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

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Research has proved that OMGUS is not a scum tell.

Therefore,

OMGUS Vote PlayswithSquirrels

.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Unvote PlayswithSquirrels, Vote UltimaAvalon

Only 3 more, guys!

Also

FoS Flameaxe

for morphing.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Ugh, we need more people.

If this wagon doesn't work out I'll switch to Flameaxe.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

I do not like that you just put a furth vote on Avalon for no reason. Please explain yourself.

Because we should lynch him.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

I also get the impression you don't fully understand the random phase.

We should lynch UltimaAvalon nonetheless.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

I also get the impression you don't fully understand the random phase.

!

We should lynch UltimaAvalon nonetheless.

!

A quicklynch is also good for impatient people with awesome night actions, so there's really no downside to it.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

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

We're already on page three, and there have been several page 1 lynches on this site, so I guess we failed

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Mirth: How do you plan on being helpful by saying things and then admit they're pointless.

I liked Avalon's wagon way better than this.

Avalon and Unright are very townish.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

CES: why do you think Avalon and Unright are townish? And if you do why is your vote still on Avalon?

Gut.
I also thought I unvoted Avalon, but I might be wrong.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

I was thinking the '6th' ranger could possibly be an SK. Don't really know anything about the setup though. 5 scum could be possible, but I think it'd be much too hard to balance that out.

Unright isn't looking so townish anymore.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

If he suggested that there might be no vanillas in this game, then by default he has to be one of those non-vanillas, otherwise his theory is invalid.

Why exactly did you feel the need to point that out in the first place?

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

This game makes me want to tear out PlaysWithSquirrels' hair.

Peers is indeed backtracking a lot. Me no likey.

Unvote, FoS Peers

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Unvote, FoS Peers

UnFoS, Vote Peers

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

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

unvote

Third person on a wagon is likely to be mafia (+15)

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

I was aware that it wasn't a completely serious bandwagon, I just happen to not have a sense of humor. Especially when probability tells me that at least one person who was on that bandwagon is probably scum.

This doesn't have anything to do with probability. You don't know how many scums are in the game, and even if you knew, this argument doesn't make sense at all. If there was one scum on the wagon, that means two scum (assuming there are 3 scum total, which seems to be the usual number in mini's) weren't on the wagon, and that means the people not wagonning have a higher probability of being scum. I also don't see why the possibility of a scum being on the wagon makes you wary of the wagon itself. Do you honestly believe anyone on the wagon was ever intent on lynching Avalon? Because I'm pretty sure you don't. Let's face it: Votes have no practical value whatsoever if they're not actually used to lynch someone.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

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.

I'll do a quick reread, and make my list of suspicious people.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

EBWOP: Might get myself an avatar while I'm at it.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

.... wow. Given how I'd heard it talked about here and elsewhere, I figured it was pretty much a hard-and-fast rule people go by.

Sometimes getting caught in a certain lie makes people look really bad, and worthy of being lynched, but lynching any liar's not really effective.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Okay, here's my list.

Scummy

Originality

- Originality's posts have been vague all the time, and he seems to be trying hard to falsely link and distance himself from people. His defense against the accusations was sometimes contradicting, and using sarcasm when attacked is scummy in my book.

Peers

- Peers has been acting scummy overall, his backtracking after the 'role' claim was awful, and attacking FlameAxe for a supposedly genuine mistake doesn't look so good either. Peers sarcasticly defending himself, and some of his posts are contradicting.

Jmar

- Jmar hasn't been really helpful, and I actually think PWS brought up a decent point against him. I also get the impression that he's somehow linked to Peers when reading some of his posts. Apart from that, Jmar is mostly high up the list because of gut.

Mirth

- Mirth is trying too hard to stay away from any bandwagon. IIRC, Mirth hasn't voted anyone all game (except for a random vote).

Blight

- Blight hasn't been very active, but when he does post, he seems to be bandwagonning most of the time.

Killerbob

- Killerbob's hardly posted, but the posts he did make seem decent.

Dybeck

- Overall, I get a townish feeling from Dybeck, but pointing out a powerclaim and some minor points give me a strange feeling.

Unright

- I don't like post 177, and the wishy-washy voting, but overall I get a townish feeling from his posts. The fact quite some people suddenly put him high on their list also is a point to his advantage, IMO.

