not far behind.

If you don't agree with that, what do you agree with?

I admit that the probability of all the scum being on the wagon is the same as all the scum being off it, all things considered.

This, again, contradicts your assertion that the wagon was somehow inherently scummy.

Simplifying my arguments make them easier to attack. Don't do it.
I never made such a claim about the lynch. In fact, I said the exact opposite:

Voting for the wagon

was not inherently all that scummy

- two of those who voted for him are now confirmed town. Rather than broad generalisations and modguessing, you should look at each player's motivations, their reasons (or lack thereof) for contributing to the wagon, and so forth. If you want to make an argument against each of those players, then actually do it.

(emphasis added)
That's the only time I say anything

like

inherent. If you think I've contradicted myself, please show me where. Exactly.

Yep, I put my money where my mouth is. I am pressuring those on the wagon to talk. I think many of them employed crapreasoning in justifying their participation in the lynch.

What is anti-town about what I am doing?

You then used the same quote twice, and I don't quite know what you mean. Please clarify.

Also, seriously, how else did you want a conversation to get started today?

What else was there to talk about

? And if there is something, why haven't you started talking about it?

vote - ortolan

Your case is crap. Look elsewhere, and help me find scum.

My FoS is staying where it is. Zwet was top of my scumlist when he was afatchic, now all I get is a blurry zwet-read. He claims to have generated content, but it's not really anything useful. Some facts, no real analysis of the situation. Guess what? He's in another one of my games, and someone there posted this:

Games zwets is currently in

Sushi Mafia! Day 5
Prisoner's Dilemma Mafia II
open 122 - Near Vanilla (day 1)
Mini 746: Speed Dating Mafia - Hour 1 - Love is in the Air!
Martyr Mafia - Day Two!
Open 111 - Immunity Mafia: Day 2, see who was killed!
Open 120 - Rebels in the Palace - Day 1
Mini 734 - GrimMafia
Open 121: Two of Four (b9) - Night 1
-Xylbot- Game in progress: Day 2 - 16 players alive.
Mini 725: Mafia in Happiville! Night 3 - Actions in 48 hours

I doubt you're even reading this game. I doubt you're reading any of your games.

Why are you even here? Why did you bother to offer to replace in?

So, you were already in 11 games when you replaced into this one. Now you're in 12. I asked for this:

I will therefore

FoS: zwetschenwasser

until he delivers some scumhunting and analysis. Then, and only then, can you shake off the horrible stench of afatchic's anti-town BS.

...any comments? Or are you just too busy to play this game in a way that can help the town find scum?

[Percy]

The fact remains that I don't think you're playing this game in a way that is helping us find scum. Your posts seem to be based on quick reads of people, without any real analysis.

Now you say there's not much to comment on when I say "hey, you should do some scumhunting and analysis". And then you defend yourself, and defer to ortolan.

I think you're actively lurking - posting a lot, but nothing of substance. I think the fact that you're in a lot of games has something to do with that. If you insist that it's not, and that you can handle playing all these games, then actually play this one.

[Percy]

So... half of your case is that my predecessor was outspoken and the other half is that I'm in a lot of games. Makes perfect sense, Percy.

If you read carefully, you'll find that that's not my case at all. Nice misrep, though.

Changing opinions is a null tell.

Simply changing your opinion, divorced from context, is a null tell. Changing your poorly expressed opinions to even more poorly expressed, and possibly scummy, opinions is a scumtell.

You know what else is a scumtell? Posting one-sentence defences that misrepresent the case against you, and that being your

only contribution

to the game in recent (and almost all) posts.

FoS: zwetschenwasser

(L-2)

What happened to the votes?

They were reset. Why do you want to talk about this? How about I quote this for you for the

second time now

:

@Panzerjager: Now that you've done a complete reread of yesterday and all the posts leading up to the reply you're about to make, which players are scum, and why?

Unvote

Vote: Panzerjager

[Percy]

Ortolan and Zwet are scum. I already went into why Orto is scum. Zwet is scummy because of afatchic who was incredibly scummy before she left. I answered this.

Percy you're voting me for not answering but I clearly answered the question before hand. and you're commenting on me not reading when you not realizing that the answer was clearly put out there.

FoS:Percy

Vote:Ortolan

Possible distancing here.

Unvote

I missed your post, which is an embarrassing mistake on my part. Apologies, Panzer.

@zwet: your "case" is OMGUS. Also, you have never said that I was scummy before the last post, you've just been misrepresenting my case against you through oversimplification.

[Percy]

Percy: which questions have I failed to answer?

