Mini 1404 - Monopoly Mafia - Game Over

[Xisiqomelir]

Hello.

VOTE: Lord Mhork

VOTE: Xisiqomelir

For shooting me in ebahanowoof, the bastard.

Hey now, I apologized for that!

[Xisiqomelir]

UNVOTE: Robert VOTE: Xis,

why Lord who's yet to appear

vs someone who can respond now?

You appear to be answering your own question here.

[Xisiqomelir]

And Xis the game started onlt about 5 hours ago so how his making him post now needed (same for robert).

I like to encourage participation in the game, I think it makes it more enjoyable for everyone.

I'm curious as to where this Lurker wagon will take us. In fact, I'm willing to help it along.

UNVOTE: Lord Mhork
VOTE: Lurker

L-3 I believe.

@Jal

: Which is the most negative reaction you have seen to this wagon? Is it telling of alignment to you?

@StrangerCoug

: I read all of Dirty Dealing, so I sort of see where you're coming from. Do you think your perceptions of that game are more or less instructive from modding it rather than playing it? I'm having trouble phrasing this but I mean could you pick up on things more subtle than salamence faking a post-restriction?

[Xisiqomelir]

@all

: My cable modem was zapped in a thunderstorm, I'm prod-dodging from a cybercafe and will be back tomorrow when the internet company replaces it in the morning.

[Xisiqomelir]

Back. Here are (I think) the only questions directly put to me:

@Mehdi

:

Xis so do you agree with SC that I'm normally serious or do you agree with his earlier I'm being too serious?

"Sort of see where you're coming from" is more precisely "I notice you have these perceptions, and a cursory evaluation of the early stages of each game tends to lead to agreement". I asked him my question to see whether his basis was sound. He admits that modding someone is not as instructive as playing with them, and unvoted you.

And if you want participation with the Lord vote why unvote him before he appears?

I think you read #96 too narrowly.

I like to encourage participation in the game, I think it makes it more enjoyable for everyone.

I'm curious as to where this Lurker wagon will take us. In fact, I'm willing to help it along.

Participation in the game is not exclusive to Mhork.

I felt that there'd be more participation in the game with a strong early wagon, and judging by the fact that the page-count doubled during my mini-VLA, I'm sure I was right.

And a question put generally:

@Bobby24^2

:

I'm not sure how to feel about Jones. What is everyboys thoughts on him

I like #191. It's tonally anti-scum, since it's rare scum who relish antagonizing people. I also like #203's reasoning, particularly the "town would have no need of explaining that" point.

@Baby Spice

:

Firstly, 72% of the first wagon to get to four votes in a game has scum on it. (Using the vote count posts to determine when that four votes occurred)

Is this meant to be a serious statistic? If yes (which can be inferred from #148), is it based only on minis, or is your sample size very large?

@Jake from State Farm

:

Sup

Jake I would like for you to be town this game (again) just like [ongoing] so we can rock the scumtastic (again). How much longer for you to be fully caught up?

@Lurker

:

Ok, I see I am Near being lynched, L-1, nearly at the end of my rope and the like.

I am A vanilla townie.

I have A Railroad Card, But It Doesn't do anything yet.

Does anyone else have a railroad card?

Bolded is not a reason to stop a lynch. Pro-town content would be. Can you tell me more about:

1) Your Mhork vote.
2) The relative towniness/scumminess of the lead wagons?

[Xisiqomelir]

My 1-shot ability Is watcher.

Okay.

UNVOTE: Lurker

Now, I have some options:

Spoiler:

VOTE: Lurker for lurking... wait

@Lurker

Ok... So there was a joke with my username...

Ok then. It look like we are still in RVS, So I'll leave my vote for now.

I'm glad you read four posts after your last one and decided you didn't need to play the game anymore.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Lurker

I like

VOTE: Lurker

for thinking that he could just drop his vote and not help move the game from RVS.

Holy crap somehow I missed posts 43-46.

I'm down for this

unvote: vote lurker

@lurker: regarding post #44, why did you feel the need to announce you weren't moving your vote?

Pal, did you even read my last post? I amended my reaction fishing statement after it was clear I had made a mistake.

UNVOTE: Lord Mhork

Ok, My first in a (hopefully) series of reads. First off I will read Lord Mhork.

His first vote, Post #119, He votes me for the same reason as Jal did, or as they call it, sheeping. He goes on to say that Jal is town.

One of these would be a bit of a slip, but permissible. Two however, seems like buddying.

In post 126 He says that Medhi was reaction fishing. He also said that early wagons were bad.

Medhi did indeed support reaction fishing as said in post #24. "It's the ideal time to reaction fish". However, she did not do so.

In post #130 he stills disagrees with the wagon point when It has been pointed out there is some sheeping on the wagon.

He also FOS's Robert, with no explanation other that "Get an avatar".

I have a scum read on this guy. I also think I may have convinced myself for pushing for his lynch.

Vote: Lord Mhork

First, why is sheeping bad? Why is it inherently scummy and voteworthy? What if I flat out admit that I liked the point Jal made so much that it seemed like the best vote?

Second, where did I say that early wagons were bad? Oh you must mean that

sarcastic

remark that I said was

sarcasm

and was obviously

sarcasm

because I was helping to build an early wagon.

Third, what are you even talking about with the sheep and me disagreeing with the wagon point? How do those two correlate in the slightest?

Fourth, you are an idiot. If you actually, you know, read my posts, it would miraculously become clear that the FoS was not due to the lack of avatar, but rather the reaction fishing! Egasp! Brilliant!

Fifth, your vote on me is bad and you should feel bad with your poorly done IIoA.

Sold.

L-1 VOTE: Lurker

One of these things is not like the others.

VOTE: StrangerCoug

@StrangerCoug

: What were you sold on in the quoted #227 by Mhork?

@Robert2424

:

Please don't call me bobby. My name is Robert.....

Sure thing.

@Mehdi2277

:

And Xis now that I finished reading that wall what did you think of lurker in post 96? I don't want a vague answer I just want your read on him. Was it null, scum, town and why back then?

By post #96, Lurker was up to #4 in his ISO. Of those 5 posts, the RVS votes on Jake and Robert are null, as are isos #3 and #4. Post #44 had the questionable:

Ok... So there was a joke with my username...

Ok then. It look like we are still in RVS, So I'll leave my vote for now.

So at that point, Lurker was leaning scummish.

Currently, I'm willing to let him verify his claim, though I'm curious how he missed my questions to him in #289 (

@Lurker

: Please answer #289).

[Xisiqomelir]

@Mod, I am voting....

It says I get two votes this day phase. Via PM from the mod. So a double voter randomly?

Current Vote Count 1.06

Lurker - 3 (Xisiqomelir, Lord Mhork, StrangerCoug) (L-4)

Jal - 2 (Baby Spice, Robert2424) (L-5)

Xisiqomelir - 2 (numberQ, Mehdi2277) (L-5)
StrangerCoug - 2 (Jake From State Farm, Jal) (L-5)
Baby Spice - 1 (Nobody Special) (L-6)
Lord Mhork - 1 (Lurker) (L-6)

Not Voting: Agent_Ireland, Mogadishu Jones, Robert2424

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch
Deadline is in

(expired on 2013-01-05 14:10:00)

~numberQ has been prodded~
~Nobody Special has been prodded~

mod, can we pass cards to people?

No

Looks like something is wrong somewhere.

[Xisiqomelir]

@Mod

: New VC please.

@StrangerCoug

:

Spoiler:

VOTE: Lurker for lurking... wait

@Lurker

Ok... So there was a joke with my username...

Ok then. It look like we are still in RVS, So I'll leave my vote for now.

I'm glad you read four posts after your last one and decided you didn't need to play the game anymore.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Lurker

I like

VOTE: Lurker

for thinking that he could just drop his vote and not help move the game from RVS.

Holy crap somehow I missed posts 43-46.

I'm down for this

unvote: vote lurker

@lurker: regarding post #44, why did you feel the need to announce you weren't moving your vote?

Pal, did you even read my last post? I amended my reaction fishing statement after it was clear I had made a mistake.

UNVOTE: Lord Mhork

Ok, My first in a (hopefully) series of reads. First off I will read Lord Mhork.

His first vote, Post #119, He votes me for the same reason as Jal did, or as they call it, sheeping. He goes on to say that Jal is town.

One of these would be a bit of a slip, but permissible. Two however, seems like buddying.

In post 126 He says that Medhi was reaction fishing. He also said that early wagons were bad.

Medhi did indeed support reaction fishing as said in post #24. "It's the ideal time to reaction fish". However, she did not do so.

In post #130 he stills disagrees with the wagon point when It has been pointed out there is some sheeping on the wagon.

He also FOS's Robert, with no explanation other that "Get an avatar".

I have a scum read on this guy. I also think I may have convinced myself for pushing for his lynch.

Vote: Lord Mhork

First, why is sheeping bad? Why is it inherently scummy and voteworthy? What if I flat out admit that I liked the point Jal made so much that it seemed like the best vote?

Second, where did I say that early wagons were bad? Oh you must mean that

sarcastic

remark that I said was

sarcasm

and was obviously

sarcasm

because I was helping to build an early wagon.

Third, what are you even talking about with the sheep and me disagreeing with the wagon point? How do those two correlate in the slightest?

Fourth, you are an idiot. If you actually, you know, read my posts, it would miraculously become clear that the FoS was not due to the lack of avatar, but rather the reaction fishing! Egasp! Brilliant!

Fifth, your vote on me is bad and you should feel bad with your poorly done IIoA.

Sold.

L-1 VOTE: Lurker

One of these things is not like the others.

VOTE: StrangerCoug

This is flawed. I don't have to agree with everybody else on why Lurker is scummy; if I see something else instead, that's just as good.

But you said you were 'sold'. How is that not agreement?

@StrangerCoug

: What were you sold on in the quoted #227 by Mhork?

I answered something like this already.

This:

I don't like Lurker's accusing Lord Mhork of voting Robert2424 for not having an avatar. First of all, that's not his vote reason. Second of all, voting someone for having no avatar is patently ridiculous. Lord Mhork had also already told me that the early wagon thing was sarcasm.

Does not answer my question about what it was in Mhork's #227 which sold you on voting Lurker. There is a connection to his points #4 and #2, but those are defences of himself, not part of a case he made to vote Lurker.

@Robert2424

:
You say you "became" a D1 DV. Did you land on the Community Chest between your #352 and #353?

@Baby Spice

:

*****Really didn't like Xis' entrance or early votes. Easy target and bandwagoning. Add in way under posting.

I assume the bandwagonning vote is my Lurker vote. Who specifically is the "easy target" vote cited here? Is it Mhork or StrangerCoug? Why was he easy?

@Various

:

I have one question: Why did Lurker's claim make so many people back off? So, what, he says he's a watcher and suddenly you believe him? What about his post-claim actions changed your mind?

Also can someone explain to me why a Vanilla claim about having one property before a subsequent 'oh yeah I also have another card and it gives me a one shot watcher' is worth a mass unvote? I think I missed some memo here.

Unless a player is egregiously scummy, I prefer not to lynch a PR claim D1.

[Xisiqomelir]

@StrangerCoug

:

But you said you were 'sold'. How is that not agreement?

Of the four people besides Lord Mhork to post cases that were quoted in your post, Agent_Ireland's vote is clearly random while the other three discuss post #44. Lord Mhork's post discusses Lurker's later actions, and your "odd one out" suggests that going with him was a bad thing.

Is something wrong with Mhork's post?

....

This has nothing to do with Mhork and everything to do with you. Your vote was the only one quoted which was a sheep (AI voted for RVS reasons, Jal for non-participation, Mhork for unhelpfulness, Mogadishu for #44). I find it disturbing because it wasn't even a sheep of what I take to be a case (Mhork's #227).

This:

I don't like Lurker's accusing Lord Mhork of voting Robert2424 for not having an avatar. First of all, that's not his vote reason. Second of all, voting someone for having no avatar is patently ridiculous. Lord Mhork had also already told me that the early wagon thing was sarcasm.

Does not answer my question about what it was in Mhork's #227 which sold you on voting Lurker. There is a connection to his points #4 and #2, but those are defences of himself, not part of a case he made to vote Lurker.

I saw his post as a counterattack demonstrating that Lurker's vote was weak, especially #4 since he insults Lurker in the first sentence.

Since he's right here, let's get clarification.

@Lord Mhork

: Was your #227 intended mainly as a defence against Lurker's #168, or was it primarily intended to be a demonstration of Lurker's scumminess? If it's some admixture of the two, what are the rough proportions?

