Mini 1054/The Illusion - Creation (Over)

[xvart]

/confirm. I'm pretty excited about this "experiment."

xvart.

[xvart]

Vote: Chronopie

With a game setup like this and the small game size I see it being much more advantageous of scum to claim miller on day one.

xvart.

[xvart]

I think that claiming miller should be considered neutral since there is pretty much an equal chance of being town or scum.

But the benefit of claiming miller is much more powerful in a smaller game. Miller claims usually get a free pass for a while. And, based on the setup, considering mafia may well be likely to also be miller, I think this is a good place to start. (however, if a scum miller gets investigated do they return a "town" result?)

This game really is slow starting. Let's go for a strong wagon to get some discussion going.

xvart.

[xvart]

Wait. Scum+Miller could be a GF?? but then Why would I claim miller in the first place? I'd investigate as town, so claiming miller is counter intuitive in said case... disregard.

You claimed at a time when you didn't understand the rules.

I'm here to point out that Animorpher is still very active, just not here.

Vote:Zang

Cause lurkers are often scum.

So why are you voting for the person who does not think that lurkers are scum instead of the lurker that is often scum?

Yeah. So we should stop the speculation, because if Chrono is scum, it's because he's lying about his role. I do have a question for Chrono though. What is your rolename?

If Chrono is scum it is because he was lying about his role and not because he is scum AND lying about his role (even though he might not be lying)? And why are you asking about his role name? Fishing?

Unvote
Vote: gandalf

xvart.

[xvart]

Wait, I'm guessing Gandalf is a third party or single scum that needs to find The Victim or something like that. Let's hurry up and lynch him in case he hasn't completed his wincondition somehow. It's the only thing that makes sense with his last two posts.

xvart.

[xvart]

Lol. I just said I had won to fish for reactions.

1

Thanks for claiming scum xvart.

2

It's hardly rolefishing when he's ALREADY claimed.

VOTE: Xvart

And the part on Chrono lying about his role makes no sense. Rephrase that?

3

1

Where did you say you were fishing for reactions?

2

How does what I said even comparably equate to claiming scum?

3

You said "if he's scum it is because he is lying"; which makes no sense because he could not be lying and still be a scum miller, so his "being scum" is not related to him lying.

xvart.

[xvart]

Because he is obviously defending his lurker scumbuddy. Which could be everyone else.

You realize I was talking to you, so you are defending your lurker scumbuddy?

xvart.

[xvart]

If you say that you're fishing for reactions, it kind of ruins the point, yes? And that was the most opportunistic vote ever. And that third one's just plain wrong. What I meant was that if he was scum, he was lying about being a miller, as scum miller would be GF. So all the setup speculation was just useless.

Make up your mind. Did you say you were fishing for reactions like you said here? Or did you not fish for reactions because that would ruin the point, like you said in the quoted post? And, we've already decided that being scum is independent of the role, since alignment is determined

after

role assignment.

So what exactly did you win by your little alleged reaction fishing? What reactions did you get by asking for chrono's name?

xvart.

[xvart]

xvart, you win the misrep award. I was fishing for reactions by saying I had won, which succeeded in that I got a reaction from you. I obviously didn't say IM GOING TO FISH FOR REACTIONS BY SAYING I WON. And how is the third part relevant?
My reaction fishing caught scum(i.e. you), and I wasn't fishing for reactions by asking for Chrono's name, I was simply curious and didn't see any reason why he shouldn't claim it.

lol? Explain to me how wanting to lynch someone with an alternative win condition to the town's is scum motivated.

xvart.

[xvart]

Worst reaction fishing experiment ever. Your trying to call people scum for playing to the town win condition.

xvart.

[xvart]

That is how we lynch scum.

xvart.

[xvart]

ITT lynched scum tries to debate the legitimacy of the reasoning for him being lynched after he's been lynched.

So were you single scum or did you have a partner?

xvart.

[xvart]

Oh, ghost removed his vote, then replaced it so there are only three votes. Well, this still shouldn't be too hard since gandalf is flailing scum, admits to lying, and can't get his story straight.

xvart.

[xvart]

Lol.

