Princess Bride Mafia - Game Over

[Dourgrim]

random

vote: mathcam

I can't believe Buttercup is dead at the

beginning

of the game... that sucks.

[Dourgrim]

First of all,

unvote: mathcam

because that was just silly randomness.

Sugar: did I miss something, or is there a reason for FoS-ing Werebear and Fletcher? Don't mistake this for me leaping to anyone's defense, mind you... I'm just curious because it seems like kind of a non sequitur in your last post. *shrug*

Frankly, I think it's pretty darn odd that someone would join a themed game and:

• not know anything about the theme, and
  not do even basic research about said theme.

Which leads me to the suspicion voiced earlier: how in the heck can someone in this game not have any clue who Buttercup is? massive pointed this out and used it as a springboard into "evidence" of scumminess, but I'm not so sure. It's a definite possibility, but it's not enough to warrant a vote... yet.

FoS: Someone

&

massive

[Dourgrim]

massive's last post was excessively weird (

merrily?

Who says

merrily

anymore? ) And his strange efforts at a defense seem less than airtight to me... therefore, as one of the two I had FoS'd previously...

vote: massive

[Dourgrim]

Most of my reasons for voting for him have now been addressed...

unvote: massive

I too don't like it when people lurk and then leap out of the shadows to vote for someone with very little explanation. Couple that with the fact that I'm getting almost no scum vibes from Fishbulb, and it's easy for me to...

vote: Leonidas

[Dourgrim]

Leonidas: I see your point. However, I still find lack of real reasoning behind a vote to be somewhat suspicious.

unvote: Leonidas

FoS: Leonidas

I have nothing further of any substance to add that would be worthy of a vote right now, so I won't bother casting one. At this point I'm debating just hopping on a bandwagon in order to get things moving a bit... *shrug*

[Dourgrim]

In the interest of forming a bandwagon to (hopefully someday) reach 10 votes, I'm converting my FoS back into a vote.

vote: Leonidas

[Dourgrim]

There was indeed a clergyman in the movie... he attempts to conduct the wedding of Humperdinck and Buttercup and ends up just saying "man and wife" after being rushed a bit by an impatient Prince.

unvote: Leonidas

So, let's try this again, shall we?

vote: jadesmar

due to more shameless bandwagonning.

[Dourgrim]

Dourgraim, shameless bandwagonning is fine but, shouldn't you go after the person with the most votes first.

In the vote count, Fishbulb had the most votes, you then proceeded to bandwagon Leonidas and then myself. Why are you not voting for Fishbulb?

As Fishbulb himself so ably said, I've already decided in my mind that he is likely to be Town. Therefore, I have no need to vote for him, and instead I shamelessly bandwagonned the player with the next most votes (not counting Leonidas, because he role-claimed). That's all there is to it... sorry, but there's no ulterior motive. *shrug*

You wouldn't happen to be responding to my vote this way because you're the one I'm voting for, would you?

[Dourgrim]

And there's the bandwagon I was waiting for.

unvote: jadesmar

vote: mole

[Dourgrim]

Bah. I feel so... schizophrenic. Time to follow the cop. Speaking of which, protecting DP tonight isn't such a bad idea, doc-types (as if that wasn't obvious).

unvote: mole

vote: Leonidas

[Dourgrim]

I'm back.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe Grandpa couldn't be in this game... after all, the game is themed on the

movie

"The Princess Bride", in which Grandpa is certainly a main character (you hear him throughout the movie). And having Grandpa be something of a cop-type role makes sense to me... but I'm not entirely sure. No vote right now.

[Dourgrim]

Honestly, I see no real reason to vote for anyone in specific at the moment, but I do NOT want to see the day end with a semi-random bandwagon on Day Two... that's just silly. We'd be better off testing DP's sanity by attempting to lynch someone he's found as guilty first, like we tried to do yesterday (Leonidas has proved his role's ability, not its allegiance).

[Dourgrim]

Your "plan" sounds fair enough, Someone, especially if DP has agreed to it. Let's remember, people, that

we haven't entirely cleared DP (or anyone else) yet

. We have a bunch of people dancing around the sanity of a claimed cop, and we still have absolutely zero suspects.

[Dourgrim]

Y'know, this is interesting: suddenly everyone goes quiet, even though we have a sizeable bandwagon on mlaker. We also have Someone and his "master plan" which apparently absolves him from the need to talk, even though (in my mind) he's one of the more suspicious players in this game. Perhaps now would be the time for you to speak up, me buckos. Let's see if I can encourage that:

FoS-that-WILL-turn-into-a-vote-unless-you-start-talking: mlaker & Someone

[Dourgrim]

Oh come on dour.....Why are you voting for me?

