Mini #509: Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers, Game Over!

[dybeck]

vote: FlameAxe

[dybeck]

vote: FlameAxe

See, it was new and exciting when originality did that, now it's dull and derivative..

Any reason you're choosing to be the first to double-up a vote?

Yes. It's because I know categorically within the first page of this game that FlameAxe is scum. I could tell you all his scumbuddies too but I thought that might detract from the fun of it all.

[dybeck]

I'm curious... why do we hate originality?

[dybeck]

vote: FlameAxe

See, it was new and exciting when originality did that, now it's dull and derivative..

Any reason you're choosing to be the first to double-up a vote?

Yes. It's because I know categorically within the first page of this game that FlameAxe is scum. I could tell you all his scumbuddies too but I thought that might detract from the fun of it all.

Team asshat has nothing to do with this game, don't make like it seem like it does. My Asshat partner and I will determine when it will be necessary to make that change.

Team asshat is that thing that you do where you act like a dick, get everyone to vote for you and then back down?

I can hardly wait.

[dybeck]

Is there a site record for the quickest quicklynch ever? If so give me a nudge and I'll hammer

[dybeck]

I guess we can start by discussing the theme of this game and see if we can figure out what kind of roles we might be looking at.

I'm old enough to remember the MMPR show when it was popular, but I was too old even then for the show to appeal to me. I read up on my character at least, but that's about it. Petroleumjelly did mention that any character to ever appear at least once is a potential candidate, so that gives scum plenty of fodder for false claims.

But it's a safe bet to assume that there are at least five scum: The Power Rangers (Red, Blue, Yellow, Pink, Black). 5 scum to 7 town seems to be a likely ratio.

Any one have any ideas as to the possibility of SKs? Or is anyone willing to admit real familiarity with the theme?

I'm pretty familiar with early Power Rangers. I'm also familiar with game setup balance and I can tell you categorically that there is not a 5-man mafia team here. At least, let's hope not, because if there is, we're at lynch-or-lose.

I would also advise that we should not be speculating any further, simply because 1) someone will go "OMG he's rolefishing" and lynch you, and 2) The mod has completely covered his bases.

Also, way to give away the fact that you have a named character role.

[dybeck]

damn... my quote tags are messed up. That quote was obviously an unright quote.

[dybeck]

FOS: unright

. I have my eye on you.

[dybeck]

FOS: unright

. I have my eye on you.

Care to share why?

He's admitted to not being a townie. Maybe he's a power role. Maybe not. But I have my eye on him.

[dybeck]

Read post 108 again. And then I suggest we drop the subject.

[dybeck]

Then keep reading post 108. He thought this game had 12 unique characters in it.

He would not think that if he was a Putty townie.

Read that post until you get it. And let me know, so we can move on and discuss something else.

[dybeck]

It doesn't mean he's scum. It means he's not a vanilla townie, and it means I'm gonna watch him. As I said.

So... get back to work.

[dybeck]

Well, it's entirely up to you. I personally think we should close the topic of your power role/scum role. I think you've blown more than enough information for the time being.

However, feel free to tell us more. I'm all ears. It sounds like a wonderful strategy.

[dybeck]

$200 says that at least one of Peers and Unright is scum.

vote: Unright

[dybeck]

Peers, do you think that anything you've said so far has been remotely helpful?

[dybeck]

I really don't think you can pin the outing of power roles on originality.

FOS: PlaysWithSquirrels

[dybeck]

If you look at what's actually been revealed, it's that two people accidentally revealed that they weren't townies, and then partially or completely backtracked to cover their error.

Not townie != power role.

Not townie = power role OR scum.

I hugely doubt that both of these players are power roles. The fact that they're now both backtracking, to a lesser or greater extent, makes these two worthy of further investigation.

Your attempt to derail this line of enquiry has been noted.

[dybeck]

You suggested that we shouldn't have pointed out Peers' slip. When, in fact, that's exactly what we need to do.

[dybeck]

That's reassured me of Unright's pro-town credentials.

[dybeck]

That's reassured me of Unright's pro-town credentials.

Good to know. You've yet to reassure me of yours.

It was sarcasm. The fact that you jumped on the first passing bandwagon with such relish was not, amazingly, a strong town tell.

[dybeck]

1. Unright
2. Peers
3. Everybody else.

[dybeck]

Sarcastic single focus tactics are my thing.

Ask originality

[dybeck]

This game is slow slow slow. What happens if I

unvote, vote: Peers

?

[dybeck]

What happened to Lynch All Liars?

