The Manor: Chzo Mafia (Game Over!)

[hohum]

@Amish Ed:

The Answer to your question regarding lamont:

The fact that all he's really contributed is brown nosing me, cycling through the town taking pot shots (which is a common scum tactic BTW) instead trying to build cases on one or two of his top suspects, calling me out for posting stuff not substantive and then actually getting OFFENDED when I pointed out that he was doing the same thing.

I also had issues with him very early on. His first vote very close to the begging of the game was baseless. Obviously poor reasoning. I tried to give him an out by allowing to admit it was a baseless vote but he stuck by his guns. His reasons for voting people largely revolve around crappy reasoning which seems to indicate that he really doesn't care who gets lynched and why.

Me calling for a pyro lynch was quite similar to me outright calling for a lamont lynch. I was trying to poke the bare. I have some good reasons to suspect pyro but lamont's recent behavior is just really of the back-breaking star type. I'm definitely in favor of a lamont lynch.

Confirm Vote: Lamontp/b]

I think it's time for some rounds of prods, but I don't feel like going through the thread and figuring out who, since I just spent the few days mostly rereading, and analyzing the 10 pages worth of stuff I missed and the beginning of the thread yet again in order to try to clarify the picture a bot better for me. If someone would be willing to post a prod request for anyone who hasn't posted in the last 72+ hours that would be quite helpful.

[Pablo Molinero]

Yeah, I'm cool with lynching someone that has misrep-ed people all over the place, been quite scattershot with his suspicion, and misunderstanding the nature of "rolefishing" to a laughable degree as a basis for vote.

Vote: Lamont

[Devestation]

Lamont was advocating its use before? Well...

unvote:
Vote:Lamont

Care to explain what convinced you to change your mind?

[Nyx]

Whoops I forgot:

Nyx

-- Very heavily random assignment (steering) then suddenly switches to no use and against voting. He tried very hard to steer that random assignment. His position has not been consistent and I think ultimately anti-town.

I would place him under Sajin in my original list.

I never advocated NO USE. Please quote me where I did.
Since the decanter came in to play I've said I agreed on using it and it should be randomly decided.

Ok I apologize. I have in my notes "no use" but apparently I drew that from your statement about no voting.

Could you explain why you were against voting?

Because I think that during the voting process the informed minority has to much weight in deciding who it's going to be.

Dam, wat an excellent point. I wished you had weighed in much earlier on that.

Thank GOODNESS he drank it already...

Seriously. Just because you miss read the fact that I was anti-voting but pro-use of the decanter you thought I was scum ? "Very heavily random assignment" ? How does this change so quick by the fact that 1 posts of mine was read wrongly by you ?
This wall of accuses you posted look to much like "steering" yourself.
If you build a case on someone make sure it's not based on 1 post that you even didn't read correctly. Because what you do looks more like fabricating scum then actually hunting them.

[Nyx]

On a side note. I think we should watch out with voting until the mod explains what actually happens after hohum consumed the fluid inside of the decanter.

[Devestation]

I suspect that if the mod hasnt told us yet, he aint gonna tell us until the end of the day/night.

[Pyromaniac]

@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.

Hypocritical may not be the correct word. Maybe contrary would be better. It IS contrary. He says it did not contribute to scum hunting the scum hunting on me would not occurred if it was not for the decanter. So it does contribute to scum hunting.

[populartajo]

Im here catching up all I missed in the weekend.

SOmeone can tell me some important events?

[Amished]

@Pyro: So what's your point? He obviously caught you being scum because of your responses. You would've had to respond to something eventually, and you probably would've then been caught later. WIFOM'ing it up though severely muddied the waters and got everyone running in circles, which delayed the scumhunting. Now that Hohum drank the decanter, that portion of the day is over with and we can finally get back to really scumhunting again.

Besides, what does it matter how he caught you being scum?

[Pyromaniac]

@Pyro: So what's your point? He obviously caught you being scum because of your responses. You would've had to respond to something eventually, and you probably would've then been caught later. WIFOM'ing it up though severely muddied the waters and got everyone running in circles, which delayed the scumhunting. Now that Hohum drank the decanter, that portion of the day is over with and we can finally get back to really scumhunting again.

Besides, what does it matter how he caught you being scum?

First of all, he didn't "catch me being scum", you try to catch someone who isn't stealing stealing. My point is this: hohum says that the decanter does not contribute to scum hunting, yet he uses it's contributions. Therefor, he admits that they exist.

[Amished]

So in your eyes, the contributions exist and you admit that the contributions led hohum to you. I'd say that turned out rather well then. There's still a lot of back and forth wifom that retarded scumhunting, no?

