Mini 414-Anime Mafia | GAME OVAH!

[thrawn1020]

I'm here. Sorry, I have been gone for a week for my Spring Break.

Unvote

, and I'm going to reread tonight or tomorrow.

[AbboTT]

Welcome Back

[IH]

Your humble mighty mod looks upon your proceedings dissapointed....

"Didn't I tell you to kill someone!?!?"

His anime style cape blowing in the wind, he lets a scrap of paper blow to flash before your eyes... you all register it as the next.....

-----------------Votecount-------------------------
Yamahako -1- (Ubertimmy)
Cubsfan4ever -3- (Yamahako, Cuban Smoker, Abbott)
Jack -2- (Skruffs, Cubsfan4ever)
AndrewS -2- (Mert, Jack)

Not voting - (Hemisphere Dancer, AndrewS, Spectrumvoid, Thrawn 1020)

With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch!

[Mert]

Thanks for clarifying, IH.

I would say that I'm most comfortable with an AndrewS lynch at the moment, as I believe he appears scummiest at the moment.

In terms of information, I believe Cubsfan or Jack would be best, but I wouldn't be particularly happy with lynching them just for information, as we'll get information from what happens during the night phase regardless and I would like to revisit their actions in Day Two rather than lynch them today, if possible. Lynching either may help us

find

scum, but I'm ultimately not totally convinced of their scumminess right now.

[AbboTT]

Although I don't think that Jack is a shining star of townieness, I don't think lynching him will do any good.

He hasn't put himself out there enough to make lynching him for info useful.

I don't like lynching AndrewS because I assume that he's just been away or something.
If he really is lurking as hard as it seems, then yeah.

@AndrewS: Say something. Have you been lurking, or have you been busy?

[Mert]

I don't like lynching AndrewS because I assume that he's just been away or something.

For the sake of clarity, I should point out that my reasons for favouring an AndrewS lynch aren't to do with his current lack of activity.

[AbboTT]

Oh really?

Maybe I missed something then.
Do you have any quotes or anything that you think make him look scummy?

*re-reading*

[Mert]

Oh really?

Maybe I missed something then.
Do you have any quotes or anything that you think make him look scummy?

*re-reading*

Ya rly (sorry, couldn't resist).

My Posts 59, 67 and 213 talk about my suspicions of AndrewS. The first two are due to his rather eager "if Jack has a random post restriction then we need to kill him" stuff near the beginning. The second one is about the fact he has twice leapt to the defense of someone prior to their being able to respond themselves.

While I'll admit that the latter makes most sense if Cubsfan is also scum, there's just something about Andrew's posting in general that hasn't sat well with me. If taken in a vacuum, none of his posts scream scum at you, but the culmination of various odd timings and reactions leads me to believe he is more than likely scum.

[AbboTT]

I see.

And yeah- I remember that posting restriction fiasco.

I sort of had the feeling that andrew, as a more senior player, might have been trying to fool people.

[AndrewS]

Ok, back, sorry...last few days have been very busy.

Mert - are you denying that if he DID have to vote randomly that he would be dangerous in an endgame?

[Skruffs]

I post too much?
The problem with lists is that people who nobody outwardly suspects are goign to get killed off to keep the scum safe.

My list to lynch: (Most lynchy to least)
Scummers
Jack
Uber Timmy
Yamahoko
Cubs (both of them)
Mert
Abbott

Someone said earlier, and I believe in this game, that lurkers are worth lynching because people who talk a lot tend to trip themselves up, right? If mafia are going to act pro-town they are going to have to act pro town more than pro town people, and that maeans they'll have to play a tighter game.
Mafia who might be lurking, leave no trails. So it's worth going after them.


I have Jack next because he's basically being ornery as a goat, and for all his bleating, isn't actually contributing much more thanhis vote-droppings.

[Yamahako]

My list to lynch: (Most lynchy to least)
Scummers
Jack
Uber Timmy
Yamahoko
Cubs (both of them)
Mert
Abbott

If 8 of the players are scum in a 12 player game... us townies are screwed

[Jack]

who is scummers?

I'm not being ornery :l

[Skruffs]

well obviously there aren't 8 scummers. There should be top three.
That's just hte list i would want to lynch people in. I didn't include myself because i shouldn't be lynched. I don't agree with Mert on some things but i respect that he goes out there and is hunting scum.

[thrawn1020]

I'm a little suspicious of Mert for being on AndrewS about the Jack thing. AndrewS has a point, but it isn't likely to come to fruition, and I think we are past the whole "Jack has a post restriction" thing by now. I think it's counterproductive to talk about it now, while we are so close to lynch.

Skruffs, are you saying you want to lynch Jack today? Something tells me he'll be here tomorrow.

Right now, I think I have to go with a

Vote: Mert

because I don't see anything else. If someone was going to be lynched directly for the Jack Has a Posting Restriction thing, I would have thought it would have happened by now. There's no denying that what AndrewS was saying is true, so it makes no sense to call him out on it. That said, it seems obvious that Jack has no posting restriction.

[Jack]

I think the AndrewS thing is more along the lines of him seeing a possible easy lynch and jumping on it eagerly. I don't understand your vote for Mert though since he made it clear he was voting AndrewS for several reasons.