Lynch all Liars is a way to prevent people from gambiting in the future, pretty much in the same way you wanted to lynch Avalon to get rid of the jokewagon. However, these LAL lynches often result in mislynches, and LAL is by no means a viable strategy.

Au contraire. LAL works on the premise that there are precious few reasons why anyone would lie in a game of mafia unless they were scum. (Doctors claiming townie is the common exception). However, normally if you catch someone in a lie, you should lynch them. And 95% of the time you'll be delighted that you did.

It doesn't really apply in this case - because I don't think a real lie has been told. But, y'know, you oughta get the facts right.

[dybeck]

It doesn't really apply in this case - because I don't think a real lie has been told.

A lie

has

been told, but it's not a lie that's worthy of a lynch, and in this case, it's not even scummy. Thinking LAL doesn't apply or thinking LAL does apply but isn't a tactic that's always good is a matter of opinion, I guess.

What lie are you referring to?

[dybeck]

Fact is, Unright

does

have an avatar, and therefore, whether intentional or not, this is a lie.

Au contraire (encore un fois).

Intentional, it is a lie. Unintentional, it is an error.

Either way, you are clutching at the worlds flimsiest straw.

[dybeck]

Certainly your being obnoxious has turned this thread into the Flameaxe and Peers show.

If you're not scum, you want to be doing a little bit more subtle listening and prying, and a little less gibbering crap at each other.

Actually, if you're scum that would be good advice too.

[dybeck]

Seriously though Flameaxe... you don't help your side by getting yourself lynched.

I also agree that people shouldn't lynch you just because you have poor people skills - but this is the way the site works and you have to learn that you need to get used to it or your side will continue to lose games.

[dybeck]

I don't think you're

trying

to get yourself lynched.

However, the end result of being a tit is that your lynch tends to happen more often than not.

That's the facts of life, son.

As I've already pointed out, if people weren't spending so much time talking to you about how unhelpful you are, they'd be spending a lot more time hunting scum.

This is what people mean. And you can rant and rave "No! Stop! It's my playstyle!" all you like, but it's really not helpful. Do you think your behaviour finds you scum? Does it keep you alive? I mean... what are you actually achieving? Are you just trying to be "quirky"? Do you see yourself as the site's "rebel without a cause"?

Grow up.

[dybeck]

Yeah OK. I guess he'll learn in the end.

So yeah... about lynching Unright and Peers.

[dybeck]

unvote

for now.

Peers lied to the town, and that grates REALLY badly with me. I've already stated my opinion about liars. But my gut tells me he might just be awful. Let me think.

[dybeck]

I unvoted for a defence. I've seen nothing that makes me happy not to still have a vote at this stage.

Unright still deserves closer scrutiny, but for today,

vote: Peers

.

Lynch all Liars vote.

[dybeck]

Peers. You deliberately tried to mislead. You lied. You can argue that you're not scum. But you lied. You are claiming that you argued that we could all have power roles when you flat knew that couldn't be the case.

As it happens

, I've reflected and

1) I don't think this day needs to end just yet.
2) My gut says Unright. And my gut is usually right.

unvote, vote: Unright

[dybeck]

The only thing I'm wondering is what your role is. I don't want you to tell me - I think I'll figure it out. So just sit tight and I'll lynch you/not lynch you once I've decided.

You've told us that you're not a townie. Let's see what else we can eliminate.

And by the way, Unright, I like you just fine. This is nothing personal.

[dybeck]

You hate my vote on Unright despite the fact he's in your top scum list, with you quoting the exact same reasons as I did?

Way to make sense, bob.

[dybeck]

EBWOP: and if you are refering to me "Quoting" post 393...it wasn't even there when I started to write my post.

I wasn't. I was pointing out that you cited the same reasons as I did back when I originally voted Unright, a long way back.

[dybeck]

I still think Unright deserves a third-way bandwagon.

[dybeck]

I'm sorry, but I still can't see how Peers could be a scum, and I don't know how anyone could still think so at this point. I know he hasn't been acting like a townie should, but I think scums would react in much another way than Peers did. I'm not going to vote him, nor would I like to see him being lynched.
The case against Jmar isn't very concrete, but still his posts resemble those of a scum much more than Peers'. He's been trying to stay under the radar, and his L-1 vote (IIRC) on Peers was very opportunistic, in my opinion.

CES is right. There is still time for a third way bandwagon.

Do you remember back in the beginning when Unright accidentally admitted to not being town? This is where we should be looking.

[dybeck]

FOS: UltimaAvalon

for misrepresentation.

Peers, try to post something less whiny. Like, why don't you tell us who you think is scum?

