Princess Bride Mafia - Game Over

[mathcam]

Stupid pit of despair. What an unladylike way for Buttercup to out.

Anyway, I think for certain I should vote for someone, but I can't think who. Someone, but who? Someone, someone, someone...If only there were

someone

to vote for. Oh well, I guess I'll just

Vote: Someone

Cam

[mathcam]

MeMe

, does the list of people voting for Someone in Someone's vote count reflect the order in which the votes were made?

Frankly, this is a rather flimsy bandwagon that I didn't really mean to start. I was just making fun of Someone's name. So we can force a role claim out of Someone just because he has a name that lends itself to humorous bandwagon, or we can go after a bandwagoner instead. I don't think either of these are particularly stronger than the other, so I won't unvote Someone just yet, but I'd like to hear other people's opinions.

Cam

[mathcam]

Thanks.

So we could consider Darkblade from changing this from a couple of votes to a bandwagon, or JereIC with the "4th on a bandwagon" routine. Or, of course, we could wait for a Someone roleclaim. (Someone, if you log on before other people comment, I wouldn't role claim just yet...maybe it can still be avoided).

Cam

[mathcam]

Just for future reference, Someone, there is little point in the strategy "Avoid role claim if you have an important role" because if people know you are doing this (say, from past games), then any time you are hesitating to role claim, they will know you have an important role. Anyway, this is meta-gaming, and there is more important things to discuss!

I suppose that massive's actions (at least, as you describe them),

are

somewhat suspicious, but I'm not sure they're voteworthy. So it seems that we have a choice of going after massive, or one of these bandwaggoners, say JereIC or darkblade.

For now, I'll just

Unvote: Someone

Cam

[mathcam]

I in fact had not seen your argument, JereIC. I think your point concerning not knowing Buttercup is reasonable, but it's certainly not unheard of for players to enter themed games and not doing a respectable amount of preparation.

As to the argument about not having any regular townspeople, I'm not sure. MeMe is running a "No frills" mafia right now, but I'm not sure how to use that information. She could have gotten all the regular roles out of her system, thus making it more likely that JereIC is correct in thinking there would be no regular roles, or, she has professed a liking for regular roles in general, and this would seem to go

against

JereIC's argument.

Not that anyone should do this until we decide anything, but we could consider asking anyone else with a regular townsperson role to come forward. If no one does, we can semi-conclude that JereIC's thought that Someone was lying about his role is correct. Thoughts?

Cam

[mathcam]

Sugar...

Not that anyone should do this until we decide anything, but we could consider asking anyone else with a regular townsperson role to come forward.

We don't want to give away who are townies and who are not. Oh well.

Okay, combined evidence would seem to at least temporarily clear Someone of suspicion. Perhaps I'll go after the more suspicious massive for the time-being:

Unvote: Someone

Vote: Massive

Cam

[mathcam]

I whole-heartedly disagree. First, I find their claim somewhat believable. Second, if there are no Florins in the game, we will find this out soon enough. There is no point endangering the rest of our roles by having all the regular townspeople come out.

Cam

[mathcam]

For what it's worth, jadesmar, I got your sarcasm. It's a valid point, but there's also the fact that Someone

had

been lying about his role, we would have found this out. There were plusses to discussing it.

I don't see why the people on your list (massive, mathcam, JereIC, Fishbulb, Fletcher) would be good targets. The information that they're probably not basic townies itself gives them a higher chance of being mafia, but combine this with the fact that a mafia would probably just keep their big mouth shut on the whole affair makes me actually

less

suspicious of the people on your list. But that's probably just because I'm on there.

I agree with Dourgrim that the two people who jump out the most at the moment are Someone and massive, but I'll leave my vote on massive for the time being.

Cam

[mathcam]

The post that Someone accused of being suspicious is still there, massive. Your "the jig is up" is when you began your attack on Someone for not knowing who buttercup was. Someone's point was that you made an attack but didn't even follow it through with a vote, which appears like an attempt to start with a bandwagon without having to take liability later if/when he turns out to be innocent.

As far as I know, that's the only argument being made against you, massive, and that's why my vote is on you. All it takes is a stronger argument against someone else (other than me, I suppose), for me to switch my vote.