PlaysWithSquirrels

- He's been acting townish. Stimulating discussion in a good was, as opposed to Mirth.

Flameaxe

- The only strike against him is post 39. Apart from that, he's been acting townish.

UltimaAvalon

- Most townish player.

Townish

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

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.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

I mistook you two, nothing more, nothing less. (neither of you have avatars, fix it, and that doesn't happen anymore.)

Fact is, Unright

does

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

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Au contraire (encore un fois).

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

Hmm.. perhaps you are right. I should've said 'untruth' instead of lie. I don't know anything about Flameaxe's intentions, but at this point I'm pretty sure it was indeed an error.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Aaand,

Unvote

, since Peers is no longer on top of my scumlist.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

It was hypothetical. I reserve the right to claim Putty as my role in the future.

I don't think Peers would've ever said this if he wasn't in fact a townie, and I believe his claim. He completely messed up, but I wouldn't want to lynch him at this point. I'd rather look at Jmar, who believed that Peers' statement was hypothetical at the time he posted it, but now that Peers is close to being lynched, sees it as a contradiction.

Vote JMar

.

Could someone please unvote Peers so we don't wind up accidentally ending the day early?

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Also note that Vanilla Townies tend to play more aggressively.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

So...you're saying this is potentially a fight between three Vanillas?

Not necessarily. I just think that Peers' play (not only the aggressiveness but also the backtracking), although it's afwul, makes sense.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

If my vote count is correct, that's 5 on him, but mod, can we get a vote count please?

Your votecount is incorrect. Peers is currently being voted by UA, Blight, Flameaxe, Mirth, Originality and you. That's 6, and Lynch -1.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

CES, why defend Peers?

Because I think his play makes sense as townie, whereas less so as a scum. And I don't want townies to get lynched.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Bump to get above closed threads.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

I'd like a claim from Jmar before the deadline.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

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.

Mod:

I won't be able to post a lot in the next few days. Sorry for that. I hope I'll be less busy when day 2 starts.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

You don't remember correctly. When I voted, I said it put him at L-2 if I counted correctly. Then you said it was L-1 and I was wrong. Then we discussed it and came to the conclusion it was L-2 (though Peers kept saying it was almost "hammer" for some reason).

That was because UA unvoted in a quote. At that point, it wasn't sure if the mod would count the unvote, and I think saying it's L-2 while the mod could very well count it as a L-1 is scummy.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

As for your other reasons, I wouldn't say going head-to-head with Peers is really staying "under the radar." I mean, if Peers ends up being town for some reason I'm pretty much a dead man.

You didn't go head-to-head with Peers. Me and PWS voted for you when Peers was almost lynched, and now there's a deadline one of you is probably going to get lynched. That's why you guys vote each other. [quote="jmar"
You admit the case against me isn't very concrete, but you're voting anyways. I don't quite understand that logic, but hey, you're free to vote as you please. All I can do is respond.[/quote]So does the case have to be concrete for me to vote you? I said before it's mostly gut that makes me think you're scum, and I think that's a perfectly valid reason.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

As for your other reasons, I wouldn't say going head-to-head with Peers is really staying "under the radar." I mean, if Peers ends up being town for some reason I'm pretty much a dead man.

You didn't go head-to-head with Peers. Me and PWS voted for you when Peers was almost lynched, and now there's a deadline one of you is probably going to get lynched. That's why you guys vote each other.

You admit the case against me isn't very concrete, but you're voting anyways. I don't quite understand that logic, but hey, you're free to vote as you please. All I can do is respond.

So does the case have to be concrete for me to vote you? I said before it's mostly gut that makes me think you're scum, and I think that's a perfectly valid reason.[/quote]

----
Fixed quote tags. Sorry for the double post.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

PEERS!

HAMMAH!

DO IT NAO!

How is someone hammering himself

ever

good for the town?

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

This game hurts.

Anyway, I'm glad Flameaxe unvoted. I'd be up for an Originality lynch as well.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

CES why are you so set against lynching Peers?

As I said several times before, I'm fully convinced Peers is town, simply because I can't imagine him playing like this if he were scum.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Of course it's okay for him to be of that opinion, but his defense of him and his willingness to lynch basically anybody other than Peers is what makes me suspicious personally.

