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

[WhoMe?]

/confirm

[WhoMe?]

Vote: Dahill

as a birthday present

vote Coron

shame on you voting a birthday boy, particualrly when you're really voting him 'cos he voted you.

[WhoMe?]

or he could have information that Scopey is scum

JDodge has done this in several of the games I have played with him. He picks someone he thinks is scum and sticks on them like a limpet. He isn't always right though. I think it's just his playstyle.

[WhoMe?]

scotmany

it's day 2 now. What is your reason for voting Tamuz? You basically have 3 game posts after your confirm. 2 of them are Tamuz votes with no other text whatsoever. Please can you expound on your reason(s)?

[WhoMe?]

Vote: WhoMe?

OK, but why? Or are we random voting today?

[WhoMe?]

How come you don't question jd's and kscope's votes whome?

JD, because this is a style I have seen from him before, I amwatching to see wha thappens there,

Kaleidoscope - yeah, I would like to see a reason there, I must have skimmed over his vote.

[WhoMe?]

Vote: WhoMe?

OK, but why?

Because I think you're scum, or so far the best lead at least.

based on what? picking my name out oif a hat isn't a reason

[WhoMe?]

Vote: WhoMe?

OK, but why?

Because I think you're scum, or so far the best lead at least.

based on what? picking my name out oif a hat isn't a reason

Based on what I've seen. And sure it is, just not a particularly good one.

so basically, you're not willing to give a reason other than "I feel like it". What have you seen? your answer was basically no different to your last one

In that case I am happy to

vote Coron

for trying to look like you have a reason, when it seems you don't.

[WhoMe?]

Like many, I don't really dig WhoMe's reaction to the vote on him - it's not like Coron was pushing for his lynch or anything.

Vote: roffman

Look at my reasons for my return vote. The fact he is voting me is incidental, it is the yeah im voting you, i have good reason honest i fom but when pressed all he can answer is "you look scummy" or "I think you're scummy" without giving anything to back that up. I would be voting him if he were voting someone else with the sane reasoning.

[WhoMe?]

Mountain.
Molehill.

Your reaction is scumtastic.

So I'm the only one who has a concern with all these votes without explanation? Fine.

[WhoMe?]

What were you expecting at this stage of the game? It's not like we gleaned a wealth of knowledge from day 1.

And if people were saying this is basically a random vote I could live with that. What I won't let slide is people claiming they have good reason to be voting, who can't then provide that reason.

[WhoMe?]

Because there is not proof that Erg0 is scum. Mafia isn't run on your whims, its run on best case scenarios in regards to solid logic.

gonna be very hard for youi to get logic involved, when no one is willing to give their thoughts and reasoning behing their votes. There is no proof that

anyone

is scum, which is why we need some insight into peoples motivations, and is why I am suspicious of those not willing to be more open.

[WhoMe?]

So that's roffman at L-2 and me at L-3, and I've yet to see an actual case built against

anyone

[WhoMe?]

unvote, vote dahill

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

[WhoMe?]

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 would rather not say at this time, but will if pushed.

[WhoMe?]

unvote

whome, is there any particular reason you chose me besides the other people on the roffman wagon?

Yes, this post

i'm here
still down for a roffman lynch

was the first push of the roffman wagin after this post.

vote kaleidoscop

i'm around 90% certain that ergo isn't scum.

I took your push as being extremely scummy.

[WhoMe?]

they could have been scum-buddies?

sorry, who could? roffman and Erg or roffman and Kaleidoscope?

Regardless, I'm not saying that a soft claim makes him sacrosanct, but he was already clsoe to lynch, and saying you still want him lynched is scummy. Before lynching a soft claim surely you would press for a full claim first? In this particualr instance where I haven't seen a case against roffman much at all, then I think we would be best served applying pressure elsewhere. You look like a good direction for that pressure to me at the moment.

[WhoMe?]