Cam

[mathcam]

I think I actually agree with jadesmar. No doubt the mafia already noticed, because they're specifically looking for these types of things. And there's no point having the mafia know anything that the rest of us don't, so we may as well make it public, as jadesmar did.

I think our time would be better spent discussing potential lynchee massive.

Cam

[mathcam]

There sure are a lot of quiet people that I would feel better going after than anyone talking...

Unvote: massive

We'll say

Vote: CRiX

,

mostly because it's his birthday.

Cam

[mathcam]

I agree. Though perhaps somewhat rambling, I certainly don't have any feelings that Fishbulb is scum because of it.

I am mildly suspicious of this whole Leo thing, though. In fact, since I have no opinion on CRiX whatsoever, and moslty voted him because it was his birthday,

Unvote: CRiX, Vote: Leo

Cam

[mathcam]

Well, it's certainly not clear to me that Leo and mole are evil together. If they were, I doubt they would have chimed in so concordantly at the same time.

I suspect Leo independently of Mole, and lean toward thinking that if they're both evil, they're not evil together.

Cam

[mathcam]

Okay, I'll buy jadesmar's post. That's several seemingly innocuous and all-too-fitting posts mlaker's put in. I agree, JereIC, that putting up the list was a good idea.

I am waiting for more people to give their thoughts since it was just a gut feeling about you two.

I'm currently thinking that neither Fishbulb nor the Mole/Leonidas theories are all that great. None of the three of you are that supicious.

Several people are being awfully quiet: massive, CRiX, Sugar...

Cam

[mathcam]

I'm betting almost certainly a ROUS.

I'm all up for listening to anyone with an idea. I propose that either CRiX or Sugar get an idea.

Cam

[mathcam]

speak up with a clue (his was correct, by the way) to prove it only if you're in danger of being lynched.

I'm not sure the "clue" idea is so good, Sugar. It's dangerous having information out there that maybe only the mafia will pick up on. Even if only the other townies pick up on it, what good does that do us? You and Someone will bot unvote him, and we'll all know that somehow he communicated to you the fact that he was a townie. I would think just succumbing to the role claim might be better.

I'm thinking about sticking my vote back on massive. He was never really cleared to my satisfaction (though there was admittedly only little going agasint him, too).

I guess I'm least suspicious of Sugar and Someone because they will be easily exposable later, though we should be careful not to put too much stock in their "my PM says that too!" claims. If I were mafia and JereIC (for example) came out and said "I'm a townie. My PM says BLAH," then I already know he's not mafia so is probably telling the truth, so I might as well say "Hey, my PM says BLAH too. We must both be townies." Then the town rest assured that JereIC and I are townies, and they all end up dying a horrible death. The only time a mafia gets screwed doing this is when, in the above scenario, JereIC was a serial killer or something.

Cam

[mathcam]

Or so you thought.

Cam

[mathcam]

Leonidas, I agree that you never claimed to be a Florin Townie, but I don't think it's that clear that if you are this clergyman, that he's pro-town. He's kind of weasely, and certainly is a henchman of the prince. I do, however, believe your role claim, and it seems unlikely that a mafia would have the power to stop a lynch.

Hm, looking back at JereIC's link to the list of characters, it seems there sure are enough potentially evil roles to eliminate the possibility of the clergyman being on that side as well.

In any case,

Unvote: Leonidas

.

Cam

[mathcam]

Agreed. Personally, I think there were lots of reasons to believe the claim...

mikehart, what made you doubt the claim?

Cam

[mathcam]

Okay, then, I guess I'll go after mole for the same reason I went after Leo...the popping in with a vote for someone who's not all that suspicious and then vanishing for a while.

Vote: Mole

Cam

[mathcam]

Wow, who knew there was all this pent up mole anger?

Cam

[mathcam]

You might as well reveal your result, right, DS? If you're whacked in the head as a cop, then revealing it has no effect on anything. If it turns out you were sane and they kill you tonight or something, then we lose that information all together. Last but not least,

1 is not prime.

Cam

[mathcam]

Cam

[mathcam]

Oh yeah, the ol' insane cop gig. I forgot about that one. Well, I guess we couly lynch Leo again, but I kidn of feel like he's probably innocent. But he

might

be scum, and even if not, you've learned a little more about your own sanity. Hmmmmm...

