Mini 672 - Tranquility (Game Over)

[Stef]

##vote charter

for being the first to post.

[Stef]

lmao anyway funny mixing them! Anyway this game the damn townies are going down!

[Stef]

I wish I was the informed majority. Insta-win

Hmm.. interesting statement...

[Stef]

First of all, since we're out of the random stage,

##unvote: charter

Now:
@Rishi frankly you put way too much into my joke. Don't like that. I'm not the kind of person who would try to bring suspicion upon a player without arguments. The purpose of my statement was to make a joke since nobody was really serious yet.

I don't care that much about the terminology as long as we understand each other and the game can run smoothly. Don't see a point in prolonging this subject too much. Scummy and scum should keep their meanings. The only words with reversed sense are town and mafia... don't think that's too complicated.

@Nameless Rishi's interpretation, although a little far fetched and annoying and probably caused by the fact that he didn't get is a joke, wasn't that elaborated.

Bating replies is also a fishing method so ..

I agree his behavior is scummy but voting a serious vote based on so little seems even scummier to me.

FoS: Nameless

@Charter you were kinda quit to jump the wagon. Since nameless's reasons weren't that solid i see even LESS reason for you to back him up without any arguments of your own.

Further away you still fail to provide better arguments regarding your vote but instead you try to bring suspicion upon camn.

Then your reply with "I'm not allowed to agree with people anymore" wasn't the best thing you could have posted imho.

[Stef]

I'm not doing the stupid pound sign thing, it's really retarded.

Vote: Nameless

for now.

Ok.

1. The retarded thingy is totally out of order. You knew the rules of the game when you joined.

2. Your vote, according to the game rules, is invalid.

3. Your vote, besides being invalid, had no arguments. I don't like that. Why did you vote for nameless?

[Stef]

Actually, stormer asked whether or not there was a cop, not "Who is the cop?" I think it could have been genuine newbie confusion. Though the flippant response doesn't really help him. Also, this isn't a newbie game, so we shouldn't necessarily forgive someone for a newbie response.

Well only the cop would have known if there actually is a cop in the game so it could have been fishing anyway. I don't buy the "newbie" argument and i didn't like his question.

[Stef]

Well.. stormer strikes me as scummy. Why?

1. First he asks "BTW, do we have a cop?". That was suspicious but could have been interpreted as a genuine question regarding the game type.

2. Then he says " I was just seeing who's the cop". This statement clearly is fishing and/or very bad play on his behalf.

3. Going back to Charter's post #66 he replies in #67: "I see the logic in the bandwagon now" when Charter's post was vague at best and didn't really make sense cause we didn't get any valuable information out of rishi. That seems scummy to me as well because he seems to be enforcing suspicions upon a player without having any actual own arguments.

Those are the reasons that make me think stormer is scum.

Therefore:

##VOTE: stormer

[Stef]

My joke can be interpreted like.. what? What little "half-comments"? When you try to bring on suspicion on a player at least bring some arguments and some examples.

[Stef]

I asked one question you also asked. Ok but that's one post that only half applies to spyrex's allegation. The rest is just unfounded so my reply to his post was justified.

[Stef]

Welcome porkens!

[Stef]

Thank you for the HB! I'll come back tomorrow with answers since today i'm celebrating again

[Stef]

Ok this is still going on I see. ( the part about the "half-comments" and with the "interesting post" ) This is funny tho considering it was pretty much nothing and it aroused so much suspicion.

First of all i have to go back to the second page of this topic and find the #33 post:

I wish I was the informed majority. Insta-win

Hmm.. interesting statement...

Since he was so hang up on the interpretation saying that my joke can be interepreted both ways.. ok.. let's see it from both ways! If it was a joke it meant nothing! If it wasn't a joke it meant i was fishing because i thought i really saw something suspicious. OMG.. you are right.. that makes me "obvscum". TBH I was half-joking in my half-comment post. I saw a player that said "I wish I was the informed majority" witch, even tho in the "joke phase" of the game, seemed a little suspicious for me considering we have a player who feels the need to state that he is town so soon in the game. It could have been a phrase used to discreetly make people think he is town by reading his joke.

Didn't really know what to make of it and I considered it too early for the stage of the game to start fishing answers from a player that didn't actually post that much or gave too much content to the game. I preferred to post a half-joke post in the hope that he will respond.

After my post his next reply regarding me was:

Vote: Rishi

Coming down on the "joke" by Stef is understandable.

However, the rest of it is saying a lot of nothing - a very good way to "blend" this early on, which is a red flag.

Yet, the one time you decide to say something you condemn the talk from one side while fueling the flames? You want the distraction.

