Fritz's Fav Fictional Figures Faction Fest - Game over

[petroleumjelly]

@ IH and SL:

/in with an important note:

My posts will be

significantly

shorter than usual. I expect I will have a drastic playstyle change as well. Deal with it.

GG nubs.

Vote: Macros

.

[petroleumjelly]

Unvote: Macros, Vote: JordanA24

.

Know how I know you're scum?

[petroleumjelly]

Unvote: Macros, Vote: JordanA24

.

Know how I know you're scum?

I'm all ears.

Cuz you applied a rule to YL but not Glork/UA. Hint: Those two

actually

voted themselves.

Also, cuz you didn't deny being scum just now. Just sayin'.

[petroleumjelly]

Osnap.

Ya - Jordanscum probably didn't want to be accused of 'OMGUS', so he didn't mention MoS. Good catch, Ibs. <3

[petroleumjelly]

Yo.

I can think of 2 games where somebody claimed to have a role related to wagoning / forced voting. Me in ScumChat Mafia and Axelrod in Worst Role Evar. Both games we were scum.

Vote: Flameaxe

.

[petroleumjelly]

I have a reason for bandwagoning. It is a part of my role.

Defining wagoning = subjective
+ Vague
+ Convenient
-------
= Scum

Q.E.D.

Why is he not dead?

[petroleumjelly]

K. Claim so we can kill you.

TIA.

[petroleumjelly]

While he is completely loyal and friendly to those he identifies as "master", he has virtually no regard for any form of life, and is driven by an unquenchable thirst for blood written deep into his programming.

...

He is a high-performance assassin droid who excels and delights in all manner of violence.

...

The resulting stories detail HK's exploits concerning former owners. In all cases, he directly or indirectly kills his employer, still doing exactly what is asked of him, and shuts down until he is obtained by another unfortunate person (his programming prevents him from killing his master except by accident; if his master is killed, he shuts down automatically until manually restarted).

So this has nothing to do with those... uh... killings we've had in the night?

[petroleumjelly]

Unvote: Flameaxe

.

Why lynch him if he claims to die for not being on a wagon? Might as well test it = free "lynch". If he don't die, we got ourselves a scum.

I'll look over the game and find another person to kill.

[petroleumjelly]

Vote: Cephrir

. He gives me funny feeling in my khram.

And not the good sort.

Not only is 'he claimed an evil character gettim' pretty lame reasoning, none of the kill methods match a futuristic robot, really. Not to the extent I'd imagine something like this to do anyway. (As a purely theoretical point, I would also imagine that if he needs people to die during the day, he isn't killing them at night, but that's baseless flavour speculation)

Oh ya. Except for:

1.)

Slashing ("assassin robot")

2.)

Inexplicable death ("he directly or indirectly kills his employer")

3.)

Teammates

[petroleumjelly]

Thin_Man's defense of Flameaxe is noted.

[petroleumjelly]

Hi. Post 138. Try reading those two claims I link to, then compare them to this claim. Then readPost 162 and Post 178.

It's not like he can't "save himself" anyways. I've moved on. Have you?

[petroleumjelly]

Dude. Is everybody's role "vote whoever PJ is voting for", or something?

Cuz that's an awesome role.

[petroleumjelly]

Alright, that was a ton of posts to read. Flameaxe is clearly town. MoS-JDodge thing doesn't seem scummy on either side, more like a misunderstanding. I have to agree with CKD that there doesn't seem to be any particular reason why Glork has accumulated 5 votes, although I didn't go look. Nobody sticks out to me as scum at the moment, may have to read some people's posts in isolation later.

Unvote Sarc

.

Yo.

1.)

This post gives the impression that you have both read the game in detail and

not

read the game in detail. Which is it?

2.)

Why is Flameaxe "clearly town"? Don't use quotes from other people. That's why I voted you, btw.

3.)

What the heck. I swear, every single time I get lynched, it's for no apparent reason/without a case. It's really annoying. I guess all I can say is that some people really need to recalibrate their scumdars.

Did you just finish reading Glork's posts when you wrote this? (i.e. you used "recalibrate your scumdar", just like Glork).

This is probably going to be my longest post in the game. Just sayin'.

[petroleumjelly]

I don't have time to read this. What are you guys

thinking

making this 20 pages? Long games = town loses. Srsly. I'll check and see if I still like my Cephrir vote sometime this weekend.

[petroleumjelly]

I am the modern Confucius. You must meditate upon my truths and questions before you can comprehend them.

1.)

Sarc is arguing for the sake of arguing. When people vote Blight, he tells them to vote Cephrir. When people vote Cephrir, he tells them to vote Blight. Just about everybody is scum according to his posts. For Sarc, I'll consider this townish until further notice.

2.)

Glork is reminding me of Space Monkeys. He is acting like a 'dubmass', then trying to smooth it over.

3.)

Cephrir is

still

quoting other people's reasoning (he's done it for Post 157 and Post 500). Using others' words = can't get caught in your own words.

4.)

MoS is <3ing more than I'm used to seeing.

5.)

I don't agree with Blight's reason for voting Theopor,

or

his definition of role-fishing,

or

his definition of null-tell... but I don't think he is scum. {Note to self: background check him.}

6.)

Skruffs, since when do you "make a habit of ignoring me"? In my experience, you've done just the opposite.

7.)

I'm wondering if my meta on K-Scope is going to end up like my meta on CES.

8.)

I need a slugging.

"Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change." My vote stays on Cephrir.

[petroleumjelly]

Sarc:

If you read my post, I think Blight is town. So I won't be voting him.

Skruffs:

Hi.

As should be apparent, "lots of comments about somebody" probably isn't something that's going to come from me this game (I didn't "comment" on a lot of posts, if you haven't noticed). Brevity is the soul of whit. I don't care about your other posts right now. Now answer my question. Snooch.

[petroleumjelly]

6.)

Skruffs,

since when

do you "make a habit of ignoring me"?

In my experience, you've done just the opposite.

Answer the question.

[petroleumjelly]

6.)

Skruffs,

since when

do you "make a habit of ignoring me"?

In my experience, you've done just the opposite.

Answer the question.

^^^

[petroleumjelly]

In other news, I'd like to see PJ elaborate on his "Glork is playing like he did in Space Monkey" comment.

And I'd like a golden toilet. Here's my "elaboration", though:

He is acting like a 'dubmass', then trying to smooth it over.

Make the connection yourself. In case it has not been made clear, explanations are not my bag this game.

FYI: I'll think Ibby has gotten the same vibes from you. True story.

[petroleumjelly]

6.)

Skruffs,

since when

do you "make a habit of ignoring me"?

In my experience, you've done just the opposite.

Answer the question.

Hi. If you think you have "answered" this question, then quote your answer, cuz I'm not seeing it.

Pj, give me a reason why your input in this game is worth paying attention to, and I'll reconsider writing you off as ignorable.

Yet to be responded to.

Let's think.

'Cuz mafia is played by paying attention to people.

It's not my job to justify why you should read my posts

; if you are going to ignore them,

you

are the one that needs to justify that.

We already know (now) that you aren't following the game and that you aren't scumhunting yourself and that your main strategy seems to pick out a few words and post them as if they mean something so as to avoid actually participating.

FoS: Skruffs

. I have read the game, and my posts make that clear.

I just comment on what I think are the most important things.

Superfluous = gone. Being brief is not equivalent to not participating.

[petroleumjelly]

Beyond that, what exactly do you have on me? How else did I 'act like a dumbass'?

Lemme put it this way.

* Newbie 254: You acted like a dumbass, but it was playful and harmless
* Space Monkeys: You acted like a dumbass, and it was harmful ("Hammer, Hammer!")
* Now: You acted like a dumbass, and it was harmful (hammering p5 is just stupid, as well as your UA vote, and the Skruffs 'argument')

That's as much as you're going to get.

[petroleumjelly]

FYI: The Sarc/Yagami argument is just as boring as the Sarc/Blight argument.

[petroleumjelly]

I should be able to post something meaningful soon, but I don't have time today, or probably tomorrow.

Chop chop. I don't have all day.

[petroleumjelly]

I know you know that I'm here.

So who do you think is scum, Mr. Assassin Robot?

[petroleumjelly]

I haven't read FTF, nor do I care to. Also, I know you play to "break" the metagames on you (so that whatever somebody throws against you, you can point at some game and say "I did it when I was town there too, so that doesn't work!").

The fact is, you have played so many games (and so stupidly) that you can potentially call

anybody's

metagame a "crock of shit".

Newsflash: I don't care. I have my meta on you, and I'm going to use it. The fact that you may have acted stupidly as town before does not sway me in the least.

Example: Space Monkeys, I accused you of going after newer players (ala Committee Mafia). You immediately point to a game (or two, hell if I remember) where you did that as town. If it is not clear,

I don't like that your first defense is to cite other games which you played to purposely break metas on you.

Did you cite other games where you acted stupidly in FTF, by chance?

[petroleumjelly]

Nope, doesn't work for me.

Wagoning =/= Hammer.

Hammer = Harmful (it stops discussion), Not Playful
Wagoning = Useful (discussion continues), Playful

I'll wager all the games you cited for you playing as town did not include you hammering (or offering hammer) somebody prematurely.