Additionally, how do you feel about StrangerCoug's hop from you to Lurker in #257?

@Baby Spice

:

I assume the bandwagonning vote is my Lurker vote. Who specifically is the "easy target" vote cited here? Is it Mhork or StrangerCoug? Why was he easy?

Didn't I already say earlier that Lord Mhork would be one of those easy targets?

I prefer things to be unambiguous. Thanks for the clarification.

[Xisiqomelir]

Current Vote Count 1.07

StrangerCoug - 4 (Jake From State Farm, Jal, Xisiqomelir, Mehdi2277) (L-3)

Jal - 3 (Baby Spice, Robert24, Robert24) (L-4)
Lurker - 2 (Lord Mhork, StrangerCoug) (L-5)
numberQ - 1 (Mehdi2277) (L-6)
Lord Mhrok - 1 (Lurker) (L-6)

Not Voting: Agent_Ireland, Mogadishu Jones, Robert2424, numberQ, Nobody Special

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch
Deadline is in

(expired on 2013-01-05 14:10:00)

@Mod

: Is Mehdi2277 meant to have two votes here?

[Xisiqomelir]

@Lord Mhork

:

@Lord Mhork

: Was your #227 intended mainly as a defence against Lurker's #168, or was it primarily intended to be a demonstration of Lurker's scumminess? If it's some admixture of the two, what are the rough proportions?

Additionally, how do you feel about StrangerCoug's hop from you to Lurker in #257?

Yeah it was a little of Column A and a little of Column B. It began with me just being very irritated with lurker's poorly done case, but that last line where I accuse him of IIoA is enough for it to be a case as well. I'd say... 75-80/20-25? Somewhere in that ball park? I wasn't really trying to win votes with that post, if that's what you're asking.

I'd be willing to give StrangerCoug the benefit of the doubt for misreading, though I don't like how I had

just

said I had made a mistake. I don't really see the scum motivation here though to misunderstand a really, really obvious correction. I'd say it's more of a null tell/leaning slow player tell.

Well, I can appreciate that it wasn't purely defensive in nature. However, since it was mostly intended to be about Lurker's case and not your own, I don't consider #227 any kind of basis to sheep a vote after. It's especially peculiar since he moved his vote off you to sheep you.

I don't consider "too obvious" a suitable excuse for StrangerCoug's "sold" vote. Scum can and will slip in and get away with all sorts of things in a fast-moving game. I've caught scum D1 in a game fabricating things wholesale.

And I don't really know what to make of him hopping on lurker like that. If he thought my deconstruction of the terribad post revealed enough scum intent from lurker, more power to him. I'm more worried about his 263. That's where my bad feels are coming, not so much from 257. That hop can be neutral too, I guess.

Can you discuss this in further detail?

Spoiler: Not Mafia-related:

"Admixture"
Dat word...

This seems like the type of game where "apposite" will also get dropped. Maybe a "pseudonymity" too.
BBcode tag error fixed.

@Uberninja

: Yo. How long till you're fully read-up?

[Xisiqomelir]

Merry Christmas from GMT+8!

Prod-dodging till tomorrow night

[Xisiqomelir]

Back. Will catch up on Jal vs Baby next.

[Xisiqomelir]

Back. Will catch up on Jal vs Baby next.

what happened to this?

Sorry, got busy IRL with parties etc. Will get to it next year in detail.

[Xisiqomelir]

Back. Will catch up on Jal vs Baby next.

what happened to this?

Sorry, got busy IRL with parties etc. Will get to it next year in detail.

Coming tomorrow AM.

[Xisiqomelir]

Ok, as promised last year, here's my take on Baby vs Jal.

It begins here with Baby's #101:

Spoiler:

Firstly, 72% of the first wagon to get to four votes in a game has scum on it. (Using the vote count posts to determine when that four votes occurred)
So
{Agent Ireland, Jal, Mogadishu Jones, Xisiqomelir} At least one scum in there.

<snip>

for lurking... wait

I'm glad you read four posts after your last one and decided you didn't need to play the game anymore.

<snip>

Holy crap somehow I missed posts 43-46.

I'm down for this

unvote: vote lurker

@lurker: regarding post #44, why did you feel the need to announce you weren't moving your vote?

I'm curious as to where this Lurker wagon will take us. In fact, I'm willing to help it along.

<snip>

So we have an obvious RVS vote, Bull shit misrepresentation as justification for a vote, blatant sheeping with a vague question to try and hide the sheeping, and blatant wagoning.

Leaving aside the sheeping/wagoning for the moment which are in the slightly scummy field of activities, Jal's post and vote just scream scum.

Unvote
Vote Jal

Jal asks where the scummy is in #103:

If it screams scum, it should be no problem to tell me how it does then.

And bombs start exploding here in #105:

Jal's post and vote just scream scum.
Unvote
Vote Jal

If it screams scum, it should be no problem to tell me how it does then.

My favorite way that people try to put down reasons they don't like. Skip quoting the reason and ask what it is.

Bull shit misrepresentation as justification for a vote

I don't enjoy this post. The quoted #101 is not actually a reason. It would be, were it supported by evidence but as it is it's just an assertion. Additionally, there's the duck of the statistics issue. Also, the annoyance seems feigned. Scumpoints to baby.

Jal's #111 is a restated request about the stat topic and a clarification of the "bull shit misrepresentation" point.

Spoiler:

Jal, as the post itself should indicate, by going back through the completed mini game queue.
If the wagon is on scum, then history shows about 50% of the time it has scum on it.

Just the first wagon mind you. I never checked the others that occurred day 1.

I'd like to see these stats compiled. You keep throwing around different sort of stats. Is there a post on this or what? You haven't answered the rest of my questions regarding this also.

My favorite way that people try to put down reasons they don't like. Skip quoting the reason and ask what it is.

That's great, I see that. How is it mispresenting Lurker? How is saying...

I'm glad you read four posts after your last one and decided you didn't need to play the game anymore.

"bull shit misrepresentation" and please don't tell me you took the "read four posts" thing as being literal other than the meaning being he has deliberately chosen not to engage in meaningful conversation. How does this scream scum?

Townpoints since clarity is pro-town.

Baby's #145 (Jal quotes truncated):

Well for starters, I really, really doubt that Lurker decided that he didn't need to play the game anymore and in no way indicated that he thought that, and with a vote immediately following that comment of yours, how are we not supposed to take it seriously?

Not admitting error here is peculiar, but not scummy (I've only just mislynched town for that in an ongoing).

Jal's #147:

Well for starters, I really, really doubt that Lurker decided that he didn't need to play the game anymore and in no way indicated that he thought that, and with a vote immediately following that comment of yours, how are we not supposed to take it seriously?

You're a numbskull or you're scum hoping you got on something special.

Take your pick.

Waiting on those official numbers.

More number-requesting. The casual possible insult is townie, as I mentioned previously re: Moga.

Baby's #148:

I'd like to see these stats compiled. You keep throwing around different sort of stats. Is there a post on this or what? You haven't answered the rest of my questions regarding this also.

I've thrown around two. One reliable, (the 72%), one not so, (the 50/50). One in one post and the other in answer to a direct question.

You're one of these vague generalizers aren't you Jal?

Questions, lol. The only one I didn't answer is my read on Lurker, which is still fairly null. Being Null I didn't think it that worth mentioning.

and if you want to see the stats compiled, work them out yourself.

(I skipped mini 1367 as they took a long time to actually get a wagon past two votes, and counted SK's as scum since from a town point of view they are)

First, I don't see why this post, which deals with the first point in Jal's #111, came after #145 instead of being combined with it or coming before. Secondly, and critically, bolded is an

onus probandi

dodge and scummy. Thirdly, underlined is an absurd accusation to make given the specificity of Jal's questions.

Not directly Baby/Jal, but pertinent, is Baby's #151 in response to Mehdi:

How hard is it to copy the data and post it here?

I keep trying to ctrl-c out of the old paper note book I use for these types of things, but it doesn't seem to work.
I jump and change a lot between computers and mobile devices, and not even my own computer since my laptop died. Paper notes for me.

I will accept webcam of these notebook pages as evidence of their existence, otherwise this is simply an excuse. It's also very implausible that someone with computer access would perform a statistical computation on pencil-and-paper and not use software tools.

Baby's #381:

Spoiler:

I really should be unpicking that quilt now that I can see colour again. (tired eyes)

But:

Jal, since you're too lazy to bother doing any research, or too scummy to want to:
Quick precis of the most recent four mini theme's
Mini 1388, scum on wagon, wagon on town
Barkley mini theme, scum on wagon, wagon on scum.
Mini 1380 SK on wagon, wagon on town
mini 1371 no scum on wagon, wagon on town.

That took all of five minutes.

Strange that you couldn't take the five minutes that that would require, since even if I did put up everything you would need to take a few minutes to verify it anyway.

Strange that you took the comment about Mhork being an easy target at face value.

Strange that you wont attempt to show why the reason for your vote isn't blatant misrepresentation. You bitched about it, but didn't try and show it.

Simply put, your reactions are scummy, your reasonings for the vote was scummy, and you resort to everything but defending your actions, which is scummy.

Wow, I really should make sure these things go through before I walk away from the computer

These are statistics of 4 completed Minis. This is not enough to prove statistical significance (which Baby Spice acknowledges), but I'm more concerned about the bolded. The Mhork comment is a qualitative statement, and has to be assessed qualitatively. The 72% figure is a quantitative measurement of probability, and therefore should naturally be held to a higher standard of proof.

Jal's #395:

Spoiler:

Jal, since you're too lazy to bother doing any research, or too scummy to want to:
Quick precis of the most recent four mini theme's
Mini 1388, scum on wagon, wagon on town
Barkley mini theme, scum on wagon, wagon on scum.
Mini 1380 SK on wagon, wagon on town
mini 1371 no scum on wagon, wagon on town.

That took all of five minutes.

Strange that you couldn't take the five minutes that that would require, since even if I did put up everything you would need to take a few minutes to verify it anyway.

Burden of proof is on you, deary. You have never denied that fact. If it just took all of 5 minutes, why did it take you

days

just to do this now? I have been asking you since the first time you posted this, which happened before you got busy so that can't be an excuse. You made it looked like it took some serious work with a pencil and paper to do your research that, but I guess only 5 minutes huh?

I still see you're trying to hide behind stats. As I have pointed out, if you really thought my post was "bull shit" misrepresentation, you only needed to vote me on that. Instead, you brought statistics into the game to help propel your vote further. You're still scummy scum.

Strange that you took the comment about Mhork being an easy target at face value.

How is it supposed to be interpreted. I am interested.

Thoughts on everything else going on in the game, please.

Bolded here is a good point. Misrepresentation on its own, especially "bull shit misrepresentation" would be tantamount to lying and worth voting on its own merit. The use of a statistic of questionable validity to justify what would be an acceptable vote anyway is peculiar.

Baby's #398:

Spoiler:

Burden of proof is on you, deary. You have never denied that fact. If it just took all of 5 minutes, why did it take you

days

just to do this now? I have been asking you since the first time you posted this, which happened before you got busy so that can't be an excuse. You made it looked like it took some serious work with a pencil and paper to do your research that, but I guess only 5 minutes huh?

I still see you're trying to hide behind stats. As I have pointed out, if you really thought my post was "bull shit" misrepresentation, you only needed to vote me on that. Instead, you brought statistics into the game to help propel your vote further. You're still scummy scum.

Strange that you took the comment about Mhork being an easy target at face value.

How is it supposed to be interpreted. I am interested.

Thoughts on everything else going on in the game, please.

Well, actually, as I said, you would still need to go check on what I posted, so the fact that you wouldn't seems strange.

Simply, if you don't take what I said at face value, you wont take me providing anything to support it at face value.

That you still haven't bothered to check, that you must be relying on someone else's checking without actually saying so speaks badly for you.

Five minutes for those four. Well a lot less actually, I checked what the most recent games were and looked them up in the notes I had made. half a minute more like. But none of that changes the basic point. Had I provided the lot you would still need to check it for yourself or take all of it on face value.

I'm not trying to hide behind stats. You're trying to make it look like that's all I'm using, whereas what I did was decide to use a simple fact to decide where I would start to look for scum.

It's strange that you decided that of "72% of mini games will have at least one scum on the first wagon to get to four votes judging by the vote count posts" and "Lord Mhork would be one of those easy targets", one was acceptable at face value and one wasn't. If you didn't believe me on one surely you would not believe me on the other. But it appears that that's what happened.
Especially given as it was the basis for where to start looking for scum, not as an actual reason for you to be scum.

