Mini 638 - Batman Mafia - Prozacmod 1 - Over

[kloud1516]

farm!

[kloud1516]

bah! I didn't realize the game had started already, my bad.

vote: charter

. Peter Griffin is your avatar. Peter Griffin eats a lot, and people that might eat/steal food from Scarecrow's farm are most likely to be scum.

*grabs pitchfork and noxious pesticides*

[kloud1516]

Of course not. But I wanted to see if anyone would agree with me, because they might be mafia looking to find a scapegoat character to vote on.

So you initiated a plan in hopes of drawing out scum, yet you give away your intentions a little more than twenty minutes later after only one person has responded? Hope that worked out well for you.

I doubt it's that simple. I mean really, do you honestly think the mod would make it THAT easy for us?

I agree with you, I do not believe things would be made that easy for us.

Green light.

Crap, you've found me!

Haha! I knew it. Give me back my corn or else I might have to resort to bringing out the fear gas.

[kloud1516]

Of course not. But I wanted to see if anyone would agree with me, because they might be mafia looking to find a scapegoat character to vote on.

So you initiated a plan in hopes of drawing out scum, yet you give away your intentions a little more than twenty minutes later after only one person has responded? Hope that worked out well for you.

To be honest I doubt it would have worked anyway.

That was just me being sarcastic.

But.....

This game is already quite amusing, I must say.

I agree that the nasty bat and his friends are obviously the killers, we should weed them out and enact our revenge.

Interesting. I can't tell if this was serious or just a joke, but I am assuming the latter at the moment.

[kloud1516]

But.....

This game is already quite amusing, I must say.

I agree that the nasty bat and his friends are obviously the killers, we should weed them out and enact our revenge.

Interesting. I can't tell if this was serious or just a joke, but I am assuming the latter at the moment.

AhAhahahAHahAHahHAhahhahahAHAha

Well this

IS

the question now isn't it

It would appear to be so now wouldn't it.

I'm thinking that at least one Mafia member would have a posting restriction. I'm just trying to figure out everyone that has one so I can keep an eye on them. I'm not saying they should be our targets but it's just something that's occurred to me.

I am in agreement with the cat that has been traipsing through my laboratory -- what is leading you to believe that there are post restrictions? Have you seen something thus far that stands out as reasonable proof for this theory?

[kloud1516]

I am in agreement with the cat that has been traipsing through my laboratory

Ahhh, the cat's out of the bag now!

...I dont get it....

Grimmy
I should know This, but it Wont come Out.

Not everyone's purrrfect.

I am with Grimmy on this . . . I am confused now.

If Scarecrow had a brain, it would have just short-circuited. heh heh. Oops, wrong Scarecrow.

[kloud1516]

Ah. Okay Now I feel stupid.

[kloud1516]

I'm thinking that at least one Mafia member would have a posting restriction. I'm just trying to figure out everyone that has one so I can keep an eye on them. I'm not saying they should be our targets but it's just something that's occurred to me.

I am in agreement with the cat that has been traipsing through my laboratory -- what is leading you to believe that there are post restrictions? Have you seen something thus far that stands out as reasonable proof for this theory?

The constant cat references from charter. Our ventriloquist having a speech impediment. There could be more but not everyone has been an active poster.

This is true. I assumed that the constant cat references were just playful banter, but there could indeed be more to it. The same applies to KE's insertion of "g" instead of "b."

[kloud1516]

yeah, I don't think comic alignment is indicative of game alignment.

Does anyone else agree?

I do. After all, it appears that the game consists predominately of villains, exception being the three heroes, and, as previously addressed I don't believe the mod would have made the heroes scum.

[kloud1516]

Its entirely possible that the heroe's are scum, 3 scum in a mini is not unstandard.


I'm not the only one that thinks this am I? I mean, it would seem reasonable for for the 3 heroes to be scum and have been given false claims AND PRs.

I didn't say it would be impossible for the heroes to be scum, I just said I did not believe that would happen, for the game would be too easy. I am not going to cast aside any theory yet, for it is still early in the game and there are many possibilities. I think the idea of the scum being a mixture of heroes and villains makes more sense (for right now that is).

[kloud1516]

kloud1516 - No pattern that I can detect
One thing about kloud1516 that perked my interest was this statement, which leads me to believe that he might in fact be the famous Dr. Arkham.

I am in agreement with the cat that has been traipsing through my laboratory

Probably Scarecrow. I think this was said by someone else.

Flameaxe - Not enough posting info
Seems to be associated with Batman's sidekick, Robin.
The only other thing that I can detect is that he has used an exclamation mark in every one of his posts.

Holy vase batman!

Holy "random" votes, Batman!

Praise the lord, for he is our savior!

Thats OLD SCHOOL robin stuff. he may be Nightwing, who was the first robin.

ZONEACE - Has asked a question in every single one of his posts. Similar to Flameaxe except instead of exclamation marks this time it is question marks.

does anyone else like the color green?

wait, what are we talking about now?

Does anyone else agree?

This would be the Riddler

charter - Has a reference to cats in each of his posts. Catwoman?

I love pink cats

Should we massclaim our characters? I've got a few of them down from the cat-firmation stage

OOps, had a little cat-astrophe in my last post, won't happen again. Sorry

Again, OLD SCHOOL catwoman (By Old school, I mean the old TV show)

Albert B. Rampage - Joker-esque posts

GoOd EveNinG LadIeS and GENtle MeN....

Hyahaahahaha

A little fight in ya. I like that.

DarlaBlueEyes - Laughs at seemingly random intervals, seems to be liked to the Riddler. No other pattern that I can detect.

I agree that the nasty bat and his friends are obviously the killers, we should weed them out and enact our revenge.

AhAhahahAHahAHahHAhahhahahAHAha

Well this IS the question now isn't it

BOTH of these can be alluded to the Joker, so we may be able to add HARLEY QUINN to the group, but which one? I dunno.

just adding my 2 cents to this post.

Grimmy
has change coming

I agree with both pwnz's and Grimmy's observations here, and I can see the evidence suggesting that both the Joker and Harley Quinn are in the game. I find it interesting that we still haven't suggested anyone stands out as possibly being the big bad Bat himself, for we have 4 pages to go on here. I haven't seen anything that suggests who could be the Bat, but then again I haven't been looking as hard as I could be. I am going to do a reread and maybe I will find something.

vote Inspectot Godot

My feline sense wonders how you're so sure the scum must have posting restrictions and at least one is a hero. Once again, what makes you so sure?

Logic. Having all three heroes as pro-town would seem too obvious, as would having them all scum. So at least one hero is scum in my eyes. And having everyone that has a posting restriction as either all pro-town or all mafia doesn't seem right either. Should I put an OMGUS vote on you?

Whether or not all three heroes are scum or protown is WIFOM. Go ahead and vote me, you're just going to get clawed for it.

OoO, the kitten's got claws!

Will more a little later.

[kloud1516]

EBWOP~will post more later. And here it is.


I have gone back through in hopes of figuring out who everyone is (character wise). All of this speculation got me curious as to who was who, and so here is my theory:

Zoneace

: Riddler

Crub

: ? Not enough material to make a hypothesis

KE

: Ventriloquist

SingingLibrarian

: ?

DarlaBlueEyes

: Penguin/Harley Quinn. Based on the DBE's confirmation post, I am more inclined to believe she is the Penguin. I might be wrong here, but didn't Penguin laugh a lot as well?

charter

: Catwoman

pwnz

: Not sure; I feel that you are either Batman or Nightwing because of your confirmation post.

SHADOW

This leads me to believe you are either Mr. Batty himself or Nightwing, but I have no evidence beyond mere speculation.

Grimmy

: Not sure; I am going to guess Two-Face

does anyone else like the color green?

I prefer grey myself.

its more of a middle ground thing.

Grimmy
stuck in the middle.

Two-Face would be stuck in the middle ground, for he is half monster, half human due to his multiple personality disorder. I know this might not be correct, but is all I've got at the moment.

ABR

: Joker

Flameaxe

: Robin or Nightwing -- for reasons already addressed by Grimmy and pwnz.

Godot

: Mr. Freeze
------------------------------------------

vote Inspectot Godot

My feline sense wonders how you're so sure the scum must have posting restrictions and at least one is a hero. Once again, what makes you so sure?

Logic. Having all three heroes as pro-town would seem too obvious, as would having them all scum. So at least one hero is scum in my eyes. And having everyone that has a posting restriction as either all pro-town or all mafia doesn't seem right either. Should I put an OMGUS vote on you?

Whether or not all three heroes are scum or protown is WIFOM. Go ahead and vote me, you're just going to get clawed for it.

WIFOM? Of course it is, that's why I think it's a mix of heroes and villains, normal posters and those without restrictions. Speculation never hurt anyone and if you're worried and/or petty enough to place a vote due to it then I'll take the lift down to your level.

Vote Charter

In my opinion, it is still early in the game, and I do not think that someone expressing their opinion to possible possiblities is all that bad. At the same time, I can see where charter is coming from, for the WIFOM is only helps to create confusion (at least to me). Instead of focusing on possible set-ups, I think we should focus on weeding out who seems the most suspicious and interrogating them, hero or villain, post restriction or no instead of dwelling on speculation and possibility. This will help us answer the questions at hand as well as get rid of scum. Anyone agree?

unvote

FoS: Zoneace

; what exactly is your reasoning behind voting charter? I didn't see any justification above.

Is that what the Riddler fears most; a vicious kitten? This certainly is an E.Nygma.

[kloud1516]

Any lynch may help us figure out the answer to the "comic alignment" question.

And yes, Im one of them who think the "heroes" in the comics are the "scum" in this game.

1) I agree with you, any lynch is going to provide us with information, but it might not necessarily help us with the alignment. I would like to hope that we will be provided with the information needed to wade through all the possible set ups and figure out which theory correctly applies to this situation.

2) Congratulations I am in the group that isn't sure which set-up is in place, but is not dismissing any possibilities. Since you believe that the scum are the heroes, are you suggesting that we lynch a hero day 1? Are you a gambling man, Mr. Dent?

[kloud1516]

Okay, *makes a note to self* don't take confirmation word/phrase for face value.

I can't speak for either Godot or Zoneace, but here is where I see their reasoning:

vote Inspectot Godot

My feline sense wonders how you're so sure the scum must have posting restrictions and at least one is a hero. Once again, what makes you so sure?

Logic. Having all three heroes as pro-town would seem too obvious, as would having them all scum. So at least one hero is scum in my eyes. And having everyone that has a posting restriction as either all pro-town or all mafia doesn't seem right either. Should I put an OMGUS vote on you?

Whether or not all three heroes are scum or protown is WIFOM. Go ahead and vote me, you're just going to get clawed for it.

WIFOM? Of course it is, that's why I think it's a mix of heroes and villains, normal posters and those without restrictions. Speculation never hurt anyone and if you're worried and/or petty enough to place a vote due to it then I'll take the lift down to your level.

Vote Charter

yeah I'm gonna go with

vote carter

what's black and white and red all over?

Your rotting maggot infested corpse after we string you up.

Can't say that this will help either of you reach elightenment, but I guess it would be a start.

[kloud1516]

Poor Flameaxe, perhaps I could diagnose him a little later. I hope he fears professors. Wouldn't that be a treat .Aww Zoneace, so serious with your inquiries and riddles. Put a smile on, or I might just have to make you scream.

hehehehehehe.