I just said I had won to fish for reactions

. Thanks for claiming scum xvart. It's hardly rolefishing when he's ALREADY claimed.

Says he claimed he won to fish for reactions.

If you say that you're fishing for reactions, it kind of ruins the point

, yes?

Confirms he was fishing for reactions, but didn't say anything about fishing because that would ruin the reaction fishing.

xvart, you win the misrep award.

I was fishing for reactions by saying I had won

, which succeeded in that I got a reaction from you. I obviously didn't say IM GOING TO FISH FOR REACTIONS BY SAYING I WON.

Again, was fishing for reactions.

If I actually had already won, what would be the point in tying to speedlynch me?

Oh, and by the way, I lied. I posted I WON entirely as a joke

, and figured everybody would take it as such. But since you somehow took it seriously, it's worked fine as a reactionfish.

Oh, now it wasn't intentional reaction fishing. It was a joke, but it conveniently caught a scum because someone responded with a town response to an alternative to town win condition possibly being achieved.

No, I'm not acking off.

What I'm saying is that it WAS for lulz

, but it caught scum anyways.

Make up your mind? Did you do it for reactions as you said in ISO 8, 9, and 10. or did you do it as a joke or the lulz as you said in ISO 12 and 16? And how are the color coded statements straight as James Bond?

xvart.

[xvart]

It should also be noted that gandalf changes his story when I point out that his reaction fishing experiment fails no matter what because it "catches" people who play to town win condition.

xvart.

[xvart]

It was entierely a joke, and I did in fact say it was reaction fishing simply becasue it sounded smarter. But it garnered a reaction, so it definitely functioned as reaction fishing. And xvart, IF I HAD ALREADY WON, WHY WOULD YOU TRY TO LYNCH ME? It would be too late at that point. It just seems like an opportunistic speedlynch.

People who have obviously backpedaled hard defending and justifying their backpedal make me smile. As to if you had already won, since JDodge had posted a vote count I thought maybe you hadn't achieved your win condition for some reason and we could quick lynch you before you actually achieved your win condition (since whatever you were claiming was not the town win condition). And since you claimed to have a win condition alternative to the towns why wouldn't I want to quick lynch you? If you did actually win and JDodge was going to come back and say "oops, I'm slow; gandalf wins and exits the game as of post whatever, so his lynch doesn't count and the vote count is reset" then what harm is there to attempt to quicklynch someone who isn't town?

And, could you clarify how me wanting to quicklynch you makes me claimed scum?

Finally, do you often not claim at L-1?

xvart.

[xvart]

I have to ask again, how you justify your vote on me, regardless of it was a joke or not, when you were claiming (or joking) to have a win condition that did not match the town's win condition makes me claimed scum? And you can't argue that it was a joke since you were inititally saying that it was to get reactions. If you were trying to get reactions, wouldn't that make me claimed town since I was gunning for someone who appeared to not be town?

Because I realized I was

being non-transparent

busted

.

Fixed.

xvart.

[xvart]

Because AFAICT, it was obviously a joke, but you tried to QL me anyways. If I HAD won, would I be so stupid as to announce it inthread before I got mod confirmation?

Well from my perspective, I could buy the one post as a joke; but the second post after the vote count was what got me thinking. As for being stupid, scum have done stupid things plenty of times when they

think

they have won or they

think

they have lost.

xvart.

[xvart]

I could buy the whole thing as a joke. But I have a problem with the attempt to pass it off as strategy, only to later claim it was a joke.

So how about you switch votes and lets hang this scum up.

xvart.

[xvart]

Mod: how about some prods and/or a replacement for animorph.

xvart.

[xvart]

Woah, sorry everyone. I forgot this game had started again. Reading and posting now.

xvart.

[xvart]

UK (120) - regarding the first link: I'm not sure what you mean by the misrep. Maybe I just wrote it wrong because that post was essentially saying what I said in the color coded post, but not as clear. I was attempting to highlight the differences in his motives.

I concede that you are correct on the SK hunting, but the point was that killing someone with an alternative win condition to the town's isn't a solid scumtell. Yes, scum can do it, but that doesn't mean that people who do it are always scum.

