Mini 396: ChatMafia Mafia; GAME OVER

[Y]

Vote: Coron

for crap logic.

[Y]

Ok, now that I've got the

obligatory

joke out of the way

As in "I had to" or "The mod said I had to"?

[Y]

Vote: Coron

for crap logic.

I'll make it

Vote: AngusHutchsky

. Same reason.

[Y]

Rules

.
.
.
5. Votes should be bolded and in this format:

Vote: Player

to count. I will not accept a vote unless if it is in the correct format.

Unvotes are not necessary to place your vote somewhere else

, but they are recommended.

Usually I do unvote, but this one seemed better without the unvote part...

[Y]

I find it interesting how you like to only use part of my quotes. In that first quote you might note that I also said I am not new to Mafia, yet you seem to have conviniently left that part out so that you could make the point that I am acting dumb. As far as the second quote, all I can say is it's true.

What I got from his post, actually, is that you're acting dumb

although

you're not new to the game, thus, by your reasoning - You're scum.

[Y]

I'm just telling you what I think milkman is saying, but you do act dumb in some ways:
1. You're using the "I'm new on the site" excuse while saying that you're not new to mafia.
2. You "random" vote with a reason.
3. You're saying that you know the reason for your vote and therefore it stays, yet no one else can understand it.
4. You wrote "Everyone else is voting randomly, why are you picking on me?", while the reason for picking on you is that your vote isn't random.

Those are the ones on the top of my head. I'm not willing to reread the whole thread right now and find everything. It's after 2:00am around here after all...

[Y]

I almost forgot the most important one: You really seem like you can't understand our accusations.

[Y]

I am new on the site, how is that acting dumb?

"I'm an experienced player, but if I do something odd, it might be because I'm new to the site and the other site plays differently". This is what

I

understood from your comment and it looks like a disclaimer for any scummy posts. Believe me, I used the "I'm new" excuse more than once...

Here's the explanation of "crap logic". Just for you:
When some one makes a vote with no good reason, it appears scummy. At that point, people might point at you for being scummy, so you need a reason. Since "I want to get a townie lynched today" is a good reason, but it can get you in trouble, some kind of logic bubbling can get people off your back. Some times you find a good explanation, but other times you just say the first thing that comes to mind and it sounds stupid.
Examples:
Crap logic - I have a reason, but it's random, because it's based on another site, so on that site it isn't random, but you don't know the other site, so to you it appears random, so I'm telling you that so you can all know that my vote had a reason that you can't understand so treat it as if it was random, but you should vote him too because of the reason I gave you. Anyway, I know what I mean so I'm right.
Real logic - That was a load of crap logic. It probably covers a reasonless vote, so I'll vote the guy.

But you probably didn't know it. You're new to the site...

One other thing...why did you use the term "our accusations" when you havn't made any?

I believe that once I explained how "Crap Logic" is an accusation, this sentence doesn't count anymore:

the reason you voted for me was "crap logic" - not what I would call an accusation

But for you I'll use the format of "

Accusation:

Blah" the next time...

[Y]

Can we get a vote count please?

There are also people not posting or 'one post'ers. Maybe a prod would help...

[Y]

I am sad that you see it as crap logic, but am glad that someone finally gets it.

I understood it from the beginning. That's why I'm saying "crap logic" and not "completely lack of logic" like everybody else.

Why do I think it is crap logic?
First of all, it wasn't your reason, but some one else's.
Second, it wasn't a reason, but a joke.
To that you added the "Random" factor.

Why is it scummy?
You used some reasoning that is weak, but somewhat logical ("Playing wrong because of not remembering how to play" could be a scum tell), but then you added the "for randomness sake", which people use as an excuse if the vote is questioned.
In short: "I have a weak reason with an emergency exit".

Once you received comments for using a sentence that has two parts that contradict each other, you stated explaining, using the same method:
A weak tale about reasoning that came from another site (That can apply on any mafia game, no matter where) with another safe valve: If it looks weird, it's probably because we play differently in the other site.

So what do we have?
A weak reason with an escape rout covered by a weak reasoning with another back door.

And what is the final closure?
"My actions may look weird, but I know they're right, so it's okay. Don't worry - I know what I'm doing here (Even if you don't)"

As far as the "I am new to the site" comment, I would understand the fuss if I had used it as an excuse, but I didn't.