Btw, I need to go to classes, and I have a 10-page essay due tomorrow. Prolly won't be posting again 'til Friday.

[petroleumjelly]

Town hasn't actually decided to test Flameaxe today. We can test him whenever, or choose not to. I think he's prolly scum, tho - his vote appears more for survival (works as both town or scum; either he lives as town or can't get "caught" as scum) than scum-hunting.

Hay Skruffs, did you ever answer my question? If so,

quote your answer

.

[petroleumjelly]

Oh yeah, I almost forgot this:

8.) I need a slugging.

Slug: PJ

Slime: CTD

.

Btw, Skruffs, you are totally

not

in on the sluggings.

[petroleumjelly]

Who is BBB?

"Buh Buh Bam", who is Flameaxe (it was also his avatar until recently). At first I thought "BeanBagBoy" and was also confused.

[petroleumjelly]

Skruffs

:

1.) How many groups of scum do you think there are? [questioning to be continued pending answer]

I would prefer a Skruffs lynch I think...... that was a really weird Cephrir wagon out of nowhere.

What's weird about it?

[petroleumjelly]

Skruffs:

2.) If there are multiple groups of scum (which you think there are), do you think one scum would "know" somebody is town?

I think there are 2-3 scum groups, by the way - a mafia [different kill types], a SK [same kill type], and then there's a chance at either a second mafia [using the same person to kill], a second SK, a lyncher/jester [implying a Vig], and I'm not going to discount the possibility of a Cult this early [implying a Vig].

[petroleumjelly]

Pj - I have no clue to be honest. If you are suggesting a mafia cop, you are over my head regarding my limit of safe speculation. I'm going to politely ask you to either circumsize this topic or be more vocal about what's on yourmind. You have chutzpah, you can do it.

You know, I really do hate playing with you.

Check the first post. There is a dead "Mafia Role Namer Finder", i.e. Mafia Cop. However, since you have

taken note that there are different killing methods when answering my question about groups of scum

, I

do not believe

you failed to notice a dead Mafia Cop. If you do not consider a Role Name Cop a "Cop", go ahead and say so.

But my

point

is this: there is no way

anybody

would "know" somebody is town without Masonry, or investigation or some such thing. So when you say something like:

Although I think PJ - if he knows that the robot is a town role and thus knows that he Will die in being tested, is a great wagon, in my eyes.

It kinda sticks out to me. Especially since

you

have claimed to think Flameaxe is scum. In other words, your position is:

"I think Flameaxe is scum. PJ thinks Flameaxe is scum. But if Flameaxe is town, PJ probably somehow

knew

he was town so we should lynch him afterwards.

That's a stupid position, because even

if

I were scum your reasoning does not hold because there is no way (barring a scum cop role) that I could "know" he was town, especially if there are multiple scum groups.

My plan is elegant. If we want to "lynch" Flameaxe, we test him instead. It's the most logical thing to do.

Btw... I'm fairly surprised at you, pj. I think you are the first person to mention a cult. This pops my cranial cells.

I do not believe this for one iota.

Are you claiming to be "surprised" that I --

petroleumjelly

, hater of cults to the point where I wrote a 9-page single-spaced essay denouncing their presence in mafia games,

and

have had extensive experience in being screwed over by them,

and

am constantly referenced whenever a discussion on balancing cults -- you are surprised that

I

am bothering to consider the possibility of a cult?

FoS: Skruffs

. I don't think you believe what you are saying, and on more than one occasion. I also don't believe you have

ever

"made a habit of ignoring me", and you have constantly avoided this issue despite my asking you to clarify multiple times.

[petroleumjelly]

Ah, frick.

To Fritzlerize my last post: Skruffs is Nazi. We should kill him.

[petroleumjelly]

Skruffs: Hi. Stop being an idiot, please. It makes things easier.

You think Flameaxe is scum. I think Flameaxe is scum.

Which plan do you think is better if you think he is scum?

Lynch him

or

test him

? By testing him,

regardless of his alignment the town gets an "extra lynch"

, so this does not "detract attention away" because the town

still gets to lynch somebody

, whereas lynching him has no such opportunity.

Trying to lynch him as opposed to testing him is scummier regardless of his alignment, because this TAKES AWAY the extra lynch for the town to try and hit scum. More lynches = town has more control = better for the town.

You are trying to characterize getting an extra lynch as "getting two for the price of one" from the perspective of scum,

but that makes no sense

. The scum wants to waste lynches on townspeople; the more lynches they have to avoid, the worse off the scum are. My plan gives the town another lynch. Explain how that is good for scum, s'il vous plait.

My

secondary point

(which I cared about significantly less than the above) is that regardless of my role, there is no way I could "know he was town".

Am I just talking to a brick wall here? Nobody else seems to be talking about this. Let's get some opinions up in here.

[petroleumjelly]

Do you think PJ believed flameaxe's claim before he suggested testing him? That's the point of that jab towards PJ.

Gosh, let's see. Here are the posts before Flameaxe ever claimed his full role. Upon him talking about bandwagoning (i.e. no tests were possible at this point), we had:

Post 138, Post 162, and Post 164.

1.)

Are you

really

going to try to argue that I "believed" Flameaxe (or thought he was town) before he fully claimed? I was leaning towards him being scum before that. Your "jab" in the context you are putting it in does not make sense.

2.)

You have called my posts "convoluted". They are as

simple

as my posts have ever been in

any

game. There is nothing here you should not understand.

3.)

You are answering questions selectively, specifically by not answering the following:

4.)

You have not answered to when (if ever) you have "made a habit of ignoring me".

5.)

You have not answered why scum would instead want to "test" Flameaxe instead of lynching him. If scum can find a way to make sure they cannot possibly be lynched (which would include lynching Flameaxe from the perspective you are arguing from), they will take that over "testing" a townsperson and risking lynching one of their own any day.

6.)

You have not answered if you were

actually

"surprised" that I am keeping the option open for a cult.

Unvote: Cephrir, Vote: Skruffs

. This does not mean I am not suspicious of Cephrir, just that I do not believe Skruffs believes a single word he is spouting at this point, and he clearly needs to die.

[petroleumjelly]

I was writing up a response to you, but it was getting too long. Here's a shorter version without quotes. And this post is

still

way too long.

1.)

I insult people who I think are playing stupidly or who I think who are scum. If I insult you every game, try putting two and two together.

2.)

Scum would rather lynch Flameaxe and make sure they get to night safely. I think your "view" is completely stupid. Probably the only reason you are advocating it is because

you

wanted to lynch Flameaxe after his claim and after doing so you know it would look stupid from your perspective to say "scum would rather lynch him than test him".

3.)

You claim I'm "ignoring the scum-hunting you've done" while simultaneously claiming I have not commented on certain players (which I

have

commented on, btw, except for maybe Theo, who I have no clear read on yet so there's nothing to

comment on

).

Do you expect me to have commented on every player in the game?

4.)

I'm not "ignoring the bulk of the game", but I

am

commenting on

what I think it is necessary for me to comment on

.

The burden you are trying to place on me is along the lines of "you need to comment on every happening in the game in detail", and it's completely selective since if you apply it to

me[/] you should apply it to

others

.

5.)

I focused on your "half-serious comment" because you kept

not answering my question

about it until just now. And now if it's only half-serious, where did the 'serious' half come from? What games have you ignored me in?

6.)

I don't care about the "people on both wagons" theory this early. I tried the same thing in LO2 – it didn't hold. Scum aren't always on wagons in large numbers. It's better to look at these things later when there are more dead roles or confirmed roles.

7.)

MoS claims to forget his roles in games - in that sense, he does not have a meta to break. I still think there have been times (read: Old Maid) where I have been able to get a read on him, though.

8.)

My posts have been focusing on you lately because you are the person who has been non-responsive to me for multiple posts in a row, and to scum-hunt it helps to

stick to a few targets

.

----

There are supposedly 21 people alive. Why are there only like 5 people talking?

[petroleumjelly]

3. - I don't see this as a rebuttal. Is there something wrong in noting that you are focusing entirely on one player for disagreeing with one of your suggestions which seemed suspicious?

Read my posts against you. I've given more than one reason for voting you.

5. - Except I did. You were posting one line posts, and that jab was to encourage you to post something meaningful instead of "Oh wow everyone is following me yay" and "Cephrir makes my balls feel funny"

Except you aren't reading my posts. Again. Let's look at my comments on Cephrir:

Comment #1, Comment #2, Comment #3, and a poke here. Then try checking the context of the posts.

6. - Why did you not mention that when I first opened up that line of thought, then? Unhelpful.

Because I didn't see the need to

. If I felt it was commentworthy, I would have commented on it. This is freaking simple to understand. Not everybody comments on everything. And notice how you're trying to lay the burden of commenting on

everything

on me

again

; and not only that, but you are only laying this burden on me but not other players.

Again.

7. - So are you saying that MoS isn't worth looking at, that you don't have a read on him, or that it's pointless to look at him? *confused*

I am at the point where I think you are deliberately misinterpreting my posts. I

never

said MoS "was not worth looking at", nor did even I imply it. I said MoS

does not really have a meta to break

, but

despite

that I can still get reads on him, and I cited an example to boot.