Therefore he did not consider my post to be a joke and yet he didn't respond to it preferring to go after Rishi by joining the wagon and not bringing any actual new arguments to the vote.

Then, in a weird way Rishi's defense post has a very interesting part in it:

.

I know that SpyreX's original statement was a joke

, but was Stef's response a joke? What do you think the purpose of Stef's statement was?

You

know

that SpyreX's original statement was a joke? Why are you so sure exactly? Not saying this is evidence of teaming up but sure seems suspicious to me and yet again throws attention away from himself.

Flow of events: SpyreX votes for Rishi, Rishi in reply clears SpyreX and backs him up in the suspicion against me.

Then, right after Nameless brought some suspicion upon SpyreX he comes back to my posts by saying:

Believe me, once the game gets moving you can expect me to actually have something to say. As of right now the only other person thats really catching my eye is Stef just because of the timing when he comes in and the little "half-comments" (like his joke on my statement which, by nature, could be interpreted either way).

So .. it's ok to have nothing to say considering the game isn't so far ahead but yet you find it normal to accuse me of "half-comments". As far as my timing i don't really get it. You think i have nothing better to do than camp other players posting all day? I post when i get online and have the time to do it. As far as the "his joke on my statement (..) could be interpreted either way" i gave an answer at the top of my post.

That was what i had to say regarding the allegation regarding my "interesting statement" post.

As far as the accusation regarding me picking on JDodge it wasn't role-playing or even game related as much as me not liking his attitude towards the game and towards the work the moderator put in the game.

[Stef]

And yeah, it was my birthday and HB = Happy birthday. Right now i'm very tired and can't really pull it together to post about the recent events in the game. Just wanted to respond to SpyreX's posts regarding me.

[Stef]

Well now.. look who popped out of the cannon.

And...you thought it was suspicious to want to be an informed majority?

You must be tired as well. I didn't say i thought it was suspicious to want to be an informed majority.. Read again ..

seemed a little suspicious for me considering we have a player who feels the need to state that he is town so soon in the game. It could have been a phrase used to discreetly make people think he is town by reading his joke.

If that means i thought it was suspicious to want to be an informed majority it means my English really sucks badly.

The rest of your gibberish is nonsense considering you started off on a wrong statement and put words into my mouth.

And...you saw it as suspicious but decided to hide it behind a joke in case it would make you look scummy???

And here you go again.. did you actually bother to read what i wrote? Never mind.. this is what i actually gave as an explanation for the fact that i kept it a half-joke:

Didn't really know what to make of it and I considered it too early for the stage of the game to start fishing answers from a player that didn't actually post that much or gave too much content to the game.

That means that i wasn't sure if he was joking or it was a strategy so I felt like i had no reason to jump on his head based on a gut feeling.


And then you go exagerating and blowing up proportions of what i said by typing "What?!?!? No, seriously, WHAT?!?!?" into your post.

"It's not scummy because some one else did it too!!!!!"

Did i say it was scummy? putting words into my mouth again.

not liking some one's attitude doesn't make them scum.

Where did i accuse him of being scum or even cast suspicion on him because of his attitude? No really cause I'm curious. I didn't accuse him of being scum or even scummy. I just asked him why he voted for nameless without giving any reasons.

All i see from you in this post is insecurity and a need to point fingers without any actual evidence.

I didn't consider SpyreX to be scummy for the part you said. I explained that part in my previous post. I didn't accuse JDodge of being scum or scummy or even suspicious. That means you either didn't even bother to read my post OR you did and you just wanted to draw attention on someone else because you were being under the suspicion of others lately.

Making a big fuss over things i didn't actually say or things took out of context IS however scummy.

FOS: Kmd4390

[Stef]

Damn.. always read "informed majority" as "informed minority" >.< :embarrassed:

[Stef]

You are the one putting words into someone's mouth. How is wanting to be an informed majority (I'm sure everyone would like to be in that position) trying to make someone think he is town? You are making no sense at all.

I did post

Damn.. always read "informed majority" as "informed minority" >.< :embarrassed:

Ok, sorry. I was under the impression that voting was a way to cast suspicion. I wasn't aware that you were voting for reasons other than trying to find scum. My bad.

Where did I vote for him? Sorry for asking. I had two votes cast so far. On Charter and on Stormer and we were discussing neither of the two in this discussion.

If you found it suspicious, why not speak up about it?

Because i didn't know what to think of it and don't like to talk when i only have feelings witch oh.. yeah.. turned out to be useless considering i misread what SpyreX wrote.

Your defense was "but look over here. some one else was doing it too."

Not really... i told him it was funny to accuse me of it since he was doing it as well. Was more of an observation about his game and it was ironic that he made an observation about my game when he had the same thing in his. Interesting how you don't see the problem in him playing the game that way but you do in me doing the same thing. I don't personally think this is scumtell or i would have voted for him.