Er, let's start with most of the questions I posed to you in 176.

-Why did you say you liked post 157, only to now say that you don't like any of it? What did you like? What didn't you like? Why?
-The contradiction you attempted to point out just wasn't there. Do you still maintain that it's true?
-Why should the manner in which people participated in the Seraphim wagon be ignored?

---

Oh, and I loved this:

And if there is something, why haven't you started talking about it?

I have. It is scummy to encourage town to tunnel on those on those on Seraphim's wagon. Thus I am currently critiquing you.

Let's take a look at what I actually said, yes?

Also, seriously, how else did you want a conversation to get started today?

What else was there to talk about?

And if there is something, why haven't you started talking about it?

I guess your answer says "there was nothing else to talk about at the start of the day, except the wagon. Therefore, I'm going to jump on whoever wants to talk about the wagon". This makes no sense.

I wanted to talk about how people contributed to the Seraphim wagon. It seemed like the best way to start the day, since we didn't have anything else to work with. I thought I saw scummy behaviour there, so I looked into it.

Give me one post, one bit of evidence that I wanted to tunnel. Just one. If you feel like the search

has

tunnelled, then why is it my fault?

Also, how about you answer the question that I quoted, rather than whatever you think it should mean?

---

Finally, answer this:

Yeah, I'm not comfortable with this idea being thrown around as if what makes a "Tarhalindur game" is well understood. Does this mean we can work under the assumption of different numbers of scum? Why?

---

And onto the zwet question:

Percy is not playing consistently with what I've seen from him previously. He seems very keen to justify his case against zwet but it doesn't change the fact that zwet is an easy target and he's acted no differently to his usual games- afatchic being flip floppy isn't exactly a scum-tell either. I've played with him before and he is, you know, kind of like that.

lol the way zwet is acting is entirely consistent with other games I've seen him in- I know Percy knows this also.

Percy is scum.

The zwet bandwagon is rotten to the core.

Firstly, let me say that ortolan, zwet and I are currently in another game together. Given that the three of us are all still alive, it makes this meta analysis kinda completely bullshit.

It's true that zwet is playing in a similar style to Prisoner's Dilemma II. I'm not going to trawl through all the games zwet is playing to figure out whether it's consistent across the board. Why? Because consistent play across games does not mean that the player is town in this one. If zwet's meta makes it easier for him to get away with scummy play, why should we give him a free ride? Based on his contributions

to this game

, he seems pretty damn scummy to me. If he's an "easy target", then he should become less of an easy target and actually do something.

You're defending another player. Why? Defending others is almost always a scumtell in my experience. Let him dig himself out of this mess, if he has answers. Don't let him off the hook just because he's like this in other games. And don't incriminate me for constructing a case. Let him answer for it.

Before I move on to what my case with zwet actually is, answer this: why is it OK for you to declare the entire zwet wagon scummy, but not OK for me to start the day by looking at people's individual motivations for participating in the Seraphim wagon? What makes what I did 'tunnelling', and what you did 'great awesome protown play'?

---

Let's start with my post almost two weeks ago:

Now he's been replaced by zwet. I will therefore

FoS: zwetschenwasser

until he delivers some scumhunting and analysis. Then, and only then, can you shake off the horrible stench of afatchic's anti-town BS.

Then again, a few days later:

My FoS is staying where it is. Zwet was top of my scumlist when he was afatchic, now all I get is a blurry zwet-read. He claims to have generated content, but it's not really anything useful.

A few days later:

The fact remains that I don't think you're playing this game in a way that is helping us find scum. Your posts seem to be based on quick reads of people, without any real analysis.

Now you say there's not much to comment on when I say "hey, you should do some scumhunting and analysis". And then you defend yourself, and defer to ortolan.

I think you're actively lurking - posting a lot, but nothing of substance. I think the fact that you're in a lot of games has something to do with that. If you insist that it's not, and that you can handle playing all these games, then actually play this one.

My case: No analysis, no scumhunting, defensive play, active lurking, lack of any contributions, no attempt to address or correct any of these issues. And now we can add misrepresentation, as he addressed none of these, instead saying:

So... half of your case is that my predecessor was outspoken and the other half is that I'm in a lot of games. Makes perfect sense, Percy.

In response:

You know what else is a scumtell? Posting one-sentence defences that misrepresent the case against you, and that being your

only contribution

to the game in recent (and almost all) posts.

And he continues in fine form:

See? That's your case! Afatchic was indecisive, so you must me scum!

UnFoS

Percy's case is that I'm in too many games and that afatchic was a freak.