8. - I don't think you can honestly say I've been nonresponsive. I have a very high post rate in this game, and almost all of my posts are more than just filler. Can you say the same?

I don't give a flying flip about your

posting rate

. You have ignored multiple questions from me, as illustrated in my Post 732. And note you

still

have not answered my question about whether you were

actually

surprised about me mentioning the possibility of a cult, nor have you answered my

second

asking of how your comment about "ignoring me" was now "half-serious", even though I've been poking at you to answer that for probably half the game.

As well, my posts have been

just the opposite of filler

. I post when I have

something to say

. My {early} posts were simply

short, compact, and to the point

, and you are trying to pass this off as "not participating".

----

Hey Sarc, what particular reason do you have to think Skruffs is not scum?

[petroleumjelly]

Quick post from work.

There is a difference in the lack of comments we are making, Skruffs.

You

have avoided answering quetsions

posed directly to you

. You are accusing

me

of not commenting on small details of the game. So far as I know, I have answered all questions posed to me.

I did not ask Sarc to "prove" you were town - I asked him to tell me why he

thought

you were town, because I find it annoying that he is making a habit of saying "vote whoever I am voting and

then

maybe I'll look at who you're voting" the whole game, and I have found nothing particularly "pro-town" about your play (instead I am seeing you making 'arguments' which I have a hard time anybody would actually

believe

).

My attack on you was not because you were surprised there was a cult. It was because we both thought Flameaxe was scum, and despite my coming up with a

better

plan for the town (effectively letting the town "lynch" two scummy players instead of one) you have tried to interpret my plan as scummy, which makes no logical sense to me (as MoS has said).

[petroleumjelly]

My attack on you was not because you were surprised there was a cult.

Correction: Surprised that I am keeping the possibility open for a cult.

[petroleumjelly]

Hi.

Better to claim than not to claim. If you're scum, you can help the town find out if we think the scum were given fake-claims, or such things. There really is no pro-town reason not to claim if it has even the slimmest of possibilities to get people to unvote you.

[petroleumjelly]

Addendum:

Of course, you would be better off if you actually tried... you know... scumhunting, taking stances, defending yourself, etc, instead of popping in to effectively say nothing. It seems pretty clear you're at least paying attention to the game; you should try interacting with it now.

[petroleumjelly]

Way to take a position, sport.

Last I checked, I don't much care what Yos would argue, seeing as he's not in the game (and I don't agree with him to boot, although there are certain cases where I can see it being beneficial, I think more often than not that

is not

the case). What I

do

care about is what

you

think of Cephrir's lack of claim.

[petroleumjelly]

*bites Pooks*

To which slacking are you referring, and what are your opinions on the following:

1.) Cephrir
2.) Skruffs
3.) Flameaxe
4.) Sarc
5.) Blight
6.) Glork

[petroleumjelly]

Cephrir, would you mind linking me to a few finished games meeting the following criteria:

1.) Where you were a townie
2.) Where you were a power role of any sort (preferably a few examples)
3.) Where you were mafia
4.) Where you were some other type of scum other than mafia

Preferably examples from large games, but I will accept small games if you feel they are more representative of your play.

[petroleumjelly]

PJ - Why are you interested in seeing if Cephrir is a power role? He claimed vanilla townie. Even if he is a power role who doesn't want to reveal that, why would you bring it up?

...

I honestly cannot believe you are saying that. I

do not

think he is a power role, and that is

not

what I am bringing up. I am seriously flabbergasted that more people are not voting for you.

I am asking Cephrir those questions because I cannot off the top of my head remember having played any games with him, so I do not know his general playing style. I decided his displayed apathy to the game was for one of two reasons:

1.) He is a role he finds boring
2.) He is scum

My questions posed to him was for me to decide

myself

(without him telling me how

he

thinks he plays) whether or not he is more likely to be apathetic as a townsperson or not, versus a power role. So basically I am trying to gauge whether or not he finds townies boring roles to play.

My vote stands.

[petroleumjelly]

*bites Pooks*

To which slacking are you referring, and what are your opinions on the following:

1.) Cephrir
2.) Skruffs
3.) Flameaxe
4.) Sarc
5.) Blight
6.) Glork

*waits*

[petroleumjelly]

Gone from Nov. 8 - 12.

[petroleumjelly]

It's been a while since I posted. Been busy and gone. I'll see if I can catch up soon, but I don't have high prospects.

[petroleumjelly]

Thought I would post so it is evident I'm still alive. I haven't read this game in forever, and I don't expect it to change anytime soon. Been brain-dead after having taken the LSAT all day, and I have more papers than I care to contemplate over the next two weeks.

I'll send a PM to Fritz so he can replace me if he wishes, but I should hopefully be back in the swing of this game in a couple weeks.

[petroleumjelly]

Hi. Apparently I am not yet dead, so I will try to read through the game and decide who we should lynch hopefully before tonight is through.

[petroleumjelly]

Finished my reread.

Vote: Glork

1.)

Glork just claimed to have been given ("just for last night") an "immunity". This reads like Godfather immunity to me. However, if (as is implied) his immunity is from night-choices in

general

, then this post becomes more intriguing:

2.)

Vote: Glork

. the ultimate random vote...

...

or is it?

*ominous music*

My guess is Tar investigated Glork, and simply got something along the lines of "no result". I think Glork has had his "immunity" the whole game, and is only claiming to have been "given" an immunity this night because he figured he would be investigated after his claim.

Of course, this also fits with a theory where Tar actually got a guilty result on Glork, and Glork has some sort of X-Shot Immunity which he used last night but not Night One, or something along the lines of alko's role in Committee Mafia (where if alko the SK did not send in a kill, he was given night-choice immunity).

3.)

Reading back, Glork's erratic behavior on D1/D2 (which I still connect with Space Monkeys Mafia) is more fully explained with the assumption that he actually has some sort of investigative immunity (with the possibility of nightchoice immunity). Godfathers (in my experience)

want

to be investigated, so they will try to push the envelop to a point where they are not suspicious enough to be lynched, but

are

suspicious enough to be investigated.

4.)

Although Glork did claim a "testable" role, it is – as of yet – unproven (and happily two of his targets are now dead). We can see what IH says about that, though.

5.)

Glork was

so

trying to get me to second-guess him with Post 619. Damn him.

6.)

After reading these points over, there doesn't seem to be a convalesced role as to what I would think Glork's immunity would be (it switches between simply investigative to nightchoices), but his claim and actions both lead me to him being scum with

some

sort of immunity, regardless as to whether it's constant or X-Shot.

~~~~~

It would probably be worth it to compare the wagons we've had over the last couple days, but I'm lazy and don't feel like it at the moment. Probably a good number of people on {JordanA24, Sarc, Blight, Cephrir}.

Short thoughts on some others:

I say we also kill Flameaxe and Skruffs, in whatever order. My reread has not convinced me that either of them looks more townish whatsoever (although the Glork-Skruffs fiasco Day Two will probably need a rereading after we find out whether Glork is scum).

I don't know about CKD's alignment; I'm willing to see if his 'investigations' match up, so long as the people he targets don't keep dying. I will note that his "I was surprised Oman came up guilty because I didn't know what a miller is"-line is difficult to buy, but I suppose it's possible somebody wouldn't know what a Miller is.

However, CKD's actions do not seem to match up fully with a Cop (although how Cops should act certainly are not set in stone); the fact that he has constantly gone after Ibby and continued to bring her up as a subject would lead the casual mafia player to believe it was more likely than not that he investigated Ibby with a guilty result, but it turns out he did not investigate her at all (although this may no longer be true). Had he died N2 and had not claimed before then, I probably would have at the very least poked at that line of reasoning for a while. Either he is a Cop who is playing badly, or he's scum hanging on by the skin of his teeth. Regardless, he'll probably die soon, so we might as well get the max amount of investigations as we can from him.

There are a couple people I think are probably town, but I won't bother going into detail since that usually leads to those people dying.

~~~~~

If I had to guess, Sarc was the "inexplicably dead" killer.

Night One

: Killed pickemgenius (who cares about the reason)

Night Tw

o: Killed Tarhalindur (premeditated in Post 26)

Night Three

: Killed Iammars/Blight (who Sarc constantly went after D2)

Not that I think this helps us per se, but does narrow down the possibilities for mafia/SK kills. Also, if this is correct, I would guess the fact that Iammars/Blight's role was not revealed does not have something to do with a "janitor" role, but was probably something to do with the role itself (such as my "Usurper to the Throne" role in Royal Family Mafia).