Being that he's new here, I don't think Angus understood the joke behind the comment. I haven't been on site in months due to real life issues. I don't know if he's also relatively new to the game of mafia though, as his seemingly conflicted reason for voting would indicate.

My next response...

I am new to the site, but I am not that new to Mafia - been playing a few months. I guess the point I am trying to make isn't making it. Anyway, whether you see my vote as random or not, at least I know why I put it there and so there it will stay.

I'll help you find another example. To this post:

Oh, and just for discussion sake, I have never heard of a scum claiming ignorance of how to play in order to lurk. I've heard them claim to have no opinion on what is being discussed, they've claimed general confusion, indecision, even concensus with the rest of the group (and in Baby Jesus's case, even boredom), but not ignorance of rules.

Your response was:

I have, but maybe the guys I usually play with are as messed up as I seem to be.

[Y]

About the last two quotes:
AngusHutchsky's is a direct responce to draygn_mage. Check post #36.

[Y]

The only other thing I could do to convince you is roleclaim, which I am not quite prepared to do yet.

You can also single-handedly lynch a mafioso. It'll give you some respect from us.

[Y]

Zindaras, I said that because I AM new to the site. Have you seen me use it as an excuse?

Yes. Re-read #61, emphasis on the last two quotes.

[Y]

Does any one else has a real life character? Does any one else has an artist?

His character sounds very different than mine and I want to see if we can find any patterns.

[Y]

I can prove it exists, what would you like me to paint for you?

Either you're a liying scum, so you'll be deat today or tomorrow - The sooner the better, Or you're town.

If you're town and you survive today, you're a confirmed townie (As you say) - You won't outlive the night.

You're dead already, the question it: "Do we want to wait untill tomorrow for it to happen?"

[Y]

I could have sent you my suspiciouns secretly each night through my work, but now my role means nothing. Now will you go lynch a Scum instead of me?

Just thought about it: Why would we need some one that can send us his suspicion secretly during the night? It's not like you're mute during the day...

Sounds false to me.

[Y]

I say we at least give him a fighting chance if he's willing to try and prove himself.

Fair enough.

Unvote

.

Let me re-read the whole thing and see if I can find something else.

[Y]

Y's post #83 rubs me up the wrong way. Could be rolefishing under the cover of trying to disprove Angus' claim.

Eventually we will have to do it. There's usually a pattern.

But D1 might be too soon though...

[Y]

I'm actually starting to think they're both scum.

So much drama for nothing but OMGUS votes...

[Y]

I will continue to participate in discussion and everything. I am just letting people know that I do not plan on moving my vote.

That isn't something I would expect hearing so early...

The game starts to slow down. I don't like it...

[Y]

Once I hit scum, why would I need to change my vote, though?

Because this early in the game, hitting sure scum is either a very lucky strike or stupidity. The former is much rarer than the later.

[Y]

What happened to this game?

[Y]

It's a mistake to let someone of the hook for an "I'll post something in a bit" post. Scum do that as a delaying tactic, I've seen it happen. You should know this. This makes me think you are scum. You've also echoed StallingChamp's "we've got scum here" even though it's only day one.

I think you're wrong on this one. I know for myself that I don'd like being prodded or seen as not interested in the game, so I let every one know I'm keeping track of the game although I have no time or reason to post a long post.

I need a reread. I'll try to do it today...

[Y]

1. Zindaras
   
   
2. Coron
   
   
3. AngusHutchsky
   
   
4. Twito
   
   
5. Y
   
   
6. StallingChamp
   
   
7. HurriKaty
   
   
8. Masterchief
   
   
9. Jack
   
   
10. ChannelDelibird
    
    
11. draygn_mage
    
    
12. Milkman

So...

Zindaras and Jack:

I'm actually leaning towards Zindaras' reasoning, but the whole thing is boring and almost no one besides those two are talking. The game needs more content.

Coron:

He hasn't been contributing for a long time.

AngusHutchsky:

Was at an almost lynch and since then disappeared completely. I also don't like the way he got away with the "I'll probably won't be here soon, so I'll 'paint' whatever I just decided by myself without any body's approval as my proof".

We

should decide what proof we want, not you.

Twito:

Can't remember anything he said... That's not good.

StallingChamp:

He thinks he has a sure scum (or close to it). Foolish...

HurriKaty:

We have some posts, but very little and most of them with content we've seen by other players too.