Regardless, I'm not saying that a soft claim makes him sacrosanct, but he was already clsoe to lynch, and saying you still want him lynched is scummy. Before lynching a soft claim surely you would press for a full claim first?

Is this why you softclaimed too?

I wasn't aware that I had.....

[WhoMe?]

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 would rather not say at this time, but will if pushed.

That's the post I'm referring to.

that was me not wanting to draw undue attention to the softclaim of roffman, which at the time hadn't been commented on.

[WhoMe?]

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

[WhoMe?]

[quote="KaleiÐoscøpe"]It's still three days left. Just reading along.[/quote]

There's no point me calling on people to be active and register their votes when there's only 10 minutes left is there? Now is as good a time as any for me to communicate that I think a default lynch of anyone is not good.

[WhoMe?]

[quote="KaleiÐoscøpe"][quote="WhoMe?"][quote="KaleiÐoscøpe"]It's still three days left. Just reading along.[/quote]

There's no point me calling on people to be active and register their votes when there's only 10 minutes left is there? Now is as good a time as any for me to communicate that I think a default lynch of anyone is not good.[/quote]I don't think it makes a difference if you state it.[/quote]

Here's a question for you. You voted for me to "tie the vote". Well the tie is off, and is meaningless anyway as first person to achieve whatever the tie number is gets lynched. So why are you still voting me?

[WhoMe?]

[quote="KaleiÐoscøpe"]Because:
a. I've not looked for a better lynch target yet
b. Not voting is bad[/quote]

hmmm. I think I've found a better lynch target.

unvote vote Kaleidoscope

[WhoMe?]

EBWOP

unvote vote Kaleidoscope

preview is my friend.....

[WhoMe?]

[quote="KaleiÐoscøpe"]This is some great logic you threw out there. Definitly see no reason to change my vote at all until the deadline.[/quote]

you want me to be clearer? Your tying vote was scummy. How does it benefit town for there to be a tie? just a weak and hence scummy reason for voting. When cal;led on this when the tie situation has gone away, you are leaving your scummy vote in place. I think you are looking scummy and have voted you for it.

[WhoMe?]

Someone is supposed to get ahead in the voting, the person the town finds most scummy. I see nothing pro-town in keeping the votes tied, this just gives scum the chance to have more influence on the outcome with just one vote.

[WhoMe?]

If this is usual behavior for Kaleidoscope, then I do prefer dahill as a lynch

unvote, revote dahill

[WhoMe?]

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?

[WhoMe?]

I cannot believe you.

Fine, you've forced me to it.

I claim cop. Last night I investigated JDodge (he's innocent)

I went for JDodge as I had no strong read on anyone, and I'm not much good at reading JDodge's style, so I wanted to watch him when I knew which side he was on for a change.

[WhoMe?]

Hello all. There was an odd occurrence last night.

I decided to investigate Tamuz, and I got an innocent. Then I got told that I had lots of energy and felt the urge to investigate again.

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?

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.

The more suspicious occurrence is Erg0's having also been a cop. If i had gotten another innocent on chaotic_diablo I wouldhave just thought, oh well, I'm tha ttype of cop that always gets an innocent. Now I am not sure what to think, as the inv that got me a guilty wasn't a standard inv, it being my second of the night. There is an unknown variable at play here. I suspect one of you guys knows more about why I got 2 actions, and I don't know if I want you to claim or not.

[WhoMe?]

i'm relatively certain that WhoMe?'s two investigations are legitimate, though he could quite easily be insane. Just wondering if it is a night ability, did anyone get motivated N1?

This surprises me. You started today doubting me because of Erg0's confirmed cophood (which is fair enough), but after I claimed 2 night actions (unusual to say the least), you straightaway voted with my guilty find. I took this as a sign you had been the elusive night motivator.

[WhoMe?]

[quote="KaleiÐoscøpe"]

Vote: Roffman

Claim[/quote]

I have a reasonable theory as to what

roffman's

role is. I'm thinking you should claim, so that we can direct the search elsewhere.

