Mini 747 Over.

[Shadow Knight]

/confirm

[Shadow Knight]

vote theinin

for lack of a better choice

[Shadow Knight]

1. Are you seriously claiming day cop?

2. Why would you come forward so soon?

I don't really think you are a day cop (hence, not voting for khelvaster) but don't you think there are other methods for starting conversation? Starting out with a claim like that if false is dangerous on the off chance that there really *is* a day cop out there. Not sure he/she'd be dumb enough to counter claim you, but its a risk that doesn't need to be taken.

/rant

FOS Panzer

[Shadow Knight]

Granted. And that's why I'm not voting him, but no matter how outlandish, a fake claim is not a good idea this early on.

[Shadow Knight]

I can't say that I'm comfortable with 4 votes on one person on page 2. Anyone want to back off of him for now?

@ xofelf- I don't think we're out of the random voting stage just yet, at least I haven't seen enough to build a real case on anyone yet. Have you?

[Shadow Knight]

It makes me uncomfortable because we're still random voting. I realize that we're going to end up bandwagonning someone, but there is usually some reason for it. I'm not happy about a flimsy bandwagon, but I'm downright leery of a bandwagon that consists entirely of random votes. At least a flimsy case he can argue against and then we can make observations based on what he and his accusers say. What's the defense against random votes? (Not sure I explained my thoughts well enough, but that's my basic thinking on it.)

[Shadow Knight]

As far as I can tell, the "getting there" process involves waiting for or getting someone to make a slightly scummy move and then trying to crucify them for it. Whether it turns into a lynch or not is mostly up to how good a defense the accused can muster.

[Shadow Knight]

ShadowKnight & Hoopla- Exactly why did you take a post that begins with the words "Alright, hmm, what will get the town talking" seriously?

I wasn't sure if I should take it seriously or not, actually. After all, I could say "wow, no one is talking. I own a Ferrari F-450." Now that is probably not true, but it *could* be true and it would indeed start conversation. For a mafia tie in, I can remember reading a game in which 3 people claimed to be cops on day 1. 2 were telling the truth. 1 was scum. It got conversation started, but it also got one of the claimed cops lynched that day. (I think Mastermind of Sin started that one.)

At the moment I'm not liking Panzer's erratic and outright crazy play, but I don't see it as particularly scummy. It feels like he's just making an attempt to start up conversation, and he has done so.

1. Are you seriously claiming day cop?

2. Why would you come forward so soon?

I don't really think you are a day cop (hence, not voting for khelvaster) but don't you think there are other methods for starting conversation? Starting out with a claim like that if false is dangerous on the off chance that there really *is* a day cop out there. Not sure he/she'd be dumb enough to counter claim you, but its a risk that doesn't need to be taken.

/rant

FOS Panzer

I already asked why you took Panzer's claim seriously, but why FOS him? Even if he was lying about the claim, it was rather clearly to stir up discussion, something a pro-town player is much more likely to do than a scummy one. And if it you found it scummy, or at least strange enough, to be worthy of an FOS, then why in the world would you not change your vote, when your vote for me was just a random placeholder?

I already said I wasn't sure if I should take it seriously or not. I wanted him to talk more so I could gauge whether he was joking or not. Because I wasn't sure, I simply FOS'd him. I was the only one voting you, so why bother unvoting until I actually want to vote someone for real? Why are you that worried about a single vote which I clearly stated was random? Why would I FOS *and* vote him? Perhaps I should have just used IGMEOY?

Granted. And that's why I'm not voting him, but no matter how outlandish, a fake claim is not a good idea this early on.

Here is the post that Shadow was responding to.

Starting out with a claim like that if false is dangerous on the off chance that there really *is* a day cop out there.

Chances are amazingly good that that's not an issue.

I concur with this, but why in the world is this justification for not voting him?

Wait, do you want me to vote him or not vote him? I feel like you're trying to play both ends against the middle here. I didn't vote him because what he did was odd, but not necessarily scummy. I FOS'd him because what he did was odd, but not necessarily town.

I can't say that I'm comfortable with 4 votes on one person on page 2. Anyone want to back off of him for now?

Why? It's not like anybody has presented a case on Zee that we're all blindly following, and there's no indication that a random lynch is going to occur. Besides, bandwagons are a great way to avoid the game from stalling, which is something that scum want from the onset.