Masterchief:

Who is it?

ChannelDelibird:

Same as HurriKaty.

draygn_mage:

Except for one post with content, I can't remember he contributed on something.

Milkman:

Same as HurriKaty and ChannelDelibird.

I didn't reread all the thread or any post. I'm doing it from my memory, so I might be a little off. I don't think I can summarize myself objectively.

Can we get a Vote Count and a massive Prod?

Lynch me if you want, but lets get some progress...

[Y]

What?

Vote Masterchief

. He responded to my post in less than an hour, meaning he's here, he's reading, but purposely not contributing.

[Y]

Huge post with no relevant content. I don't like it...

[Y]

You do get my suspicions from it. Unless you skipped the important part, end of it. SKIMMER!

You made the same accusations people made pages 2 and 3, so there's nothing new, but you didn't read the reactions and the way they developed, meaning the whole post it outdated.

Your suspicions make no sense and are not relevant (And that's without mentioning that P1 has almost no relevant content in the first place) - They will lead us nowhere.

You had two useful options:
1. Read the whole game and comment on the relevant state.
2. Tell us that you won't read the whole game and will comment when you have something relevant.

You decided to go on the "I'll post something to look like I'm in this game, so people won't notice I have no clue of what's going on" way.

I do have a life you know.

What makes you think I don't? Entering here once a day for ten minutes isn't such a hard thing to do...

The whole quoting thing was completely useless and annoying.

[Y]

I say we lynch Twito just to make it stop.

[Y]

If it appears in the game - It's game-related.

Why?
Because you spend time to post, but you add nothing of content and distract us from relevant posts.

[Y]

STFU I already said I'm not quiting thank you very much but if you don't want to play with me just quit yourself.

That's the problem: He's not the only one. If you keep posting nothing on full pages, I don't want to play with you either.

I really don't want it to get ugly, so I'm asking you not to post until you do reread. I, and I believe others, prefer having you not posting than posting contentless posts.

[Y]

I don't see the point, as long as you say beforehand what you are going to draw and the mod posts it, not you.

I'll tell you what the point is (The reason I want us to choose what he "draws"). He knows his role, we don't. If he decided, he can fit the "drawing" to the role and we can't know about it.

I suggest a group photo in the park with a pink sky. Why? Because it's weird enough to not be thought of beforehand.

[Y]

By the way, I really like the way Twito started taking the game seriously.

[Y]

So you think he could could be a scum artist? But that would mean he isn't a confirmed innocent at all.

Lets say that his ability is to paint some one, and that some one dies next night. If he chooses who or what, as he was choosing me, he can choose who to kill and give us a description of what it will look like beforehand. In that case, if we ask for something like a building, he might not even be able to paint it because of the description of the role.

The "artist" role doesn't add up to my logic. I can't see anything useful coming out of it except for the night he gets killed, and even then he can't paint the killer, because he doesn't know who it is.

[Y]

We're at P10 and D1 doesn't seem to have an end.

I'll

Confirm Vote: Masterchief

. His post count is 9, content - 0.
We can't afford to ourselves having some one at endgame that we don't have any read on. He was here, he was posting and he gave us nothing.

We need some progress.

[Y]

The rush is that the game started at a good pace and faded out. I hate D1s, especially if they are as boring as this one became.

[Y]

@ Twito: Can you tell me exactly what is scummy about me (This goes for all the people voting me)?

I'm sure I'm not the only one that wants D1 to end. But, I didn't say you should all just vote some one for the sake of ending D1. I said that I want it to end and confirmed a vote I already had with a good reason.

I've seen days ending with the "Lets just kill somebody" reason and it's not what I was saying.

[Y]

1. I didn't start the waggon and I didn't ask any one to follow it. I just explained my thoughts. Even AngusHutchsky himself said that he sounds scummy.
2. My logic doesn't fit usual logic, I know. But it proved itself more than once.
3. Yes, I want to end D1. D2 is much more interesting once we have the results of the lynch and the night actions. Yet I didn't urge anybody to lynch for the sake of a lynch. I said I want the day to end and then I confirmed some one I already was voting for.

The one that did urge you to vote, if you didn't noticed, was milkman. Why don't you accuse him for bandwaggoning when he got you to put the fourth vote on me?

[Y]

I have four people voting for me (*cough*thevotecount'swrong*cough*). I'd really appreciate a good reason for the matter, now that we have a deadline.