Nope, you just voted for him. There's no way some one could mistake that for you being suspicious of him.

Again, where did i vote for him?

The rest is stupid anyway. All i see is a desperate need to make up arguments that don't exist to get rid of the suspicion on YOU considering people have been accusing you of teaming up with me. If you were town that wouldn't have made you have such a bad reaction. Your arguments are based on:
1. A mistake i made and admitted to have made.
2. Semantics regarding my second post in the game witch i do believe i explained.
3. A regard considering SpyreX's game where you draw some conclusions from thin air.
4. One or two votes you claim i casted.. when i actually didn't.
So people start accusing you of defending me and teaming up with me and the next second you bring up an old subject to pick on me and bring up these arguments and make a big fuss out of them to get yourself clean. If there were no suspicions on your head why did you jump up so fast and with so much passion? ( The WHAT???!?!?!?!?!? part )

Even if the stormer things still is on the table right now Kmd seems way more premeditated than stormer so ..

##Unvote ##Vote:Kmd4390

I still want a reply from stormer to the allegations he received.


Camn you just strike me with your lack of arguments when you tag along. What did you have to say about me now? That not retracting my vote means i think he is scum but if i haven't pursued the issue it means .. what? I still suspect him and waiting for an explanation from him. And then you pick on my semantics in the same phrase you accuse me of using semantics as an argument. I can use any argument i consider valid and important. Wrong semantics might indicate foul play or nothing at all. That doesn't mean they should be dismissed as "bah he made a mistake". As far as

Don't bring it up and say "I'm NOT SAYING this is scummy... but blah blah blah"

I didn't say i'm not saying it's scummy. I just said i'm not sure that it's teaming up but that i DO find it suspicious. Where exactly is the problem?

[Stef]

The lurking, the role claim and then the contradiction of posts makes me consider melikefood as an appropriate candidate to a vote but then again stormer still isn't off the hook as far as i'm concerned.

They both were scummy so far but melikefood is just too obvious to make me vote so fast.

melikefood, the points made so far against you were good and your play was either bad either told us you are mafia or you have an unlikely role. I'm not sure about witch one is the case for you. Nor do i know yet what is the case for stormer yet.

There are some things going on with Nameless camn and kmd and i bet we're all waiting for some answers from stormer and melikefood so i don't want to rush into things with a vote before we get some answers out of them and we get to discuss a little more.

[Stef]

Why do you think melikefood is town charter? I understand you don't like limiting to two options but why do you think he is not scum?

[Stef]

Stormer.. you make accusations upon rishi and charter and bring no real arguments of your own and besides you aren't posting much content to the game whatsoever. Unless you make up for the lurking and defend yourself better my vote is going back to you. Fos-ing you is pointless since i've been suspecting you for quite some time without you doing anything at ALL to change anyone's mind for that matter.

[Stef]

Sorry but two schools and not always being there doesn't really excuse the fact that you haven't had time to post a decent post for 12 pages. That's either lurking/letting things cool down after your mistake or lack of interest. If it's the ladder then why bother signing up for a game you have no time for? Please do your best to be more active and post more content. Any input on the game would be welcomed while your current attitude is either scummy or is keeping us from seeing the real scum. Till you change your attitude...

##Vote: Stormer

For the already existing reasons and the ones stated above.

[Stef]

Bah.. forgot..

##unvote ##vote: Stormer

[Stef]

Ok. I haven't been as active as i hoped but i'll try to compensate.

First to answer ZazieR's post:

"He has made some good posts, but also some bad ones. "

*

I agree about the bad ones. Haven't trying to help the majority enough but I'll do my best to do so starting now. Haven't so far because partly I've been busy ( but that isn't an excuse either way ) and partly because I'm still learning ( but this isn't an excuse either so i have no excuses that would absolve me of suspicions over the game i played ).

"One of bad posts is after his discussion with KMD (which seemed pretty weak)."

*

My discussion with KMD wasn't weak as it was too defensive.

" In the last post regarding the discussion, he votes KMD. In his next post, he says that Melikefood/Stormer are scummier. Then I don't understand this vote. "

*

I voted him because i considered his attack to be scummy considering his case was not strong enough to explain the vote and all the fuss. I still consider him suspicious but only for the argument stated above and indeed i also consider Melikefood and stormer to be the most suspicious. Since then stormer has done nothing else than confirm my suspicions of him with his post where he votes rishi with no case against him whatsoever and then with his posts regarding his activity. Melikefood hasn't posted anything yet to stop me from suspecting him. KMD is therefore not my priority atm. I haven't unvoted yet since my vote is ok where it is till i get a reason to change it. If it comes to a deadline choice i'll prolly go towards voting stormer ( considering the things that he posted so far ). Hope this explains the vote.