[dybeck]

MOD:

can we have prods on non-players please?

[dybeck]

As for prodding "non-players", it's your job to tell Rita who is not playing, not her job to find them.

Well... when Rita's game fails due to lack of participation, Rita will know who to blame. Because it can't have escaped Rita's attention that only about three people are posting anything significant in this game.

[dybeck]

[dybeck]

Don't be idiots.

It's OK for CES to be of the opinion that Peers is not scum. Just because you've all comvinced yourself Peers is scum doesn't mean that there's no room to question it.

You should take a long look at your reasons and try to come to terms with the fact that you're actually pointing the finger (at both Peers and CES) out of a complete lack of information, rather than because you've actually spotted scumtells.

[dybeck]

unvote, vote: originality

Seems a decent third way lynch to me.

[dybeck]

Hey gang... sorry I forgot about you all.

So anyway, Unright is still scum just like he was yesterday.

vote: Unright

[dybeck]

Unright's confession of not being a townie still warrants more investigation.

[dybeck]

dybeck, by "warrants more investigation" do you mean bandwagoning to get a claim?

Bandwagoning yes.

[dybeck]

Unless anyone has a better idea to get this game moving?

[dybeck]

Might as well. Nobody else seems to be posting.

[dybeck]

I'd like to take a poll: who here wants Unright to just claim now?

My personal opinion on this is undecided.

We need something meaty to discuss - a topic that will divide the town down the middle.

An Unright claim would be such a topic.

[dybeck]

a topic that will divide the town down the middle.

I agree we need something to discuss, but this part confuses me... why do we want the town divided?

We need to see people's colors so that we have some info for tomorrow.

What we need is a decent-sized bandwagon.

[dybeck]

Or, alternatively, we could actually do that whole discussing thing today. Dybeck, do you feel like finally responding to my question about whether or not you think Unright shoud claim?

I think I answered this. If not, my answer is that we should bandwagon him and see what happens. Whether or not he chooses to claim, and the nature of his claim, are the info we require.

[dybeck]

I really find it hard to get excited about the originality wagon.

And I OWE him a lynching (j/k, orig)

Can someone please summarise the case for his lynch VERY succinctly for me?

[dybeck]

Okay, I realise you didn't ask me, Originality, but I thought I'd weigh in anyway.

First, this is scummy:

Oh crap, I didn't see he already had two votes on him. unvote

Why do you care if you're the third vote on someone? If you think they're scummy enough to pressure with a vote, then three votes don't matter, do they?

You point out Peers (town) and then post this:

Why are you guys ganging up on Peers? Now I bad for pointing him out. Let's not forget that the mafia will do whatever they can to lynch a possible powerrole, so FoS everyone against Peers for crappy reasons.

A bit odd. Why are you defending him? Why not just say it's risky to lynch a powerrole and leave it at that? Seems a bit too certain Peers is town.

And this:

Nope, he had 3 votes in him already, with me it would make it 4. When I say I hadn't seen he already had two votes I meant the votes on the previous page, because one of them was right above me. There was no sense of me putting him at -3.

But you thought you were putting him at L-4, didn't you? Or did you think you were putting him at L-3?

I jumped off because there were too many votes on the dude, why would I keep my vote on him, its not like he had anything substantial against him anyway.

So why vote him in the first place? And why is a third vote (you did think it was a third vote, right? or was it the fourth vote? Do you remember what you said?) too many votes?

He might not have been dangerously close to a lynch, but why would I keep a fourth vote on someone I don't find especially suspicious? Now if he had some sort of case against him thats a different story, but it was a pressure thing anyway, and 3 votes are enough for some pressure.

But remember, you thought yours was the third vote when you unvoted... I know it's hard to remember what lies you've told.

Blight catches this (plus town points for Blight!):

And you thought your vote was the third one. So, why unvote?

Because I had just gone back and looked at the last postcount, which to my surprise showed that there was one vote more then I had previously thought. Pretty implied. Did you even read my unvoting post? It says there, "I didn't see the votes". You then are supposed use logic to understand that I did see them later.

This doesn't make sense. You said you thought it was the second vote (Oh crap, I didn't see he already had two votes on him)... so... why wouldn't you correct Blight on this, if you were telling the truth earlier? And you explain this to Blight by quoting yourself? It's a nonexplanation. It's a discrepancy. It's a lie.

Tries to set up a lynch for the next day on Cogito Ergo Sum:

If Peers came out town, then a mafia CES would be a good possibility, as it seems as if he is trying to build credibility for himself on the town's eyes by supporting someone he knows for a fact to be town, which would explain his strong conviction. Something to remark is how CES defends Peers so much in these final moments when its 90% sure Peers is going to be lynched.