Since you asked.
Scum: Jal

Leaning scum: Agent I, Xis *****

Null: Jake* Medhi, Mog ***

Vig bait: Mhork, NS & NumberQ ****

Leaning town: Lurker** Robert** SC

Town:


*I did have Jake as leaning scum until recently

**Not sure scum would mention getting Community chests cards so quickly, otherwise was null.

*** Not sure if he's leaning town or just faking so null.

**** Needs to post or be replaced. Vig bait due to LAL

*****Really didn't like Xis' entrance or early votes. Easy target and bandwagoning. Add in way under posting.

Bolded here is inaccurate. Evidence to support an assertion would be unquestionable by Jal, or anyone for that matter. No comment on the reads list and I believe I've already discussed relative acceptability of quantitative and qualitative assertions.

Next comes the "NO U" which goes in this order until the unvotes at the end:

Jal #458
Jal #482
Baby #483
Jal #484
Jal #485
Baby #500
Baby #501
Jal #518
Jal #525
Baby #527
Baby #528
Jal #529
Baby #531

I don't think this warrants extensive commenting, but....the unvotes do, especially after this torrent of verbiage.

@Jal, Babyspice

: Current read on Babyspice/Jal? Any relations to your current vote?

TL;DR: I like Jal more than Baby, Jal's pretty Town, Baby's into mildly scummy territory (will become townier if we see that notebook). Still not moving my SC vote though.

Also not seeing the Mehdi hate. Incoherent vote-hopping is a personal towntell.

Next post: Catchup, featuring TBG vs Jal and the hilarious Watcher/Tracker game.

[Xisiqomelir]

TBG/Jal is annoying to read. I thought Moga was town, so this is just another MS slapfight, I believe.

Uber, is your content something which takes more than 50 words to convey?

[Xisiqomelir]

EBWOP: *another MS town/town slapfight

[Xisiqomelir]

Ubes I would much rather lynch Lurker today, and will hop him after I see whether more people have received +/- votes lately. If you're interested in pushing Jal you'll need something more substantial.

@Mod

: Votecount please.

[Xisiqomelir]

Haha I missed a whole page 35 somehow.

[Xisiqomelir]

I'm not surprised by the Uber NK, but I'm sort of amazed by the Baby one. She didn't really have much by way of reads. There was a long Jal-fight, and an unvote, and this:

Since you asked.
Scum: Jal

Leaning scum: Agent I, Xis *****

Null: Jake* Medhi, Mog ***

Vig bait: Mhork, NS & NumberQ ****

Leaning town: Lurker** Robert** SC

Town:


*I did have Jake as leaning scum until recently

**Not sure scum would mention getting Community chests cards so quickly, otherwise was null.

*** Not sure if he's leaning town or just faking so null.

**** Needs to post or be replaced. Vig bait due to LAL

*****Really didn't like Xis' entrance or early votes. Easy target and bandwagoning. Add in way under posting.

And a Mehdi vote and a Lurker vote.

why do you think the throat slit is mafia? in my experiences of playing mafia, SK usually has a non gun weapon most usually a knife and mafia has a gun. Regardless I doubt either was a vig target.

I agree with this.

lurker was scum and I was suspicious of that Cheer Dog/SC slot yesterday. The fact lurker flipped scum, that vote by SC early on looked like a bus vote.

And this I'm happy to continue with.

VOTE: Cheery Dog

[Xisiqomelir]

Also I think Jal is town. There was no need to point out Lurker's slip yesterday instead of pushing through some other lynch.

[Xisiqomelir]

@D2 posters

: No vote?

@Mehdi

:

How? Since every vote on lurker can be called bussing if you don't explain what's forced about it?

I can't speak for Jake's perceptions. I think I've made my StrangerCoug opinions clear - #257 is a difficult post to interpret as townie.

If it's prior suspicion then how has cheery affected your read on that slot along with anything else since then for him. I remember you commenting on sc, but I don't remember commenting on his replacement.

D1 didn't really alter my perceptions, so I was happy to continue voting the slot today. His townread on me does merit further consideration, because he's not exploiting it in any sort of beneficial manner for himself as scum.

@Cheery Dog

: As I'm sure you recall, since it was very recent, I was town together with your Cheery Nog hydra in a large theme last year. Do you feel your skill at reading me has improved due to this small amount of shared meta?

How has your townread of me this game been formed? #877 is the first we see of it, and it is not explained.

@Jake

: To be precise, I said I was hoping you were town.

[Xisiqomelir]

@Jal

:

Did anyone actually lose cards last night?

Not me.

@Jake

:

I will say i too have some info but not sure what to do with it. Hopefully some discussion will help me figure it out if the info I have is helpful or not.

This is not much to discuss. Could you share something more?

[Xisiqomelir]

It's literally the first post of the game.

Player List

-

Bold

indicates player confirmed

1.

Agent_Ireland

*
2.

Mehdi2277

3.

numberQ

***
4.

Jal

5.

UberNinja

Nobody Special

*

6.

Xisiqomelir

7.

Cheery Dog

StrangerCoug

8.

SafetyDance

Robert2424

9.

Lurker

10.

Baby Spice

11.

Lord Mhork

12.

TehBrawlGuy

Mogadishu Jones

*

13.

Jake From State Farm

* indicates prod

Was it #181? Because I think that's probably his worst:

Mainly just a feeling I've gotten from her. I have no way of really explaining it, its more just a feeling then anything. It can change, idk, don't have any control over it.

As For mhork, I'm unsure how to feel about him, he seems to have came out of nowhere all the sudden, being active, and Jumping onto the Lurker bandwagon. I haven't seen much, but mainly he's been confusing to me. He dose seem a bit scummy, but not sure.

As For Lurker, he's now committing a lot more to the game then before, I feel like now there is a bandwagon on him that he's actually going to commit. Meaning the players voting on him, putting enough pressure for him to talk and make more then one sentence posts really. I'm not going to discredit putting pressure on people via votes(if putting presure on him to talk more and to stop being scummy is there intent that is, idk, I can't read there minds). I'm placing one on Jake to do just that, get him to talk more. Not to bully, but I do think he is a good player and can make good reads if he'd just post. But I do think that if Lurker is town, one voting for him is scum.

[Xisiqomelir]

Tbg was the person I chose. I considered jal but I was expecting UN alive and assumed jal might be kept alive by scum to have un keep on fosing her.

Possible yes. Done in about 1 percent of games on site this size also yes.

Ah ok. Well your electricity bill says otherwise. You stayed at home last night. No reason for VT to lie.

VOTE: Mehdi2277

Either/or stories are 1v1 stories. I can't see the scum motive to 1v1 a temp doc on D2.

UNVOTE: Cheery Dog
VOTE: Mehdi2277

[Xisiqomelir]

And xis scum motive to claim 1 shot doc who saved no one is?

That doesn't exist either.

@SafetyDance

: What is a general description of your result's format? Is it something like "Visited: X" or "Did not visit"?

@Mod

: If a role (R) were to receive a result due to its night action, and that night action was prevented with by a second role (B), would R receive its typical negative result or a "no result"?

[Xisiqomelir]

I am also curious how you got your extra card at night,

but Xis claimed to get an extra card during the start of the day.

It doesn't add up personally.

[Xisiqomelir]

@Mod

:

mod, prod on xis please

~Done~
~Xisiqomelir has been prodded~

I didn't receive a PM. Thread prod received

@All

: Is there a Mehdi scum case beyond Safety's claim? I still think his incoherence D1 was towny.

[Xisiqomelir]

"Mock-lynching" is a silly bit of nonsense that shouldn't happen, though.

[Xisiqomelir]

UNVOTE: Mehdi2277

While I read.

VOTE: Cheery Dog

As a placeholder. This claim

Cheery - why did you use your useless power card on me?

Because you had claimed not having 2 cards, and therefore by using it on you I could see if it actually did anything.
Which to then explain that I'll have to actually tell you what it was - A deed counter which tells me if someone has at least two cards. (Which I was fairly sure everyone did as it makes the most sense) The answer was that you did have at least two cards.
I also assume more light "green" cards would increase the number I can check for, otherwise it won't tell me anything.

is peculiar. At the point where he'd have more greens, other players would have more cards.

[Xisiqomelir]

Xis, re-explain what you mean.

At the moment, it tells him whether players have >=2 cards, which is meaningless since we all started with >=2 cards and the only people who have lost cards died.

Assuming it simply scales up, the power is meaningless, since by the point at which it would increase to detect >=X, the average number of cards per player would also increase as dead players' cards are redistributed.

[Xisiqomelir]

@Medhi2277

:

I was unsure whether to reveal this but considering it doesn't reveal my role sure, I also got a chance that gave me a 1 shot doc. I can reveal who it was on, but the main point is chance/community chest cards can give other role powers beyond things like a vote.

Who was it on?

Tbg was the person I chose.

I considered jal but I was expecting UN alive and assumed jal might be kept alive by scum to have un keep on fosing her.

Lastly no motivation ever given for me to fake claim protecting someone with a 1 shot doc I believe.

I said I protected x. Safety says I didn't and I'm scummy for what?

...

[Xisiqomelir]

@Mehdi2277

:

Xis the point of that was to focus on the protection aspect. X isn't a player and I've never called you that once.

You've also used the word "someone" throughout this game prior to 1321, after it, as well as within it.

Lastly no motivation ever given for me to fake claim protecting someone with a 1 shot doc I believe. I said I protected x. Safety says I didn't and I'm scummy for what?

Why would you suddenly change phrasing?

[Xisiqomelir]

@SafetyDance

:

TBG and CD have as of yet, claimed if those cards have contained any power (leave that for now) but we have Jal and Monkey both claiming to have gotten vig cards. This means that, presuming Baby or UN didn't have both cards, they'd have had one each. If scum killed like they do every game, it means one didn't shoot and one did. Using Cheery Dog's tracking of UN, he didn't go anywhere so that would mean Baby killed UN and UN didn't shoot, whilst scum killed Baby.

That's the scenario I see based on the claims ("facts") we have.

Anything wrong with it?

Plenty.

1. You assume that there is only one scum faction.
2. You assume at least one town vig used their power.
3. You assume that there was no role interference by either scum denial or town protective.

Assuming that the expensive properties actually do give vig powers (this I consider true) I still think that most likely neither vig shot, the SK killed UN and mafia (or only very slightly possibly, a vig) killed Baby Spice.

@Mehdi2277

:

To emphasize the protection aspect of it.

Your equanimity is acceptable. I'll set aside this fillip.

And tbg either scum are dumb are they already know who to shoot. The worth of keeping town reads hidden to block scum shooting people most trusted isn't worth it. Are docs just randomly guessing who to protect as well? And does becoming scum make it impossible to tell who looks more town then others?

I am opposed to massclaim today. It is far too early in the game.

Also, this is ridiculous:

VOTE: guille

NumberQ was town.

Sorry for being so late to the party, but I'm all caught up now.

I have one question: Why did Lurker's claim make so many people back off? So, what, he says he's a watcher and suddenly you believe him?

What about his post-claim actions changed your mind?

Also, take a look at the mini-theme queue, at the post that introduces Monopoly Mafia. I didn't find this info in the first post of this thread. It says that deeds are randomized AFTER alignments are given. Lurker could be a watcher, but also scum.

Lurker:

Before the claim, his content amounted to an analysis of his own wagon (though unless I read it wrong he didn't even supply any opinions of his own), a case on Mhork (which is weak, but that's already been discussed), and a few statements that almost sound like the beginnings of some investigation but stop before they go anywhere (see: 76, 89).

Then he claimed, and for some reason people forgot that the game explicitly stated that cards (ie, powers) are randomized after alignment assignments, meaning alignment has nothing to do with powers. On top of that, the claim was strange because he waited until someone specifically asked him about it to mention his Watcher role.

Post-claim Lurker has been IIoA and a promise to look at the SC issue, though he's posted since that promise without having looked at the issue.

....

So yeah Lurker should be lynched.

VOTE: Lurker

That's well ahead of either Lurker's slip in #656 or Jal's catch in #674.

@Guille

: To be frank, I didn't think Baby Spice's reads merited discussion. I considered her behaviour around the extant/imaginary "notebook" to be highly suspicious.