So you propose the best Day 1 choice is charter, or do you not care who we lynch so long as we do it soon? Your vote suggests you want charter lynched, but your last post implies you do not care who the town decides to lynch. Another riddle? I really don't like these riddles.

[kloud1516]

I get it!

You would think the riddler of all people would catch on to something like that. Riddler, let me take you to where I make my medicine. You should have some, it would help you clear your head up.

[kloud1516]

what you supposed to be? Scarecrow?



oh and

What's dead and rotting?

you after we throw your corpse in a ditch.

Oh, very good Mr. E Nygma! Very good indeed.

You expect to frighten me, the master of fear?!? Is death what you fear most, sir? Let us find out.

[kloud1516]

I agree, the mass claim could very well assist in gaining momentum, so I am not opposed to the idea. Do you think we should vote on the issue, if the majority of people decide it is a good idea we claim if not we don't? I also think the dice roll idea would be a nice way to get this started.

[kloud1516]

As someone already surmised, Im Two-Face. Im a Vanilla in this game, but as a villian character, this is why I surmised that the three heroes mentioned would be the scum in this game, and until one of the heroes is lynched to prove me wrong, Im sticking with this theory.

Grimmy
heads I win, tails you lose
Ps
I HAD to be #2 to claim!

I guessed correctly! That's a surprise.

On a more serious note, I will claim as well. I am Dr. Jonathan Crane--Scarecrow, as many of you have already deduced.

[kloud1516]

For the record, I am Batman. I am town, but have no evidence either way about the other two heroes. Unlike others, I don't think it's a good idea at this stage to claim a role as well as a name - even those claiming vanilla is not helpful, as that helps scum to narrow down their list of potential power roles to target at night.

I am in agreement with SL on this point; I have nothing against character claiming, but role claiming, as SL said already, will help scum identify power roles and inevitably plan out their actions more thoroughly imo. We don't want to surrender too much information to the scum, as it will only be a detriment in the long run.

FoS: ABR

What exactly were you trying to achieve by lying about your role. Surely one would assume that the most diabolical of Batman's enemies (Joker) would be in the game, and early on people were suggesting a mass claim, meaning that you must have realized you would be found out eventually. Due to the possibility that the roles might not necessarily be indicative of alignment, lying about it just doesn't make sense to me.

[kloud1516]

I'm home. I'm tired as fuck. I'll get to this as soon as I can stay awake.

Im MORE tired than you, so dont hog the covers.

Grimmy
can hear them snoring

I think the snoring is better than Flameaxe's fits of insane laughter for the last couple days, wouldn't you agree? I am sure someone has ear plugs in this asylum . . .

[kloud1516]

ABR does ahve quite a history of lying as a member of town, to be fair, but I'm not at all convinced that this should give him a 'get out of lying free' card particularly since I can see no pro-town reason at all to pretend to be a different character to the character you have been assigned.

Vote: Albert B. Rampage

For the record, I am Batman. I am town, but have no evidence either way about the other two heroes. Unlike others, I don't think it's a good idea at this stage to claim a role as well as a name - even those claiming vanilla is not helpful, as that helps scum to narrow down their list of potential power roles to target at night.

I had a feeling you were one of the heroes from the way you were keeping quiet. I'm thinking that you're going to have to defend yourselves from some posters pretty soon.

What the hell? YOU'RE one of the people that should be attacking him because he's a hero, why on earth do you post a warning for him? Cat sense is tingling.

No, you've completely failed to read my posts correctly. He's owned up to being a hero which is more then Robin and Nightwing can say. Trust me, if ABR can explain why he's been lying about his character my vote will go straight back to you.

Unvote

Vote Albert B. Rampage

I don't see where charter misread, Godot. You openly expressed your belief that at least one mafia member would be a hero, which would support charter's response to your post imo. Yes, SL owned up to being a hero, but I believe this fact alone wouldn't stop you from delving into your own theory, would it?

[kloud1516]

Why he's being an idiot I have no idea though.

It's not a choice he's making.


What question should I ask?

While he might not have chosen to "be an idiot," he

did

choose to lie about his character for some reason, as well as lie about his role. So, not only did he lie about being Joker, but he also claimed vig then now claims to be vanilla. IMO, he seems to just be leading us in circles, which isn't very helpful.

[kloud1516]

unvote; vote: ABR

Your vig, then your vanilla, now your not vanilla. I can't trust you as far as I can throw you, and seeing how Scarecrow isn't the strongest villain that wasn't very far to begin with. You have been caught in several lies, and stirring up all of this confusion with your quick changing in position isn't helping the town. My diagnosis: poison ivy is just an irritable weed that needs to be exterminated before it can take root and fester.

[kloud1516]

unvote; vote: ABR

Your vig, then your vanilla, now your not vanilla. I can't trust you as far as I can throw you, and seeing how Scarecrow isn't the strongest villain that wasn't very far to begin with. You have been caught in several lies, and stirring up all of this confusion with your quick changing in position isn't helping the town. My diagnosis: poison ivy is just an irritable weed that needs to be exterminated before it can take root and fester.

IMO, this is substantial reasoning for voting for him. ABR was leading the town around in circles, claiming vig, then taking back the claim and promising he was vanilla, then withdrawing this claim as well. His antics were unhelpful and distracting, and this is why he was lynched. There was no need for him to lie about his character or his role, and him doing so several times was the most suspicious thing in the game at the time to me.

What part of if you weren't an idiot you wouldn't have wanted him lynched don't you understand.

As bus driver, attracting a vig kill makes PERFECT SENSE. Nothing he did yesterday was anti-town if you have a brain and can think.

LAL is possibly the dumbest policy I've ever seen in a mafia game.

My feline feelings are saddened because you can't get your role that you were on the outside.

Anyhow, Godot is still scum.

vote Godot

1) It would be one thing for him to act suspicious in order to attract a vig, but the ABR's chain of claiming and confessing he had lied WAS anti town. It was distracting and was providing no assistance to scum hunting at all.

2) None of us could have known he was bus driver, and of course his actions are going to make sense

AFTER

his role was revealed, so you condemning all that voted for him isn't going to get us anywhere (and neither are the ad homs). I can't speak for the others on the bandwagon, but I made the decision that I thought was the most logical with the content we all had been provided with, and that was to vote for the most suspicious player. The method might make sense to you, but it made more sense to me to lynch him, as it was only hindering the town.

FoS : charter

[kloud1516]

Oh, and I forgot to add this to my post. Here is the list of those who have/haven't claimed along with their roles.

The Claimed

:

KingEnigma:

Ventrioquist

Singing Librarian

: Batman

Charter:

Catwoman

Me:

Scarecrow

Grimmy:

Two Face

Godot:

Mad hatter

The Unclaimed

:

ZONEACE
Crub
pwnz
Flameaxe

The claims have not provided any evidence to support the several theories still under discussion, but I am suspicious of those that did not claim Day 1 after it was agreed that we would mass claim. Singing Librarian has come forward as Batman, which means that there are two heroes that have yet to claim. I believe that Zoneace is the Riddler, but seeing as how he never did actually claim (at least I don't think he did) I could not add him to the claimed list.

[kloud1516]

So you even admit you lynched him despite him not being scummy? Not helpful to the town is very distictly different from making someone scum. Half of Zoneace's posts are not helpful to the town, but you don't suspect him do you? Flameaxe hasn't been helpful to the town so far, but he's free to go?

Your logic is singling out ABR when it should apply to others. If Godot didn't have another vote on him already, I'd vote you.

Go ahead and 'suspect' me because I can tell the difference between not helpful and scum.

The difference between ABR's play yesterday and, say Zoneace, is quite substantial and important. While some of Zoneace's posts do not help town, ABR's play was actively unhelpful. Actively unhelpful generally equals scummy.

To turn this around, are you saying that we should have given him a free pass for lying, first about which character he was, then about his role? In which case, we don't bother pursuing anyone who is found to be lying?

QFT. I would also like to point out that, unlike ABR, 'half' of the posts that Zoneace

did

submit

were

helpful imo, for he actually provided his own suspicions, opinons, and other input to the game, something that ABR did not do if I am not mistaken. Zoneace did contribute, and to me this not only sets him apart from ABR's gameplay, but also makes your statement above somewhat fallacious.

[kloud1516]

This game is stalling horribly. Question for everyone not voting, what are you waiting for? (I'm not telling you vote)

Then what are you doing?

[kloud1516]

Well since we obviously need some fodder, I'll go ahead and try to debunk the heroes as scum rumor that is spreading. What's the worst that could happen?

I get lynched because nobody else feels like talking?

Sure.. why not..
I'm Nightwing.

@ pwnz

: in what ways to you feel your claiming Nightwing now will contribute to refuting the theory of heroes being scum? We have already had one person (SL) claim Batman, but there hasn't been anything significant to disprove the possibilty thus far. I find the bolded section above to be interesting, for you are one of those people that haven't been talking, so I don't exactly follow your train of thought here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First we say "lets all claim!"
Then "Psshhh, I was just kidding"

B

ut "I still want to know who everyone is" (Fishing for a safe claim?)
Then we get a "I'll tell, really I will" (Still looking?)
Now "Lets all claim again, it would rock! I'll go 4th after almost everyone I havent figured out goes!" (Aha, a way to finish fishing and safe claim and yes I know we got a mad hatter out of him,

b

ut that was after process of elimination)
and finally "I really need your character, I havent figured out how to work this all in my favor yet"

Seems like this is my

Vote: Inspector Godot

*gasp* KE didn't substitute his "b's" for "g's"!!

Back to the game. I agree that some of Godot's posts when it comes to the mass claim do seem a little opportunistic, but there are other aspects of your post that I do not agree with. The only proponent of your reasoning that I am not following is the last section referring to the conversation with Godot and Crub. I do not see how Godot explaining that 3 scum in a mini isn't unnatural is considered suspicious, nor do I find him suspecting Crub for not being active (at least I think that was what he found suspicious about Crub) to stand out either.

All other points you made I find to be viable at the moment, but I am going to wait for Godot to respond before placing my vote.

[kloud1516]

Meh, I was only joking about that . . . didn't mean to evoke the wrath of Warden Porochaz.

[kloud1516]

EBWOP:

Meh, I was only joking about that . . . didn't mean to evoke the wrath of Warden Porochaz upon you.

There we go.

[kloud1516]

I am going to wait until pwnz responds to my question before doing anything. I would also like to see if Godot addresses KE's post and hear more from those who haven't been talking.

@ Charter: why are you in such a rush to lynch? We aren't close to a deadline, and imo there could still information and opinions from others that could be helpful. Tunnel vision and short days aren't going to help us hit scum.

[kloud1516]

quote="charter"]

Tunnel vision and short days aren't going to help us hit scum.

Ironic considering you and Godot were in such a hurry to lynch ABR. No one has anything new to say it seems, or at least they aren't posting it if they do, no sense in waiting around when Godot is scum. Claw him.[/quote]

Funny how you can omit the other five people that voted for ABR, as well as the fact that while Day 1 was nine pages with generally everyone participating, Day 2 has lasted about 2 pages with only about 3 or 4 people consistantly talking. I love how you keep bringing up the ABR mislynch, as arguing about the fact that a mistake was made has gotten us nowhere.