[Pyromaniac]

So in your eyes, the contributions exist and you admit that the contributions led hohum to you. I'd say that turned out rather well then. There's still a lot of back and forth wifom that retarded scumhunting, no?

I am saying the decanter caused some scum hunting, however bad it may have been. Hohum is saying the opposite.

[Pyromaniac]

Yes. This whole discussion was pointless and distracting.

Here is the post.

[Amished]

So you're arguing for the decanter discussion being helpful, but not defending yourself in any way. Great.

[Amished]

Tajo: I missed your coming back post, but basically Hohum drank the elixer/decanter thing himself, and I've posted a rather long case against Lamont. There are obviously more, but I feel those to be the two big points that came about recently.

One more thing now that I'm thinking about it: Even Lamont's continuous lurker lists are still IIoA, which is a pretty major scumtell as far as I see.

[Stephoscope]

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).

That is a really interesting speculation.

Lamont, would you be willing to promise not to use the devil smiley any more this game?

[Stephoscope]

I suspect that if the mod hasnt told us yet, he aint gonna tell us until the end of the day/night.

The mod is away, and we haven't yet heard from the backup mod.

I agree we should be careful with voting until we understand what the drink did. I for one will not be casting any vote until we find out what the effects were, or when it becomes very clear that we're not going to.

[Lamont_Cranston]

Oh, BTW

Unvote, Vote: Lamont_Cranston

For the holier than thou attitude, and mostly for the reasons I've been outlining for the last 2 pages.

Well until I see more from you the above post is completely in line with almost everything you've contributed so far.

Ooo a new scum tell, "holier than thou attitude".

[Lamont_Cranston]

@Amished: Your post wall has many errors concerning me. My position on the elixir has directly mirrored yours so your argument there as much implicates you as me.

If I was to respond to the post wall it would be unnecessarily huge.

Hohum's attack on me is crap. He has a really bad playstyle. I understand the other two votes as I mentioned both of them on my elixir analysis; basically revenge voites.

For the record, I have abandoned the elixir analysis as it is too confusing an issue to be usable.

Lynching me D1 is epic village fail here.

[Amished]

I fail to see the errors as you fail to point them out.

I daresay I was less fear-mongering than you ever were; I was giving examples from the games to defend my point rather than... oh, here's a nice quote:

how can you possibly want this item used if you are town??

(This is the original formatting, taken from ISO 86). I have voiced caution and given reasons why I thought the potion would be harmful. As I had done more research, AJ and xtoxm's analogy of vigging N0 is beneficial is something that I have come to agree with as well. As I never believed it would turn town into mafia like you stated, a death was probably the most harmful outcome that I could come up with. Therefore, even with what I considered to be the worst case scenario, I came to the new viewpoint that a death isn't always a bad thing. That is where I've stood throughout the course of the game, while you've been much more extreme on both sides of the debate. I'd hardly call you being more extreme than I have been makes me implicated in *your* actions.

I have also found your following of me quite concerning, and that builds off of what hohum has said too: you don't do much other than parrot other people's ideas. That, or misrep their position as you've been corrected on a number of times already. As scum, I've followed townies' opinions much like you have, so nothing you've said still makes me any less suspicious of you.

Defending/responding to a wall-post is never unnecessary, no matter how large it is. Dismissing it and flat out refusing to respond to the bulk of it is extremely scummy though.

Also dismissing an attack on you by attacking the person's playstyle is also scummy.

Finally, flat out saying lynching you D1 is an "epic village fail" both implies to me that you're not part of the village and that you don't really have a decent defense.

[Lamont_Cranston]

I daresay I was less fear-mongering than you ever were; I was giving examples from the games to defend my point rather than... oh, here's a nice quote:

how can you possibly want this item used if you are town??

(This is the original formatting, taken from ISO 86).

This is just proof I wasn't "parroting" anyone. My view is still that the elixir shouldn't be used D2 unless we can prove a positive effect and thus validate Xtoxm's theory (also shared by Tajo & AJ). Our conclusions were the same though, no use for the town.

I have voiced caution and given reasons why I thought the potion would be harmful. As I had done more research, AJ and xtoxm's analogy of vigging N0 is beneficial is something that I have come to agree with as well.

Ditto.

As I never believed it would turn town into mafia like you stated, a death was probably the most harmful outcome that I could come up with.

There are a whole myriad of different potential outcomes that would be worse than an outright death for the town. I just chose my favorite one.