No basically anybody. The only people I'd want to lynch today are you and Originality. You were the two on top of my scumlist (with Peers, back then), and the two of you still are. I never said I'd want to lynch anybody, so stop putting words in my mouth.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Not a lack of information. CES is saying he is convinced Peers is town because he "can't imagine scum playing that way." The problem here isn't that CES is defending Peers, it's how he chooses to defend Peers. He's making a blanket statement that he doesnt think Peers is scum even though Peers isn't playing well. He's not trying to justify this statement, he just keeps repeating it. Look back at his posts and notice that he doesn't try to back-up his support of Peers with quotes from Peers' posts that might suggest townishness. (The only post he quoted in his defense of Peers was the reserve the right to claim putty post). Yet before this he was very suspicious of Peers, and then turned around almost without warning and started defending him. I'm curious as to why. I'm don't know if CES is scum, but his defense does not make sense to me, and thus I'm going to be suspicious of him until I'm given reason not to be.

I already said I didn't have much time right now to post a lot, so I won't be able to make a case or defend someone properly. Aside from that, I already told it was mostly gut. Peers' play fits perfectly with that of a vanilla townie, and I see no reason why relatively inexperienced scums would draw this much attention to themselves on day one (I'm referring to the flame between Peers and FlameAxe/UA. I also said I was wary because people jumped on his wagon so fast. I just haven't got the time to do a PBPA, but I think I've given enough reason not to vote Peers right now.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

I like how CES says he is "fully convinced Peers is town" while the only evidence he manages to produce is "I don't think scum would play that way". wifom anyone?

I get the impression you don't have any idea what WIFOM is. Also, isn't the way someone plays (like scum or town) the

only

reason to lynch someone. On day one, at least. I've given several arguments why I think Peers isn't playing like scum.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

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.

Note that I stopped Peers from being lynched in the first place. The votes only piled up again after a deadline was set. And since it appears that there aren't even 7 people who want to vote Peers right now, there's still a chance he's not going to get lynched. In fact, Jmar's had more votes than Peers after I started defending the latter.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Unvote, Vote Originality

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

This: In my experience, stubbornness=mafia.[/quote]If this were true, I don't see why you didn't vote Peers, UA or Flameaxe before.

Ok seriously now: I'll go over how tomorrow's events might affect CES

Trying to set up chainlynches?

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Vote Originality

to put it where I left it at the end of yesterday.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

I'll react to the Unright case as soon as he's given his own explanation.

Seriously, I think the reason UA got NKd was because they thought he was annoying.

I'm wondering how exactly you came to this conclusion.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Well.. I pretty much figured so too, and I don't think Unright's really looking worse right now because of the nightkill. UA is, although annoying, a good player, and most people thought he was fairly townish.

Also:

So...you're saying this is potentially a fight between three Vanillas?

I think UA gave the impression he wasn't a Putty Patroller here.

I'd rather think scums would tend to leave annoying people alive. I think it's pretty clear that some people's annoyance pretty much screwed the town up yesterday.

Originality doesn't make much sense, and I think he's doing so to try and make Unright look bad. No unvote here.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

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.

First of all, I have no personal bias against you whatsoever. Sorry for my behavior against you. However, I

am

pursuing you because I think you're scum, and tbh, I think that's a pretty valid reason. Ofcourse, the fact you made unreasonable assumptions regarding the nightkill wouldn't alone be enough for a vote, but together with the reasons I gave yesterday, I'm feeling perfectly fine about my vote. If you think my reasons are crappy, so be it. You have the opportunity to defend yourself against them, if you can.

But lets reason for a second. Unright is proposing that he could have been protected by a doctor. Really, if you were scum, would you not attack the person that made a clear claim of powerrole instead of someone who you think might be a powerrole?

Unright did claim a powerrole, and he was the only one. I don't think it's unreasonable to think the doctor protected him last night, wether he's mafia or not. Also, I don't think the mafia would risk losing the nightkill, and killed someone they were sure wasn't going to be protected.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Also, question for CES: why were you so sure of Peers' alignment?

I believe this is the third time you're asking this, Mirth, and I'm unable to explain it any better than I already have.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Guys?

Guys?

Guys?

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

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

I do. Wagon Originality.

Meh, I guess I'd even vote Unright to get this game going, but I'd rather wagon Originality.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

CES, care to elaborate?

Well.. I just happen to believe Originality is by far the best lynch at this moment. I've stated my points against him already, but I could recap them if you want.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

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

My personal opinion on this is undecided.

