Mini 424 - Game Over

[Sweenytodd]

The only pressure I can apply is with my vote so let here more from Kil...

Vote: Kilmenator

[LyingBrian]

• Vote Count:
  • 3) kilmenator
    • Javert
    • MeMe
    • Sweenytodd
  • 6)
    not voting
    • ac1983fan
    • Barromán
    • Elias_the_thief
    • kilmenator
    • Nocmen
    • spectrumvoid
• Lynch:
  5 votes

[Barromán]

Don't be so hasty!!!

[Nocmen]

I will not vote Kilmenator, due to I have reasonable proof that lynching her would be lynching a pro-town role.

[MeMe]

Hmm. Kinda weird there, Noc -- but I'll hear you two out.

unvote: kilmenator

[Elias_the_thief]

Im not sure about the logic against kilm. A scum represented two people as suspicious. one was town. why would the other be scum?

[Javert]

I was basing the connection off of the wording of his posts, Elias_the_thief. Think about it another context. A mafia member is going to have at least one partner. Throughout the course of a number of days, they need to make sure they lynch townspeople if possible, while not lynch their own partners. However, they often try to do so in such a way that if their partners

do

die, there is not an easy connection to tie them together.

Of the two people Ancalagon called suspicious in that post, he clearly ranked omg_img_innocent_wtf as higher than kilmenator. His suspicion on kilmenator, to me, looked almost

purposefully

weak. With such weakness, he has an excuse to not push on kilmenator himself, so that no attention would be drawn towards her; but in the case she dies or is lynched, he can point back to that post and claim to have been suspicious of her from the start (which would help 'clear' him). Furthermore, by giving such weak reasons, he could be inviting somebody else to strip them away as weak/flimsy, so that he could say "I guess the case against kilmenator was not as strong as I had thought", so that others might be more willing to accept it as true, and also be gentler with kilmenator.

There is no rule that disallows scum from casting suspicion - however strong or weak - on their own partner(s). I try to keep on the look-out for it. Ancalagon already has one person he was clearly trying to hedge his bets on, and that was omg_im_innocent_wtf. Even though he claimed to be most suspicious of him, he qualifies that statement with "but I could see him coming up town". Why? So he wouldn't look as bad when omg

did

turn up town - because he had somewhat predicted it.

Given Nocmen's claim of information, however, I will

Unvote: kilmenator

, though I expect I will want clarification on that sometime soon (although not necessarily Day Two). I will see if I cannot find another place for my vote soon.

[spectrumvoid]

Nocmen: I'd like to hear you reasonable proof.

[spectrumvoid]

Eeks. *your.

[ac1983fan]

I will not vote Kilmenator, due to I have reasonable proof that lynching her would be lynching a pro-town role.

fos:nocmen

Secret information ≠ good idea. if you have reasonable proof, then share it with us.

[kilmenator]

Hey guys, like I said I am here, but I dont really have time for much. I havent even really checked in here, because I am getting some pretty heavy fire elsewhere in the forum and have been trying to defend myself there. So... the bandwagon on me was quite suspicious, the people voting me are voting me because I voted to kill scum, I voted because we were at deadline, I did not know for sure who scum was, I just put my vote out there on the person with the most votes because deadline was so close.

i guess we gotta get someone to a lynch before deadline.

unvote:, vote:anac

To-Javerts vote because of the self admitted rather weak connection with ana, Do you not think that Ana would have tried to make connections between himself and others (innocents and scum alike) in the thread, being that he was scum and would try to take them (innocents) down with him?

To- Meme why do you think I should be the current focus? Mind elaborating?

The only pressure I can apply is with my vote so let here more from Kil...

Vote: Kilmenator

What about ACfan who hasnt posted either? Why not pressure him?

