Lately I've seen multiple things from both Lamont and Pyro that raise my suspicion of both. Depending on the situation, I might do that at the end of this post.
@Hohum: What have you seen from Pyro/Lamont that make you want to lynch either one of them? Other than your back and forth, of which I also feel that the emotion given and arguments made
@Naomi: I disagree with your statement that Lamont was trying to steer the town. For the longest time he was agreeing with me that it shouldn't be used no matter what (and in a somewhat fearmongering way, I'll get to that with my more in depth analysis of LC), but when he flipped his opinion to that it should be used, he went around pressuring everyone to vote. He attacked those that weren't, and Nyx brought up an excellent point that the selective voting of it can be swayed easily by any evil factions that we may have.
My theory on Lamont is this: he's scum, that knows what this item does, and it's a positive effect. This is consistent with not wanting it used as it's more likely to hit a town-aligned player, and with .. steph? pyro? not sure exactly who at the moment first voting for him to take it because of his "extreme" playstyle. At that point, more votes were placed on him (probably scumbuddies), and Lamont was also increasing his extreme playstyle probably in an effort to cement himself as the recipient of the decanter.
Therefore, I would look most heavily on those who voted for Lamont to get the decanter, as I'd be pretty sure that the scum would want their buddy to get it (much like Nyx pointed out), and they'd most likely also know the effect of the decanter.
Unvote
Vote: Lamont_Cranston
Moving on..
@Pyro in 710:
I find this hypocritical. Your entire reasoning for voting for me is based on a few posts that would not have been made if it were not for the decanter. In this post and in other posts you appear to not like the decanter, say it causes regress in our lynching attempts.
What type of BS reasoning is this? Who cares what caused you to post, but the fact of the matter is that it came about and you posted. You're also avoiding the point of the quote you responded to. Hohum did not really participate in the debate about the decanter, so for him to comment on those who were trying to steer it is not hypocritical in any way. I believe it's a valid concern, especially as confusion heavily benefits scum more than town.
Going through Lamont's ISO, I'll point out some of the scummier things that I've seen, and I'll have the # listed for those of you that want to follow along.
0-32: Absolutely nothing of worth. 1 liners, mostly joking, and the one time he was confronted about his early game vote of Sajin, he still avoided really answering the questions posed to him with any real substance. (I also believe even in an RVS it was unnecessarily bandwagonish).
33: He nibbles at the no-lynch bait, when that wasn't the point of the post that he quoted. Both an attempt to put some weak pressure on another player and to try to earn himself townie points for pointing out something that everyone knows.
34: He only advocates a bandwagon on the two most scummy players. I find this concerning for several reasons;
1) Because in a game this size there's almost certainly more than two scum
2) Trying to form a bandwagon on two players gives him an out to avoid getting a partner lynched by pushing for the townie one
3) Splitting up votes will make it hard to really put any pressure at all on anybody. As rule #1 clearly states, if we don't have a majority lynch, there will be no lynch at all (bad for all the obvious reasons).
36-37: He posted and explained that he posted a lynch of under-active players, while also pointing out (not directly) that he avoided posting a list of players he thought were scummy (and hadn't gone on to post a list like that either).
39: He admits to attempting to steer the village in the direction of hunting scum, then goes on to point at the lurkers at the time again. He calls it unhealthy, but not scummy. He's still not really looking for scum... AT ALL.
43-45: He asks Nueva and Pyro what their requirements for a lynch are (probably in the hope of putting those requirements on a townie).
49: He goes back to attacking SK's "no-lynch" which we've already covered was not the intention of the post, and I thought it was rather obvious.
(RIGHT BEFORE 52 IS WHEN THE ELIXER/DECANTER THING POPPED UP, PUT IN HERE FOR REFERENCE)
55: First advocating of discarding the item (due to hohum not being scum with him).
(Ah, it was right in here that Steph thought that Lamont should drink it)
59:
Lamont wrote:The town doesn't need to drink a potentially deadly liquid of unknown properties to gain an advantage and it is foolish to do so.
First example of fear-mongering. No reasons really given to back up his statement of not giving it to the town, just saying it's "deadly" and "unknown", and to use it is "foolish". All of which are trying to spark a fear of not using it into a wider population.
