Mini 410 - McDonald's Mafia [Game Over!]

[Glork]

Vote: Pink Princess

Welcome back! <3

[Glork]

Vote Glork

Was that bad?

Yes.

If there's one thing I ask of you folks, it's that you please not kill me.

[Glork]

Its opposite day where I'm from...

If it were really opposite day where you came from, why would you say this? Wouldn't you say that it's

not

opposite day where you come from? By saying "it's opposite day," you're implying that it's not opposite day, which means that your statement isn't reveresed, which just creates a complete paradox.

Unvote, Vote: Blagho

. Obviously lying scum.

[Glork]

StallingChamp Unvotes and Votes: FrAt

Pink Princess and StallingChamp are

obviously

pro-town. I bet FrAt and Blagho are in cahoots as dirty evil scumbags.

[Glork]

I didn't think of masonry. But yeah, safe to say that proxying your vote to a mason is also retarded. You're supposed to NOT be connecting yourself to the other guy during the day. In short,

phail

.

Bzzzt. Wrong. On so many levels.


Masons are supposed to leave hints where they can so tha t, if one of them dies, the other(s) will be able to confirm themselves. Proxying a vote to a mason is actually a pretty good way of doing so. Leaving hints (such as a mason-buddy's name buried in a post somewhere) is also a good way of doing so. The greatest strength of a mason group is the idea of having a hidden, but confirmable role.



I will defend the notion of proxying votes in general. When a player proxies their vote, they are indicating that they are willing to put their faith into the person gaining control of their vote. It's little secret that I'm going to be named the best scumhunter from 2006; proxying one's vote to the Paragon is probably the safest decision one can make. I'm no more or less likely to be scum than anybody else, and if I actually manage to find something useful to do with that vote, I just might pressure the right person at the right time.

In the random stages of a game, it's not even particularly important; it's not as though I'm going to do anything significant with my vote, other than possibly wagoning somebody to a whole three or four votes, so I'm

VERY

surprised that SC is picking up flak for proxying his vote at all. It seems like an

awfully

weak reason to attack somebodoy who

isn't even here to defend themselves

. I haven't decided if the people harping on SC are stupid or scummy yet. But I've definitely logged and noted the reactions to his proxy thus far.

That said, when SC comes back, I

would

like him to explain why he chose to proxy his vote. He indicated that he would only be gone for a day, and I wouldn't expect anything groundbreaking to happen during that time. Even though I see no reason not to proxy one's vote on Page 1, I definitely don't see a reason why one should/would proxy D1.

[Glork]

2) There are no more subtle way to make the "hidden" part of that statement plausible? This method is about as good as making a post that says "SUP MASON".

That is simply

not true.

Proxying one's vote is not exclusive or indicative of mason-hood by any means. Thus, when you see someone proxy a vote, you

cannot

come to the conclusion that the player and their proxy are mason-buddies. Thus, it is

not

in any way obvious. Note also that a non-Mason may proxy a vote to a mason, so even if the proxy dies as a Mason, nothing is guaranteed. It only becomes "obvious" if the proxier dies as a Mason, but the

ENTIRE POINT

of being a mason is being able to posthumously confirm your partner.

3) It's a safe decision... if you are town. All of point three is logical if you are a confirmed townie, you are not and therefore it is not. Am I missing something?

This game is not about "safe decisions." Virtually

NOTHING{/i] in Mafia is a safe decision. Saying that his move is stupid because it might help the scum is like saying "we shouldn't ever lynch D1 because we don't have info and will probably lynch a townie." That's just a retarded argument.

4) Well, we agree on that, anyway. SC? Incredibly bad play. At best. Pretend all that stuff was in question form and respond accordingly. Vote stays - the whole town can note it if they like.

No. Not bad play. Just what I saw as pointless play. Needless to say, if SC's "I wanted to spark discussion" reasoning is in fact true, he's accomplished exactly what he set out to do... in which case, he did

NOT

make a bad play. He made a very

good

play.

Unvote, Vote: FrAt

I'm reasonably happy with that vote, all things considered.

[Glork]

It's not a bad play either way. I still don't understand why you think that is the case. It was a harmless play. It was a highly

unusual

play. Some might say it was even a pointless play. But it was not a "bad" play. Not by any means. Not when there was virtually no harm that could have been done, even if I were scum.

I'm not saying that one should be given leave to do what they wish "for discussion's sake." To insinuate such a notion is beyond ridiculous, and more often scummy than not. But in no way do I feel that SC's play falls anywhere within the general viscinity of "bad." If you're going to claim that he's scummy for making a "bad play" and then claiming "I wanted to create discussion," I want you to explain clearly and concisely

why

his play was bad. I also want you to define "bad" (as part of me suspects that our definitions of the word may differ).

[Glork]

FrAt, you're not making any sense.


You claim that SC's placing his trust in me was dangerous. I contend that there is no "trust issue" whatsoever, because as I've already stated,

THERE WAS NOTHING SIGNIFICANT I COULD HAVE DONE WITH THE EXTRA VOTE.

What exactly are your thoughts on that point?

I would further contend that it is perfectly reasonable to "trust" somebody whose alignment isn't

known

, but whom you believe to be pro-town. That doesn't apply in this case, but it could with regards to proxies in other games/situations.

you ARE trying to hide behind another player of unknown alignment.

How in the world is he trying to hide behind me? It's not like he's going "IF ANYTHING HAPPENS, ITS GLORK'S FAULT!!!" I don't understand what you're getting at here.

[Glork]

We could all proxy todays vote to Glork and see what he does with such power! Will he just vig someone at random, or will he just shake his head in utter disbelief. I doubt such a move would have ever been done before, and while the move would be crazy from a tactics point of view - I'd go with it just to scoop an award for most unusual day one of all time

That'd be nothing new, really. It'd just be like making me King in a Kingmaker setup. In fact, I have a perfect track record as King to date.


Unfortunately, me finding scums usually results in me getting nightkilled pretty quickly, which I most certainly do

NOT

want to have happen.