And to those who are now pressuring Nocmen, take a look at our posts and see that all along we have taken flak off of each other, that would show you that we both think each other are innocent, putting pressure on us to claim is not a wise idea for the town at this point, so can we just leave it that Nocmen and I are innocent and go after someone else? Maybe Elias or Sweenytodd or Acfan?

[kilmenator]

I will not vote Kilmenator, due to I have reasonable proof that lynching her would be lynching a pro-town role.

fos:nocmen

Secret information ≠ good idea. if you have reasonable proof, then share it with us.

I thought you wouldnt be able to be around for a while? and what about the posts you listed, what is scummy about them?

Vote:ac1983fan

I want to hear more from him instead of intentional lurking and non contributing.

[Barromán]

Vote: Kilmentator

I don't understand what you have said...

Did you wanted to say, that you vote Ancagalon just because the deadline was near, and you want to lynch anyone, the one with more votes??????

And now... you have voted ac1983fan?? I think he said he was the role-blocker, dind't he?

[Barromán]

Vote:kilmentator

Before the mod says me that I wrote it bad...

[Sweenytodd]

Ok Kil, I wanted to hear from you and now I have... I will

Unvote: Kilmenator

for now...

So I think I get the connection but I can't seem to resolve this in my mind,

And to those who are now pressuring Nocmen, take a look at our posts and see that all along we have taken flak off of each other, that would show you that we both think each other are innocent

and

The Shadow-lurker, but could just be inactive
OMG- hyperdefensive, almost opportunistic about his attacks on people, overtly rude
Ancalagon- scummish
Nocmen-scummish
Possibly Barroman scummish... I dont know

These two posts seem to be at odds, so maybe I am misreading something here...

In response to your comment Kilmenator... The reason I wanted to put pressure on you and not ACfan was because I was frustrated... It seemed to me that the two of you looked suspicious and both seemed to be lurking to an extent and failing to contribute on this day. Now that you have posted I have temporarily been satiated.

How about you Elias_the_thief... I take it you are suspicious of ACfan but you haven't voted to express that sentiment... I am curious to see who yo find suspicious...

Barroman: Do you have a case for Elias or is it the early-game issue and his voting record? (I'll go re-read him also, I don't have a good read on him myself)

SV: Did you ever find/ask those questions for/to Barroman (I can't find the post with them so was curious) Aside from Kilmenator for the way she voted D1 who do you find most suspicious?

And MeMe, you lead the charge against Ancalagon so I would tend to trust your instincts, who do you find the most suspicious?

My current top 3 suspects in no particular order are :
ACfan
Kilmenator
Javert

AC please give us content... The first game I ever read on this sight was the Trouble in New Jersey where you were mislynched D1 so I gave you a pass, not wanting to repeat that.... But please offer a bit of analysis we can read and consider...

[MeMe]

kil,

I didn't consider the hammer vote on Ancalagon as working in your favor -- as noted, he would've been hammered by

someone

and you being the one to throw it down (5 hours before deadline) when you'd not indicated you were planning to do so seemed more like you were beating Javert to the punch rather than performing a needed service.

Then today you were the last one into the thread and you put us off with a "more later" post while I saw you contributing content elsewhere.

When Javert made the decent point that Ancalagon was unlikely to publicly group his buddies into the same category, I took a look at the three posts where Ancalagon considers your alignment -- 197, 244, 335 -- and found that twice he chose to voice confusion over what he thought of you and once (244) he says that he hadn't found you scummy until after Javert's post. Because Anc

had

previously voiced some suspicion about you in 197, I found it weird...almost like he'd have preferred to play the sycophant if he were to wind up voting you.

Altogether, you became a decent focal point.

[MeMe]

And MeMe, you lead the charge against Ancalagon so I would tend to trust your instincts, who do you find the most suspicious?

I'm completely undecided at the moment. Currently, there's one person (besides myself) I'd be

unlikely

to vote -- other than that, I'm wide open.