And this weird appeal to emotion about Flameaxe:

Far from an unreasonable assumption. He kept going after me for (crappy imho) reasons yesterday, now he finds crappy reasons against me today. I just don't see how what I'm doing is scummy. How is it weird me saying what you quoted when he keeps going after me? I'm not implying that he literally doesn't like me personally and wants me dead, it is a figure of speech if thats not obvious. Still, even if I was trying to imply a weird feud thing between me and him, you cannot say "I'm not getting this at all". Has he been doing anything other then try to find reasons against me? You could say that you thought it was rather unlikely or something, but completely turn a blind eye on something like that is too much ignoring facts on your part.

Flameaxe may be picking on you, Originality, but I think I've made a pretty good case against you using your own words. So try to think of it as you picking on you.

Did nobody read this and think "Actually, the case against originality IS a bit shaky after all..."?

Is this what we call mob mentality? I mean... seriously... some of this is quite a reach...

[dybeck]

Anyone who's ever played Mafia before would have spotted Peers was town once he started defending himself.

Had Peers been scum, he would have carried on lying about his alignment. He would have accepted that he'd let the not-townie thing slip out, and made a new lie.

The fact that he was so eager to tell the truth that he had to admit to his own error and softclaim, even though he was setting himself up for lynch, was his Putty giveaway.

CES will explain this better than I have.

He's the only person who's on the ball in this entire town, and the rest of you would be better served by paying attention to him than by trying to lynch him.

Now. Let's get Unright replaced so we can get some answers from his replacement.

[dybeck]

Anyone who's ever played Mafia before would have spotted Peers was town once he started defending himself.

Even though I couldn't agree more, it's a little odd that you say this, while you were on the Peers wagon too IIRC.

I pretty much started the Peers wagon. But I climbed off once it became unlikely he was town. Although you could argue that not bloody-mindedly sticking to my guns is pretty out of character for me

[dybeck]

Except it is, you are just 'retarded'.

You're wrong, Flameaxe.

The post you refer to appears to be completely inoccuous.

[dybeck]

Albert... are you on crack? You've come up with about half a dozen implausible theories since you arrived - and that really hasn't been very long.

The other thing that strikes me as odd is that you're not normally such an outspoken player when you're town.

Just to be clear... did you just claim vanilla townie? Are you reserving the right to claim so at a future date, as did the late Peers?

[dybeck]

Also... this avatar or the scaredy kitten? I love this but I'm concerned that nobody gets the reference.

[dybeck]

We know that Putty Patrollers exist in this game. But we do not know if both Peers and Avalon were in fact patrollers. The first post says they were, but this could be a limited reveal game, where any townie who dies, regardless of actual role, could be labeled by the mod as patroller. While this scenerio is not very likely, it is possible, and shouldn't be thrown out right away.

I'm sorry, but I'm instantly suspicious of anybody who proposes scenarios that are this implausible. Please let's not clutter the discussion with suggestions like this. It actually

should

be thrown out immediately, and we should return our focus to the matter of finding scum. The whole idea of proposing that the mod is lying to us, without a shred of supporting evidence, is nonsense.

FOS: Mirth

[dybeck]

I'm not saying the mod is lying, I'm saying there is a possibility of limited reveal on death. I don't see how its too much of a stretch, actually and I'm not totally discounting it. Why? Well, in Mini 487 when someone died, all we found out was alignment and name, but not actual role. We knew someone was town, but not what kind of town, so the deaths were all ability blind. I don't see why a similar thing would be too much of a stretch here. Albert, you, yourself, say that they might have had character names. Why would you consider that, if you're sure this is a full reveal game and both dead players are clearly marked Putty Patroller? For the same reason I'm considering that death might not be completely open, since Peer's claim to have a name was really weird, considering that once he died, he came out Putty. It could be just a mistake on his part where he said something he didn't mean, or it could be a case of limited reveal, we don't know. And Dybeck, it disturbs me that you're willing to write off any possibility at all. I see nothing wrong with spouting theory. I acknowledge that it is not very likely, but if its not 100% confirmed-impossible, I'm not discounting anything.

I suppose you might not be scummy. I'm not discounting the possibility that you're a total idiot. But honestly, your supposed "possible" scenario is not occurring in this game. Bury it.

[dybeck]

unvote, vote: Flameaxe

.

One good reason why not?

[dybeck]

Voting him has proven elsewhere to make him more coherent. Let's see what he's trying to hide with this play acting.