Either way, Vote: Dourgrim is potentially a more useful persuit right now. It's really weird that he demanded Someone start talking "again", when Someone's last post was yesterday, and Dourgrim refered to it.

Do us all a favor and read the thread before you people say stuff like that, OK?

Someone:

I am not voting for anyone at the moment

.

JereIC:

I wanted to hear Someone and mlaker keep talking because it seems to me they're the two most suspicious people at the moment, hence my FoS's. That is what FoS means, right? Sheesh... you really are "grasping at straws" as you put it.

[Dourgrim]

Thank you, rite... a voice of reason, hallelujah! And, once again, Someone,

I did not vote for you!

That was an

FoS

, not a

vote

.

[Dourgrim]

Vote for me all you want, Someone... the fact remains that you have been intentionally misleading the Town by repeatedly saying that I'm voting for you when I'm not. And you know what the most fun thing about all of this is? I wanted to hear more from you because you had (and still have) failed to allay my suspicions, and the only thing you do is rant and rave about my FoS. That'd be almost funny if it weren't such an obvious ploy to avoid attention. The reasons to be suspicious of you are well documented throughout the thread, and the only thing preventing people from voting for you and lynching you because of those reasons is the fact that no one really trusts DP's "Grandpa" claim or his sanity. I really don't care how

often

you post... I care what you have to say in those posts. So far all I see is smoke and mirrors.

vote: Someone

That's

a vote. See the difference?

[Dourgrim]

Once again, rite, thank you. That was well-stated. Now, with all effort to not be frustrated, and with a clear head and a readthrough under my belt, let me explain, in painfully specific detail, exactly why I am now voting for Someone.

First, two comments made in quick succession specifically stating I was voting for Someone:

Oh come on dour.....Why are you voting for me?

The same holds true. The only reason that you were voting for me was that I have been supposedly quiet.

This is what I was referring to when I said Someone was repeatedly suggesting that I had already voted for him. Note that both of these posts occurred

before

I actually voted for him. This is what I referenced when I said that I felt Someone was intentionally misleading the Town by making those statements.

Also, it bears noting that the second quote above, while not entirely unjustified, does not accurately represent my intentions. This is what I said that ended up triggering Someone's reaction:

Y'know, this is interesting: suddenly everyone goes quiet, even though we have a sizeable bandwagon on mlaker.

We also have Someone and his "master plan" which apparently absolves him from the need to talk, even though (in my mind) he's one of the more suspicious players in this game.

Perhaps now would be the time for you to speak up, me buckos. Let's see if I can encourage that:

FoS-that-WILL-turn-into-a-vote-unless-you-start-talking: mlaker & Someone

The bolded part of the quote was

intended

to point out that Someone was acting like he was cleared because of the "plan" he put forth regarding DP and was

not

meant to say that Someone was lurking or not posting enough. (I freely admit that I worded it poorly, and for that I apologize, but I stand behind the intention of the statement nonetheless.) As I later said:

I wanted to hear more from you because you had (and still have) failed to allay my suspicions, and the only thing you do is rant and rave about my FoS. That'd be almost funny if it weren't such an obvious ploy to avoid attention. The reasons to be suspicious of you are well documented throughout the thread, and the only thing preventing people from voting for you and lynching you because of those reasons is the fact that no one really trusts DP's "Grandpa" claim or his sanity. I really don't care how often you post... I care what you have to say in those posts. So far all I see is smoke and mirrors.

I stand behind the statement that Someone has not only not cleared himself to my satisfaction but has failed to do much of anything to prove his innocence beyond a role-claim that, quite frankly, would be incredibly easy to fake considering the number of people who have made identical claims in the thread already. I will grant you that it is extremely difficult to prove one's innocence in a game of Mafia. This does not mean, however, that my "gut feeling", as rite put it, is any less valid. And FoS's (which is all I originally threw out there) are often based on nothing more that "gut feelings".

And the relationship to DP's role-claim and subsequent sanity discussion is pretty much precisely as rite put it: your activity in that discussion not only gave you plausible deniability ("Look at how often I post, I can't possibly be scum because I'm not lurking like scum do!") but also drew attention away from you.

One last thing now occurs to me: when I was in the Blinvitational, mith decided he thought I was scum because I did something "stupid" (which I did intentionally to draw attention to myself, a unpleasant but necessary facet of the role I had in that game). A heated debate ensued over my role-claim and allegiance (I was pro-Town), and I got very upset because it seemed that everything I said was being twisted around to "prove" my "guilt". At the time I didn't understand mith's reasoning for that line of thought, but now I think I do. The best way to reassure a Town of your innocence is to get righteously indignant when people question it... which is exactly what Someone seems to be doing. Perhaps he's just genuinely upset with me because of my suspicions, and if that's the case I'm sorry... but perhaps he's trying very very hard to convince us all of his innocence by being angry and using that to cover something up.