Regarding what win condition he could have been claiming: I honestly don't know. It's a pretty unique setup so from my point of view anyone who doesn't match the town's win condition is lynch worthy.

Alright, I'll play. I thought you saw this:

MOD: Does a scumteam of two get a kill, if one of them dies?

And concluded he was asking out of self interest.

Why didn't you like this? Sounds like a legitimate question for a scum to ask, because if scum is as clueless as town is on setup, it might be worthwhile to fish. I might be willing to press this a little after I look back on Tony's interactions with the gandalf wagon.

xvart.

[xvart]

About SK hunting: It was more that you seemed to be using it as a towntell. It's not.

That wasn't my intention. My intention was that it wasn't a scumtell.

For the moment it is what it appears to be: a vote. About as close to random as it gets as well. But not quite. Discussion is needed. I do not feel like waiting around for it. So I'll go out seeking it instead.

What was "not quite" random about your vote?

There's a 2/3 chance of anyone being town, we've had one townie flip. six people remain.

I know I'm town. The chances that everyone is town is about 9% (i.e 0 scum). It's unlikely, given the lack of a kill, that there's either

one

or

three

scum.

And my laptop is dying. bbl.

I hate to even mention this at the possibility of being scorned as scum speculating or trying to fish out town motives, and if we don't want to talk about it that is fine; at what point should we consider calling it game and assuming there are no more scum?

Reading back over TM:

I'm here to point out that Animorpher is still very active, just not here.

Vote:Zang

Cause lurkers are often scum.

I'm calling BS on this vote. You make a point of talking about how Ani is active elsewhere but not posting here and then vote another lurker because lurkers are scum? Plus his hammer/wait for Ani to bus thing doesn't really read genuine to me. What happened to your Ani suspicion?

VOTE: Tony (L-1)

xvart.

[xvart]

Will explain why me being so close to lynch is a disaster later

At first I was thinking this was pretty scummy about not explaining how being so close to a lynch is a disaster and not explaining immediately (and not explaining relatively quickly). However, after consideration I am going to unvote and will explain after TM explains himself. However, if what TM is going to say is what I think he may say it still doesn't necessarily prove alignment (as the random assignment).

UNVOTE:

xvart.

[xvart]

We could still lynch xvart. Isn't it convenient he hasn't said a word since the focus went on Tony?

lol. I'll post tonight. I have been reading along but I'm fairly lost and keep trying to type something out but I don't have a clue what the hell the lurker discussion. Certainly don't lynch me without letting me respond, first.

xvart.

[xvart]

UK: Did you replace in at the beginning of D2?

First off, I voted Zang for claiming that lurkers were town, not for being lurker. In any case, It's beside the point, as the vote was mostly RVS fun.

Secondly, what part of the waiting for Ani to bus needed to be genuine?

My apologies on the first part. When you voted Zang and then said "because lurkers are often scum" I read it as you saying Zang was lurking and that is why you were voting him. As for the second part, I suppose you are correct that it doesn't necessarily have to be genuine, but the fact that you made the statement twice makes me wonder.

Here, this seems like a fun idea: VOTE: Xvart.

Preview Edit: Don't ninja me.

GW seems a little too eager to be on any wagon right now. Since UK has essentially given the impression that she is not convinced I am scum and GW is just willing to go along with the fun idea...

Vote: GhostWriter

I also saw no responses to my inquiry about when we should call no more scum. I will also ask what people think about mass claiming now? We didn't have a NK last night so one of the following must have occurred: scum don't have access to NK ability or Ani was scum with a NK ability but did not use it due to not being in the game or scum thought they could play more mind games with the small numbers and the game setup by not killing. If there is no NK then I don't see the harm of mass claiming. Thoughts?

xvart.

[xvart]

Wild Setupberries (MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PREVIOUS!):

13) This game was designed based on a random design principle. All roles have been chosen randomly from a list of 24 possible roles. Vanilla is on the list thrice.
14) Alignments have been assigned to roles randomly. Everyone has been given a 1 in 3 chance of being mafia.

15) If there is no mafia in the game, the game will go on until it can no longer continue.

