Mini 343: Donnie Darko 0:0:0:0 Game Over

[Scalebane]

Ixnay: don't change your avatar in the middle of games. It messes up my rereads!

[Sotty7]

Listen up, folks. *I* killed CK.

Guess I'm just really echoing the rest of the town ...but why? This partial role claim makes me feel uneasy. If I was to come out with something as big as this I would disclose all information about my role that I could and my reasons for why CK was selected. At the moment it feels like you are withholding information and that makes me feel like I shouldn't trust you. Even though if your claim is true and in fact pro town (or even if you are the SK) then my suspicions of Scalebane would increase enough for a vote, I need to hear more form you before I can really make a decision either way.

[EmpTyger]

I had 3 reasons for targeting CK. I choose not to spell them out explicitly at this time, although I will clarify that my decision was most definitely not random.

As for why I came forward when I did: I had gotten to see which players reacted initially; later reactions aren’t as useful because they could be legitimate replies to those initial comments that other players had already made. But what *would* be additional useful information were reactions to my announcement. In any case, I always intended to come forward before the end of the day, to allow my target a chance to defend themself. I considered it more important to allow my target a chance to defend themself (especially in light of chamber’s and CK’s deaths) than to keep secret the fact that I was a vigilante. And while I didn’t think myself high on a hitlist, I didn’t want to be killed off before revealing that something significant happened N1.


Scalebane:
I did mention CK day 1, a fact you like to keep ignoring. You’ve paid the most attention to the manner of CK’s death (aside from me, but I’ve given a reason for that). And you were the first to pay attention to CK’s death. You knew CK irl, which combined with your being on the lynch of the D1 innocent might make you a more likely choice for him to have targeted. Your reaction in [139] seems like desperate attempts to spin. You were on chamber’s lynch. None of these things are damning on their own, but taken together, I like a

Vote: Scalebane

.


Ixnay:
There are a lot of possibilities, of varying degrees of likeliness. But the point I felt it important to make was that *something* happened last night. (And yes, I thought that CK would be mafia or SK. )


olio:
Please explain how this “perfect claim for a SK” doesn’t get me killed one way or another well before endgame. (I’m not talking about WIFOM; I’m talking about that there’s no way for me to know that there isn’t a real vigilante out there.) And temporarily assuming I am a SK, that wouldn’t change the fact that something happened to the mafiakill. And you are blatantly fishing for my rolename. I’d like to know why. It’s not going to give you any additional information, since whoever I am is clearly capable flavorwise of killing. And if it’s a matter of counterclaiming, I’m already going to stand or fall on the vigilante claim. Your fishing is nagging at the back of my head.


Sotty:
See above to olio regarding my nameclaim, and at the top regarding my reasons. I claimed freely. I am not trying to defend myself, or escape suspicious, or avoid a lynch. I revealed what I did because I thought that it would be help the town. I did not reveal what I did not reveal because I think that it would be hurt the town.

[nonny]

VOTE COUNT

StD(1): Chess83
EmpTyger(1): Scalebane
Scalebane(1): EmpTyger

Not Voting: AniX, Ixnayonthehombre, MeMe, Olio, Save the dragons, Sentinel99, Sotty7

I would like to see a bit more activity *nods* and let me know if you need any prods, i'm here to cater to your whims middlesexians....well not whims but you know ^.~

[olio]

You're right, it isn't perfect claim for SK. For SK with something extra in his/her role it could be a perfect claim. For normal SK it's a very risky gambit with not so great chances to succeed.

That said, I believe your claim at the moment. I do disagree with you that your rolename wouldn't give any extra information, but at the same time I see the benefit of keeping it disclosed. Latter seems to be better now.

vote: Scalebane

[Scalebane]

Wow, could you please fecking give the name of your role? You keep dodging it. And you *still* haven't given reasons for your having taken out CK. It's you who is avoiding the issues here, EmpTyger.

And, I realized why I didn't think you mentioned CK. I'd just done a search of the thread to see who had mentioned "Colonel Kurtz". And that is my mistake.