On another note, props to Sarc for killing N0. Ballin'.

~~~~~

I'll try to be more Fritz-like from here on out, but having been away for so long I figured you all needed some PJ-lovin'.

[petroleumjelly]

You gave me a roleblocking... but I didn't recieve anything

Wait. So did get a role-blocking or not?

[petroleumjelly]

I am suggesting Glork has had the immunity the whole time, and did not "receive it". It's probably a way to preempt "I tried to investigate/track/X you, but..." on a night where actions directed at him were likely.

Lack of role-block receiving is sealing the deal here.

[petroleumjelly]

You don't have to be a traditional GF. Heck, you might even be SK like alky's Committee role now that I think on it (which might explain your constant obsession with 'searching for SK').

[petroleumjelly]

Yo.

Last I checked, claiming "everything about my claim is screwed up" is

not

a good reason to think somebody is town.

[petroleumjelly]

About the

only

reason I could

possibly

believe somebody is messing with Glork's claimed role would be if it were plausible that there was a scum-roleblocker. However:

[*]creampuffeater -

Lucas Barton - Mafia Roleblocker

Slashed up Night 2

... is rather indicative that there is nothing which should interfere with anything for last night in particular, seeing as a scum role-blocker is already dead. A second scum role-blocker is fairly implausible, in my humble opinion.

I am not prone to thinking Fritz would give the mafia (or even two members of separate mafias) or a SK the additional ability of being able to redirect. Even if he did, I also doubt that Glork has had his actions redirected, since if that were true somebody would have claimed to have gotten at least one of the "items".

I've read his claim a couple times now – I also would not buy it if he attempted to shift his claim to being a Jack-of-all-Trades, because if that were so he would have gotten a result on CPE on Night 0. There is no indication in his claim that his ability is defective, or is an X%-type role.

This looks like a clear case of Occam's Razor. The simplest solution is that Glork is lying, and is therefore scum.

So why would Glork claim a role that didn't work like that at all?

Do you think that Glork would make that kind of claim?

Hmm. Lemme think.

Glork was on the road to being lynched yesterday (or at the very least, it appears he thought as much). Scum have a tendency of not wanting to be lynched, even if they can only postpone their death until the next night or the next day – this equals a longer amount of time where the town has that information, and they may be able to manipulate people or actions in the meantime.

At the very least, by claiming something which is "testable", Glork would almost be assured to stay his lynch for at least a single day, thereby giving him the opportunity to think overnight, and possibly discuss the game with his partner(s) if he has any. If Glork has no abilities to be "confirmed", then no matter what he claimed, he was going to be in one of two camps:

1.)

Theoretically uncomfirmable, and hence giving us no reason to

not

lynch him; or

2.)

Theoretically confirmable, hence giving us a reason to let him live another night, but which would also result in it becoming clear he has no such confirmable ability

Scum in that position have a good incentive to go with Option 2.

Perhaps the biggest thing for me is Glork's lack of reaction. If

I

knew I were being set up for a lynch (or suspected as much) and/or that my role was faulty or deceptive, I would probably be

completely pissed

and do a fair amount of finger-pointing and verbal planning for future lynches (while simultaneously berating the town, naturally). I'm fairly sure Glorktown would do the same, or at least show a more emotive response than what he has shown. Instead of becoming upset, however, he seems to be more concerned with making WIFOM comments and pointing to past games.

Also, I've been watching Deathnote, so I

totally

feel like L right now.

*eats chocolates*

[petroleumjelly]

Damnit, I keep forgetting to act like Fritz.

The important question is why didn't MoS get the role, because Glork had no reason to get roleblocked/whatever that night. There's like, another long list of questions, but, uh, yeah, boring.

Technically

, there could be a reason (I've thought of it and summarily dismissed it, but I feel like being logical atm). Glork claimed to target CPE N0; CPE turned out to be a mafia role-blocker. If CPE suspected Glork was the originator of the "investigation", he would have a reason to role-block Glork the next night so that Glork could not give other people similar abilities.

Regardless, that does not give an explanation for last night.

[petroleumjelly]

Since when do people need conclusive evidence to lynch somebody? Fie.

Not wanting to lynch Glork at this point is like walking out of a room with a chocolate cake, and returning to see some kid with chocolate frosting smeared all over his face, shirts, and hands, only to think "Who could have done such a thing!?".

Circumstantial evidence is all you need, and is often the best you're going to get.

Only one question of Glork's is really worth answering.

Now, if you were scum who had the ability to make my role unconfirmable and wreak general havoc by not claiming to have recieved anything, would you choose to admit that you got a gift?

Yes. I would see no point in me risking myself being lynched the next day if you were to actually turn up as you claim.

[petroleumjelly]

Now, if you were scum who had the ability to make my role unconfirmable and wreak general havoc by not claiming to have recieved anything, would you choose to admit that you got a gift?

Yes. I would see no point in me risking myself being lynched the next day if you were to actually turn up as you claim.

...even if neither I nor anybody else had knowledge of you (or your scumbuddy) recieving my gift?

Absolutely. If it were near endgame, I'd probably lie about it at the drop of the hat, but with 17 alive it's suicide either the next day or soon afterwards.

[petroleumjelly]

Look. It's feasible you were role-blocked on Night Two. It is not feasible you were role-blocked on Night Three. If you claimed to give me something on Night Three and I in fact had received it, I would just say I received and be content with killing you at night and being glad I got a free role-blocking (or whatever ability) out of the deal.

Fact is, when a town role dies and it becomes apparent they were telling the truth, and the "nail in the coffin" (so to speak) was my own denial of having received something you had given me, I can be fairly certain that I would (at least) be interrogated about that, and my chances of being investigated would certainly go up.

If you think IH is scum lying in order to get you lynched (as you seem to be suggesting), put your money where your mouth is instead of trying to make it look like a "reasonable alternative" simply to get others to unvote you.

[petroleumjelly]

Your argument seems to have shifted. You started with:

Scenario A

: I am scum whom you have given a gift

... and now it is:

Scenario B

: I am a scum redirector who you did

not

give a gift to purposefully, but I redirected you into giving me that gift

----

In the second scenario, I would of course not say a blasted thing about receiving your ability, because there would be absolutely nothing connecting me to your lynch. However, your second scenario has two very important assumptions:

1.)

That there is a scum redirector

2.)

That the redirector is sure you are telling the truth in the first place, and hence redirecting you to myself would not simply

kill me

in my attempt to gain your "gift"

[petroleumjelly]

What matters here is this: your "point" necessitates the existence of a scum redirector.

And as it happens, I find the chances of you being scum

yourself

incredibly more plausible than the existence of a scum redirector.

[petroleumjelly]

This game needs to be done by like February 11th. Games don't get done unless we lynch somebody.

Let's lynch Glork and get it over with - I know everybody wants to.

It's the cool thing to do.

[petroleumjelly]

I will be away for much of Friday, Saturday, and possibly Sunday for Mock Trial. Please lynch Glork during that timeframe.

[petroleumjelly]

Here is

all

you need to know:

{PJ + Ibby + Pooky} all want Glork lynched. Therefore, we need to lynch Glork. QED.

[petroleumjelly]

Jelly's To-Do List

1.) Lynch Glork
2.) Put a sock in Skruffs' mouth
3.) Get nightkilled so I don't have to waste my time with this game any more

...

5.) Profit

~~~~~

This is all I ask. Please allow for a Jelly's dream to come true. <3

[petroleumjelly]

4 is purposely blank.

Your underwear is on your head.

I can see IH being this dumb as both town and scum.

[petroleumjelly]

my bad

i misread the first post



still lynch glork.

he is fun to kill

and he is scum too

hehehe

So could you see

your

character as an "action figure", then? [And for those of you with sharp eyes, this

is

technically asking for a soft-claim.]

[petroleumjelly]

Show that you care, show that you can help save a life.

I want to save lives by taking away Glork's life. Let's get to it.

[petroleumjelly]

Note:

I will be gone from tomorrow (Thursday) until Sunday, likely without internet access.

[petroleumjelly]

I like Haschel's post. Not because I think it is accurate by any stretch of the imagination, but it indicates to me:

1.)

He is legitimately reading through the game;

2.)

He appears to be doing this without having knowledge of who he 'ought' to attack if he were scum

