Lynch All Lurkers Mafia! GAME OVER

[Xylthixlm]

Stephoscope: Fine. I'll drop the issue as soon as you agree to two things:

1) You will be lynched immediately if MafiaSSK claims to not be your mason partner.
2) You will be lynched immediately if MafiaSSK dies and comes up scum.

Fair enough? They're both things you've already claimed, implicitly or explicitly; I just want you to agree with the consequences.

[roflcopter]

Stephoscope: Fine. I'll drop the issue as soon as you agree to two things:

1) You will be lynched immediately if MafiaSSK claims to not be your mason partner.
2) You will be lynched immediately if MafiaSSK dies and comes up scum.

Fair enough? They're both things you've already claimed, implicitly or explicitly; I just want you to agree with the consequences.

thats not something she has to agree to - thats just something that will happen

you are again ignoring the larger movements of the game to focus on policy points.

[Xylthixlm]

roflcopter, one thing at a time. And I love policy points.

[Stephoscope]

You can't just claim mason and just expect your claim to not be met with any questions. Your "partner" has to confirm it.

Well, duh.

[roflcopter]

roflcopter, one thing at a time. And I love policy points.

taking it one thing at a time when everything else is moving so fast around you really looks a lot like "ignoring almost everything"

[image]

Wow, lot's of posts in the last 18 hours... reading to catch up, then will posts thoughts.

[Zorblag]

The claims, with the exception of Stephoscope and MafiaSSK, need to stop now; at this stage in the game them serve to confuse town or help the scum decide who be worth killing during the night. We probably have enough in the way of connections to work with to get a win regardless of who we kill this day but that no makes it acceptable not to do everything we can to limit the scum's ability to hurt us.

Troll does agree with Xylthixlm's latest stance that Stephoscope should complete his claim. Further, when MafiaSSK shows up next him should collaborate or deny it. Now that the uncertainty of the partial claim be introduced the town can react best to it if them have full information. The scum be much better able to use partial information in conjunction with their knowledge of who the scum team be.

Troll will now take a careful look at what has happened and see what Troll's reaction be. As a question unrelated to what anyone be talking about for those who be familiar with Yosarian2's modding, does him have any precedence of putting cults in games? Troll no be trying to outguess the mod here but it would be helpful to know if him be on record as one who opposed cults in general or if him thinks that them be fair game just to get a baseline for the potential.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[Ether]

5 populartajo (roflcopter, image, q21, elvis_knits, Stephoscope)
2 MafiaSSK (Zorblag, ortolan)
2 Malyss (Xtoxm, Xylthixlm)
1 DrippingGoofball(Empking)

7 Unvote (antihero, BrianMcQueso, DrippingGoofball, MafiaSSK, Malyss, populartajo, wolfcrier)

17 alive; 9 to lynch.

[roflcopter]

re troll: cult seems beyond unlikely

[Xylthixlm]

Ideally, cult recruitement should only succeed at most every other night, in a normal game, in order to maintain balance (that is, if the town lynches cult every day, they at least aren't losing ground that way), or even less then that if the cult also has some kind of killing ability. There are multiple ways to do this.

And every-night-cult-recruiter is very, very hard to balance.

[DrippingGoofball]

Why I don't think BMQ is scum:

THIS POST

No scum in his right mind would post a HARD defense of zwet, the way BMQ did. Ever. That would be insane.

There is no reason for BMQ to tie his wagon to zwet's falling star. He would lose all credibility, zwet is not really salvageable even with solid arguments, and as a scum buddy, he's probably quite unnerving, and best if eliminated early.

More to the point, a good and clever scum would bus zwet, and bus him hard. Or stay in the sidelines.

Banking on the resulting town cred, the bus driver could probably get players to mislynch a good half dozen townies before being stopped in his tracks.

roflcopter has done the complete opposite of what the wisdom of myself, who has been scum with unequal success in countless games, would dictate. Personally, rather than looking through players that defended zwet, I'd look for players that bus'ed, and players that didn't know how to handle the situation.

BMQ was the most direct zwet defender. That's why I really don't think he's scum.

[Xylthixlm]

DGB, stop smoking the WIFOM. That stuff is unhealthy.

[Xtoxm]

Anything behavioral is ultimately wifom.