" I also would like to know if you've seen already the things that are going on with Camn, KMD and nameless, because of two of them I can't see a thing. "

*

I think KMD's activity, besides his gambit which so far i find useless game-wise, has been good and he has been trying to get things moving and people posting. That looks like pro-majority activity so the thing i saw going on is no longer happening so far.

About camn.. i don't like him picking on terminology or others picking on terminology. I also don't like him mentioning that he voted stormer "For pressure". If you mention it's for pressure then you say you aren't voting because you would consider lynching him. If he doesn't feel threatened by your vote .. why would he feel pressured by YOUR vote? That just makes it pointless. Except the things i said above, i also find his game-play to be passive since he is preferring to react and not cause reactions. That is not helping the majority at all.

Nameless's case is.. well.. he's been active, asking questions and pushing for reactions. That seems to be a good thing coming from him so my suspicions on him haven't been confirmed by his game-play so far.

DAMN! I changed the page on this tab and thought i lost everything i wrote.. phey

Now to try and express my opinions about other players as well. I'll start with...

SpyreX:

He started the game by echoing other people rather than actually asking questions of his own or bringing any relevant issues on the table by himself. He directed people to asking other people's questions and yet didn't ask any of his own.

On page 7 he starts asking questions towards melikefood which is good but he says "Ask questions, dont just wait for questions." to melikefood when he hasn't done much questioning of his own. However making melikefood post more content was a positive thing since it lead to an unexpected outcome of melikefood's role-claim. The posts regarding me were justified considering I made a stupid mistake while reading the informed majority thingy.

After that his overall posting and activity was good till his #214 post where he says "Lets try to ease up on that scum-pedal guys and just cruise along without being so crazy."
The cruise along part was scummy as far as i'm concerned since our purpose is to put pressure and to hunt scum, not to cruise along and let the time pass till the deadline.

In #235 he says "I'm looking at it, of course, and I do see a few other questionable things Nameless has done" but yet he doesn't say what are the things he saw. It would be helpful to share instead of saying you do suspect things he has done but not let us know what those things are to let us share our opinion on that matter. It would have opened the door to another thing to explore.

After that his overall posts were good and at their place. To draw a conclusion, i do see some potential suspicious things about him and i stated them above. Do i think he is scum? i don't know yet but i'll be sure to keep an eye on him. What i would like from him is a more active attitude besides his already good reactive one. It would help the majority more if more people ask founded questions in the goal of fishing scum.

Melikefood

Oh well he's a real catch. In #105 he says "I find stormer's questions suspicious, but I think we should let him talk more berfore we go and expand the wagon anymore." That is interesting.. why stop the bandwagon? As long as it doesn't end up in a lynch it just puts more pressure on the player and hopefully it makes him post more relevant and helpful content.

After that he didn't really post any content and preferred to be more passive than anything else. When he was attacked by SpyreX i considered his defense to be superficial at best and when he was accused of not being active enough, instead of defending he used the same argument against SpyreX. Bad play imho.

Overall, all his posts that lead to his role-claim have been unhelpful and passive or reactive. Then comes the Role-claim. That part, if he isn't scum, hurts the majority a lot. It takes attention away from the other possible scum and changes it towards him. That makes him prolly safer from NK if he is not scum and hurts the majority in the process.

Then he contradicts himself by first saying "get your votes off me" and then saying "so I should get lynched and then whomever could try digging out scum from the bandwagon." claiming this was the intention that led him to the role-claimig.

After that he states that he thinks spyrex is majority and rishi is scum and ends up voting for him with no real reason given either for spyrex being innocent or for rishi being scum.

Overall he hasn't helped the majority at all but on the contrary he has been doing nothing but attract attention to himself. That means he's either scum or he's a bad majority player so either way i wouldn't mind having him lynched if we don't have a better candidate for scum.

Porkens

Ok.. here we go:
He starts with an ok analysis and follows with an ok post and then he votes for melikefood with an ok reason ( even if given a post later ). The rest of his posts are mostly gibberish ( to use his own word ). Hope to get more content from him further along this day.

Not much to say about him cause he hasn't been that active and hasn't really posted a lot. This might be a sign of keeping a low profile so it might be suspicious.

DraketheFake

His gameplay didn't seem suspicious to me ( excepting his lack of activity ) untill his #203 post where he writes "I'm honestly still shocked we're thinking about lynching anybody but stormer, especially considering he hasn't bothered to check in since shit hit the fan. "
To that i say.. what? We're thinking of lynching other people because even if stormer might be scum or even if he is obvscum as far as some are concerned that still isn't a reason to stop suspecting other people. That is an anti-majority remark and i find it suspicious.