MonkeyMan576

: Your vote on me is rank survivalism. In fact, most of your recent posting after being wagonned is rank survivalism.

hammering me would be a bad idea. I'm town so as far as I'm aware my cards are distributed among those on my lynch. So I'm guessing Cherry Dog is scum. This is a scum-like risk, not a town-like risk.

People should unvote me unless they want Boardwalk in the hands of ScumDog and his cohorts.

ScumCherry hamming would allow Boardwalk to possibly change hands from town to mafia. I haven't done anything scummy, besides not having a lot of time to answer questions. CheeryDog HAS done something specifically scummy now.

UNVOTE: Cheery Dog
VOTE: MonkeyMan576

That should be L-1 again.

@Mod

: Please correct post #0. It shows SafetyDance replacing into two slots, 3 and 8, when it should be just 8, with guille replacing into 3. Also, new VC please.

[Xisiqomelir]

I actually want a mock vig lynch please.

I am opposed.

[Xisiqomelir]

Okay, I am shooting from a list including all opposed with Mhork included no matter what.

Do as you please, but why posture?

[Xisiqomelir]

@SafetyDance

:

You forgot one. I'm also assuming everyone is telling the truth.

That is another possible weakness in your theory, yes.

You seem to be assuming your guess on what exactly?

That generally on this site, scum and vigs use guns and serial killers use knives. Also, that GNR in particular is a mod who pays close attention when designing kill flavour.

I'm at least looking at everything we have and trying to make a theory out of it, not apply my own theory to the current circumstances.

We have two claimed vig cards with the town who ended dead last night but you think its more likely that a standard SK (with no power from cards) killed rather than two of the people who held the cards? I think you're the one assuming a lot here.

I don't believe I stated that an SK would be cardless. Where do you get that from?

A vig can't have killed Baby Spice unless you're claiming Cheer Dog is lying.

I think it's unlikely (I even say so), but I don't think it's impossible. I have revised my current opinion of the StrangerCoug/Cheery slot to null after thinking over his cardcounting claim, and I believe his results from last night.

We could sit here until next Christmas thinking about who got roleblocked or re-directed but if you know anything by an educated or more on whom it may have been, say so and explain how it breaks down the chain of events.

It's simply not a fruitful discussion. The most useful thing out of N1 actions I see thus far is Mehdi's claim to have protected vs your claim that he did not.

@guille2015

:

My problem with the night actions is that I cannot conceive why scum would kill Baby. Did they think she had scum nailed? But it does seem like that was the case.

I can't either, but it is more likely than her being vigged.

@Jal

:

How is town not sharing elementary crap going to hurt town, exactly? No one is willing to share crap all, and I seriously would not be surprised that at least one of the few who has shared their reads on anything concerning this is scum.

There are people who don't actually want to share anything.

Town does not have obligations beyond identifying and voting scum. Pretend-voting is superfluous at best, and a distracting bit of nonsense at worst.

[Xisiqomelir]

Xis - Rank survivalism (whatever that means)

This is why I don;t feel Monkey can be trusted to follow our kill suggestion. He has basically found a way to avoid all questions and hasn't even attempted to scumhunt. All he keeps doing is saying he has to be kept alive because he is a vig and we should trust him (maybe that's what rank survivalism means?, if so than Xis's vote isn't questionable afterall)

There is a little bit more to it.

Spoiler:

MonkeyMan576

: Your vote on me is rank survivalism. In fact, most of your recent posting after being wagonned is rank survivalism.

hammering me would be a bad idea. I'm town so as far as I'm aware my cards are distributed among those on my lynch. So I'm guessing Cherry Dog is scum. This is a scum-like risk, not a town-like risk.

People should unvote me unless they want Boardwalk in the hands of ScumDog and his cohorts.

ScumCherry hamming would allow Boardwalk to possibly change hands from town to mafia. I haven't done anything scummy, besides not having a lot of time to answer questions. CheeryDog HAS done something specifically scummy now.

UNVOTE: Cheery Dog
VOTE: MonkeyMan576

The quotes from Monkey spoilered above are one aspect of his survivalism, but his votes today are also significant. The "unraveling defense" Mehdi vote is questionable, and his read on me evolves this way today:

Post #684 – Xis attacks babyspice. Good post

Nuetral
Xisqomelir

Currently if I had to choose someone to shoot it would be Xis. His post count is relatively low and his unvote of Lurker looks suspicious.

Like the Xis wagon idea...posted my reasons why previously(Lurker unvote, inactivity). Plus Guille seems to have some sense.

Vote: Xis

Which I don't consider at all natural.

PEdit: Ninjaed heavily

[Xisiqomelir]

@MonkeyMan576

:

Mehdi is near confirmed scum but Xis lynch still gives us the most info.

Since this is a novel position for you, would you care to elucidate? Specifically, what information do you anticipate receiving in each of the three possible alignment scenarios?

Here's another question, why is this information more valuable than voting your "near confirmed scum" read?

After that,

Make a case why Xis is scum

I already have, his unvote of lurker, and lack of content.

Maybe I should spoiler this voluminous case to avoid cluttering the thread:

Currently if I had to choose someone to shoot it would be Xis. His post count is relatively low and his unvote of Lurker looks suspicious.

Like the Xis wagon idea...posted my reasons why previously(Lurker unvote, inactivity). Plus Guille seems to have some sense.

Vote: Xis

Perhaps you are receiving play advice from the Bellman?

Spoiler:

"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What i tell you three times is true."

To address your points:
-I unvoted Lurker because he claimed, and I am averse to lynching PRs D1, as I stated. I would have hammered after he slipped but Uberninja requested that we hold off.
-I believe I've created more than adequate content this game. Certainly in excess of multiple other slots, particularly your own.

[Xisiqomelir]

@Town

: Partial Claim - I began the game with 2 yellow cards, which granted me a night action. I request that town watchers who watched my target and town trackers who tracked me do not disclose that information yet. I will reveal the info in 5 pages or when everyone living has made a substantial post, whichever comes sooner.

To begin today: VOTE: Mehdi2277

[Xisiqomelir]

And xis can you explain your vote on me. I don't see where it follows from what you said yesterday so what did change?

I will discuss this in depth once I reveal my info from last night, but the condensed version is that I am now very short of scumreads, and you are top of the list by way of NK implication.

[Xisiqomelir]

@Mehdi2277

: Your question is an absurd hypothetical. I prefer to deal with what we know, and what we know is that 2 conftown have died suspecting you. This is in addition to the town/scum roleblocking and "I protected tbg/I protected x" contradictions.

@SafetyDance

:

Wouldn't mind the medhi and xis claims now. And for Mohrk and Guille to post.

I've stated my conditions. It's inevitable, don't worry.

[Xisiqomelir]

I received the final light green. It does work exactly as Cheery and Jal have described.

[Xisiqomelir]

Cool, we got five pages. Seems like there was no slip, so here I go.

2 yellows grants me the

COP

ability. I receive results as I/G, no mention of sanity.

N1 I investigated Baby Spice, continuing my fine tradition of copping the N1 NK.

N2 after much headstrain over whether it should be Jal or TBG, I investigated Jal, and received a result of "innocent"

Pre-emptive responses:

Bu..bu..bu.. Jal is obvtown!

: I thought so at the end of D1, but this was such a weird contradiction I thought I should check it out:

Okay, I am shooting from a list including all opposed with Mhork included no matter what.

Current Vote Count 2.05

MonkeyMan576 - 5 (TehBrawlGuy, Lord Mhork, Jal, Jake From State Farm, Xisiqomelir) (L-1)

Additionally, with both N1 kills having strong suspicions/votes of Jal, I thought it was worth clearing up before LyLo

Bu..bu..bu.. TBG was obvtown!

: The fact that he was completely off his own plan put up giant red flags from me, and I don't know why none of you brought the subject up.

You shouldn't have claimed today

: I'm assuming the pessimistic case of 2 scum remaining, which puts us at 6:2, meaning tomorrow is MYLO if we mislynch today. Better you all know early.

Now, as I told Mehdi after he asked about my voting him, I'm extremely short of scumreads right now.

-Inno Jal
-Town Jake
-Town guille (<-----Am I the only person with this opinion?)

Leaves:

- 1 scum {SafetyDance,Mehdi2277}, with Mehdi getting the vote now, but SafetyDance's continued rolefishing over scumhunting worth noting
- 1 scum {CheeryDog,Mhork}, with me being totally lost on this one. I still hate StrangerCoug's lurker vote, but Cheery being open about the light green is townpoints. I'm totally uncertain about Mhork.

[Xisiqomelir]

@Jal

: No one was watching Mehdi in either scenario.

@SafetyDance

:

Where's the contradiction? She was claiming to shoot anyone not wanting to do the mock-lynch

with

Mhork included regardless of his position. That's the only reason for an investigation? I can't see this as logical at al.

Shooting people exclusively off a wagon where they are voting with you doesn't seem absurd? Jal has said it was intended as sarcasm, so it was obviously intended to be peculiar.

What? He didn't have a power role day 2, how could he go off the plan? In fact he followed it judging by the lack of extra kill.

Exempting himself as a tracker or vig target was suspicious.

No use trying to admonish us for something you didn't bring up either. Hindsight Hero much?

I wanted to get off one more investigation first.

That's terrible PoE. For someone that's meant to have a role that deals with absolutes, not including Jake/guille in any scum scenario is terrible.

There is literally zero chance Jake is scum. I am never investigating him this game. Guille is only scum if the rest of his neighbourhood is town.

You voted CD for his Deed card claim but you're now giving him townpoints for doing so? What the fuck?

Because now I have the same colour of deed, so I know it really is useless as a 1/3. Sharing that information, even when it could bring suspicion on himself for no reason, is towny.

Rolefishing over Scumhunting?

Yup. "Scumhunting" is identifying scum and voting them.

You haven't noticed the posts mentioning the discrepancies in LM and CD red cards

Rolefishing.

trying to press you to post when you said you were going to waiting for the two lurkers to post.

Rolefishing.

How is that now scumhunting?

Who are you voting?

Putting the puzzle of the board together, you think its better to be in the dark?

This is a strawman.

I don't like your cop claim at all. You gave off scum vibes a lot reading through day one, which got bumped down day 2 thanks to Mehdi and Monkey.

This post claims "trust me" which of course leads to the opposite.

Believe what you will. My information is mod-confirmed.

[Xisiqomelir]

It's simple. Xis believes there is actually a vig (2 in fact) and a sk. We kill the SK, who was the one other who claimed vig. Logically, one would assume they still should believe there's a vig, at least somewhat in that theory. Maybe not

two

vigs, because they thought there was another shooter, but we essentially lynched my cc yesterday. Where did belief in the vig go?

Even if you weren't SK, you could still have been mafia (which would explain the thinning-out of town, vigging from your own co-wagoners). I've also seen you power-bus.

[Xisiqomelir]

My reply broke:

I've also seen you power-bus, which would explain your Lurker catch as a massive towncred grab to coast to a win.

Also, I am going to fuck up Uber for completely shitfesting this game, because the only reason I have suspicion is because he sperged all over this thread and I hate playing days other than D1. I actually am pretty sure the Sk killed Uber also now, as that was Agent Ireland's main suspect at the end of yesterday.

AI knifed Uber for sure. Which means we should probably look into why scumteam shot Baby.

[Xisiqomelir]

@SafetyDance

:

That's terrible PoE. For someone that's meant to have a role that deals with absolutes, not including Jake/guille in any scum scenario is terrible.

There is literally zero chance Jake is scum. I am never investigating him this game. Guille is only scum if the rest of his neighbourhood is town.

Your working out here is fantastic, got me convinced. (this is sarcasm)

I've already posted about Guille. Jake's reaction to Uberninja D1 and Jal D2 is consummate town-Jake, from my personal experience of town-Jake.

What? He didn't have a power role day 2, how could he go off the plan? In fact he followed it judging by the lack of extra kill.

Exempting himself as a tracker or vig target was suspicious.

So suspicious, you never brought it up. You didn't claim yesterday so no one was any of the wiser, so why not, when there was ample opportunity to post, did you not mention it? Again, why try to beat down the rest of us for not doing so yesterday?

I wasn't about to make myself a target for scum-TBG.

How are you being "beaten down"?

So you have a narrow-minded view of what scum-hunting is and it has to fit your criteria of "voting".

Of course it does. Town wins by lynching.

Finding discrepancies

is

trying to identify scum.

Helping piece together who has what

is

helping town.

Waiting for you to post before voting

is

waiting to hear what everyone has to say to help form a better opinion on who is scum.