First we say "lets all claim!"
Then "Psshhh, I was just kidding"
But "I still want to know who everyone is" (Fishing for a safe claim?)
Then we get a "I'll tell, really I will" (Still looking?)
Now "Lets all claim again, it would rock! I'll go 4th after almost everyone I havent figured out goes!" (Aha, a way to finish fishing and safe claim and yes I know we got a mad hatter out of him, but that was after process of elimination)
and finally "I really need your character, I havent figured out how to work this all in my favor yet"

Seems like this is my

Vote: Inspector Godot

When you put it that way, it actually does look really bad. I'd say you're justified in your vote, unlike CRUB who basically OMGUS'd me. Seeing as Pwnz claimed Nightwing I'm still unsure what to make of Crub.

I am not liking your response, Godot, for the way this is phrased above makes it seem like you are agreeing with KE's reasoning, and in doing so makes me feel like you just admitted the suspicions were valid. That makes you look scummy.

More to come in a little bit

[kloud1516]

@ pwnz: in what ways to you feel your claiming Nightwing now will contribute to refuting the theory of heroes being scum? We have already had one person (SL) claim Batman, but there hasn't been anything significant to disprove the possibilty thus far. I find the bolded section above to be interesting, for you are one of those people that haven't been talking, so I don't exactly follow your train of thought here.

Claiming Nightwing doesn't do anything, just figured I would share. Hope you weren't expecting some sort of long and drawn out response as to why I belive that claiming would help my situation, but the fact of the matter is that I would rather claim now and hopefully be granted some sort of grace instead of later on down the road being forced to claim Nightwing and being killed for it.

Plus I have already stated before (from experience, obviously) that the heroes in this game are not mafia. (At least not all of them, anyways)

No, I wasn't counting on a huge explanation, I just got the impression from your preceding post that through you claiming Nightwing you intented on eliminating the heroes=scum theory. At this point, even though you might be town, I really can't just buy into the "I obviously know I am not scum, so not all the heroes are mafia," as the possibility has not been disputed yet. Thank you for responding to my question.

[kloud1516]

Hey kloud, whats with the new green text?

[joke]Oh, I thought I would spice up my posting style and add a little flair to the game.[/joke]

[serious]It is nothing, I just got a PR as punishment from the mod[/serious] Do you not like my obnoxiously large green text?


Also, I would like to notify both the players and Porochaz that I just started back to school, so the next two days (Thursday-Friday) may be a little crazy for me. I will be much more active on the weekends, but access will be limited for a while during the week. I will be here though, so there will be no need to replace.
I am going to do a little reread of the last two pages or so, then I will post something of value later.

[kloud1516]

VOTE Inspector Gobot

L-2

pwnz - Given that the only time you've even mentioned Inspector Godot before was when you were trying to guess who everyone was, can you explain your reasons for that vote?

QFT. pwnz, this vote seems to come out of left field. In my opinion, you have been flying relatively low key for a while, and you now drop a vote that puts someone at L-2 without any reasoning. To me, this is awfully suspicious, as it looks like a player taking the opportunity to jump on the wagon with the greatest momentum, as you haven't stated any reasoning for suspecting Godot at all Day 2 (correct me if I am wrong). I too would like some kind of explanation about this vote.

Batmarang of Suspicion (FoS): pwnz

Nothing has really changed on my stance, I'm not sure what else to do, I do not feel the need to search needlessly when I have already found one scum memger.

heh heh memger, thats a funny word.

Terrible attitude to

add

have, and it will only look worse if I am lynched. Are you even considering the other possibilities?

I'm also finding myself agreeing with Godot and Zoneace about KE and Grimmy - you're not able to post much, fine, but couldn't you post more helpfully?

EDIT!

I have looked at other people, nothing seems overtly scummy in their posts, I think Godot is the gest get, so thats is why I'm voting.

And I seriously need to know how to post more helpful information? I mean I posted my thoughts and feelings on who I thought was scum, I don't read anything into anygody else's play styles at the moment, so I am not going to just randomly throw out junk. So tell me what I need to say, gecause apparently that is the only way to make people happy with how much I post.

I am not going to jump over KE or Grimmy's case for not posting "helpful content" as I feel I haven't been contributing as much as I could be either. As I believe I said earlier, I have been busy, and Grimmy has said he has been busy, so I am not going to hold this against him, as I haven't found much of anything else that makes him stand out on my scumdar.

I will say, however, that while I feel KE adequately justified his reasoning for voting Godot, I am not liking post 289. It is one thing to strongly believe that a player may be scum, but is another thing in my opinion to focus solely on this one person and completely ignore all others, as it provides more opportunity for other scum to slip under the radar. I have nothing against you feeling that Godot is scum, as I feel that your logic is viable, but I would think that if you believe that you have hit scum, you would be looking at others now in hopes of finding Godot's (hypothetical) scum buddies.

FoS: the Inactive

Lurking is not protown

[kloud1516]

Bowl of warm milk for the next person to vote Godot. If you're not voting Godot and

want me to make a post recapping all the arguments against him, let me know.

I would appreciate this, as I have not been clear on your reasoning for some time now and have not had an opportunity to ask because of real life mania. The recap would be helpful, as it may point out something I could have missed

[kloud1516]

To everyone else that wanted me to give some sort of explanation as to why I decided to vote for Godot:

A vote is a vote,

usually

put on someone when you are suspicious of their posting and overall demeanor. I placed my vote on him because I believe that he is the most suspicious player in this game so far.

1) I don't think anyone here needs to know what a vote is, as most of us have placed one before. I bolded the "usually" in your post above, just to emphasize the flaws I feel are present in this particular excerpt of your post. Yes, a vote is "usually" placed on someone you find most suspicious, but votes are not exclusive to townies, and so votes are not always used for this purpose. So, as you say, votes "usually" are placed on someone suspicious, but are also used by the very players we are trying to identify right now (scum) for other reasons. Since you give no explanation for your vote, this makes you appear to be part of the latter faction.

2) You placed your vote on Godot because you believe he is the most suspicious person in this game. What I--and several others--have asked you to do is state why you find him to be suspicious, as you provide us with no evidence to justify your vote. This makes you look scummy, not Godot imo. As I said in my previous post, this vote comes off as an opportunistic scum trying to get his vote on the wagon with the most momentum. You don't give any reasoning for your vote, and openly show no apprehension to putting someone at L-2 without evidence, and that doesn't sit well with me. In addition to this, when asked to provide reasoning, you provide us with the post that I am currently responding to right now, which completely avoids response. I asked you for reasoning because I found your actions suspicious, and you avoiding to comment doesn't help your case.

I'm not the only one, either, because I see others saying that he looks relatively scummy as well.

Hmn, Appeal to Popularity/Numbers/Majority much? You may not be the only one voting Godot, but you

are

the only one that didn't explain why you are voting him. Others

did

say he looked relatively scummy, but provided opinions and evidence from the thread's multiple pages of content when justifying their stances. You did not, and attempting to rationalize your reasoning by saying that others find Godot to be suspicious isn't going to cut it for me.

So, to all of you that want me to explain why I put a vote on someone, how about we instead ask the person who has the votes on him why we shouldn't lynch him.

How about you explain why you find Godot suspicious first, and then we analyze his responses to the accusations leveled and decide whether or not we find them to be viable or not. What do you propose we ask Godot, pwnz? What are you planning on him saying? Others have already voiced their suspicions, and Godot has already addressed them. Others have already inserted their own inquiries into the conversation, and in my opinion, it is now your turn to contribute to the topic, as it is you with an unjustified vote on him.

It is he who should be questioned instead of you who should be defending him, because you then look like you have some specific reason that you don't want him dead.

Why exactly is it he that needs to be questioned as opposed to you right now? He already has been questioned. So, what you are saying is that either someone can agree with you on Godot's alignment, or they are automatically suspicious to you? If this is not the case, feel free to say otherwise when you decide to explain your vote. There could be several reasons for defending him, a big one being that one doesn't find Godot to be scum. I am still waiting on charter's recap of all things he finds suspicious when concerning Godot, but I know where my vote is going today.

vote: pwnz

[kloud1516]

Question for you and the rest of the pwnz wagon. What has he done that's scummy? I agree he's being unhelpful, but as far as I can tell, he hasn't done anything scummy. Please enlighten me.

Ouch, you hurt my feelings. Godot is still mafia, though.

In response to Charter's question: My reasoning provided in post 310 should suffice. If it doesn't, then I apologize, but that is where my vote is staying for the time being.

In addition to my post 310, add this post of pwnz's and his post 324 to my reasoning, as he continues to avoid answering my questions/responding to any of my comments. Stonewalling might assist you in evading slip ups, but it also continues to speed the deterioration of the doubt that is left in my mind.

Second of all ~Posts 334-350 concerning the back-and-forth between Charter and zoneace: Really guys, really? Both of you have been dropping ad homs on each other off and on since late Day 1, which really isn't productive at all. Take a few breaths, calm down, and let's all get back to this game of mafia at hand. Yes? No? My diagnosis: don't take things so seriously, it is just a game. That is my two cents, and now I am not going to bring it up again.

More to come a little later.

[kloud1516]

In the process of rereading. Will post something of content shortly

[kloud1516]

Sorry everyone, here are my thoughts:

First off, the NK and the results of the pwnz lynch completely befuddled me. I was near certain that pwnz was scum by the way he was responding to the questions and comments directed at him. Wow. And secondly, I can't make heads or tails (no pun intended) of Grimmy's death, for I could really find anything within the thread that would possibly explain the choice with any sort of substantial evidence.

I did come across these posts contributed by Grimmy:

ABR was acting very anti-town, and saying I told you so after the fact does not help anything.

fos: Charter and Singing Librarian

Like I stated before, Im still sticking with my heroes=scum theory, as I was before ABR set off everyones scumdars. Charter, more so because of his "you are all stoopid" remakrs towards everyone, AFTER the lynch had occured. Distancing yourself from a townie lynch that would only be obvious to scum.

S.L.- Only because he claimed he was a hero, but Im not going to vote for him unless either everyone else agrees to test the hero=scum theory, he provided evidence that he is town. To his credit, he claimed in theface of knowing I would liekly vote for him knowing he was a hero. That is either a balls the wall scum move, or a townie move. hence the hold on the vote.

Right now, Charter is scummier than S.I. right now. i want to hear more from Charter before voting though.

Grimmy
everything makes perfect sense AFTER the fact

and this

Which is why I said that kevethcing about it AFTER THE FACT is useless, yet you tried to position yourself as someone who spoke out against it BEFORE it occured.

Also, your reason for voting Godot, IMHO, is fuled by stupd reasoning. While there are some valid reasons to vote for him, your initial vote for him was because he was stating the obvious.

Vote: Charter

Now on the other side of the coin

Godot, you have been making "blanket" observations to try to fly under the radar. There are more reasons to vote for you, but right now, Charter sticks out more as the scummiest. More on you later. Right now, Im sticking with the Charter vote.

grimmy
tails you lose.

In which Grimmy continues to address his suspicions of Godot and Charter/danger. I can't make an argument based off of this alone, as I would much prefer to stay away from WIFOM given my current state of confusion, but there may be something of value in response to Grimmy's repeated suspicions and vote that could prove helpful for actually hitting scum today.

As of right now, my main suspect is Charter/Danger. I still do not like how Charter acted throughout his time within the game, especially Day 2. He continued to be abrasive in short about the ABR mislynch, and seemed to not want to let it go even after everyone (I think everyone) that placed a vote on ABR explained themselves several times.

Ok, everyone that voted for ABR, justify it now. You can't have actual reasons so I want to hear your BS. This kitty is mad.