[Glork]

Unvote, Vote: pete d

Hi, scumbag.

[Glork]

A) I find it odd that Pete D is accusing SC's posts of being scummy while leaving his (random) vote sitting around on DeanWinchester. Sometimes it's indicative of distancing, sometimes it's indicative of scum going after town, occasinally it's indicative of just bad pro-town play. When you move from "random" to "serious," you should almost always take your vote with you.
B) Pete let off one of my favorite scumtells that MeMe taught me way back in the day. Proposing or taking a bad stance (such as the one FA is taking, I feel) may or may not be scummy. Following someone else's lead on a bad stance (Pete not only agreeing with FA, but attacking SC for his response) is usually scummy.
C) I feel that, as SC pointed out, Pete overstated the "scumminess" of the proxy by calling it "distracting" and "confusing." Distracting from what? Random-Voting? What exactly is confusing about it?


Pete is pinging. Major hard.

[Glork]

I think blindly following any stance is a bad thing.

Generally, yes. But following a scummy/bad stance is usually worse... for what should be obvious reasons.

[Glork]

FoS: Everyone not voting Pete D

Yes, all 9 of you are scums. Die.

[Glork]

Where do you think I pulled it out of?

[Glork]

Unvote, Vote: DragonsofSummer
IGMEOY: Pete D

Hunch.

[Glork]

Something about voting for Pete D 4th, after my joke-post about FoSing everyone not voting him, coupled with the "based on everyone else's reasoning" sentiment. Makes me second-guess my Pete D stance based mostly on DoS's post

[Glork]

I'd probably just pull be back and say something like "holy crap, this is one very wagony town."

[Glork]

FoS: Amb

All I'm hearing from you is "what should we do?" Take some initiative and attack somebody if you want discussion. Make a big deal out of something small. I don't care. One of the worst, scummiest things that a player can do when a game is slow is to ask everybody else what to do without doing anything themeslves.

[Glork]

On day 1 you can be lynched for having a name that reminds someone of Pi, or for by random chance being krolg spelt backwards. Even if the reasoning is "His voting pattern is scummy" or "He seems to have no backbone" you wont hit scum except by luck (Excepting if the scum says "Hey everybody, Im a serial killer, would you let me live as a vig").

This is so incredibly wrong, I'm not even sure I want to get into it. But meh, here goes.

You are no more likely to get lynched for a "random" or idiotic reason on Day One than on any other Day. You are more likely to get some ridiculuous bandwagon against you. You are more likely to get involved in some extended debate over something stupid. But an actual lynch

VERY RARELY

happens for some stupid reason. To flat-out say that hitting scum by dumb luck is ridiculous and actually insulting to a given town's ability to find scum. People do scummy things. Discussoin and debate ensue. By getting everyone to weigh in on relevant topics at hand, it is more than possible to find scum using playskill and playskill alone. I would argue that there is little, if any, dumb luck involved in finding a scumbag D1 ever.

MODS, please prod the following:

Blagho (last post 2/18)
Omega (last post 2/20)
yellowbounder (2 posts all game, last one on 2/21)
Thanks.

[Glork]

*laugh*

I love the "Look, Glork, I'm doing what you said I should be doing!" comment. Still, I can't argue with you busing your scumbuddy. :goodposting:

[Glork]

Amb is so scum.

[Glork]

Unvote, Vote: Amb

[Glork]

I'm going to go ahead and assume that your post was an attempt at humor.

[Glork]

This is totally ungame related, but I just noticed I got a title!
Woohoo, look at me!

Please don't kill me.

[Glork]

Okay, so exactly one of you is likely scum.

I just have to figure out which one.

[Glork]

My most recent vote for Amb is a combination of two things.

First, he keeps hopping on bandwagons for the sake of getting things along. Second, I feel as though he keeps clamoring for conversation to happen while not really contributing very much himself.

However, he seems to have actually contributed something of his own. To respond to his paragraph about me:

Glork Very controlling, but listened to. His arguments have no meat at all - yet he has it down to "Okay, so exactly one of you is likely scum. I just have to figure out which one". First - this says nothing at all. Exactly one of you is likely scum? Exactly one is scum would make sense. Exactly one is likely scum looks like a way out if neither of us are. And also, why would it not be one or both, unless DoS was in Glork's group. Glork is controlling this conversation without actually providing any in depth research, he just wants us to follow his reputation. At least Glork does openly admit things like "Where do you think I pulled it out of?" and "Hunch". I just dont like the way its gone from that to conclusion. (And vague conclusion at that)

Yes, I've been very controlling. I'm actually very surprised at this. Usually when I start making bold claims, most players question what I'm doing. This time around, players seem more than willing ot play along with whatever it is that I'm spouting. It's a reaction that I don't think I've ever had to this scale before, and it's actually making me very undecided about what it means. That's probably why I keep jumping back and forth -- when I see players accept my baseless attacks without much (if any) questioning, I usually think they're more likely to be scum than the average player. As several players have done this, I keep finding myself looking in different directions.

Now, with regards to the "Exactly one of Amb/DoS is likely scum" comment. Yes, I find it likely that exactly one of you is scum. I also see the possibility of neither of you being scum. And I find it highly unlikely that both of you are scum

together

(which I meant to imply but evidently didn't make clear enough).

Amb's "Well I'd better jump on the rival wagon that isn't me" attitude is indicative of either a very selfish townsperson or a scumbag who doesn't really care who goes down as long as it's not him. That pretty much affirmed my stance against him until DoS responded by doing the

exact same thing.

Now, normally that would make a player go "well then could they both be scum?" Yes, possibly. It's an extremely unusual distancing tactic. Usually you'd want to spat some nonesense at each other while looking elsewhere for somebody to kill off. So I find it very unlikely that you two are scumbuddies. Still, I feel that one of you is probably scum. And who knows... perhaps I've managed to find both a Mafiate and a Serial Killer.

I actually kinda like Amb's longish post, so I think I'll

Unvote, Vote: DoS

. I can roll that way for now.

