Mini 583! BAMPEG!!!....IS THIS THE END???

[chaotic_diablo]

/confirm

[chaotic_diablo]

vote chaotic_diablo

[chaotic_diablo]

Bandwagon vote!

vote whome?

[chaotic_diablo]

My vote isn't meaningless. Mainly because it is contributing to a majority bandwagon. Other than that, Whome?'s cries over a single vote puts him into superdefensive mode. My vote is staying there at the moment for the metagame on an "ongoing" game that dahill1 provided or not provided, whichever works.

[chaotic_diablo]

The 3 scum thing isn't much of a tell, I've seen that one plenty of times. It does pique my interest in dahill, but not much more than that.

I've played with WhoMe once before, but I can't remember which game, or what his role was. Think I might go and look for that.

My vote is staying there at the moment for the metagame on an "ongoing" game that dahill1 provided or not provided, whichever works.

I don't understand this sentence. What's your point here?

The usual argument I hear with metagaming is that "a particular person acts the same way in either alignment". dahill didn't provide a good point for this argument; one ongoing game isn't enough to justify a metagame defense. I find this strange, so my vote is sticking on whome?

[chaotic_diablo]

I think we knew that already.

chaotic_diablo: based on your reply above, how are you feeling about dahill right now?

Mushy. I'm not sure dahill has given enough to allow me to make a fair judgement on him.

[chaotic_diablo]

[quote="KaleiÐoscøpe"]Let's tie this up

Unvote Vote: WhoMe?

[/quote] Let's not.

unvote

vote KaleiÐoscøpe

[chaotic_diablo]

unvote, vote dahill

I am really, really against a roffman lynch and very suspicious of all the pushing on him.

Why? Scot provided a good reason for a roffman wagon.

I am still waiting for you to sufficiently explain your vote on kscope. Also, now that I think of it, why are you so sure that ergo is town?

I'm not sure why you would be suspicious of this.

Aside from that, let's all go scope. Tieing the votes is surely an anti-town move.

[chaotic_diablo]

I like my scope vote.

Aside from that, Whome? is at -1. Let's call for a claim.

[chaotic_diablo]

WhoMe and dahill are both at lynch-2. dahill reached 4 votes first so he would be the deadline lynch at this point. Why would we be asking WhoMe for a claim?

unvote

vote Whome?

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

[chaotic_diablo]

WhoMe and dahill are both at lynch-2. dahill reached 4 votes first so he would be the deadline lynch at this point. Why would we be asking WhoMe for a claim?

unvote

vote Whome?

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

what he's talking about is, me and dahill were tied at L-2. As dahill reached teh tie first, he was the guy in danger. This has now changed. You have come along and put me at L-1, which makes me the one in danger. Before we get down to claims, Why have you done this? You don't know what Erg is talking about so you vote me? I am not claiming until you state why you have put me at L-1. WHat is your case on me?

*cough cough*

My case.

Come on, lets not have a default lynch. If you want to lynch me fine, but get your votes in, a default lynch gives us less info to go on

We have very little time to prevent a default lynch and you seem willing to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of town. I'd think you would be "happy" to claim so as we can quickly move on to a better lynch candidate. Instead, we have you stalling as a deadline approaches.

I also didn't like your switch off of scope.

You being scum also puts Ergo and roffman higher on my scum list. Ergo has been consistently bailing you by tieing the votes in at least two cases. roffman has "softclaimed" Ergo, therefore a connection between them is possible. How Ergo found dahill's roff-Ergo theory half-baked is beyond me. It seems pretty reasonable, if not poorly explained.
roffman checked only to see Ergo's inability to nightkill. I highly doubt Ergo is going to admit to having a nightkill if he's scum. Since roffman is 90% sure, it means he must have a certainty factor implied in his role or he's just jumping the gun. If Ergo is scum, so is roffman, and vice versa. No reason to believe the softclaim before or after its appearance. I'm also not buying voluntary information role claims at this stage of the game.

In addition, all three are on dahill. So that's what I think.

[chaotic_diablo]

That blows my theory out the window.

unvote

dahill is at -1, let's get a claim!

[chaotic_diablo]

I believe in the legtimacy of the occurence of Whome?'s second investigation, so I'm fairly convinced he's cop. The results, not so much. Mostly that second investigation that read guilty. I'm

pretty sure

that isn't reliable.

vote roffman

[chaotic_diablo]

i'm willing to accept he is quite possibly insane. However, as of now we have a guilty and innocent result. I propose we lynch the guilty one now, and if that comes up innocent, we know WhoMe? is insane. The fact that

your

pretty sure that the vote isn't reliable is obvious. However, as far as i'm concerned we have have a claimed cop, who got motivated and now has results proving they are not naive. I'm am going to try to lynch the person they claim is guilty.

