Open 21 - Friends and Enemies (Game Over), before 453

[Sir Tornado]

Random Vote: Ripley

[Sir Tornado]

FOS: ryan and Aimee

, for not voting randomly.

Why not Albert Rampage?

Because Lawrencelot has already voted for Albert B Rampage?

[Sir Tornado]

My personal goal will be to drag on conversation and make sure the masons don't think I'm scum. The one advantage we have is that the masons have a much better chance of catching the scum (3/8 of remaining players AND controlling 3 of 6 necessary votes) than any pro-town players usually do at the beginning of the game. They can almost hunt by process of elimination if they can guess at enough townies.

So, are you saying we should just wait for the Masons to take the lead?

On the flip side, if they do, wouldn't the Mafia have a better chance in spotting them?

[Sir Tornado]

The key, to me, will be to hit scum EARLY. As in, day 1. As soon as even one mason gets lynched we're pretty much playing a vanilla game (2 person mason team not nearly as powerful) with a huge scum percentage. I cannot realistically see the town winning should we lose a mason before we find a scum.

Actually, I think we are in deep trouble if we don't get one scum on the first lynch. The Mafia can get a mason at night too. That is exactly what happened in the

Mini 232

Adel gave a link to in post 31. Actually, in that game Mafia got 3 masons in the first 3 nights, but the difference is, that there were 4 Masons in that game compared to only 3 in this one.

[Sir Tornado]

Damn... sorry for the messed up formating in my last post...

Fixed by the mod.

[Sir Tornado]

If I were a mason OR scum, I'd probably be lurking right now. Just something to think about.

Why would a Mason lurk?

Well, if I were a Mason, I would want to behave exactly like the other townies. I would not want to attract any undue attention from the Mafia, at least not before at least one of the scum were lynched. So, since most of the players seem to be lurking right now, the masons would try to lurk. I think it is absolutely essential that the rest of the town lead, before the masons take over. Sitting back and making sure that you don't come across as scum to the masons, and then hoping masons eliminate the scum won't really help as of now like Lowell suggested won't help us right now.

[Sir Tornado]

unvote, vote Sir Tornado

My day 1 policy, vote for whoever has gone the longest w/o posting. Tornado, post and my vote leaves.

FOS A Papaya

... were my policy to vote for the person with the least CONTENT, this would be a vote.


Seriously, this is how I'm going to play. We need to be able to draw connections on D1. I very firmly believe this is more essential than other games.

*sigh* Look at my signature... I was out of town from 3rd till 6th. Just back actually, and I can't post anything today till I set everything in the house in order.

Unvote

because my vote was a random vote.

FOS A Papaya

for

still

not posting anything at all (it has been 4 days since you said you would post something)

I am not voting anyone right now, though a couple of more days of inactivity from A. Papaya and my FOS on him would change into a vote.

[Sir Tornado]

Ok, now, I am fully functional. A recap of the last 4 days if you please:

Post 66

: Lawrencelot votes Theopor

Post 68

: Adel votes Theopor

The reason given by both is lurking.

Theopor gives post 71 and votes Ryan for being "too eager" and both promptly unvote him. Ryan questions them for voting and unvoting so quickly and Lawrencelot gives the excuse of trying to flush the lurkers out.

Adel votes for A Papaya till he stops lurking, Albert and Ryan ask A Papaya to post too. He posts some non post commenting on little activity in the game, with which Ryan, Adel and Ripley do not agree. followed by Adel posting some chart (

one mistake I found in that diagram was, that I had voted for Ripley, albeilt randomly, which is not depicted there, that I could spot without consulting my notes. So, there could be a few more

) which, I really am not sure depicts anything except that Adel seems to be too eager to take the game by the scruff of it's neck. He also asks to unvote all random votes, which Aimee agrees to, but Theopor and Albert decline. . Aimee posts some comment about liking pictures (we still haven't really had a real comment from Aimee all game, which does make me wonder why people are jumping on A Papaya's throat)

Lawrencelot and Lowell vote me for lurking, but intrestingly, Adel does not. I find it funny, because he is usually the first one to jump at the lurkers. But here, he seems to have ignored both me as well as Aimee until someone else has pointed out (or, the explaination could be that he knew we were both away... don't know much about it)

Adel then posts about being on the same wavelength with Lowell. I think that makes me think that they are both townies. Scum would not be bring out the fact that they are voting or FOSing lurkers or any players for that matter in co-ordination themselves.

Ripley then voices her suspicions about Lowell being a major force in the game. In the next post (113) Adel defends Lowell (although he could be defending himself too, because the same logic Ripley used for Lowell could be used against Adel too). He then once again reiterates his plan for voting the lurkers out (or, atleast voting the lurkers enough to get them posting) Ryan makes a comment about being suspicious about people who start posting after votes have been placed upon them. Papaya posts another post saying there isn't anything to be commenting on, when in fact, he would have voiced his opinions about lurker lynching and defend himself. For some reason, he prefers not to.

In post 117, Albert says he suspects A Papaya, thinks Adel is clean and is not too sure about Lawrencelot. In the next post, Adel again asks A Papaya to post something meaningful.