I stand behind my vote. Sometimes role-claims just aren't convincing enough for me, sorry (read any of mith's ridiculously long posts on role-claims for more insight). rite may be correct (I just can't bring myself to say he's "right" ) and I could be paranoid... but isn't that kinda how you're

supposed

to play Mafia? *shrug* I don't deny that I could be wrong, but I'm willing to take that chance.

[Dourgrim]

mlaker: Did you read my monster post above thoroughly? I was specifically addressing Someone's concerns in that post, but the same holds for you when it comes to the line you're referencing. At the risk of repeating myself once again,

I was not saying that anyone was lurking

; I was saying that the two people in question (you and Someone) needed to talk more because I was suspicious of you and because the posting you did didn't seem to help prove your innocence to my satisfaction. I explained all of this quite thoroughly in my above post...

jadesmar: Point taken. I still think my reasons for my vote are valid, however, and am sticking with it for the moment. As I said before, though, I'm not so arrogant as to believe I cannot be wrong; if something better presents itself, I'll be happy to switch.

[Dourgrim]

OK, look, before this gets out of hand:

rite (and Werebear, for that matter) and I are not "in league" together in any way.

I appreciate their help in attempting to explain what I would've thought should've been quite obvious, but it's probably in their best interests to stop helping me (even though, once again, it's been appreciated) because I don't want to see someone I consider to be most likely pro-Town get lynched because of me. Thanks, guys, but don't get little bullseyes painted on yourselves trying to explain things to those who cannot (or are unwilling to) understand.

mlaker: are you really serious about referring to my admittedly long post as "smoke and mirrors"? I didn't think it was possible to get any more specific or present any more immutable fact to back up my argument. If you reread the thread very very carefully, you'll see that quite a few people saw Someone as pretty suspicious earlier, but his convenient "Florin Townie" claim seems to have been taken at face value. All I did was address that suspicion and the bandwagon that had already formed on you.

Seems to me you're leaping on this sudden anti-Dourgrim sentiment in an effort to derail your own bandwagon and save your skin. Maybe even more so than Someone was before with the DP thing... y'know, I'm starting to wonder if perhaps

you

and Someone are "in league" together. After all, you have been arguing almost as strenuously as he has about this, even though all you got was a FoS. Hmmm... interesting. Maybe I've found someone more interesting than Someone (boy, doesn't

that

sound weird? ) to vote for.

unvote: Someone

**BIG TIME** FoS: Someone

for the abovementioned reasons, roleclaim or no.

vote: mlaker

[Dourgrim]

ROFL... well twisted, jadesmar. But, you have to admit, it does make a certain amount of (twisted) sense, doesn't it?

[Dourgrim]

Indeed, I find your vote strange. If you're so suspicious of Someone, you should stick to him, instead of joining mlaker's bandwagon to protect yourself.

This is getting ridiculous... are you folks reading my posts at all? I gave you reasons why I decided to vote for Someone, and then people start barking about how ridiculous that vote is. Then I notice something about mlaker that I think is suspicious

and explain it in detail in a post

and change my vote to him, and suddenly

that's

ridiculous. It's almost like I shouldn't be allowed to form an opinion in this game or something...

And y'know what the truly ironic part about all of this really is? No one was suspicious of me until I decided to reread the thread and start speaking up with an opinion of my own. Well, all you good little sheep can enjoy following each other around without actually thinking for yourselves... it seems to be working quite well for you so far.

And for those of you who are bandwagonning to hear a roleclaim from me... "get used to disappointment". The only thing I've done that's "suspicious" this entire game is form an independent opinion in this game, and it doesn't happen to agree with the opinion of the masses.

[Dourgrim]

I have to admit, I've been waiting for a reason to unvote you, Dour (although I was expecting it to be somebody else suddenly becoming suspect), but, naw. I've found a couple of your statements odd,

and now you seem to be ranting and raving about people voting for you

(would you say ranting and raving to avoid attention?). Although your resistance to a roleclaim is admirable, I don't think I'm going to unvote you without one.

The

bolded

portioin of the above quote is false.

(See?

This

is the kind of stuff that frustrates me... )

At no point have I "ranted and raved" about anyone voting for me... as a matter of fact, I never mentioned the word "vote" at all in my last post except when referencing my own votes for Someone and subsequently mlaker. Please don't twist my words for your own purposes or to justify a vote, OK? If you think I'm scum, fine, but don't hide behind semantics to make yourself feel better about a vote you yourself said you've "been waiting for a reason to" undo.

I find you now more suspicious than ever at having first FOS me and Someone(now that sounds weird ) then turn them both into vote in like 2 days or something!