Also. isn't anyone going to take credit for my extra investigation last night?

[WhoMe?]

[quote="KaleiÐoscøpe"]I'll claim if people want it, but it will only add another layer of confusion IMO.[/quote]

Sorry, bad sentence construction. I was agreeing that roffman should probably claim.

[WhoMe?]

vote kaleidoscop

i'm around 90% certain that ergo isn't scum.

This was the 1st soft claimy type post from roffman. I was wondering if he was hinting at cop, which got my interest for obvious reasons

@scot: my vote kscope was more or less meaningless, i just wanted to vote someone. As for ergo being town, i'm not 100% sure, but i'm relatively certain that he does not have a nightkill ability, therefore i'm pretty sure he is not scum.

This post had me thinking he was a tracker. I thought he had seen Erg0 action someone, then that person survived the night and there was a NK of a different party. This made me happier with him than when I thought he was hinting cop.

His first two posts of today were interesting.

personally, i'm more doubtful that there are 2 cops in this setup. We know Ergo was cop, but WhoMe? has only claimed it. That, and the fact a claimed cop survived the night makes me very suspicious

i understand your reasoning, though i think we should wait for all of WhoMe?'s supposed results before we start the accusation train

Erg0 had just turned up dead and we know he was a cop. This has given roffman some misgivings. I find the wording on the second post interesting. Instead of saying wait for my result, he put it as wait for ALL of my resultS. This had me thinking he was our mystery motivator, as this post seems to have knowledge that I would have more than one result.

At this point I posted and gave my 2 investigation results. Roffman then immediately voted my guilty result and then posted

i'm relatively certain that WhoMe?'s two investigations are legitimate, though he could quite easily be insane. Just wondering if it is a night ability, did anyone get motivated N1?

This had me thinking tracker again, as if he was a tracker and had targeted me he would have seen my 2 targets for investigation. He also seemed to be saying he wasn't the motivator here.

We then get

fine, i'm a motivator

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.

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.

So given that I now know why I had 2 cracks of the whip last night

vote chaotic_diablo

[WhoMe?]

I think motivator fits all his claims.

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.

I agree being relatively sure someone is town based on this is wrong, but it does fit the claim.

[WhoMe?]

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.

[WhoMe?]

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.

[WhoMe?]

Bear in mind I was a claimed cop as of end of yesterday. Why would a scum motivator target a cop? Unless of course they were some kind of 'twisted' motivator that interfered with the extra inv in some way. Mmmmmmmm anyone ver come across anything like that?

[WhoMe?]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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?

I have no idea. Any speculation I make as to why scum killed x instead of why is pure WIFOM.

In summation I am still happy with my vote on you.

also Scopes vote is missing from the c_d votes. Did you forget to unvote first Scope?

[WhoMe?]

cop sanitys

sane - inv's can be trusted, GF, millers are screwy
naive - all innocent
paranoid - all guilty
insane - guilty on town, innocent on scum

Given I have had innocents and a guilty, I am either sane or insane, and have found either 1 scum or too. Shame we don't have a confirmed townie for me to check myself on.

[WhoMe?]

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.

[WhoMe?]

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

Where does that leave us?

[WhoMe?]

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.

Not quite what I meant. I meant where does that leave us regarding the accuracy of my guilty on you.

My inv was either affected by the motivate or not.

If not then I am sane or insane and either you, OR JDodge & Tamul are scum

If my inv was affected then naive goes back on the list as a possibility and my role is effectively useless.

So how to go forward from here?

[WhoMe?]

was that the hammer?

[WhoMe?]

wooo! go scum!

[WhoMe?]

why did Dizzy get modkilled?

[WhoMe?]

damn, i thought motivating scum would give 2 kills, never thought that scum had another ability. very well played

if i hadn't been a role blocker, I don't think I would have evn known I had been motivated and that would have been that come day break.