Mini 540: Nightmare (Game Over)

[pete d]

unvote, vote: skitzer

I give help yes?

[pete d]

unvote, vote: Rishi

[pete d]

Why?

Didn't like post 23

[pete d]

Can you be more specific? It sounds like you're actually voting with a purpose, so maybe you can explain your thinking for the rest of us.

Hmm, skitzer's bandwagon climbed to four (since he still has a vote on himself).

DS - care to comment?

Reasons why I don't like this post: Firstly, I don't see anything wrong with the wagon. L-3 in this situation isn't dangerous, he was never going to get lynched. And really it was only L-4 once skitzer unvoted himself. IF someone put on a L-2 vote, that might be cause for alarm. Secondly, I don't like the tone of the post, it feels like a loaded question.

[pete d]

The point of the post was to see DS's reaction so that we could get some information.

Why are you sticking up for him?

Way to reinforce my vote. I am obv. not "sticking up for him", I found your post scummy.

[pete d]

Why don't you just let DS speak for himself? You've derailed the line of inquiry.

Can't see how this is true. I'm not arguing for DS, I'm arguing against you.

The word "scummy" gets tossed around a lot. You seem to be throwing out accusations, letting them sit, and then waiting before you explain yourself. Why is that?

Trying to get reactions.

From what I've seen on a quick meta-read, you're usually more helpful on Day 1. Want to be careful not to discuss ongoing games, but you are acting differently here...

I am being helpful. I'm calling out behaviour which I perceive as being suspicious

[pete d]

unvote: Vote: SensFan Ror making the mod have to PM him. Second reason seeing that he has been on line so adding purposely lurking to my vote reasoning.

Maybe he's just not playing? Unless he's been posting elsewhere, this is a pretty bad reason to vote.

[pete d]

Do you have thoughts on the other players in the game at this point, aside from Rishi? Specifically, what are your thoughts on DS and DragonsPrincess?

dragonsprincess hasn't contributed much at all, similar to SensFan, if it's intentional lurking then it's something I'll keep my eye on, but it could just as well be limited access or loss of interest. If either of them are indeed posting elsewhere, than

FoS

. Disciple Slayer has been all over the place, wagonning for no reason, either he's bored or possibly scum.

However, Rishi still stands out for me as the most scummy. I can't see any possible reason for his last vote. I would like everyone else to give their thoughts on Rishi.

[pete d]

Oops. Sorry about that...

[pete d]

And I'm voting pete d for his tunnel-vision, for the record.

"tunnel-vision" is not a scumtell. Why don't you call it what it is, OMGUS.

[pete d]

The exhange in 105, 106, 107 seems a bit weird to me.

minor FoS: opie

. Also

FoS: roffman

He is really annoying me, and if this is how he acts in all games i'm all for lynching him now to avoid the stress in later days.

This is not a valid reason to vote.

If i was scum why would i need to ask to kill DS? I could just kill him myself.

This is missing the point. If you were town, why would you expect the mafia to kill DS? That's just stupid. Prediction: opie, roffman and Rishi are scumpartners (I know that's not really helpful, but anyhow). btw, I doubt there's a jester, the role is very rare.

Official Vote Count, editted in by MikeBurnFire
7 votes needed to lynch

4 Rishi (pete d, Draux, Lulubelle, Disciple Slayer)
4 roffman (Holy, farside22, gorckat, skitzer)
2 Disciple Slayer (thedragonsprincess, roffman)
2 pete d (opie, Rishi)

[pete d]

re mason claim:

unvote

. I'm still not sure about Rishi and roffman, but I'm unvoting because of the claim. It would be risky for scum to claim masons right now, so early on, given that there could easily be a SK or vig, or even a cop, that could blow their claim and get rid of both very quickly. But then, they were both under a heap of pressure, so *maybe* they might risk it. Benefit of the doubt for now.

re why I thought opie was a bit suspicious: he wasn't contributing much, hasn't put a serious vote on, he seemed to be lurking a little bit. However, he did give a decent position on DS, so benefit of the doubt for him also.

Boxing day is a canadian holiday, I don't know what it represents.

Also an Australian holiday.

vote: Holy

, has been a bit lurkerish with not much content. Not the most solid of votes, but it looks like we've hit a brick wall with the Rishi-roffman claim.

[pete d]

I say this is hypocritical. She did state holiday and I haven't seen much from Pete during the game.

Look at her posts

before

the holiday absence. That's what I was referring to.

Not the most solid of votes, but it looks like we've hit a brick wall with the Rishi-roffman claim.

I've notice as Rishi says Draux really doesn't offer anything and neither has Pete, but are under the #2 category.

Yeah, apart from arguments which no one else brought up and giving solid positions on most players.