I have an inkling he'll revoke a good deal of that post, but no sense of having an agenda permeates through it to me.

~~~~~

On an unrelated note, I've been waiting to lynch Glork forever, but the wagon never seems to go anywhere. I might be up for an IH-wagon, or some other wagon just to get this game rolling.

[petroleumjelly]

I agree that this Nibbler infestation is confusing.

*adjusts jelly-roll hat*

[petroleumjelly]

Unvote: Glork, Vote: IH

.

Please let's end this day.

[petroleumjelly]

Flew back into town yesterday, and I will not have the time to read this game until Saturday (possibly Friday).

[petroleumjelly]

Ah, this game is alive. And I am not dead.

UA, the question in question (odd phrasing) is how you "knew" you were hammering JordanA24 on Day One when you were not the player with the power to double-vote.

[petroleumjelly]

Only one result? I wonder if undo ever bothered to read the game.

[petroleumjelly]

I'm pretty much waiting on UA and Glork before deciding who to vote here, but I am still around.

[petroleumjelly]

Mod

, can we get a prod on Glork? And everybody else who has not posted today?

*sigh* I hope he even

remembers

this game. I am definitely thinking UA is probably a good wagon for today, but obligation comes before passions.

[petroleumjelly]

I'm not saying we shouldn't, I'm just wondering what the points are against him versus, say, Glork, who still hasn't been killed at night or lynched despite being basically proven to be a liar, a poopoo face, and worth nightkilling if town.

Um. Please choose one or the other. If Glork is a good lynch, then he is a bad nightkill choice for scum. That he has not been nightkilled could simply be indicative of the fact the scum plan to lynch him. Only until Glork "proves" his claim (or perhaps if we lynch the Godfather if there is one, making an innocent investigation on him very likely to be legitimate) would he likely become "worth nightkilling if town".

I think he ought to be lynched personally, but I doubt it will hurt to see if he has managed to "prove" his claim since yesterday. If he can, he might save us an eventual mislynch, and if the scum waste their time killing him tonight then that's another night we will probably still have CKD around to get us another investigation.

[petroleumjelly]

^^^
Also, please don't tell me I'm the only person completely lost in Skruff's "reasoning". He claims that the scum should kill Glork,

and

the town should lynch Glork. The only time this seems like a legitimate thing to say would be if Skruffs believed Glork to be part of some third faction which does not have a win condition compatible with either the town or the scum.

[petroleumjelly]

[out of game commentary]


Tell me about it. I already decided sometime in this game to avoid games with him completely because it is so pointless to bother trying to argue with him -- it seems you have to appeal to illogic to make an impression on him whatsoever.

[/commentary]

[petroleumjelly]

^
I

only

think we should test Flameaxe if the town generally thinks he is scum -- in other words, would be willing to "lynch" him. In the case where we want to lynch him, we should instead lynch somebody else and tell him not to be on the wagon so the town gets two shots at hitting scum instead of just one. I made this argument long, long ago.

I am not nearly as convinced of his scumminess as I was earlier in the game. The "slasher" was probably IH (I remember checking where his character is from, and one of the movie boxes had somebody holding a knife behind their back -- i.e. "slasher"). With SK dead, that means Flameaxe is probably not a SK. If there are two SKs, then the only semi-consistent kill that is still occuring is the "drowning" kill, which seemingly did not occur on Night One, and if Flameaxe drowns people as a SK then his entire claim would have to be a lie, and (as somebody else pointed out) it seems strange that he would claim to be a killer robot if here not, in fact, a killer robot.

My three cents on the issue.

[petroleumjelly]

^ And obviously, if he is not SK but is scum then that pretty much just leaves mafia. And if he is telling the truth about his claim (which seems reasonable), then if we lynch his partners he will eventually be forced to kill, and the flavor of his kill would likely give him away.

[petroleumjelly]

^ "Telling the truth about his claim" is meant to say "telling the truth about his role name", aka, killer-robot thing. The "have to be on bandwagons" is clearly what is at issue about his claim.

[petroleumjelly]

Based on the fact that we have had 5 different killing styles so far (slashed, eaten, drowned, inexplicably dead, shot), I am taking a

wild

guess that each killer has their own killing style. If I'm wrong we'll probably figure that out sooner rather than later. It's possible there are simply five different killing

groups

I suppose, and we've gotten rid of two of them [Vigilante, SK], but given that we only had a single nightkill last night, I am more inclined to think the large variety in kills is because there is simply one large group with multiple ways to kill.

Do you have a reason to think I am

wrong

using "public fact"?

But, honestly, pj.... Have you really stooped that low that you've resorted to skruffs bashing? I think that my statement, if muddled, was clear enough to understand. Your statement seems to be deliberately ignoring the intent and instead plucking at particulars.

God, I hate playing with you so much. I

always

"pluck at particulars"; that's kinda how I play mafia, in case you've somehow managed to miss that for the two and a half years I've been playing. Attacking you because you are constantly talking nonsense is not "stooping", it's attacking you because you are constantly talking nonsense.

[petroleumjelly]

This thread does not need to be dramatized more than it is, so I will not be responding to Skruffs' last post. I will probably send him a non-game-related PM later.

[petroleumjelly]

I think this game is going to be abandoned, personally. We have no mod, and we're missing most of the players.

Ricky (the Kangaroo).

[petroleumjelly]

Just got done with finals week and graduation (w00t!).

I am also pretty much just waiting to see if this game is actually going to stay afloat or not. I will not be voting until I get a firm belief this game is going to continue, and in order to do that I'll have to see some replacements or some non-posters posting again.

[petroleumjelly]

Vote: Glork

. I think Flameaxe should be on the bandwagon today.

[petroleumjelly]

There might be reasons for CKD to not reveal the ability he received last night -- if I'm remembering right (which I might not be), Glork claimed to have received some ability that made him immune to all night-choices, or something. But if that's the case then whoop-de-doo about CKD getting it, because whether or not he claims that (which I would if I were him even it were not true) it appears that he will not be dying anytime soon. We may have only had one kill last night because a kill (or more) were blocked.

Anyways, I'm not swayed by Glork. If he's town, then sucks to be him, because him being town requires (a) a pretty twisted set of night-choices, or (b) a role which actually does nothing, in which case 'confirming' him will never happen in the first place.

I don't like this game, and I am more than willing to play 'follow the cop' as opposed to thinking about it at this point. Maybe we can have another Stephen King Mafia at this rate. Let's lynch Glork so we don't make this game obscenely long, please.

[petroleumjelly]

K-Scope and Skruffs probably not partnered with Glork.

Vote: UltimaAvalon

.

[petroleumjelly]

I motivated him,.

she watched me

let's go

sexy time

Rereading Pooky's posts was not exactly a chore. This was the only post that stands out to me, seeing as Ibby [undo] turned out to be a Motivator, and I rather doubt the existence of two motivators. I would like an explanation for this post.

~~~~~

Short case against UA:

He claimed to have knowledge that he was hammering JordanA24 on D1, but he could not have known that without knowing Zoneace was a Double-Voter. His exact statement was, "too bad, I saw it first". He has been questioned about this practically every day in the game and still has not explained his own quote.

[petroleumjelly]

For chrissakes stop talking about cults. The last thing we need is senseless paranoia. If you're going to be paranoid about something, at least be sensible about it. I highly doubt this will be a repeat of WoT Mafia.

[petroleumjelly]

Uh. I'll have to think about this.

Questions for Skruffs

Do you think there is a single mafia group?
Do you think your role is actually useful at this point?

I also do not think Skruffs' crumbing helps to 'confirm' him in any way -- anybody can breadcrumb. Additionally, your crumbs do not lead to "gay jew Cop". I actually thought you were going to claim

Borat

. You may have mentioned 'jew', but that could have been twisted to turn into any role-claim you wanted it to be (i.e. you could have claimed to be a Jewish character, or somebody who hates Jews [Cartman, for example], and so on).

~~~~~

I had some questions for armlx, but they all seem to revolve around the specifics of what 'limited' is supposed to mean and his other results. I'll wait on Skruffs' answers before deciding whether I also want to question armlx.

[petroleumjelly]

My predecessor targetted Oman n0. I don't know why.
I targetted JDodge n1 because I always think JDodge is scum so I wanted to have the ability to counter him if he wound up claiming it, or whatever.
I targetted three people who are still alive in the following nights. I'm not sure I want to reveal my targets more than I Already have, but none of them were gay jews and they are all still alive.

IF anyone WANTS me to target them, just tell me, but yesterday would have been better, since CKD was still alive.

Also, would you mind rearranging your choices in the game format? I've probably made the same mistake as others, but this game technically started with "Night One".

Are you claiming:

N1 => Oman
N2 => JDodge
N3 => Rogueben
N4 => [Mystery live player]
N5 => [Mystery live player]

... or something else?

[petroleumjelly]

I'm saying I've had experience in games where comments like that can be twisted into multiple types of claims. Take a gander at Verbose 2. Commodore Amazing claimed William Shakespeare, claiming "Et tu, Brute" as a line from Julius Caesar, a commonly known Shakespeare play. He turned out to be Junius Brutus, Mafia. Thok constantly used psychology terms, and claimed to be Sigmund Freud. He turned out to be Nero Claidius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, Mafia. Here's a link to the game if you would like to check yourself. There are also other examples of people twisting breadcrumbs into claims which were not actually their role.

The point of me asking you a second time about a second mafia is to compare your answer now to your answer then (which I will do later when I have more time, and can think about the game).

[petroleumjelly]

Now the one thing I Really want you to consider before you answer, PJ, is that by saying that you think it's possible I Was fake claiming, you will be equating me to both Commodore Amazing *and* Thok. I don't know who Commodore AMazing is, but Thok is pretty highly regarded around here, and I know you don't regard me highly *at all*. Don't sacrifice your values to try and get a mislynch.

Strictly speaking, I do not place a high value on the logic you use in games. Most of the time you strike me as completely nonsensical. This does not mean I consider you terrible at scum-hunting, or terrible at playing as scum.

Also, you might want to look at Commodore Amazing (again) in Married to the Mob (found here. He claimed to be "John Beckwith, Wedding Crasher" while searching for a "beautiful woman". As it happens, Thok claimed to be that beautiful woman, and was lynched as a Serial Killer (largely where he received his "Disgrace to SK's title"). Commodore Amazing was a Mafia Goon (with no such beautiful woman thing). I have also done a similar claim in scumchat (specifically, "Prince Charming searching for a Princess to rescue" -- as luck would have it, somebody actually

was

a Princess in that game, and I won because everybody thought I was confirmed afterwards, although I clearly cannot link you to this game).

The whole point is that breadcrumbs are things you used to

weigh

claims, but they never

confirm

claims. The fact that you crumbed so early indeed lends credibility to your claim, but certainly does not guarantee you to be town.

Regardless, I don't care to argue about crumbs, because I am much more concerned about the discrepancy in claimed targets. I would definitely like to hear more from armlx.