It's a little frustrating that you ask other people for opinions and explanations all the time, but don't give all that many of your own..

Anyway, I'm against an Unright claim, because I'd rather wagon Originality first. However, there's no majority that wants to lynch either of them, and there will probably never be a majority until activity picks up. I'm afraid something like a claim would be one of the few things that could make this game more active. I guess I'll wait for some others to check in.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

My excuses to everyone. I was unable to post for a few days, and I forgot to notice PJ beforehand.

Another thing thing I noticed is that CES seemed to be setting himself to look good knowing there would be a mislynch. =scummy.

It wasn't certain at all that Peers was going to be lynched. If anything, I turned the tide when I started defending Peers, bringing more attention to Jmar's scumminess. At some point, he even had more votes than Peers, but somehow people hopped back on Peers' wagon when the deadline was set (this is actually a point against Jmar, now I think of it).

Also, I know scum often try to save a soon-to-be-mislynched townie, but I wonder how you think a townie that has faith in the innocence of someone about to be lynched would act.

The suggestion I didn't give an explanation is false. I said I didn't have the time to give an in-depth analysis of Peers' posts, but I gave pretty much every reason I had for me to think Peers was a Putty Patroller. Apparently, people are too lazy to read back and try to find out what I mean, rather than repeatedly asking clarification (looking at Mirth here). It's been suggested several times that I didn't (and don't) explain myself, while I believe I have.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

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.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

No, your defense of Peers is a point against you and not Jmar because the attack on Jmar was insubstantial and had pretty much nothing to go on. I've read back, and I don't see much of a reason for your defense of Peers. Maybe I'll read back yet again sometime this weekend, but I'm pretty sure that that's not going to change the fact that you don't provide solid reasoning.

I didn't say that my defense of Peers was a point against Jmar. I said the fact Peers' wagon, rather than Jmar's wagon, grew the most after the deadline was set. It's not the same. Not at all.
Also, I wonder why several people unvoted and voted Jmar if the wagon truely had nothing to go on.

Also, CES, give me one good reason why I shouldn't change my vote to you?

*rolleyes*

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Also, I wonder why several people unvoted and voted Jmar if the wagon truely had nothing to go on.

Scum hoping to appear clean once Peers went down? Hmm... I should reread this part.

Again, it wasn't certain that Peers was going to get lynched. I've said this several times. Your wagon was bigger than Peers' for a while, and our lynch target wasn't yet decided.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Much easier, for me. CES indicates that he would like a quicklynch (I think this was humour) and explains it thusly: "A quicklynch is also good for impatient people with awesome night actions, so there's really no downside to it."

This statement has no sense to it:

I liked Avalon's wagon way better than this.

Avalon and Unright are very townish.

This indeed, made no sense. I was just wagonning UA for the hell of it. It was just part of the random phase. I did think UA and Unright were townish at that point, though.

What do you think the advantage to scum is, to softclaim a power role? Do you think it's more or less likely that someone would be lynched, having softclaimed such a role?

Perhaps claiming a power role could draw doc-protection, but I don't think it would be advantageous for a scum to claim so. It increases the chance of being investigated, killed by an SK, pressed for claim. So if a scum claimed power, I think it'd be by accident. The likeliness of that person being lynched mostly depends on that person's claim.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

What seemed to fit perfectly with vanilla town in Peers' play, in your opinion?

It was hypothetical. I reserve the right to claim Putty as my role in the future. I was simply saying, we have no proof there are multiple putties in teh game; just because a generic Putty role was posted doesn't mean it's being used. Except, of course, for those who received it.

This post

screamed

'I'm vanilla'. Peers wouldn't have backtracked if he wasn't a Putty. He also says there's no proof there are

multiple

Putty's in the game, which could hint at the fact he knows about one putty.
That's pretty much it. Also the recklessness in his play led me to believe he was a vanilla townie, although this is indeed speculative.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Do you still feel JMar is likely scum? What connections do you see between Originality and JMar, if that is the case?

Yes, I do. I think Originality is a better target right now, but Jmar's certainly one of my top suspects. Come to think of it, my list of top suspects only consists of Originality and Jmar. I haven't found a connection between them, though.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

What is the case against JMar, exactly? I just reread the game again (as is probably evident) and I still am not seeing it.