[kilmenator]

Basically, this is one of the first times, I have been the role that I am. When I was seeking advice from another player (not in-game) they said it might be smart to distance somewhat from my partner as once I am confirmed innocent then another person is autmattically confirmed, and if I make it obvious who my partner is then they could be the next kill. Being that I have said all of this, I might as well claim as anyone who has played any amount of time will know my role and my partner. So I am a mason and you obviously know my partner.

[Javert]

Nocmen's post was clearly implying Mason. I'm not sure why spectrumvoid asked for clarification, since it was fairly obvious he was not a Cop (else he could not know his Sanity - if he did, he would have a guilty investigation), and given this is a mini regular game, there simply aren't many other roles which would allow him to claim to have "proof" of kilmenator being innocent.

However, leave no stone unturned. I would like each of you to check your role PMs (and PM the Mod if it is not explicit) to ask whether or not the two of you are

guaranteed

to be innocent.

Pointer for the future, however: as a Mason role, you are often better off allowing small wagons on yourself and your partner. You (and your partner) essentially

know

that you cannot be lynched due to your role, and you are only gaining information by seeing who thinks what of you, and your partner. Anybody who lynches before a claim (i.e. the only feasible way you could get lynched, unless there was a deadline; which there is not) would basically be outing themselves as scum in any case. Also, the longer you can last without claiming, the better. You should defend before claims, if possible.

Have the two of you encrypted each others' names in your posts at all? In this manner, if one of you had died overnight, the other could point the encryption to show they were the other mason. Other methods of the same are of course possible, but this is the most straightforward.

[spectrumvoid]

I never did ask barroman anything, because he didn't have a prominent location in my los.

Also, I don't see how nocmen's post 'clearly implies mason.' I've seen a LOT of cops assume they're 100% correct. (I have never played with nocmen before, so I have no idea whether he knew he could be insane/naive/paranoid etc etc.)

Nocmen: Please confirm.

I believe Nocmen and kilem, because I see no reason for scum to tie themselves together. I also believe that Meme is pro-town.

[Javert]

Au contraire.

In order for him to have "reasonable proof" as a Cop, he would need to have two conflicting investigations - and since he certainly didn't look to have a guilty investigation, that was not the case. In a mini regular game with a

dead Cop

from Night Zero, it is pretty clear that if there is a second, both Cops would

not

be Sane. For his actions in this game, if here were a Cop, he would necessarily need to have two innocent investigations. And in that case, he would strongly need to consider being naive - which is not "reasonable proof".

Mind linking me to these Cops who assume they are 100% correct, since you have seen "LOTS" of them?

I believe Nocmen and kilem, because I see no reason for scum to tie themselves together.

1.) If they are not both confirmed innocent to each other and one is scum, I can assure you the scum would be quite pleased to be connected to a dead, confirmed, mason. We'll see if this could even possibly the case soon enough, however, when they respond to my question.

2.) Although it is very rare (and I have been in a game where it has happened), scum

can

claim to be Mason partners together. There are numerous drawbacks to this, of course, and I doubt it is necessary to go into detail. And if this were the case, tying themselves together would, in fact, explain precisely why they would "tie themselves together".

[LyingBrian]

• Vote Count:
  • 1) ac1983fan
    • kilmenator
  • 1) kilmenator
    • Barromán
  • 7)
    not voting
    • ac1983fan
    • Elias_the_thief
    • Javert
    • MeMe
    • Nocmen
    • spectrumvoid
    • Sweenytodd
• Lynch:
  5 votes

[Nocmen]

Yes, we are masons.

[spectrumvoid]

Javert: It was a debate in the forum when some mods were discussing whether to have role pms standardised, which led to the inclusion of the special note added in a cop standard pm about sanity.

[Elias_the_thief]

Im going away for the weekend, til sometime monday. sorry.

I'll answer sweenys question when I get back and reread. honestly, I dont remember what the pressure was on ac for, so im not too suspicious of him beyond the fact that most other people seem to have him in their top 3 scum.