Mini 703 - A Roccisi Autumn - Over

[Ectomancer]

The end result is the same, a player is removed. That's far different than getting a replacement. Yet I noted you put getting a replacement right in with 2 ways of removing a player.
The difference is, for a policy lynch, it will take a majority of players. We are responsible for the choice we make.
But by appealing to the mod for a modkill, you are asking for the same result, but responsibility for it assigned to the higher authority here, the mod.

So...why would you prefer a choice that removes culpability for action over the godly power of a modkill again? I dont agree that a day would be "wasted" with a policy lynch.

[tubby216]

well i would be comfortable lynching puta at this point,,, but i am confused about the grounds for modkill etc

[tubby216]

edit post

sorry ecto i diddn't see your post,,,

so we learn more if we lynch him rather than if he is mod killed /replaced correct?

[Rage]

Uh, I think we learn much more if he gets replaced.

[ThAdmiral]

He's active so he won't be replaced. I don't think I've ever seen someone get replaced who was actually posting.

[MacavityLock]

The end result is the same, a player is removed. That's far different than getting a replacement. Yet I noted you put getting a replacement right in with 2 ways of removing a player.
The difference is, for a policy lynch, it will take a majority of players. We are responsible for the choice we make.
But by appealing to the mod for a modkill, you are asking for the same result, but responsibility for it assigned to the higher authority here, the mod.

The end result is not the same. And not only that, I'm most interested in the "outside of game" aspect. If we're talking about whether he violated site rules, he should somehow be removed from this game

affecting this game as little as possible

. Both modkill and forced replacement are "outside of game" type consequences. By the way, I'd much prefer forced replacement to a modkill.

I also think that this is not good scum-hunting discussion. If he violated site rules, he should be removed via whatever means the site has set up.

[Ectomancer]

Suppose the mod says neither a replacement, nor a modkill is coming. What do you do next?

(P.S. - Modkill and Policy lynch both end result in dead player. How can you even think to argue that point?)

[MacavityLock]

Suppose the mod says neither a replacement, nor a modkill is coming. What do you do next?

Then like I said, I treat Puta like I would any other player. If he's not providing real, clear arguments, I'm fine with a Puta-wagon. I already said this. This is why I requested an immediate and complete explanation from Puta when he reverted to Shakespearing.

(P.S. - Modkill and Policy lynch both end result in dead player. How can you even think to argue that point?)

Does modkill end the day like policy lynch does?

[chuckrock]

I don't see where this is a policy lynch. Puta 2 has been clear in the way he's posted that he is playing things the way he wants to. The continual posting without saying anything. His lack of defense in his own words all point to a want to be eliminated or suspicion. He does deserve a vote at this time and has received them.

A modkill should only ever be used for a player that just isn't active.

We as participants should be able to take out the trash if it gets stinky enough. Heck, we have a long time before anything happens. I'm guessing that this place will be near dead during Thanksgiving anyway.


I myself really wanted Puta 2 to give some more details instead of posting from Shakespeare. Perhaps, he's taking a class right now and needs to show off, I don't know. I haven't completely convinced myself he's scum. I'm thinking he's a developing player that is continuing to make mistakes. I still only have an FOS on him. I'm hoping we'll see more. If not, I'll probably vote nearer to Dec 1. Until then, it doesn't matter anyway, does it?

[TDC]

Vote Count

Puta Puta (5): ThAdmiral, darkdude, Brain of Wombat, Tarballs, Korts

Rage (1): MacavityLock
Tarballs (1): Rage

Not voting (5): tubby216, Puta Puta, chuckrock, Ectomancer, gorckat

edit: Prodding Brain of Wombat.

[tubby216]

with 12 in the game its 7 to lynch and that puts puta puta at L-2 right now correct??


well i still don't like his play call me simple but i believe in answering the question you are asked and answering it plainly as possible, all the poetry and stuff was losing me so.

vote: puta puta

i believe thats L-1

[Korts]

Good evening, boys and girls, how are we all today? Glad to see we all survived the night.

Now rather than voting for people based on silly criteria like the length of their username , lets take a second and be rational about this. As we started with a night phase, did anybody get any useful information last night?

I hate the first day, nobody knows who anybody is and I don't want us to accidentally bandwagon into a mis-lynch. But since we started at night, lets wait and see if an investigator comes forward with some information.

Let's just exercise caution for the time being.