Keep saying it, maybe it will come true!

[Percy]

No, it was clearly addressed to malthusis. Who else is FoSing panzerjager? Who else accused panzer of not knowing the FoS/vote mechanic? Nice way to blunt the attack on malth, though!

everyone's asking me to give my opinions on who's scum when I've said at least twice that I think you are.

You had only said it once before this post, and it's OMGUS bullshit, really. You haven't said why, you've just asserted that my case is scummy without analysing anything I've said. You've consistently tried to oversimplify everything that is critical of you. Your response to Trumpet's misrep call was "no it's not". Your response to Budja's claim that you are behaving scummily was "that's not true". Now you're not even paying attention to what's going on in this game. Well, that's what I assume since you flatly state that things are true when they're not - your playstyle would make being scum a breeze!

So what is it, zwet? Are you an idiot, or are you scum?

[Percy]

zwet, why do I have to keep repeating myself? Oh, right, because you have yet to offer

any

rebuttal of

any

of the points I have made beyond "nuh-uh!".

You haven't contributed anything to finding scum, beyond an OMGUS 'Percy must be scum because I don't like his case against me'.

You make both factual and analytical errors(?) that do nothing but distract from the case against you. You've misrepresented other people's points and put words in their mouth (specifically ToD and panzerjager).

You have misrepresented my case a number of times (three, actually) as "afatchic was inconsistent, and you're in a lot of games" instead of addressing my points.

You are playing defensively and adding no content, and therefore are actively lurking. You have said you are not actively lurking, but have made no attempt to add to the information that the town has about other players.

FoS: zwetschenwasser

[Percy]

So what is it, zwet? Are you an idiot, or are you scum?

Are you seriously asking zwet this?

Are you seriously asking

me

this?

Do you honestly think any of these points are legitimately deviant from zwet's meta? Genuine question (although you're scum )

zwet has offered more personal opinions and contributed more to Prisoner's Dilemma Mafia II than he has to this game. Most people think he's town there, and with good reason.

His play in this game is not a major deviation from his meta, I will admit. He's still scum in this game, because when you're meta is scumtastic and you're uberscummy in one game, then what else can we conclude? You want to drag meta into this, but I think it's kinda irrelevant, and doesn't help your argument anyway.

You're

still

defending him - why can't you let him defend himself? You want zwet to be able to get away with playing like this (like scum), you're buddying up to him, and calling me scum for pointing these two facts out. And that's all you're doing. Nice work!

[Percy]

Er, I did state what you misrepresented and oversimplified.

1) My case against you - specifically, that you strawmanned and dismissed my arguments three times
2) Trumpet of Doom's FoS
3) Panzerjager's comments directed at malthusis
...and now to add:
4) The assertion that I didn't state my case clearly in 242, and earlier.

And I'm sorry to disappoint you, but here is your case against me:

Trumpet, I think I made it clear enough that I think Percy is scum, because of this case that isn't based on my playstyle, but on his adding words to his read of it.

You claim to have made it clear. Here are your posts before this one addressing this issue:

So... half of your case is that my predecessor was outspoken and the other half is that I'm in a lot of games. Makes perfect sense, Percy.

See? That's your case! Afatchic was indecisive, so you must me scum!

How is it clear that you think I'm scum? It's clear that you don't like the case against me (which you misrepresent to add more weight to your dismissal), but that's it. This is pure, pure OMGUS.

Let's keep going.

UnFoS

Percy's case is that I'm in too many games and that afatchic was a freak.

How many more times do I have to say it then? You're throwing BS at me like "you're active lurking" which is completely untrue, and then everyone's asking me to give my opinions on who's scum when I've said at least twice that I think you are.

Firstly, you had only said it once before this post. And that's it. Nothing but OMGUS.

Claim. Die.


@ortolan: I think the reason you find me scummy is that I'm investigating zwet and finding his play scummy, when you think I should be looking for inconsistencies in his playstyle as he seems scummy in most games. If I may, I assume you have no read of zwet - I have no idea why you would think he was town, and if so, I'd like you to point the evidence out to me. Now I've been at him for quite a while and he has been incredibly evasive, and conducting himself in a manner that is even scummier than he's been in the other game I've seen him in. When someone looks 90% scummy automatically, and looks 99% scummy in a particular game (due to his unwillingness to change his evasive and defensive style and actually help the town somehow), then your argument boils down to "that's only a 9% increase". This is retarded craplogic.