16) If the game would have more than 2 mafia, the mafia has been split into factions which may or may not include serial killers.
17) Any mafia consisting of at least 2 does not have a kill unless they have drawn a killing role.

18) If at any point after day 1 the town feels that there is no mafia within the game, they may vote to end the experiment. If there are any anti-town forces still alive at that point, the town loses.

[xvart]

GW seems a little eager to use his vote to cause you to react. Perhaps if you had stepped into the game before I placed the vote it wouldn't have been placed. Actually, if you had stepped into the game to comment on TM before I made the vote, it would have went elsewhere because I'd have already had you in here talking.

What? I don't understand anything you claim to have done.

xvart.

[xvart]

Nobody hammer before I post later tonight. I know I am one of the people that might be expected to hammer, but I definitely have something to say about the claim. You might be able to parse it out to some degree by what I said when I took my vote off of TM.

xvart.

[xvart]

If i understand it correctly, there's no upside to calling the game off.

I mean, do we lose if we play the game out to find there is no scum?

Unless you get into a 1v1 or 2v2 with a scum who has the ability to kill.

Now on to the good stuff...

---

I believe now is the time for me to explain the obvious change in my playstyle to the erratic antics I've been doing. My claim is The Tightrope Walker. As the Tightrope Walker, it is in my best interest to maintain my balance. And lynching me upsets that and sends me into the Gap. However, the hammer on that lynch must come out to knock me in, and I take them with me. In short, my hammer will die with me. Thus, me not being too worried about seeming scummy whilst looking for discussion. I can judge my own building wagon and see if I see any scum on it, and then ask them to be my hammer.

Is there anything else in your role that might be important to note?

(answer this before anything else)

I'll also note that GW says "My claim is" and not "I am...", but that could be null. Regardless, I don't believe the name either. Everyone else that we know has been "The SOMETHING" and not "The SOMETHING SOMETHING." This may be nitpicky but considering the names already flipped (or claimed) The Tightrope Walker does not seem legit compared to The Jaded and The Dreamer, plus mine, The Warrior. I thought there was another claimed name out there, but can't remember it right now. I think a name claim might be a good idea, as I don't see the names being dropped as being able to indicate the role attached to the name.

I am a town bomb. The person that drops my hammer also dies. I achieve victory when forces against the town are gone (if there are any) [paraphrased].

Now, to what I alluded to earlier: when Tony said this:

Will explain why me being so close to lynch is a disaster later

I responded with this when I unvoted:

Will explain why me being so close to lynch is a disaster later

At first I was thinking this was pretty scummy about not explaining how being so close to a lynch is a disaster and not explaining immediately (and not explaining relatively quickly).

However, after consideration I am going to unvote and will explain after TM explains himself. However, if what TM is going to say is what I think he may say it still doesn't necessarily prove alignment (as the random assignment).

UNVOTE:

I unvoted because I thought it might be possible (although unlikely) that Tony was also a Bomb, as his ominous statement about it being a disaster for him to be lynched could indicate trouble if a random townie came in and lynched him (and if Tony is town that would kill two town members, and that

would

be a disaster). Furthermore, while it is possible that two town members could both be bombs, GWs claim does not mean he is town, nor does my claim mean I am town; however, based on the flimsiness of his claim and the discrepancies between the flavors of revealed and claimed names I am leaning towards GW lying about being town. Once GW answers my original question, I'll be able to tell you if he is lying about his claim (and I would ask everyone to hold off on all questions about details of my claim and his claim until after he answers).

I also am not really buying his I'm playing this way with my erratic change of behavior to be able to analyze my wagon and choose who lynches me. Especially since he never analyzed his wagon (and I think he had three votes on his wagon when he made his claim, which is as big a wagon as you can have at this game state). I don't see how erratic behavior is smart play with the role he is claiming. He is essentially saying he was trying to get a wagon to sacrifice himself by picking a scum member to hammer him. Not town play by any stretch of the phrase.

And if we decide to go through with a lynch on me or him I have a suggestion to make for the hammer dropper, but I will withhold that until after GW answers my question.

xvart.