[Scalebane]

Sorry for the double post, but I just need to respond to EmpTyger in more detail. The post above this one was just off-the-cuff and a first reaction to his post. I feel I need to go into more detail with regards to the things he's said.

I had 3 reasons for targeting CK. I choose not to spell them out explicitly at this time, although I will clarify that my decision was most definitely not random.

Yes, well, considering that people have been asking for these reasons so that maybe they'll have a reason not to vote you, it might be nice if you quit going "Yes, I do look like an SK, yeah, yeah, but c'mon guys! look at scalebane! look at scalebane! not me!" and start defending yourself.

I did mention CK day 1, a fact you like to keep ignoring.

Explained in the post above. My mistake.

You knew CK irl, which combined with your being on the lynch of the D1 innocent might make you a more likely choice for him to have targeted.

See, I have a really hard time not being offended by this because you just implied that CK and I were cheating, or at least that he would have a good enough idea of my role because he knew me in real life. Do you not see where he completely fails to say anything about me being suspicious D1? That's because he didn't think I was! You're also basing your logic on the assumptions you want to reach. You just said: "Scalebane is scum. CK could read that very easily and blocked him, which implies that Scalebane is scum." which is just bad logic. *And* CK was on the chamber lynch for most of D1.

Your reaction in [139] seems like desperate attempts to spin.

Or, an attempt to point out to everyone the obvious fact that you just constructed a GIANT NEON ARROW above your head that says on it "I LOOK LIKE AN SK (or ballsy mafia)" (although I'm leaning towards the former).

I revealed what I did because I thought that it would be help the town.

I did not reveal what I did not reveal because I think that it would be hurt the town.

It's the last sentence of this that's been nagging at me (bolding mine). I don't see how anyone could read that and not get suspicious. You're claiming that you know what's best for the town, and more information is not it. Well, perhaps revealing more information would be bad for *your* side. But I highly doubt that it could hurt the town.

Regardless, I think it's funny how much you've convinced yourself that I'm mafia, considering how far from it I am. And the fact of what my role is. And perhaps it's because I'm so sure of the fact that my roleclaim will play heavily in my defense, that I'm *so* interested in seeing what your "roleclaim that would hurt the town" could possible be. Eh, jim cunningham? or perhaps, the bully? (random spec. on my part, I know)

And as I've said in previous posts, excuse me for trying to use information from the nightkill in figuring out who could be anti-town. Excuse me for trying to use all the information available to us in scum-hunting. Gosh, Chess, you are *so* scummy in being the first person to analyze D1 and for doing it so obsessively. Am I the only one who is getting really suspicious of EmpTyger due to his bad logic, falsehoods and misinterpretations of my posts that he is attempting to force focus onto now that he has realized just how bad he looks?

[MeMe]

Scalebane -- I just did a search for "Colonel Kurtz" and didn't find myself as mentioning him with his full name. I did find that, in addition to Sotty7 (as you mentioned): Ixnay, chamber, and you all did so on Day 1.

Can you explain how, if you searched for "Colonel Kurtz," you came up with me (who referred to him simply as "Colonel")? And how you

didn't

come up with Ixnay?

[Scalebane]

Because I did Colonely Kurtz, but not in quotes. Hence Colonel was a hit, but CK wasn't.

[MeMe]

OK -- but why didn't you catch Ixnay's mention?

[Scalebane]

Honestly, dunno. : ( I feel a bit silly after going on about it for so long and overlooking obvious things. Like, apparently, ixnay. and abbreviations. : /

[MeMe]

At this point, I'd rather vote Sentinel or AniX over anyone else.

I've explained my suspicion about Sentinel's twilight post and his reply did not satisfy me.

I just took a look at AniX's posting records in the other two minis that show up in the first 30 or so pages of his posting record. One (Ranma) is still in progress, alignment not known -- but he's posting much the same. In the other (Cheese), he was scum and posted rarely and never voted. I'd rather get rid of him then let him hang around without helping (if town) or without posting enough to catch him (if scum).

vote: AniX

[Ixnayonthehombre]

Ixnay: don't change your avatar in the middle of games. It messes up my rereads!