Why am I not comfortable with someone being more than halfway to lynch without a case being made against them? Just personal feelings I guess. If someone gets that high in the vote count, I want to be able to see reasons for voting. Maybe its because a bandwagon is the opposite of random voting. (I.E. once a pattern emerges, its no longer random.) I keep feeling like you're stating the obvious (bandwagons keep the game from stalling). I never said I'm against bandwagons, I said I'm against random bandwagons. Please don't misrepresent what I'm saying in the future.

It makes me uncomfortable because we're still random voting. I realize that we're going to end up bandwagonning someone, but there is usually some reason for it. I'm not happy about a flimsy bandwagon, but I'm downright leery of a bandwagon that consists entirely of random votes.

If you're leery of us still random voting, then present a case against someone. Provide a good reason to hop onto the already-building bandwagon on me. It feels like you're complaining and providing nothing in return. Oh, in addition, if you are as scared about a wagon that consists of random votes as you claim, why are you still random-voting me, and not unvoting until something of substance emerges?

Again, please stop misrepresenting me. I *never* said I'm leery of random voting in general. I said I'm leery of a bandwagon based on nothing but random votes. In fact, I just got done telling Xofelf that we weren't out of the random voting stage, and that if she wanted to progress beyond it, she would have to post an actual case against someone. The amusing part is that in responding to your post, I've found the only scumtells to appear in the game thus far. For that, I'm gonna have to say

confirm vote Theinin

[Shadow Knight]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're gonna be great reasons or airtight cases on day one, but give me *something* I can look at later and go "ok, in light of what we learned on day 3, so-and-so's defense of whats-his-face is a pretty good indicator that he's townie." You know? bandwagonning to get a claim is just a way of outing power roles. at least make the scum fish for them or try harder instead of being able to post "me too" and a vote.

[Shadow Knight]

I'm not sure about the buddying up, but after a quick second look, his posts do seem kind of forced. The thing that jumped out at me, you already pointed out. There was no case against you, but he stated you were trying to deflect it? Its enough for me throw an

FOS nicolio

But I like my vote on theinin for now.

[Shadow Knight]

EBWODP: sorry, nicolio is a girl. my bad.

[Shadow Knight]

I'm not sure about the buddying up, but after a quick second look, his posts do seem kind of forced.

Ellaborate on forced?

Just a vibe I'm getting that you're trying too hard to appear townie.

[Shadow Knight]

*banging head on desk*

I am not against random votes. I am against a bandwagon made entirely of random votes. Reason being that it gives everyone an easy answer as to why they're voting as they are. "*shrug* it was random" Even if you're going to vote someone and say "nothing concrete, just a bad vibe" that's a *reason*. Its a bad reason, and I'll probably ask you to try and be specific about what gives you the bad vibe, but its something that we can discuss.

Yes, once someone gets over halfway to lynch, I would like for the people who cited "random" as their reason for voting to unvote or give a reason why they're keeping their vote where it is. Even I said previously, that I was only keeping my vote on you because you were in no danger of a lynch. Then later, when I felt I had a case (whether it was good, bad, airtight, or paper thin) I posted my thoughts and confirmed the vote.

Then you post a "defense" which essentially just attacks me using crap logic and more misrepresentation. You post two quotes that I still stand by and attempt to use them against me. Both quotes mean the same thing. I am leery of bandwagons comprised entirely of reasonless votes. The don't provide the town with anything except a claim, which benefits scum more than us. Bandwagons are only worth the possible outing of a power role if you can then use the voting record and reasons for voting to deduce who wanted the claim for good reasons and who wanted it for bad reasons.

The crap logic comes in where you try and accuse me of wanting the game to stall, when the very thing I'm pushing for (giving actual reasons for votes) would promote discussion and give us something concrete to work with. This was blatant misrep and crap logic on your part, two HUGE scumtells as far as I'm concerned.

[Shadow Knight]

Why are you uncomfortable with what are essentially random votes, even if there are four of them? I think we're sensible enough not to mislynch randomly.

It makes me uncomfortable because we're still random voting. I realize that we're going to end up bandwagonning someone, but there is usually some reason for it. I'm not happy about a flimsy bandwagon, but I'm downright leery of a bandwagon that consists entirely of random votes. At least a flimsy case he can argue against and then we can make observations based on what he and his accusers say. What's the defense against random votes? (Not sure I explained my thoughts well enough, but that's my basic thinking on it.)

This is my entire post regarding that question. My entire point was that I didn't like the bandwagon because it was based entirely on random votes and I explained why. Nowhere in there did I say I was against bandwagons in general. So yeah, I'd say he was spin doctoring my words, or at least taking them severly out of context.