So...have you identified any scum? Who are they? If you haven't, what else do you need?

@Jake

:

@ Xis - why investigate Baby night 1 instead of SC who you were more suspicious of?

Investigating Jal makes no sense either when mehndi or guile were better options.

I said earlier I saw a lurker/xis connection and this claim really sucks. You definitely made it seem like you caught someone when you started the day. Also your comment about nobody slipping makes no sense because you didn't have a guilty.

The only thing keeping me from voting you right now is because if you were scum, why make this claim like that?

My head hurts now

Mafia Theory, but I think it's better to clarify a more ambiguous read than go for a stronger one. I have adopted this consistently for the four investigations I've done on-site.

Discworld Mafia N1, I had Shamrock as top scumspect, but investigated Thor (who was NKed). I then voted Shamrock off the bat D2 and got him lynched (he was town)

Discworld Mafia N2, I had Cherry Nog as top scumspect, but investigated Calcifer and got a guilty.

N1 here, I suspected SC/Cheery most, but investigated Baby because of awkwardness over her "notebook". I voted SC to start the day, but then Monkey's defences unravelled.

Last night, in the end I decided that TBG leaving himself out of his own plan was scummier than Jal wanting to vig her co-wagoners, so I investigated Jal, planning on pushing TBG today.

The NK and investigation make this fairly straightforward for me. We still have the unresolved doc/did-not-doc 1v1 from Mehdi and SafetyDance, and then one of the neighbours is likely scum.

Jake, can you explain your stance on Guille-scum? How do you feel about NumberQ's ISO?

Also, can you elaborate on this point:

Also another thing, in guile's catchup post he pointed to a post that SC made on page 15 and follows it up by saying SC was trying to direct people to vote lurker. But if you actually read pages 15-22 (where SC unvotes lurker) SC doesn't do anything of the sort. I'd almost call it an outright lie.

All SC does is argue about the cards giving power, he never once directs anyone to pit their vote back on him.

@guille2015

:

Cop claim does not follow Alignment.

I cannot parse this sentence.

Results do not help.

I am okay with having a difference of opinion on this topic.

Xis:
Why do you say that Jake is town?

I think I have a good handle on Jake's town-tone. This is a typical example:

You should shoot who you think is scum or who's a detriment to town.

You definitely sound like a SK to me now.

Go ahead and shoot me, just be ok with ridicule post game for your inability to grow a pair.

Bolded is a sincere Jake opinion.

Why did you want to wait for everyone to chip in before you claimed?

I was hoping someone would try something scummy like pre-emptively discrediting me.

Guille is only scum if the rest of his neighbourhood is town.

Also, how do you reach this conclusion?

3/3 scum in neighbourhood is impossible, given that we've lynched Lurker
2/3 scum in neighbourhood would be very unbalanced, and I think it unlikely since we've definitely got one scum in {Safety,Mehdi}
1/3 scum in neighbourhood is the most typical setup on site
0/3 scum in neighbourhood is bastardy, but not something I'll rule out completely (I've seen it once before)

@Lord Mhork

:

Xiquelomeir, why did you decide to cop Jal after a SK flip on Monkey? Why didn't you make the immediate link that she was the obvious real vig and obvtown? That investigation makes no sense at all to me. :/

I have answered this question.

[Xisiqomelir]

@Jake

:

@ xis - after lurker claimed scum why did you not switch your vote to lurker

Uberninja asked us not to:

Actually....

I would be

more

than happy if people just unvoted everyone, and didn't lynch anyone until after this weekend.

Wait! Hear me out, hear me out...

That will give me a chance to read the game, gauge interactions, and be useful as fuck (which I just haven't had time to be ... sorry mod and players! I've been working on a dark theme for mafiascum.net which you can see a preview of here ... I promise it's not because I don't care about the game!) so that we can get scum lynches and in general have an awesome rest of the game.

This is a 100% serious offer. 30 pages over 1 weekend = fucking CAKE.
Especially because the dark theme's almost done and it's time for PAYBACK up in this bitch.

Please confirm or deny that you are agreeable to my request by typing

Unvote; Vote: In Uber We Trust

in your next post.

Thank you.

I acquiesced, but I wanted him to get it over with.

and also why did you still entertain the idea of lynching Jal?

I don't know how you get that from this post Jake:

Ubes I would much rather lynch Lurker today, and will hop him after I see whether more people have received +/- votes lately.

If you're interested in pushing Jal you'll need something more substantial.

@Mod

: Votecount please.

That's "I'm not sold on your Jal case", not "I could go for Jal too". After Uber died and flipped town, it became more credible, along with Baby's Jal-push.

@Lord Mhork

:

You mean this? Great, except for the fact that all you did was confirm something that was already essentially confirmed.

I dispute this.

Jal was all but mod confirmed as a vig and yet you investigated her anyway?

Jal still has yet to vig anyone, and certainly hadn't by the end of D2 when I made my decision. How was he "mod-confirmed"?

Why? I don't understand this whole 'contradiction of yours.

Here it is again:

Okay, I am shooting from a list including all opposed with Mhork included no matter what.

This makes zero sense for town to state if everyone on the list is with you on the same wagon, unless one thinks that they're all possibly bussing scum.

@Guille

:

3/3 scum in neighbourhood is impossible, given that we've lynched Lurker
2/3 scum in neighbourhood would be very unbalanced, and I think it unlikely since we've definitely got one scum in {Safety,Mehdi}
1/3 scum in neighbourhood is the most typical setup on site
0/3 scum in neighbourhood is bastardy, but not something I'll rule out completely (I've seen it once before)

This assumes that the cards were distributed non-randomly according to setup design and balance.

We have concluded that they were handed randomly

, so this does not apply.

Who is this "we"? Please do not presume to speak for all of town. It's reasonable enough to assume that the cards were divided relatively

evenly

, but there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that they were handed out

randomly

. The fact that the SK started with killing power, along with many other players beginning the game with PRs, suggests to me that it's more likely that the cards were allocated by mod design. That being the case, your neighbourhood probably contains exactly one scum.

[Xisiqomelir]

1. Why the hell would you listen to anyone else when we had caught scum

I didn't mind giving him extra time since there wasn't DL pressure.

2. That post does imply you want him to atleast make a better case on Jal. That implies you aren't sold on a lurker lynch cause why else would you encourage him?

How about the first part of it Jake?

@ xis

The mod even said that the cards were handed out randomly after alignment. This has been discussed already by number iirc

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 1#p4539221

Well that's sucky. What do you think of our three neighbours? I have them as null/null/town.

[Xisiqomelir]

Prod-dodge, will post tonight.

[Xisiqomelir]

Apologies for postponement.

@SafetyDance

:

I'm here, will catch up properly later because I'm running out of time tonight.

If Mehdi flips town, then that would be proof to me there's some sort of mafia power role, be it a re-director or roleblocker or something else. Otherwise, could just be fail on GNR's NAR.

If Mehdi is town, I am going to bay for your blood.

@Mehdi

: How is there no way that guille is town? Have you pushed for this lynch in any substantial way?

[Xisiqomelir]

@Mehdi

: You're voting him, one presumes you'd like him lynched. I'd like to hear a reasonable explanation as to why, because I strongly disagree.

Also, I think this makes more sense as a cop pool: {Cheery Dog, SafetyDance, Lord Mhork}

[Xisiqomelir]

@SafetyDance

:

Now, onto Xis...

@SafetyDance

:

That's terrible PoE. For someone that's meant to have a role that deals with absolutes, not including Jake/guille in any scum scenario is terrible.

There is literally zero chance Jake is scum. I am never investigating him this game. Guille is only scum if the rest of his neighbourhood is town.

Your working out here is fantastic, got me convinced. (this is sarcasm)

I've already posted about Guille. Jake's reaction to Uberninja D1 and Jal D2 is consummate town-Jake, from my personal experience of town-Jake.

Yes, you had:

-Town guille (<-----Am I the only person with this opinion?)

Fantastic case.

Disgustingly scummy misrepresentation. My actual town-guille case, for anyone who's forgotten:

Spoiler:

@Mehdi2277

:

Also, this is ridiculous:

VOTE: guille

NumberQ was town.

Sorry for being so late to the party, but I'm all caught up now.

I have one question: Why did Lurker's claim make so many people back off? So, what, he says he's a watcher and suddenly you believe him?

What about his post-claim actions changed your mind?

Also, take a look at the mini-theme queue, at the post that introduces Monopoly Mafia. I didn't find this info in the first post of this thread. It says that deeds are randomized AFTER alignments are given. Lurker could be a watcher, but also scum.

Lurker:

Before the claim, his content amounted to an analysis of his own wagon (though unless I read it wrong he didn't even supply any opinions of his own), a case on Mhork (which is weak, but that's already been discussed), and a few statements that almost sound like the beginnings of some investigation but stop before they go anywhere (see: 76, 89).

Then he claimed, and for some reason people forgot that the game explicitly stated that cards (ie, powers) are randomized after alignment assignments, meaning alignment has nothing to do with powers. On top of that, the claim was strange because he waited until someone specifically asked him about it to mention his Watcher role.

Post-claim Lurker has been IIoA and a promise to look at the SC issue, though he's posted since that promise without having looked at the issue.

....

So yeah Lurker should be lynched.

VOTE: Lurker

That's well ahead of either Lurker's slip in #656 or Jal's catch in #674.

Which only mehdi has shown signs of wanting to refute.

What? He didn't have a power role day 2, how could he go off the plan? In fact he followed it judging by the lack of extra kill.

Exempting himself as a tracker or vig target was suspicious.

So suspicious, you never brought it up. You didn't claim yesterday so no one was any of the wiser, so why not, when there was ample opportunity to post, did you not mention it? Again, why try to beat down the rest of us for not doing so yesterday?

I wasn't about to make myself a target for scum-TBG.

How are you being "beaten down"?

Note I used the pronoun "us". I wasn't referring to myself individually. You did admonish 'us':

Bu..bu..bu.. TBG was obvtown!

: The fact that he was completely off his own plan put up giant red flags from me, and

I don't know why none of you brought the subject up.

Aside from the grammatical quibble that "you" also functions as a second person plural in English, there's a significant difference in tonal intensity between being "admonished" and being "beaten down". #1867 is certainly chiding, but it's hardly suppressive.

So you have a narrow-minded view of what scum-hunting is and it has to fit your criteria of "voting".

Of course it does. Town wins by lynching.

You're being deliberately dense and stupid. Trying to scumhunt is a bit more than voting. Guess what? Who wins by town mislynching? I'm sure you can figure that one out.

You're being deliberately distracting and self-righteous. Oh look, I can play insult game too.

Town cannot win except by lynching. That mislynching is an unfortunate occurence doesn't change the facts.

Finding discrepancies

is

trying to identify scum.

Helping piece together who has what

is

helping town.

Waiting for you to post before voting

is

waiting to hear what everyone has to say to help form a better opinion on who is scum.

So...have you identified any scum? Who are they? If you haven't, what else do you need?

Unlike you seem to be, I'm not 100% sure of who's scum and who's not. At the start of a the day (which it was), there is no need to rush into a vote. How is a speed lynch useful?

I also strongly disagree with your stance that not voting is acceptable town behaviour. At the very least, effort should be made to identify scum by posting.

re: You and Mehdi, one of you is lying, and all your peculiar behaviour to the contrary, I consider it more likely that it's Mehdi. I am interested that you're reacting so strongly to even hypothetical suspicion, though.

[Xisiqomelir]

~SafetyDance has been prodded~
~Xisiqomelir has been prodded~

Received.

I still want to lynch Mehdi y'all.

@Mehdi

: What happens if (as I predict) we see a town guille flip? How many (if any) of your townreads slip down?

[Xisiqomelir]

@Jake

:

Why mehndi over mhork/guile?

I don't understand your town read of guile one bit. He's done absolutely nothing productive IMO.

Mehdi over both of them is primarily based on NKs. Baby and TBG both dying with Mehdi as a scumspect doesn't look great. There's a possibility that scumteam did it as a distracting tactic, but no one has tried to push that seriously yet this game.

re: guille, I'm still holding on to my NumberQ read, I guess.

[Xisiqomelir]

@Mehdi

: Intensity is not proportional to volume. Can you answer my question about guille-town?

[Xisiqomelir]

@Mehdi

:

It still weakens when it's that small relative to game amount.

No, if I assert something as a fact, and then reinforce it with subsequent posts, I really do mean I consider it to be true.