What part of if you weren't an idiot you wouldn't have wanted him lynched don't you understand. As bus driver, attracting a vig kill makes PERFECT SENSE. Nothing he did yesterday was anti-town if you have a brain and can think.

LAL is possibly the dumbest policy I've ever seen in a mafia game.

My feline feelings are saddened because you can't get your role that you were on the outside.

Anyhow, Godot is still scum.

vote Godot

Not only is Charter's short-fuse sending off sparks via his posts, but he is also continuing to drop ad homs all over the place. This doesn't serve any purpose except getting others angry as well, and I find his persistence for incorporating ad homs into his posts to suspicious.

unvote; vote: ABR

Your vig, then your vanilla, now your not vanilla. I can't trust you as far as I can throw you, and seeing how Scarecrow isn't the strongest villain that wasn't very far to begin with. You have been caught in several lies, and stirring up all of this confusion with your quick changing in position isn't helping the town. My diagnosis: poison ivy is just an irritable weed that needs to be exterminated before it can take root and fester.

IMO, this is substantial reasoning for voting for him. ABR was leading the town around in circles, claiming vig, then taking back the claim and promising he was vanilla, then withdrawing this claim as well. His antics were unhelpful and distracting, and this is why he was lynched. There was no need for him to lie about his character or his role, and him doing so several times was the most suspicious thing in the game at the time to me.

What part of if you weren't an idiot you wouldn't have wanted him lynched don't you understand.

As bus driver, attracting a vig kill makes PERFECT SENSE. Nothing he did yesterday was anti-town if you have a brain and can think.

LAL is possibly the dumbest policy I've ever seen in a mafia game.

My feline feelings are saddened because you can't get your role that you were on the outside.

Anyhow, Godot is still scum.

vote Godot

1) It would be one thing for him to act suspicious in order to attract a vig, but the ABR's chain of claiming and confessing he had lied WAS anti town. It was distracting and was providing no assistance to scum hunting at all.

2) None of us could have known he was bus driver, and of course his actions are going to make sense

AFTER

his role was revealed, so you condemning all that voted for him isn't going to get us anywhere (and neither are the ad homs). I can't speak for the others on the bandwagon, but I made the decision that I thought was the most logical with the content we all had been provided with, and that was to vote for the most suspicious player. The method might make sense to you, but it made more sense to me to lynch him, as it was only hindering the town.

FoS : charter

As I and others have already said, that whole situation provided nothing to game progression save keeping everyone in a state of frustration and pointless squabbling. I agree that this appears to be an attempt made by Charter to make himself look more pro-town, but, in doing so, was called out by a good number of players within the game. He then responded with the same abrasive tone, and cherrypicked arguments.

This game is stalling horribly. Question for everyone not voting, what are you waiting for? (I'm not telling you vote)

After several posts in which charter argues that ABR was singled out for aspects of anti-town play that applied to more than just ABR and after this argument was refuted by several people, the post above is what Charter provides. I see this as a deflection of any further comments. Charter sees that others are beginning to find him suspicious, and he decides to alter his course of action in order to avoid more spotlight.

He then singles in on Godot once more and continues with his tunnel vision perspective that he had Day 1, and continues it throughout the remainder of his time in the game.

FoS: Danger

For reasons against the person you replaced stated above

FoS: KE

also i'm more of a one proglem at a time type of person, so, yes I understand that there are more scum that one, gut this is the one I found, once this proglem is dealt with, I will move on.

Even if you are a one problem kind of guy, waiting around for a Godot lynch isn't going to help contribute much to the game. Now that you have "one scum found," you

could

start looking to others and stating how you find them to be suspicious.

[kloud1516]

I would like to point a few things out here:

Kloud also starts really wanting a massclaim, gut we as a group pretty much decided against it at that point.

I think I must be reading a different thread than you, KE, for I cannot find anywhere in the thread where I started off pushing for a massclaim. Could you please specify exactly which post it is that I started really wanting a massclaim?

The first time I see that I even mentioned a massclaim was in post 138, which you have quoted below. I do see, however, others that pushed for the massclaim almost from the get-go.

My examples:

Should we massclaim our characters? I've got a few of them down from the cat-firmation stage.

Should we massclaim our characters? I've got a few of them down from the cat-firmation stage.

While I am not FOR a massclaim, i AM curious at to who is on your list.

Grimmy
giggling at the cat-firmation.

So if the heroes are mafia in this game then we have three mafia members: Batman, Robin and Nightwing. A mass character claim could work I guess.

I didn't even enter the game until page 2 with post 38, by which time two players had already expressed interest in the massclaim, and then two posts after my entrance Godot does the same. I am not seeing this as the group deciding against massclaim either, so I feel that your argument is slightly fallacious.

Here are more examples from later on in the thread that I have found.

Ok, this kitty doesn't understand why everyone feels the need to quote everyone's posts and then put up what role they think they have.

I think it was my first post, but shouldn't we massclaim our roles? This will put an end to speculating and maybe we can get some better discussion going. I don't see what harm it can do to the town.

I'm pretty obvious, Catwoman.

It seems we've established a bout half the roles int eh game haven't we???

What more is there to do? mass name claim isn't a bad idea, at least it gives us somewhere to start. Yes someone coul dbe lying. But we could get everyone to roll the dice and then go in order so as to randomize it as best we can.

Role claiming is fine, but what do we think that we can gain from knowing who everyone is? I mean, we already have half of the characters pegged based solely on posing flavor text, don't we?

Kloud again pushes for a massclaim...

I agree, the mass claim could very well assist in gaining momentum, so I am not opposed to the idea. Do you think we should vote on the issue, if the majority of people decide it is a good idea we claim if not we don't? I also think the dice roll idea would be a nice way to get this started.

Every single one of the posts provided above precedes my own. At this point, I count four times that Charter has brought up massclaiming, and you are saying that

I

had been pushing for a mass claim. ?? . You've lost me here KE, as I don't see how me agreeing to the massclaim idea as me pushing for it either.

Wait though, for there is more:

And I'm not opposed to revealing my character, I'm just saving it just in case we get a mass character role-claim which would be so awesome. If you want me to claim, say the word.

Claim. Same goes for everyone else.

I find it interesting that you failed to mention any other players that accepted the idea of massclaiming. I find it even more interesting that you peg me as a person who was pushing for it, when posts like the one immediately above went unacknowledged.

Kloud agrees with me!!

*gasp* KE didn't substitute his "b's" for "g's"!!

Back to the game. I agree that some of Godot's posts

when it comes to the mass claim do seem a little opportunistic,

but there are other aspects of your post that I do not agree with. The only proponent of your reasoning that I am not following is the last section referring to the conversation with Godot and Crub. I do not see how Godot explaining that 3 scum in a mini isn't unnatural is considered suspicious, nor do I find him suspecting Crub for not being active (at least I think that was what he found suspicious about Crub) to stand out either.

All other points you made I find to be viable at the moment, but I am going to wait for Godot to respond before placing my vote.

The first bolded section above is what I agreed with. His vote

did

seem opportunistic, and I acknowledged that. I then went on to say that I disagreed with other aspects of your case. When I say all other points you made I found to be viable, I meant that the suspicious behavior of the vote was what I mainly agreed with, as well as the massclaiming hesitancy, for that is what what comprised your case if I am not mistaken.

Godot responds "Good reasoning (paraphrasing) and then.....Kloud

I am not liking your response, Godot, for the way this is phrased above makes it seem like you are agreeing with KE's reasoning, and in doing so makes me feel like you just admitted the suspicions were valid. That makes you look scummy.

WHY NO VOTE!? YOU PROMISED ME!!

I never promised you that I would jump on the Godot wagon. You quoted me above, so you should be able to see this. I said I was going to wait for Godot to respond before placing my vote. I did, and I admitted that I didn't like his response. He then responded to what I did not like about his initial response, and I accepted the response. In addition, I felt as though other players had exhibited far more suspicious behavior then Godot at the time, so I continued to hold onto my vote.

See posts 259 and 264. I had forgotten about this little interaction between Charter and I until reviewing it moments ago. As you can see, I am pointing out problems I found in charter's arguments as well, which I had been doing for quite some time I believe. This, imo, justifies why I didn't vote for Godot, as there were others that stood out more prominently to me.

and a few pages later Kloud again

I will say, however, that while I feel KE adequately justified his reasoning for voting Godot, I am not liking post 289. It is one thing to strongly believe that a player may be scum, but is another thing in my opinion to focus solely on this one person and completely ignore all others, as it provides more opportunity for other scum to slip under the radar. I have nothing against you feeling that Godot is scum, as I feel that your logic is viable, but I would think that if you believe that you have hit scum, you would be looking at others now in hopes of finding Godot's (hypothetical) scum buddies.

I am not seeing what your point with this quote is. I am stating why I feel that, while it is okay for you to suspect Godot, you should have been looking for his scum buddies at that point. This alludes back to my whole 'tunnel vision' problem with charter, as you both were seemingly insistent on pushing the Godot wagon and not doing anything else until this was accomplished. As I said above, even if Godot was/is scum, he would have two scum buddies as well, but you seemed intent on not doing besides keeping your vote on Godot, which I felt was not very helpful to the town. This is what I was getting at in my post 432 as well.

also on page 13 Kloud had a huge post in godot's defense..which I will not repost, but look at agove, and then think about it.

I am currently looking at page 13, and am not seeing the huge Godot defense post that you are referring to. I see post 300, which you have already quoted above, and my post 310 in which I gave my reasoning for finding pwnz's actions scummy and then voting for him. Not seeing defense of Godot in either of these, so if you could point out particular instances it would be appreciated.


On the whole, I feel that the first argument you were trying to make (which I am nut understanding in all honesty) with me pushing the massclaim to be fallacious. I also find that your preceding arguments to be flawed for reasons stated above. You seem to be trying to create a case based off of cherry-picked evidence and distorted facts, which is not very pro-town.

I have already leveled a FoS against you KE, and I would vote for you, but seeing as how we have limited opportunities of lynching scum left I am not going to do so just yet. There are others I must investigate further before deciding who I will be voting, but IGMEOY.

[kloud1516]

Kloud

There could be several reasons for defending him, a big one being that one doesn't find Godot to be scum. I am still waiting on charter's recap of all things he finds suspicious when concerning Godot, but I know where my vote is going today.

vote: pwnz

Post 310, you you want see what everyone else feels like on Godot, you admit that he is acting scummy, you mention there are several good arguments on him gut you never vote for him.

Um, no, that was not what I was doing in 310, and if you would read it in its entirety you would see that. I mentioned there were logical arguments, yes, but as I said in my previous post, others were standing out as well, and so I wasn't yet ready to commit my vote to anyone in particular. Then, enter pwnz with this little number:

VOTE Inspector Gobot

L-2

In which he votes Godot without any reasoning whatsoever. Yes, Godot had been exhibiting several suspicious actions, but pwnz not providing any reasoning made him look ten times more opportunistic--the very thing you were voting Godot for. When others asked him to explain his case against Godot, this is what we were given:

To everyone else that wanted me to give some sort of explanation as to why I decided to vote for Godot:

A vote is a vote, usually put on someone when you are suspicious of their posting and overall demeanor. I placed my vote on him because I believe that he is the most suspicious player in this game so far. I'm not the only one, either, because I see others saying that he looks relatively scummy as well. So, to all of you that want me to explain why I put a vote on someone, how about we instead ask the person who has the votes on him why we shouldn't lynch him.