You can't just ask questions and not reach any conclusions.

Well, what about opie then? He's said a fair bit since coming back, but no real positions on who's scummy. However, the points he's bringing up regarding "wild cards" are interesting and meaningful contribution imo.

Mason is not a role that is very common in mafia

On the contrary, I think masons are very common roles.

[pete d]

Uhm, and what about you, could you share some more meaningful contribution too for us then?

??? Like I said, I've been going after people I think are scummy, have commented on most players, gave a clear opinion on the mason claim. In terms of what you quoted, I have given clear opinions on who I think is scummy.

Well true, mostly I saw a claim not really considered true but a fraud and still end up with his/her lynch. But we still could use logic about whether it might came really from scum or not.

Could you clarify this?

[pete d]

Pete d voted for Holy saying she was lurking and didn't post content. Yet I've seen her contribute and comment. Pete has since not said much since.

Let me restate: I was referring to her posts BEFORE her absence, there wasn't much meaningful content. As for the lurkishness, you can still lurk while posting regularly if you're not saying anything (it's called "active lurking"). However, she has posted a fair bit since her absence, so

unvote

.

@opie: who do you find suspicious? Is your vote on me still serious?

Re Draux: I don't agree with the wagon. He just seems to be not here, so should be replaced. I think thedragon'sprincess has been just as unhelpful.

If he does b or c, I'll move up to the next least helpful/most scummy person.

Which would be? i.e. what else have you gleaned from your reread?

I find it strange how gorckat picked Draux as most scummy, one of the least talkative players in this game. Now, I know lurking is scummy, but gorckat, why pick Draux other than lurking?

If you "know lurking is scummy", then why would gorckat need another reason to vote for Draux? I don't like this post.

vote: skitzer

, he's seemed a bit cautious, not wanting to make any controversy.

[pete d]

Watch jerry springer for more info.

I'm sure that's the first time anyone's ever said that

Since Draux has not picked up his prod yet and it's been almost two weeks, I will begin looking for a replacement

So are the people voting Draux going to unvote now?

We haven't heard from pete d in over a week. Would a prod be warranted?

Sorry about that, I'm pretty comfortable with my vote atm, I didn't see much to post about.

I disagree with roffman saying opie is active lurking. At the start of the game, yes, I would agree with this, but he's been posting more lately. He was the first to do the whole assess-every-player post pretty much as soon as I asked him for his suspicions.

I would be interested to see skitzer and angelmouse create an assess-every-player post, since they haven't really committed to any concrete positions on other players. Holy should probably do one as well.

And, so I'm not a hypocrite:
Leaning scum: skitzer, Holy
Neutral: gorckat, DiscipleSlayer, angelmouse, Draux
Leaning Town: Lulabelle, opie, farside
Claimed Masons (buying it for now): Rishi, roffman

[pete d]

Note to self: Go back and look at how many people Pete D actually commented on before Post 199.

Commented on Rishi, roffman, opie, Holy (found them suspicious); thedragonsprincess, Sensfan, DS (didn't really feel the suspicion on them)

Didn't comment on skitzer, farside, Gemelli / gorckat or Draux

Please see Post 246. I put a lot of my suspicions into that, most of which are still true just now. I tend to only comment on things i find suspicious or worth commenting on. Those i find as neutral/town i tend to leave alone, or watch closely till there is something worth pointing out, hence why i haven't done a post of each player.

You only really voiced suspicion against DS, and gave a non-commital position on Draux and skitzer. Soon after, you unvoted DS.

Why is it you require such an assessment anyway? Can you not make up your own mind on player? Don't get me wrong i am willing to comment on behaviour, point things out, help find out who exactly is scum, but i don't see why i should over analyse everyone in the game in a post. Everybody has their own minds and thoughts to work out and surely what i have to say shouldn't have such a huge relevence for your vote. Not porducing a list on people shouldn't be a negative mark against my name. I think i would have done it in time when i did have more concrete things to go on.

There shouldn't be any pro-town reason not to. If everyone gives concrete positions of their opinions of other players (not that this will necessarily stay the same as the game continues), it helps to find scum.

Leaning scum: pete d (for your post previously), DiscipleSlayer (for reasons i gave before)
Neutral: Draux (his lack of posting may be legit so can't read into it)
Can't decide: gorckat, opie, farside, skitzer (watching them closely for tells or something concrete to go on, nothing to suspect them of either way YET for me, but keeping a very close eye on everything they say)
Leaning Town: Lulabelle (posts have been valid and helpful, although not had one in a while), Holy (dose a lot of hunting), Rishi, roffman (i'm buying a mason claim for the moment)

Now there, that wasn't so hard was it?

I would like a reason for each person you feel is scum, neutral and so forth.