I think you also find me scummy for investigating the Seraphim wagon earlier in the day. I'm sure you'd love to crucify me tomorrow if zwet flips town based on my leading the wagon (you have said as much). How can you justify reproaching me for investigating the Seraphim wagon, but attack me for the zwet wagon?

I guess my point is that I investigated a wagon that I thought was scummy that you were a part of, and you concluded that it was scummy behaviour on my part. I called that position both defensive and ridiculous. If (and that's a huge if) the situation is reversed tomorrow, I would be happy to be investigated. If the first half of the day is investigating my motives for my involvement, then that is appropriate, and I will stand by my reasoning. But how do you reconcile your current position with your assessment of the Seraphim wagon?

[Percy]

ortolan, you will look so stupid when zwet flips scum.

Or, if he doesn't (which you are oddly certain about), your argument is what I said it was. I know I invented the 90% and 99% numbers, but that's what your argument boils down to, really. That we should ignore all the massive scumminess of zwet just because he's kinda scummy in everything.

You brought up the meta argument, but didn't ever discuss it in any detail. I did, you didn't. You expected both me and everyone else in this game to know what you're talking about. Now that people didn't listen to you, you're going to yell and scream from the sidelines.

Frankly, you're my next scum suspect if zwet is town. You didn't want the Seraphim lynch investigated where you were the hammerer, and tried to suggest that anyone willing to look into it was scum because they were 'tunnelling' (which is the biggest load of BS ever, by the way). Now the case against zwet develops, you hint at some obscure meta argument and defend him, and prepare for the next day, when you'll look like a great hero and everyone else will look scum for lynching him.

Seriously, look at this:

ortolan asks for a claim. What possible information could be gathered from his claim, given that his lynch is even more of a foregone conclusion than Seraphim's ever was?

zwet claims. ortolan posts:

and who did you use it on?

can you use it this twilight?

Emphasis mine. ortolan is clearly fishing for info.

zwet doesn't answer the bolded question, and says he hasn't used it at all (*facepalm*). zwet asks if he's allowed to use his power (wat?). Then ortolan does an about-face and says:

Don't tell us who you're going to target tonight yet, it will give scum desired info.

Oh, he shouldn't tell now, huh? Why was it OK for him to tell you before?

I know, you weren't thinking, you made a mistake, you tried to get zwet to reveal information that would help the scum and hurt the town. It was an honest mistake, really. No harm done. We should just be glad that you corrected yourself and ignore that it ever happened. Right? RIGHT?

[Percy]

I'm gonna have to say that the scum team is Percy and Malty. Malty with his complete lack of content(pot kettle I know but your scum).

Not sure if there are two scum teams

or if there is a third member. But I have reason to believe we should lynch one of Malty or Percy.

Percy seems to be scum due to

his immediately thinking there are two scum groups and

only scum would have reason to think that due to what could possibly be part of his role PM

.

Yeah, it is the pot calling the kettle black. veerus, malty and panzer have been the least involved, whilst budja and I have been the loudest. This analysis is crap.

I now draw everyone's attention to the bolded sections. I haven't suggested that there are two scum teams. If you would like to point out where you think that occured, it would be rather enlightening.

Further, it seems like you, panzer,

1. Are the first person to bring up double-scum-teams (or at least I haven't noticed any reference before today),
2. Seem to think we should operate as if it's true, whilst saying I'm scum for suggesting it (even though I didn't), and
3. Are offering no arguments as to why we should be talking about it.

And just to make the irony complete, you say that people who talk about it or operate under this assumption must be scum!

I think your case is terrible, designed to smear me (I am the most obvious lynch after zwet's flip, after all) rather than provide intelligent analysis for the town. I think it shows knowledge of the setup that a townie wouldn't have.

Vote: Panzer

I too would like a massclaim.

[Percy]

Gotcha, scum.

FoS: Budja

I am a

Tsuruya

, the

Townie Copier

. I select a player at night, and if they are targetted with any abilities, I use the ability against the player who targetted the player I targetted.

So, if I target someone and they get protected, then I protect the protector. If I target a killer's target, I kill the killer.

Most importantly, I get to investigate those who investigate my copy target.

Last night, I copied veerus. Budja investigated him, and I got an investigation result on Budja. He is guilty.

Budja did not target me last night, as he claimed. This is not a case of insanity - this is a case of Budja flat-out lying. He targetted veerus last night, so now I know he's guilty.

Furthermore, Budja was revealed as "Alpha Mafia". I am guessing panzer is his scumbuddy, since he knew so much about this 'second mafia team'.

Nice try at distancing though, guys. Very convincing.