Cam

[mathcam]

I don't think its that far-fetched to believe that Grandpa could be in the game. He's a character in the movie, even if not one in the game. So what if it would be weird if Rugen killed grandpa? This is mafia. I think Dragon Phoenix is very possibly a non-regular cop, though, if he is one. Though if I would have guessed from the onset, he would have been naive. He doesn't seem like the paranoid type. My second guess would be insane, which makes me think that both Leonidas and whomever Dragon Phoenix investigated last night are both innocent. Thus, I don't think Dragon Phoenix should reveal.

I agree with Werebear that Inigo and Westley are both candidates for cop-like roles, and with mlaker that he's probably searching for a particular person. I'm conjecturing that Inigo and Fezzik are pro-town, Vizzin is an SK, and the prince's group is the predominant evil in this game.

Cam

[mathcam]

I'm not sure I agree with killing mlaker either. Though I think there's a good chacne that Dragon Phoenix is telling the truth about his role, there's also a good chance that he is in some way incompetent. It certainly would not be an outrageous violation of truth if MeMe gave grandpa a little senility, and perhaps it was needed to maintain game balance. Along those same lines, I don't think we should kill Lenoidas again either. No doubt some time in the future we will gain some information about mlaker, Dragon Phoenix, or Leonidas that will help us decide one way or another about all of them, rather than taking the time now to lynch mlaker to do that very same thing.

Massive, I certainly don't think we have to lynch Dragon Phoenix if it turns out he was wrong about mlaker (assuming you guys

do

end up lynching him). He made a very nice argument about how in themed games one has to trust their intuition about the sanity of their cop role, and he has clearly made the decision to come out with his role and with his information with this in mind.

I'm going to read through again and see who I think is the most suspicious.

[mathcam]

In short, I agree with Dragon Phoenix in his last post. In long, we can apply the typical devil's advocate position here...If we decide not to lynch you because you couldn't be scum because you wouldn't have taken that risk if you had been scum, then already we've come up with a reason why you

would

have made the play even if you

were

scum. Just some trite food for thought.

I think Werebear's analysis of the situation is absolutely correct, though. We

can't

lynch mlaker based on Dragon Phoenix's finger-pointing. We have suspicions that his results are inaccurate or that he's possibly mafia. If either of these are true, we are screwing ourselves over not only for today but tomorrow as well. For example, someone suggested killing Dragon Phoenix tomorrow if he's wrong, but not only did we lose a day being wrong, we're quite possibly going to lose

another

day being wrong about DP.

I'd like to hear more from Sugar as well. There are certainly reasons for thinking Dragon Phoenix is not evil, but between the chances of him being evil and him being a couple of bricks short of a wall, it seems like there's pretty good reason to doubt mlaker's guilt.

Cam

[mathcam]

Tired? Hardly.

Werebear, I still feel that aiming for any of Dragon Phoenix, mlaker, or Leonidas is a mistake today. We'll probably get some more information on them in the next couple of days that will make that decision clear. Though Werebear has some points about oddness of DP's voting, it's certainly within the scope of something an actual investigator would due to throw mafia off his scent.

Mole, where d'you go? I guess I'm still surprised as people voting for mikehart. All he did was question Dragon Phoenix's sanity and truth-tellingness, which is something many other people are doing. I think I'm going to

Vote: mole

for starting this bandwagon and then disappearing.

*Hopes Mole didn't post an away message*...

Cam

[mathcam]

Uh, mathcam and Someone... what's going on?

Hm. This is in my notes, yet I apparently disregarded it anyway. Um, undo.

Unvote: Mole

.

I'm not totally convinced by the argument, but it's certainly good enough to get my vote off of him for now.

Mathcam, I would like to hear your opinion on the mikehart thing, if possible.

In short, I find mikehart very hard to read. His posts are short and all somewhat similar. I don't find it that suspicious that he went after DP because

a) There

is

some suspicion around DP
b) Other people were doing so as well.

Of course, any of these people could be evil and trying to get a cop lynched, I just don't find him any more suspicious than anyone else.