This is absolutely absurd. I flat-out

told

you I was going to turn those FoS's into a vote when I first put the FoS out there, and now suddenly I'm suspicious because I followed through on a promise? You're making less and less sense every time you post, mlaker... maybe you

should

try lurking for awhile and see if that helps any.

[Dourgrim]

For the record, I hate writing these long posts almost as much as you probably hate reading them... but I have to at least

try

to defend myself.

No, you never mentioned people voting for you, but you did say,

And for those of you who are bandwagonning to hear a roleclaim from me... "get used to disappointment". The only thing I've done that's "suspicious" this entire game is form an independent opinion in this game, and it doesn't happen to agree with the opinion of the masses.

Bandwagoning sort of implies voting, except in the most unusual of circumstances. And I think your posts that, for example, say I "hide behind semantics" to make myself feel better in voting for you, or imply that we're all sheep for not agreeing with you and lynching two very un-suspect people, are pretty ranty and ravy, although that's up to interpretation. I stand by my statement, and my vote.

Regarding the "vote" vs. "bandwagon" issue: I was specifically attempting to address those who might be bandwagonning for a role-claim, not those who are voting for me because they think I'm scum. I realize that I did not phrase this in the most precise way, but I think my intentions should've been pretty clear. Of course, at the rate I'm going, everything I say is going to be read in the worst possible light, and I should've realized that when I posted earlier... this is a flaw I've had since I started playing Mafia (check out the Blinvitational, if you can find it, for a shining example of said flaw). Let's just say I know what I meant.

Regarding my "sheep" implications: Everyone's entitled to their opinions (and their votes), and I guess I have to respect that... for implying otherwise, I apologize. However, I stand behind my opinion and vote as well, even though it seems that all the heavy campaigning going on will eventually cause my lynch. I am not scum, I haven't done anything to indicate scumminess, and I'd be willing to wager that not a single person in this game can cite an concrete example of anything I might have done to clearly indicate scumminess without saying something to the tune of "well, his voting and posting seems kinda weird"... unless, of course, you count me FoSing and subsequently voting for people that others seem to consider above reproach. It

is

possible, however, that I'm giving off "scum vibes" which could be provoking all these votes. If that's the case, then consider this:

that's a good portion of the reason I FoS'd Someone and mlaker (at the same time, to address the "wishy washy" theory), which is in turn the reason most of you have cited for voting for me!

If you don't want me to condemn you for your votes and opinions,

don't condemn me for mine.

To do so is the absolute height of hypocrisy.

Regarding my "ranting and raving": I've been stuck in this same damn argument for quite awhile now, and it seems to me that, no matter how much time I take to compose a post that states fact, using quotes whenever possible, people continue to ignore the gist of what I'm saying and instead blindly pile on votes because, I suspect, I annoy them... which, of course, only frustrates me further. And then you come out and say that you've been "looking for a reason to unvote" me, but you can't because you've "found a couple of my statements odd" and that I'm vocally upset that I'm being bandwagonned for little reason. That sounds a

lot

like hiding behind semantics to me. But hey, maybe you have other, concrete reasons for voting for me that you're just somehow unwilling to share with the rest of the class... that's cool. I just wish I knew what they were so I could (attempt to) address them head-on rather than spending all this time triple-checking my posts for unnecessary "oddness".

Someone:

Well spoken.

Whether or not people want to lynch me or someone else, we need everyone's opinions and participation if we're going to make a successful run at finding scum. Stand up and be counted, everyone!

P.S. Would everyone think the absolute worst of me if I suggested that perhaps the seeming lurkers should be drawn out somehow? If so, then someone else should certainly suggest it ASAP.

Sugar: thank you for the vote of confidence, but as I said to rite and Werebear before, it seems to be very dangerous to agree with me nowadays. Be careful...

[Dourgrim]

As if my last post weren't bad enough, I just realized I forgot something:

Werebear: why are you voting for me? You didn't give a reason except to crack an (assumed) joke referencing my denial of any affiliation between the two of us. What gives?

[Dourgrim]

Would everyone think the absolute worst of me if I suggested that perhaps the seeming lurkers should be drawn out somehow?

Now if that is not trying to draw suspicion off ones self I'm not sure what is!

The quote you used was

intentionally

written that way, which you might have picked up on by the smiley you magically managed to fail to quote, you dolt! Jesus, man, grow a few gray cells before posting, would you? This is crap and you know it... or at least you should!

Confirm vote: mlaker

Ok, so even if it was a ploy to avoid discussion....what have I done? The reason that I suspect you, is that you have been avoiding the subject of my lynch. How am I "avoiding the subject" when you don't even make an arguement.