This is a scum post. We should all nail him after careful consideration of his scumminessness thing.

On other news, I agree with Jdodge, who gave Whome? the extra investigation?

[chaotic_diablo]

We're waiting on roffman's claim.

[chaotic_diablo]

Whome? is quite gullible.

[chaotic_diablo]

Whome? is quite gullible.

From my pov

FACT: I got an extra investigation last night

We have someone claiming motivator, with no counter claims. I'm not seeing the problem with believing him, especially when this claim fits his previou statements.

FACT: A scum motivator screws with your entire argument.

[chaotic_diablo]

Whome? is quite gullible.

From my pov

FACT: I got an extra investigation last night

We have someone claiming motivator, with no counter claims. I'm not seeing the problem with believing him, especially when this claim fits his previou statements.

FACT: A scum motivator screws with your entire argument.

[chaotic_diablo]

Claim time! I'm a townie who gets a naptime each day. That means I can't post for a set amount of days...or I'd die like dizzy. And that's a bad thing. May 10 at 8pm was the end of my naptime.

Also, scum fakeclaim covers the whole situation. I wonder why c_d didn't bring that up first seeming as it is most obvoius?

A fake claim means Whome?'s extra investigation is fake. In such a case, Whome? is also scum. Considering that my role has a random naptime factor laid into it, it would be bad if it popped up while I'm arguing. In addition, I wanted to see how Whome? would respond. But you're right, it's a fake claim.

In all honesty I am inclined to believe him. His role as motivator fits all the soft claim statements he made.

If he targeted Erg0 his 90% certainty Erg didn't have a NK comes from there not having been 2 deaths that night.

All roffman did was check for who did the kill, or that's what I believe. The 90% certainty came from something else.

He seemed to know I would have more than one result to report on today

He became happier about me when I claimed 2 investigations, prior to that he had shown suspicion of my claim based on Erg's role.

If roffman was 90% confidant of the results he got from Ergo, there is no reason he would be suspicious of you. The duplication of night kills didn't follow and you claimed cop the previous day. Unless roffman decided to change his story,

which would be convenient

, your story is a bunch of bull.

He didn't say he was sure Erg was town, he said he was sure he didn't have a NK. That would fit with him as a motivator having targeted Erg. There was only one NK that night, so he figured Erg didn't have one.

roffman said that Ergo was 90% not scum, which was supported by his results that Ergo had no nightkill. You are misleading us.

If he targeted Erg0 his 90% certainty Erg didn't have a NK

Misleading us is a scum move.

FACT: I got an extra investigation last night

We have someone claiming motivator, with no counter claims. I'm not seeing the problem with believing him, especially when this claim fits his previou statements.

The second time I decided to investigate chaotic_diablo. On him I got a guilty, but I have no idea if I can trust the results of this investigation, as I have no idea why I got it. Has anyone played with a role that can target people to give them an extra night action?

So you knew beforehand that your investigation was tampered with by someone else. In otherwords, it could be scum or town. Don't tell me you're going to blow off my scum motivator theory for something you thought up as well?

True.

Why did you choose chaotic to investigate?

Why did you choose me?

I thought your (you and chaotic's) pile on me looked opportunistic.

Funny, you'd think the person who forced you to claim in an opportunistic way would be the one to be investigated first, call it a lasting impression. Unless it wasn't a good impression, which is strange considering that you still decided to investigate me.

As to my having survived the night being suspicious - why? I am a claimed cop, that is likely to attract the attention of a town doc. Even if it turns out we don't have a town doc, scum may have decidied I was likely protected and gone for another target.

I'll bite, why isn't roffman dead then?

[chaotic_diablo]

Claim time! I'm a townie who gets a naptime each day. That means I can't post for a set amount of days...or I'd die like dizzy. And that's a bad thing. May 10 at 8pm was the end of my naptime.

So you are asserting that Dizzy was modkilled for similar reasons?

I'm asserting that Dizzy got modkilled for running of the lip. If that isn't talking, then the main point of it is that I don't want to get modkilled.

this makes a good fake claim for scum. Nothing particularly can be done by you to prove it, and what is your power? basically it's lurk power! so you have an excuse if you lie low

I'm going to lurk my way to deadline with the majority vote... Good idea.

At the time I thought JDodge was referring to roffman's claim. I still do, you dragging this in here to support your assertion of MY having fake claimed is borrowing a weapon that was aimed at someone else.

I'm also talking about roffman's claim. However, if roffman is scum, then where did that extra investigation come from?

this doesn't make sense. Eitehr roffman is a townie, so his claim should be true as townoies shouldn't lie/fakeclaim, or roffman is scum in which case he doesn't have to check who did the kill because he would know.

I believe roffman is scum. That's why my vote is on him.

I disagree.

He was 90% sure Erg0 was town.