Therefore, even with what I considered to be the worst case scenario, I came to the new viewpoint that a death isn't always a bad thing.

A forced death decided by one person?? Well its a moot point now anyway, Ho has drunk it...

That is where I've stood throughout the course of the game, while you've been much more extreme on both sides of the debate.

True, I've had my own views even though we have agreed each step of the way

I have also found your following of me quite concerning, and that builds off of what hohum has said too: you don't do much other than parrot other people's ideas. That, or misrep their position as you've been corrected on a number of times already. As scum, I've followed townies' opinions much like you have, so nothing you've said still makes me any less suspicious of you.

Sorry, but you have very well pointed out how I haven't parroted you and if you check you will see I LED THE WAY on no usage of the elixir in the face of a strong random assignment push.

Also dismissing an attack on you by attacking the person's playstyle is also scummy.

ORLY? And why isn't the playstyle itself scummy? Did you read his post when he voted me? I have a "holier than thou attitude" -- that is not scum hunting its just crappy play. Just the same I think he's town even though his lack of quality play annoys me.

[Amished]

No. You saying you didn't want it used does NOT mean you aren't parroting anybody. You admit that your conclusion was the same, still holding the same belief as was said earlier in the thread. No, you were not the first to hold the opinion that the elixer should not be used.

Don't ditto me. You consistently tried to emotionalize and fear-whore the town into widely voting for hohum if he ended up using it. I brought up examples from the origin of the theme. You, on the other hand, did not.

I moved onto the view that we should use the item around page 21, and you disagreed with me then. After a while you then agreed with me again. We have not agreed every step of the way, and I find you trying to set me up to be guilty by you associating with me especially troubling.

I also don't follow how me stating that you're following me means you're not parroting. When people were talking about a random assignment, nothing was lead by you. I fail to see anywhere where you were leading the way other than being an extremist to whatever cause you decided to pick up.

From my perspective, people with holier than thou attitudes generally have inside knowledge, leading them to think that they're better than everyone. I suggest you defend yourself rather than attack a playstyle that you haven't had that much of a problem with up until now.

Nothing that you said even remotely lessened my suspicion of you, and you haven't even gotten to my large post where I have "many errors". Can we get this guy lynched yet?

[Stephoscope]

Lamont, would you be willing to promise not to use the devil smiley any more this game?

[Lamont_Cranston]

No. You saying you didn't want it used does NOT mean you aren't parroting anybody. You admit that your conclusion was the same, still holding the same belief as was said earlier in the thread. No, you were not the first to hold the opinion that the elixer should not be used.

I held the same belief in MY OWN way. You proved that.

Don't ditto me. You consistently tried to emotionalize and fear-whore the town into widely voting for hohum if he ended up using it. I brought up examples from the origin of the theme. You, on the other hand, did not.

Excuse me, but I totally switched my views once Xtoxm's theory was made clear to me. Why do you seem so blind to the facts all of a sudden?

I moved onto the view that we should use the item around page 21, and you disagreed with me then. After a while you then agreed with me again. We have not agreed every step of the way, and I find you trying to set me up to be guilty by you associating with me especially troubling.

I'm only pointing out that my views have been consistently pro-town as have been yours. The only difference is I haven't attacked you for them

From my perspective, people with holier than thou attitudes generally have inside knowledge, leading them to think that they're better than everyone. I suggest you defend yourself rather than attack a playstyle that you haven't had that much of a problem with up until now.

Please, even though we both probably agree he's town, you are letting him off the hook way to easily. There is no substance to his case on me, its just a blind shot in the dark; a gut vote if you will.

Your argument is so epic fail.

[Amished]

No. You held the same opinion as others, and then both emotionalized whatever you were advocating for at the time and took it to extreme lengths.

Secondly:

Excuse me, but I totally switched my views once Xtoxm's theory was made clear to me.

Is you admitting you're parroting xtoxm's view.

You're also not disputing the fact that I did bring in outside information on which to base my opinion when you did not. Saying I'm blind to the facts doesn't change that I was right about my opinion or yours, while also is not addressing the point that said you were fear-mongering or emotionalizing your position at the time. Avoiding the topic = scummy.

Thank you for saying that I'm pro-town, as you know it's the case (additionally, thanks for clearly hohum for me scum). As to your views, you've said anything that you think would get you your way. I try to bring evidence and logic rather than emotion and fear to my discussion. That key difference is why your views are anti-town where I've been pro-town.

Finally: if his vote/case/whatever on you is that bad, it shouldn't be that hard to refute what he says. Yet you refuse because you can't. Just give up while you're at it.