Rather than the massclaim proposition, which may be dismissed by insufficient knowledge of the game and/or the MS meta, I'd like to bring attention to the second sentence. It seems to me like a mutation of "oh no we lost an <inserpowerrolehere> last night" type of posting and was posted mainly because Wombatscum subconsciously was wondering why no kill happened.

Sure.

vote MassClaim

Ecto's first post is in open agreement with Wombat's proposition. This doesn't look in particularly anti-town, though, since it's obvious fishing for reactions. In fact I give Ecto very slight town points for not jumping on Wombat straight away but rather baiting others to join the massclaim wagon.

<randomreason>

OMGUS Vote: MacavityLock

Also, this:

Good evening, boys and girls, how are we all today? Glad to see we all survived the night.

Coupled with:

As we started with a night phase, did anybody get any useful information last night?

= Scum

At least, that's what I think of it.

FoS: Brain of Wombat

This post doesn't look exactly right. Rage votes randomly, and then cites a

non-random

reason and a pretty fair point against another player. I'm not sure why Rage didn't vote Wombat right there.

Yeah, Puta, you're going to have to explain those two posts. Like every word of them except maybe for "Vote."

Unvote Rage

. One of the best first posts I've seen. A+++. Would buy again.

Vote: Wombat

Ecto: Do you really want a massclaim, or are you looking for reactions? Because my reaction is NO!

Damn what a scummy post. First, clear buddying up to Rage, and then ruining Ecto's bait. Almost like saying "hey scumbuddies, don't fall for

that

trap".

Woah! Let's all calm down a second. That's exactly the kind of bandwagoning I was talking about.

What exacly was my crime there, Rage? I've never seen a game starton a night phase before and I was afraid the scum might pick off a townie before we even got started. I was glad to see that didn't happen, that's all.

I also thought, unlikely as it is, that an investigator could have discovered something useful last night that we could go on. However, given the numbers, darkdude makes a fair point and I can see why an investigator wouldn't want to risk their neck by claiming.

I'm just saying that, lacking any information, we should hold off on lynching anyone today, there's too much chance of us helping out the scum by lynching an innocent townie.

Okay, the second paragraph disproves my assumption that Wombat had previously played in an environment that promotes massclaims after night starts. Wombat gets slightly scummier upon the reread. Even so, the newbieness is something that can't be ignored, especially seeing as Wombat trips up in another newbie trap, the no lynching.

I want a role claim.

Rage's reactions are otherwise not an indicator in particular of alignment, but this demand is still off. After shooting down the massclaim proposal so hard, the borderline hypocrisy cannot be ignored in this.

People who attacked Rage for the "out of context" comment even though the intended use was of a different meaning:

darkdude (first one to raise the point)
MacavityLock (why am I not surprised? opportunistic wagon hopping. plus his reasoning's way off, it's clear he was skimming and only read darkdude's accusation)

ThAdmiral gets slight town points for this quote:

I think people are focusing too much on rage's assertion that he took BoW's words "out of context", which is admittedly a bad choice of phrase, but isn't necessarily what he did. A better description of what he did would be "focusing on this particular sentence from his post" or something.

Rage, you brought Wombat to L-4 on the first page. I don't have too much of a problem with that. But asking for a role-claim, given that usually they're asked for at L-1 (or maybe L-2), given that Wombat is new to MS, and given that a page 1 bandwagon usually still includes random votes, adds up to you role-fishing.

Why is it that MacavityLock didn't raise this point until I did?

Macavity, what do you have against role-fishing so early in the day?

Given that Rage was attacking Wombat for rolefishing basically, this question seems like Rage is setting a double standard.

Now that aside, as ThAdmiral explained, taking things out of context is not a very productive thing to do since the meaning is deliberately changed. If you truly are using a quote out of context then any critique on it would be meaningless as the quote did not suggest what you are criticizing in the first place. And I agree with ThAdmiral on one more point; I do not think your were really taking Wombat out of context, but rather focusing specifically. However, what interested me was your own labeling of this action as "taking out of context". Thus I felt it necessary to question you. I expected you to immediately correct yourself, but since you do not deny you are taking it out of context, I can only conclude:

1. You are misusing the term "out of context", or;
2. You actually meant to take it out of context but did not in fact do this

This is a weak retrospective justification of the initial vote on Rage (for the "out of context" thing. Rather than admitting he misunderstood Rage, darkdude makes up a reason that basically amounts to "I didn't really think you were doing what I voted you for, but I was interested to see where it would go". If he honestly was just trying to gauge whether Rage was misusing the term, that doesn't justify a vote at all.