If we're looking at 4 scum, we'll be at 6v4 on Day 2. Mislynch, and it's game over. Day 4 never even comes close

There is No other way for there to be 4 scum in a 12 player game unless town are obscenely powerful. This is essentialy saying their are two scum groups. And there is no reason to suggest the number is any thing but 3 seeing as that is the normal number if there is 1 scum team.

So don't give me this BS with the bolded section. You didn't say 2 scum teams but that is implied.

Hahahahahahaha oh wow. In that post, I considered both three scum and four scum. I didn't imply that four scum meant two teams, or even imply it. The only reason you saw it in there was because you know there are possibly two teams, because you're "Alpha Mafia", like Budja.

Listen to what you said about me:

Percy seems to be scum due to his immediately thinking there are two scum groups and only scum would have reason to think that due to what could possibly be part of his role PM.

I didn't think it, and there was nothing 'immediate' about the post you quoted. You have it in your role PM, scum. You're backtracking furiously because your stupid smear didn't work.

It's entirely possible that we have 2 mafia and an sk (or had), and the mafia were called 'alpha mafia' just to confuse the mafia and make them nervous. That's why we're still alive today - we're in lylo with two scum, three town.

Budja is scum because he lied about who he targetted and what his result was. I also have a guilty result, and he's in the "alpha mafia".
Panzer is scum for smearing me, revealing what he knows about being in the "alpha mafia" with Budja.

[Percy]

You are a "watcher/cop" type role then. Oh and look, you just happen have a guilty on me . How very... convenient.

Do you realise how ironic this statement is?

You UnFoS'ed me, even though you say you have a guilty on me. This means one of two things: either you doubt your sanity, or you don't actually have a guilty on me. You are of course going to claim that the former is true. Why should the town listen to you even if you have no confidence in your result?

I know you're scum. I am certain. I know you targeted veerus last night, and obviously didn't get a result that you thought was useful. I got a guilty on you, and then you lied about who you targeted to try and lynch the easiest target. If you had claimed to have investigated veerus, we could have talked about your sanity. You didn't.

I am suspecting that Panzer and Percy could be from different scum teams.

Nice bit of distancing, again. Why on earth do you think Panzer is scum? You've never expressed such sentiments. Last we heard, you didn't know what to think of him.

I'm guessing you're going to say that it's because you agree with me, which is rather ironic as well. In reality, you know Panzer is scum because he's your scumbuddy.

Die scum.

[Percy]

Thats 4 NK attempts. SK, Vig and 2 scum groups. Explain that.

I think you mean "give another explanation because I think this is the only one". To that I say, what about last night? There wasn't even close to 4 kills last night. I agree that there were four kill actions on night one, and I'm even willing to consider there being more than one scum group. The abilities in this game are much more complicated than in a normal game, and to say "4 night kills means Vig, SK and 2 scum teams" is a possibility, but certainly not the only conclusion.

The point is that both you and Panzer were fairly certain that there was another scum team before this analysis took place, and Panzer is

still

trying to make it sound like I brought it up because I

considered

a situation where we might have four non-town-aligned players

on Day 1

. In fact, he brought it up and is continuing to talk about it.

You claimed cop, and said you have a guilty on me. I claimed because you lied; if you had started today with a discussion of your result on veerus, then we would be having a very different conversation now. Instead, you're lying scum.

Percy You're full of shit. You'd be dead. I'm Bulletproof Jack of all trades I shot you last night. Tonight I'm investigating Malty. Also I believe you have that same ability Orto did. I believe both scum. Also you were pretty sure about 4. And whta is the point of bringing it up if you don't think there could be 2 scum teams. It's obvious that you're scum percy.

I'm not bulletproof. I have no ability to defend myself from night kills. The best I can do is copy myself and kill anyone who kills me, which I didn't do. Either I was protected or your claim is bullshit. Or both!

(Sidenote: Why the hell would you say "tonight I'm investigating malthy"? That is, without a doubt, the worst use of an investigate power I've ever heard. You don't announce it, guy. Truth is, you have no investigate power. You're scum.)

This was my post on Day 1:

If we're looking at 3 scum, we'll be at 8v3 at the start of Day 2. If we mislynch, we'll be at 6v3 at the start of Day 3. Mislynch again, and we're at 4v3 - LYLO. This is a worst case scenario, and in this instance it is (probably) in our advantage to have killed Seraphim early.

If we're looking at 4 scum, we'll be at 6v4 on Day 2. Mislynch, and it's game over. Day 4 never even comes close.