[Glork]

Unvote, Vote: Amb

. Basically admitting to bandwagonning recklessly and to voting just to even up the vote counts.

I hope you realize that coming out and admitting that you're being a dirty ol' scumbag does not make us less likely to believe that you are a dirty ol' scumbag.


Amb, you should probably claim. Consider yourself lucky that my itchy

trigger

hammer finger hasn't gone off yet.

[Glork]

*behaving like a dirty ol' scumbag


Sorry, mistyped that. Still, your reaction amuses me. I can't tell if it's a slip "Crap, I admitted that I'm scum?" or a genuine "WTF?" I've noted it nonetheless.

[Glork]

Argh.

"Coming out and pointing out your own scummy behavior does not..."

[Glork]

If you're pseudo-claiming what I think you are, just claim it explicitly, and at least force the scums to waste a nightkill on you.

[Glork]

I'm tempted to go ahead and ask for flavor, rolename, etc., but I'm pretty sure that I believe you.


Now, back to lynching DoS.

[Glork]

Seriously, town.

Stop letting this dude think for you.

It's embarrassing.

[Glork]

Mod:

I unvoted and moved to DoS in Post 153.

Mod: noted.

[Glork]

Do you have a name?

[Glork]

unvote

Why the unvote?

[Glork]

Can you at least tell us if you have an actual name?

I want to cross-check with my own role, and I want DoS to answer this question as well.

[Glork]

Actually, nevermind, Amb. In the absence of a counterclaim, I don't want to hear any more from you. I choose to believe you unless you get counterclaimed.


I do, however, want to hear from DoS.

[Glork]

I'm not saying that it isn't plausable. I just want to hear what else he has to say.

[Glork]

No I don't have a name... It just says customer and town aligned

Are you sure?


Amb, do you have a name?

[Glork]

My initial suspicion of DoS was pretty much based on the timing and reasoning for his Pete D vote.
His responses weren't very satisfying; he basically reiterated that he was voting because he agreed with the evidence provided by other players.
His OMGUS wagon vote of Amb was just as bad as Amb's "I don't want to be lynched, so I'll join the next biggest wagon" vote. Both plays were selfish and incredibly stupid. It's not as though a lynch was going to be determined in the first ~5 pages of the game, so I don't see why they were getting so fussy about having a large wagon on them at that stage.
I still have my vote on DoS because, quite simply... I have a name. I have the name of a real-life (and reasonably well-known) person. I'm not vanilla (and if you look back through my posts, you'll see some serious hint-dropping; I've already pseudo-claimed). I find his "I don't have a name" comment somewhat suspicious. Apparently I am in the minority, though. Maybe just 'nilla townies have no names. It is also distinctly possible that I am the

only

person who has a name; I can guarantee that I am completely unique in at least noe major role attribute.

I don't know what to make of any of this right now.

Unvote

I want FrAt to explain this comment:

I believe the doc claim. DoS is the lynch for today. So far, PP and Omega are the only people striking me as 100% town.

PP is someone I could potentially see as scum (she's clung the most to this "let's listen to/follow Glork" notion), and I don't have a read on Omega either way at this point.

[Glork]

Bah, missed the last two posts of the thead. Thinking on SC's post now.

[Glork]

It's not so much that you're

following

me in an "I'm going to say/vote/do what Glork says/votes/does," but it's more the fact that you keep pushing how valuable a resource I am, how much you

care

about my opinion , etc. I appreciate it, although I'm definitely starting to get that buddy-up feeling. At first I ignored it, pretty much thinking, "Oh, well PP just likes me." Now I'm beginning to consider the possibility that it's more of a game-related sentiment.

[Glork]

Vote: DoS

I think that a DoS lynch is probably in our best interests.

[Glork]

Amb, if your claim and flavor are true, that would seem to imply that the mafia consists of employees who are poisoning the food that they give to customers, as opposed to "Evil Customers" who are poisoning each others' food.

I'm about 80% sure that DoS is the play today. StallingChamp claims to be 99% sure that DoS is scum. I think that this is because he knows something that the rest of us probably do not. I don't think that it's necessarily ability-related (not like he's a daycop or anything), but I do believe that he has found something very wrong with DoS's claim.

I definitely think that SC is pro-town, and I definitely think that DoS is scum. I'm no longer sure how I feel about Amb. I can easily see a scenario in which Amb is scum and not a doctor -- but I'm not going to discuss that because it likely involves other players' potential roles. I'm still keeping a loose eye on PP and FrAt. I'd like to hear more from Omega and Zarvok -- they've been way too quiet.

[Glork]

Heh, go simulpost. *high fives StallingChamp*

[Glork]

I find it reasonable to believe that the Mafia tried to kill me last night, so I'm going to go ahead and finish claiming.


I am

Morgan Spurlock, Survivor

. I am not stricktly pro-town, but I am not scum. My

sole

win condition is to be alive when the game ends. For those of you who don't know, Spurlock is the guy who filmed the movie Super-Size me, so I have a brief spat of flavor about how I'm eating nothing but McDonald's for a month, etc., etc.

If you'll notice, I hinted to a Survivor role several times: Post 15, Post 57, and Post 129. I also made a big deal about whether players have names or not, and mentioned that I might be the only player with one. I also said that I was sure I was unique in at least one major aspect with regards to roles (that being, of course, that I am NEUTRAL).

I considered claiming right at the start of the day, but that's always iffy. Scum and sometimes townies will want Survivors lynched (scum to get a "mislynch," and townies to lynch a "non pro-town player"). I decided that the better route was to hint heavily D1 and see if the scums took a hint.

The other part of my plan for this game was to try to find a scumbag D1 to demonstrate to the town that I'm not going to sit around and be a completely useless player. I will not behave in such a way to become a major threat to the scums, because they will have to kill me if they think I'm jeopardizing their chances of winning. However, now that I've pretty much delivered you folks a scumbag (with some serious backing from SC <3), I think I've proven that I don't plan on screwing you over.