At the end of the day I am forced to claim my role so roffman targets me. But then Erg is NK'd and we find out he too was a cop. This makes roffman suspicious of my claim, but he becomes happier again when I reveal i was motivated and got 2 investigations, because this fit with what he expected.

Um...

He didn't say he was sure Erg was town, he said he was sure he didn't have a NK.

That would fit with him as a motivator having targeted Erg. There was only one NK that night, so he figured Erg didn't have one.

Your story changed.

There was only one night kill Night 1. roffman was certain Ergo wasn't scum based on this theory alone. Obviously, 90% is certainly out there. I believe roffman ws distancing.

I amn nit misleading you. I am arguing the case that roffman's claim of motivator is true. Stop misconstruing me.

Your story concerning what roffman has said changed. You've used that reasoning in several of your argument. Considering that roffman never bothered to correct you, I'm not convinced.

fair enough. I am pretty sure that roffman is a motivator, which I see as a town role. Has anyone ever come across a scum motivator befpore? How did this work? Is it basically a chance to 'prove' your self town? I REALLY don't see why a scum motivator would target a claimed cop unless their motivation affected the inv's in some way, otherwise they are helping town

Since you thought up the theory as well, isn't that the exact reason why they would target you? Otherwise how would your extra investigation be "unreliable"? You MUST have thought up the possibility of a scum motivator at some point. I'm not sure why you would blow off roffman's possible guiltiness with such ease.

It kinda doesn't make sense with whome? lying if roffman is telling the truth and vice versa. Its like a paper card house, mildy floppy and prone to being knocked down, but more solid than a single card.

I can make sense of it. If by chance roffman is indeed protown, which I doubt, and Whome? is lying, then it is exactly that. Whome? didn't use the motivational kill. The results are made up. Blowing your cover isn't exactly the best of ideas. Which doesn't fit with the fact that roffman was 90% sure Ergo isn't scum.

[chaotic_diablo]

It kinda doesn't make sense with whome? lying if roffman is telling the truth and vice versa. Its like a paper card house, mildy floppy and prone to being knocked down, but more solid than a single card.

I can accept that he is not insane, I'm innocent, I came up as innocent. Coo, no?

If you talk aobut breadcrumbing, then I can only find stuff based on my own assumptions.

chaotic_diablo: based on your reply above, how are you feeling about dahill right now?

On page 6, Ergo questioned me about dahill, which was strange. In hindsight, it could have meant he had either investigated me or dahill and gotten guilty.

Is this why you softclaimed too?

Ergo questioned Whome?'s possible soft claim. Indirectly, the post Ergo quoted later was information I yanked out of Whome? Something about Whome? not liking the roffman wagon.

Ergo went on the dahill wagon. Which we now know is a bad wagon.

He made an argument in post 194 on dahill based on... nothing significant in my opinion.

I just thought of something. Isn't a motivator overpowered? I mean we get a cop, a doc, and a motivator, and boom, instant craptacular win for town. Which sort of ties into how a scum motivator would overpower scum.

[chaotic_diablo]

cd your posts don't make sense.

If WM? is scum and got motivated but didn't use the second kill how is it that he would have known to reveal double.

If roff is scum and WM? is real then how did WM? get double results

The only possibility is that they are both scum and this is a ballsy as hell gambit.

That's my argument. Most of the possibilities are confusing, giving way to the the more possible possibility that both are scum. I can make some sense with the other ones, but I don't necesarily have to agree or support them.

As for the WM? scum motivation thing. We're assuming that Whome? is scum.

Then I got told that I had lots of energy and felt the urge to investigate again.

It's scum telling us that he got an extra night action. And that's how scum knew to reveal double.

[chaotic_diablo]

Jdodge. Whome? got an innocent on him.

[chaotic_diablo]

Motivated investigation could be insane, although chances are Erg0 would have seen and figured that out his investigations. I think we are safe to think he had 2 like investigation and the two like investigations weren't scum.

I think I see your point but want to be sure

If Erg had gotten a guilty, we would have expected him to push for a lynch on that person, whether by claiming or just making a case. He didn't, so ergo (heh) he got innocent results. Which means either the motivated inv is OK, or erg's second target actually was scum.

Which puts us into WIFOM territory, especially as we do not know who Erg targeted.

Why are you misleading us again? Ergo had pushed for dahill with a case.

[chaotic_diablo]

been back for a reread, and yes I was wrong. Erg pushed for dahill, and dahill came up town.

Where does that leave us?

Somewhere between you're scum misleading us or you're just careless town. The forward more likely.

[chaotic_diablo]

Do we even know what a motivation does?

[chaotic_diablo]

Your role technically says "enhance the flavor". So I thought it just gave different effects. For instance, would I have a longer naptime or would it give townies powers?