Then, I post, and Albert immediately unvotes me in post 121. I must admit, I was a bit surprised. I never really liked the strategy of unvoting people just because they posted. A post, should have some actual content other than just a

I am here, will post something tomorrow

in order to merit an unvote for a lurker vote, and I very much agree with Lowell's post 122.

Bird then defends lurking, and says that scum do not lurk, but post enough to not appear as a lurker (by this defination, Ryan and Ripley should be prime suspects. Intrestingly, Adel and Ryan himself applies this principle against Ripley in post 127 and 128)

Then, some talk about having the mod to prod/replace them.

Bird then votes for A Papaya,

despite

having defended lurking.

Ripley defends herself from Ryan and Adel's accusation. Albert then wants to have Lowell's claim by the end of the day (

what claim?

) and votes for him. In the insuing posts, Albert voices his suspicions about Lowell which are based on the behaviour of Lowell in past games. Adel then quickly jumps to Lowell's defence (again), which leads to another

Whether we should lynch the lurkers

argument between Adel and Albert.

This, followed by a discussion between Ryan, Adel and Albert over whether A Papaya is merely being anti town or scummy by not posting, followed by some pointless bickering between Adel and Albert, ending with Albert being accused as being A Papaya's scum partner. Then, A Papaya pops up with a post claiming he is town, accusing of Adel being the scum.

My opinions about players:

Lowell and Adel: Seems to be very keen to hunt down the lurkers, and they could be either way. I think, however, that if one of them turns out to be a scum, the other will too.

Ryan: Can't say much. But, I am leaning a bit of his being on scummy side.

Albert: He seems to be defending A Papaya rather vehemently, without him having posted anything substantial as of yet. So, I will

FOS: Albert

A Papaya:

Adel don't do this. I'm town, and if I get lynched and the rest of the town finds that out, you'll seem like scum. Which you probably are.

Till I read that, I thought A Papaya was just a townie, persuing anti-town activities or just being too busy, especially since he seems to be deliberately posting non posts. But, this post, seemed very scummy to me. Personally, I am deeply suspicious of any person who says only "I am town" without actually participating in the discussions, so, my FOS changes into a vote.

Vote: A. Papaya

I can't say much about Aimee, because haven't heard much from her. Ripley, I think is pro-town, because though she seems to be anti lurking, she is not over doing it like Adel or Lowell. Lawrencelot too, I think is townie. Bird1111, has defended lurkers, but, I gather that the bird is a lurker type of player in general by posts on pages 1 and 2, so, I would not put my suspiciouns on him for now.

That's all for now!

[Sir Tornado]

Sorry for the spelling mistakes in the last post (there are a lot of them!). I guess I was in a hurry to post to make sure I did not let anything slip from my mind immediately after reading the posts.

[Sir Tornado]

Tornado, could you clarify your ideas on ryan ? Why did you say you were leaning on his scummy side ?

It's more of a gut feeling rather than anything concrete. The thing is, that right now, there seem to be a few people who are going on an all out attack on lurkers (Adel, Lowell) and there seem to be a few people bent upon defending the lurkers

to some extent

(yourself, Bird and Ripley).

Ryan seems to be all out against lurking, but is trying to not put himself in too much spotlight like Adel is. Not really sure if that is scummy or not, but that seemed a bit strange to me... but that's not something that can nail anyone as scum, but I just got some bad vibes from it. But, not enough for a vote or even a FOS. (well, call it a

nail of suspicion

)

[Sir Tornado]

Sir Tornado: I do have a problem with lurkers and definetly don't appreciate them BUT lynching a lurker could put the rest of us townies at risk especially if the lurker towns out to be a townie who's just not posting. Papaya promised content than basically thumbed his nose at us by not commenting, I found that to be extremely anti-town and also scummy. That is why I placed my vote on him. As for putting myself in the spotlight, I guess I figured with the frequency of my posts that would show I'm 100% on board with catching scum and figured I was posting enough thoughts to show that.

Ok... but that leads me to another question which anyone can try to answer really...

If A Papaya were scum, why would he do something so blatantly scummy?

This has really vexed me...

[Sir Tornado]

I'm claiming.

I'm a mason. My fellow masons can prove it true.

I really don't understand this claim.

Here's my take on claiming:

1) IF A PAPAYA is SCUM-
(a) he claims MASON. A mason emerges to call him out. We kill a scum, we lose a mason.

net PLUS for the town

(b) he claims TOWN. Tries to argue his way out. Probably can't. We kill scum and masons remain hidden.

HUGE PLUS for the town

2) IF A PAPAYA is MASON- he claims mason. No counterclaims. We kill someone else but lose a mason at night.

BIG LOSS for the town

3) IF A PAPAYA is TOWN-
(a) he claims town and tries to argue his way out. Mabye can't. We lynch him.