I will still read the game, and I will still participate and provide insight when applicable. However, as my condition is to survive, that is my primary focus. Everything I've said has been in the best interests of the town and, unless I fear for my life, everything that I say in the future will also be in the best interests of the town.


Make of that what you will. But whatever you do, just don't kill me.

[Glork]

Amb, can/could you self-protect?

[Glork]

Why is it so vital to Amb that he can't reveal who he protected last night?

It's the same reason that it's a bad idea to post "Hey, what's your result?" to a claimed Cop as soon as day starts.

Discussion is more informative when less information is known. Suppose Amb had protected FrozenAtlantic (whom the scums tried to kill), and then several players bandwagoned FrAt the next day for some really silly/bad reason. We'd be able to get information from this bandwagon, whereas if Amb had revealed FrAt as a protection chioce right away, that wagon would never have happened.

It's also possible that Amb's information won't even be helpful to the town. Suppose the kill was stopped by a roleblocker, and not Doc-protection. If Amb protected OmegaScum (hypothetically speaking) and we all went "aha! Scums probably tried to kill Omega. He's likely not scum!' then we're setting ourselves up for failure.

As I said before, in the absence of a counterclaim, there is no reason to lynch Amb. If Amb is scum and there is a Doc out there somewhere, they should wait until the day

before

LyLo to counterclaim. That way, even if we lynch the wrong person, the town hasn't lost yet. The scums are not going to be able to play WIFOM games with us and trick us into lynching Amb if he's really a Doctor.

I think that Amb is legit anyway. As I indicated yesterday, I thought that exactly one of DoS/Amb was scum, based on their interation with the self-preservation votes. I think that the scums wanted to "trick" us into trying to lynch him, and that they went after either SC or myself... and that their kill was foiled by some other night action.


By the way, I'd bet $10 that at least one of PP/TCS is scum. Just sayin'.

[Glork]

Glork: - If the town eliminates all the scum, but you are alive (as well as some town), will we both win? Or will it be just you for being alive in the endgame?
- To be honest, "Don't kill me" is pretty standard, and you could have been setting up a claim. Why claim now, when you are no where near a lynch?

Yes, we would both win. As long as I am alive when one group or faction attains their win condition, I win as well. I affect no other team's win condition -- I am not a threat to the town, so I can't prevent them from living all happy/peaceful forevermore. And I am not a hinderance to the scum's ability to win. I simply exist, and my only official objective is to keep on existing.
You're right. I technically could have set this up ahead of time. I would not say, however, that *repeated* pleas of "don't kill me" are by any means standard, especially when there has been no pressure whatsoever on that player. The thing is, it's standard for Survivors to claim early in games. Fritzler did it D1 in... I think it was a ScumChat mini or something... and the players let him stay alive. It's really necessary, since it is the *ONLY* means a Survivor has of protecting themselves; if they get lynched or killed, it's game over. The scums already know that I'm telling the truth, so they are unlikely to kill me at this point (unless I prove to be a major threat to them). Having handpicked DoS as a scumbag, the town only has to decide whether I'm pulling off a

massive

gambit that I would have had to plan right at the start of the game, by busing a partner and claiming Survivor.
I actually wanted to claim at the end of Day One, but I went to bed when DoS was still a few votes away from lynch, and by the time I woke up, he was dead and the thread was already locked. The only reason I am claiming is not to avoid a lynch (since, as you pointed out, I am in no danger of being lynched). It is to avoid being

nightkilled

.


I don't think that the town should massclaim whether they have specific names or not. The only reason I said that yesterday is because I expected the scums to just kill off Amb. (And consequently, I was planning on claiming today because I figured I'd have no other chances of being protected.) Claiming like that only gives away more information to the scumbags. Additionally, there is no reason for you to finish claiming. The town doesn't need to know your full role (though most of us can probably guess it if we look hard enough... I believe that I already have), and making it clear/explicit to the mafia only helps them figure out what/where they should be killing.

[Glork]

Vote: Pink Princess

Word to people's mothers.

[Glork]

1. Probably because FrAt said so.
2. Pink Power!

[Glork]

1. It might not be. We don't know yet.
2. That depends on who you're dealing with. Someone like AniX? Definitely power. Display authority, capability, independence, power. Most other males? Pink. Use the "I'm a girl!" factor to sway them. Females? Hell if I know.

[Glork]

1. But your opinion is inherently biased.
2. Dammit.

Unvote

[Glork]

I already said this, but here goes again:

I find it reasonable to believe that I was targeted for a nightkill last night, and I do not want to be nightkilled in the future. If I am killed (via nightkill or lynch), I lose, regardless of what else happens in the game. If I survive, I win -- again, regardless of what else happens in the game. My win condition is not mutually exclusive with that of the town or the scum, so if my claim is believed (which it will be believed by the scums, and it should be believed by the town), then I put myself in a position to win right here and now.

[Glork]

Not to my knowledge. As far as I know, I have no abilities or perks whatsoever.

[Glork]

I've already explained this, too. I don't *have* to lead the charge in scumhunting, and now that I've already found one scum, I don't plan on playing a huge part in scumhunting. If I think I'm becoming a big enough threat that the scums might try to kill me, I'll just tone things down for a game-day or two (like right now). I don't

have

to actively hunt scum. I've proven my worth to the town, and they have absolutely no reason to lynch me. Since I am not a threat to the town and my survival does not hurt the town's chances, lynching me is effectively a mislynch.

All I have to do is show the scums that they have no reason to nightkill me, which is

exactly

why I'm telling them, "If you don't kill me, I won't try to screw you over in the future."

It's the best I can do given the circumstances, since I cannot stop the scums from trying to nightkill me. I basically have to trust them tonight, and if they hold up their end of the bargain (by letting me live this coming night), I'll hold up my end and not actively hunt like I was on D1.

Both parties should just act as though I'm not even in the game right now. Pretend that there are 10 players alive, most likely 2 Mafiates left, and just pretend that I do not exist. It makes the most sense for everybody -- the town doesn't have to worry about me actively helping the scums, and the scums don't have to worry about me actively helping the town. I don't know how else to play the role; every other time I've seen a Survivor in a game, they've claimed early and everyone pretty much went "okay, we can ignore you and let you win."