[Shadow Knight]

OK, back after my weekend.

1- Yes, please stop referring to me as SK. Shadow, Knight, even Shad would be preferrable.

2- I don't think I'm going to be able to make you understand my thought process on random votes and random vote bandwagons. Aside from the fact that you (theinin) said we'd discuss a bandwagon made of random votes at the time it forms, and as far as I was concerned, it had formed and I was discussing it, there really isn't any way to reconcile our differences of opinion on the subject.

3- after re-reading my own posts again, I guess I can see how someone *might* read them in a way inconsistent with what I was trying to get across. I still feel like its stretching to misunderstand what I was saying, but apparently you're not the only person who read it that way.

4- I personally feel that a day one lynch should be the scummiest player. (Hence my wanting reasons for votes, but I'll stop beating that horse.)

[Shadow Knight]

@ Zeenon- I really don't like that post. First of all, we're not here for your personal entertainment. Second of all, you're posting about her having outside info in game *after* kmd has already pointed out that she doesn't. Either you're not reading, not paying attention, or not town. Which is it?

[Shadow Knight]

Still here and reading along. Don't really have anything to add at the moment. Will reread over the weekend and post something Monday.

[Shadow Knight]

I gotta agree. Taking on the weakest players and lurkers is definitely a scum tactic. I know I've managed to get a few people lynched as scum, simply from hunting lurkers. For that reason, more than any other,

unvote, vote Hoopla

[Shadow Knight]

@Hoopla- its not that I have a standard list of "things scum do". Its more that I don't have a lot to go on here. Normally, I look for things that strike me as odd (for whatever reason), at that point, I do an in depth read focused on that player and how they interact with others. I'm not clearing myself with an anti-lurkerhunting statement and I know that. I am merely using my previous experience as a tool for finding scum. My logic is that if I've pulled it off as scum, then other scum can pull it off. I disagree about pressuring weaker players. Both when I was a weaker player and watching other newer or weaker players, both tend to melt down under pressure whether they are scum or not. A frantic townie trying to prove his/her townieness tends to sound a lot like a frantic scum trying to prove his townieness.

@EA- Are you seriously telling me that you've never been town and gotten talked into lynching a lurker? If so, I guess I have to give you props, but I know I've been on both sides of that one. I have been both scum trying to get a lurker lynched and town being duped into lynching a lurker.

[Shadow Knight]

I am an old player but haven't played in a year or two.

I am not saying that we shouldn't push lurkers to contribute, but more that we shouldn't just immediately vote them and fling an accusation at them. Personally, I like to ask questions of lurkers and at least give them a chance to speak before defending themselves. The reason I'm not a fan of attacking weaker players is a simple matter of probability. A weaker player has a higher probability of panicking when pressed whether they are town or not. Since most games start out with 60-70% of us being town, we're more likely to lynch a newbie as town than as scum.

I'm not asking you guys to agree with my logic, but its how I feel and how I play. In short, if you want a body count, go the Dirty Harry route of investigation; if you want to catch scum, go the Colombo route.

Again, in the context of my post, you should read "taking on" as "attempting to lynch". I have no issues whatsoever with trying to get them involved or asking them to explain themselves. Now, once they've been given enough rope, weaker players generally hang themselves if scum because they eventually slip. This tactic works for lurking scum as well because generally, there is a reason they are lurking, be it because they play scum badly or because the more they say now, the more likely they are to be caught in a lie later.

[Shadow Knight]

Truth be told, a weaker player is going to slip up eventually without pressure. However, the more a stronger player says earlier on, the easier it is to catch him in a lie later. In answer to your question of who is more likely to be caught as scum newer or experienced players? Obviously newer players are more likely to be caught sooner, but who is to say that *any* of the newer players here are scum? We could have a scum group consisting of the 3-4 most experienced players here. Most hosts, hand out roles randomly I think.

[Shadow Knight]

@EA- Are you seriously telling me that you've never been town and gotten talked into lynching a lurker? If so, I guess I have to give you props, but I know I've been on both sides of that one. I have been both scum trying to get a lurker lynched and town being duped into lynching a lurker.

Yes, I've been talked into lynching lurkers. (I haven't been talked out of lynching lurkers yet, incidentally. That means you Cephrir.) But, if town can be talked into lynching lurkers, that must mean there is logic that can convince a townie to vote off lurkers. Why can't the player leading the way be a townie guided by this logic?

Not saying he can't be. I'm saying he shouldn't be. Town is here to hunt scum, not lurkers. While the two groups are not always mutually exclusive, neither are they always synonymous.