You are confusing two issues here: my theory that your heavy involvement with the DP claim/sanity issue was intended to direct people away from you (which really amounts to a gut feeling), and my suspicion of you afterward based on your initial responses to the above situation. These

are

two different issues, if you think about it... I do not believe that you've been avoiding

me

at all, actually, but you certainly seemed to be avoiding the prevalent suspicion that had been surrounding you before by trying to center attention around DP's claim.

Ok I'm getting quite annoyed with all this I've been avoiding the topic stuff. Why don't we just get it over with: what did I say that made me a suspect. If it was a "gut feeling" how can I be avoiding the subject? So everyone, accuse me with all you have because i'm ready.

Same thing here... you're confusing the two issues and trying to lump them together into one. I think quite a lot of this has to do with the inevitable frustration that comes with long, drawn-out arguments like the one we've been having here. Of course, I could be wrong...

Okay, this is where i get mad . How can you mistrust my role claim? I have exactly the same role as sugar, and mole. Now, I am not invincible because of it but see, if i'm guilty, so are sugar and mole, or else I somehow guessed the second word in the townee title when I had no idea whatsoever of the role.

Are you serious here? You think it's incredible that I could mistrust a

Townie claim

? Jesus, man,

anyone

who read the book or saw the movie could come up with "Florin Townie" as a roleclaim with little or no effort, and it's a tough roleclaim to dispute because there's almost certainly a role out there with that name, it's not going to be a unique role, and there's no way to test it short of lynching. IMO, Townie claims are the best and safest claims for scum to make in a game! And you're amazed I don't buy it at face value? And no, you are not necessarily linked with Sugar and mole because of said claim... it is entirely possible (and perhaps even likely) that one or more of you is lying and the others are telling the truth.

As I said in my previous post, I respect your right to an opinion and a vote... but I really think you're grasping at straws here because you're mad at my former vote and not because you have a real reason to think I'm scum. In short, I think your vote is a glorified OMGUS, and we should be able to do better than that, don't you think?

Werebear: I kinda thought so. Take it from me: all you have to do to get heavily involved is start a gigantic argument with someone (pun definitely intended) like I did... that'll suck you in completely in short order.

[Dourgrim]

I like the way Dourgrim says "Jesus, man,..."

That's all.

Because I can't help but make movie quotes whenever possible... "I would not say such things if I were you!!"

[Dourgrim]

Right now I can't see why Dourgrim would not seem suspicious.I also see rite as extremely supicious as well and if anyone deserves a vote more than Dourgrim it's him.Also Dourgrims warning of not to go with his side seems to be a warning to his other mafia members to tell them not to vote with him,it may not be that but it seems like a logical assumption to me.

OK, so wait, let me see if I have this right: I'm warning rite, Werebear, and Sugar not to help me

in the thread

because they're my supposed "other Mafia members"?! ROFL... you get more and more ridiculous every time you say something! I am not a newbie to Mafia, mlaker... but I am becoming more and more sure that you are. Let me clue you in on some Mafia 101 lessons it seems you may have missed.

• Mafia do
  not
  clearly identify one another in the thread,
  especially
  all in one post via a list of any variety, regardless of the supposed purpose of the list.
  Mafia do
  not
  draw unnecessary attention to themselves (i.e. by entering long, drawn-out arguments with newbies).
  Mafia do
  not
  stick up for one another in the thread to attempt to derail a bandwagon (because it draws too much attention to them).

Do the above three rules make any sense to you whatsoever? They should because they're

common sense

.

Y'know what? I give up on you... think what you want to think, vote how you want to vote. I'm done trying to make sense of you. Go argue with someone else... I'm done.

[Dourgrim]

...and that concludes our broadcast day. Thanks for tuning in, we'll see you tomorrow. [cue national anthem]

ROFL.. smartass.

[Dourgrim]

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.

Obviously I do not agree with this plan, nor do I intend to follow it. I have made my suspicions abundantly clear in the thread and have spent quite a bit of time expressing those suspicions; I'm not going to just drop them because of any "plan" that might or might not give us information. Besides, I do not see a better lynch at this point anywhere else, so why not go after the person I think is suspicious?

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.

"Clearly innocent" I don't agree with regarding Someone, but I'll let that issue pass for now, especially if our claimed Cop is planning on investigating him tonight. And thanks for the vote of confidence.

[Dourgrim]

Wow... almost an entire day without a post. Not a good sign, IMO.

I'm not convinced by mlaker's roleclaim. Matter of fact, I think there are far too many more-suitable characters in the game to make it believable at all. *shrug* Vote stays.

[Dourgrim]

Does anyone else feel like they understand what mlaker is saying his role is? Maybe they could explain it better.

For what it's worth, I think the reason mlaker didn't explain his role well is because he's making it up as we go along here. It's inconsistent with the character in the movie, and he decided not to go look for Buttercup Night One because he'd rather have a role-block than be a Cop? No way... he's full of it.

