Mini 757 - South Park Mafia (Game Over)

[RestFermata]

/confirm

[RestFermata]

Vote: EsoMonty

for defaming the One True Religion. Hail Tom Cruise.

[RestFermata]

Hey, I'm really sorry for this. I will have very limited access on Thursday that will last for 10 days. I will probably be able to check the Internet every once in a while and post, but I'm not sure how often, so if it ends up that I need to be replaced this is a heads-up. I hope that I can remain somewhat active, but do what you have to do. I shouldn't have entered this game so close to my vacation time, I suppose, but I just wasn't thinking about the responsibility commitment when I did so--I was just thinking "Ooo, South Park, sign me up!" So if I don't post for too long, I guess I might need to be replaced because I will be out of the country for over a week.

[RestFermata]

dejkha wrote:
Not that I'm suggesting claiming your character is the right thing to do,

Did everyone purposely ignore that part of my post or is it just a coincidence that everyone missed it?

Actually, that makes it worse, because you're playing to both sides of the debate before the debate even starts. Looks like you're trying to leave it open for interpretation, which is pretty scummy because then you don't have to take responsibility for anything.

Unvote, Vote: dejkha

. I don't like double-speak. What is your position on name-claiming, dejkha? Tell us clearly, please.

Name-claiming most likely won't work, and might actually hurt the town. In South Park, just about every character has turned antagonist at least once, plus theme games in general just work better when scum have protections against NC, so we should probably assume that's the case here.

I don't think Empking is fishing at this point. If you have a PR (or perhaps plan to stick to a fake PR) it will become painfully obvious anyway as the game goes on. There's no pro-town reason for hiding it. I can't think of many pro-scum reasons to hide it either, except for one remote possibility which would probably get its user into more trouble than it's worth. I nevertheless agree that RBT should plainly admit to being post-restricted.

[RestFermata]

Yes, if you randomly said "I like buttsex," that would definitely make me think you secretly liked it and were trying too hard to deny it. To quote Shakespeare: "The lady doth protest too much." If you bring it up, you're at least giving it credence as a legitimate idea. And you didn't even say you "didn't like" it, you just refused to say that you DID like it, which is different.

[RestFermata]

I meant to type, "I don't like buttsex."

[RestFermata]

What if they put it like this:

"Would there be any harm in having butt sex? As far as I know, the effects of buttsex aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like soreness. Not that I'm suggesting buttsex is the right thing to do, but with that guy over there basically implying that he is regularly engaging in buttsex, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal..."

[RestFermata]

I'll be back for real on Monday, but if you can't wait that long I should probably be replaced. I'm just grabbing some paid-for wifi on a public computer so I have to spend it wisely, which means I don't have time to read the thread. I'm not trying to lurk or flake or anything, it's just that there isn't much free internet here out in the boonies of Costa Rica.

[RestFermata]

Hey, I'm back now. Will post later today.

[RestFermata]

It kind of looks like DDD wasn't reading, just looking for reasons to attack other players. Why trust someone else's second-hand information when you can go back and read? That tickles my scumdar.

I think the RBT lynch was unfortunate. Since I only read it in retrospect, already knowing that RBT was town, it's hard for me to get an objective view of it. I don't know whether I would have joined in the lynch or not--the deadline definitely made it more difficult--but I doubt he could have saved himself by claiming Weak MD, honestly. A more well-timed claim probably could have helped. I think that I agree with RBT's implied sentiment that the role proves more dead than it would alive, (as with the "we can prove Empking as scum" hint that caf found) so I kind of understand why he claimed vanilla. Otherwise scum could have used that knowledge to nullify any benefits that the role had. Like I said, I strongly disagree with the timing of RBT's claim, which made it impossible for him to believably "re-claim" even when pushed close to the lynch.

So a lot of the suspicion on RBT seems like it was legit. It's hard for me to pick out scum from the wagon. RBT really did act very strangely. The only person I'm really suspicious right now is DDD. I know he's a popular suspect right now, but beyond the fact that he somehow totally missed RBT's claim--which was a main reason for his initial suspicion, by the way--his posts are somehow strange. He did some quality fence-riding in his support of the RBT lynch, hopping on the wagon without really selling it. Some of his arguments were sound (though previously stated), but some of his logic bordered on "policy lynch" territory:

...if we assume her post restriction is authentic then her lynch would be helpful in at very least eliminating how the town is broken up between scum and town.

Since he didn't even seem to have known that RBT had already claimed vanilla, I could definitely also see this as a thinly veiled attempt to find out whether or not there is a connection between post restrictions and power roles. I don't know what "how the town is broken up between scum and town" even means. If he means character-wise, it really has little to do with post restrictions since even on D1 it would probably be safe to assume that a player's character will be revealed upon death. If he means whether scum might have a post restriction, I still don't see why it makes much difference, since anyone can fake a post restriction. And that's the core of the matter--why should we "assume" anyone's post restriction is "authentic" anyway? The only people who can really feel fairly confident that someone's post restriction is probably real would be scum. This strange comment may seem pretty minor, but it elicits a significant eyebrow raise from me.

I'm going to cast a third vote for DDD.

Vote: Debonair Danny diFranco

You could point out that my contribution has been negligible so far, but I was V/LA. There's really no excuse to replace in and not only miss the fact that RBT claimed vanilla, but also everyone else's comments on it, which were prominent throughout the rest of D1. Reading selectively is scummy, and it earns my vote.

[RestFermata]

You think I'm scummy just for saying the RBT lynch was unfortunate? Maybe if it was my only comment on it.

Perhaps fence-riding isn't the right word, but I was referring to this post:

23 and a half hours till deadline. While I'd like to hear from RBT again, we shouldn't press our luck too far and end up with a no lynch even if that means caf is the one who has to grit his teeth and place the hammer.

It almost seems like you're blaming his lynch on the deadline. It strikes me as "backing away from it" a little bit.

I believe that DDD honestly missed the roleclaim, caf. I think that's just as suspicious as ignoring it, because it suggests that he is selectively reading, as I stated before.

[RestFermata]

Hey, I've been having a really hard time at school lately. I know I haven't posted enough lately, but I will try to improve as soon as this nightmare ends.

[RestFermata]

I am sorry for this, but I have to replace out of this game. My life has become absolutely insane. I know that I have hurt this game with my inactivity, and I apologize to everyone, especially the mod, for biting off more than I can chew. I am trying to stay in the other game I'm in because I've been in it for longer and been more active in it, so I feel more connected to it, but this one has to go, and once again, I'm sorry.