[Shadow Knight]

Actually, I just haven't had much to say. Is there something in particular you'd like me to address?

[Shadow Knight]

for the love of God, he meant *quite*, not quiet. Its a typo.

[Shadow Knight]

@Sens- I've been reading along. If I had a reaction to something, I would have said so at that time. With that being said...

You know, after that last post from EA, I'm gonna have to

unvote, vote EA

I refuse to believe that you *could* misread what I wrote so badly. I never said not to press lurkers to talk, I said they shouldn't be hunted and voted out. Even if you weren't blatantly misrepresenting what I just said, I'd be voting you for the rest of that post.

[Shadow Knight]

I gotta say I also recognized the name sensfan and I don't recall him being a bad player at all. With that being said, I don't see how an assertion of a player's skill can/should be used against them, nor do I see why that assertion is worthy of a vote (or unvote if its good for that matter). I mean would you *not* vote for Hoopla if she started kissing your butt sens? Now, with *that* being said, if you want to form a cohesive case against Hoopla citing how she is acting scummy, I wouldn't mind reading it.

[Shadow Knight]

Still having trouble with internet connection. Will catch up asap.

[Shadow Knight]

Network connection is finally back up in time for me to clock out. Will try and catch up tomorrow in all my games. Sorry for the inconvenience...

[Shadow Knight]

Connection seems to be holding today. Sorry for my absence. On the catchup my thoughts are as follows.

The panzer vs. charter argument did seem a little forced/prepped, but not necessarily a fight between two scum. Not sure why sens voted for charter though. Of the two, panzer seems scummier, but I have to conceed that it could just be his playstyle that is rubbing me wrong.

[Shadow Knight]

Please explain. In reading it, my first thoughts were that Panzer was behaving oddly. I would have been surprised if no one had called him on it.

[Shadow Knight]

@ panzer- you are correct, odd play =/= scummy, and I'm not sure that the scum vibes I'm getting from you aren't just me reacting to your playstyle, hence me not voting you.

Just for giggles, can everyone post a list of who they would pick as the scum group with a little blurb of why they chose each person in it. Please note, I'm not looking for airtight cases, but more hoping someone caught something I missed and this might bring it to my attention.

[Shadow Knight]

Any reason why not?

[Shadow Knight]

Ok, I stand corrected, although it seems like everyone had someone they were ready to tag as scum yesterday and it wasn't considered scummy to speak up. I guess I was just looking for more of that but in an organized form. Thinking about it, yeah, I can see how giving a list as opposed to one person would give scum too much info.

SHadow's attempt just makes him look bad.

I don't know if I like the wording of this. Makes it sound like my attempt to start discussion makes me look bad, not the idea I proposed. While I can agree now that my idea would give too much info to scum, only scum would think discussion is bad, and this seems like a scum freudian slip. I could be overreacting, but between that and his "me too" posting of late, geraintm is certainly worthy of a

vote geraintm

[Shadow Knight]

@ZazieR- 1- I realized that most players had already stated at some point who they suspect. I was asking for it in a more condensed, organized form for several reasons, not the least of which being that I could then see if anyone had changed their mind from their previous suspicions and why as well as being able to look for inconsistencies which would give me a better idea of who else to focus on. 2- At the time I posted the idea, I had nothing more than gut to go on, and I would have participated had someone else said anything. I wasn't going to go last, but I certainly wasn't going to go first either. 3- I mentioned the charter-panzer discussion because it struck me as odd and that was what stuck in my mind after my catch-up reading. I specifically stated that I found panzer to be the scummier of the two, and also stated why I wasn't going to vote him for it. 4- I voted Ger not just for "me too"ing his way through the game thus far, but for his freudian slip as well. I understand that some players won't post until they have an idea that no one else has said yet and other players will post even if they're just agreeing with others to show that they are reading along. Depending on the context, either (or both) have struck me as scummy in the past, but by itself, I wouldn't vote someone for it. But at this moment in time, the only piece of real evidence I have is ger's slip. Until a better case is made against someone else, I feel comfortable parking my vote there.

@charter- so you went from a reasoned vote to a vote on me "to spice things up"?

[Shadow Knight]

Post coming tomorrow.

Well?

[Shadow Knight]

This sounds weird because I'm basically telling you to make a case on me, but my thinking is that a- its not OMGUS if you actually present a case against me; and b- you seem awfully preoccupied with appearing townie and only scum worries about that.