Cam

[mathcam]

Agreed. I like the plan, but it only helps establish the sanity of DP's role.

if he is a cop at all

. If he's mafia, he could just come out and say "guilty" tomorrow and we'd all be like "Hey! He got it right! He

must

not be trying to kill us in our sleep. Let's not lynch him ever, ever, ever."

There is no reason to force mlaker to role claim. We will be getting information about him soon enough that forcing mlaker to claim is just risking the outing of a powerful role.

Mikehart, you're right, I had confused your stance on the issue with those of your attackers. In either case, I don't see being for or against DP as being much of an argument for their innocence or guilt. There are valid reasons for believing either side.

So it looks like we're kind of back to square one. I guess I'll look back through the thread again to see if anyone's suspicious.

Cam

[mathcam]

I'll have to catch up with the thread later....I had a pretty hectic weekend (I teach my first class in half an hour). I don't see the supsiciousness of Dougrim, so I'm certainly not sending a vote that way, but I do think the repeated use of

are you folks reading my posts at all?

is somewhat ironic, wouldn't you say, DG?

Cam

[mathcam]

Hey, I'm back! Sorry for the prolonged absence, but I'm back in full force now.

a) Let's stay calm here.
b) I thought we decided that we should ignore the Dragon Phoenix/Leonidas/mlaker business for a bit, because we'll be able to get more information about all of them later, when DP investigates Someone tomorrow. Let's not let frustration make us decide to do something we already decided was inferior. I suggest we all unvote mlaker and find a stronger plan for the time-being. There's good reason to think DP is not fully sane, so voting mlaker becuase of DP's accusation is not an extremely strong play.
c) I think Someone is clearly innocent. I see nothing at all suspicious about DourGrim. I haven't played in a ton of games with DourGrim, but I know he gets frustrated when he's innocent and can't convince other people of this fact. I'm not sure I've ever seen him as mafia. In any case, I'm getting an innocent vibe from him so far.
d) Does anyone have or feel like creating a summary of role claims and information we have? I must admit I've been somewhat delinquent on this front.

Cam

[mathcam]

I certainly an mot trying to, nor can I, dissuade you of any gut feelings you have. Maybe my last post shold be read as an appeal to those who don't feel strongly about mlaker but are going along just because we have to kill someone.

My

gut feeling is that we can do better.

Cam

[mathcam]

Hey DP, you're just a regular cop, right? You just "innocent" or "guilty"...no weird clues or anything?

I think mlaker's Old Booer claim is fairly believable. I guess I'll thrown my vote on

Vote: darkblade

to motivate him to either post, or if he is unable, to be replaced.

Cam

[mathcam]

Wait, yeah, now I'm confused. Your goal was to role block Buttercup? Did she even have an ability? And if you blocked her, then you became a cop? The old booer becomes a cop?

The more I think about it, the more it's totally unbelievable...except for that "true selves" line...the question is, did MeMe think of it, or did mlaker?

Werebear, we could semi-prove a blocker by randomly picking someone who volunteered the information that they have a night ability and would know if they were blocked. The randomness gives us a high probability of not allowing the collaboration you suggested earlier. Of course, there are many flaws with this plan...the mafia could decide to kill whoever we choose so we don't gain information, for one.

cam

[mathcam]

I essentially agree, Werebear, with your post three up. The counter-plus is that we still gain some information if we try to prove it...maybe not information that is immediately helpful. But in the long run, who knows? There's still something fishy about mlaker's role. I either don't understand what he's claiming the role does, or it just doesn't make sense. Does anyone else feel like they understand what mlaker is saying his role is? Maybe they could explain it better.

Cam

[mathcam]

I think he's saying that there are so many

important

roles in the game that putting the Old Booer in as one means some other character would have to be left out. I think it's fairly believable that the Old Booer is in the game, but it would certailny be believeable that it wasn't, too.

Cam

[mathcam]

Interesting indeed. We'll have to be careful not to assume too much about existence or non-existence of roles from here on in.

I'll withhold voting anyone until we hear from DP. DP's aliveness gives slight credence to the theory that he's either crazy or mafia, though.

Cam

[mathcam]

I hope Leo's guilty. We're going to have quite the dilemna tomorrow if it turns out he's not.

DP's aliveness gives slight credence to the theory that he's either crazy or mafia, though.