~~~~~

bionicchop2, you apparently replaced Pooky. What do you think about Pooky having claimed to be a Motivator?

[petroleumjelly]

Could you clarify to make sure you are also not confusing N3's?

[petroleumjelly]

Unvote: UltimaAvalon, Vote: Skruffs

.

To my knowledge, my role did not affect anything about N3 whatsoever, especially nothing concerning either Skruffs or armlx [xyzzy].

I do not see a good reason for armlx-scum to counter Skruffs' N3 target. According to Skruffs, he has already investigated armlx, and since he supposedly got a 'nongay/nonjew' result, we know that armlx cannot (at least for himself) feel threatened by Skruffs' role.

Additionally, seeing as armlx was not really even on my short list of people I wanted to lynch today (and I don't think many other people's either), him doing this just makes very little sense as scum. If Skruffs turns out to be town, my opinion on this will definitely be subject to change.

I'm really not sure what role Skruffs would be if he did in fact target Sarcastro N3 and is lying about it, but I do tend to think LAL applies.

Although some people are calling if fishing, I completely agree -- if anybody thinks their role explains these two conflicting account for nightchoices,

please come out

.

[petroleumjelly]

Unvote: Skruffs

. A promise is a promise. If you end up being scum, you can bet your ass I won't let you forget it if I ever hear from you again.

Vote: WeyounsLastClone

, who apparently replaced UA.

[petroleumjelly]

The Glork issue, abriged:

1.) Glork claimed a confirmable role. When games do not appear to be in dire peril, my general attitude is give that player a night or two to see if they can actually confirm themselves. There are exceptions to this rule, obviously (such as investigations, if two players claim the same role, etc.).

2.) Skruffs claimed that Glork was a good nightkill target

and

a good lynch target. This was the bulk of what I was responding to because that position does not make sense. If he is a 'lynchable player', then scum would not want to nightkill him precisely because they would rather use the day to have him lynched. If he was a good nightkill target, then scum would not bother trying to get him lynched because they would just wait until night to kill him. He cannot be both.

~~~~~

If your whole case essentially lies in me changing my mind over time, then I have nothing to respond to, because I will completely agree that that's precisely what happened. I generally do change my mind a few times over the course of games.

[petroleumjelly]

I have already explained the reason for voting UA, and in recent posts to boot.

[petroleumjelly]

No, I'm not saying UA (or his partners, or whatever) had knowledge of the double-voter. What I am saying is that I don't he had that knowledge.

I think his D2 post was a slip: I think when he made his post he was just trying to avoid the attention being placed on him for hammering (despite the fact that I doubt he knew he was hammering). Despite being asked to explain his own comment, he has refused to do so: I think it was just plain avoidance because he knew he made a slip and simply tried to go on without acknowledging it. It pretty much fits my meta on him.

[petroleumjelly]

...

reading is tech. Reread my post.

[petroleumjelly]

The latter. I don't think he knew he hammered, which means when he claimed he 'saw it and took it' on D2, he was just plain lying, and after he was caught on this he simply tried to avoid that issue as long as possible. This is really two separate accusations: (a) lying, and (b) avoiding confronting that same lie.

No, this probably isn't 'the scummiest action in the game', but I am not in the mood to reread, and there are a few people today I have already decided I don't want lynched today (armlx, Haschel, K-Scope, Skruffs). From the remaining players, the one I tend to have the most scummy feeling from is UltimaAvalon (now WLC).

[petroleumjelly]

Because he made an explicit promise that he was not scum.

For the record, I will not accept further such promises for this game. The more people that make them, the more likely it is that somebody will be lying.

[petroleumjelly]

I choose to take him on his word. If you expect to me make a detailed post about why I choose to do so, that will not happen. This conversation ends now, and I will not be answering further questions about why I am accepting this promise.

[petroleumjelly]

I love how he is twisting everyone's word and using emotion to get to Armix (the one person who has claimed in the game) and yet doesn't attack PJ or anyone else.

Farside, how exactly are you getting the impression that Skruffs "doesn't attack PJ"? Exactly how closely have you been reading his posts? He really only dropped his attack on me after I agreed not to vote for him on the basis of his promise.

~~~~~

I think the Humbert Humbert speculation is something to think about, but even so that does not solve the discrepancy between Skruffs' claim of target and armlx's claim of target.

~~~~~

WLC, if you are really that lazy to not bother to do a quick google search on Ricky the Kangaroo, it is a character from some Zelda game. That's as much detail as I am going to go into today, unless I find it necessary to fully claim.

[petroleumjelly]

To respond in general:

1.)

No, I don't find it altogether odd that Skruffs dropped his attack on me. It is a very thin line which stops me from voting for him; if he is willing to destroy his credibility in all future games by

promising

to be pro-town in this game, then that is his prerogative and I am willing to take him up on that. Chances are he will not survive much longer regardless of his alignment. If he were to continue to attack me right now, however, that might push my threshold of caring and result with me voting him regardless of his promise, and given his last post he probably understands this.

2.)

I personally am not altogether too concerned about the warping of Skruff's claim; although convenient in a way, it was not exactly an unexpected warping, and most notably the change really did not benefit him in any way that I can see -- if there are no more 'gay jews' he could never prove his role regardless of whether he claimed to be a Cop or Mason-seeker (or whatever you want to call it).

3.)

Obviously the biggest things here are (1) the discrepancy between Skruffs and armlx, and (2) Skruffs having to rely on the existence of a mafia redirector [or an equivalent role] to explain that discrepancy. I am willing to give this another night, however; sometimes games just have strange mechanics that are very difficult to guess until later [and I made this same point

against

Skruffs earlier when he was demanding people explain what role he would have to be as mafia to satisfy armlx's tracking result].

~~~~~

Overall, I am willing to give this another night. I do not feel the game is in LyLo. If Skruffs is scum, then I sincerely doubt he will be surviving much longer in this game, and I am just as happy searching for other scum today.

[petroleumjelly]

On point 2 - the morph didn't help him directly,

but it did in a sense.

If he had claimed 'gay jew mason seeker' prior to eliminating the possibility of any gay jews remaining, somebody could have said they were a gay jew and his role would have been debunked upon that person not becoming a mason that night. Gay jew cop could never be disputed as long as he kept being 'wrong' or saying he targeted people who are dead now. He never revealed any of his targets until after they had said in game they were not gay jews.

I don't think it helped him in any sense. The only thing he has changed is making his role more difficult to confirm if he is lying.

--> Earlier, he could simply say "I investigated X, and they are a gay jew", and he would need X to say "yes, I am a gay jew".

--> Now, not only does X need to say "yes, I am a gay jew", but X needs to also say "yes, I can now nighttalk with Skruffs".

[petroleumjelly]

The post I tried to submit when I found out the thread was locked [it was in response to bionicchop2]:

You help make my overall point.

Essentially, it would be plausible for Skruffs to be scum and get lucky by saying tomorrow "X is a gay jew", and then having X confirm being a gay jew with his

original

claim.

But it is rather

implausible

to me for X to be town while Skruffs is scum with his

current

claim. Now

if either Skruffs or X turns out to be scum the other is also caught

-- but that will never happen unless we give the game another night. And like I said earlier, I would not mind Skruffs getting another night. I am more than willing to wait a night if he is willing to out a partner for free in such a manner. I was trying to talk around this specific benefit for waiting at least a day, but since you brought it up yourself there is no point in me trying to avoid this point any longer.

If there are no more gay jews, then like I said, his change did not help him because he is no more confirmable than he was before. As such, I see no

real

benefit for him changing his claim if he is scum. Being more "confirmable" in theory does not help if it is clear he is

un

confirmable in practice.

[petroleumjelly]

Warning

: I am hosting a get-together for some of my old friends at my house this Friday, and I am not the type of host who leaves to go check on mafia games with those sorts of guests at the home. It will last from at least 12:00 pm - 6:00 pm my time (PST), although I anticipate to last longer than that. I didn't think this would be a problem, but with that new deadline it looks like it's going to be more problematic than I had anticipated. I will try to post before 10:00 pm Friday if I can, but no promises.

[petroleumjelly]

[Guests will be arriving in a few hours; right now I'm cleaning and cooking].

Well, at this rate even me not voting Skruffs might help contribute to him being lynched, would rather be the opposite of me taking him up on his promise. Although Farside22 isn't my preferred lynch (I think WLC is still a good option, seeing as he -- like UA -- is not even bothering to respond about the "hammer vote" on D1), I will be willing to vote for her tonight if I do not think it is feasible to lynch WLC.

[petroleumjelly]

Hm. I'm not sure if that is supposed to be the "comic book" Hawkeye (the first thing that popped up on Google), or Hawkeye from M.A.S.H. (or some other Hawkeye). I'm just curious as to why he never claimed. Too tired for thinking.

So... going to claim any results today, armlx?

[petroleumjelly]

Link to the 'case'. It's basically saying that I changed my mind about Glork. Which I did. *shrug*

Of course, Farside22 doesn't understand my responses to Skruffs in the first place, despite them being self-explanatory. Skruffs claimed that Glork was a "good lynch for the town" and a "good nightkill target for the scum". Those statements do not make sense together; hence why I told Skruffs to pick one or the other.