[Shadow Knight]

You know, I'm tempted to vote him myself simply due to his apparent inability to get in here and post something, although he has posted 15 times since his last post here in other threads (9 posts in another game in Little Italy alone). He's also had time for a re-read in a New York game.

FOS cephrir

May turn into a vote if he doesn't get in here and defend himself in the next 24 hours.

[Shadow Knight]

Actually, it was *in* one of the posts you made "after reread..."

[Shadow Knight]

@gerain- are you actually *reading* my posts? If you're going to misrepresent me, I may as well park my vote on you till you hang yourself. I FOS'd ceph for not posting for DAYS after promising content. Read that again, since I know you're probably skimming this post too. I FOS'd him, not VOTED him. I was not on his bandwagon(?- 2 votes =/= bandwagon, btw) I was planning to push him for content before Shan voted him and in all honesty, I find it amusing that within hours of Shan's vote and minutes of my FOS, ceph suddenly shows up and posts something (still not sure I can call it true content, as the whole thing is a defense of Shan's post, which means that from the time of his promise post till then, he did absolutely nothing for this game). That makes me feel like he was planning to continue lurking, which puts him neck in neck with you for scum vibes.

@ceph- read those last two sentences for gerain. If I decide to vote you, its not because you were lurking, its because you promised content, had time to post in your other games, and when you came back, failed to deliver a post that was anything beyond a defense of an attack that had happend a few hours before your post. Granted, it wasn't much of an attack, but then again, it wasn't much of a defense either. I can understand lurking if you're having RL problems, or lack of time, etc (I had intermittant internet connection for a week and my games suffered, but I came back in all of them and started posting again, asap). What I'd like to see from you is some content that is not defense. A PBPA, A vote analysis, something.

[Shadow Knight]

How pathetic would it be if all the scum were just lurking letting us tear eachother apart? We really need more content from a lot of people (me included I suppose). I'll try to get some reading done this weekend and come up with something Monday.

[Shadow Knight]

I agree that there is nothing wrong with posting in rainbow. Seriously. It takes more time to post repeatedly bitching about it than it does to just highlight it.

@Everyone- is this typical of sens or do we need to send a wooden probe extraction team to Ottowa?

@sens- dude. relax. its a game. she was trying to have fun. breathe. I don't like italics. This doesn't mean that anyone who posts in italics is going to get policy lynched by me. Its a stupid reason to vote anyone and it makes *you* anti-town more than her.

[Shadow Knight]

I'm not sure if you're *trying* to be a distraction or what, but you are in fact distracting those of us who wish to scum hunt from doing so. Continuing to do so will result in a vote from me.

[Shadow Knight]

@Shanba- what are your thoughts regarding Cephrir in light of his recent posts? (Aside from the post above.)

[Shadow Knight]

That's not cool. The self pity just makes me want to vote you.

[Shadow Knight]

@Hoopla- Let the accused defend themselves, unless you *know* his alignment...

@Shanba- yeah, you're following the same line of thinking I was.

@Cephrir- If you had come back with a halfway decent scumhunting post, I'd have left you alone, but the whole "here is some random junk I should have posted earlier but couldn't be bothered to until it was no longer really relevant and I've had a chance to see what everyone else said first so I can make my thoughts unobtrusive" post just didn't satisfy my desire for content from you.

unvote, vote Cephrir
FOS- Hoopla

[Shadow Knight]

@Hoopla- Let the accused defend themselves, unless you *know* his alignment...

This statement is presented in a way that makes it seem like you can only attack people, rather than defend them. I don't necessarily think Cephrir is town, but I think the way he was courted for his non-contribution was very trap-like.

And if it were me that felt that way, I would give him a chance to defend himself and should I think it was scummy, I would make it a part of a case built against Shanba. After all, the game is about lynching scum, not protecting townies. Its a thin line to be sure, but its an important one.

[Shadow Knight]

But we don't win by confirming townies. We win by eliminating the scum. I've never played with the intention of confirming townies. True, some townies usually get confirmed by accident, but its only after they have drawn attention to themselves by acting scummy, no?

[Shadow Knight]

Sorry dude, I understand we all have RL stuff that comes up, but even though I had limited access for a week or so, I was able to come back and start posting again. I'd like to see that from you as opposed to getting replaced, because then I just have to reset my scumdar for a new player.

[Shadow Knight]

I find cephrir just a bit scummier than germaintm, but I could go either way.

[Shadow Knight]

Stupid question- can we get a prod on ZazieR?