It is he who should be questioned instead of you who should be defending him, because you then look like you have some specific reason that you don't want him dead.

In which he completely avoids providing any kind of evidence, any kind of case against Godot whatsoever. He knowingly put him at L-2, and then uses this, plus the cases made by others as his reasoning. The quote of mine that you have supplied above was a response to the bolded section shown in pwnz's post. I felt this was a tactic in which pwnz was trying to jump on the wagon with the most momentum, and then argued that all players that possibly exercised dissent/concern about his actions should be looked at more closely. I took it as "you either agree with me, or you are scum; don't pay attention to what I just did, look at Godot."

It is he who should be questioned instead of you who should be defending him, because you then look like you have some specific reason that you don't want him dead.

Why exactly is it he that needs to be questioned as opposed to you right now? He already has been questioned. So, what you are saying is that either someone can agree with you on Godot's alignment, or they are automatically suspicious to you? If this is not the case, feel free to say otherwise when you decide to explain your vote. There could be several reasons for defending him, a big one being that one doesn't find Godot to be scum. I am still waiting on charter's recap of all things he finds suspicious when concerning Godot, but I know where my vote is going today.

I then proceed in this post to ask him why exactly it is he, who has provided no explanation to his vote and continues to dodge answering, that should not be questioned over Godot. I argue that Godot already has been questioned, and pwnz is trying to deflect attention off of himself. The segment of this post that you quoted above is directly addressing the part I quoted, which I have already explained why I found scummy.

He says that those that defend Godot will look like they have a reason for not wanting him lynched, and this is why I say that a reason that a player might not want him lynched is because they might not feel that he is scum. I was pointing out the flaws with his arguments and giving an opposing perspective to his logic, not defending Godot.

How is that entire post not a defense? You gasically shoot down everything pwnz had to say and yet agree when other people vote for him. Its crazy man, crazy!! CRAZY!!! Pick one 1. Godot is scummy. 2. Godot is not scummy. Dont say "Hey, your right he is acting like scum gut dont anyone vote for him!"

1) It is not a defense for reasons just stated above. You took something out of the context of its original meaning, and are trying to use it against me.

2) Yes, I shot down everything pwnz said because it was all fallacy and a means of evading to actually respond to interrogation. He was trying to get others to not focus on him, and divert attention onto Godot.

3) I agreed with other peoples reasoning in the sense that I felt it was logical. Pwnz provided no initial reasoning and then followed it up with illogical posts, and this is the key difference that makes the two situations incomparable. I called him out because he provided no case against Godot. Others did. Big difference wouldn't you say?

4) Okay. As of now, taking everything up to this point into consideration, I am going to say that Godot, while he had scummy moments earlier, is not scum. My logic behind this is

a) Two players have been aggressively pushing a Godot wagon for days now, assuming a tunnel vision perspective to get him out.

b) Town is perfectly capable of looking scum at points, but is not actually scum--a fact made blatantly clear by our two mislynches. Both appeared to be the scummiest players in the game, and one was a power role while the other was vanilla.

c) I personally do not see any connections between Godot and the two players I believe to be scum, except for the possibility of extreme distancing/bussing.

KE, you have also failed to respond to my rebuttal of your "Kloud had been pushing for the massclaim!" argument, so can I assume that my arguments against your initial statement to be accepted as valid?

[kloud1516]

EBWOP^^

Kloud

There could be several reasons for defending him, a big one being that one doesn't find Godot to be scum. I am still waiting on charter's recap of all things he finds suspicious when concerning Godot, but I know where my vote is going today.

vote: pwnz

Post 310, you you want see what everyone else feels like on Godot, you admit that he is acting scummy, you mention there are several good arguments on him gut you never vote for him.

Um, no, that was not what I was doing in 310, and if you would read it in its entirety you would see that. I mentioned there were logical arguments, yes, but as I said in my previous post, others were standing out as well, and so I wasn't yet ready to commit my vote to anyone in particular. Then, enter pwnz with this little number:

VOTE Inspector Gobot

L-2

In which he votes Godot without any reasoning whatsoever. Yes, Godot had been exhibiting several suspicious actions, but pwnz not providing any reasoning made him look ten times more opportunistic--the very thing you were voting Godot for. When others asked him to explain his case against Godot, this is what we were given:

To everyone else that wanted me to give some sort of explanation as to why I decided to vote for Godot:

A vote is a vote, usually put on someone when you are suspicious of their posting and overall demeanor. I placed my vote on him because I believe that he is the most suspicious player in this game so far. I'm not the only one, either, because I see others saying that he looks relatively scummy as well. So, to all of you that want me to explain why I put a vote on someone, how about we instead ask the person who has the votes on him why we shouldn't lynch him.

It is he who should be questioned instead of you who should be defending him, because you then look like you have some specific reason that you don't want him dead.

In which he completely avoids providing any kind of evidence, any kind of case against Godot whatsoever. He knowingly put him at L-2, and then uses this, plus the cases made by others as his reasoning. The quote of mine that you have supplied above was a response to the bolded section shown in pwnz's post. I felt this was a tactic in which pwnz was trying to jump on the wagon with the most momentum, and then argued that all players that possibly exercised dissent/concern about his actions should be looked at more closely. I took it as "you either agree with me, or you are scum; don't pay attention to what I just did, look at Godot."

It is he who should be questioned instead of you who should be defending him, because you then look like you have some specific reason that you don't want him dead.

Why exactly is it he that needs to be questioned as opposed to you right now? He already has been questioned. So, what you are saying is that either someone can agree with you on Godot's alignment, or they are automatically suspicious to you? If this is not the case, feel free to say otherwise when you decide to explain your vote. There could be several reasons for defending him, a big one being that one doesn't find Godot to be scum. I am still waiting on charter's recap of all things he finds suspicious when concerning Godot, but I know where my vote is going today.

I then proceed in this post to ask him why exactly it is he, who has provided no explanation to his vote and continues to dodge answering, that should not be questioned over Godot. I argue that Godot already has been questioned, and pwnz is trying to deflect attention off of himself. The segment of this post that you quoted above is directly addressing the part I quoted, which I have already explained why I found scummy.

He says that those that defend Godot will look like they have a reason for not wanting him lynched, and this is why I say that a reason that a player might not want him lynched is because they might not feel that he is scum. I was pointing out the flaws with his arguments and giving an opposing perspective to his logic, not defending Godot.

How is that entire post not a defense? You gasically shoot down everything pwnz had to say and yet agree when other people vote for him. Its crazy man, crazy!! CRAZY!!! Pick one 1. Godot is scummy. 2. Godot is not scummy. Dont say "Hey, your right he is acting like scum gut dont anyone vote for him!"

1) It is not a defense for reasons just stated above. You took something out of the context of its original meaning, and are trying to use it against me.

2) Yes, I shot down everything pwnz said because it was all fallacy and a means of evading to actually respond to interrogation. He was trying to get others to not focus on him, and divert attention onto Godot.

3) I agreed with other peoples reasoning in the sense that I felt it was logical. Pwnz provided no initial reasoning and then followed it up with illogical posts, and this is the key difference that makes the two situations incomparable. I called him out because he provided no case against Godot. Others did. Big difference wouldn't you say?

4) Okay. As of now, taking everything up to this point into consideration, I am going to say that Godot, while he had scummy moments earlier, is not scum. My logic behind this is

a) Two players have been aggressively pushing a Godot wagon for days now, assuming a tunnel vision perspective to get him out.

b) Town is perfectly capable of looking scum at points, but is not actually scum--a fact made blatantly clear by our two mislynches. Both appeared to be the scummiest players in the game, and one was a power role while the other was vanilla.

c) I personally do not see any connections between Godot and the two players I believe to be scum, except for the possibility of extreme distancing/bussing.

KE, you have also failed to respond to my rebuttal of your "Kloud had been pushing for the massclaim!" argument, so can I assume that my arguments against your initial statement to be accepted as valid?

[kloud1516]

Bump

[size]

[kloud1516]

EBWOP^^ Bump. Preview = friend >.<

[kloud1516]

*Bows down to the deputy* . . . yeah.

[kloud1516]

I think I have already given my opinon of Charter/Danger, both earlier in the game and in my recent posts. I am not liking KE, simply because he has yet to respond to questions and comments addressed to him from five days ago. This comes off as evasive to me, and added to the fact that he failed to attempt (and still has yet to do so) to refute my rebuttal of his "Kloud pushed the massclaim bandwagon," I see this as reason to believe that he was trying to drift fallacious arguments my way, all the while omitting all others that pushed quite a bit more *cough*charter*cough*. This could possibly indicate a connection between the two, and so I would be happy with the lynching of either KE or Danger today.

vote: KE

[kloud1516]

Nogody has posted anything of value in this thread for a while so dont start calling me out on it.

I am not singling you out for not contributing. I was making readdressing the point that you hadn’t responded to my rebuttal at all. Don't get me started on who is calling out who, for my earlier post about your first case clearly shows who is doing the selective case-making in this thread. Moving on.

Post 90

Instead of focusing on possible set-ups, I think we should focus on weeding out who seems the most suspicious and interrogating them, hero or villain, post restriction or no instead of dwelling on speculation and possibility. This will help us answer the questions at hand as well as get rid of scum. Anyone agree?

Which you are trying to tie everyone to their roles right in the same post. Regardless whether you think thats what your doing or not, its what it looks like.

Once again, you are failing to interpret my posts. The earlier parts of my post 90 are me adding onto the list of characters that had already been claimed or suggested. Adding onto is the big factor that is missing from your equation, for you again are willing to cast aside Grimmy's and pwnz's (I believe it was pwnz) posts that preceded my own and were doing the exact same thing. Your initial argument was that I was pushing for a massclaim, and no where in post 90 do I say "hey everyone, let's massclaim!"

In my opinion, it is still early in the game, and I do not think that someone expressing their opinion to possible possiblities is all that bad. At the same time, I can see where charter is coming from, for the WIFOM is only helps to create confusion (at least to me).

Instead of focusing on possible set-ups, I think we should focus on weeding out who seems the most suspicious and interrogating them, hero or villain, post restriction or no instead of dwelling on speculation and possibility. This will help us answer the questions at hand as well as get rid of scum. Anyone agree?

You seem to also coincidentally omit the beginning of this quoted segment as well. If you would go back and look at the thread, you would see that many arguments were being made based solely off of alignment theory and character speculation. Charter found Godot to be scummy for suggesting scum would be a mixture of heroes, players with PRs, and villains (or to that extent); Grimmy was seemed intent on finding who the heroes were and lynching them, having taken up the heroes=scum theory. Once you go back and see this, you and everyone else will hopefully see that this was only derailing productive discussion and getting everyone caught up in arguments of speculation.

This is EXACTLY WHY I said, as both you and I have quoted above, that instead of focusing on speculation based off of characters, we should instead be trying to identify the most suspicious players--whether they be heroes, villains, PR restricted players, etc. This is not me pushing for a massclaim as you seem to be convinced of, and so this rebuttal is as flawed as your initial case.

Post 138

agree, the mass claim could very well assist in gaining momentum, so I am not opposed to the idea. Do you think we should vote on the issue, if the majority of people decide it is a good idea we claim if not we don't? I also think the dice roll idea would be a nice way to get this started.

Thought we didnt want to worry agout the setup?