What I meant by this is that if he were a sane cop, there's a good chance he would have been killed by now.

I love lynching mafia and everything, but I'd like to hear the defense first. No vote for now.

Cam

[mathcam]

Okay okay,

Vote: Leonidas

Cam

[mathcam]

And I really doubt that's the end of the mafia.

Agreed. We've only killed two mafia. Two mafia and a serial killer isn't a lot for 19 players...especially when there's at least a cop, a doc, and a backup doc in the game. There's either another clan, more of the original mafia, or multiple serial killers with strong restrictions on killing.

I guess my suspicions are leaning a little toward Dourgrim...the "Go hard after someone (in this case, Someone) and then back down gracefully" plan I find to be mafia-esque...especially the new evidence "clearing" Someone is pretty flimsy. I also kind of found suspicious the "At least we know we have a Doc around" . there are several other ways we could have no kill last night...by choice of the mafia, by restriction of the mafia, by a role-blocker...,

plus

we've already lost two docs...it seems somewhat unlikely to me that we have another. It seems like only the mafia would

know

there was another doc around (after two had already died), because they tried to submit a night kill but it didn't go through.

With that,

Vote: Dourgrim

Cam

[mathcam]

I'm convinced for the time-being, but for the sake of argument, it seems like you're arguing there should be

two

docs left, not just one. One that protected Someone, and one that averted the mafia kill. That's a lot of docs.

Unvote: Dourgrim

Cam

[mathcam]

It seems to me that with only one exposed cop, he should be auto-protected by the docs. So losing DP isn't a huge risk. As for revealing, I would say we should reveal if there were only one killing group left, but with two...they can pick off innocents as fast as we can name 'em. So I think I agree with Dourgrim that we shouldn't expose unless we have many innocents, i.e. let's wait until at least tomorrow.

Cam

[mathcam]

Quite simply, Dourgrim, I bought your argument.

And Norinel explained exactly why I think there are two killing groups left...it seems unliekly to me the mafia would be so small. That's just not that much evil.

Cam

[mathcam]

Especially in this game, where there certainly no lack of roles that could be construed to be evil. There would be no need to go out of the way to make the albino evil.

massive: Huh?

Cam

[mathcam]

Well, since you put your defense so succinctly

. I try.

As to evil, this is more something I remember thinking at the beginning of the game...there are simply few characters who are definitely good. We could have generic Humperdinck guards and the like. Maybe the Impressive Clergyman. The booer was a possibility. I don't have a ton of examples ready, though.

Cam

[mathcam]

what I'm saying is that IF these roles (Yellin / Albino) are in the game, it's hardly likely that someone would claim them and say they would be pro-town.

Unless they

are

in the game and they

are

pro-town...

Cam

[mathcam]

Okay, partly based on the fact that it sounds like we might be able to reveal a lot of names, and partly because the reason dialogue has just been me and massive going back and forth about something currently very trivial, I vote that DP and sugar reveal their respective innocents (and I'd say Sugar first, as DP is more confirmed).

Cam

[mathcam]

Well, certainly wait until the innocents are revealed by the cops who are already out. It would be a waste of a good secret if they only repeated information DP and Sugar already had.

Cam

[mathcam]

I dont' see any immediate problems with this. It's not like we risk exposing our power roles, as all of our investigative roles have come forward. There's not much to lose, and plenty to possibly gain. I say talk, potential scum.

Cam

[mathcam]

No one's clear Dourgrim, Sugar, or Dragon Phoenix (Phoniex)

per se

, but they claim to have investigative roles, so I think they're close enough to be cleared for the time-being.

Cam

[mathcam]

I guess we're still waiting from Werebear, mikehart, and Dourgrim. Especially from Dourgrim with regards to where he got his CRiX info.

Cam

[mathcam]

Obviously, if I didn't get the info from rite, I got it from somewhere else

This is not obvious to me. How do I know you didn't make it up?

Suffice it to say that I (equally obviously) have a role with certain minor investigative abilities...

This is not obvious to me. How do I know someone else didn't communicate it to you at night somehow?

In general, I applaud your stance on role-claiming. But if there's one thing I believe in more firmly than not role-claiming, it's never holding fast to a generic guideline when strongly mitigating circumstances exist. You have just as good a chance of being lynched for being so stubborn as you do from revealing your role and having no one believe it.