Yes

[Shadow Knight]

Well, the last post by geraintm looks like he's trying to drag someone else into the spotlight, but at the same time, its coming up on deadline and Cephrir isn't even voting. That screams scum trying to let a townie take the ax while not taking part in the lynch. After all, if someone is lynched with only 2 votes on them, there isn't a whole lot we can glean from the vote record. I'm good with a lynch on either of them, but I wish we had a vig so we could nail the other in the night.

[Shadow Knight]

Damn, now that I look back, I didn't even realize that Cephrir is the one who first mentioned zazie's absence, not geraintm. That kinda seals it for me.

confirm vote: Cephrir

[Shadow Knight]

@Poro & Hoopla- if I'm alive tomorrow, I look forward to defending myself in yet another game. *sigh*

[Shadow Knight]

I'll agree with a massclaim.

[Shadow Knight]

I'd say random to start then that person just pick someone or plain random.

Use the order the mod put our names in and roll a 7 sided die if that's an option. Whoever's name comes up claims. Then we either do it again with a 6 sided die or let whoever went first pick the next person.

[Shadow Knight]

Has ZazieR even posted since dawn? If not, can we get a prod on her?

[Shadow Knight]

geraintm is up next.

[Shadow Knight]

I'm here. I'm a townie.

[Shadow Knight]

what's wrong with his claim?

[Shadow Knight]

EBWODP- Oh. Well yeah, I suppose that isn't good, but I had to actually check my PM again before claiming otherwise I might have written vanilla too.

[Shadow Knight]

I don't like the idea of using semantics for a wagon on panzer. Especially when I nearly said vanilla myself as I've been thinking of myself as vanilla townie all game. Between that and the exchange Cephrir and Zazie yesterday, and her general behavior all game, I'm more inclined to think that Zazie is the right lynch for today. I was on the fence between Panzer and Zazie, but I have to go with my gut on this and I'll probably vote Zazie.

[Shadow Knight]

@Hoopla- I didn't think there was really any debate about charter's claim. I currently consider him the most confirmed of all of us.

@Panzer- I don't think Hoopla and Zazie are scum together, although I do buy a geraintm and zazie team.

@charter- I'm sorry you think that. I can't speak for Panzer (and certainly not geraintm), but you're wrong on my count.

[Shadow Knight]

Wait, are you saying it *is* in yours?

[Shadow Knight]

@ Hoopla- It kinda bothers me actually. It feels like you're basing zazie's alignment on panzer's, which is bad because one being scum doesn't mean the other is town or vice versa. I really didn't like the interaction between her and Cephrir yesterday, which you were around for (and called her scum on IIRC). So going from that to calling her town kind struck a bad chord with me.

In regards to panzer, I guess you can call it defending him, but I have a hard time voting for someone based on something I almost did. To me, the terms vanilla, townie, villager, etc are all synonymous and interchangeable. To wait till we were all done claiming and *then* attack panzer based on the wording of his claim seems wrong. If it was that important, why didn't anyone ask for clarification before the next person claimed? A simple "Panzer, does you PM actually say vanilla or something else?" and if he got the answer wrong, I'd have been the first one to vote him.

The problem I have right now is that we're at lylo and the only one of you I think is town is charter with Shanba coming in second. That makes the people I'd be willing to lynch Zazie, Geraintm, and Panzer/Hoopla (in that order).

[Shadow Knight]

In the early pages, xofelf said she though panzer was "powerless and vanilla" too lazy to quote but I can if I have to. Someone else mentioned that it was kind of weird that she called him vanilla. Then, in one of your first posts you asked why someone thought it was odd that she called him vanilla. You also came in with a summary/highlight post that basically said 4-5 people were scummy for various reasons. You've pointed at Khelv, Geraintm, Nicolio, Panzer, me and Cephrir at one point or another. Seems like only people who agree with her are town. I'll admit I think you're a better player than xofelf, but I also think that's the only reason you're still alive. In looking at BOTH xofelf and you, I think you're the right play.

[Shadow Knight]

Day 1, you weren't you. You were xofelf and I was a bit involved in a discussion with theinin. I thought your discussion with Cephrir was self explanatory and didn't realize you wanted me to comment on that as well. I'll go look for the quote.

[Shadow Knight]

I don't know exactly what Panzy is planning but i just can't see that it's helping anybody at all. But I've been doing some thinking and i don't think he's covering by claiming day cop as scum, but that he's really totally

powerless and is vanilla

. I don't think he's playing the best TOWN he can, but i was looking over some of his past games and this seems to be the case. so for now, Unvote PanzyPants

If something else jumps out at me when it's not midnight, i'll let you know tomorrow.