I'm not sure why you guys are drilling me on this. Nobody seems to doubt that I'm a Survivor. Questioning me and my tactics does not help you find scum. If you actually think I have evil, ulterior motives, state that and explain why. Otherwise, I think that you have

scumbags

to go find... not Survivors to pester and annoy.

[Glork]

Because you have no reason to use up a day lynching me. You have ACTIVE, LETHAL threats to go after, not Neutral players. Why would you use a day lynching me? Is that the thanks you plan on giving me for D1?

[Glork]

I agree that it's a waste of time to lynch you if you claim is true, and that is

precisely

what plants a small germ of doubt in my mind.

How does "Lynching SurvivorGlork waste the town's time" make you doubt that I'm a Survivor at all?

Lynching a claimed, undisupted Doctor (Amb) would be a complete waste of the town's time. Does that make his claim less likely to be true? No. It does not.

I understand what you're trying to say, TCS. What I don't understand is

how

you're arriving at your conclusion (that I'm not "off the hook"). Your logic makes no sense to me.

[Glork]

So what he's saying is that I planned on hint-dropping from the start of D1, bused a scumbuddy, and claimed just so that I won't get myself lynched in the near future.

Yeah. That's really freaking productive. Great logic there.

[Glork]

A cop won't get a guilty on me because I'm not scum. I already checked this with the Mod.

[Glork]

I think Frozen Atlantic is implying that you are the second scum, PP.

Observant little bugger, aren't ya?

[Glork]

First of all, FA isn't the cop.

Explain.

I'm thinking Frozen Atlantic and Glork? Maybe that's why FRAT wants us to shut up about him?

Bussing a scumbuddy and then claiming a role that the town shouldn't want to lynch... yeah, completely unheard of in mafiascum.

For your own sake, I hope that you are scum. Because if you're honestly thinking this as a pro-town player, you will likely get a post-game rant like you have

never

witnessed before.

[Glork]

Mod(s): What is the status of Omega and Zarvok? Have they picked up their prods?

[Glork]

FrAt: Is there some flavor behind being an RB/Vig?

PP: Thoughts/Reply?


No revelations yet, FrAt. I had PP/TCS at the top of my list starting today because their late jumps onto DoS seemed like they were busing. Now it seems TCS wants everybody to doubt me out of nothing more than pure self-preservation.

[Glork]

Crap, forgot my post limitation for today. It's not significant... just for fun.

Also, FrAt, if TCS has a lynching win condition, I think it's against poor Glorky. TCS is not voting Glork outright (so far), but distinctly doubting Glorky. Also, Surviving/Lynching pairs don't come uncommonly. I had was one in CT Mafia not too long ago.

[Glork]

Well it makes no sense for him to be a scum roleblocker. He'd have blocked the Doc and they would have just been able to kill off whomever they wanted.

Now, that begs the question: Is PP scum or not? Donno yet. Leaning towards "yes."

[Glork]

*shrugs*

It's your decision... not mine.

[Glork]

No massclaims on D2. That's ridiculous.

[Glork]

N1 target?

[Glork]

Reason?

[Glork]

Here's a flavourless Vote Count:

Flavorless like BURGER KING!



[Zing!]

[Glork]

First off SV I'm DeanWinchester, Not DeadWinchester.
Second off your claim sounds somwhat Flavorless and I don't believe You at all.
Thirdly I take it you got back a clear on me since you are not voting me.
Fourthly defiently no to the mass-claim.

Pay attention. FrAt claimed to have blocked her, and she confirmed that she was blocked.

Also, you've now flat-out stated that you disbelieve both a claimed Doc and a claimed Cop without really giving sufficient reason. I am not one to judge how much flavor the pro-town role PMs have, but I don't think that saying "I don't believe the flavor of your claim" is sufficient enough to refute the claim. Nor do I think "you've been really scummy, so I don't think you're the doc."


I think I'm still against a massclaim. Donno for sure, though.

[Glork]

FrozenAtlantic would be my suggestion.

Why? He is proven as a roleblocker. Do you think he is a scum roleblocker?

[Glork]

Pretty sure Omega and Zarvok need replaced. Neither of them have posted in forever.


CDB?

[Glork]

I would suggest that everybody go look at both wagons on DoS.

How did people treat DoS on his first, early wagon? Who defended him or avoided commenting on the wagon at all?
Who stalled about pressing DoS early in the second wagon? Who just kinda jumped aboard or ignored the issue once SC essentially busted his claim?

Those might be key questions to answer if you want to find one (or two, possibly?) of DoS's scumbuddies.

Glork - I believe his survivor claim for now, but I will keep scum gambit and especially investigation-immune SK possibilities in mind for later in the game

The implications of me being an SK are pretty serious. If we suppose that FrAt is legitimate, then it would almost

necessarily

imply that PP is a Mafiate whose kill was blocked, and that I targeted whomever Amb protected. You seem to accept that PP's claim is true, and you posit the existence of FrAt as a mafia roleblocker, either of which would

strongly

indicate that I could not be an SK. Where would the second nonkill have come from?

NaR: You're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than that in this game. Saying "Glork could gambit, he is poopy and dorky!" does not make an argument. Nor does saying "I think Yellowbounder is scummy, too!" I would suggest that, if you think YB and/or I have actually done something noteworthy which you find scummy, you point it out (preferrably with quotes or by citing post numbers) and explain

why

you think it's scummy. Considering you're a raw, overeager newbie, I'm not yet going to take that as a sign of scumminess, but you will *not* get away with just saying whatever you want, if you expect

anybody

to take you seriously.

For everyone else: Incidentally, I can vouch from several ScumChat experiences that NAR probably won't follow through on my request. (Still, NAR, you're more than welcome to prove me wrong. In fact, I encourage it.) I figured I should warn everybody in advance. All I've seen him do is push wagons, claim at inappropriate times, call people scummy for no reason, and ask to be lynched. Good luck dealing with this one. :/

[Glork]

Bingo.