I actually thought the point PWS brought up was a decent one. Jmar hardly made any informative posts early in the game, and then accused someone else of not being productive. It was quite OMGUSy, too. Jmar hardly gave his opinion on anything on day 1, other than his OMGUS-crusade on PWS and the fact he wanted Peers lynched. Anything he's said about others was inconclusive, and even his top3 scumlist wasn't really informative for that matter. For the rest, it was gut, as I said. The case on Jmar may have not been very good, as I admitted, but I thought it was better than Peers'.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

CES: you didn't give me a good reason not to vote you, I'm waiting for one. Really, I am.

Basically because there's no good reason to think I'm scum. You've been wary when it came to voting people all game, but you want to vote me because I defended a townie and because I didn't explain my actions well enough. I'm trying to give my reasons, but your questionaires honestly upset me. As for defending Peers, I've been accused of being his scumbuddy as well as defending a townie to make me look good, so I guess people would've come after me regardless of Peers' alignment. If I think someone who's town is about to get lynched, I defend that person. Abstaining from a wagon and seeing that person get lynched, although I see people doing it more often than defending someone, isn't really optimal play, IMO.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

This is what I still don't understand, and probably why I got rather pissed off at PWS. Reread the game. The first 4-5 pages are senseless jokes and a self-bandwagon by UA. I tried to comment on what I thought was relevant to the game, but having never played with UA before (All I could gather was it was tradition or something?) I honestly didn't know what the hell was going on. I was still here and wanted to get the game rolling, so I tried to contribute, but didn't really have much to say (admittedly, those posts are rather pointless). Shortly thereafter, PWS, a person who had all of 2 posts at that point with about as much useful information as mine did, accuses me of not being productive. If calling him a hypocrite is being "OMGUSy," I guess I'm guilty, but I find senseless bandwagon pushing among the scummiest moves possible in mafia, and PWS' bandwagon was screaming it.

I did reread the game, and I agree that there wasn't much meritfull discussion in the first few pages, but I still believe there was more you could've said than you did. That's hardly a point. However, you continued this trend when the game went on up until the point where you got wagonned. PWS was indeed a hypocrite, but that doesn't mean that his points are faulty. The OMGUS-part of this was that you voted for him, not the fact you called him a hypocrite. I also think his attack wasn't senseless. He was clearly stimulating discussion, and although his case wasn't strong, it was the best he said he had at that moment, which is understandable, seeing as we were still in the random phase more or less.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Now then, I'm thinking we either have 4 or 3. Which breaks down into the following possibilities:
4 mafia
3 mafia, 1 SK
3 mafia
2 mafia 1 SK

An SK makes life harder for both the mafia and the town, so I think 2 mafia 1 SK isn't really balanced. A game with 4 mafioso would probably be balanced against the town, so it's probably 3 mafioso and possibly an SK, just like in most mini's.

Now then, I'm hesitant to buy that we have an SK due to 1 night kill, *but* because of Unrights half-claim, I can't rule that possibility out for obvious reasons that if you don't understand already, I'm not going to explain them. It's als interesting that the game started off with a day phase...so that would suggest a heavier scum loading. </speculation>

Day start doesn't really indicate a heavier scum loading, I think. I just makes the game less swingy, which, at best, could hint at there being an SK. But mostly it's just conventional.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Hmph.. All these replacements are confusing me.

And holy crap Mirth. What the hell are you doing?

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

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

Oh, man. This makes you look so stupid.
Don't think you're scum, though.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Flameaxe, your comments are useless without posts to refer to. Nobody in their right mind is going to go through and match up your comments to the posts because that's stupid. All of a sudden it sounds like you don't agree with any of dybecks posts, so why did you just vote him now if he's been so scummy the entire time?

Well, I guess that makes me stupid. Rereading dybeck's posts using the user search function is quite easy. And a post-by-post analysis means you go over all posts. Although most of them aren't really important, not mentioning most posts might give a wrong impression of the person you're PBPA'ing.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Hmm..

I guess I'd like a claim from Dybeck.

Unvote

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Just sayin' that if dybeck doesn't claim, I'll vote him, so that technically makes it L-1.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

You, sir, better explain yourself. But I don't think you'll be able to, since you've been unhelpful all game so far and mostly ignoring your partner.