[Dourgrim]

14 roles before the old booer?

I think I would put old booer in before I would put Valerie in. And Valerie just recently died.

Valerie was played by Carol Kane and is a major facet of one of the most memorable scenes of the movie, IMHO...

oh, and Grandfather, definitely would put Old Booer in before I would put in the Grandfather. so

... and Grandpa was not only the narrator but was played by

Columbo

, for God's sake! Both of those characters are important enough to the main story (and entertaining enough) to be very likely candidates for roles. The Old Booer was played by... um, who? Besides, the role's claimed abilities are very difficult to believe (at least for me). *shrug*

Now combine all of that with the fact that a Cop did indeed finger the guy. Even though the Cop's sanity is in question, at least this way we can put that question to bed once and for all. And we run the risk of losing a one-shot role-blocker... seems like a small price to pay for the chance to lynch someone I've been vocally suspicious of for quite awhile now.

[Dourgrim]

Well, we have proof now that not all the roles in this game represent acted parts in the movie. Very interesting...

I was right about mlaker, so I'm going to go with the other half of that same "gut feeling" that helped nail a baddie yesterday:

vote: Someone

[Dourgrim]

Regarding Someone: I don't have a cohesive argument against Someone, to be honest. I got some seriously scummy vibes off of him earlier on, and he went super-defensive when I FoS'd him because of those vibes. Also, I don't buy the townie claim because, quite frankly, townie is really easy to claim, and anyone can create a townie claim when the game takes place in a named location (in this case, Florin). So coming up with the name "Florin Townie" isn't all that terribly convincing to me. *shrug* Basically, I'm going on what has been described numerous times (including in my last post) as a gut feeling. If someone can come up with a better lead, I'd be happy to pursue it.

[Dourgrim]

Y'know, I've reread the thread (yet again ) and

still

don't see why everyone's so convinced that Someone's innocent. Maybe my poor brain is just incapable of making the logical leap that the rest of you have taken for granted... or maybe he just pulled a fast one by cleverly blending his role-claim in with everyone else's. I'll let it go for now, though, because Leonidas is indeed a better choice, now that I think about it. DP's sanity was somewhat confirmed when mlaker came up scum, and again with this latest discovery... and he did finger Leonidas as guilty right away, didn't he?

unvote: Someone

HUGE FoS: Someone

because I'm not giving up on my feeling that he's not what he claims to be... there's something seriously wrong there. *shrug*

vote: Leonidas

[Dourgrim]

[hijack] I just realized something... where'd your hat go, Werebear? You looked so much more...

festive

with it. [/hijack]

[Dourgrim]

Interesting... no kill last Night, but Someone was attacked by the ROUS (I assume that's the cause of the nasty bites). Well, at least we know we have a Doc around somewhere looking out for us. Since there was no Mafia kill (maybe they're all dead?) and Someone was the victim of the (SK?) attack, it's reasonable to theorize that he's not the baddie I thought he was... my apologies.

And that concludes

my

list of suspicious folks... time for a reread, I guess.

[Dourgrim]

*blink*

Wow... way to read things into what was intended to be speculation, folks. Did you happen to notice the "?" after the "maybe they're all dead" comment? Sheesh...

OK, people, let's go over this nice and slow. There are two reasons I said there's still a Doc around:

• 1. There was no Mafia kill last Night, and I too do not firmly believe we've eliminated all of them (hence the "?" referenced above). Therefore, someone stopped the kill. Yes, it could've been a role-blocker, but my first, natural thought was (and still is) that a Doc successfully protected whoever the Mafia targetted. Seems like common sense to me. Some mods have evidence of an attempted kill appear, some don't. If MeMe does not, then this is a perfectly reasonable theory.
  
  2. Someone survived an attack from a ROUS last Night. Once again, surviving the attack could indicate a Doc's presence, especially since many of you believed that Someone was "confirmed" innocent... it makes sense for the scum to want to get rid of those. And maybe MeMe
  does
  put evidence of failed kills in the thread (I don't know, because this is the first game I've ever played in of hers)... in which case this is also a valid theory.

Both of these seem to be likely possibilities to me... common sense.

And I'm "backing down graciously" regarding Someone because at this point the evidence seems to indicate to me that Someone was telling the truth about his role. In short: I now think I was wrong about him. *gasp!* Heaven forbid I change my mind or admit to being wrong in a game of Mafia!

And to address what DP said: I don't know what you hope to accomplish by "increasing the pressure", but I still am not going to waste my time role-claiming. I went after and helped successfully lynch Count Rugen, for God's sake, and now suddenly everyone's back to thinking I'm scum... whatever.

[Dourgrim]

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.