[dybeck]

You didn't actually answer my question, you know. I didn't ask why you voted him. I asked why you voted him *now* as opposed to some earlier point in time, since he's been keeping this nonsense up.

Being annoying is not the same as being scum. However, we should encourage him to help the town, and a small bandwagon will focus his mind. It would be helpful to us to have Flameaxe make a pro-town contribution, if that is what he is.

Encouraging him in his childishness is not the way forward. Put him on the back foot so we can get a true picture of his colours, because all we're seeing at the moment is him being silly.

Albert: Could you please repeat your question for me?

[dybeck]

I believe promoting a bandwagon on your ass to find out your alignment and/or get some sense from you

will

help the scumhunting effort.

Messing around and trying to annoy people instead of actually playing the game properly is likely to yield far less in the way of results. In fact, if it annoys people to the point where they don't particularly have an interest in visiting this thread, your 'playstyle' becomes counterproductive.

[dybeck]

See how coherent you've become? I honestly thought it would require more than a one-man bandwagon.

I look forward to your analysis! And welcome to the game

Now that's sorted, we can resume normal business.

unvote, vote: Unright

[dybeck]

Flameaxe: Could you give us the edited highlights of that posts - perhaps pick out the posts that strike you as particularly scummy?

It's about time we had a bandwagon candidate that will enable us to see the colors of the people in this town.

TSQ, CES, jmar, bookitty, DrippingGoofball: What do you think about the latest bandwagon? Am I scum? Opinions people!

[dybeck]

It occurs that I've not been particularly forthcoming with my opinions so far, whilst I've called repeatedly for others to show their colors. So that you get an idea of where I am, for now:

I'm 90% sure originality is town. We've just finished a game together in which he will have observed that, once riled, I can be a very easy lynch target. No doubt some of you will have also uncovered this fact. His complete failure to jump aboard my bandwagon despite having been online at the most opportune time to do so makes me think that he's not scum.

It's tough to get a read on Flameaxe when he's an ass all the time, regardless of alignment. I'd still encourage the rest of you not to give him encouragement, although I gather that for those of you for whom I'm a lynch target, it's unlikely you'll follow my advice.

Mirth and Bookitty do seem to be actively scumhunting, which certainly counts in their favour.

Jmar, I'm not sure about. No real reason to suspect, and I think the wagon on him was flawed, and based upon flimsy 'evidence' - but I don't see any overwhelmingly town behaviour, and I may still join it at a later date. It's been a while since any real analysis from him, and I'd like to see more - particular his response to my wagon.

The fact that Albert and Unright are the same person had passed me by. Unright's unnecessary softclaim, along with Albert's overenthusiastic, defensive and desperate bandwagon-jumping sets off my scumdar. I'm pretty happy with my vote for now.

We also need to hear more from the others. You'll find that there are scum in the shadows here.

[dybeck]

No, read it. I say which are scummy. I'm not doing the work for you, this is your job to pick apart the case against you, not the person that made it.

Sorry, buddy. If you want a rebuttal, make a coherent case. Most of what you've written about me in that long post looks OK to me. Although I must admit I only scanned it - it's pretty long.

[dybeck]

Dybeck: is there a reason why everything you type doesnt really say anything new and/or productive?

I don't really agree with the premise of your question.

[dybeck]

It occurs that I've not been particularly forthcoming with my opinions so far, whilst I've called repeatedly for others to show their colors. So that you get an idea of where I am, for now:

I'm 90% sure originality is town. We've just finished a game together in which he will have observed that, once riled, I can be a very easy lynch target. No doubt some of you will have also uncovered this fact. His complete failure to jump aboard my bandwagon despite having been online at the most opportune time to do so makes me think that he's not scum.

It's tough to get a read on Flameaxe when he's an ass all the time, regardless of alignment. I'd still encourage the rest of you not to give him encouragement, although I gather that for those of you for whom I'm a lynch target, it's unlikely you'll follow my advice.

Mirth and Bookitty do seem to be actively scumhunting, which certainly counts in their favour.

Jmar, I'm not sure about. No real reason to suspect, and I think the wagon on him was flawed, and based upon flimsy 'evidence' - but I don't see any overwhelmingly town behaviour, and I may still join it at a later date. It's been a while since any real analysis from him, and I'd like to see more - particular his response to my wagon.

The fact that Albert and Unright are the same person had passed me by. Unright's unnecessary softclaim, along with Albert's overenthusiastic, defensive and desperate bandwagon-jumping sets off my scumdar. I'm pretty happy with my vote for now.

We also need to hear more from the others. You'll find that there are scum in the shadows here.