That's why I said one of PP/TCS are probably scum. PP had done basically the same thing.

[Glork]

For the record, the other person on my list is Zarvok (now NAR) for this post:

Well, I'm not really suspicious of DragonsofSummer for two reasons: 1) I just went back and read the thread in detail for the first time in a couple pages, and also came to the conclusion that pete d is probably scum, based largely on glork's explanation of his vote here:

A) I find it odd that Pete D is accusing SC's posts of being scummy while leaving his (random) vote sitting around on DeanWinchester. Sometimes it's indicative of distancing, sometimes it's indicative of scum going after town, occasinally it's indicative of just bad pro-town play. When you move from "random" to "serious," you should almost always take your vote with you.
B) Pete let off one of my favorite scumtells that MeMe taught me way back in the day. Proposing or taking a bad stance (such as the one FA is taking, I feel) may or may not be scummy. Following someone else's lead on a bad stance (Pete not only agreeing with FA, but attacking SC for his response) is usually scummy.
C) I feel that, as SC pointed out, Pete overstated the "scumminess" of the proxy by calling it "distracting" and "confusing." Distracting from what? Random-Voting? What exactly is confusing about it?


Pete is pinging. Major hard.

These ideas click with me - agreeing with other people's bad logic doesn't sit well. IMHO, it's most likely that FA is town and Pete d is scum. If both were scum, pete d might have been more cautious about following FA, so as not to seem connected. If Pete d were town, he probably would have rejected the bad logic.

Secondly, DoS's post clarifying his vote here:

Mod I'm voting Pete D right now

I think that if I were scum, I would have done this less abrasively, so as not to arouse suspicion.

So, since Pete D sets off the alarm bells I mentioned, I'm going to

Vote: Pete D

. Maybe one of you guys can clarify where you think I am wrong about DoS? I don't see it, but I am a n00b after all...

Late onto the PeteD wagon (meaning he jumped on after it had started to die), and it was in the midst of a growing wagon on DoS. He also borrowed ideas almost entirely from another player (me).

[Glork]

And actually, his "I think if he were scum, he'd have done it less abrasively" part doesn't even make sense. Players point out mistakes to a mod in-thread, regardless of alignment. If somebody catches something that should be fixed, they usually just state it.

Crappy cover-up.

[Glork]

Glork are you certain NAR is as big a menace as you say?
It's a bold statment to say that a player that has just arrived is going to be a problematic townie.

Read and behold.

[Glork]

I'm not intending to be mean. In fact, I said in a previous post that I hope you prove my first impressions wrong.

Now run along and go find some reasons to back up your suspicions.

[Glork]

Thanks for your clarifications, Dean.

Vote DoS.

Enough flavor to make a claim can easily be found in the first post.

Did the reread, and I'm on board for a DoS lynch, possibly for the same reason that SC is (although I'm not sure what SC's reason is).

unvote, vote:DoS

Neither of these posts/votes were the least bit inspiring. I got the distinct feeling that at least one of you was probably busing DoS. Given I had found you suspicious earlier for playing "follow the Glork," I went after you today. That seems to have been a mistake. I'm now thinking the two scums are TCS and NAR.

[Glork]

Edit: The timing was the other part. It was obvious by that point that DoS was going to be the lynch of the day. Perfect time to "disbelieve" and bus. And those two votes were within two posts of each other, so I was even more sure that one or maybe both could have had some bus-driving involved.

[Glork]

Vote: TCS

[Glork]

Better idea, how bout we lynch PP today and vig you tonight?

What makes you so convinced that PP is lying about her role?

[Glork]

So you're willing to lynch a claimed Cop because you're not sure if she's lying?

[Glork]

Okay, here's what I think should happen. Any Doc, Cop, or Roleblocker which has not counterclaimed yet should do so. Why? We lynched one scumbag already on D1. Getting a second one today is

well worth the sacrifice of a power role overnight

, no matter how you look at it. If we get a counterclaim, lynch a scum, and lose a townie overnight, we're still looking at 9 players with

two scumbags dead, with the power to lynch in our hands.

That's really about as good as any town could possibly hope for. At this point, I really don't think there is *ANY* reason for a power role *NOT* to counterclaim.

Nobody else should be claiming today unless they are being run up and they had not yet claimed.

In the absence of any counterclaims, I refuse to lynch PP or Amb. I could see the existence of FrAt as a Mafia Roleblocker, but I am not willing to lynch him at this time either.

Now, for the time being, let's assume that all three power claims are true.
If PP is telling the truth, I don't know what happened to the mafia kill. We *know* that FrAt blocked her -- he has claimed it, and she has acknowledged it. We *know* that Amb can't self-protect. Thus, it does not make sense for the mafia to kill Amb unless they planned on framing him and getting lynched today. If this is the case, then somebody who came out of the gates and attacked Amb on D2 would most likely be a scumbag. That would point heavily towards DeanWinchester, who still seems to just think Amb is scummy for... some reason.

[Glork]

Now, FrAt... if everybody checks in and there *IS* no Cop counterclaim, what would you propose we do?

Oh, and while we're on the subject, it bothers me that TCS lumped his name in with the other claimed roles. He basically just claimed Townie and implied that because he's claimed as such, we shouldn't be looking at him. He suggests a plan that just goes after unclaimed players, and he advocated a massclaim earlier. TCS definitely does *NOT* sit well with me right now. I'm very happy with my vote on him.

[Glork]

Unvote

Now *this* is interesting. Things are definitely once again pointing towards PPscum.

[Glork]

Guys, the play at this point is to lynch PP.

If she's town, FrAt should vig Dean, Amb should protect FrAt, and the scums will very likely kill Amb.

If she's scum, FrAt should do as he pleases, Amb should protect one of FrAt/Dean, and the scums will still likely kill Amb.

Vote: Pink Princess

. Sorry, dear. I still love you.