[Y]

I thought rushing meant just killing somebody to end the day. You are rushing right? You told Jack that you were. Maybe I don't know what rushing is, could you define it for me?

Sure:

To cause to move, act, or progress quickly; hurry:

He rushed his roommate to get to the party on time.

It means to do something fast, it doesn't mean to do something for the sake of doing it nor do something stupid.

My rush, as you say, is to get progress. Writing a lot of meaningless posts quoting other meaningless posts or arguing about something that doesn't lead us anywhere is slowing the game, therefore I'm "rushing" it - Trying to make it move faster.

It is the third time I'm saying it and I hope you won't ignore it like the first two times (Which is very convenient for your accusation):
I wasn't saying "Lets kill some one, whoever it is, just do it already", I said "Lets finish this day already. My suspect right now is X because of reasons A, B and C". Or in simpler words: "I want this day to end, so I'll help moving it forward".

Furthermore, I wasn't the one to say the word "Rush". Jack used it and I answered with the same words to create continuity.

You're understanding my posts as you wish and ignore my responses. If you can't ignore one, you just call it "backtrack" and try to make it look like an excuse.

Since I'm the one that writes the most, I'm the easiest target to get straw-manned. You're getting things out of context and ignore answers.

Unvote, Vote: milkman.

[Y]

You know, even though the bandwagon is on him at this point and this could endanger me.. he's actually right.

Indeed. I made a mistake. This question should be asked much further in the game. As soon as I understood it, I let it go and never mentioned it again.

Mod: The vote count has my name appearing twice.

[Y]

That question should never be asked in a game like this. Mass roleclaims are only useful in open games or theme games with source material. (Some rare occasions too.) This game has a huge number of plausible claims because it's not based on anything. While the town is claiming real characters, the mafia can just fake claims. The mafia would gain so much information, while the town would still have a lot to dig through, and have o deal with any improbable claims by townies. It seems like a detriment to the town, yet you keep leaving it open as an option. You did this earlier too.

I agree with you. I didn't think about it this way. I did a mistake and I won't repeat it.

[Y]

My opinion on everyone right now is you all seem to be desperate to lynch someone before deadline, and even if I did give a real opinion, you'd lynch me anyway. But fine, you want an opinion? I'll go read through 12 damn game pages so you can have your way and I'll still get lynched like I always do. This and the other games I'm in will be probably be my last on Mafiascum for awhile, since I'm damn tired of always being attacked on Day 1. I've given my opinion on Zindaras, so I wont go over him again because he doesnt deserve it.

These are going to be angry opinions because I'm damn pissed right now.

AngusHutchsky is clear of my rage right now as he's willing to prove himself right now. If he doesnt, he dies.

draygyn_mage is completely wrong, as at this point my vote isnt in my own hands. I'm screwed either way.

Y is probably scum, I still think he's scum from that damn claim fishing post he made early on. Saying "Sorry, I was wrong" doesnt change anything for me. It just seems like he's covering his ass so we wont lynch him.

ChannelDelibird almost ticked me off with his last post, but didnt because he seems to be the only one getting what the hell I'm saying.

Jack seems to be hopping on the attack Katy wagon just for the sake of hopping on a wagon.

Is there anyone in specific anyone would like me to give opinions on at this moment before you all lynch me anyway, or any certain posts?

You're not the only one to always get attacked on D1. It happens to me all the time and I believe that there are many others. I've been in games on which I got almost lynched every single day although I helped lynching scum after scum, but there are two different kinds of people: Those who know it and try to avoid it/play through it and try not to get lynched and those who always seem to whine about it as you're doing.

What I really hate, that gets my votes the most, are those players that instead of taking responsibility for their mistakes, they keep using emotions. I see your post as "You attack me D1, everybody does, so it makes me angry and now I'll be angry until you definitely lynch me".
If you decided you're getting lynched - You will.

Here's a hint: Everything you do can get you lynched. If you repeat people, if you don't post to not repeat people or everything else. Stop sticking to bad experiences and just play the game.

Right now you're far from being the one to get lynched, so stop bitching about it.

FoS: HurriKaty.

I want to keep an eye on him.

[Y]

I need a reread. I'll try to do it today...

This post didn't come until 3 days later and it has very short opinion on everyone and doesn't even look like he did re-read before making it.

Masterchief: Who is it?

What?