My town reads wouldn't really change if he flipped town (and redirecting it to you do you think anyone looks more likely scum if he flips town associatively?).

I assume this is meant to be "flips scum", since I consider him town. My readlists would remain static. If it were a standard game, I'd feel better about Cheery Dog.

The simple list of my reads at this moment is:

jal > jake > safety > cheery > xis > mhork > guille (yeah mhork's last few comments has made him below you like the plan outcry and a very vague call of me erratic without much explanation on how it's true)

Mhork is actually someone I'm having great trouble reading.

[Xisiqomelir]

so I think I will go ahead and hammer mehndi, the explanation why he should be lynched makes sense and I have been skeptical of him all game. I just want to make sure this is correct

I watch Safety
Safety watches Cheery
and I just want to make sure that cheery and safety don't track the same person

I will investigate just Cheery if Mehdi does happen to be town, but if he's not I'm using my scumpool I listed previously.

[Xisiqomelir]

Player	Power	Target
Jake	Watcher	Safety
Safety	Watcher	Jal
Safety	Tracker	Cheery
Cheery	Tracker	Jake
Xis	Cop	Safety
Jal	Vig	guille

I like this for if Medhi flips scum. It tests Jake/Cherry/Safety. If Medhi flips scum, LM is auto town. So, it ends up leaving Jal and Xis as untested. It should be an easy game if Medhi flips scum.

Guille, you realize that Mehdi and Safety have been dancing a 1v1 for days now? Why would I investigate Safety if Mehdi was

scum

?

[Xisiqomelir]

Hello.

Cards received:

-Virginia Ave (Purple) : Does nothing
-Illinois Ave (Red): In a Neighbourhood

Results received:

-Copped SafetyDance: Inno
-Card-counted Mhork: Mhork has at least 2 deeds

Nobody visited safety.

What are your other results Jake? I'm interested in the contradiction.

[Xisiqomelir]

Explain the card count, xis.

It's a useless ability, but I wanted to at least establish its sanity.

[Xisiqomelir]

The card count thing has already been explained by several people. Why use it in the first place today, Xis?

Because today was the first day I could use it?

Right now, we're looking at Xis not revealing they had a card yesterday and not being caught by the watcher going to Safety as planned.

I've fully disclosed all of my cards, Jal. What did I not reveal?

I'm also stating, unequivocally, that I visited SafetyDance and received a result.

[Xisiqomelir]

@Jake

:

Xis - how can today be the first time you can use the green card when cheery could use his all game?

I've only had mine since the start of D3.

I also went back and looked at how the mod explained if a player gets RBd and my result definitely means I wasn't RBd.

I don't see how you get that from this post:

@Mod

: If a role (R) were to receive a result due to its night action, and that night action was prevented with by a second role (B), would R receive its typical negative result or a "no result"?[/b]

~Something along the lines of a "no result"~

@Mod: If a tracker tracked someone who attempted to commit an action but was roleblocked, what would be the result?

~If tracker is roleblocked - a "no result" type message would occur~
~If tracked is roleblocked - a "didn't go anywhere" type message would occur~

"No result" sounds exactly like you were blocked.

[Xisiqomelir]

@Lord Mhork

:

No, explain your 'at least two' comment.

Directed at xis. Sorry.

That's how the power works.

Cheery - why did you use your useless power card on me?

Because you had claimed not having 2 cards, and therefore by using it on you I could see if it actually did anything.
Which to then explain that I'll have to actually tell you what it was - A deed counter which tells me if someone has at least two cards. (Which I was fairly sure everyone did as it makes the most sense) The answer was that you did have at least two cards.
I also assume more light "green" cards would increase the number I can check for, otherwise it won't tell me anything.

Light green is same as CD, which is why I thought Xis' push on him for that aspect was stupid.

I received the final light green. It does work exactly as Cheery and Jal have described.

@Jal

:

I already came out saying I used it. If you have me as an innocent, you should know I'm not lying and know its "sanity."

So I shouldn't use my own powers? I knew the descriptions matched, but I still wanted my own result.

Either way, there is no reason for town Mehdi to lie. The question is, why did Xis lie and is lying now?

I don't think Mehdi lied deliberately. As part of his general disinterest in the game, he probably let it slip his mind since the card is powerless on its own.

Can you explain any possible scum motive for hiding a powerless card?

@SafetyDance

:

No, explain your 'at least two' comment.

Directed at xis. Sorry.

Lol at you trying to start a discussion with Xis. If we left you two at it for the rest of the day phase you wouldn't get onto an extra page.

For someone who whines about sniping, you're certainly quite the fan of it as a debate tactic, aren't you?

Independently of the investigation, I should probably point out to the game that you're most likely town because you cut and run as scum in my direct experience.

Oh look, there's Virginia. So is he trying to claim it as from mehdi because hmmm

There's no need to insinuate. If you're suggesting I've had Virginia since D3 instead of today as I claim, just say so. You'll be in the fine company of my other investigation. While you're at it, can you supply a reason for this nefarious concealment?

And as a hypothetical, what are your reads out of the uninvestigated side of the playerlist?

@Jake

:

We are in a pretty good situation right here. It's basically one of myself or xis is lying. We lynch one and if they don't flip scum the other gets shot by Jal.

The problem here being I think we're both town, and if there are two scum left (likely), this is MyLo. I actually have another problem, the neighbourhood chat suggests that Mhork and Cheery aren't of the same alignment.

What do you think happened with Mehdi's 1-shot Doc and Safety receiving a result he didn't Doc?

Cheery's suggestion to NL is bad

I actually think it's pretty good. Half the living game is still uninvestigated, and scumteam didn't kill last night, suggesting that they're constrained by the last plan. With zero NKs, the whole game can be investigated.

VOTE: No Lynch

Obviously xis can't quote his role pm about the 2 cards but id sure love to heart better explanation. Mine doesn't say granted. I'd also like to know what his cop role name is (unless he said it and I missed it)

My role PM has three headings.

-The first is the same as the sample townie PM from the intro to the game, save some slight formatting differences (I have fewer newlines than the sample).
-The second lists my cards, each in their own box. Both Marvin and Ventnor have something like "Doesn't do anything yet" as their description
-The third is an Upgrade section. It says since I have two yellows I possess the Cop ability, and may target a player at night, receiving results in an I/G format.

"Granted" was my own paraphrasing. The original text was just "have".

@Mod

: Is it permissible for me to discuss subjects from the neighbourhood quicktopic if I do not quote directly?

[Xisiqomelir]

I had hope that you can discuss these things seeing as I just did...

I'm gonna try this again. Why did you say AT LEAST two?

@Lord Mhork

:

No, explain your 'at least two' comment.

Directed at xis. Sorry.

That's how the power works.

Cheery - why did you use your useless power card on me?

Because you had claimed not having 2 cards, and therefore by using it on you I could see if it actually did anything.

Which to then explain that I'll have to actually tell you what it was - A deed counter which tells me if someone has at least two cards.

(Which I was fairly sure everyone did as it makes the most sense) The answer was that you did have at least two cards.
I also assume more light "green" cards would increase the number I can check for, otherwise it won't tell me anything.

Light green is same as CD

, which is why I thought Xis' push on him for that aspect was stupid.

I received the final light green.

It does work exactly as Cheery and Jal have described.

.

[Xisiqomelir]

I had hope that you can discuss these things seeing as I just did...

All right then.

@Cheery Dog

: What exactly did Mhork "alter" and why is that strange to you?

[Xisiqomelir]

@Neighbours

: Let's discuss #2313. Mhork, do you feel it's a fair assessment?

More generally, is the end of the quicktopic approximately how you currently feel about each other?

@Jake

:

@ xis - there is no way we are both telling the truth. Nobody visited safety, I wasn't roleblocked, you claim an inno on safety

It's not possible.

Jake, Safety claimed Mehdi made

no visit

N1. That's not a "no result", that's a negative result.

We aren't No-lynching

Why not NL? This is MyLo assuming 2 scum remaining. There is no worst-case scenario where town loses from an NL, but I'm pretty sure your plan: [lynch me -> vig you when I flip town] is a loss.

@ xis

In vanger mafia you definitely posted more than you have here. You are averaging a post ever 1 and a 1/3 pages. This isn't anything like your town play either.

It's been busy for me this year, but I consider my posting type identical to my Vanger play, in that it focuses primarily on motive, even if the frequency has been lower.

You also said early on that if I was town we were going to "rock the scumtastic again" however you haven't rocked anything.

Why the lack of posting? Where's the rocking?

I correctly tagged Monkey as a survivalist, I correctly identified NumberQ as town, and I'm correctly (I think) pegging you as town and not participating in your 1v1. I did take part in the Mehdi mislynch.

Compared to identifying Whiskers D1, prematurely abandoning my Klick/GARARARR scumread and then double-mislynching in Vanger to lose, I'd say I'm doing at least as well.

@Jal

:

I already explained your motives, Xis.

You most certainly have not. You have a purple as well, you know it does nothing on its own. Tell me what I gain from hiding a powerless card from town.

I just love how you kinda treat Safety like he is still kind of scummy and that he is probably town because... oh wait, in your eyes he should be definitely town.

Don't mistake the escalating interpersonal hostility for an opinion on his alignment. He's firmly town in my opinion.

These are your current town reads: Xis, Jake, Jal, Safety, Jake (one of Mhork and Cheery are scum). Great.

Another thing I have a problem with this game is the fact that I survived last night. I assume that means that scum can interfere with role actions (likely, considering Jake's disputing my visit and SafetyDance disputing Mehdi's) or have at least one investigation-immune member. This is where this quote could be brought up:

Xis copping me on the if-town plan would be great actually, I'd love to hear his result, especially if Jal doesn't shoot.

But I take that as more of a "I dare you to guilty me" than an "I dare you to investigate me".

@SafetyDance

:

@SafetyDance

:

No, explain your 'at least two' comment.

Directed at xis. Sorry.

Lol at you trying to start a discussion with Xis. If we left you two at it for the rest of the day phase you wouldn't get onto an extra page.

For someone who whines about sniping, you're certainly quite the fan of it as a debate tactic, aren't you?

Independently of the investigation, I should probably point out to the game that you're most likely town because you cut and run as scum in my direct experience.

I love the fact that you can spend much time going through other games but can't even be bothered to engage in this game properly. And yes, I consider someone who's been in here since the start who's post count barely outstrips the moderator as not engaging consistently in the game.

It was a valid commented directed at the two of you who have barely engaged in any meaningful discussion all game. Left to your own devices the thread would become a barren wasteland. All game your MO has been to post a bunch of quote walls, post several links and then disappear into the shadows whence you came. When someone makes points towards you, you spam-quote again picking only points you want to talk about and then slink back in shadows, then two days later come back and make some pithy comment about something else.

I will make no apologies for posting comprehensively. I also consider your accusation that I cherry-pick responses scurrilous, given that I answer all questions directed towards me in full. If I've missed one of your sparkling enquiries, I'll be happy to address it.

You're meant to be the cop. What about some actual leading or strong posts. You haven't voted yet so I can only assume based on your own criteria you're not scum hunting, so what gives?

I have made the most pro-town vote possible given that it's potentially MyLo and I have no clear scumread.

Also I wouldn't place too much stock in games with time issues but hey, whatever floats you're boat. I'm off to read Cards Against Humanity.

I don't even understand the purpose of the first part of this. Are you telling me that I'm reading you badly and you are, in fact, scum, all investigations to the contrary?

If you want my full completed game Meta on the site, there's also Inbetweeners and Discworld in addition to CAH, Vanger and our Newbie.

Oh look, there's Virginia. So is he trying to claim it as from mehdi because hmmm

There's no need to insinuate. If you're suggesting I've had Virginia since D3 instead of today as I claim, just say so. You'll be in the fine company of my other investigation. While you're at it, can you supply a reason for this nefarious concealment?

And as a hypothetical, what are your reads out of the uninvestigated side of the playerlist?

Rofl, nefarious concealment? What, you mean like in the post directly below? Haha.

I didn't think that was phrased at all vaguely, but to clarify, I meant my own supposed nefarious concealment of Virginia Ave. Is it safe to assume you don't think that Jake AND Jal AND myself are all scum? If that is the case, then I assume you also agree that a solo purple is powerless. Please explain the scum motivation to conceal a powerless card.

Also:

Wait shh, I need to work this out. TBG had 4 cards before his death so it works out. We know TBG has gotten the vig card over night. I got the railroad. Last purple card had to be given at night

unless

scum switched when they got their cards.

Who ha

s

the missing card?