Just read back a little more, and was reminded that CES is almost certainly town also. For the reasons I think I posted some way back.

[dybeck]

As to dybeck's list of suspicion, I'm not liking how he's writing pretty much everyone except Unright/Albert and Flameaxe as probably town.

This particular piece of misrepresentation is totally beneath you. I clearly stated that there are two people I think are town, one that I think is scum, and the rest I'm not sure about.

I question why you would lie to make a town player look like scum. Why would this be?

[dybeck]

Where did I lie? As far as I'm concerned, "no reason to suspect," which was your wording = writing people off as probably town.

I beg your pardon. I had no idea about the extent to which you fail at the English language.

That and I want a decent reaction out of you, since you don't like to answer questions the way that they are posed to you.

If you're referring to your question about my posts being unproductive, I disagree with the premise. My posts have single-handedly gotten this town not only talking, but divided down the middle, which is exactly what we needed. By the start of tomorrow, we'll have a pretty good idea who's scum, and it'll be entirely down to me.

So no, I disagree that I have done nothing productive. This game was dwindling beyond salvage. I salvaged it. So there. I know I've done the right thing by this town, and I know it was always a possibility that I'd get lynched for it. I believe that all the idiots that were going to jump my wagon have already done so, however.

Your accusation, by the way, since it came out as a pro-town claim, bothers me even more. You have no reason to call yourself a pro-town player at this point in time. Premature town claims bother me. Writing off someone as 90% on day two *really* bothers me. There are only three ways you could possibly know that someone is town. And you don't want to be admitting to any of them. Posting a list of not-suspicion (which is what your post pretty much is, except for your mistrust of Flameaxe and your continuted pursuit of Unright/Albert), doesn't really help anyone. Obvious reasons why.

There's a world of difference between an assertion that I'm protown and a claim. We're ALL asserting that we're protown. My statement conceded no information. A claim concedes information. It's entirely different.

Mod:

we require a vote count.

All: I'm actually closer to lynch than you think. Do not vote me unless you're certain you know where it leaves me.

Anyone who votes under the guise of "Oh dear... I had no idea that would be a hammer" should ALWAYS be lynched.

[dybeck]

jmar is scum with dybeck. This is truth. Lets follow though on this one guys.

This post has nothing to do with the fact that we're the two thst have been on your case? Give me a break.

[dybeck]

I will have limited access over the Christmas period.

[dybeck]

CES, considering we were so of a mind earlier in the day, you seem to have switched to bandwagon-hopping very quickly.

Any special reason?

[dybeck]

Therefore, the only way peers saying "I retain the right to claim putty if need be." and then ACTUALLY doing so, is if he were actually vanilla townie. As soon as I saw that, I was 100% sure peers was a townie, and I was so fucking frustrated as you all lynched him. CES was the only one who picked up on that, and thus I am happy to consider him strongly town.

Actually, you'll note that I picked up on this too. When I tried to explain this earlier today, I believe I said that someone would post the same thing more eloquently than I. Thanks for doing so!

[dybeck]

Sorry... forgot about this game over xmas etc...

I'm heartened to see that you've all started looking at other lynch candidates in my absence, though.

I sense that my lynch is inevitable now, but I suspect that you have a lot for tomorrow. You may have the following pearls from me now.

1) I am a Putty Patroller townie. And no, this is not the strongest possible claim.
2) It's worth listening to Bookitty, whom I believe to be town.
3) The loudest players in this game are not the smartest. Those better players that are not contributing need to talk a lot more. I'm talking about CES and thestatusquo in particular, but there are others.
4) I know I have a temptation to think anyone voting for me is scum, but I will strongly assert that Albert B. Rampage is scum, and I would urge the cop to investigate him tonight. Particularly note the scumminess of his predecessor.

I'm around now to answer any questions, if you have any more.

[dybeck]

Flameaxe, we know that Albert is EITHER scum OR a power role.

If he's scum, investigating is a good thing.

If he's a power-role and he's not investigated, there's every chance that he'll be lynched. He's an objectionable player - the kind who are lynched far more often than quiet lurkers. If he's investigated, at least we get to give the cop the opportunity to save him if he (the cop) decides it's worth his coming out.

The cop doesn't need to follow my advice, but I think it's worth offering my opinion, for those reasons.

You're quoting "OMG cop-directing = scumtell" without actually thinking it through. It just makes you sound like you've smelled blood and are looking for an easy lynch. You can't just rely on scumtells that you've read about without thinking them through.

[dybeck]

3) The loudest players in this game are not the smartest. Those better players that are not contributing need to talk a lot more.