You might got tipped off by this:

I didn't reread all the thread or any post. I'm doing it from my memory, so I might be a little off. I don't think I can summarize myself objectively.

Getting things out of context to make accusations it tech...

Rushing the day to finish. Also confirm voted indicating he probably won't change his vote (he did later though).

Nope... It means that I was sure that my vote is where it was at the moment. what I didn't say was:

I will continue to participate in discussion and everything. I am just letting people know that I do not plan on moving my vote.

I still don't agree with this definition of game-related.

Ant I don't agree with your accusations against me. Tough life...

[Y]

Ant I don't agree with your accusations against me. Tough life...

If you would that would mean you are scum.. It's not that big of a suprice that you don't agree with them.

That was sarcasm... It doesn't worth a serious post...

[Y]

AngusHutchsky, can you please explain? If I might add, somehow I'm not really surprised...

[Y]

Also, it was a strange thing that the dog did in the night, don't you think?

What?!

I still think that the "Painter" role has no use and apparently doesn't exists.
When something is crucial to your survival, as this "painting" was, it is the first thing you do in order to make sure it gets done. That's not something to forget.

You really look like a liar and you know the rule: Lynch all liars.

Vote: AngusHutchsky.

[Y]

I wanted to lynch him D1, but I gave him a chance to prove his claims. Since I still think his ability is useless, and for now probably doesn't exists, I don't see any reason to let him live.

I also think we don't need players that don't care enough about the game.

[Y]

I think self-confirmable roles are pretty good. It's not like we lose much if we give Angus another day to prove himself, and I'd rather get more use out of today than just quick lynching.

But he didn't prove it. That's the whole point.
You want us not to lynch some one just because he supposedly can prove himself innocent, although he doesn't do it. According to your logic, he may never prove the role, as long as he can potentially prove it.

It sounds fishy. The role doesn't make any sense to me. That's exactly the kind of role no one will ever have, thus no one can counter claim it.

If AngusHutchsky turns out to be scum, which I believe is the case, I think milkman should be the next one.

[Y]

Another posibility could be giving AH another chance and lynch milkman today. What do you think?

FoS: milkman

, in case it isn't clear.

[Y]

I'm sticking with the player I think is scummy.

I claimed a self-confirmable role

Which you didn't confirm.

He was also very slow in unvoting me even after I claimed.

"I claimed. Now you should all unvote me". I don't think so. I thought you're scum before you claimed, I thought you're scum after you claimed and I think you're scum right now.

I see your posts as excuses, not reasons. You're using the same accusation again and again. It isn't even yours.

You claimed a "Self-Confirmable Role", you didn't confirm yourself, but now you're saying that you shouldn't be lynched, since you have a "Self-Confirmable Role". Circular logic, got to love it.

Not only that. Even

if

you prove the role as real, we have no guarantee that you're a pro-town player. You can be scum that paints to mislead us.

What about your vote on MC? He was dead gone, but you had to have a vote on a mafioso, didn't you? If he's dead already, why shouldn't you have a "Scum Lynch" on your sleeve for a time of need?

I'm not voting you because every one is, I have enough reasons (Some of them are actually my own) to do so.

I also don't like the way you "had time" to write only about the only one to defend you and the one you want to see lynched. You were purposefully asked to give your opinion on everybody.

Here's another interesting point: You weren't here and no one died. Are you a GF?

[Y]

Now, we all know the facts, we don't need to keep going over them, as Y seems so much to enjoy doing. Either lynch me or give me one more night to prove myself, but either way it is doing the town no good to just sit here paying only attention to me - either lynch me or don't and lets move on with the game.

As opposed to some of you, I can't just kill some one. I actually have to persuade people to a lynch for that...

By the way, the "Maybe I didn't kill anybody by not sending a picture" is just the other side of my theory that a painting could get some one killed.
Maybe AH did send a picture, which will become a kill next night, but since it didn't appear at dawn, he preferred to say he didn't send it.

I'm not saying any of that is true, I'm just posting my thoughts.

And since AH asked for it so nicely, here's a theory that has nothing to do with him:
We had no kill. This is interesting, since usually there is a mafia group and a SK. Having no kills means that possibly we're lacking one of those (SK, since we did lynch a mafioso), maybe one of them isn't active and there's the very improbable chance of both of them getting stopped some how. It's hard for me to believe that some one who can kill didn't at least try to. Any thoughts?