Then in #205 he addresses SpyreX's case on Melikefood (MLF for short >.< ) by saying: "I think this is a pretty weak case (...) makes you sound like an overly aggressive scummy player (...) you were looking for reasons to attack somebody who clearly isn't going to be able to defend himself adequately"
Defending MLF without bringing any evidence to support your defense twards him and accusing SpyreX of making a weak case against MLF and of being scummy himself is unfounded considering the arguments. And why would MLF be unable to defend himself adequately?

After that he continues to post but doesn't really say anything worth talking about specific except his attitude about stormer and MLF. Why is he only channeling attention towards them? If they are suspicious it means that they are the only scum in the game and that others can't be suspicious and anyone who pokes anyone else is trying to draw attention from stormer and MLF? I don't like that at all and i don't see how it helps the majority. I agree reminding us of stormer and MLF in the case we forgotten all about them is a good thing but attacking players for being suspicious about other players is simply bad.

Rishi

As said before, indeed he does have a lot of bla bla bla content in his posts. Some consider that to be scum indicator, some don't. That alone isn't enough evidence to convince me either way.

Him posting "Yikes, stormer is scaring me. But would scum really be this obvious? " after stormer asked about the cop was indeed weird soft-claiming that stormer made an innocent newbie mistake and that makes me suspect him.

Then he attacks the wagon against stormer. I agree he might be an easy target if he is an innocent newbie but he might also be scum. Nothing disqualifies him from that position and your previous experience, although valuable, is not relevant in his defense. Regarding the "being bussed" and "piling up" remarks.. so you say that either he's town or mafia, the scum will surely be on that wagon ? What makes you say that because i can't see it.

In post #280 he has a decent reply and brings some solid arguments in his defense and on the table.

Overall he does have some contribution to the game and brings some content witch is useful. I would not forget the suspicious posts he had and i will keep my eye on him.


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

That's it for tonight.. midnight already I'll finish the rest of the players tomorrow.

[Stef]

Ok...

FoS: PORKENS

for cutting our day short without any warning.

I'll come back later on with a more detailed post since now i have to go to school.

[Stef]

Don't have patience right now to post another long post ( just did so in gif }
so i'll do so later on today or early tomorrow. Till then i can only comment this:

That would be too scummy for scum to actually do..

That argument sucks. I've been accused of using it but you actually are using it. Interesting how after you guys fought so much now camn suddenly defends kmd. The need to put your "sweet ass" in this conversation is to ...?

[Stef]

What is interesting is the soft-claim and accusing me of "trying to hang innocent". I actually wouldn't have voted for you only based on that. Your blatant OMGUS does make me vote you.

##Vote: Camn

I'll take this case further later on.

[Stef]

Keep trying, though.. you are bound to stumble on to something you can hang an innocent with.

[Stef]

@Nameless: Are you serious? That is hypocrisy? I do have school. I didn't say i can't post because of it, i just couldn't do so then. Did you bother to read the first one through? Did you bother to learn the difference between claiming that some1 doesn't have time for playing at all because of school and some1 saying he doesn't have time at that moment to post because of school? I hate personal statements when they are unfounded. Stick to the game. If i am inactive make a case against me for lurking ( or w/e ) or ask LG to pron me.

I'll post that "detailed long post" when time will let me, not when you tell me to.

[Stef]

Does anybody else get the feeling Kmd is padding a lot of his posts with obvious, repetitious and/or unnecessary statements, replies and questions?

I do.

@nameless: I voted for camn based more on a gut feeling regarding his "Keep trying, though.. you are bound to stumble on to something you can hang an innocent with.".

It just felt scummy to me. The softclaim i saw was "hang an innocent with" after i went after her and the OMGUS i saw was the whole part of his post i mentioned above. Maybe i got the definitions wrong but i thought that OMGUS was a bad response (sometimes vote as well ) to a vote/accusation and i thought a softclaim is stating your role in a not-so-direct manor ( the "i am innocent " part ). If i'm mistaken i'm sorry. That part of her post still seems scummy to me and is an abnormality in her normal posting.

@camn: you are right.. went over your posts ( something i didn't do before that post ) and indeed you never acused kmd of being scummy. Why do you suspect that kmd is innocent? And why do you think it's too scummy for him to be scum? And why are you defending him again?

"Regarding Stef. You did totally overreact to nameless' post. Whats the deal with that? I agree that your stance is NOT hypocritical.. and nameless'es accusation was a little unjustified.. but your reaction was a little too heated, imo. You call it a "personal attack", but I don't see it. How was it "personal"? "

I don't see how calling someone a hypocrit is game related. I felt it was personal and i hate personal attacks in games. I don't know how much of an overreaction it was. It was a bad reaction to something i don't like.