I was not implying that there are two Docs... I merely gave two examples of events that could indicate the presence of a Doc, and I feel it's reasonable to assume that at least one of those two possibilities is correct. Let me reiterate, just for clarity's sake: I have no concrete information whatsoever to indicate the presence (or lack thereof) of a Doc alive in the game.

[Dourgrim]

Well, personally, I think it's dangerous to start listing innocents with this many people left in the game... we confirm a few innocents between any investigations that we may have, and all we do is create a list of targets for the scum. Unless we have a

ton

of innocents (like all the players in the game but two or three), it's a singularly bad idea at this stage of the game. Hang on to those confirmed innocents until later in the game when it'll be easier to narrow down the number of suspects, and then you can use that list to guarantee a Town win. Reveal too early and the scum can pick them off one by one...

Of course, this is only my opinion... the rest of the Town should weigh in on this too.

[Dourgrim]

Sarcasm duly noted, DP ( )... but it's a valid point. We do run the risk of investigators taking those results to their graves, but I still think it's a better plan than pointing out nice juicy targets for the scum. Besides, what's to prevent someone from coming up with bogus "investigations" to make himself (or his cohorts) look innocent?

[Dourgrim]

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.

OK, hold it. Mere moments ago I was getting crucified for even suggesting there could be Docs left in the game, and now you're saying there are (and you used the plural, no less). How does this possibly make any sense?

[Dourgrim]

OK, hold it. Mere moments ago I was getting crucified for even suggesting there could be Docs left in the game...

A little melodramatic, don't you think? I would hardly call two comments that it seemed like "a lot of docs" to be considered "getting crucified".

I was referring to the four votes that got piled on rather quickly over the span of

less than a day

, actually... but I guess "crucified" might not be the most appropriate word. *shrug* It just sounds cool to say...

[Dourgrim]

I still think this is a bad idea, but I'll go along with the Town's wishes.

I received "innocent" results on CRiX and jadesmar. Doesn't really help much, but it's what I got. Sorry.

[Dourgrim]

It seemed obvious to me (when I did receive information on jadesmar) that

someone

was sending out investigation results, but I didn't know who until now. I never received any information on DP, for what it's worth... I did receive the jadesmar information on Night 3, though, which means that I now consider rite cleared. Of course, it has been pointed out that

I'm

not cleared right now, so take that information however you want.

And, to be blunt, I'm not telling you where I got my CRiX info, but I will tell you that I did not get it from rite. Obviously, if I didn't get the info from rite, I got it from somewhere else... and I am

still

not going to role-claim, period. Suffice it to say that I (equally obviously) have a role with certain minor investigative abilities... which is why I went after mlaker so hard, by the way, and risked my neck by almost being bandwagonned in order to pursue him to a lynch.

[Dourgrim]

OK, I have only one thing to say about this bandwagon forming (again!) on me: if you people don't believe me, then please explain my gigantic crusade against mlaker (aka Count Rugen) at the risk of my own safety. How do you think I knew who to go after? And if I was scum, why in the world would I push so hard, not only against a Mafia, but also attract so much attention to myself? Come ON, people, think about it!

And, for all of you who are voting for me specifically to hear a roleclaim...

go get bent

. I'm not going to cave on this one because

I shouldn't have to

. I haven't done anything except stick my neck out on the Town's behalf and lead the charge in nailing a scum, and now you want a roleclaim from me for no reason... and then cite my refusal to give it as evidence that I'm scum. No way, I'm not buying it. As a matter of fact,

vote: mikehart

for excessively sheep-like behavior. You give a BS one line vote post like that while leaping onto a bandwagon going after someone who's been right in there nailing baddies. Talk about suspicious!

[Dourgrim]

(Also, if he's claiming a semi-investigative town role, why isn't he divulging everything in the interest of just out-and-out winning the game?)

Because I

have

divulged everything... hence the

semi

-investigative role. My role is limited... I'm not a full-fledged Cop. That's all I'm going to say about my role, though.

And regarding your post about how I was #6 voting for mlaker (and mathcam's comment regarding my "1 for 2 record"): yeah, you're right, I wasn't immediately on the mlaker bandwagon because I didn't want to tip him off to my investigative abilities. If you recall correctly, I prodded Someone and mlaker at the same time in that oh-so-controversial post that got Someone all hostile and stuff. I had results on mlaker and a strong hunch on Someone; I simply chased Someone first because he reacted more violently toward my prodding than mlaker... and then I changed directions and went after my second suspect (who I had received the "guilty" result on) after beating the Someone issue into the ground sufficiently... and, I confess, backing down because I didn't want to get lynched. And I'm sorry, but I still believe that my behavior during that time-frame is consistent with my claim; I attracted a lot of attention to myself in order to see the mlaker lynch through... I just didn't do it immediately because I was chasing my other suspect first. Sorry for trying to protect myself while still pursuing scum... sheesh.