Well, I put Draux, angelmouse and DS as neutral because I don't really have a read on them either way. DS's behaviour has been erratic and more playstyle than scummy. Draux and angelmouse (dragonsprincess) both didn't post much, so again no solid read yet. gorckat I'm just not sure of.

As for Lulabelle, farside and opie, all of them have seemed reasonable and contributing well, townie vibes. I've already explained skitzer and Holy.

I would also second farside22. I think it would be helpful for us to know why you put who did in each category.

Especially the ones you feel to be scum.

I don't know if you're paying attention, but I have already previously explained why I think they're suspicious.

[pete d]

He doesn't sound his thoughts actively throughout the game, only appeared occasionally enough so everyone won't call him for lurking too long, and when appears his post is quite long but not really helpful IMO.

lol hypocrisy

So seeing how Glork is so wonderfully insightful and I'm a scummy lurker, how come we both have very similar suspicions?

[pete d]

Pete d: Your vote is on Skitzer, but you feel both Holy and he are scummie... <snip>

...Do you find her more scummie or Skitzer more scummie?

Well, I was voting for skitzer, so there's your answer.

unvote

The claim is, at the very least, credible. /waiting for skitzer's big post.

[pete d]

...credible, but not even necessarily indicative of alignment. Admittely, I am only somewhat dissuaded from voting Skitz.

I agree with this.

@pete d: Hello...! Your unvote won't be count if you don't re-vote again, sigh...

Are you trying to insinuate that I haven't been posting enough? I TAKE OFFENCE >.>

vote: pete d

third person bleh (hey its a pun)

[pete d]

pete d- The first thing about him is that he didn't care about a random bandwagon put on me.

Random bandwagons generally don't go anywhere.

Also, he says tunnel-vision is not a scum tell. Then tell me, what exactly is it?

Focusing on one player who I think is really suspicious?

He has been a very minimal poster as well.

I disagree with "very" minimal. Maybe I haven't posted as much as others, but I've still made my opinions clear.

unvote, vote: skitzer

[pete d]

Actually, scratch that,

unvote, vote: Holy

. The claim is a sticking point.

Also, V/LA until Saturday

[pete d]

While that last comment of Nocmen's raised quite an eyebrow over here

I don't see why it should have.

angelmouse's last few posts strike me as townish. So, I am reasonably confident in downgrading her to "Leaning Town".

Holy, I think you should claim, seeing as you're at -2 and we don't have long before deadline.

I would prefer a Holy lynch to opie, but I wouldn't be averse to lynching opie. His vote on Holy does seem a bit odd, but he did say he was going to vote her before I switched to Holy (he wanted to be able to give reasons apparently). He did say he suspected Holy / skitzer in his analysis; he also said he wasn't sure about skitzer's claim, so unvoted. However, this does seem like he's following the crowd. I'm not sure about him.

[pete d]

I would prefer either Nocmen (formerly DS) or skitzer to be the hammerer, however I would be fine with opie.

[pete d]

@ Lullabelle: If the hammerer-elect refuses to hammer, we lynch them. Therefore, a scum would be resigned to taking out the claimed vengeful townie (if the claim were true). Volunteering to hammer is stupid, if you know you are a townie, then this is bad play unless there is absolutely no other option.

May I remind everyone that there is a deadline VERY SOON. Get your act together, people.

[pete d]

opie, Rishi, skitzer, your votes (on people who aren't going to get lynched given the deadline) are useless at this stage. I think the best thing for this situation is for Rishi or skitzer to put Holy at -1, and opie hammer as he is the town's second suspect (looking at the wagons and what people have said). If opie refuses to hammer, we can switch onto him hopefully before deadline hits. (Note that I will be away this weekend, so I'm keeping my vote on Holy. I can't see why she wouldn't have immediately claimed vengeful / supersaint when she claimed firestarter. Also, she specifically said "vengeful" but NOT supersaint.)

[pete d]

vote: skitzer

. Not on the Holy wagon, looks like Holy was distancing from him, plus previous arguments.

[pete d]

Hey skitzer did anything happen to you last night? Also, what do you think of my position re Holy yesterday?

[pete d]

pete d: I thought your position on holy did not seem out of the ordinary, but I feel my vote stated what I felt at that period in time. If this is not what you meant, tell me, because I'm taking 're' as a grammatical error or something.

I meant 're' as in 'in regards to', my point was that since Holy was scum and I was reasonably early on the wagon and put some pressure on Holy earlier in the day, this might lower your suspicions of me (similarly for Glork also, he was hard on Holy ever since he came in).

[pete d]

The hell if I know.

lol

[pete d]

@Lullubell and Angelmouse: I notice neither of you have put anything for who you think is scum. Since Nocmen has yet to answer either I figure I would ask you two as well who is on your radar and why.