And as far as "give more time" goes, that's my general policy towards provable roles in large games; it makes little difference if you lynch somebody on D4 or D5, because they'll end up being dead just the same. The advantage is that if they're town, they might have found a way to prove their role so you don't have to waste time with a mislynch to begin with.

Not sure who I want to vote for right now, because I had planned on a WLC vote today. I will probably go back and look at the Skruffs wagon.

[petroleumjelly]

Forgot to announce this in this game: Assuming I am still alive and the game is still going, I will dropping out early August (probably from all of my games), due to law school. The mod has been informed of this situation well in advance.

[petroleumjelly]

Please Read

.

I've been thinking about posting something like this for a while. At this point I am not going to bother about honeying words or being subtle or clever. I will also be claiming my role in this post so that my actions in the game are a bit clearer, and maybe somebody can also verify them.

A few things:

Slash: N1, N2
Drown: N2, N3, N4, N5, N6
Eat: N1
Inexplicable: N1, N2, N3
Shot: D3, N5

I think Eat/Drown came from the same source (i.e. a mafia group); it extends kills from N1-N6; in other words, every night of the game. Slashing was probably from IH-SK. The inexplicable deaths were probably from Sarcastro (Vigilante). The Shootings may be related, and they may not be; that's a pickle that I'm fine with leaving for later. As such, there is probably one mafia group (since there appears to be no consistent kills other than the Drowning kills).

In my general experience, when one mafia has the same person doing the kills (as appears to be the case here), it is generally being done by somebody who the mafia considers is (a) not likely to be tracked, and (b) not likely to be role-blocked. Based on this, I think unlikely candidates for the "drowner" are DGB, bionicchop2 (since he replaced Pooky), and K-Scope (although this of course would not exclude them from being a partner in the mafia). More likely candidates are players who are "under the radar". If there are more than two mafiates left (which I believe to be the case: see below) it may even be the case that the mafia is sending in kills and having a largely inactive player carry them out.

The most interesting thing here is that the mafia may have gone from the "eaten" kills to the "drown" kills (although it is perfectly plausible to think that perhaps the mafia simply failed with their Drowner N1 for some reason: one possible explanation given later in this post) – this change would most likely have been precipitated during D1. It may have been the case that the mafia had reason to believe after D1 that the person who carried out the N1 kill was no longer as safe as the person carrying out the N2-N6 kills. I don't see how any of the people in the game who have died so far could result in an "Eaten" death (no role-name seems to suggest this sort of killing method), so it is very possible that the "Eater" is still alive, but is having the "Drowner" kill for fear of being blocked/tracked. To find the "Eater", it is probably most instructive to read over D1 (which is insanely short). [To be honest, I just reread D1 and nothing in particular sticks out to me, but perhaps somebody else can catch something I missed.]

~~~~~

My role is Ricky the Kangaroo, from Zelda. For a predetermined number of times in the game (I will not reveal this number as I do not see how it helps the town, but I

do

see how it helps the scum) I can make myself unnighttargetable. The flavor to explain this doesn't really make sense to me. I apparently use "whirlwind seeds" to blow myself away for a night. From what I understand, this is probably supposed to be "gale seeds" (which are supposed to blow away

enemies

, not yourself), but I'm not the one who wrote my role. I also don't understand why a kangaroo would have these seeds and not Link. But I didn't write my role. *shrug*

I have a limited number of usages; I will not reveal how many. I have used my ability twice, and I did not use my ability on N3 (so I am confident I had nothing to do with Skruffs-armlx, which should be obvious anyways since Skruffs claimed have a successful investigation on me as not-Gay and not-Jewish).

Now, my wavering on Glork can be explained more thoroughly. [I was trying to keep away from hinting at my role as much as possible at the time, since I was trying to make myself seem like a good nightkill target]. Essentially, I knew already that I was a townsperson with an "unnighttargetable" aspect, so it seemed very likely to me that if another player claimed such an ability, they were probably a Godfather. When Glork claimed to have had that ability, I was very certain he was scum. However, his claim that he was

given

the ability forced me to ponder. Eventually, I decided that if he was given the ability by an Inventor-type role, they should have claimed it by a certain point, and I pushed on him again (I cannot remember exactly the timeline of events, but this is a pretty accurate representation of my thought-process over a long period of time). Obviously, when Haschel claimed to have given Glork the ability, I was left not really knowing what to think, and I was worried I may have given away my role. Of course, in the background of all this was CKD claiming Cop with an innocent investigation on Glork (preceded by the "no result" on Glork); this all made me doubt my Glork-Godfather theory.

I will 100% admit that my opinion on Glork changed, and it changed

a lot

. I had multiple reasons to think Glork could be scum, and for each reason I had something would come along to make me think otherwise. I actually changed my mind about Glork

a lot

more than is represented in the game thread. Unfortunately, this is pretty typical of how my games with Glork-scum tend to be (and I can provide links to those games if somebody wants them); in the end I usually back off of him and regret it later.

~~~~~

That said: I was motivated on N1. I presume, by now, that the person responsible for this was Ibaesha/undo. [I had thought it was Pooky for much of the game, but I don't remember if it was because of any specific posts]. As you can see – my role has an inherent problem with a Motivator. If I used my ability, then it would make no sense for me to get motivated (because I would be unnighttargetable). I conversed with Fritz about this, and he decided that since it didn't make sense for me to make myself unnighttargetable twice on the same night, he would just give me an additional night of being unnighttargetable

only if

I also used my ability that night. [I previously had no intentions of using it, since I figure this role gets more powerful the longer I live], and that he would "order" the night-actions such that the motivating hit "before" I used my unnighttargetability. So that's what I did on N1. This

may

be an explanation for the missing Drowning-kill (but I personally advocate the Eater-Drowner pairing).

I also used my ability on N5, the day after the Glork-lynch. That usage ought to be rather self-explanatory. Seeing as I had been hounding Glork for a number of days, and then he was finally lynched, that was a good night for me to be offed.