Bolding is by me. That struck me as weird when I first read it, but dismissed it as her posting late at night and using awkward wording. It didn't make sense till I went back and re-read it. Why go to the trouble of saying powerless *and* vanilla? They mean the same thing in mafia. And now, to have zazie jumping on panzer's case for using "vanilla" is just... wrong.

vote ZazieR

[Shadow Knight]

Dude, how many people are you going to make that statement about? Here is a list of everyone (I might have missed one) that you have said/indicated are scum this game:

Khelv
Me
Panzer
Hoopla
Sens
Geraintm

So half the town is scum? Lets check your accuracy. Khelv was def scum. Whoops. Sens was so scum you took it upon yourself to kill him. Whoops again. Early game, you actually said you'd be ok with a Hoopla lynch instead of a Khelv lynch, but now she's ok (I can assume you investigated her and got innocent). I don't want to lose this game because you're *sure* someone else is scum and are wrong yet again. I'm voting for the player I think is scum. If that makes me scum then go ahead and vote me. You haven't proven to me that panzer is scum. Unorthodox definitely.

[Shadow Knight]

No, I'm saying you've been consistently wrong about who to trust this game and now you're applying it to me which is going to make us lose.

[Shadow Knight]

672 was @ Charter.

@Zazie when I said "your general behavior all game" I'm including xofelf in with that as you're both the same role. She started out badly and then you at least managed to not get lynched. Then you taunt Cephrir at the end of yesterday. My disagreement with theinin was going on when xofelf made her post that I quoted above, so I didn't catch it at first. When you came in and made your summary posts, I read them and jotted down a couple of notes, but figured I would give you a chance to talk a bit. Then Cephrir caught my eye and I forgot about you. My attack on you has nothing to do with Panzer and everything to do with not wanting to mislynch. I think you are a better bet than Panzer as scum and as such, I'm voting you. The fact that the scum haven't quicklynched you yet is just making me more sure that your buddies are holding out hope that no one will listen to me.

[Shadow Knight]

@Zazie- I'll 2 for 1 this- What question of yours haven't I answered? And how does that prove Panzer is scum??

[Shadow Knight]

Just explain how the addition to the first post proves Panzer is scum and I'll vote him. I don't mind holding you over till tomorrow if you can prove to me that we're not mislynching today.

[Shadow Knight]

Hoopla is already voting him, but I can see geraintm as scum.

unvote, vote Panzer

[Shadow Knight]

Nope. I'm going with my supposition that charter is town and already investigated Hoopla, which means that two townies are voting him. If he was town, the scum would already have piled on. I view *your* vote as busing/distancing, but yeah, i can see a scum group of you, panzer, and geraintm.

[Shadow Knight]

I've said before, I think the remaining scum are Zazie and geraintm.

[Shadow Knight]

So you think he was actually telling the truth about either Hoopla or Shanba? I don't buy it.

[Shadow Knight]

Let me clarify- I think that charter investigated Hoopla and got an innocent, and if Shanba is scum then he deserves the win because I've gotten nothing but townie vibes from him.

[Shadow Knight]

All right, before anyone votes me, I'm going to come clean. I was hoping to wait till we had one more scum caught, but here it is. I lied about my ability. I'm the town doc.

[Shadow Knight]

OMG. Are you serious?? My thinking was simple. There had been only 1 kill per night 2 nights and charter was claiming the 2nd night kill the other night. That made me confident he was telling the truth, meaning he could protect himself just as he said he would. I said what I said about the claim because I really did almost claim vanilla instead of townie. It would have been a lie either way, but the point was still valid and I really didn't think he was scum at first.

My night choices were as follows:
Night 1- SensFan
Night 2- Shanba
Night 3- Hoopla

And are you forgetting we also had a town paranoid cop? Charter's death proves the scum have a roleblocker. I didn't want to claim today hoping I could protect you tonight and we could lynch the last scum tomorrow. My only hope is that whoever we lynch today is the roleblocker.

[Shadow Knight]

On a side note, why do you think I've been acting moderately scummy all freaking game?? If I remained a possible lynch target, the scum would leave me alone. I chose the players I thought were towniest every night to protect.

I was also hoping to draw zazie in with the vanilla/townie discussion. I still think that the mistake xofelf made day 1 is damning evidence against zazie.