QFT double plus. Also

FoS: Nocmen

looking back at Holy's early posts, she didn't remark on the DS wagon at all.

[pete d]

I feel Noc has either gained (or is faking having gained) a post restriction. I don't recall this happening yesterday, which is distinctly odd.

hmmm.

@Nocmen: can you at least tell us who you are suspicious of (if anyone)? Quote them and call them a bad person or something like that.

[pete d]

Finally, while your assertion that I am "pairing" myself with Pete D (and vice versa) is not unwarranted given we have agreed so often, your assumption that it relates to a pairing of roles is completely flawed. I have nothing to do with Pete, and he can absolutely confirm this in his next post. It's a simple matter of "we both agree on which players have been scummiest" and so on.

QFT

pete d (I know lack of posting shouldn't be a reason because i am guilty of it as well, but i feel pete is doing it only to keep his head above water. Very little in Day 2 as to why he is voting the way he is other than the flimsy reason from day 1 and the fact Holy distanced herself from skizer.

Yeah, I've been lazy day 2, but I had a pretty strong feeling about skitzer. And I disagree that my reasons for voting are "flimsy".

To be honest i would feel that because of the prediciment that Holy got herself into, (being in line for a lynch) the people she distanced herself from are those that we should be not looking at and more those that she was actively trying to have a go at, so to speak. Thing is you also suspected Holy from the start, when she wasn't in the firing line at all and she had a go at you for it. Bluff and scum or truely town? Not sure)

I don't understand why we "should not be looking at" people Holy distanced herself from. Looking at the relationships between other players and Holy is a good way to gauge who could be scumpartners.

[pete d]

@angelmouse: On day 1 I said that I thought skitzer was sliding under the radar and not wanting to cause any controversy, and seemed overly cautious with his votes. Then he gave bad reasons for voting / suspecting me (perhaps a bit of OMGUS on my part). I also didn't like how he jumped on dragon'sprincess; he also wagoned both masons, seems a bit opportunistic. His position on Holy was that she was probably town, and then he pretty much ignored the wagon (said he didn't "see a big deal with Holy"). Holy also put skitzer as suspicious in her list, but then didn't really put herself under any obligation to vote him, going instead after myself and then opie, then finally voting skitzer at the end of the day. skitzer's claim also seems like it could be fake, evidently Holy was working along the lines of 'power roles end in -er' (from the masons / possibly skitzer). skitzer could have done the same.

[pete d]

Why didn't you block pete is you were so sure he was scum?!?!

QFT

She self-hammered in another game I was in with her, and she had previously /outed another ongoing.

I don't think anything can be read into her leaving at all.

also QFT

You don't roleblock someone just because they seem scum right away. I think, but I may of forgotten, but its much easier for rb to hurt town that scum.

I don't necessarily agree with this. I could see it as entirely acceptable for somebody to RB someone they thought was scum, however with opie's claim I don't like skitzer's (supposed) choice.

[pete d]

unvote

for Riki

[pete d]

Re Dead Riki's "Sadist" discussion: opie's manner of death suggests that there is more than one "Sadist". The only other possibility which could explain this would be if Holy was some sort of vengeful SK (which seems a bit pointless). Personally I think "Sadist Scum" implies mafia, and skitzer's interactions with Holy are one of my reasons for intending to vote skitzer.

[pete d]

@Nocmen: please give us your opinions of the other players (ie. who you find suspicious etc.).

I think it should be pretty obvious that roffman is confirmed town. As for the others, angelmouse stayed away from the Holy wagon (note a pretty empty FoS in post 350), Nocmen was also late on the wagon and Holy didn't comment much on his predecessor DS. I've also got a sneaking suspicion of Glork, more of a gut feeling than anything concrete, but his actions (hounding Holy) speak townish. Lulu seemed genuine to me, not sure about gorckat or farside either way.

vote: angelmouse

[pete d]

Why do you think Lulu seemed honest?

From reading over the Holy wagon, she seemed to be genuinely trying to sort the lynch out while it was kind of stalling. Holy was by no means going to be lynched even at -1, it could have stuck, but Lulu's volunteering to hammer (imo) helped to make sure Holy got off. I know scum could have easily done the same in order to distance etc., but I think it is more likely that Lulu was genuinely town.

[pete d]

[/quote="gorckat"]Nocmen looks plain harmful to us. If he's scum the he's weasling past us till the scum have put together critical mass for a win. If he's town, he seems to be forced into a helpless state. I wonder if opie was the key to get him straight. [/quote]
I disagree with this justification. If he is a 'harmful' townie, he's still town, and we shouldn't lynch him. If he is scummy, then we should.

@Nocmen: Please give us your position on the other players, such as who (if anyone) you think is suspicious.