Or, you know, there are other combinations, such as 3 mafia and an SK, which would make things even more complicated.

Can you please indicate to me where I said I was pretty sure it was four scum? Is this it? Because this is not what you're trying to make it sound like. You said what you said because you wanted to find out if there was another scum team, and who it was, because you're in the "Alpha mafia".

Also, why did you try and kill me last night? You agreed with me about zwet. You were part of the lynch. Shit don't add up, scum.

I said I would be the easiest target because I was the most vocal supporter of a townie lynch. I think that's still true. You also obviously decided that I was the easiest target, since you are both attacking me (and it's so painfully obvious that you're working together) and hoping to get me lynched. This is almost certainly lylo, and you put me on L-1 within a few hours of the day starting, before back-pedalling to try and win veerus or malty over.



This is my read on the situation:

Panzer and Budja are a scumteam.
They are called "Alpha mafia", and it's approaching endgame. They want to know whether there is a "Beta mafia" or some such, or if they just have to kill off another townie.
Panzer attacks me with a poorly thought out smear, and is continuing to defend it even with no evidence. This is designed to make me look guilty, and generate information as to whether there are more scum players besides them.
Budja, his scumpartner, claims to have a guilty on me. I have since informed the town that Budja is, in fact, a lying scumbag, and targetted veerus last night. That's how I got the guilty and knew him to be "Alpha mafia".
Now Panzer is claiming that he tried to kill me last night, without saying why. His tone has gone from "I'm not so sure about Percy" to "I WAS SO SURE YOU WERE SCUM I TRIED TO KILL YOU YESTERDAY, BITCH". They are both working together, trying really, really hard to bring me down, because I'm right. I know they're both scum.

[Percy]

Until your "guilty" on me, I wasn't 100% certain you were scum.

Until you claimed to have investigated me (and got a guilty, no less) rather than your actual target veerus, I wasn't 100% certain you were scum.

I have addressed your attack (which has no real substance), I am not weakening it by discussing how you and Panzer are working together. You are "alpha mafia". Panzer knows about the setup, and thus is a scumbuddy of yours. You and he have been distancing from each other from the beginning of the day. You lied about your investigation target. It's time to die, scum.

[Percy]

Your last post was the most useless post in this whole game. You didn't even read what I had said. Here it is again, I'll quote it for you:

I'm not bulletproof. I have no ability to defend myself from night kills. The best I can do is copy myself and kill anyone who kills me, which I didn't do. Either I was protected or your claim is bullshit. Or both!

(Sidenote: Why the hell would you say "tonight I'm investigating malthy"? That is, without a doubt, the worst use of an investigate power I've ever heard. You don't announce it, guy. Truth is, you have no investigate power. You're scum.)

How about I make it real simple for you.

You didn't try and kill me last night because your claim is bullshit, or I was protected somehow. Or, you're scum who tried to NK me, and someone protected me. I don't know why I didn't die.

But more importantly, why did you try to kill me? And why don't you answer

any

of my other questions?

It is completely retarded to call me scum for not answering a question

I already answered

and then answer none of mine. I guess when your attack fails so completely there's nothing left to do but thrash around meekly until the town puts you down like the flea-bitten scum that you are.



veerus, please post soon.

[Percy]

Well I obviously lose this game. Budja and I are Alpha Mafia. Percy is part of Beta Mafia. All the members on both scum teams have the ability to survive 1 kill. This is why The kill makes a difference. Barring a claim we should lynch Malthesis incase he is scum.

This explains why me killing percy means he is scum. He might have his cop ability because

Anyway lynching malthesis is clearly the best opition because Veerus is confirmed town. Also Both me and Percy have chinked our armor off So we'll just shoot eachother tonight. Town has nothing to lose from lynching Malthy.

ROTFLOL

The town has everything to lose from lynching malthy if he's town. It will give Panzer another night to kill someone. Also, I have no idea why he's advocating going after malthy if he's so sure I'm a bad guy.

(Also, finish your sentences ffs.)

For the record, my role is as I claimed - Townie Copier. I tried to copy myself (I was pretty sure Panzer was going to try and kill me and I was going to take him with me), but I was roleblocked last night. Since Panzer and I are still alive, I assume he was roleblocked too.

Global Roleblock

- At the beginning of the game, you MUST choose a game day (Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, etc.). Any non-lynch action that would resolve during the chosen game day instead fails to resolve, regardless of whether you are alive.

I guess he picked Day 3...

veerus would have been targeted by Panzer and Budja yesterday if Budja's result was "Beta mafia". Panzer has as good as confirmed him as town. I'm happy to work under the assumption that veerus is a 100% confirmed townie.