UNVOTE

While there have been a couple of mistakes, I don't feel strongly enough about anyone to cast a vote right now.

I will say that a role-fishing expedition is bad stuff, especially so early.

weeeEEEOOOOooo--NO CONTENT ALERT--MAN YOUR STATIONS--THIS IS NOT A DRILL

I wonder how I missed this. The few things this post says are nothing more than sitting on the fence.

Unvote: Rage
Vote: tubby216

[...]
AFAIK tubby and gorckat are the only ones not to have posted yet.

Chuckrock has made two posts. Puta has made two posts. Neither had much to contribute.

I don't see the point in this vote, either. Since tubby hadn't even posted at that point, this wasn't even a

lurker

hunt, rather an inactive-hunt. Which is an even more flawed premise than lurkerhunting. Coupled with the previous vote and retroactive justification, darkdude is getting scummier.

(note: Wow. That was only up to the end of page 2, and there's so much material so far. I wonder why this game's stalling, of all things.)

And then there's the first Shakespeare-quote.

The argument between Rage and me doesn't devulge much.

BTW, IGMEOY on everyone who jumped on Rage solely for using a quote from Wombat "out of context", since it was obvious he was misusing the phrase. I will look it up later to see who exactly those people are.

I think I will have something to say about this quote when Korts answers my "you think this is scummier than this" question above. For now, though, it seems like you're setting yourself up for a good attack on one of the player's voting for me if I flip Town, but I don't think anything for certain just yet.

This point earns a slight town point for Rage, especially considering I answered the "out of context" arguments ca. a page later.

I've watched a couple of games, but this is my first time playing and I didn't properly think through my first post. I'll hopefully get better as this thing goes along.

I don't want to condemn Rage for his reaction, he could have the towns best interests at heart. You were talking about me being scum, or a mason, or a scum neighbour (?) or whatever. Quite simply, I have no interaction or connection with any other players. I'm just an average townie, that's it.

Remember this, don't claim until asked to. That includes dropping hints like you just did. All it does is give scum more information to work with. Town, on the other hand, rarely benefits from it.

Seems like everyone but tubby has posted at least once. Wombat, who is your top suspect at the moment?

I don't see much point in calling Wombat out for that. This isn't particularly scummy, but bad play still.

ok first off the rage vs brian debactle,

i believe both are town atm rage was hunting and called brian on some questionable play, brian was trying to be helpful but stumbled of some newbitis ( don't worry happenes to me all the time) will re-read agian to catch up more to follow perhaps tomorow

Calling both of them town immediately in his first read of things smells like buddying up.

also don't like the "just an average townie" soft claim by BoW. He's certainly becoming more suspicious, but it's not quite enough for me to change my vote yet.

Okay, so you had to bring the "soft claim" up again. Why? What does it prove in terms of scumminess?

As of now in the reread, Macavity is leading my scumlist by far, with Tarballs a not-very-close second. I'll continue later, but I have other things to do.

[MacavityLock]

Can't respond to everything right now, due to time constraints, but UI did want to respond to this:

Rage, you brought Wombat to L-4 on the first page. I don't have too much of a problem with that. But asking for a role-claim, given that usually they're asked for at L-1 (or maybe L-2), given that Wombat is new to MS, and given that a page 1 bandwagon usually still includes random votes, adds up to you role-fishing.

Why is it that MacavityLock didn't raise this point until I did?

I brought this up before you did. Check posts 27 & 28 please.

[Ectomancer]

Does modkill end the day like policy lynch does?

Depends upon the mod and all the factors they have to consider. Something they wont do lightly.
But as I said, whether it is still day, or night, a player is dead. Just that one makes players commit to a position, the other is a plea to authority to do it for you.

[Brain of Wombat]

Prodding Brain of Wombat.

Ouch! Quit it.

I'm still here and still following the game, just got a bit lost in some of the theory being discussed here. So perhaps I should just ask, what is a policy lynch, and what does FOS mean?

[MacavityLock]

OK, to complete my post about this:

Yeah, Puta, you're going to have to explain those two posts. Like every word of them except maybe for "Vote."

Unvote Rage

. One of the best first posts I've seen. A+++. Would buy again.

Vote: Wombat

Ecto: Do you really want a massclaim, or are you looking for reactions? Because my reaction is NO!

Damn what a scummy post. First, clear buddying up to Rage, and then ruining Ecto's bait. Almost like saying "hey scumbuddies, don't fall for

that

trap".