Sorry about that...I guess I should be out of

all

of my games before I do that. I'll change it back.

I had 3 reasons for targeting CK. I choose not to spell them out explicitly at this time

By at this time, do you mean you will tell us later, or not at all? Or that you will only tell us under specific circumstances?
BTW, what(name) character are you? Did your character know Gretchen in the movie? Like the bully or Donnie or her father? That way we could tell whether or not Nonny's hints help us determine who the nightkiller was.

[Ixnayonthehombre]

Sorry about the double post.

I'll change it{my avatar} back.

Sorry again...I couldn't find my original...

[Chess83]

Okay, here is my two cents. I really have nothing to add to the discussion right now, but I want to say this. In my gut I think Emp is telling the truth. I posted earlier that I think it is Thok and Scalebane. Thank being said I am okay with getting rid of Scale before Thok.

unvote , VOTE: SCALEBANE

Emp, has said that he will reveal everything in due time. I trust that. Out of safty I ask that we not exceed 4 votes on Scalebane untill said information is out and Scale has a chance to defened. I say 4 because 6 lynches, anybody dumb enough to hammer before possible damning information is out must be an alien/scum whatever.

My final thought is this, if Scalebane comes up clean then we take out Emp, unless Emp can convince us otherwise. Those are my two cents.

[Chess83]

ack... sorry got my other game crossed in. Ingore the alien mentioning.

[Save The Dragons]

I assume Thok = me?

[Chess83]

yeah, sorry... like i said, wires got crossed. been a long day. For clearification Thok = STD.

[EmpTyger]

Want to respond but have some bad traffic karma that I'm dealing with, and don't have the time at the moment. Will try to tomorrow.

[olio]

Chess, I'm getting really bad vibe from your last post. You say don't have anything to add, and yet you:
a) set up a point when EmpTyger should reveal his information
b) impose a restriction on voting (I assume "safty" means "safety" in your post)
c) plan a course of action for the whole town

Point a)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to assume that Scalebane will get (at least) 4 votes today. Why do you think EmpTyger will reveal his information when Scalebane is at 4 votes? Why do you want to hear EmpTyger's information today?

Point b)
In case EmpTyger won't reveal his information we can never lynch Scalebane, right? Or if he gets lynched, that dumb hammerer must be scum? Where do you base such an assumption? If you're so sure that the person hammering Scalebane is scum (in case EmpTyger's info isn't out), why didn't you put your restriction of votes to 5 votes and get that possible hammerer-scum tomorrow?

Point c)
EmpTyger hasn't claimed a cop with guilty result on Scalebane, now has he? Where do you base your logic that if Scalebane is innocent, EmpTyger is scum?

unvote
vote: Chess

[Save The Dragons]

I'd rather put pressure on AniX, who has yet to post anything useful this entire game.

Vote: AniX

Chess is most likely town in my opinion. Anyone who's willing to stick themselves so far out is probably not scum in my opinion.

I'm tempted to join the Scalewagon but not convinced enough to do so over Anix.

[Chess83]

Chess, I'm getting really bad vibe from your last post. You say don't have anything to add, and yet you:
a) set up a point when EmpTyger should reveal his information
b) impose a restriction on voting (I assume "safty" means "safety" in your post)
c) plan a course of action for the whole town

Point a)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to assume that Scalebane will get (at least) 4 votes today. Why do you think EmpTyger will reveal his information when Scalebane is at 4 votes? Why do you want to hear EmpTyger's information today?

Point b)
In case EmpTyger won't reveal his information we can never lynch Scalebane, right? Or if he gets lynched, that dumb hammerer must be scum? Where do you base such an assumption? If you're so sure that the person hammering Scalebane is scum (in case EmpTyger's info isn't out), why didn't you put your restriction of votes to 5 votes and get that possible hammerer-scum tomorrow?

Point c)
EmpTyger hasn't claimed a cop with guilty result on Scalebane, now has he? Where do you base your logic that if Scalebane is innocent, EmpTyger is scum?