Xis.

So its pretty clear for anyone with two eyes, yeah, its out in the open you got an extra card night/day three not now. Again, anyone paying attention (the evidence of you hotlinking everywhere suggest you are in fact, at least reading this game) would have SEEN the discussion yesterday about the missing card, one that you did not mention once at all day three.

Mehdi saw the discussion, so did guille and we KNOW right now they are town, so why would they conceal getting the card, there's no town motivation for doing so. So yeah you should really answer that.

To repeat myself, I don't think Mehdi was hiding the card deliberately, I just think he missed it somehow. Since new GNR deed cards arrive in their own PMs, opening each PM in its own tab, then being called away from the computer could lead to missing it if one closed tabs accidentally upon returning. I nearly missed my Red in a similar way today.

And also address the 1v1 instead of deflecting it. You can't get away with that now. It's pretty fucking important and means any other read is irrelevant atm. You have to convince us why you're not lying and why Jake is. Frankly, you're doing a shit job. I don't care that you inno'd me, I think you've been playing scummy since I first replaced in.

There is no 1v1. Jake and I are both town. To suggest that there is would indicate that you are scum since Mehdi claimed to doc TBG and you claimed he lied. I suspected that to be the case, but an investigation has proved you innocent. Ergo, there must be scum interference in the game.

[Xisiqomelir]

EBWOP:

@SafetyDance

:

I love the fact that you can spend much time going through other games but can't even be bothered to engage in this game properly. And yes, I consider someone who's been in here since the start who's post count barely outstrips the moderator as not engaging consistently in the game.

There was nothing to "go through". I was in that game with you.

[Xisiqomelir]

@Mhork

:

@Xis

What do you mean by end of quicktopic? That we both kinda suspect each other? Sure, I guess. It's more numbers, though, and the number of confirmed townies and obv towns leave little room for arguing there.

See below response to Cheery. More generally, what scumreads do you have?

And what do you mean by 'fair assessment'?

Is this accurately portraying your actions this game, or is it not?

pedit - The read of Medhi - not thinking Medhi should be vigged which I understood to be a townread, which happened near the deadline of day 2 - and then he was feeling conflicted of Mehdi in the neighbourhood. Being conflicted about someone I would have thought would make an okay vig kill, to solve having to read the troublesomeness of him. But the statement in thread was telling me Mhork had Mehdi as a town read. (Just checked it; 86% chance a list of people including Mehdi were town)I also didn't really see any attempts to actually read him better from Mhork yesterday anyway, just rejecting my theory that Mehdi was possibly a ninja was really the only talk about Mehdi he joined in with yesterday before he voted)

@Cheery

:

@Neighbours

: More generally, is the end of the quicktopic approximately how you currently feel about each other?

Do you think I would fake something in a neighbourhood I knew someone else would be entering last night? This question seems worthless, of course it's how I feel about Mhork, saying something I think wouldn't be possible would be worthless there or in the thread and against my win condition.

It's more along the lines of "have you solidified your opinion more clearly". I still think Jake is town, so at least one of you is scum, but the QT makes it seem that you both can't be. I have a feeling that the narrative I'm being fed by scumteam is "investigate one more person and then lynch the rest" for town's loss.

@Xis, just to claify something else, when did me being open about the light green card become a town tell to you?

When I got my own. It's clear you were telling the truth about a ridiculous non-ability, which is pro-town to reveal since it would invite suspicion.

[Xisiqomelir]

@Xis, just to claify something else, when did me being open about the light green card become a town tell to you?

When I got my own. It's clear you were telling the truth about a ridiculous non-ability, which is pro-town to reveal since it would invite suspicion.

So you still had me a suspect when you investigated Jal?

I'd say you were a tie for 3rd with SafetyDance.

@Jake

:

@ Xis - why investigate Baby night 1 instead of SC who you were more suspicious of?

Investigating Jal makes no sense either when mehndi or guile were better options.

I said earlier I saw a lurker/xis connection and this claim really sucks. You definitely made it seem like you caught someone when you started the day. Also your comment about nobody slipping makes no sense because you didn't have a guilty.

The only thing keeping me from voting you right now is because if you were scum, why make this claim like that?

My head hurts now

Mafia Theory, but I think it's better to clarify a more ambiguous read than go for a stronger one. I have adopted this consistently for the four investigations I've done on-site.

Discworld Mafia N1, I had Shamrock as top scumspect, but investigated Thor (who was NKed). I then voted Shamrock off the bat D2 and got him lynched (he was town)

Discworld Mafia N2, I had Cherry Nog as top scumspect, but investigated Calcifer and got a guilty.

N1 here, I suspected SC/Cheery most, but investigated Baby because of awkwardness over her "notebook". I voted SC to start the day, but then Monkey's defences unravelled.

Last night, in the end I decided that TBG leaving himself out of his own plan was scummier than Jal wanting to vig her co-wagoners, so I investigated Jal, planning on pushing TBG today.

The NK and investigation make this fairly straightforward for me. We still have the unresolved doc/did-not-doc 1v1 from Mehdi and SafetyDance, and then one of the neighbours is likely scum.

Currently, I'm stuck between you and Mhork. StrangerCoug's performance is weighing down heavily on you here, which I know you can't do anything about, but I consider the actions of former slotholders telling, as in the case of NumberQ/guille.

[Xisiqomelir]

Sigh. Our best bet is NL and set up a security permeter around our townies.

Isn't that optimal play anyway?

I just realized that both possible scum teams have xis as a part of them.

VOTE: Xisquelomir

...

But what about the purple card?

What about it? I received it last night. We all admit, I believe, that it does nothing. Please tell me why I'd hide it from town as any alignment.

And the whole copping Jal was just ridiculous.

I abide by this decision as well.

Question for you, Mhork: If I'm scum, how do you regard my investigation results?

[Xisiqomelir]

Got massacred at work, prod-dodging till tomorrow AM (my time).

A quick note, the statement below appears to be fundamentally incompatible with Jal stating

he

has two railroads:

Safety, I have B&O railroad, so now I have 3, not 2. Remember?

[Xisiqomelir]

Okay, sorry I took longer to get back to this than I thought I would.

@SafetyDance

: I will address you first because I'm assuming you to be town, but I find your tone and attitude is severely damaging to my enjoyment of the game. I know for my part I've certainly been no innocent either in that regard, so I am going to lay off digging at you for style issues in hopes that town can win this game. If you wish to choose to continue to try and provoke fights, that is your prerogative, but I will ignore all such segments of your posts and respond purely to game-related content.

In addition, since you don't like interleaving quotes, I am going to write your entire section Mehdi-style, without them. I'll also separate this part of the post, directed at solely at you, from the rest of town's as a further concession.

I believe this should be a comprehensive response to all the game-related portions of your posts since my #2372:

-Do you believe your "did not see anything" result with regard to Mehdi's Doctoring of TBG is related to Jake's result from watching you last night?
-I have already provided what I believe to be a plausible mechanism for Mehdi forgetting he had Virginia Ave. based on an experience I have already had with the numerous PMs sent by this game. I have no interest in hypothesizing up further ones. If you believe this to be a scum plan on my part, I would ask you, again, why I would attempt to hide a powerless card from town as

any

alignment.
-The neighbourhood QT is very telling of Cheery and Mhork not being of the same alignment. Ergo, I would like to investigate further to ensure we lynch correctly, as this is MyLo in the likely case of 2 scum.
-I have lost my vote for today, so the votecount is correct in showing me not voting
-I deed-counted Mhork last night, the only night I was able to use my light green
-Jake's self-vote, although not pro-town makes no sense from a scum perspective, in my opinion. He really is convinced that he's 1v1ing me, and that as he's town, I must be scum.
-I am not acknowledging this 1v1 because I believe Jake to be town.

[Xisiqomelir]

@Town

:

I still firmly believe that No-lynching and following the same plan we had last night, which resulted in no scum kill, is the best course of action because it places maximal constraint on scum, and will not result in a town loss.

@Jake

:

As for the result on safety, he's obvious putting it in a 1 v 1 scenario and if you recall he tries to argue I was roleblocked which I say I wasn't. Why would he lie about the result? Idk but he's not pushing my lynch even though the evidence suggests its him or me. He'd rather NL and save his ass.

You realize that were your theory correct (scum-me vs town-you, and I'm lying about my role), it would make far more sense for me to fake a guilty on somebody and try to take out a townie? Instead, I revealed exactly what actually happened, and I'm holding on to my townread for you and trying to find an explanation for this discrepancy between actions/results and the Mehdi/Safety actions/results.

if I am wrong, you all can yell at me post game

but from my point of view Xis is confirmed scum and we are in a 1 v 1.

Holding you to this.

@Mhork:

But what about the purple card?

What about it? I received it last night. We all admit, I believe, that it does nothing. Please tell me why I'd hide it from town as any alignment.

Because it actually does do something awesomely scummy and you wanted to hide that fact

? You having it means that Medhi was lying earlier, right? Why would he do that?

Nope, that doesn't fly. We know cards provide the same abilities for all factions:

Spoiler:

#307 I say the eletric company is 1-shot Tracker.

I got boardwalk, it gives me the vigilante power to kill one player each night. I just got this today so I haven't used it yet.

And the whole copping Jal was just ridiculous.

I abide by this decision as well.

Question for you, Mhork: If I'm scum, how do you regard my investigation results?

As safe bets to give the least amount of information possible to the town without looking like you're wasting our time?

Seriously, who cops the uncc'd Vig?

[/quote]

I suppose the answer is "not anyone who'd push a wagon on an un-counterclaimed cop"?

@Cheery Dog

:

@Xis, where would your vote be if you still had it?
Also presuming for a moment you're telling the truth; you have a town read on jake, clears on jal and safety, and a town v scum read on me/mhork, so are you thinking one scum left it godfather?

No Lynch. Aside from the possibility of investigation-immune roles, I've also been wondering if I have a non-normal sanity with only 2/3 Yellows. If I continue to investigate without guilties, I'd suspect that to be the case, have to discard all results, and going purely off play and motive my scumteam would be Mhork+{Safety,You,Jal}.

@Jal

: If these people lynch me before I get to post again, I would ask you to shoot either of the neighbours (Mhork before Cheery were it up to me) ahead of Jake. Or, at the very least, to re-read all the uninvestigated slots before reacting immediately to my townflip. My reads haven't exactly been flawless this game, but I still believe #1482 to have been town-tone from Jake.

[Xisiqomelir]

@Cheery

:

Who is the most likely team should all your results be sane?

Whoever's...investigated guilty?

If you're asking who I think is most likely to be mafia out of the 3 remaining uninvestigated, it's Mhork, then you, then Jake in descending order of suspicion. I'd give the pip to my StrangerCoug heebie-jeebies and assume you and Mhork were trying to fake-out guille in the neighbourhood QT before abandoning my Jake townread. However, I'd still prefer to investigate before lynching if it came down to you and Jake.

@Jal

:

xis - cop mhork

Assuming there is busdriving going on I think copping out of {Mhork,Jake,Cheery} makes more sense. I'd use a randomizing function (or just roll one d6 out of my heaping pile) to make it harder for scumteam.

[Xisiqomelir]

@SafetyDance

:

-To be clear, I regard it as possible, not definite, that only one of the neighbours is scum. This would explain certain things I find peculiar (such as being alive after claiming Cop), a plausible scenario being that scumteam knows town would draw misleading conclusions from the investigations. It is not my top scenario, but I would like to investigate further rather than lynching automatically in the case of getting a guilty tonight, lynching, getting an innocent tomorrow and then condemning the final uninvestigated.
-You are certainly entitled to doubt the

honesty

of players in the game. It's when you cast aspersions upon unrelated subjects that I believe people find the posts grating.
-My full stated mechanism for Mehdi forgetting he had his card is at the bottom of this post, not your quote. As stated, I have no desire to concoct other scenarios, since I am not Mehdi and it would be speculation on my part at best. You still have yet to answer my own hypothetical regarding motive. I would ask that you do so because I don't believe there's a case where either Mehdi or myself could profit from such an action as any alignment, indicating that the slip was accidental.
-Intense bussing can and does happen on this site. See this game where scum was double-bussed and then self-hammered on D2.
-I believe I voted No Lynch very early this Day, as well as stating my reasons for doing so.

[Xisiqomelir]

Will post tonight my time.

[Xisiqomelir]

I'm not interested in lynching anyone today, FTR.

Jake, you've called confscum on three people now. That doesn't add up.