Two things here: First the supposed buddying - It was early, I was having some fun. I'm not sure how to defend against the concept of "buddying," since my point at the time was that I agreed with his comments about Wombat. Also, while this is completely WIFOM, what would scum-me have to gain by buddying up to someone and then subsequently voting him in my next post?

As for Ecto's massclaim stuff - Is it a townie's job to specifically ignore his bait? Sorry, I'll remember that for next time.

[People who attacked Rage for the "out of context" comment even though the intended use was of a different meaning:

darkdude (first one to raise the point)
MacavityLock (why am I not surprised? opportunistic wagon hopping. plus his reasoning's way off, it's clear he was skimming and only read darkdude's accusation)

"Out of context" was not my main reason for the vote. Re-read my post 27. I voted because it was an unfair attack, and because he requested a claim on page 1.

Rage, you brought Wombat to L-4 on the first page. I don't have too much of a problem with that. But asking for a role-claim, given that usually they're asked for at L-1 (or maybe L-2), given that Wombat is new to MS, and given that a page 1 bandwagon usually still includes random votes, adds up to you role-fishing.

Why is it that MacavityLock didn't raise this point until I did?

For those too lazy to look up the sequence of events:

And you asked for a role claim on page 1.

I may venture as far as stating that his call for a roleclaim was a bigger fish than Wombat's call for massclaim.

Rage, you brought Wombat to L-4 on the first page. I don't have too much of a problem with that. But asking for a role-claim, given that usually they're asked for at L-1 (or maybe L-2), given that Wombat is new to MS, and given that a page 1 bandwagon usually still includes random votes, adds up to you role-fishing.

As for new stuff:

Just that one makes players commit to a position, the other is a plea to authority to do it for you.

My position is as follows - I don't think Puta is a good lynch at this point. However, he needs to start actually defending himself and actually scum-hunting. He is also at L-1, so it might be a good time for him to claim.

[darkdude]

I'm going to reread soon and try to see Kort's points. At the moment I'm not sure what to make of them, and the switch to MacavityLock as suspect. But I'm extremely busy right now, so unfortunately this will have to wait.

In case anyone wanted to know, I'm still supporting a Puta lynch today.

[ThAdmiral]

Yeah, Puta, you're going to have to explain those two posts. Like every word of them except maybe for "Vote."

Unvote Rage

. One of the best first posts I've seen. A+++. Would buy again.

Vote: Wombat

Ecto: Do you really want a massclaim, or are you looking for reactions? Because my reaction is NO!

Damn what a scummy post.

First, clear buddying up to Rage

, and then ruining Ecto's bait. Almost like saying "hey scumbuddies, don't fall for

that

trap".

I've never really thought of buddying as a good scum-tell. Am I underestimating it?

[Ectomancer]

He is also at L-1, so it might be a good time for him to claim.

I agree it is time for a Puta claim.

[Puta Puta]

My role is in my posts #21, 24 and 26. I give you until 4 hours later to find out what my role is. Otherwise, I will self-hammer. Make you choice town, let Puta live or let Puta die.

[Puta Puta]

Ecto, what is your opinion of ThAdmiral?
ThAdmiral, what is your opinion of Ecto?
gorckat, what is your opinion of me and Ecto?

One is a lie,
Another a cover,
And in only one is the truth not farther.
To find this one you must be sharp,
If you want it, you must decipher.

[MacavityLock]

My role is in my posts #21, 24 and 26. I give you until 4 hours later to find out what my role is. Otherwise, I will self-hammer. Make you choice town, let Puta live or let Puta die.

That's not a pro-town answer. Have fun self-hammering.

[Puta Puta]

My role is in my posts #21, 24 and 26. I give you until 4 hours later to find out what my role is. Otherwise, I will self-hammer. Make you choice town, let Puta live or let Puta die.

That's not a pro-town answer. Have fun self-hammering.

Outting a pro-town role is not pro-town.

[Puta Puta]

Also I'm totally lulzing at none of you wanting to hammer me for fear of being FoSed

[MacavityLock]

My role is in my posts #21, 24 and 26. I give you until 4 hours later to find out what my role is. Otherwise, I will self-hammer. Make you choice town, let Puta live or let Puta die.

That's not a pro-town answer. Have fun self-hammering.

Outting a pro-town role is not pro-town.

Outting yourself as a pro-town role when you're at L-1 is really your only choice. This is your opportunity to convince us not to get rid of you.