[Stef]

much like I feel about Stef's statement

Which statement is that?

[Stef]

Wow.. that was a hell of a read

I'll post my thoughts tomorrow prolly.. just got home after a 3 day trip and i'm exhausted.

[Stef]

To address the situation with kmd/charter..

I don't know what to think about the claim.. their only argument is the trail kmd left but i don't know if that's enough. The cult possibility on the other hand seems a little bit of a stretch but them both being scum isn't.

@Kmd: Knowing you have a PR, why haven't you been fishing more? All you did this game is go after camn. ( with the brief "going after" porkens and the gambint on me )

If your claim is true you should have done more to help the town. Instead you got caught up in little details and posted 6 pages out of the topic's 26 with alot of huey, bringing way too much attention onto yourself and camn and thus taking the pressure of the rest of the players.

@ charter: you had alot of one-line-posts till your claim and most of them have been unhelpful and/or scummy. Only

one

scummy situation would be explained by your claim and that is the one where you say you would vote porkens in a "porkens, kmd and you" scenario before you say porkens doesn't seem scummy to you.

@Camn&Charter: About my "skating along" .. i was hoping that atleast one of you two could read the fact that i was away for 3 days ( 4 days total ) either from my sig or from the post i wrote right before you agreed on me skating along.

[Stef]

@camn: I don't believe you're innocent. And is the last row of your post a joke?

Also

Off the cuff, I sense a Stef-Zazie-Rishi lurkerscumteam. If you were scum in the middle of a town this INSANE, wouldn't you just sit back and let it boil over?

I do agree that suspicion can be brought up by lurking but do you think that this is an accurate scum tell? You aim at the less active and only defend against attacks without making a real case. Make an effort please. Also, i would love to know why you never suspected KMD and why you believe KMD and Charter's claim. The sense that there's a connection here still hasn't disappeared.

@charter:

How can you call his hammer anything but scum quickhammering?

I can. I would have done the same if i were convinced i was doing the right thing. This does not clear him and, as i said, i still don't like his hammer but it's not a good enough clue to tell us if he is scum or not imho.

Because given how awful Stormer's play was it could equally be called majority quickhammering.

QFT

Stef, I'd argue that my defending kmd is explained away as well.

maybe but it doesn't explain the bad posting on your behalf.

@SpyreX and the others

Strange times, strange bedfellows all that - for today I am your great defender and it should be obvious that a lynch for either of you flat out doesn't make sense.

Let's assume the following scenarios:
1. We decide to believe for now that KMD and Charter are really masons.
We decide to lynch some1 else.

a.If that person turns out town we get a -2 majority and end up in a lylo ( if i'm not mistaken ? ) After that night we still got no idea if KMD and Charter are actually town or scum playing us.

b.If that person turns out mafia we get a -1 minority -1 majority and we're kinda better off knowing that there's one less goon while on the other hand we still don't know what's up with KMD and Charter since they can play their card easily and have an apparently clear and innocent reason to push the wagon against scum while possibly bussing to boost their credibility and reinforce their claim. This is a dangerous scenario witch i would very much preffere to avoid because it would be anti-majority imho.

2. We decide to believe that KMD/Charter are a good lynch option and we decide to lynch let's say Charter ( it can be KMD.. chose kmd randomly )

a. Charter turns majority. Minority kills another majority player and we end up in a possible lylo where we know that KMD is obvinnocent and our list of suspects narrows down considerably and bringing some new leads for us.

b. Charter turns minority. We get -1 minority -1 majority and we have a sure bet on our next lynch getting us to stay in lead of the game.

Bottomline

The way i see it.. the best way is to lynch either Charter or KMD. This way we get the mystery out of the way and we get more clarification because the current confusion and speculating if their claims are true or not ( thing we cannot prove ) is hurting the majority.

Worst case scenario.. we end up in a lylo knowing we got one person we can trust to be majority and we don't loose any real PR since they can't do more than claim their roles. Best case scenario one of them turns scum giving is -2 scum in the game.

On the otherhand the worst case scenario when we're not lynching one of them is: We could lynch a PR we can use or a townie and we lose one more witch can be a useful PR or townie with the NK and we end up in D3 without getting any confirmation about Charter/KMD's roles and we could find ourselves in a lylo scenario.
The best scenario in this situation would be us killing one scum and loosing a townie.

The way i see it, no matter what Charter and KMD's alignment is, lynching one of them can give us better results opposed to lynching someone else and we don't really lose a PR because at the moment if they are majority then they are = to normal mafioso. In the event that they really are masons i pick charter for the lynch since i do think KMD would be able to help the majority more if he turns out mason.