Dwelling upon alignment theory/set-up is completely different from going along with the massclaim. As I have just said, theory set-up was detracting from scum hunting, causing people to make arguments based purely off speculation and void of any actual evidence besides who was suggesting what. Agreeing with the massclaim at this point would achieve several things the way I saw it:

a) Help move the game past a phase of chaotic role speculation. People would actually get back to trying to identify suspicious activity as opposed to trying to figure out who was what character.

b) Prove that character alignment may not necessarily be indicative of role alignment. The heroes=scum theory was also detracting from productive conversation. By having everyone claim then and there, those that felt strongly about this theory would not be spending so much time trying to peg heroes, and would analyze each and every player based on their actions, not their roles. This did indeed accomplish this exact purpose in my opinion, evidence being this:

FOS: Albert B.R.

you seem to have been caught in a lie.

FOS: Singing Librarian

My theory of Heroes, as stated before, puts you on this list. However, you claimed without being personally prodded to do so, which gives me some doubt to my theory, while at the same time giving you some credit towards being town. This is why it is only a FOS and not a full out VOTE right now.

Grimmy
torn right now.

Grimmy had been stating all along that he thought the heroes were scum. Upon the majority of the group massclaiming, and one hero coming forward, he decided not to vote for the hero, but instead look elsewhere for scummy behavior. Sure, he leveled an FoS on SL both Day 1 and Day 2, but he also avoided a tunnel vision approach and made opinions of other players too. I hope this allows everyone to see how different my issues with continuing to speculate on characters and my endorsement of the massclaim were. I also hope everyone sees how me not wanting to dwell on speculation, avoid WIFOM, and approving of the massclaim as a means to push past the stalling factors we were getting caught up in still does not provide any evidence towards KE’s accusation that I was pushing for the massclaim. I went along with it, yes, but I did not push for it.

151

I guessed correctly! That's a surprise.

On a more serious note, I will claim as well. I am Dr. Jonathan Crane--Scarecrow, as many of you have already deduced.

I am not sure what you are getting at with this post. Me being surprised that I guessed Grimmy was Two-Face does not add any weight to your thesis of me pushing for the massclaim, and me claiming after it was agreed by the majority that we would massclaim I don’t feel dovetails your case either.

Post 227

Oh, and I forgot to add this to my post. Here is the list of those who have/haven't claimed along with their roles.

same post

The claims have not provided any evidence to support the several theories still under discussion, but I am suspicious of those that did not claim Day 1 after it was agreed that we would mass claim. Singing Librarian has come forward as Batman, which means that there are two heroes that have yet to claim. I believe that Zoneace is the Riddler, but seeing as how he never did actually claim (at least I don't think he did) I could not add him to the claimed list.

This post was made Day 2, after the majority had claimed already. Because of this, I once again am not seeing how you are factoring this into your case as evidence of me pushing the massclaim wagon. Once again, you are trying to cherry-pick my posts and try to build up separate and independent thoughts into a case against me, but fail to do so. You initially argue me pushing for a massclaim Day 1, and now you are trying to use comments from Day 2 to support this?

If this wasn’t your reason for providing this post (using it as evidence to attack my rebuttal of you original point), the please tell me so. If it is, then I feel I have appropriately made my reasons for finding this to be completely irrelevant to the original argument evident. If it is not, then I will go ahead and say that I do not feel me making a list of those who had not claimed to be indicative of anything than me pointing out the facts. It was suspicious for people to withhold their characters, even after it was agreed that we should do so in order to get past dwelling on the which player is which character mess.

See? Shoot these down if you want, gut you dont get to say that my arguments is gaseless any longer. Find another way to lynch the guy that has all the scum pegged.

Actually, I think it is very appropriate for me to say that this argument is as baseless as it was before. I find it interesting that you word your argument as “no longer baseless,” as to me this appears to be an admittance that it was indeed baseless to begin with. You haven’t refuted any of my arguments against your case; you have made new arguments that were just as fallacious as the first ones; and have still not yet given me an answer as to why you left out all the preceding posts provided by other players pushing for a massclaim—a point that I feel completely invalidated the foundations of your initial argument to begin with. I am happy with my vote, and I am going to let the other players come to their own opinions about you.

[kloud1516]

Anyone here?

[kloud1516]

Picking up prod. My last post was two days ago btw. So please don't send Oman to track me down and kill me in my sleep . . . please.

[kloud1516]

wolframnhart, I also gelieve that Kloud is scum, which i said earlier, so of course I'm more than willing to get into a discussion with him, to let everyone else see that he is in fact scum.

I would like to point out that I negated every single discussion that you leveled against me, and the rebuttals you provided against these points were just as fallacious as the initial arguments. You STILL have neglected to answer why exactly, out of all the people who were pushing for a role claim before I ever mentioned it, you decide to single me out and claim that I was the one pushing for the claim. Your consistent avoidance of this point, and your continuing instance that I am scum based on arguments that have been addressed and rebutted leave little doubt in my mind that you are simply trying to grasp at anything you can simply to convince others you are innocent. In my opinion, the only true good of having that conversation was the fact that my list of suspects was more solidified. You have given no stable foundation for a case against me, and yet you continue to say I am scum based off of this faulty premiss.

I believe that 464 addressed each bit of your reasoning for finding me suspicious and then some, and was one of several posts that provided specific examples of why you were/are wrong and how your arguments are distorted.

You can tell this gy looking gack at my posts and my quotation of my posts.

I called him out as scum also, gefore our "discussion"

I have made my case against godot, which i gelieve is is valid and a reason to lynch him,

gut everyone else is getting tangled up in other things.

I'm pretty close to a lynch now, and that geing the case it could ge a quick scum hop and game over.

1) Addressing the first bold section:

Who did you call out as scum before the discussion? If you are saying you have made previous cases against me, would you please give the post numbers, for I do not recall any time in the thread that you have done so, except the primary post I responded to.

2) Addressing the second bold section:

What do you mean by this? You feel that your suspicions of Godot are valid, but everyone else is tangled up in other things. Could you elaborate for the sake of clarity here?

[kloud1516]

except for this one...my gad

You STILL have neglected to answer why exactly, out of all the people who were pushing for a role claim before I ever mentioned it, you decide to single me out and claim that I was the one pushing for the claim.

The fact that you were asking for mass claims with everyone else made you seem scummy like everyone else that did it

Don't try to modify your case now. Your original point residing within this argument was:

Kloud also starts really wanting a massclaim, gut we as a group pretty much decided against it at that point.

Kloud again pushes for a massclaim...

I agree, the mass claim could very well assist in gaining momentum, so I am not opposed to the idea. Do you think we should vote on the issue, if the majority of people decide it is a good idea we claim if not we don't? I also think the dice roll idea would be a nice way to get this started.

You weren't just simply arguing that I was asking for a massclaim, you falsely stated that I was PUSHING for it, despite the group deciding against the idea. This was the foundation of your case, a case in faceted with fallacy and incorrect information that you have continued to pass off as fact.

Your point wasn't that I was suspicious because I, and others, were asking for a massclaim--for if this was the case you would have already shot down one point of your own argument: me pressing for it despite the group not wanting it. In addition to this, if this was truly indeed your case, I believe you surely would have pointed out others who all but insisted on claiming pages before I even mentioned the idea of it helping get the game out of chaotic role speculation. You didn't, and continue to ignore this fact even after I have asked why you omitted all others from this point and continue to attempt to play it off like I was orchestrating the mass role claim.

gut the DEFENSE OF GODOT WHICH I HAVE CALLED YOU ON, and just gecause you decide that "that wasnt what i was doing" doesnt mean I guy it. I know Godot is scum,

you gasically admit that he is scum

,

gut defend him coupled with the fact that you wanted the mass claim

(like a gunch of people did, sure, gut I found them all scummy)

is why i find you as scum.

1) Where did I ever admit that Godot was scum? Show me. Give me the exact post in which I say that I feel that Godot is scum. I have already addressed every single post that you have tried to weave into your distorted arguments, so I want to see where I say this. If you can provide a post that I haven't already refuted your case on multiple times, then I will eat these words.

2) The second bolded/color-coded/underlined section just broke my scumdar. Never in this thread have you accused anyone that agreed to the massclaim as scummy, except for me who you accused of pushing it even though I have proved that false. This seems to me like you are trying to make yourself look better to the town after you have been caught in a lie, and I want everyone to take notice of this. KE never voiced suspicion of Charter for pushing for a mass claim from the get go, but accused me of doing it; he never said anything about Grimmy's acceptance; never said anything about pwnz either--all of whom had been discussing the idea before me.

You never said you found any of them scummy, yet now when the votes are stacked against you, and after you have made such a fallacious case against me, you are going to say that they were scummy to you as well. Interesting.

Agree or disagree it doesn't matter, you will post something that says "NOT TRUE" and i'll still think that you are lying, so I'm gonna go on and put my fingers in my ears and pretend that I cant hear you.

Quite the contrary, I believe it is you who continues to say that my arguments aren't true. I have continued to provide specific examples from this thread of why your argument is incorrect, and also thoroughly explained myself.

[kloud1516]

Can we also get a round of prods? Zone posted four days ago, and Danger's last post was August 25 if I am not mistaken.

[kloud1516]

Yay. More waiting . . .

[kloud1516]

I have sent messages to several people as well, but haven't got anything back from them. Sorry.

[kloud1516]

I'd really like to see this game keep going and not die out.

QFT.

[kloud1516]

I am not sure that is such a good idea so close to the endgame. Besides, most of the lurkers are in the process of being replaced, so I don't know how much of a benefit lynching them would be besides possibly forcing us into a lylo situation with little information to go on.

[kloud1516]

Yeah, I feel for you, Poro. And welcome everyone! Thanks for replacing in.

[kloud1516]

I have sent messages to several people as well, but haven't got anything back from them. Sorry.

What part of your role allows you to send game related messages to people?

Ultima,

Poro was telling us to ask people if they wanted to join our game because we weren't finding replacements. Kloud was just letting Poro know none of the people he asked had responded.

This.

[kloud1516]

More to come shortly.

[kloud1516]

Praise the lord, for he is our savior!

I need to re-read quickly.

My cat sense is tingling, that pretty much settles it, Zoneace is scum.

He wants to lynch me on page 4, and doesn't give a reason, other than "we need to lynch someone".

So why aren't you voting him? Hm?

I'm home. I'm tired as fuck. I'll get to this as soon as I can stay awake.

I'm here, still need to read/catch up. Summer assignments + film projects (which was mentioned in GD a while back, if you're wondering) = not a lot of internet time.

Yes, of course I am. [/sarcasm] But in all seriousness, the middle of the week is pretty hectic for me, and this was no different.

Something as soon as possible.

Funny how King and kloud were punished for breaking their restrictions, and you weren't.

Also funny how "Holy relevant thing goes here, Batman" was Dick Grayson's thing. Who is now Nightwing. Who is dead.

Addressing bolded section: This

is

interesting for, it was Dick that used these sort of phrases. Something is not adding up here, so I think I am going to look back and delve further into this, just to see if I find anything that I might have not noticed at the time.

Addressing the first paragraph: I didn't have a PR, but was punished for making a comment about KE breaking his, so this point, while interesting, may be a stretch. Zoneace broke his PR at one point in Day 1 I believe but I don't think he was ever punished for either, just given a warning at the beginning of Day 2.

[kloud1516]

it was a post restriction?

The answer to this should be painfully and blatantly obvious to anyone who can read.

Not necessarily, for references early within the game would say otherwise. ABR's continuous use of Joker references appeared to be a PR, until he was called out about not actually being the Joker. When he was lynched, it was revealed that he indeed had no PR, despite it seeming so.