The fact that the mafia have been given an ability to investigate means one of two things - either there

is

another mafia team, or if there isn't then it was to find the serial killer and thoroughly confuse them, along with their "alpha" label.

I don't know if we should go hunting for a beta mafia, giving at least one scumteam (possibly two) their NKs tonight, but if there are two "beta mafia" players out there then we have to kill one today or the town loses. I will hold off FoSing Panzer until the other players (especially Seraphim) have weighed in.

My opinion: a 7v2v2v1 set-up is kinda insane. Add to that the fact that the serial killer and both the mafia are immune to their first non-lynch kill, as Panzer claimed, means the odds are stacked against the town right there. Would Tar add in another two mafia, making the town almost surely outnumbered from Day 2, on top of this? I think he screwed with Panzer and Budja's heads, tbh.

Can you tell us why you had to be lynched on Day 1, Seraphim? Any details at all that might help us out here?

[Percy]

Looking back, I made a fatal, fatal error. I assumed that when I died, I'd be able to use abilities while I was in limbo. This was wrong and I probably should have asked before I tried to gambit. However, I'm glad I came back when I did...this was probably the only benefit from me returning from the dead.

What advantage was there to lynching you on Day 1? Is this relevant to the current discussion?

I see no compelling reason to believe Seraphim is "most likely town". It looks to me, at the moment, like he deprived us of a lynch to no real benefit. Now he says "whoops, it didn't do anything, sorry guys!". I have no real read on Seraphim, but I will not assume he's town. It could have been an honest mistake, or it could have been a scum move to help him with his scum abilities. Without any more info, I just don't know.

If Trumpet was in the "beta mafia" or a vig, he could be responsible for DGB's and/or ortolan's death.

We still haven't got a claim from malthusis, seraphim or veerus - you guys should claim and we can sift through all this.

[Percy]

Well, I can't abide Panzer's presence any longer. If this is a wrong move, we can sort it out tomorrow.

I'm scum, why won't you trust me.

I LOL'd.

Vote: Panzer

.

[Percy]

I don't know how you could have confirmed that, because it's simply not true.

The whole discussion hinged on whether there was a beta mafia. I couldn't believe that we were buying into Panzer's bullshit, so I voted. Hopefully, once Twilight is over, we'll have no scum left. Simple as that.

Don't rend your clothes and ash your hair just yet.

[Percy]

Seraphim, I'd like more detail on the "dead people told me Percy is scum" line, because at the moment it sounds like shit you made up, along with your "lynch me to save the town!" line.

I have another ability but will not reveal it until tomorrow(if there is a tomorrow) as it will play no role in anything unless it goes through.

What was that ability? Bringing back DGB with no vote power? Was this what we wasted a lynch for?

I wasn't at all convinced (until today) that there was a beta mafia. I hammered Panzer because he was scum, lying through his teeth and trying to get me lynched because I got his scumbuddy killed. Turns out that action brought Trumpet back, and even though we're still in lylo, I maintain that I made the right call.

[Percy]

@Seraphim: Your effect on this game has been overwhelmingly negative, and you're talking like everyone should think you're town. That assumption has no basis in reality.

We don't know your alignment. We don't know if your "bring back a townie from the dead who can have no effect on the game apart from talk" is a town power, or a trade-off for some scum power. We don't know if your day 1 lynch was a scum strategy that saved you for later and deprived the town of a lynch. We don't know why you brought back DGB, rather than another player.

Now you're not answering my questions about your conviction that I'm scum for OMGUS reasons.

In short, you discredit yourself. I'm pointing it out because I think there's a good chance you're scum.

[Percy]

@DGB: Why would you think he was dead, after identifying him as a scum suspect earlier?

Also, why did you just ignore Trumpet's questions?


@Seraphim: There is one detail that is missing from your claim that I think is the most important one - what calamity did we supposedly avoid by lynching you on Day 1? It seems that you got to come back on Day 4, and bring someone with you, but you did make it very that it was imperative that we lynch you early:

From my role information, killing me before day 4 will be really good for the town.

Or was there no calamity, simply that you could talk to dead people and the ability switches off on Day 4?

I also note some serious backtracking. You said:

Percy is Beta scum. I have this confirmed from several sources.

When I asked for info, you said:

I could give you more info but I think that you're scum especially since you're firing all your effort in discrediting me rather than scum-hunting.