[Y]

AH: You asked for some new topic that doesn't involve you, but you're ignoring my post (Including what I said about you).

Does anybody have any new thoughts? We're not going anywhere...

[Y]

...again, if I die, lynch Y tomorrow.

Unless I get NKed for getting you lynched, of course.

We've heard nothing from AniX (And I believe the same is true for whom he replaced).

[Y]

Well, there's only one scum other than angus, correct?

Actually, no. Not for sure, at least. Most of us don't know how many mafiosos there are and can't be sure AH is 100% scum.

Do you know something we don't?

FoS Jack.

[Y]

WOW... The game's alive again...

Two things for now:
1. I think AH is scum. I don't think him posting a painting proves anything about his alignment.
But, I can give him another night. Him posting a painting (or not doing so) might contain good info.
2. I'm leaning towards Jack being scum (if we deside, as it appears, not to lynch AH today). I realy don't like the "We know exactly how many mafiosos there are in a game that's suposed to be weird and not conventional and we can rely on that" thing.
I'm not completely sure right now and I'd prefer to hear AniX's thoughts before I put him at lynch -1.

[Y]

'tis bogus.

I'm the doctor, protected draygn mage last night. I assume that's why there was no kill.

First of all, I can't see the conection between the jar (I didn't see the movie, sorry) and a doctor. Could you explain, please, how the jar makes it as a doc?
Second, I don't think that's the reason for the no-kill. Usually the scene contains a player being "saved" from being killed if protected. The action wasn't made, as if blocked or not taken, not countered instead of affecting the target.

With the amount of unactive players and the deadline, I doubt if we can a counter claim if it exists.

I think a Jack lynch is the right thing, so I'll

Unvote AH

(To avoid a tie at deadline), but I won't vote Jack since he's probably dead tomorrow and I don't want him to get accidentaly lynched before he manages to speak.

I'm sorry I'm posting as much of the others, but the "live conversations" occurs while I'm at work or during the night (GMT+2).

[Y]

The text confirms no one if there's more than one killing group, which is very common.

Anyway, I'm fine with an AH lynch the same...

[Y]

Can we get an up to date

Vote Count

?

[Y]

If you're town, why would you prefer the town losing its doc instead of you? If you're town, than "Town wins - You win"...

You really prefer the town losing just to give you another day?
It doesn't look like a townie thought to me. Either you're not town or bad for us nonetheless.

Vote AH

. Even if you manage to survive somehow, I think you should get lynched tomorrow.

[Y]

We actually got a lynch before deadline...

[Y]

The lack of any killing groups, i.e. Mafia or a SK, making any kills during the night is verily interesting.
Far be it from me to complain about the situation, but it may mean very unusual decisions in terms of game setup.

Furthermore, you're begging the question: What will happen in case of all players losing their ability to vote and use any night choices, while no players have been voted for? The day, followed by the night bill be completely useless, so to speak.

[Y]

I've been thinking and I have this theory.
Jack claimed doc and he's still alive, ergo we have three verily probable options:
1. Jack was the target of a NK that missed and he was saved in a lucky coincidence, so to speak.
2. There was no attempt to NK anybody. Let me put it this way, I don't believe so.
3. Jack was not chosen, although it is most unlikely that a doc can protect him. This may mean a few things, e.g. a dumb mafia or Jack being part of it. Checking this options vis-à-vis, we can logically assume that the later is probably the correct answer.

Be that as it may, I believe we can lose nothing by asking him to reveal the players he protected.

[Y]

The riddle isn't hard at all, I solved it in ten minutes (Not ten minutes per se, but as a figure of speech) yesterday. You're begging the question "Why was Zindaras chosen for the task?". May it be instead of a mafia kill? If it is the case, the town can help each other, ergo mafia kills have a low chance to succeed. It's like shooting the mafia in the leg, so to speak, thus very unlikely.

I think the law's Jack might not be who we think it is.
Let me put it this way, as far as we know, "Jack" could be the name of a character, e.g. "Jack Sparrow", and not the player.

[Y]

In terms of my reasons for thinking Zindy is town, let me put it this way: I have role-based information in his favour, as it were, ergo I believe he is worth it.

You're so linear.

In terms of roles, there are three that can give you the information you claim to poses, i.e. cop, mason or mafia. Could you tell us when did you acquire such information and why weren't we notified when he was attacked D1?