If anybody can verify this somehow, it would be appreciated. At this point I would not mind a mass-claim.

~~~~~

Based on the Skruffs lynch alone, I am fairly suspicious of farside22. I guess here is what is bothering me the most about her:

1.)

Farside22, in Thespival Mafia you lied about your night-targets as a Quack Doctor, and only changed your claim when you realized it was probably better for the town to know the truth instead of being forced to work with faulty information. In this game, you seemed particularly unwilling to considers reasons why Skruffs may have claimed the way he did (i.e. first Cop, and then Mason-seeker). Would you mind explaining that?

2.)

Additionally, you constantly try to tell Skruffs that "outguessing the Mod is scummy", and yet you made no such arguments that I recall in Thespival Mafia: and as you might further recall from Thespival Mafia, I did quite a good deal of "outguessing the mod" (one of those guesses being that you were a Quack before you even

claimed

to be a Quack). How long has this policy been a part of your game-play? Can you reference other games where you had this same opinion?

[petroleumjelly]

That said: I was motivated on N1. I presume, by now, that the person responsible for this was Ibaesha/undo. [I had thought it was Pooky for much of the game, but I don't remember if it was because of any specific posts].

PPE: Actually, this probably came from Pookys "I motivated him, she tracked me" post. How soon we forget. >< But I seem to remember thinking Pooky was the motivator even before that post. *shrug*

[petroleumjelly]

Please don't forget to answer my second question. It's right below the one you just answered.

[petroleumjelly]

To bring up a question about if Skruffs flips town. I would say PJ is scum then do to the interaction I just brought up and vis/ versa with PJ if he flips town I would think Skruffs.

Vote: Farside22

. I didn't even catch you setting up double-lynches in this post from yesterday.

It looks like you're just ignoring things which are not amenable to your theories right now. Your whole "case" on me is essentially that I "changed my mind on Glork", and you don't even bother to consider (a)

why

I would change my mind about Glork [which I even get to explain more about now that I have claimed my role]; or (b) other people who have

also

changed their mind about Glork.

Mod

, please prod Rogueben.

[petroleumjelly]

PJ: Could you surmise the reasons why Scope is likely not paired with Glork?

That largely had to do with the interactions between K-Scope and Glork, which lasted a number of days. K-Scope was constantly voting for Glork, and it seemed as though Glork was trying to ignore him. Generally, scum don't try to bus their own Godfather, especially when there are other partners who are more "expendable" (although admittedly it is possible that Glork may have had one of the "weaker" roles in the mafia group; it's hard to say without knowing the set-up of the game). There is also the additional reason that it is unlikely that K-Scope would be the "Drowner", largely on the basis that he is a recognizable enough player that if he were mafia, he would have a partner who is less likely to be tracked or role-blocked than he is.

[petroleumjelly]

V/LA from July 4th - possibly July 6th.

[petroleumjelly]

^ Haschel also claimed to have given Glork an ability [night-immunity], which Glork not only claimed to have gotten, but also used, which in turn caused CKD to go from an "innocent" result on Glork to "No Result" on Glork. So far as I'm concerned, he has proven his role [albeit not his alignment; but giving a town Cop a Vig-kill is an insanely risky thing to do as scum, and hence Haschel is quite likely to be town].

[petroleumjelly]

Hmm. Rogueben, have you been responding to prods to the mod while not posting in the game?

I ask because when EGL replaced into the game on July 7th, your last post was on June 6th, while DGB's last post was on June 18th. It would seem that of the two, you would be the logical choice for replacement; which makes me wonder if the mod had a specific reason to keep you in the game instead of replacing you.

[petroleumjelly]

[05] If I impose a day deadline, lynching will require at least half of the regular majority at deadline. In case of a tie, first come first served. In the endgame (six players or fewer) only lynches with a regular majority will occur.

With 9 alive and a good chance we are only dealing with the remnants of a single mafia group, lynching is better than No-lynching. I like my vote where it is, but I

will

move it if I think it is needed for a lynch. We're going to need 3 votes on one player to get a lynch today.

[petroleumjelly]

Gah. Is anybody else on-line? If so, who would you be willing to lynch?

I'm pretty much at the stage where I'm just listing people I really would rather not lynch today. Those are {K-Scope, armlx, Haschel, and myself}.

[petroleumjelly]

*jabs at Elmo with stick*

[petroleumjelly]

First on what bothers me about PJ.
He wanted to test Flameaxe claim early and believed him scum. If you don't believe Flameaxe, why did you believe Glork? Why didn't you believe Flameaxe?

Flameaxe claimed very early game; D1 or D2, I don't recall. I've seen games (which I linked to) where scum have claimed to have really screwy things going on with their vote,

but

I have not really seen such roles as town. If you read my posts in order, I go through a process where I start with (a) test Flameaxe

today

, I think he is scum, to (b) test Flameaxe soon, I think he is scum, to (c) we may want to test Flameaxe if we think is scum, to (d) I doubt Flameaxe is scum, but we always have the option of testing him. In other words, my opinion on Flameaxe changed as there was more information to consider. That does tend to happen.

As for Glork, I've already explained my thought process in detail, and I in fact already explained it

just yesterday

. You may want to go and read that and compare it to the above.

If you are instead insinuating that I should have disbelieved two claimed inventors, I myself have used two inventors in a single game, and a mini game at that. To wit, Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers. The "acted" as specific types of roles (limited Cop & limited Role-Blocker), but so far as the players in the game were concerned they were two inventors. Having two in a large game, then, did not seem far-fetched to me at all . Note that I could not mention this earlier since MMPR was on-going until just last week.

[petroleumjelly]

What type of order should we choose?

I generally advocate a popcorn style (i.e. One player starts, they pick the next claimer, who chooses the next player, etc.) since that has the potential for giving more information than a randomized order would in that we get to see who everybody chooses to claim next. [Another benefit is that it also safeguards against the possibility of somebody who is widely regarded as protown actually being scum, and hence stacking the claim order to best help the scum.]

[petroleumjelly]

I prefer Haschel to pick the first person, I trust him the most of the players alive.

[petroleumjelly]

Ricky the Kangaroo [from Zelda]. I use seeds (forget what they are called unless I look at my role PM, and I'm too lazy right now -- I don't think they were the right seeds anyways) to make myself unnighttargetable. I can only use the ability a few times (I will not reveal how many).

I was also motivated on N1, which basically allowed me to use my role "for free" on N1.

[petroleumjelly]

^ Also used my ability on N5, the day after Glork-lynch.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

Why would a role have to wait until N3 to use an ability? I would like to draw people's attention to MoS's fake-claim as scum in Old Maid Mafia. The post is Post 811.

My criticisms of that role-claim are found in Post 812. And still to this day I have never seen a role "had to wait until Night X", as Elmo is claiming. As it happens, another such scum role-claim was from Pooky in Stephen King Mafia, that claim found in Post 552.

2.)

If the ability is 1-Shot, why would anybody wait until NIGHT SEVEN before using it? Hardly anybody lives that long in a game. This is a claim purely born of convenience -- he can't claim a "guilty" result on me (because two Cops are dead), he can't claim tracker (given we've already had two trackers), he can't claim watcher (because then he would have had the result on Night 6, the night WLC died), so

the only thing he could claim as "evidence" to lynch anybody is exactly the role he is claiming

.

3.)

Given that Elmo is going after

me

instead of an easier target, it probably precisely because

my role is the only claimed role that threatens the mafia

-- they cannot be sure they can nightkill me at night. How do you deal with that? Lynch me during the day.

This is either a one-for-one trade to get rid of the only role left that threatens the mafia, or it is an attempt to win the game as we may be in a Ly-Lo situation.

Vote: Elmo

.

[petroleumjelly]

The strongest thing pointing to Elmo-scum is how very convenient everything about his claim is. This is

exactly

like Glork's claim in Space Monkeys Mafia. I implore all players to notice the similarities.

~~~~~

Glork's role-claim in Space Monkeys is found in Post #857.

The situation: The Space Monkeys in that game had their kill taken away from them on Night Four. There was no in-game explanation for this whatsoever.

On the final day of the game -- i.e. when the town in Lynch-or-Lose -- Glork made his role-claim. I continually harped on how very convenient it was, and here are those reasons again.

1.)

Glork claimed "Gorilla Captain", which was a logical choice for a claim after we already had a dead Lieutenant and a dead Ensign, and Soldiers.

2.)

Glork was also restricted in terms of

what

he could claim. He could not claim Cop because we already had a dead Cop. He could not claim Doctor because then he would have had no excuse to not protect the Cop (who had claimed and was believed). He could not claim Vigilante (or else he would have used his abillity), he could not claim Back-Up (or he would have had different reactions to Cop/Doctor), so really

the only role he could claim was Role-Blocker to push a lynch based on information

. He claimed to have role-blocked a player the night there were no kills, and pushed on that player for a lynch choice

only when it was most convenient to do so

.

Guess what? Elmo is doing the exact same thing. He is claiming the only feasible role he can to get me lynched. I challenge you to think of something else he could have claimed on Day Seven.

3.)

He also claimed it against the most convenient person he could have in the game at that point ; just as Elmo is now claiming to have information on the most tactical choice from his point of view as scum -- the one claimed role that could possibly foil a nightkill.

~~~~

They key here is just how very convenient everything is about both claims. It came on a convenient day (with a convenient "reason" to not have used his role earlier), against a convenient/tactical target, with a convenient restriction ("one-shot" while also saving it for NIGHT SEVEN), with the only convenient claim left that can sound somewhat reasonable which also has direct "information".

This is as

classic

as scum-claims get. I freaking refuse to get lynched as town for the first time literally about

a couple weeks

before I stop stop playing on mafiascum for the next three years. >=[

[petroleumjelly]

Christ, the more I think about Elmo's claim the more ridiculous it is.

Think about it. Pretty much every night of the game, there has been a "drowning" kill. Elmo is claiming a role that could with

a single investigation out the "drowner"

. However, he is trying to get you to believe that he would wait until

night seven

before bothering to investigate to determine who the drowner is.

I cannot imagine a player who would wait until Night Seven of a game to basically get a guaranteed "guilty" result. Not

only

that, but if such a role could be lucky enough to catch somebody

else

targeting a Drowner, they could probably

confirm a town power role

in the process of claiming.

Waiting until Night 7 essentially just guarantees that nobody can contradict him. We already

knew

K-Scope didn't make a night-action on Night Six (the night WLC died) because armlx tracked K-Scope that night. Everybody else had already claimed, so it was very clear that nobody would be able to say "Wait, I targeted WLC too!".

~~~~~

Pretty much the only thing you need to do in order to decide your vote is to read Elmo's role-claim, and ask yourself:

If I had this role, how would

I

have used it? Would I have waited until Night Seven to use it?

The reason Elmo's claimed "action" does not make sense is because he is lying.

[petroleumjelly]

Elmo replaced in on Post 925, which was

Day Two

. That was not "recent", as you claim; he's been in this game since November 2007.

This isn't about "outguessing the mod". This is:

If you had the role Elmo claimed, would you wait until Night Seven to use it?

So -- are you a partner of Elmo's, Farside? I rather expected

you

to vote for me given you've been trying to do just that for the last few days.

[petroleumjelly]

ARGH, no

no

NO

!

Look. Elmo is claiming a role that basically gets a GUARANTEED GUILTY RESULT. Why would ANYBODY wait until THIS LATE in the game to use something that powerful? Why would ANYBODY risk losing that information?

If you had a button that said "press this and learn the identity of 1 scum", would you sit there and

not

press it?

[petroleumjelly]

...

*takes off hat to Elmo*

Congratulations on being the first person to have lynched me while I am protown -- and without even having to defend your claim, at that. I hope you feel good about yourself.

[petroleumjelly]

Would you all please stop talking? Criminy. These posts ought to be deleted.

[petroleumjelly]

Hot diggity, a large game win. The only things I can think of because they are fresh in my mind:

I don't think Elmo played his role optimally, regardless of what he claimed; if I were town looking at that claim (with him claiming a result on somebody else, obviously), there is a

really good

chance I would have been gunning for an Elmo-lynch

immediately

.

Also had no clue what was up with nobody questioning armlx -- Skruffs turning up town followed be a dead tracker made me think we were goners. *shrug*

[petroleumjelly]

^ No, I definitely would have been expecting 6 Mafia. With so many players and such a strong town (Cop + Doc + Motivator is brutal in itself, especially if you can't find the Doc -- which we couldn't), 5 Mafia just seems too few. Elmo's claim had "scum" written all over it to me.