62: One of his more adamant posts, all about thinking voting/forcing somebody to drink it is scummy.
69: Taking one of the most unlikely scenarios and putting it forth as continued fear-mongering. (His opinion that says that it'll turn a townie into a mafia player. Also note that he didn't consider/mention the alternative that it'd make a mafia into a town member).
78: Duplicates an earlier post that says giving the item to somebody is a total crap shoot. Oh, and something else to mention, that might be worth noting if/when Lamont dies: lynching people is *almost* (key word here) guaranteed. Casting a hammer to lynch somebody always ends in the person's death in normal games; though since this isn't a normal game and I believe Lamont to be scum he also has knowledge that we have a reviving mechanic, or unlynchable or something.
79: Continued looking at "semi-lurkers". This still isn't scum hunting nor producing helpful commentary to those of us still here. Ask for a prod if they're actually lurkers, or ask them questions to get them involved.
81: Explains his viewpoint about semi-lurkers. Says that he will pursue their lynch relentlessly, yet he's done nothing of the sort throughout the game.
82: Overexaggerating the general feeling of bastardization of the game. The mod has never stated that he "hates townies", while the overall message of the series isn't just death for the sake of death. Yes, it contains it, but that's not the overarching storyline.
(Skipping him continuing to fear-monger in the hopes that the item will be discarded for sake of my sanity and to keep this shorter)
101: Some god-awful mudslinging trying to pair xtoxm and aj together. I don't see any reasoning for this at all.
106: Now that there's some volunteers that are scum aligned, he's saying that continuing to volunteer is anti-town. There's probably a couple scum in the group, just to keep him safer to get the item to somebody he's aligned with.
111: Still fear-mongering against using it on a volunteer, and against randomization. Is in favor of giving it to a lynch candidate. That's still rather consistent with him being scum, as he could single out a scumbuddy and get the point across that they should be the one to act scummy and attempt to fall under enough suspicion to have Hohum give it to them. This can also be driven by scum, so it's not that pro-town of an argument.
116: And I quote:
Btw, anything short of village wide vote as a strong scum tell here.
Additional fearmongering to make everyone vote for who gets it. There can be any number of reasons to not want to vote, not just scum reasons.
119-123: He becomes one of the staunchest defenders of using it (specifically against Devestation's POV at the time).
124: Talks about "relatively high odds that random voting will hit a power role". I take this to mean that there's either powerful scum roles, or there's a good number of them. That would probably mean that the only way for it to remain balanced is to have more town PR's. A town PR would not be able to take this stance, as they'd really only know that they're a PR, and not other people's roles. Mafia would be able to come to the conclusion that there's probably a good amount of town PR's.
126: Another lurker list, while also stating that those not voting should be held up to scrutiny and should be lynched. This is still not scum-hunting nor reading people's reactions.
136: Changes voting stance again to make it a two tiered voting system. Will probably get scum in the initial group, and then the scum can probably vote for their buddy in the group as well.
140: This is a very minor thing: He quotes AJ to make him (Lamont) get the decanter, and makes it +scum. This flies in the obvious face of his stance that voting is pro-town, but it agrees with him being scum and giving a good-effects item to scum (which would be *positive* (+) to the scum: +scum)
154: Bad quote tags aside, SKnight brings up a good point. I haven't highlighted it specifically, but the whole time Lamont has advocated strongly against giving the decanter to a lurker. To then want SKnight to get it directly contradicts his position that he's been pretty adamant about.
Then you've all seen his recent exchange with Hohum, which I feel to be weak and the tone behind it is scared scum rather than a townie.
I've read a game (it was a marathon one) where one of the evil players was forced to use the devil smiley once a week. Lamont is the only one I've seen that has used it so far (once in iso 83, Friday the 15th; and once in iso 170 on Sat the 23rd). It could be a bastard mod thing where you need to use it once every 100 posts, but that's pure speculation and you can do with that knowledge what you will. (I believe the player was nominated for a scummy, best roleclaim or something? if you want to look it up).
I'm going on a crusade to put more thought into my posts.
No, my name is not "Ed."