[Xisiqomelir]

No, I never called safety conf.scum. I only called you/cheery conf.scum.

Nice try though

This reads pretty confscum to me considering you said he scumslipped:

You just scum slipped.

If you honestly thought I was scum you would not be glad I unvoted. Your reactions indicate you know I'm town.

Xis/safety works.

Also:

So our options

1. I lied to frame both of then (but me pushing on safety and saying I don't think xis/cheery are scum together don't really fit this scenario )

2. They are both lying to set me up which is fine by me cause if I get lynched Ill flip town and Jal shoots 1 and you lynch the other (assuming no manipulative role)

I'll point out, again, that even mildly optimised scumplay here on my part would be to try and push you somehow to get a mislynch today.

But...I'm pretty sure you're town, I know I'm town, and so I'll reiterate that NLing is the way to go

[Xisiqomelir]

Jake, I'll repeat again that I got an "innocent", not a "no result". So if anyone was messed with of the two of us, I doubt it was me.

[Xisiqomelir]

Determined both the investigation and card-counting targets by randomizing (out of 3 for investigation and out of 5 for card-counting).

Copping Lord Mhork: G

Card-counted Jal: Jal had at least 2 cards

Will vote Mhork if watching/tracking results reveal no interference.

[Xisiqomelir]

Determined both the investigation and card-counting targets by randomizing (out of 3 for investigation and out of 5 for card-counting).

Copping Lord Mhork: G

Card-counted Jal: Jal had at least 2 cards

Will vote Mhork if watching/tracking results reveal no interference.

As someone who tracked you last night, why don't I see either of those actions? (or any action whatsoever)

Deed counter has been confirmed to count as a visit (at least to watches) who saw mine in action night 1, I don't see trackers not being the same.

I assume they are the same, so this is problematic. I'd like to hear SafetyDance's results before I begin hypothesizing.

Even if all investigation results have to be discarded, however, I'd prefer Mhork as today's lynch just based on his Neighbourhood activity level last night in contrast with his on-site posting rate.

@Xis, how much detail have your results gone into when you have got your results I didn't see you getting.

For copping:
N1 my action was described, and a result was given
N2 my action was described, and a result was given
N3 my action was described, and a result was given
N4 my action was described, but the language changed, and a result was given

For card-counting:
N3 my action was described, and a result was given
N4 my action was described, but the language changed, and a result was given

The changed language N4 was much briefer. The earlier nights re-stated the ability on my cards, but the N4 descriptions used site vernacular to describe them ("examination" vs "scoping", "count to verify a minimum of X" vs "count" to paraphrase)

[Xisiqomelir]

All right, I'm going to go with my investigation.

VOTE: Lord Mhork

The final scumpartner is a tough one. Jake is my least likely possibility, which defaults to Cheery assuming I wasn't interfered with N3. SafetyDance would be better served as scum feigning results rather than this, I think.

[Xisiqomelir]

I received Park Place.

@town

: Willing to blap tonight or not as requested.

[Xisiqomelir]

That's cute. I like how you waited to test the waters before committing to your 'guilty' investigation.

Mhork you're going to have to do a lot better than this. To add to the questions you have unanswered from every player slot alive I'll ask why you didn't bother posting last night in the Neighbourhood..

I received Park Place.

@town

: Willing to blap tonight or not as requested.

What does your Park Place do?

101% scumskimming.

@SafetyDance

:

Oh wow, fantastic responses.

I didn't really expect apathy but I suppose its de rigour for this game.

Knock it off, please. Your nonsensical stance of being some sort of fount of content in contrast to everyone else was tiresome in the past few days, but with you performing a gamethrowingly-bad total nonaction last night and having the tied lowest postcount today it's just brazen hypocrisy.

Not game-related:

It's "

de rigueur

"

Actually, I'm curious Xis, why would you randomise cop investigation? Deed-counter I can understand but investigation someone, the night of lylo, and you leave that up to chance?

I telegraphed this in the neighbourhood, hoping that either Cheery or (more likely) Mhork would be discombobulated if scum interference relied on shifting targets. Either of them can confirm this.

If I'd guiltied either Jake or Cheery I'd of course be pushing them, but if I'd inno'd either I'd probably have gone for Mhork today as well.

@Jake

:

oh so what jal said wasn't true, I knew was right doubting that claim, but what I don't get is why did she say it if she is town.

He was probably just confused. The "ability improvement" (paraphrasing) box looks like a different role for the yellows. It's also possible that the card redistribution is prioritized over the flip in the setup.

And:

I agree with the xis vote

Account for this please. Explain the entire set of scum-Xis actions, votes and investigation results from D1 to now.

Do you think Mhork is town?

[Xisiqomelir]

@Cheery

: I realize you have Jake as last-scum, but can you explain why he'd relinquish his stance yesterday to NL?

@Jake

: I'd like you to explain to me how you think Mhork is town. I'd also like you to explain away the lack of any counterclaim for town investigative this game, a necessity if your stance is that I'm lying about my role, given the lack of anything but temporary town protective. Do you think watching/tracking/vigging alone is appropriate for town power in a theme mini?

@SafetyDance

:

Firstly, its an expression of surprise that the only one to mention it was you. And you didn't seem to care one way or the other. So yes, I am a bit surprised. Jake for instance, has every reason to be as angry at me for no NA as he does at Jal's lack of play yesterday. The rest of the comment is because yeah, the last two days its seemed like very few has given a fuck, yesterday was like trying to get blood out of a stone. I guess now I can include myself in that overnight but doesn't change the facts of other things though.

The only nonsensical person here is you. For instance for someone so devoid in activity and content, you've been remarkably busy very only on today. That's quite an intriguing inconsistency. So I'd check any glasshouses you're currently sitting in before trying to throw any rocks.

I still have to get around your play and playing style. I don't think its very helpful to town, I don't think in general you've been pro-town at all, the way you've explained things don't make me feel any better about your slot. So I've got to try and figure this out if I choose to proceed with lynching Mhork. Do I just ignore this nagging voice.

I am serious. You have absolutely zero basis for even pretending to have standing to chide any town player this game. To not act the night before LyLo with 2 observational roles is shocking, and verges on the prospect of being a scum ruse were there not better utility for scum by falsifying results.

You're meant to be a cop, you're not meant to investigate based on a dice role or a coin flip. Mentioning it in the QT doesn't mean anything and that's not a reason why you'd forego any reads you've meant to have built up over four days play.

Two points in response to this:

1) Telegraphing the move in the QT is certainly the correct action if scum interference relies on target shifting. By this point, I'd hope it's obvious that that either an interfering scum role exists, or there is a deficiency in the observational powers, given the numerous discrepancies between observation and declared night actions.

2) Randomizing out of a very small pool is not detrimental.

Unless you don't have any.

Regarding my reads: I find Mhork to be scum independently of my result, as stated. As someone who's been critiquing my posting, I'd invite you to examine our joint ISO and see how you feel about it.

The LyLo tomorrow will be hard. I'd have said Cheery, as mentioned before, but as a scumbuddy of Mhork it makes no sense for him to take my side when his observational result contradicts my stated night actions. I've read Jake as town all game, but "I'd vote Mhork but I will vote Xis" is extremely peculiar, as you've noted.

I've investigated you innocent, but there was this post which I find ever more disturbing:

Xis copping me on the if-town plan would be great actually, I'd love to hear his result, especially if Jal doesn't shoot.

I'll freely admit that antipathy might be colouring my perspective here. I am trying to remain as dispassionate as possible.

There is also the remote possibility that Mhork is the final scum. This might explain Jal being the only killer the night guille was shot, and this comment:

Really? Playing against my win con? That's nice.

I have a question for you: Assuming the optimistic case of lynching Mhork tonight and me dying unobserved for a 3-man LyLo of {SafetyDance,Cheery Dog,Jake from State Farm}, how would you be initially inclined to vote? What would you examine in more detail upon re-reading?

VOTE: Medhi

I really don't care at this point. Town has a won game. Just lynch someone so the power roles can do their thing.

@town

:

Also I'm gonna point out the balance issue with mafia getting the Vig shot. Why would they get two kills?

102% scumskimming.

@mod, are mafia able to kill and use deed actions in the same night?

~Sort of. One person can't kill and use deed actions in the same night, but as a team, they can.~
~Note: By "as a team" I mean 1 person may kill, the other uses THEIR OWN cards. Mafia (or anyone for that matter) cannot trade cards to other people~

[Xisiqomelir]

EBWOP: This is the correct Mhork quote:

Really? Playing against my win con? That's nice.

VOTE: Medhi

I really don't care at this point. Town has a won game. Just lynch someone so the power roles can do their thing.

And this was my question to SafetyDance:

I have a question for you: Assuming the optimistic case of lynching Mhork tonight and me dying unobserved for a 3-man LyLo of {SafetyDance,Cheery Dog,Jake from State Farm}, how would you be initially inclined to vote? What would you examine in more detail upon re-reading?

[Xisiqomelir]

Vote xis

while mhork's play has been pretty bad, the evidence suggests that Xis is scum.

Jake are you even serious.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: xis

GG. I'm amazed you came from behind with Lurker and Mhork for buddies, tbh.

[Xisiqomelir]

EBWOP:

What

evidence, Jake?

[Xisiqomelir]

p- edit: lots of it, that I had covered over and over again. I'm not re-hashing it now

-I "lied" about copping Safety, except there'd been a hojillion other contradictions between night actions and observations
-I "lied" about receiving the purple, except it has no power and Mehdi didn't care about this game at all

Urgh.

[Xisiqomelir]

You're a cool mod, GNR. I did enjoy your set-up.

[Xisiqomelir]

guille why did you just meekly acquiesce to being vigged?

[Xisiqomelir]

Xis why did you not claim the purple card day 3?

[Xisiqomelir]

Players didn't trust me.

Um

Also, this is ridiculous:

VOTE: guille

NumberQ was town.

Sorry for being so late to the party, but I'm all caught up now.

I have one question: Why did Lurker's claim make so many people back off? So, what, he says he's a watcher and suddenly you believe him?

What about his post-claim actions changed your mind?

Also, take a look at the mini-theme queue, at the post that introduces Monopoly Mafia. I didn't find this info in the first post of this thread. It says that deeds are randomized AFTER alignments are given. Lurker could be a watcher, but also scum.

Lurker:

Before the claim, his content amounted to an analysis of his own wagon (though unless I read it wrong he didn't even supply any opinions of his own), a case on Mhork (which is weak, but that's already been discussed), and a few statements that almost sound like the beginnings of some investigation but stop before they go anywhere (see: 76, 89).

Then he claimed, and for some reason people forgot that the game explicitly stated that cards (ie, powers) are randomized after alignment assignments, meaning alignment has nothing to do with powers. On top of that, the claim was strange because he waited until someone specifically asked him about it to mention his Watcher role.

Post-claim Lurker has been IIoA and a promise to look at the SC issue, though he's posted since that promise without having looked at the issue.

....

So yeah Lurker should be lynched.

VOTE: Lurker

That's well ahead of either Lurker's slip in #656 or Jal's catch in #674.

[Xisiqomelir]

Xis why did you not claim the purple card day 3?

I think Medhi is asking is why didn't you say you had the purple card when everyone was saying that whoever has the purple card is scum!

How could I claim a card I didn't have?

[Xisiqomelir]

So I looked for Virginia among my 23 PMs for this game and it did come in at Jan 24th (aka N2). I apologize for impugning your honesty post-mortem Mehdi.

This is what happened (I see Jal sussed it in the deadthread):

To repeat myself, I don't think Mehdi was hiding the card deliberately, I just think he missed it somehow. Since new GNR deed cards arrive in their own PMs, opening each PM in its own tab, then being called away from the computer could lead to missing it if one closed tabs accidentally upon returning. I nearly missed my Red in a similar way today.

[Xisiqomelir]

This is when you received the card. So you did have it when we were discussing, who had it.

Jake I hope you're not going to act as though your own PM management was very good this game.

[Xisiqomelir]

Deleting a pm and asking for the mod to resend it is completely different than forgetting to tell people you had a card and tried to put the blame on the dead guy who couldn't defend himself.

Was this part of your "evidence"?

[Xisiqomelir]

I've mislynched myself in LyLo to lose recently, so really I should be more understanding, but it's just so annoying after successfully avoiding a not-1v1 to fall flat in an actual 1v1 as an uncounterclaimed cop with a guilty.

I'm going to stop giving tagouts a free ride. This is 2/2 in our joint games now where I laid off when I should've pushed harder.