Cam

[mathcam]

I don't see the point in going after Dourgrim right now, when he's adamantly refusing to role-claim. What if there's some sort of condition where he cannot reveal? Who knows, but if I were he, and scum, I'd make up something a little easier to accept than what he's doing.

This is, of course, possible, but it sounds to me like Dourgrim "revolutionizing" his game play by making the decision to never role claim, whether goor or bad, and whether or not it's best for the town.

I'd still like to hear from mikehart and Werebear about their roles...If it comes down to a choice between the three of them, though, I'm definitely going after Dourgrim.

Cam

[mathcam]

Dourgrim, I thought you went after Someone, not mlaker. And Someone's somewhat cleared right about now, so don't claim your 1 for 2 record is proof of an investigative role.

I want a roleclaim from mikehart.

Cam

[mathcam]

And I think this is quite funny, really; no one has given a decent reason why they think I'm scummy yet, except for the fact that I adamantly refuse to roleclaim.

And this is exactly the point. I don't think you're scummy because you refuse to role claim, it's just that all but four people have been semi-cleared by various investigations. As a town, we've come up with an almost sure-fire way to nail some scum by having the four of you reveal your roles, and yet you refuse out of a new-found sense of "how to play the game." I'm actually leaning toward you being pro-town now, but still can't seem to understand your refusal to comply with that the town has deemed best.

mikehart.....

Cam

[mathcam]

I totally agree, Dourgrim. There were several people who were confirmed innocents for other reasons, though. But it also seems unlikely that mikehart would have been so quick to give an answer had he just been making one up.

Massive, I got no investigations from anyone. This is an interesting question....

I guess I find Fishbulb's claim fairly bogus. I'm leaning toward a vote in that direction.

Cam

[mathcam]

That's a good point, though I still find the claim bogus. I guess I'll just leave it at that.

I guess I'll

Vote: Werebear

then, to get him talking.

Cam

[mathcam]

What? Nooo....

you're

supposed to be the king, remember? If I were the king, I would have said "No, he's lying" and you (or possibly I) would be dead by now.

But in any case, I have no abilities, no way of wielding any power as of yet. For agrument's sake, I am just a plain townie.

I just suspect that you are not as unaware as you pretend. Possibly pro-town, for sure, just not telling us the whole truth.

Cam

[mathcam]

Weird. Storing up kills? Or unable to satisfy some kind of kill condition during the day yesterday?

Dourgrim, I'm not sure if you have yet or not, but did you specifically accept or deny getting Rite's night 1 rumour? I'm bracing myself for a yellin'-at, but I still would prefer you role-claimed. You think your role is so unbelievable that we'll lynch you right off the bat?

Cam

[mathcam]

Interesting Dourgrim....usually people save their "ha, I told you so!" remarks for when they were actually telling the truth...

I guess I'll wait for any investigation results before trying to decide who to after.

Cam

[mathcam]

Yeah, reveal some more innocents, I guess.

Fishbulb, were you both the lynching bandwagons the past two days? I realize I

could

look this up myself.

Cam

[mathcam]

That's a pretty good argument, I think. Combined with all the suspicion from yesterday, I'll

Vote: Rite

Cam

[mathcam]

I don't fund rite too suspicious, really, but there's good arguments for lynching him. In particular, I think that the Vezzini=Mafia Cop idea makes a whole lot of sense. And frankly, I think we have some room for error. I doubt there's much evil left at all. If rite's innocent, we can decide about his sanity and work from there tomorrow.

Cam

[mathcam]

Yeah, time is starting to catch up with us. If we hold off on the rite lynching, it's even longer before we can figure out who we might have gotten wrong results about. Am I positive he's evil? No, but I'm not sure we can risk letting him live if he is.

Cam

[mathcam]

It is to me, ad conversation seems to have slowed down considerably. I say go for it.

Cam

[mathcam]

Wow, nice call, massive.

I don't think Someone's the right target. If we're choosing randomly among the now-uncleared people, Someone would be my last choice since Dourgrim (ROUS) was attacking him so vehemently earlier. Of course, it's entirely possible the multiple ROUS's don't know about each other, but they might, so Someone isn't as good of a choice as someone that Dourgrim didn't go after. More later...this is a busy morning.