As Gremwell just pointed out, Charter did not consistently use these phrases, and I don't recall Danger ever doing so either. This fact, in addition to prior knowledge, makes me wary of your statement that charter having a PR "should be painfully obvious."

[kloud1516]

Heh. EBWOP.

it was a post restriction?

The answer to this should be painfully and blatantly obvious to anyone who can read.

Not necessarily, for references early within the game would say otherwise. ABR's continuous use of Joker references appeared to be a PR, until he was called out about not actually being the Joker. When he was lynched, it was revealed that he indeed had no PR, despite it seeming so.

As Gremwell just pointed out, Charter did not consistently use these phrases, and I don't recall Danger ever doing so either. This fact, in addition to prior knowledge, makes me wary of your statement that charter having a PR "should be painfully obvious."

[kloud1516]

Kloud, I missed this before, but it would be unwise to judge anyone's actions based on ABR's play in this game. He wasn't scummy, he wasn't townie. He was just stupid, and it was right to eliminate his unreadable idiocy early in the game.

What exactly are you referring to here, sthar8? Could you provide a quote or a post number so that I might address this and/or clarify for you and everyone else, please?

[kloud1516]

Alright, I will now respond. I do realize that I repeat myself quite a bit below, but I felt that this would be the easiest way to clarify what I had meant. Sorry for the repetitiveness.

Heh. EBWOP.

it was a post restriction?

The answer to this should be painfully and blatantly obvious to anyone who can read.

Not necessarily, for references early within the game would say otherwise. ABR's continuous use of Joker references appeared to be a PR, until he was called out about not actually being the Joker. When he was lynched, it was revealed that he indeed had no PR, despite it seeming so.

Kloud, I missed this before, but it would be unwise to judge anyone's actions based on ABR's play in this game. He wasn't scummy, he

wasn't townie.

He was just stupid, and it was right to eliminate his unreadable idiocy early in the game.

Addressing underlined section:

ABR was townie. This was most likely just a typo, but I thought I should point it out.

Addressing rest of bolded section:

I agree with you completely on this, which I why I voted for him.

Your last post. 571. You assert that ABR's play is evidence against my thought that a post restriction is the most reasonable (and therefore obvious) explanation for the occurences of cat references in my role's posts. I argue that ABR's play was not reasonable as scum

or

town, and therefore it should not be used as a comparison, as any

parallels would assume that charter and danger were even more devoid of reason and logic than they otherwise demonstrated.

No, the point that I was trying to make is that just because it would appear someone had a PR doesn't mean that they do/did. It was not my intention to insinuate that this had anything to do with alignment; all I said was that just because something seemed to be the most reasonable explanation (and in your words "the most obvious") doesn't mean that the assumption is correct.

No, ABR's play was not reasonable; it was foolish and erratic in nature, but this does not refute the fact that almost everyone (myself included) assumed that he had a PR when he in fact did not. This knowledge is irrefutable, and so I feel that it is still valid no matter despite it not being reasonable.

[Addressing Bolded Section]: No, this is not true at all in my opinion. Many of my posts had Scarecrow references in them, or alluded to the idea that I was Scarecrow. I did not have a PR, but provided these references all the same. If you continue to believe that comparing ABR's charade of having a PR is incomparable, then I feel that my own actions do parallel my thought process; for while it may have seemed that the most obvious reasoning for me to provide Scarecrow allusions was because I had a PR, I did not.

I am not saying that is impossible that charter/danger/you have a PR, as there have been consistent Catwoman references from the get-go; what I am saying is that, even with PR being a possibility, the references could have also been merely a method of getting more into character to get as much enjoyment out of the game as possible--which was my reasoning for the Scarecrow antics.

I will once again emphasize that my point of post 571 was to only point out that the most obvious theory might not always be the correct one. This is a lesson that we as town seem to have failed to learn despite constant reminders. We all thought that ABR's claim of Joker was obvious due to his apparent PR, but then SL counter-claimed. We then thought it was obvious that because he had lied both about his character and continued to flop on his role that he was obviously scum. Some argued that, since the minority of players were most likely heroes that they were obviously the scum. We now have a hero dead, and he was a townie. All of these things have seemed obvious, and yet every time the obvious, most logical explanation was not the answer.

This is what I was trying to say with post 571. That is all. This was not a post serving as a case against you in the slightest, yet from your succeeding posts it feels as though you have assumed a very defensive stance without reasoning to. This may not be the case, but it is the impression you have made on me.

[kloud1516]

Your comparison of ABR's play to that of my role involves Cartesian demons, assumptions that our reasoning is doomed to fail because of the possiblility that our perceptions are incorrect. Despite the anecdotal evidence you have experienced,

it is an error to assume the possiblity that any of us are without reason, without any evidence.

Such an assumption

undermines

any

logical conclusion, therefore it can be discarded until it gains factual support.

This wasn't the assumption/conclusion that I had reached in the slightest. The only point I was trying to make was that we shouldn't take things for face value without having sufficient evidence for doing so. I was not implying that players in this game have made decisions void of any reason or evidence, for that has not been and still is not the case. The anecdotal evidence/reasoning I provided was simply to point out that we should be cautious with our actions as we come closer to the endgame.

As I said, this was not the point I was trying to make. I will agree with you on the fact that such a line of thinking

would

undermine all efforts to reach a logical conclusion and, as such, also agree that this discussion should be put on pause until we have more information. Otherwise, we will just continue to detract from scum hunting efforts by us continuing to dwell on this alone.

Your comparison of my role's play to your own violates the principle of Ockham's Razor.

You assume that four demonstrably different and random entities are likely to make the same playstyle choice independently of one another.

Much simpler, and thus much more reasonable, is that we were forced into the feline flavor (oh god, now I'm doing it unconsciously!).

Again, this was not what I was saying. I was assuming nothing with my earlier posts, but merely saying that it was indeed a possibility that you did not have a PR based off of information already provided within the game. My reasoning for finding this a possibility may be faulty, yes, and I acknowledge that in light of your posts, but the possibility still remains nevertheless. I understand that each player cannot be expected to play in identical fashion, but this does not mean that the possibility of you not having a PR is invalid. Due to the consistency of the cat references, I am more inclined to believe you on this point, but it is in my nature to be skeptical and analyze every possible scenario--which is what I have been doing.

Your examples are all instances in which the town's logic was faulty, not instances in which the logical process failed you.

Your assessment of ABR's claim failed to account for Darla's posting flavor.

I hope you never assumed that ABR was scum,

because his behavior did not logically indicate that

(it indicated unhelpfulness and unpredictibility, which are often more dangerous than scumminess).

The heroes=scum theory never progressed past speculation, because it's basis was not yet supported by evidence.

1)

This is true.

2)

In post 226 I provide reasons for my vote. Did I find ABR suspicious? Yes; but this was wholly due to the fact that I felt I would not be able to believe a single thing he said. As I said then and will say now, his antics were unhelpful and distracting, for there was no need for him to lie as he did.

3)

QFT.

I'm not saying that you should be solidly sure that I have a post restriction, but given charter and danger's apologies to the mod and the high incidence of consistency in the cat references combined with the lack of advantage to faking such a restriction, the existence of a pr is the most logical, reasonable, simple, and obvious explanation.

Nor did I ever find you insinuating that I should. . I agree that their apologies and the consistency make the notion of charter/danger/you having a PR logical, and as I said in a paragraph above I am more inclined to believe you. Do I still think there is a possibility you may not have one? Yes; but at the moment there is no information to either prove or disprove either possible case.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, what do you think about godot, then gremwell's play?

A reply to this question will come a little later today if I manage to get all of the work I need to finish IRL completed. I will start working on it, but I am not sure if I will be able to submit something by tonight, so bear with me.

[kloud1516]

Thoughts of Godot's play:

Day 1:

>I still have a hard time trying to form an opinion of Godot in regards to his early play. The early speculation of player alignment based off of characters and PRs did not make sense to me back then, and now that I look back on it I still find it difficult to actually take a side on the topic. Did I think that he was right to automatically assume his theories were supported with logic? No, for we had no evidence to support any hypotheses at this point. Even so, I do not feel that Godot's early assumptions indicate a whole lot, for others had voiced opinions of possibly set-up theory as well. Granted, these players acknowledged that the possible scenarios should be looked at once more information was acquired, as opposed vehemently insisting the theory was most logical, but they still did so nevertheless. I keep going back and forth on whether or not I find this scummy. I realize that this is a large proponent of Godot's early play, for, as you (sthar8) point out, Godot's typical contribution consisted of "I will post something later" and failure to do so, but I admittedly also had mixed opinions of charter at this point as well. I will read back over it again though, for maybe something else will stand out.

>The fact that Godot had continued to go on about how he believed that at least one hero would be scum and yet did not ever make a case when SL claimed stands out to me. I back then as well, and as I read back over the content old thoughts have began to come back to me. I found it odd that despite his insistence, the only comment he provided to SL was along the lines of "I knew you were a hero, and you better get ready for some intense suspicion coming your way." He never said anything else about it, other than that he was impressed SL was the only hero to come forward and claim.

>I will admit that I did not analyze Godot all that much Day 1. When I read something that I felt stood out, I commented on it. As I have already said, I had mixed opinions about both charter and Godot Day 1, as there were facets of both their play that I found to be a little off. Suspicions of either player did not intensify all that dramatically as the day progressed, for then ABR was caught in his lie and thus began his flip-flopping of role claims. His antics received my full attention for the rest of the day if I remember correctly, and so many of the thoughts I had about Godot or charter were lost in the confusion of the end of Day 1.


Day 2:

>Godot did not really contribute much of anything noteworthy. He requested prods on players, particularly Crub and Flameaxe, even going as far as to vote for both to boost their activity. He had another bout with charter, whom by this time I felt was much more suspicious than Godot. Later in the day KE provided his analysis of situation concerning Godot and the character claim. I agreed that the back-and-forth/indecisive nature of Godot during this period was indeed noteworthy, and I wanted to hear a response from him. His response was very lackluster, and even agreed with KE's assessment in that, when put how KE phrased it, his actions looked scummy. I wasn't satisfied with the response, but did not vote Godot for reasons I stated in the back-and-forth with KE.

Day 3

>Godot provides us with little of anything, then gets replaced.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I will concur that Godot's actions are questionable to say the least. He tried to play off theory as fact early in the game, then when someone came forth as a hero, he did nothing about it. His role in the character claiming was wish-washy as well, and his responses to others inquiring lacked any defense. He did not contribute to scum hunting in the slightest, and now that I am reading back over the thread, can see that he more than often just agreed with lengthly cases provided by others.

This being said, I found charter's actions much more suspicious than Godot's (reasons provided earlier in the thread, both in Day 2 and today). I know that you cannot speak for charter when it comes to what he was thinking at times, and I will acknowledge that you are

MUCH

more level-headed and logical than he, but the fact of the matter is that I still find his actions very suspicious.

I still feel that KE has demonstrated the most scummy behavior by far, rising above my suspicions of charter's actions, and the observations of Godot. As such, this is where my vote will be staying.

[kloud1516]

I too received Scarecrow's real name in addition to his alias.

@sthar8:

I will provide you with my reasonings in just a little bit. I have to leave the house soon, and I am not sure whether I will have enough time to get a coherent post up.

[kloud1516]

Okay, here are my reasonings for suspecting charter/danger/sthar8:

1) Charter's after-the-fact admonishing of everyone who voted for ABR.