This seems more bizarre, the more I think about it. You say you have me as

confirmed scum

, then say you don't want to say

why

I'm confirmed scum because I'm "discrediting" you, which is scummy behaviour...? Am I confirmed scum, or not? Your confidence does not support your claims.

I am reluctant to give Seraphim a free ride on what he claimed happened. But even if I did say "he made a mistake, it's OK" then his subsequent attitudes and posting style make me think he's scum.

FoS: Seraphim

(regular FoS, btw).



I would like a Trumpet and veerus claim, it being LYLO and all.

[Percy]

I have two votes from people I can't respond to. veerus I can't respond to because he's away, and malthusis because he's already decided I'm scum without saying why. Could you tell me why I got your vote?

I've pointed out some glaring contradictions in Seraphim's post, but as I'm saying he's scum I doubt it will take much for me to earn his vote.

It's looking like my fate is pretty much sealed. All I can say is that my hammer was a mistake in hindsight - I didn't mean to jeopardise the Town, I just voted with my gut rather than with my head. Aside from that, I think I've been pretty good at finding scum (sure, if I'm beta mafia then this is almost a null tell, but I'm not).

Please unseal it! This is a terrible mistake to make

[Percy]

You pass the First Mod Deadline Review. Pick up the posting, or you won't pass the Second.

The day started with Tarhalindur posting post 127. He posted three times in between then, so that's 53 posts in one deadline. We were told to pick up the posting.

So the count was reset, and a new deadline was established. This review we also passed:

Second Mod Deadline Review... passed, barely. Final Day 2 Deadline set (see below). - Tar.

...and there were 52 posts. So it's possible we need to post 50 times in a week to pass the review.

If that's the case, then Tar opened the game at post 341, and now we're at 377. Excluding the Tar intermediate Tar post, that means we have to post a further 15 times.

This is just a guess, but I don't have any better guesses.

If you have any other ideas, the let us know, but I'm going to avoid game-destruction if I can.

[Percy]

So

[Percy]

this

[Percy]

is

[Percy]

my

[Percy]

attempt

[Percy]

to

[Percy]

outguess

[Percy]

Tarhalindur

[Percy]

with

[Percy]

random

[Percy]

sentences

[Percy]

and I'm sure

[Percy]

everyone will rush

[Percy]

to say just how

[Percy]

SCUMMY!!!!!!!!!!111

[Percy]

this is.

But whatever. If you have a better idea, give it a spin.

[Percy]

Overkill ftw. If 52 passed barely, then 52 will pass barely this time for sure!!!!

[Percy]

Maybe it's because it's the morning (where I am) and I'm only just starting to drink my coffee, but I don't get it - the date here is the 2nd, but it's still the 1st in other places. It's also more than 12 hours after the threat of rocks falling and everyone dying...

Apparently I got owned, when in fact I got double-owned because I still don't know what is going on. Was the game twisty badness averted?

Perhaps my logic was wrong somehow, but I was the only one to post in those 12 hours, so there are two possibilities: either I averted the crisis, or other people have secret actions that they had to submit. If you did, tell us about it.

if it's just another VC error, I'd be happy to hammer.

This is odd, it seems to have sprung from nowhere (your willingness to lynch me, that is). You were doing a "stand back and analyse from a distance" thing before, and with no case or opinion expressed you're now willing to kill me off?

We have veerus who voted me and left, malthusis who has decided I'm scum and refuses to even answer my questions, and now Trumpet is holding off on voting me just to find out about the vote count?! Sorry Trumpet, I just don't buy it. If you voted me, either I'd be dead or you'd know for sure that either veerus or malthusis is scum. You could then get them to unvote and see which one changes the vote count, and win the game. Why the hell haven't you voted, then? Your excuse makes no sense - what is going on would be evident as soon as Tar counted your vote.

*howls in frustration* this game is as good as lost. A lylo situation is

not

the time for arbitrary punishment lynches!

[Percy]

Clearly it was an error in the vote count, as you can see from my inevitable death.

Thanks Trumpet, you fucked everything.

I hope for the town's sake that there is some sort of magical forbiddanlight-re-emergence or something else so the town doesn't lose.

Go town!

[Percy]

Thanks everyone, that was heaps of fun!

Nice work Trumpet, especially. I turned Seraphim, and I reckon I could have turned veerus when he got back. If only malthusis had unvoted!

I made a big mistake in hammering. Nice work on the setup, Tar - it totally made sense that my gambit didn't work.

I loved the roles, especially the statis mafia ability.


DGB, we decided to kill you off because your unpredictability made us feel very vulnerable. We like our town nice and (semi-)predictable :D