[Shadow Knight]

I don't think charter gambited here. He did use a vig shot on Sens. I'm almost sure he used an investigation on you. That left a roleblock and a doc protect. I'm sure he would have protected himself last night thinking he could use the roleblock tonight with only one scum left.

I was a plausible lynch target yes, but I didn't think that scum had a roleblocker till right before I claimed. I realized it didn't matter much. If we mislynch we lose. I was hoping I could make you see reason on zazie. If we can lynch her, then we go to night with me, you, geraintm, and shan. I'll probably be killed as I can't self protect and I'll protect you. That leaves you to figure out who the other scum is.

[Shadow Knight]

I chose Sens night 1 because he just replaced in and I recalled that he is a good analyst.

I chose Shanba night 2 because he seemed most townie to me.

I chose Hoopla on night 3 because I figured that charter got an innocent on her and he claimed he was going to self protect. Since the scum didn't know about me, I was hoping to stop the night kill.

[Shadow Knight]

The fact that they replaced people I was suspicious of says a lot, actually. Sens and Shanba both made me question what I thought about who they replaced. Hence getting my protection.

And seriously, zazie? You honestly thought Hoopla meant to claim scum in this game? When she's basically the only confirmed townie?

@Geraintm- it makes perfect sense. If there is only one scum left, then we could lynch them for the win. Two scum left puts us where we are now. We lynch zazie-scum, pray that she is the roleblocker, and then I protect Hoopla and take the scum bullet tonight, leaving her to choose the winner tomorrow. The alternative is that zazie isn't the roleblocker which means the scum will probably kill Hoopla leaving me, you, and Shanba alive tomorrow and since you seem to think that I'm scum, then Shanba decides the winner. Are you forgetting? charter was a fully claimed townie JOAT. He was the only claimed power role, he had no reason to think there was a roleblocker, he said he had an innocent investigation which he didn't divulge to us (meaning he was reasonably sure he'd make it through the night), and he had already used a vig kill. That meant he had his roleblock and his doc protect left last night. Putting myself in his shoes, I would have self protected to make sure sure I could try to use the roleblock to find the last scum.

[Shadow Knight]

Sens is a good analyst who came in and made a post that struck me as very townie. His summary posts came across like he was actively scum hunting. I'm not saying I agree with everything he said in them, but on night one, it was enough to make me want to keep him for the next day. Good analysts can be death to scum when they replace in, because they are looking everything over and seeing it in a different light.

And no, I didn't understand what you were getting at. Please explain what you were attempting to accomplish.

[Shadow Knight]

@Zazie- care to explain what you meant while we wait for Shanba?

[Shadow Knight]

As I've said before, I can buy a panzer/zazie/geraintm scum team.

[Shadow Knight]

I'm going to go ahead and start this.

vote geraintm

[Shadow Knight]

If geraintm isn't the right lynch then zazie is.

unvote, vote ZazieR

[Shadow Knight]

I have stated MULTIPLE TIMES that I think the scum team left is geraintm and zazie. I'm good with a lynch on either.

[Shadow Knight]

I'm not really that interested in looking less scummy, just in lynching scum.

I know I'm town.
Shanba has looked protown to me the whole game.
I was wobbly on Hoopla, but I think charter investigated her and got town.

Who does that leave?

You and zazie. You've been making odd posts all game and zazie's replacee xofelf slipped up in the early game and made the same mistake that panzer did by calling him vanilla, NOT townie. My only hope is that whichever of you we lynch, is the roleblocker, so the other *has* to kill me in the night to be sure the kill goes through. That will leave one scum, Hoopla, and Shanba. It should be easy for them to win this game at that point.

[Shadow Knight]

What else do you want me to say?

unvote, vote Shadow Knight

[Shadow Knight]

Wow, I thought for sure we were dead. Thank you to geraintm for keeping it together even through my impromptu idea of confusion. I knew shanba was on board with me being town and I really *did* think that charter investigated hoopla, so I had to attack zazie. I wasn't expecting hoopla to get zazie's back so strongly though.

Gerain did an excellent job bringing it home. Mafia MVP all the way.

[Shadow Knight]

For my part, I figured the doc claim was the only thing that could possibly save me. I figured I was dead regardless, so I might was well give it a last ditch effort and when that failed, I would at least deny the town the ability to analyze my wagon.

[Shadow Knight]

@ sens, actually panzer saved you one night because you were helping us.

[Shadow Knight]

I wouldn't beat yourself up over it. I don't think there was anyone who played extremely well early game, as EVERYONE looked scummy at one point or another.