Frankly, I'm tired with this game and I'm glad we finally found a player to focus on. Now unless you want to draw attention away from

your

partner, get your vote back on dybeck before you stall the day some more.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Who are your top three suspects? It doesn't have to be in order, I'm just interested in getting an idea of whom you find to be scummiest.

I think I made this pretty clear already, but my opinion's changed a little lately. I've found Originality and Jmar the two scummiest players by far all game, but, mainly because those two dropped off the radar, I'm looking at Mirth and Dybeck more now.

That said,

Vote Dybeck

. Mirth may be trying to take the pressure off his wagon (top-suspecting Dybeck but yet unvoting him when he's at the point where he should claim?), but he shouldn't get away.

Also, I think we should hammer dybeck after Christmas if he hasn't claimed by then.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

And I think you need to answer my question about why you all of a sudden out of the blue decided to vote dybeck considering the fact that you were defending him not more than 5 posts ago.

1) I already answered your question.
2) I wasn't defending dybeck. I said I didn't think he was scum. My opinion changed.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Because hardly anyone seemed interested in pursuing Originality or Jmar anymore, I figured I'd look into Dybeck, because he was being wagoned, and came to the conclusion I actually kinda liked your case. That and the fact I think we would be much more productive if we actually focused on one player, instead of, well, not focusing on one player.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Unvote, Vote Jmar

I can't believe Dybeck got away with not claiming.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

First of all, I'm not going to argue about the Peers lynch because CES was on that bandwagon at first. Then he switched rather arbitrarily without really giving a good justification.

I repeatedly said that I would've wanted to lynch Peers if he'd claimed anything but vanilla, but he didn't so I switched off. Please stop saying I didn't give an explanation, while I repeatedly did so.

I still don't really see why y'all think Jmar is suspicious. I'd feel more comfortable lynching Originality or Dybeck, and if Originality isn't going to be around, then probably Dybeck.

Then why exactly did you unvote him when he was in claim range?

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

So.. we gonna lynch Dybeck or Jmar? Can't do both.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

READ the interaction. Everytime there is the slightest bit of suspicion on JMar, Mirth is there to derail the pressure.

Thing is, Mirth derailed pretty much everything anyone did this game.

Unvote

Pseudo Vote Dybeck & Jmar

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

I'm not really unable to make up my mind, I'm just fine with lynching any of the three (Dybeck, Jmar, Originality).

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

This "I'm right because I said so" business is unacceptable. What are you going to blame if we mislynch ? Oh, sorry guys, I must have made a mistake during me re-read 3 weeks ago.

Bullshit is this.

Everyone

who voted for someone's lynch is accountable for that lynch. After all, you're the one who decided to vote that person, resulting in that person's death. A voter is accountable, wether he/she presented a case or not. If you guys looked for yourself and then decide wether jmar is worthy of being voted for instead of only agreeing/disagreeing with others, things might just go quite a lot smoother.
TSQ thinks Jmar is the best player to vote, and therefore he votes Jmar. Now, the fact he doesn't give us a 'case' right now means people are less likely to give their attention to Jmar, but the fact he didn't present one doesn't mean that there aren't any possible points against Jmar. I think TSQ is lazy for not saying what exactly makes him want to vote Jmar (although he gave an analysis a few pages ago), but I think the rest of you is most definitely lazy for not doing anything at all, but just waiting for TSQ to present something for you to agree/disagree with.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Hmm, the way Dybeck came out with his claim is a little odd.. But somehow it looks like one can't vote him after that without looking horribly scummy. So I'm a little torn on Dybeck's claim.

I do not ever want to vote ABR, though. If the fact there's a 50% chance he's scum is the best point against him, I'd rather lynch someone else, who I believe to have a higher percentage. Also, if we're wrong on ABR, we lynch a powerrole. And making him claim would only out one of our powerroles if he's indeed scum. I'm not willing to follow that lead until there's more solid evidence. Until that point, I'm not voting him. I also think ABR's been playing quite townish since he replaced in.

I'm still suspicious of Originality, although I must admit I like his recent posts. And, as TSQ said, it wouldn't provide as much information as a Jmar lynch.

Vote Jmar

. Dybeck and Originality aren't highest priority today, I guess, but if there's a vig to help us out, I'd like to propose 'second lynching' Dybeck.

@ Dybeck: Why were you so reluctant to claim when you were at L-1?