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. Here's what I suggest, people: have DP investigate me tonight (considering he's pretty much a verified Cop). If he comes back with a "guilty" result, I will shut my mouth and vote for my own lynch. If not, then maybe you folks should try looking elsewhere for scum, hmm? Sound fair to the rest of you?

[Dourgrim]

Just an observation: is it just me, or is the idea of a list of confirmed innocents (such as the one massive put together a few posts above) a bit unbelievable this early in the game? I mean, I know that we have a bunch of "evidence" supposedly "proving" the innocence of many of those people, but I'm wondering if maybe a couple of those are baddies trying to hide amongst the rest via bogus roleclaims and othersuch.

Matter of fact, it strikes me as odd that mikehart screwed up his "test" of role name. If massive is correct and everyone does indeed have the same role name, why did mikehart fail the test massive put in front of him and yet not receive an instant vote from massive for it? And if we're agreed that it's possible that not everyone got the exact same PM for a given role, then we actually have a bunch of people who are

not

confirmed innocents. Something's not right here...

FoS: mikehart

and

smaller FoS: massive

until I have a chance to further ponder this.

[Dourgrim]

I didn't want to claim an investigative role, despite the fact that it would've cleared DP to your satisfaction, because (as I have all this time)

I refuse to role-claim

. A player

should

be able to get his investigation results across via his voting and posting, not just by saying "Hi! I'm a Cop! He's scum!" all the time. Instead, I decided to prod the person I had investigated, and I also included a player I was suspicious of at the time in that prod in order to attempt to hide my role's abilities should the scum be particularly observant. I believe I attempted to explain all of this earlier in the thread... forgive me for repeating myself, everyone.

We have been deadlined here... and, since I have a sneaking suspicion that mikehart is going to need to be replaced (see Paranoid Mafia), I'm going to shamelessly bandwagon. (Of course, this is the point where I get yelled at and accused of being scummy for trying to divert attention away from myself, but what the heck? )

unvote: mikehart

vote: Werebear

[Dourgrim]

Well, I thought I had gotten all your "hints" about your role, since you were laying them pretty clearly, but I also would have thought that you would have felt no need to continue this need for secrecy since you haven't made any further investigations since night two, and we lynched the only person you found scummy. Makes ZERO sense.

<<snips voting>>

I don't think you're who you've been hinting at. AT ALL.

There is no "need for secrecy" at all, so don't even try to put words into my mouth. Are you reading my posts at all?!

I will not role-claim

, period. Please stop being dense and listen to me, for God's sake! I am not being secretive, I'm not withholding information... I just don't see why I should have to role-claim to get the point of my role across. Besides, you have a confirmed Cop who's going to investigate me tonight (oh, wait, lemme guess, you didn't read

that

post either, did you? ), and I've already said that if he comes back and finds me guilty I'll roll over and let you all lynch me, even going so far as voting for myself tomorrow... so

please

, let's move on to something potentially useful for the Town rather than beating this dead horse, shall we?

[Dourgrim]

Double-posting to add that I never said I had made no further investigations after Night Two... once again massive is trying to speak on my behalf, which is not appreciated.

[Dourgrim]

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?

I did not receive any information on Night 1... sorry.

Yes, my role is quite unbelievable... but, as I'm getting pretty sick of everyone asking me to roleclaim, and since no one seems to believe the fact that the only reason I won't roleclaim is because I shouldn't have to, here goes:

I'm the Boy's Mother. I can eavesdrop at the Boy's door and listen in as he's being read the story and learn whether a player in the game is a "good guy" or a "bad guy" a limited number of times. I learned that CRiX/Fishbulb is a good guy and mlaker was a bad guy.

[Dourgrim]

And you were all amazed that I didn't want to role-claim... mathcam even said what I'd been thinking all along: that you'd never believe me even if I did role-claim. Imagine that... now perhaps you see why I refused to for all this time, and why I got so frustrated when you people repeatedly hounded me demanding the role-claim. Bah.

Well, I'm a man of my word, and I made a promise yesterday. Go Town!

vote: Dourgrim

[Dourgrim]

Great game, everyone. Trying to follow everyone's posts really drove me nuts early on (I sat here for hours at a crack just

waiting

for people to post at times), and I was relieved to finally recruit Someone (pun intended). I think, had I not been the first ROUS to get lynched, I would've been OK... but, as usual, I got myself into trouble by talking too much. If it weren't for the fact that I absolutely

loathe

lurkers, I would've tried it this game.

Well played, Town. Talitha, I thought you were going to pull it off there for awhile... great work. I'm proud of both of my children... erm, descendants... um, recruits, yeah, that's it!