Cam

[mathcam]

Oh, and my role is pro-town and fairly useful, but I'd rather not say out loud what my abilities are, or even what my name is. But just so you know, I can't conceive of any way my role could affect how the ROUS works (i.e. I'm not a doc).

Cam

[mathcam]

Hm, that kind of makes sense, I think.

Vote: Someone

Cam

[mathcam]

Some random thoughts:

It's possible DG didn't know his bite would recruit (either because he was completely unaware or because it was based on something random) so was just trying to kill him and in advertently recruited him.

I think it's quite possible that there's a time delay for recruiting but not for killing. This, I think, would explain why nothing happened on Night 6 (Since we had just lynched Dourgrim) but started up again afterward. If this it the case, Talitha's our best bet.

I'm still kind of hesitant of the whole recruiting theory ... would MeMe really tell us who was recruited by mentioning that they were bitten the previous night. If recruiting was supposed to be a major part of this role, then as soon as we figured out recruiting was going on, we knew to look back and see who was bitten. I more inclined to believe there were two ROUS' from the beginning.

massive, why wouldn't you have protected, say,

me

on night 6?

Cam

[mathcam]

He's still my best guess. I certainly won't hold it against you if you finish him off and he turns out to be innocent. It's not like we're going to come up with a brilliant strategy tonight. We're just hoping we're lynching the right people in the right order.

Cam

[mathcam]

I agree. Very perplexing. It's the kind of mystery which I'm not sure we'll even be

able

to figure it out. It seems like any time we could conclude something, someone can always say "Ah, but maybe the game was made so that it was

supposed

to look like that."

Evil may have been given safe role claims, or told what the townie PM looks like, etc. Like you said, Someone's got the biggest outstanding question over his head in my mind. Hence my vote.

Cam

[mathcam]

If we're lynching Someone, we should have everyone besides those already voting for him and Fishbulb to vote and unvote him before Fishbulbe votes, so we can be sure it's him whose vote counts twice. Are we going to do that?

I'm sure it makes sense, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Have fishbulb vote and unviote before Fishbulb votes? Do we have a time machine? Also, I thought we were already pretty positive Fishbulb's got the double vote...wasn't he the lynching vote yesterday? Plus, his role is that of a king. It certainly would be odd if the king's role only got one vote whereas some generic townie or the ROUS gets two votes? I doubt it.

Cam

[mathcam]

And does it really seem likely that a killing group would go after the clearly protected Talitha two nights in a row? Especially after the first one failed.

Unvote: Someone

Cam

[mathcam]

Vote: Someone

. I say why not? We've got time to kill.

Cam

[mathcam]

I say finish 'em off.

Cam

[mathcam]

I don't know who keeps biting me, but QUIT IT!

Talitha, results?

Cam

[mathcam]

A mafia or SK who would bite my leg?

Cam

[mathcam]

Going after Talithat because of the leg bit is now ridiculous. If we were all being turned into ROUSes, the town couldn't win, as I think

you

even mentioned before. I'm stupmed as to what the actual mechanism of the ROUSes is. I'm certailny not a ROUS yet, though I obviously have no idea whether or not I'll become one tonight.

Talitha has given us several correct investigations, right? How can we doubt her authenticity? I'm

most

suspicious of massive, who seems to have little in terms of proving that he's a doc.

I think I agree with Norinel's situation: 3 rats from the beginning, no recruiting at all.

Cam

[mathcam]

In fact, if you look at her record since the night of her bite, it gives us little to no new information at all.

Hm, that's a good point. I guess I was thinking about the days of yore when Talitha was helping us pick off the baddies. So maybe she did lose her power if/when she was converted.

I have another possibility that I want to put forth. What if the ROUSes only have one recruit each? Dourgrim hit Someone, Someone hit Talitha, Talitha hit mathcam. Maybe the right move is to lynch mathcam today to stop the process.

Kind of interesting, really, especially for me, since my chances of winning are pretty good, then. Either I'm going to become a ROUS and start killing you all or you lynch me now and increase the chance that the town (and thus I as well) win. Neat.