Dude, are you serious?
c) I am not adding any information, just stating a possible plan of action.
b) I am not restricting votes, I am warning about the possibility of a 1-2-3 by the mafia on scale, if he is not scum.
a) I am assuming that pressure on Scalebane would force him to react to not only Emp's post but the pressure from the town. This is how you make scum trip, apply pressure. If we fail to apply pressure Scale can just ingore Emp's post as the town is not seeing, or applying, the connection to him.

Point a) I want to hear Emp's information because this game is centered around the sharing of information. If information is hidden the scum win, specifically information such as who is scum. Furthermore, Emp said that he would release the information later, so apply pressure and wait for later. Nothing can hurt by applying pressure to somebody. Just maintain a reasonably safe distance from lynching to avoid the 1-2-3 by scum. This notion is continued in the next point.

Point b) This is a no-brainer. Putting someone with some uncertainty over their head in a -1 vote situation is never a good idea. Whereas placing someone in a -2 vote situation applies pressure and keeps them a safe distance where if someone else jumps on, someone has the oppertunity to unvote before a scummie can hammer an innocent. If the town wants to lynch Scale prior to Emp's release of information, that is the town's decision. But I am trying to make sure the town wants to and it is not one person's decision, thus a -2 line is drawn, one person cannot make the lynch call, it will take two and give us a buffer zoe to unvote.

Point c) That is exactly my logic. Emp did not claim cop, Emp claimed vig. and is pointing to Scale claiming he has more info to release at a latter time. Therefore, if Scale turned up innocent, then Emp mislead the town. in which case, normaly he [based on my expereience] would be lynched in return. The logic goes like this, if someone claims a power role that is pro-town, then harms the town, most likly they are not pro-town in truth.

It is interesting that you unvoted and voted for me based on one of my posts. I think it is a bad idea to vote for anyone based on one post. One should have more evidence than that. For instance, I had been suspicious of Scale because of the STD/Scale connection, so when Emp came out with a theory on Scale, it sounded solid and as I posted, I was game for lynching Scale just as well as STD, so I changed and stated that I would like to see the information from Emp, prior to Scale's lynching. But I changed my vote to apply pressure to Scale an hopefull get his defense to Emp's information that has yet to be released.

[olio]

At the moment I don't have time but for a one, brief question:
Why do you think EmpTyger disclosed information has anything to do with his vote on Scalebane?

[Sotty7]

With everything we have going on, I'm not to sure about the motives of people pushing the lurker, Anix. I get the slight feeling of them trying to distract away from the current discussion. That said I know Meme hates lurkers and STD could be the same but something about it doesn't really click. Why not just ask for a

prod

?

I really don't like olio's vote switch. I agree with STD's point about someone sticking their neck out so early in the manner that Chess has points more towards him being town over scum. He has been actively out there looking for scum and jumping on him so quick doesn't sit well with me.

FOS:olio

[MeMe]

Sotty,

--I

want

to vote AniX. As I said when I did so, I took the time to check his last couple of minis (since there's not much to go on in this mini) and noted that he posted rarely/didn't vote in Cheese, his last completed game, and was scum there. I'd prefer to pressure him with something more than a prod. Don't you think something doesn't look right about

him

?
--I'm not against him being prodded, but I doubt it'd make much of a difference without actual consequences. Even when he's showed up in this game, he's added nothing to the discussion. Pull his posts and see.
--The current discussion when I switched votes was Scalebane/EmpTyger, which I paid attention to and followed up with my own unanswered questions. If deciding to bring up a new topic of discussion is "distraction," then color me guilty. But then

you'd

have to be guilty of distraction for FOSing olio (a new target), right?
--And, anyway, when it's six votes to lynch, why

not

vote rather than ask for a prod?

Basically, there's a reason I hate lurkers. Your opinion that we should leave him alone if the thread's moving without him -- the translation of which could be "why vote a lurker if we can lynch a participant instead" -- means that non-participation becomes a winning strategy. Why encourage it,

especially

when the player in question has utilized it successfully when anti-town? I find your post questionable, Sotty, especially in light of the fact that I gave my findings about his recent lurk-fest in my vote post.