[Glork]

This is a bad I deal. I think she is going to come up town. I think she is either a naive or paranoid cop.
What if she comes up town, but we get her role as a parnoid or naive cop? what do you propose we do then?

Okay, this says one of a couple of things to me?
A) You're a scumbag and you know she's going to turn up town, so you're trying to pre-emptively cover your own ass.
B) You're horribly mistaken, and you've conjured this idea that she's pro-town out of your own imagination.

I want to know exactly

why

you think that PP is a naive or paranoid Cop. Saying "I think she's going to come up town" does not mean anything to anybody. At first, you were suspicious of her claim. Just because she explains her "flavor" does not mean that her claim is automatically legitimate.

Obviously if PP comes up cop, we have to wonder about Glork and Dean. But I don't think she will.

I'm curious to know why you'd want to go after me. Any mafia player with a shred of talent or understanding will tell you that if the town is ahead of pace (as we are, with one scumbag dead and no townies dead), then in the event of a counterclaim, you *always* lynch the player who claimed first.
A scumbag has very, *VERY* little to gain by counterclaiming a legitimate cop. (Meaning Dean is very unlikely to be a cop.)
A second scumbag who is going down has *EVERY* reason to out a cop by claiming to be one if they know they're being lynched anyway. (Read: PP's claim now means nothing, since she was probably trying to out another power role before she got lynched.)

I'm only stating the most sensible, logical play; the

correct

play for

the town to make

. Yet you still seem in opposition to it, and to me in general. I'm becoming even more convinced that you're a Lyncher, and that I am your target. And I hate to break it to you; if that's the case, and the scumbags die, and the town has to decide whether to lynch you or me... I'm the one who's finding the scums, and you're the one who's sitting here going, "Don't listen to Glork, I think he's gambiting!"

[Glork]

Mod:

I figured I should point out this thread... NAR was found to have two alts, cokebottle and kardkraizee, both of which attempted to sabotage games in different ways. Consequently, Mith has deactivated the accounts and suggests that NAR get replaced in his games. So yeah, looks like you need to find another replacement.

[Glork]

Uh, yellowbounder, pay attention. StallingChamp is pretty much the most confirmed player around, as he's the one who busted DoS's false claim on Day One.

[Glork]

Sorry, DW, I'm in something of a hurry, and I was just skimming over things really quickly -- I missed your question.

At this time, I do not think that there would be a sane/paranoid cop in addition to a regular one. Adding a second and (more importantly) a *useless* cop is overall a detriment to the town. And with probably 3 scumbags and 1 neutral player already, the town doesn't need the pain of dealing with multiple cops of questionable sanity. I really do think that PP is the play of the day. And I don't think we need anybody else to claim. There's a lot of info to go out there and grab, if only we can come to a consensus on what to actually *do*.

[Glork]

...and YB is probably the other person I'd be willing to swing vote at this point. *shrug*

[Glork]

What the counterclaimer thinks has nothing to do with it. If Dean is telling the truth, his opinion is no better or worse than anybody else's. I don't see why you're insistent on putting so much weight on "but the counterclaimer says there could be two!" The

only

thing that says to me is "if PP *does* turn up scum, DW is definitely scum, and he's trying to pre-emptively explain himself." Still, everything I'm seeing points to PP being scum right now.

[Glork]

Can you tell me why you find PP so scummy, enough to make you to vote a claimed cop?

I have already done so, and I've even elaborated on that explanation. Go figure it out for yourself.

[Glork]

Although, if PP was scum, then she would also know the method of dispatch.

Bingo. Dean, I don't see how you see "the flavor of PP's role [being] too dead on" as a sign that she's pro-town. It could very well mean that

she knows how the townies are killed because she's the one who does it.

[Glork]

Now... you people

do

realize that if we manage

not

to lynch PP today, FrAt will simply KILL HER OVERNIGHT... right?

[Glork]

PP:

I'm a Fanatical Vegan. I came here to protest Mickey D's but I don't want to get killed by scumz. I've got a Roleblocker/Vigilante role. Blocking PP D1, combined with the fact that the doctor is already outed and the textbook mafia hit, combined with her late D1 play (read it yourself), puts her at the top of my scumdar.

Pete D: Interesting "catch." I'll have to think about that one. Right now, PP is still the play.

[Glork]

It's sad that I'm more obesrvant than you guys, and I'm not even pro-town.

[Glork]

Glork: 10/10 Has claimed non town non scum role. Should be lynched. Should be vigged. Either or. Timing of death is up to the vig / discussion.

I have two issues with this. You're placing me at a higher killing priority than StallingChamp, yet you're going after StallingChamp much more actively. It seems to me that one way or another, you're just being lazy about going after me. You express the strongest desire possible in a mafia game to have me lynched, but A) You don't even vote for me; and B) You don't actually make a case as to

why

I am, in any way, a threat to thet town. Your, uh... logic?... doens't make any sense. It seems that your desire to have me killed is based

entirely

on my claim of "Survivor, Neutral."

Do you believe this claim? If so, why do you think the town has anything to gain by lynching me? Do you realize that a lynch on a Neutral player whose win condition is not mutually exclusive with the town's is effectively nothing more than a lynch on a vanilla townie? Nevermind that I'm paying more attention and putting more effort into finding scum than several of the other players in the game.

Do you disbelieve the claim? If this is the case,

why

do you disbelieve the claim? What evidence points to me being scum? What would you think if PP were lynched/vigged as scum (knowing that I went after DoS and basically pushed him to falseclaim, and also poked at PP towards the end of the day, indicating that I think she is scum)?


Please elaborate on your PP stance better. You notice that she tends to flock to me. I'm widely seen as a respectable scumhunter. I don't understand how you can possibly see constantly riding

my

coattails as anything but a scumtell.

Your stance on Dean is completely backwards. Being the second to claim Cop is an indicator that they're

more

likely to be telling the truth, as we are

far from LyLo

. His flavor makes just as much sense, IMHO. I should also note that DW is a newer/weaker player.... while that doesn't excuse his talking about a massclaim completely, it could be an indication that he just doesn't realize how bad an idea a massclaim is right now. Considering his acceptance of PP's claim, I see him as being a very naive player overall.