I still feel there something's too clean-cup about the recruiting theory. I really don't think MeMe would tell us in the thread if there was a leg-bite if the leg-bite was an indication of recruitment. This either weakens the recruiting the point of uselessness or the recruiting process was so strong in the first place that we had little hope of overcoming it.

Getting indignant isn't going to solve anything, massive. I ddin't even vote for you. And yeah, going days without kills is kind of a big crock. There's something very fishy about the killing in the game, and to claim that you're responsible for the lack of it is irresponsible of you as a purported doc. The killing groups were stupid enough to pick Talitha two nights in a row? And as far as faking a doc claim goes, saying that you protected the cop every night sure is an easy fake. And then you seemingly reasonlessly chose to protect no one the next night? There

is

suspicion in your direction, and you can either try to dispell that suspicion or thoriwn in the towel with a "If you want to lynch me, do so." I certainly know which would be more helpful for whichever team you're on.

Cam

[mathcam]

Massive: Okay, it sounded like indignant, but maybe it wasn't. It's hard to read emotions in text, and it's easy to read things that aren't there. I certainly realize the importance of sacrificing one's self in order to improve the result of their team...I realize I might even have to make this sacrifice now to stop the spread of the rat infestation.

And I never meant to imply your night choices were irresponsible, just that assuming that the lack of night kills was due to your accurate choosing of who the mafia was going to kill two nights in a row was a little irresponsible. I think there must have been another factor at work.

Cam

[mathcam]

If they

were

able to do a secret recruit, they probably would have targeted someone that they didn't bite in public, i.e. not me and not Talitha, right?

Cam

[mathcam]

Maybe we should make sure to test Fishbulb's ability each night. If being recruited as a rat means you lose your power, this is an immediate way of testing Fishbulb every day.

Cam

[mathcam]

Agreed.

Cam

[mathcam]

I guess lynching Talitha is at least slightly better than lynching me. As Talitha mentions, if you lynch me and get innocent, this doesn't tell you anything about Talitha because of the other 24-hour theory. Here's what happens in two different cases:

Case One: Talitha is innocent. We can then conclude there is no correlation between being bitten and being a rat. We've at least confirmed me fo the next day.

Case Two: Talitha is guilty. Then either she was a rat to the begin with and the game's over, or it's not. If it's not, then we lynch whoever gets bit tonight, and then lynch me the next day, as I may have turned into a rat by then.

Thoughts?

Vote: Talitha

Cam

[mathcam]

Way to straddle the fence there, mole.

Cam

[mathcam]

Wow, I was very surprised to see the game over in the thread title. I thought Talita was our best bet, but I was sure it was going to screw us in the end. Fun as always, MeMe.

Cam

[mathcam]

Plus, the town got almost screwed because of it. Someone

was

a townie, but still managed to do a little biting on the side....

All in all, I agree. Posting a specific letter of an email

is

quoting the mod, not only by the intent of the law, but also by the letter. Just because you're only quoting one letter doesn't mean you're not quoting. But I guess we do have to rely on the

intent

of the law for things like posting the numerical values of certain letters. That's not quoting, but it's using the specific lettering of a PMed role description for an advantage in the game.

I realize this analogy is mostly hackneyed and irrelevant, but if this were "real life" mafia (as opposed to a game), then there would be no role PM. You would know if you were a townie or not, and you certainly wouldn't be able to verify anyone else's townieness by exchanging info from their respective PMs.

Cam

[mathcam]

I certailny didn't mean to question your design, MeMe, and any mod who puts effort into thinking about these scenarios before the game happens certailny get a good hunkin' dose of respect. I just mean that according to the rules, quoting one letter or equivalents

is

quoting and isn't allowed unless the mod has says otherwise. In my quantum game, I even made public exactly how townie roles were formatted so it wasn't an issue. If the mod says it's fine, then obbiuosly it's fine...I guess I was making (or at least attempting to make) more of a theoretical point.

In any case, I don't think it hurt the game at all and it was really fun all-around.

Cam

[mathcam]

Well, now we're getting to the nitty-gritty of how a word is defined, and frankly, dictionaries don't always get it right. But even in this case, the phrase "the words of" is a figurative phrase and not a literal one, referring to any collection of text produced by that person, in my opinion.

Cam