What part of if you weren't an idiot you wouldn't have wanted him lynched don't you understand. As bus driver, attracting a vig kill makes PERFECT SENSE. Nothing he did yesterday was anti-town if you have a brain and can think.

LAL is possibly the dumbest policy I've ever seen in a mafia game.

My feline feelings are saddened because you can't get your role that you were on the outside.

Anyhow, Godot is still scum.

vote Godot

His abrasive attitude and the ad homs were uncalled for, while the "I-told-you-so's," as Grimmy had referred to them, provided no contributory value to the game whatsoever, save for getting others frustrated. Furthermore, the whole situation of him blowing his top so dramatically gave me the impression of a player simply trying to look pro-town by distancing himself from the lynch of a pro-town power role. The excessive emphasis on the fact that he wasn't on the wagon and everyone who had contributed to the ABR lynch was stupid made a significant impression on my opinion of charter. I address charter in Post 226 regarding his initial post of Day 2, so refer to this if needed.

2)

Lets claw Godot already.

@ Charter: why are you in such a rush to lynch? We aren't close to a deadline, and imo there could still information and opinions from others that could be helpful. Tunnel vision and short days aren't going to help us hit scum.

I did not like this. Not at all. Charter is pushing for Godot's lynch after only getting TWO pages into Day 2. As I stated above, we were nowhere close to a deadline, and there was still plenty of information we could have gotten out of Day 2 at this point. The suggestion of a lynch so quickly after the beginning of a new day just didn't sit well with me, and neither did his tunnel vision, both of which I pointed out. He responds with:

Tunnel vision and short days aren't going to help us hit scum.

Ironic considering you and Godot were in such a hurry to lynch ABR. No one has anything new to say it seems, or at least they aren't posting it if they do, no sense in waiting around when Godot is scum. Claw him.

Funny how you can omit the other five people that voted for ABR, as well as the fact that while Day 1 was nine pages with generally everyone participating, Day 2 has lasted about 2 pages with only about 3 or 4 people consistantly talking. I love how you keep bringing up the ABR mislynch, as arguing about the fact that a mistake was made has gotten us nowhere.

A weak (at best) tu quoque, where he once again tries to pull the discussion back into the ABR mislynch. My response can be seen above.

3)

Question for you and the rest of the pwnz wagon. What has he done that's scummy? I agree he's being unhelpful, but as far as I can tell, he hasn't done anything scummy. Please enlighten me.

In response to Charter's question: My reasoning provided in post 310 should suffice. If it doesn't, then I apologize, but that is where my vote is staying for the time being.

In addition to my post 310, add this post of pwnz's and his post 324 to my reasoning, as he continues to avoid answering my questions/responding to any of my comments. Stonewalling might assist you in evading slip ups, but it also continues to speed the deterioration of the doubt that is left in my mind.

Second of all ~Posts 334-350 concerning the back-and-forth between Charter and zoneace: Really guys, really? Both of you have been dropping ad homs on each other off and on since late Day 1, which really isn't productive at all. Take a few breaths, calm down, and let's all get back to this game of mafia at hand. Yes? No? My diagnosis: don't take things so seriously, it is just a game. That is my two cents, and now I am not going to bring it up again.

More to come a little later.

Once again, charter is dropping in and claims that he can't find anything scummy about pwnz's play, even though there had been a great deal of accumulated content at this point that provided reasoning for finding pwnz scummy. At the time, I was almost 100 percent certain that pwnz was scum, based off the logic I provided, but now I see this as yet another example of charter trying to set himself up for another distancing tactic. Momentum against pwnz was beginning to accumulate, and charter's seeming ignorance as to why players found pwnz to be scummy is very telling in my opinion.

So, in order to reitorate, my suspicions stem from these traits of charter's play:

>The explosion on all those that voted for ABR.
>The after the fact/I told you so cases/rants he used; for this simply looks to be nothing more than a player trying to distance himself from a wagon to look more pro-town.
>The intermittent ad hom attacks. Yes, I will acknowledge that charter was not the only player to employ them into his posts, but they still did not provide benefit to the town, and he was the first person to call others out for using them.
>The push for an early Day 2 lynch.
>The refusal of getting over the ABR lynch, and continuing attempts to try and draw the town back to this point.
>The "ignorance" of why others found pwnz to be scummy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to this, my suspicions of charter/danger/your alignment is only put into further questioning by KE's actions. The primary case he leveled against me in regards to being the sole pusher of the mass character claim was and is utterly fallacious for thorough reasoning I provided against the argument in posts 432 and onward. Despite his accusations having no factual foundation, I couldn't help but notice that KE breezed right over the fact that it was actually charter who, from the get-go, had suggested a mass character claim.

He built this case against me, claiming that I orchestrated and pushed vehemently for the mass claim, when it was charter who had done so. Of course, he also neglected to mention others such as pwnz and Grimmy who had supported the mass claim early, but I feel that this was because they were both dead at this point, and proven to be town, thus making me one of the last people he could try to pin this on. I feel KE's avoidance of tying charter/then-danger into his case could very well be an indication to two scum in this game.

I realize that this does not tie into charter's actions, but it is a rather large proponent of my suspicions against you at this point, so I thought I would list it.

[kloud1516]

EBWOP. I screwed up the chain post because I deleted pwnz's little bit below and forgot to do so in the code. Here is the post in its entirety.

Question for you and the rest of the pwnz wagon. What has he done that's scummy? I agree he's being unhelpful, but as far as I can tell, he hasn't done anything scummy. Please enlighten me.

Ouch, you hurt my feelings. Godot is still mafia, though.

In response to Charter's question: My reasoning provided in post 310 should suffice. If it doesn't, then I apologize, but that is where my vote is staying for the time being.

In addition to my post 310, add this post of pwnz's and his post 324 to my reasoning, as he continues to avoid answering my questions/responding to any of my comments. Stonewalling might assist you in evading slip ups, but it also continues to speed the deterioration of the doubt that is left in my mind.

Second of all ~Posts 334-350 concerning the back-and-forth between Charter and zoneace: Really guys, really? Both of you have been dropping ad homs on each other off and on since late Day 1, which really isn't productive at all. Take a few breaths, calm down, and let's all get back to this game of mafia at hand. Yes? No? My diagnosis: don't take things so seriously, it is just a game. That is my two cents, and now I am not going to bring it up again.

More to come a little later.

[kloud1516]

As for KE's actions, I think you're misunderstanding his case against you. From:

The fact that you were asking for mass claims with everyone else made you seem scummy like everyone else that did it, gut the DEFENSE OF GODOT WHICH I HAVE CALLED YOU ON

I gather that he found everyone pushing for massclaims suspicious, but you more so because you didn't agree with him about godot. This explains why he never attacked charter, because they were both suspicious of godot.

I understand that much of charter's play was really terrible, and I'm not advocating allowing one's emotions to rule, but the things he did don't really provide all that much advantage to scum.

gut the DEFENSE OF GODOT WHICH I HAVE CALLED YOU ON, and just gecause you decide that "that wasnt what i was doing" doesnt mean I guy it. I know Godot is scum,

you gasically admit that he is scum

,

gut defend him coupled with the fact that you wanted the mass claim

(like a gunch of people did, sure, gut I found them all scummy)

is why i find you as scum.

1) Where did I ever admit that Godot was scum? Show me. Give me the exact post in which I say that I feel that Godot is scum. I have already addressed every single post that you have tried to weave into your distorted arguments, so I want to see where I say this. If you can provide a post that I haven't already refuted your case on multiple times, then I will eat these words.

2) The second bolded/color-coded/underlined section just broke my scumdar. Never in this thread have you accused anyone that agreed to the massclaim as scummy, except for me who you accused of pushing it even though I have proved that false. This seems to me like you are trying to make yourself look better to the town after you have been caught in a lie, and I want everyone to take notice of this. KE never voiced suspicion of Charter for pushing for a mass claim from the get go, but accused me of doing it; he never said anything about Grimmy's acceptance; never said anything about pwnz either--all of whom had been discussing the idea before me.

You never said you found any of them scummy, yet now when the votes are stacked against you, and after you have made such a fallacious case against me, you are going to say that they were scummy to you as well. Interesting.

No, KE never claimed to find anyone suspicious of pushing for the mass claim except me until one of the last posts within that back-and-forth. Never in the thread had he expressed suspicion against anyone save Godot, and then me, but he comes in with the post that both you and I have provided. I do not think I have misunderstood this case. I continued to inquire as to why he neglected all other players that had pushed for the mass claim before I had said anything about it, and he continued to avoid commenting. He then provides this, which completely contradicts all things he had said before this.

[kloud1516]

deadline is thirty minutes away (US ET) from now.

unvote: KE
vote: sthar8

With deadline upon us, I feel that, since KE is not going to be lynched, you are the most appropriate selection. Despite your contributing to the game today with logic and reason, the actions of your predecessor, charter, are simply too much to ignore at this point.

[kloud1516]

you guys suck

I love you KE. .

[kloud1516]

Anyone that could not see that ABR was a bad lynch is still an idiot.

Actually, ABR is a good day one lynch in any situation. anyone who can't see that is still an idiot

QFT. again.

[kloud1516]

First loss.

Good job Kloud and wolf. I never suspected kloud, and I only started to think that wolf was scum right at the very end.

There was a

lot

of town suck in this game, though.

thanks sthar8. I admit

if ABR hadn't (in my mind) messed up and gotten himself lynched, and then pwnz acting the way he did day 2, we might have been in trouble. Had you, UA, and gremwell been in the beginning of the game things might have turned out different.

I am happy i didn't really get people suspecting me during the day(s) i played, but when KE was on the money with his kloud and Flameaxe as scum, i figured he had some kind of power role like Watcher,

our saving grace was he acted so badly with it that i don't think people would have believed him at any point.

1) I agree completely. ABR's antics made it easy to actually build a sincere case against him, which helped out a lot going into Day 2 with charter's interrogations. Pwnz's quick vote without reasoning had much the same effect in my opinion, for his replies/lack thereof when I (and SL I believe) called him out on it, he continued to inflict more damage on himself. When the wave of replacements came in, I was admittedly very nervous, especially with UA noting wolf's quick defense right off the bat. I knew you, sthar8, would most likely be the biggest obstacle to overcome, but I continued to keep my vote on KE in hopes of seeming less anxious.

2) It also helped that (no offense to KE) the case he made was littered with flaws and fallacy. I hadn't even taken into consideration the idea that he could in fact be a power role, for ever since SL claimed Batman, I had it in my head that he was either a vig or cop. As time went on, I began to think that it would be more likely that townies without PRs would be power roles based of ABR being busdriver, so I am still surprised that Zone and KE turned out to be the roles I had been so wary of.

[kloud1516]

What Kloud said. But if anyone actually thought about something instead of going "ZOMG SCUMTELL!!! VOTEVOTEVOT!!!!!!1" It would have been a lot easier.

I don't think this was necessarily the case. There were just crafty players stoking the fires of paranoia . No I am just joking.

I agree that this game was a joy to be a part of. I was hesitant to even try to get into the game, for at the time, I hadn't even finished my first newbie game yet, so I almost didn't get in. I am glad I did though, for this game, in my opinion, set the standard for mini themed games for me. The flavor was very crafty and consistent, and the early death scenes were amazing. Snaps/claps for Poro.

[kloud1516]

I like it. Makes us seem more sinister, which is always a bonus.