[roflcopter]

dgb, do you really think that bmq's zwet defense was so direct? it was all "this wagon is illegitimate" not "zwet is like totally town," and it ended with a "vote rofl for pushing this wagon"

its like, classic chainsaw defense

[DrippingGoofball]

DGB, stop smoking the WIFOM. That stuff is unhealthy.

I'm sorry, but I don't give a rat's tutu about WIFOM.

Shouting "WIFOM" is a great way to shut people up, stiffle discussion, and ignore their ideas with the simple act of typing 5 letters.

You may think it's WIFOM. I believe what I'm saying.

[Xylthixlm]

Anything behavioral is ultimately wifom.

I get this itch on the back of my neck whenever someone makes a "too scummy to be scum" argument like the one DGB just made.

[DrippingGoofball]

dgb, do you really think that bmq's zwet defense was so direct? it was all "this wagon is illegitimate" not "zwet is like totally town," and it ended with a "vote rofl for pushing this wagon"

its like, classic chainsaw defense

"Chainsaw defense" is a wikitell, which, like "WIFOM," is another "rule" that replaces judgment.

Or course,

part of his defense of zwet was to suspect zwet's attacker, you, in this instance.

Furthermore, if you look at his post, it's the same as saying that the wagon was illegitimate. He named everyone on it and dismissed their arguments.

That's the

last

thing I'd do as zwet's buddy.

[Stephoscope]

Not only do I think DGB is slightly (like 99% compared to 98%) more likely to be scum than populartajo, Xtomx et al...but on the off chance we should be listening to what she has to say, we might as well find out sooner rather than later.

Unvote

Vote: DrippingGoofball

[DrippingGoofball]

I get this itch on the back of my neck whenever someone makes a "too scummy to be scum" argument like the one DGB just made.

Oooo... reading comprehension issues?

It wasn't "too scummy to be scum" - it wasn't scummy at all.

Far more scummy is for a player to sit in neutral waiting for the zwet wagon to play itself out, or to bus, plain and simple.

I'd never stick my neck out to protect zwet if he were my buddy. Yeah, yeah, call it WIFOM all you want. There would be nothing for me to gain, and a great deal to lose. So I wouldn't do it.

[DrippingGoofball]

Not only do I think DGB is slightly (like 99% compared to 98%) more likely to be scum than populartajo, Xtomx et al...but on the off chance we should be listening to what she has to say, we might as well find out sooner rather than later.

Unvote

Vote: DrippingGoofball

Unfortunately for you, you're going to hear more, because I'm not finished with my player analysis. BMQ was just one player.

[Xylthixlm]

I believe what I'm saying.

I'm sure that's true. It's still WIFOM, and a fallacy at that. He should defend his scumbuddy, but he expects you to think that so he obviously shouldn't defend his scumbuddy, but if he knows you know

that

then he should defend his scumbuddy because you'll think he's town for doing so ... and on and on, down the rabbit hole.

[MafiaSSK]

@ MafiaSSK

Do you k

no

w why a scumbag would fake a PR?

T

o avoid saying anyt

h

ing

that

m

i

ght get him

s

elf caught.

Him

s

elf or his buddies.

[Stephoscope]

Not only do I think DGB is slightly (like 99% compared to 98%) more likely to be scum than populartajo, Xtomx et al...but on the off chance we should be listening to what she has to say, we might as well find out sooner rather than later.

Unvote

Vote: DrippingGoofball

Unfortunately for you, you're going to hear more, because I'm not finished with my player analysis. BMQ was just one player.

Doesn't bother me any. Flip scum, and everything you post will be at worst worthless, and at best, clues towards finding the rest of you (although it should be apparent I think we pretty much have you beat already)

[Xylthixlm]

DGB, do an analysis on Malyss.

[DrippingGoofball]

I believe what I'm saying.

I'm sure that's true. It's still WIFOM, and a fallacy at that. He should defend his scumbuddy, but he expects you to think that so he obviously shouldn't defend his scumbuddy, but if he knows you know

that

then he should defend his scumbuddy because you'll think he's town for doing so ... and on and on, down the rabbit hole.

Nooooooooooo.... what YOU're saying is WIFOM. You're turning a prefectly valid and normal, experience-based argument, and you're dousing it with WIFOM and setting it on fire.