I'm voting AndrewS because he kept is vote on me after it became clear I had no restriction because "I wasn't contributing" yet he hasn't contributed at all.

[AbboTT]

I feel that Jack should be safe today even if only because he is posting and talking.

My vote stays with Cubsfan for now.

[Mert]

Mert - are you denying that if he DID have to vote randomly that he would be dangerous in an endgame?

No, but I'm denying the liklihood of there being such a restriction at all, especially given that this is a) a mini normal game, b) his votes didn't actually seem random. Arbitrary, possibly, but there did seem to be a degree of structure to who he voted for.

At best I would say he had a restriction that meant he had to vote in each post, which would be far less dangerous in endgame than you make out.

So no, I'm not denying that a random voting restriction at endgame would be dangerous, but I refer you back to my reasoning in Post 67 where I said (bolded for emphasis of specific points):

If he did have such a restriction then I'd see your point. But I don't particularly believe he does

at the moment (I think it's too early to judge, he could just be messing around in the first few pages) and

even if he did have one, I very much doubt it'd be random to the point of ruining the endgame

- that would just be plain cruelty from the mod and, as you have identified, could just ruin the game.

On top of that, who's to say that he would have this potential post restriction in perpetuity?

Killing him early might mean we lose a potentially valuable player who would be restriction-free by Day Three.

Your (extremely early) assertion that "we should really try to kill him before the numbers get too small" is based in large part on a huge assumption by you that we have a situation that, while not impossible, is very improbable and it seems, as Jack said earlier, like it was an easy way to attach yourself to something that could force a lynch either now or, more likely, in the coming days.

I don't like the way you keep reducing my suspicions of you down to whether or not I agree that "if he did have to vote randomly that he would be dangerous" because my argument is not really about that; it's about the way in which you presented the argument for his lynch based on severely limited assumptions. It's a standard argument from fallacy - by acting as though I

am

denying he would be dangerous if he had this restriction, you can clearly claim that I was wrong on that issue and, therefore, conclude that I was wrong about you generally. This repeated misrepresentation of my posts isn't really helping your case in my eyes...

[AndrewS]

Well, it was logical to assume at that early stage that he did have one. I also included a clause that said if he did. Since it appears that he doesn't, however, how can we explain his actions? Also, if I was looking for an easy day 1 lynch, would I say "Before the endgame" and "Not today"? And finally, if you agree - then why do you find me suspicious? Should I use more politically correct statements when accusing someone in the future?

Your nitpickiness is annoying and unproductive.

Unvote, vote: Mert

[Mert]

Well, it was logical to assume at that early stage that he did have one.

Frankly I disagree. In fact, I rather think it was

il

logical to assume he had a restriction in the form you suggested in your post.

Also, if I was looking for an easy day 1 lynch, would I say "Before the endgame" and "Not today"?

Which is precicely why I said in my last post that you were more likely setting up a lynch for the coming days, rather than today. As already mentioned, he could have merely been required to vote for

somebody

(not randomly) if he had a restriction or any restriction could have expired at some point during the game. It looked like you were hoping he continued vote-hopping for the rest of today in order to set up a quick lynch on another day.

And finally, if you agree - then why do you find me suspicious?

Because while I agree with the hypothetical argument you presented, I believe that this hypothetical argument was little more than a weak theory that was incredibly unlikely to be the case. I find it suspicious that you presented this hypothetical argument almost as though it were fact and began planning future lynches based upon it.

[Skruffs]

Well.. I want to lynch scummers first (if you look at the top of my list, i distinctly marked that down)
If there does not become an obvious scummer to lynch, that's the list of people that I am least to most cohesive with. PEople who aren't on it have made no impact on the game so far and thusly, are to be considered 'scummers' for further notice.

However

I really don't think that lynching someone because you don't get along with them is valid reasoning, at

all

. See earlier defenses of cubs vs others. With that reasoning, Scum just have to be more charming than town for a few days and win. This isn't about poularity, this is about usefullness.
Even if I don't like Jack's methods, if they work, they work. Haven't seen how they work, yet, though.

Welcome back, Thrawn.

HD, I summon thee. Come back from Margaritaville and speak.

SPEAK!

[Jack]

Your nitpickiness is annoying and unproductive.
Unvote, vote: Mert

This isn't true and even if it was why is it worth a vote?

Again what have you done that's productive?

[AndrewS]

Quite frankly, Jack, the same could be said of you. You've contributed absolutely nothing to this game.

As for you, Mert, others made the same assumption. I added a qualifier. Would you rather I have kept my mouth shut?

[AbboTT]

Quite frankly, Jack, the same could be said of you. You've contributed absolutely nothing to this game.

Just because he kind of threw the first couple of pages into chaos doesn't mean that he hasn't been contributing.

He has been grilling people. Answers to those questions will be invaluable in the coming days.

You, however, haven't provoked much conversation (lol... As I write a response to your post).

[IH]

Prodding HD, as I assume thats what Skruffs wanted.

Instead of commanding someone to speak.

This is mini 414, no 416 GOSH!