Therefore:

##unvote ##Vote: Charter

I want every1's input on this and i want more activity out of MLF Rishi and Zazier!

[Stef]

Stef's last post is filled with such horrible logic it is painful to read.

Really?

What? How can you "would have done the same" and "still don't like his hammer"? Besides not making any sense, I note your defending Porkens

i would have done the same

if i were convinced i was doing the right thing.

Kinda convenient to take things out of context.

You assume one of us isn't NK'ed, which I honestly can't see any possible way that doesnt happen.

Why would the minority HAVE to NK one of you two? How are you a threat to the minority more than the rest of us? You have no special ability except the fact that you can talk at night. That's it! I don't think it's a sure thing the minority would kill one of you two if the other was lynched. Why are you so sure? Why is it impossible?

How would us lynching mafia today clear us in any way?

Lynching mafioso today wouldn't. Lynching one of you guys would since if one of you turns mafioso than the other is mafioso as well and your claim is true.

You won't have a confirmed innocent tomorrow. It's not going to happen.

Ehm.. care to elaborate? Why is that exactly?

No. Wrong...Your best case scenario is wrong, and your worst case scenario is wrong.

ok! Maybe bring reasons ? Cause till then my arguments and my scenarios are pretty much valid.

All i see from you in your post is you going on the defensive with no real arguments, just attacking my case without backing up and explaining yourself. That makes your attack = 0 concerning dismounting my case but it does make +1 as far as the suspicion on you. Crumbling under pressure much?

[Stef]

That's fair enough. Didn't think of that. That doesn't make my case null tho.

[Stef]

I'd still like to hear more from the others on this matter.

[Stef]

@MLF: in 640 you said you'll post "tomorrow". Tomorrow is.. well.. here. I want your input on.. well.. everything.

What do you think about the claim and why?
What are your top suspects and why?
Who do you think to be most likely to be a member of the majority and why?
Any new analysis on anything new would be helpful.

[Stef]

@ KMD

I am voting Nameless mostly because of his reaction to the claim

I'm not sure of the claim either.. does that make me scum and up for your vote since you voted nameless mostly because of the same thing? Do you really think it's scumtell?

If you really think we are both scum, then no, your case isn't null.

I think there's a chance you are both scum and that's enough. I'm not going to blindly accept the fact that you're majority just because you claimed to be and maybe cleverly left a breadcrum trail to back your claim up. It would be very smart if you are actually scum and it would also be foolish of us to just believe you.

If you want to sacrafice a mason in order to prove another, then yes, your case is null

I was ok with the idea while i wasn't considering the second mason being a defNK. I still don't consider it to be without a doubt the way the minority would act since either letting him live or killing him narrows the list of suspects anyway. It's the natural course of the game. The only bad part is that it would mean the majority possibly not gaining as much as it's loosing. All this assuming you guys are, in fact, masons.

[Stef]

I'm an ordinary mafioso who types

##unvote ##vote porkens

I don't know witch of the claims are true since none of them can be confirmed. The certainty is that they aren't both cops.

I'd also like charter's question answered.

[Stef]

Damn.. that was L-1..

## unvote

so you have time to answer but if you don't answer today i'm voting you.

[Stef]

No it wasn't.. i'm bad at counting

Since both of you are gonna die it's natural you give us all the info you have to help the town before you kick the bucket. So
porkens:
Did you get Roleblocked?
Who did you target?

And i'm putting my vote back on you since it's L-2.

##Vote Porkens

[Stef]

Simuposted.. heh.

Thanks for answering.

[Stef]

@camn: just one question. Where have i ever lurked?

@the rest: I don't really see anything we can discuss today that we can't discuss tomorrow so

##vote: rishi

And totally non game related:
@rishi: Don't hit on camn! Damn bastard! I wanted to hit on her!

[Stef]

@camn: don't make it LOOK like i haven't.

TNGR:
@LG: I hammered! Not him!

[Stef]

I'm still thinking Zazie and Stef.... but I need a methodical review.

Yes you do since so far all your "they are scum" without making a case seems scummy to me but then again most of your posts so far haven't had any real content so it's ok.

Looking over your interactions with the other players i could see a connection to nameless. You started the game by tagging along and, since then, you haven't pushed any real cases against anyone.

You said somewhere that lurking is scumtell. It's not. It's plain stupid to believe that a person who doesn't time to post everyday is scum.

What do you believe about KMD and Charter now? Do you still believe their claim?
Also, what do you think about nameless?
What would be your impression on ZazieR after a reread of him? And forget that damn lurking coin since it sucks.

[Stef]

ZazieR, did you ever claim when we massclaimed?