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

CES: you can't vote someone claiming vanilla without looking scummy? Since when are vanilla claims 100% infalliable?

Never said this.
I said

the way

he claimed, not

what

he claimed. And by that I particularly mean 'my lynch today is inevitable', because it's not true, but it does make everyone voting him after the claim look like opportunistic scum, while the case on him is actually quite legit.

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?

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

CES, then I must have misread the original post then. Why do you think it makes people voting him look like scum?

Because he unnecessarily comes out with a weak claim and says his lynch is inevitable. This makes everyone who then votes him look like opportunistic scum.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

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.

This isn't true. Using a claim as the only point against a person is wrong, and unless someone's caught falseclaiming, lynching someone like that would be a point against someone. I think if someone doesn't claim, that person should be hammered unclaimed. In fact, I would've liked to see you get hammered, if only Mirth didn't derail your wagon.

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.

I don't see how the claim provides less information to the scum if you claim at another moment. Really. All the information a scum gets from a town claim is the claimed person's role. I think you're trying to get away with falseclaiming at an unusual moment.

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.

It's not at all certain Albert was investigated last night, and there definitely are more possibilities than listed here. This isn't any more than a mixbreed between copfishing and crapspeculation.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Unvote, Vote Dybeck

, by the way.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Mod: Prod Jmar and CES

I'm here. Just don't have much to add and would still like to see Dybeck lynched. I don't think voting Jenter would be better than voting Dybeck. Not at all.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

So it all boils down to lurking, basically?

No, not at all. Did you actually read what Bookitty said?

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

If not lurking, what in your opinion was the most important point against Jmar?

His behaviour around the Peers wagon.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

That leaves my other question unanswered: why are either of them a better lynch than originality? (Who seems to have disappeared again.)

I don't think Jenter is scummy at all. I don't know why he wants to vote Jmar rather than Dybeck, but I haven't seen anything really scummy from his. I also had a townish read on his two predecessors (PWS and DG).

I'd still like an originality lynch, but I don't want to lynch someone who's MIA, and I'm fine with a dybeck lynch. Don't know which of the two I'd prefer, but they're both high up my scumlist, and I'm fine with a lynch on either of them.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

I mean Jmar not Jenter for the first part of my question. I don't like attacking inactives either (which is why I held my vote off from Originality for a while), but I'm just wondering why everyone has suddenly forgotten him.

Well.. I think the same goes for Jmar. He's not around. And although I hate admitting lurking gives him a pass for now, it does. And he's absolutely not forgotten. Postponed would be a better word.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Either that, or Bookitty votes for the person that's second on her list: Dybeck.
Not that I have any problems with lynching originality, but I'm not sure we could get another majority in the next few years.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

I AM voting Dybeck, Cogito Ergo Scum. I have been for most of the day.

Ah, sorry. I thought you switched to Originality at some point.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

CES 1176: why do you doubt getting a majority. Most people here agree he's scummy?

Then how come a wagon on him stopped at L-1

two

times?

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Every time we suspect someone, they start lurking until they have to be replaced. What should we do?

When day breaks, the town must try to weed out the evil by lynching someone they suspect to be mafia. The game continues, alternating between night and day, until one side is eliminated.

D'oh.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

The activity level hardly matters anymore, since it's pretty much impossible to lynch someone anyway in this game.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Soo...

Since for some reason Dybeck can't be lynched, I'll hop back to Jmar.

Unvote, Vote Jmar

.

*yawn*

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Pretty sure it's another name for the bodyguard. If he uses his night action on Alice, and Alice is targeted for a kill that night, then Alice lives, but he dies instead of her. So the obvious question would be whether he was targeted for a nightkill, or whether someone he used his ability on was targeted.

Yup, a Martyr's usually a bodyguard.

Vote

:

Cogito Ergo Scum

, as well.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

CES.. if I remember correctly, he's kinda stayed around the edges of the game for the most part, and he seemed to go walkabout significantly more around the jmar wagon, dropping in to deflect onto dybeck a bit. I don't like his play generally, at the moment.

I think you're correct that I stayed around the edges for day 2, but my two primary suspects went MIA, and when dybeck was pressured, he disappeared too. It's probably one of the most frustrating days I ever played.
However, I was the one who first attacked Jmar on day 1. I'll go reread that, because it'll probably give more valuable information than his day 2 wagon.