[xvart]

@xvart: Then you should DEFINITELY lay the hammer on GW. My role name is The Teacher, so it fits your flavor spec.

Yeaaaaaah...we definitely have a one of these is not like the other.

I think xvart should hammer GW.

Why should I be the one to lay down the hammer?

xvart.

[xvart]

Also, Xvart doesn't counterclaim me. The way the game was explained, he had just as much a chance to become a bomb as me. In theory, we could all have somehow ended up as bombs. So I don't find that a good thing to bring against him. A better thing to bring against him is the fact that my name makes sense with my claim. His does not. Or the fact that he backed off of TM due to a possibility of him being a bomb as well, but not me. Granted, it's due to, of all things, the fact that my name has two parts after the "The" part of it. Tightropewalker isn't a word or phrase or title. Tightrope Walker is. I'll ask the mod in a PM if he can comment on this, but I doubt he will.

This is correct. There are no counter claims in this game. But that part about me backing off of TM and not you is because I did not believe in your claim due to the parts missing from my role pm and the name. I still am trying to process your claim and I still am leaning towards not believing it. I think UK should hammer GW (or me if that is what is decided).

Chrono - there is nothing in my role pm about self hammering, whether allowed or not.

xvart.

[xvart]

Hell, I'd be fine hammering. I'm pretty sure that GW is lying. But, that said, I'm curious why you want me to hammer instead of, say, you, xvart?

Well, it should be obvious that I wouldn't want myself to hammer because I know my alignment and in the off chance that GW is actually a bomb, no matter what alignment, would be bad news bears for town. On to why you, I can't quite put my finger on it but I'm leaning towards you being scum. You just radiate this feeling to me that you know the order the cards are stacked in. And for me to even suggest you based on something like gut is quite a stretch for me since I hate making "gut cases" but something inside me is telling me that you are scum. Couple that with the lack of NK (which could be for other reasons, granted). You are also playing like in our last game together where you seemed to be playing the calm, collected mediator of the town, which I felt was pretty atypical of your playstyle (from the dead QT). AND, we have never been of the same alignment.

Of course, I've never played a game with you where there haven't been at least a couple of idiots running around egging you on or just being... you know... idiots; but your non abrasiveness is really throwing me for a loop this game. I know a lot of that is a stretch, and I'm planning on reading you in closer examination soon. But I want to throw it out there and see what others think of my suggestion.

xvart.

[xvart]

To be fair, I've been abrasive to the point of making the game unfun as of late, so I'm trying to be a lot more chill so as to not piss people off anymore. It's an interesting insight though. I mean, you're wrong, but...I admit your thought process intrigues me ^-^.

Awwwee... But that's what I loved about playing with you, UK (of course I have a thicker skin than some of the people on here) Regardless, I can't shake this feeling that you are subtly stroking my ego in attempts to appease me. Call it reminiscent of SC's computer game, but that is what is going through my head. I think you are fine hammering because you know it isn't going to kill you and you'll score some town points out of it. If nobody backs me on this train of thought, I'll hammer as long as everyone says we can take a good long look at UK tomorrow when GW flips non bomb scum.

The other thing that makes me believe that the claim is completely fabricated is that the flavor just seems a little too much and too detailed compared to what my role pm says, and what I'm guessing everyone's pm looks like. In this "experiment" I don't see a tight rope walker parading around amongst all the other roles.

xvart.

[xvart]

Anyone else?

xvart.

[xvart]

Yes, TM, how do you know how many lynches we have left?

xvart.

[xvart]

I'm here. How to do this? I'll unvote, then whoever votes? I'll be on all day.

Unvote

xvart.

[xvart]

EBWOP: I'll be on and off all day.

xvart.

[xvart]

UK, I swear to god if you are scum and this all some act I will personally target you with every possible kill action I ever receive with no remorse even if you are confirmed town cop . I cannot shake this feeling that once again you are going to get the best of me and have the last laugh at my expense.

Vote: Ghostwriter

xvart.

[xvart]

Sounds like a bad policy to punish someone for playing a given alignment well.

Heh. Of course, UK. Correct as always; although my comments shouldn't be taken seriously.

xvart.