No he didn't.

If we no lynch, and the scum NK one of these 4, Charter and I know that 2 of the 3 remaining players other than us are scum. So, if the other townie wants to trust us, we have a 66% chance of lynching scum tomorrow. If they NK one of us, the other is confirmed.

Or you two are scum and you get to kill one more majority player or the mafia sends a no-kill and we're back were we started. Not convinced yet that the No Lynch option is the best right now. I'll give it some thought.



@Nameless: I haven't stamped you yet and i agree with the reconsideration on KMD and Charter and i can only hope Camn and ZazieR are open to the possibility that their Mason claim isn't as true as they'd like us all to believe.

But I can promiss you that soon you will hear my opinion about the players here, who I suspect (I've already seen someone jumping out) and what I think of the recent developments.

If you don't disappear again that is. Hope you won't.

[Stef]

I just now saw Charter's post..

No lynch without spending much time discussing is the way to go here. All we're doing is letting scum figure out who to NK by stating all our suspicions.

Your argument is flawed. Loosing MLF for example last night wasn't such a big problem since he wasn't very helpful for the majority anyway ( argument-wise ) but loosing one of the few majority players who still are in the game before we get his opinion is a mistake and anti-majority.

Your conclusion is stupid. Discussing at this point is pro-majority and we shouldn't rush into anything. Talk is the key here since we have no confirmed majority ( well.. atleast not to the rest of us ) and if you lie it's even worse for us after a nolynch.

Anyway.. thus being said, i think you two guys look scummier than ever before.

FoS: Charter and KMD

[Stef]

Ok ... but all i ask.. don't kill the discussion yet. Tomorrow we'll have yet even less time on our hands to make a decision since the deadlines keep getting shorter. Let's not rush into anything. I gotta split now so i'll prolly post in about 14 hours when i wake up.. hope i don't find the game in the night stage till then..

[Stef]

Bah... mornin'. Hate that all the discussion is made while i sleep. Anyway.

@nameless: I do, indeed, have two options. Either ZazieR + nameless or Charter + KMD so yeah.. I'll go over the thread to look for any possible zazier-nameless connections to see how plausible it is.

@kmd

Problem is, if he is town, he really thinks he is right and won't change his mind.

It appeared to me that he was open to both possibilities and

leaning

towards the probability that you are scumpair with charter. Why do you say that he won't change his mind? I don't like that.

@all of you who voted the no-lynch. Why did you rush into it? I think that is just odd. Now the game is in it's last day. Since you voted no-lynch now it's easier for the scumpair to finish. If yesterday they needed two votes to kill a majority member now they only need one vote to hammer and win. Considering Charter and KMD pushed the most for the No-Lynch they would be my prime suspects right now.

On the other hand zazier is either very inactive or activly lurking. If he doesn't post soon a prod will be in order because if him and nameless are both majority then majority has minus -vote witch can only be bad for us. If he is scum.. well.. him being inactive isn't such a bad thing but a player slacking in a game is bad for the game balance overall so still.

I'm waiting for nameless's "Charter case" and for "Charter's defence" as well as Zazier's claim and then i'll probably make my decision.

[Stef]

Damn i hate such long posts... mainly when i write them but also when i read them. I know i've been promising a longer and more detailed post... it will have to wait since i have to leave now and i'll prolly be back in about 12 hours.

[Stef]

I hereby apologize for my short content-less posts in my games lately and for my following leave of absence but recent events IRL severely shortened my spare time. I will probably be able to make up for it Sunday. Posting this in all my games..

[Stef]

This game was fun. Camn annoyed me because of the "lurker lurker" thingy and i was more than glad to put her out of her misery so to speak.

Scum was lucky this game and with a little planing we won. I was actually worried that we would loose in this last day because i was away and i couldn't hammer but it turned out ok.

Just for the record.. I DID NOT LURK! I really didn't have enough time to post all the time. I tried to be as active as i could and overall i don't think I was too inactive. Camn spotted us as scum because it actually happened that all the 3 of us were kinda inactive. I don't think we gave out any big scumtells and that's why i don't think camn's "lurker-scum-team" theory was so great. It could of been all 3 of us that were inactive majority players. I don't think camn could have really pushed the case more because of the lack of actual evidence. She did say, afterall, that it was mostly a gut feeling.

@LG: I can't comment much @ the setup since this is my first finished game. After playing in my other games and reading a few more i can say that i liked your flavor and i think you modded just fine and, as i said on aim, i'd be more than happy to play in more of your games.

@ all: Good Fun and Good Game! It was one of my first games and, as i said, my first finished game so i might have made a few slip-ups but i'm learning and constantly trying to improve my style. Hope i can get some sort of review from you guys.