This needs to be reiterated based upon today's posts, also.

[dybeck]

Flameaxe, Albert, since nobody else is around I'll play with you guys for a second.

Three questions.

1) What do you think of each other's pro-town credentials?
2) If I get lynched and turn out to be town, who will you be going after tomorrow?
3) If I get lynched and turn out to be scum, who will you be going after tomorrow?

[dybeck]

mod: can we have prods on originalty and jmar please?

Originality and Jmar, would you give me a list of everyone in the town, ranked from most town to most scummy?

[dybeck]

There are one or two wagons I'd support if I can't persuade the rest of the town to lynch Albert. Right now, Mirth is not one of them.

Albert's jumping on a new target the moment he realises that someone respectable expresses the remotest bit of support for his previous target does not fill me with any more confidence in him.

Albert, what do you think of Flameaxe? What about TSQ? What about Jmar?

[dybeck]

Albert, I think I've stated my reasons for voting you too clearly now for you to call it an OMGUS vote.

However, if you liked me for OMGUSing so far, you will love this:

6)Albert B. Rampage < (im pretty divided here)

Originality thinks Albert is scummy, but not at the top of his list. He implicitly reserves the right to vote Albert if his wagon catches hold, whilst being able to say afterwards that he told us he was feeling "pretty divided" about him. Furthermore, he's so concerned about how his opinion of Albert might be perceived that he singles him out for further comment.

This is classic scumbuddy behaviour, and I'll be looking at originality very carefully if Albert turns out scum. Originality is new enough to this game to have made such a clear error. Somebody back me up on this as a real scumtell and not something I made up?

Originality, what in particular leads you to put DG so high on your list?

[dybeck]

Dude. You're not townie. There's approximately 3 scum and 3 powerroles left.

On pure chance alone that gives a 50% chance you're scum.

The fact that you're acting so scummy makes you an excellent choice for a lynch.

[dybeck]

@Bookitty: When I said that there were one or two players whose wagon I could support, I basically meant Jmar.

I'm not ecstatic about the 'evidence' against him, but his tone so far makes me a little uncomfortable.

[dybeck]

@Orig: Thanks. And thanks for reminding me that DG is PWS, who was pretty odd now you mention it.

[dybeck]

@Flameaxe: Does Albert seem to be acting how you'd expect a pro-town power role would play? When I'm a pro-town power role, I tend to keep quiet until I have some info to divulge. that way, I don't get myself prematurely lynched.

[dybeck]

Comments on stuff:

Dybeck, post 1028: why are you trying to direct the cop?

Dybeck: why do you think there are 3 scum and 3 powers roles left. We don't know any of that

Mirth, this is a pretty crap post considering how long we've waited. Both your questions on me, at least, are facile. And furthermore, the answers are already both in thread.

However, I'm interested to know where you're going with these points that you've brought up out of context. My first suspicion is that you just didn't bother taking much notice of everything that's happened since your last post of substance, but I'm prepared to be proven wrong.

[dybeck]

Again, Dybeck: Why didn't you claim when you were at L-1 (and posted repeatedly), but did you when there was hardly any pressure on you at all?

There's more to the game of mafia than playing by the numbers, CES. You actually need to look at the actual consequence of actions, and not play by rules you've learned by rote.

Your question is in two parts.

Why not claim at L-1?

Claiming at L-1 (was I ever actually at L-1?) would have done me no good, since my claim is so weak. I believe it would allow the final scum/poor town to jump the wagon, using the "Oh well, a townie is no big loss" excuse, allowing him to start the day tomorrow with no additional scrutiny.

Why claim when the pressure was off?

Waiting until that point is usually a good idea, because oftentimes new posts and new information will mean that the claim becomes unnecessary and, as a consequence, scum don't gain the additional information that the claim provides. However, when it's clear that no new information is being posted, and conversation is dead in the water, the inevitable consequence is an apathy lynch which, again, provides no new info for the morning.

On an aside, you may be interested to know that I'm cooling on Albert as a lynch, since I noticed that Unright's claim was Day 1, and not Day 2.

It seems unlikely, knowing that we have a player who's either scum or a power role, that he wasn't investigated last night. If the cop had found him guilty, I wouldn't necessarily expect him to come out, but I would expect him to be on Albert's case today. The possibilities of this are, then:

1) The cop is an idiot - and didn't investigate Albert or has no inclination to get his guilty target lynched.
2) We don't have a cop.
3) Albert really is a powerrole.

I appreciate that 1 and 2 are possible, but perhaps no more likely than 3. I've also appreciated that my speculation that, if Albert were a powerrole, he would be less vocal and aggressive, would also be true if he were mafia.