[Glork]

Mod: Vote Count?

[Glork]

Glork - you claimed an anti town role. The fact that you did so early probably means you arent mafia-scum. This does mean we do need to be rid of you to stop you winning the game. I dont feel now is the right time to be rid of you, but we should consider it soon. 10/10 is based on your scuminess factor. The fact I am not voting you is down to a tactical pov.

Have you ever played with a Survivor before? Their victory condition has

NEVER

, to my knowledge, been exclusive to the town's. If I am alive when all of the scums are lynched,

both the town and I will win the game.

If I am alive when the mafia achieves their win condition (presumably majority control of the town),

both the mafia and I win the game.

If you do not believe that I am a killing role or some other

direct threat to the town

, then you have

no reason to spend a day lynching me.

It's just not tactically sound at all, contrary to what you may believe.

Do you think I'm an SK? Why? How does last night (no kills) shake down if that were the case?

[Glork]

Two examples of Survivors from past games --

neither

of them surviving meant that any other group/team could not win:

Lavos -- (Davis)
Yes, you are lavos, the destroyer of the world, the red star of power, the source of zeal's... well, zeal.

But no, you're not evil. You're just a simple creature, trying to survive, and that's what you ahve to do here.

You win as long as you're alive at the end of the game.
Let's just hope that your latent abilities don't manifest...

Neutral:
Charles Davis Mike Skupin – you were never given the chance, and I feel sorry for you. Here’s an interesting role in return. Each Night, view one person, and learn their role name. If you are ever targeted for a night kill, you can give your killer information in exchange for your life - don't give redundant information, though, or your life will not be spared. You may not expose two Townies consecutively to your killer. Your victory condition is simply to survive. Fitting, no?

If you are alive at game end,

you will share victory

with the winning team.

Please ask if you need clarification. (MOD NOTE: Mike can never be targeted by the same person/group on more than 2 consecutive Nights.)

Emphasis mine on the second role PM. Note that this one even states that they will

SHARE

victory. Me living is *NOT* a threat to the town. At all. You have no reason whatsoever to want me dead, Amb.

[Glork]

I was curious to see if it would be "Neutral" or "Innocent." (There is discrepancy among mods -- some think that any non-malicious role is "Innocent," whereas others think that a neutral role is "Neutral.") As it turns out, I think it's Not Scum. Or something like that.

[Glork]

I like how glorks defense of me is he sucks leave him alone.
ATM I definetly don't love Glork.

I'm not saying you suck... I'm just saying that I have a couple of years of experience and know how things are more likely to shake down. I'm just saying that I think your naivety comes from inexperience, that's all.

[Glork]

Unvote, Vote: Yellowbounder

I'll just let FrAt do his thing.

[Glork]

For reference, here is Yellowbounder's response to DoS's townie claim:

I'm posting.

Worship me.

Seriously, town.

Stop letting this dude think for you.

It's embarrassing.

Why is Glork quoting this? Is he putting it in context?

*Sigh* well at least you have a power role to claim... being a normal townie sucks in these situations.

a flavor might help?

I didn't really even have one. It just said that I was a scared customer.

Vanilla townie is a bad thing to claim you could argue, since it rarely saves you from lynch, and if you survive the wagon, then arugeably scum will not pick you for a random night kill, in order to increase the likelyhood of hitting a power role.

Scum also tend to claim townie, since there is no legitimate counterclaim, (unless the game is open, the number of vanillas are known, and that number have already claimed, or something like that), but that doesn't automatically make DoS scum, it just raises an eyebrow on my part.

Let's look, like Amb has done for himself, at what happens if we lynch DoS.

If DoS is town (assuming he is telling the truth, since if he is town, why would he lie?*), then we shouldn't lynch him,since we kill a townie, decreasing the town, and increasing the chance of a power role being hit by a random nightkill. **

Although I am suspisious of anyone making a townie claim, for my above mentioned reasons, DoS seems fairly protown ish to me.

If some one disagrees, then my all means quote the suspicious posts

in context

. Nothing sucks more than your posts being taken out of context.

* If he had some sort of you-claim-you-lose power role, or some sort of thing, like a cop who doesn't want to be nightkilled, then possibly he could be lying. But I'm discounting this.

** Amb may have claimed, so if he isn't scum, doctors are generally targeted. Or he could be purposefully not targetted by scum, which causes us to lynch him since the scum didn't kill him. ***

*** Yes, this is WIFOM. That's why I didn't mention it directly.

Now, I see nothing about refuting the flavor, style, or description of DoS's false townie claim. YB

does

talk about how Townie is "a bad thing to claim" for a mafiate -- while this may have been true Day One, it seems as though much of our power is out... so Townie becomes a much more necessary claim.

It seems to me that based on StallingChamp's response, all of the townies have some similar/identical flavor or characteristics, which DoS failed to acknowledge. It also seems as though the discrepancy SC found between his own role and DoS's claim should be pretty obvious. That begs the question: Why didn't YB mention the flavor at all? He says that he's suspicious of DoS for claiming to be a Townie, but not for the way in which he described his Townie role.

This leads me to believe that YB is probably lying... but I'll let somebody with a bit more knowledge/experience (such as SC himself, perhaps) weigh in on that subject.

[Glork]

HAMMAH HAMMAH!

[Glork]

Maybe he needs time making up a believable claim.

Then why are you giving him that time by unvoting?

[Glork]

Well now that we know you'll "immediately hammah," nobody is going to put him at Lynch -1, so it's not going to speed up any decision-making.

I just don't see the point really. *shrug*

[Glork]

I think we should all go with Amb or PP. I'm going to read back more and observe their behavior though.

So you think that there is no Doctor in the game, then?

[Glork]

I don't think we should direct Amb. If he's scum, we'll know soon enough and it won't matter what we say anyway. If he's town, it's definitely best to keep the scums guessing.