Also, I thought, and still think, that PWS was very townish.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

CES, if you don't understand why I'm saying Jenter is scum (and by extension PWS), read my last few posts before night. I do not usually go after lurkers. Jenter just happened to make himself an exception to my lurker rule. By only lurking here. Also note the nice early distancing between PWS and Jmar.

Yes, I read it, but I disagree with the points against PWS. And how can you tell distancing from scumhunting?

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

You can't until after the fact. But you can't tell me that your opinion of Jenter is completely colored by your opinion of his predecessors. (I found DG to be the least scummy of the three, honestly)

It isn't, and I think Jenter has been scummy, but his predecessors' play is a big point in his advantage, IMO.

Mod:

Could we get some

prods

?

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

TSQ and his replacement are Town, CES is Town, and Jenter needs to calm down and maybe stop cussing, but I agree that PWS was town-ish.

Avalon, are you saying what I think you're saying?

Mirth, are you saying what I think you're fishing?

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Mirth, you know who else doesn't have humor? That's right, the mafia. I got my eye on you.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Soo.. Are we going to make quote pyramids for the remainder of the day or are we going to hunt

Originality

someone scummy?

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

1)

Vote Originality

2) I promised to reread the two Jmar wagons, but I haven't done so yet. Will do soon. Let's see if I can find something useful.
3) With Flameaxe dead, UA has a very big target on his head. I think, if he has some useful info, it would be wise to spill today.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Good.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Good mornin'

After a quick reread I will know who to vote for. At the moment, I'm leaning towards Mirth.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Elmo: Her behavior around Jmar wagons. Although Bookitty has a strike against her as well, continually pushing Originality over Jmar.

And I think I can explain the missing kill.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

I protected UA last night. I got a one-shot doc on night 1, presumably from Originality, although I didn't know so at that time. I got no confirmation of stopping a nightkill, but I think it's the most logical explanation for the lack of a dead body.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Interesting. Why did you choose to protect him when you saw he wasn't the target on either of the two previous nights?

Because I thought there'd be another protective role in the game, and UA was probably the best protection target. When Flameaxe died, I thought UA would be unprotected the next night, so I figured it would be the best time to use my one-shot. Also, I explicitly painted UA as a likely kill target yesterday, to effectively try to stop the kill.

As much as I'd like to vote Mirth, I think the Masons should be given a free pass for today. Which leaves Jenter, Elmo and TSQ, who has yet to be replaced. I'm not sure yet. Jenter's claim is weird though, and I'd like him to explain why he voted me.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

So you dont believe me and Kitty then?

Not sure. There are two scums left, and the two of you have the scummiest interaction with Jmar of all living players. However, since, if one of you is scum, both of you must be scum, I don't want to lynch either of you today.

I'm a Putty Patroller.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

So if both of us are scum, why would be out ourselves as partners this early in the game?

It's not really early in the game. We're massclaiming. That's about as late as it gets.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Elmo is replacing dybeck, who claimed Putty Patroller, IIRC.

I think everyone but UA and TSQ has claimed.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

@ UA's claim: It'd be good times if you actually killed yourself.

@ Mirth: I wasn't given a vial. A real, living doctor was actually sent to me, and I was given the option to send him to another player on a single night.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

A no-kill gambit with 7 players alive, presumably two of which are scum? Really?

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

I should probably vote someone at some point, but I don't know who to vote for yet.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

CES: Why not? When will you know?

I don't know because before the massclaim I had Mirth and Bookitty as my two top suspects, but since they claimed mason, they're obviously not the optimal lynch for today.

I also believe UA to be town, because of the lack of a kill last night.

That leaves you, BM and JB. JB's the uncounterclaimed investigative role, so that's enough for me not to vote him today. That leaves BM and you. With all the replacements that have been going on, reading is hella confusing.

However, based on predecessors, I'd say Elmo is the best bet for today's lynch.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Why do you three (BM, Elmo, CES) see me as scum?

If anything, I'm actually the only one saying you're town, here, Jenter.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Also, I thought, and still think, that PWS was very townish.

This needs elaboration, now. Like, actual details about why you thought that.

Also, this.

He was actively looking for scum, and agreed with me on the possible alignments of a lot of other players.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

guy's there's this deadline thing in ten hours and we need three votes on someone to avoid a no lynch is anyone out there helloooo

Ok

vote Elmo

.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

This really saddens me.