I'm not yet sure what to do about all of this, and I'm aware it's a complete turnaround (which I'm sure will make somebody shout "scumtell!", but I think it's worth putting out there for discussion.

unvote

, for now. I may change my mind back shortly, but I'd like to gather thoughts before I carry on.

[dybeck]

EBWOP:

unvote

[dybeck]

Flameaxe, are you scum?

[dybeck]

lol

[dybeck]

Your question is in two parts.

Why not claim at L-1?

Claiming at L-1 (was I ever actually at L-1?) would have done me no good, since my claim is so weak. I believe it would allow the final scum/poor town to jump the wagon, using the "Oh well, a townie is no big loss" excuse, allowing him to start the day tomorrow with no additional scrutiny.

I'm not sure I agree there. If anyone attempted to jump on a wagon on the grounds of "oh even if he is just a townie its no big loss" they'd be incriminating themselves before a lynch and possibly changing the target of said lynch.

Therein lies the rub. I suppose it's academic now, but I'm not sure that anyone

would

pick them up on it, unless it was done in a horrifically obvious way.

[dybeck]

Also, I'd request the mod doesn't add a deadline while we have a new player, and while conversation is this healthy.

[dybeck]

By which Albert means he will be away next week.

Presumably, he also means that he has no comments about the most recent activity in this thread.

[dybeck]

Flameaxe... if you're stuck for any useful contribution you could always answer my questions from before?

[quote="Dybeck"]Flameaxe, Albert, since nobody else is around I'll play with you guys for a second.

Three questions.

1) What do you think of each other's pro-town credentials?
2) If I get lynched and turn out to be town, who will you be going after tomorrow?
3) If I get lynched and turn out to be scum, who will you be going after tomorrow? [/qoute]

[dybeck]

Yeah so what? Loads of people probably can't spell 'quote'.

[dybeck]

I don't see a good reason to ask 3, Dybeck. What difference does the answer to this make to you if you're not scum? Serious question.

No offence, Bookitty, but what you "don't see" about scumhunting could fill a library.

Not one of you yet has a good read on Flameaxe, and all the time you let him get away with one-word answers, and support his policy of not answering questions, you will continue to not get a read on him. Tell me - is he town or scum? I don't know. And nor do you. And nor

will

you whilst you support his policy of not showing his colors.

This game is about getting reads on people. Remember that.

[dybeck]

It's nasty being L-1 when your wagon is mostly town.

I'm sure you won't find any problems getting a hammer. I hope you've learned some stuff about mafia anyway.

[dybeck]

It's nasty being L-1 when your wagon is mostly town.

I'm sure you won't find any problems getting a hammer. I hope you've learned some stuff about mafia anyway.

For whom is this post intended?

Anyone who thinks they can spot a scumtell, but doesn't think before they post

[dybeck]

The order of the day tomorrow needs to be this:

1) Pressure jmar. I don't think you'll regret it. However, you do need to LISTEN to his responses and not keep heading down the lynch path even if it becomes clear that he's town. The fact that he's gone into hiding once the spotlight is well and truly off him is suspicious in the extreme.

2) Find out whether TSQ is defending me because he's spotted something town in my play, or whether he has access to some info that you don't. Because, if he does, he's almost certainly scum.

3) You need to investigate Albert. It's just not safe to have him around. If nobody looks like they want to lynch him tomorrow, it's probably safe to say that he's town. What you can't afford to do is to mis-lynch a power role tomorrow.

4) Don't forget that DG went into hiding in the same way as Jmar. Pressure his replacement for info, and listen to his responses.

5) Ask more direct questions, and pin people to their answers. The more info you get, the more chance you have of finding a contradiction later.

6) Don't listen to the mob! There's almost as many scum as town! If you think you're right, post it!

[dybeck]

Sorry for the brief absence. Life got a little hectic over the past few days.

post 1095: ...dybeck, how would you know the alignment of your wagon?

Because I've taken time out to challenge everyone I've had suspicions about, and listened to the answers that I got. Try it out yourself, and you'll get a much clearer idea of who the scum are.

The scum are not primarily those on my wagon, and I know it through scumhunting.

[dybeck]

You guys do remember that the entire case against me boils down to the fact that my early posts weren't putting enough effort into the game, right?

That, and Flameaxe repeatedly saying "OMG we must lynch Dybeck".

Is that pretty much about it? Is this the reason that we've let players like Jmar off scot-free?

Prove me wrong, Flameaxe? I'd like to see what happens when you actually try and build a case against someone, actually.