About the riddle, let me put it this way: Zindaras could be scum, a good extra kill. If proven town (Or at leased townie enough), the answer can be given before the riddle's deadline.

Be that as it may, I will not be accessible during the weekend and I do not believe I will be able to post the answer on time, ergo my decision will be called tomorrow evening (Local time). Do your best.

[Y]

Your decisions are based on unknown facts, i.e. your roles. You haven't shared that information with us, ergo we can not consider them as real.

Be that as it may, milkman does seem scummy to me, and lynching him might confirm you as either town or scum. In terms of finding scum, his death could help the town either way, so to speak.

[Y]

Let me put it this way: "I'm back".

I am verily not satisfied with so little content being added since I went. In terms of me posting a better post, it will happen as soon as I can, but it will be for me this week.

Zindaras, what are your parameters? I can't see any good reason mentioned by you, so to speak.

[Y]

I believe the restriction is killing the game. People are trying to avoid posting, since it's so unnatural and annoying. I know that's what I'm doing.

Let me put it this way
Be that as it may
Far be it from me
In terms of
Concordantly

[Y]

The question is: "Does the lack of a NK has something to do with the doc?". It is very improbable that a player guessed right two nights in a row, but it isn't impossible, and he might have stopped one of them, while some one else stopped the other or no kill was made due to inactivity.

ergo
Q.E.D.
e.g.
i.e.
You're begging the question

[Y]

milkman bothers me a bit more than Twito. The "I didn't skip any night choice, but I had the chance to make a rule and didn't do it" seems fishy to me.

Vote milkman.

Vis-à-vis
Per se
As it were
Verily
Qua

[Y]

I'm not really sure why you'd post that, and what does all his choices mean? Is that the way it was formated?

It means that you had choices or roles and you didn't send them in and I know about it.

speaking of laws, n1 I was given a chance to write a law, but I didn't send it in. I did think of some annoying things though.

Apparently I'm not the only one to see you doing so. Now you're trying to get things out of context.

Where was I fishing for info? The only thing I did was to insinuate you're a liar. You're just straw-manning.

[Y]

You're begging the question.
You're being defensive.
Don't compare apples to oranges.
What are your parameters?
You're so linear

[Y]

unvote milkman

, seems like a fair reason for not using all night choices.

You're begging the question.
You're being defensive.
Don't compare apples to oranges.
What are your parameters?
You're so linear

Could you rephrase his reason, please? I can't recall reading any.

[Y]

In addition to his role he was given the chance to make a law on the night in question, but declined.

As it were
Verily
Qua
So to speak
ergo

But it doesn't change the fact that he first said he didn't skip any night choice and later said he did, two posts apart.

[Y]

Jack, I think it would be a good idea to protect me tonight.

Verily
As it were
Q.E.D.
so to speak
You're so linear

I'll remember that for tomorrow...

[Y]

So... First death... As in the past deaths, we know alignment, but not a role, which is annoying.

milkman as town is a big surprise for me...

I have to do a little reread and then I'll post a more meaningful post.

In terms of
Concordantly
Vis-à-vis
Per se
As it were

[Y]

Does anybody other than me is bothered by the way Twito fails to add content while still posting? I consider him a lurker.

I can also agree with Zindy's reasons.

Ergo,

FoS: Twito.

Qua
So to speak
ergo
Q.E.D.

[Y]

Y and Twito are clearly the two remaining scumbags.

Vote: Twito

(am I already voting him?)

I'll

Vote Twito

then, since he's a scumbag according to Zindy.

I was worried for a moment. We actually had a day or two without any one trying to lynch me (Which means Twito will probably try to do just that). I'm not used to not having to defend myself all the time...

In terms of
Concordantly
Vis-à-vis
Per se
As it were

[Y]

Is any one still playing?

In terms of
Concordantly
Vis-à-vis
Per se
As it were

[Y]

I must say this game is pretty much dead... Too bad. It could have been fun...

[Y]

There is a sudden and intense fire that came out of the anger of the gods. This fury has caught the parchment on fire that holds any current laws and all laws have burned away and are now null.

Yes, I'm serious, no more law.

Hurray, hurray... All hail the Mod!

Can some one please review the reasons for voting I_aM_ScuM, which is at L-2?

[Y]

We went back in time... I say we lynch Twito in this new time line...

[Y]

He got lynched and was town.