NET Loss for the town

(b) he panics, claims MASON. Mason emerges to counter. We lynch Papaya, then lose mason at night

GAME-BREAKING Loss for town

Applying the above logic, unless A Papaya is scum, the town loses no matter what happens. First of all, if A Papaya is a mason, then:

1) Some one confirms this claim
2) No one confirms the claim

If the claim is confirmed, we have 2 masons unearthed. Scum get them in to NKs, and you have the threat of masons negated.

If the claim is not confirmed, we lynch A Papaya. We lose one mason, and possibly another one in NK.

If A Papaya is townie, then no one will confirm this. We lynch a town. Combined with a NK, we have 2 townies gone. 3 Mafia out of 9 on day two doesn't look good to me at all, especially if the scum can get a mason at night. If not, then we would have 3 scum, 3 town and 3 mason, which might make the job of hunting scum a bit easier if the masons coordinate well.

If A Papaya is scum, he is finished. I'd take 1 scum for 1 Mason NK anyday, because only 2 scum out of 9 with 2 masons remaining tilts the game in the favour of the town enormously.

The point I am trying to make is -- and what I think Lowell was saying is -- I feel that A Papaya's claim will not really help the town at all unless he is a scum. It is, I feel, anti-town and will cause only trouble for us.

That is the reason why I am keeping my vote on A Papaya for now.

[Sir Tornado]

You know, this is my first real game here (my newbie game -- newbie 378 -- was messed up royally), so I may be wrong here, but is it normal to just focus on one player only? As it stands right now, most players are going after A Papaya, or defending him. Shouldn't we enlarge our perspective a bit? Take a look at other players? We still don't have any deadline, so, we don't have to be too hasty in lynching anyone.

I supported A Papaya bandwagon earlier on so that he may come under pressure and atleast post, or give out something scummy. All we got from him is a mason claim. I am not sure we would get anything else from A Papaya. He seems to have clamed up.

I feel that we shouldn't lynch just for the sake of lynching the lurkers, but lynch only when we are absolutely certain about the scumminess of the lynchee, especially when we do not have a deadline in the place.

Having said that, I would still keep my vote where it is (on A Papaya), at least until we get a confirmation or a denunciation of A Papaya's claim. But, at the same time, I think we should also start looking else where -- at the active posters -- the avid lurker hunters as well and try to put them under pressure and get something out of them too

[Sir Tornado]

GUYS GUYS! C'MON!

Forget about the alphabetical order, and let's get jiggy with it!


Adel asks you to post an analysis on EVERY PLAYER except papaya.
Albert just asks you to post an analysis on Adel and ryan.

WHO'S SIDE YOU ON ?!? SERIOUSSSLY!

Join my campaign! VOTE FOR ALBERT!!! (well, not literally)

*ryan smacks Albert back to his Machiavellian self*

Vote for Adel.

If you don't do what I ask, I will reveal the third member of the masonry within 72 hours.

Don't make me push the red button. 72 hours. Time is of the essence. The clock is ticking. Etc.

I am not sure I like this post at all. This is tantamount to a blackmail by Albert to vote for players he wants voted out, else, he would reveal masons.

I've got a question for Albert: You are clearly a more expirienced player than A Papaya. Why are you threatening to reveal the names of your fellow masons (if you are a mason that is)?

We do not have a deadline as of yet, and we do have a healthy discussion going on, so, the probablity of a deadline being issued is less too.

I say we do

not

lynch anyone quickly, but go after each and every player before day 1 is over. So far, we have put A Papaya on the hotseat, and now Adel and Ryan are being put under considerable pressure.

I say we get what we can out of

each and every player

before the first lynching. A quick lynch is obviously in favour of mafia, because, the quicker we lynch, the less information we gain about the other players. So, I agree with Adel when she says a hasty lynch is not a pro-town move, and nor is threatening to reveal the name of the third mason.

Going to post a bit more as I re read.

[Sir Tornado]

Oh, and

unvote A Papaya

in light of Albert's claim.

[Sir Tornado]

Ok, here we go:

One small thing before that though:

I can attest to the claim my foolhardy mason made.

I PM'd A Papaya to not reveal he is mason no matter what

,

emphasis mine

-- Sir T

but I underestimated his cowardice.

I had no idea the Masons and the Scum could PM each other during the day. If that is the case, then we must take that into account. Before this, I assumed that the Scum had made their plans at night and were simply implementing it during the day. If they can PM like the Masons, then it means that they can change their plans in coordination with each other even during the day. Did we take this into account?

On ARB

First of all, I must say I am convinced by Albert's mason claim that Papaya and he are masons, which is why I took my vote off Papaya. I believe in ABR's claim 100%.

For the reasons I gave in my second last post, I do not agree with ABR's countdown to "reveal" the third mason. I confess to being torn on ABR right now -- on one hand, I don't think ABR's claim to being a mason with Papaya could be false, and on the other, I am surprised that a mason would actually want to reveal the third one.

On Adel:

I think she is the most scummiest looking player as of now. But, I think we must take into consideration that this was her first game. People get over excited while playing their first games (diagrams and what nots), which could lead them to get the game go a bit faster, and one way to do this is to get lurkers to post.

On Ryan:

I am more concerned about Ryan than about Adel. I said Adel looks the most scummiest. That's right. But, at least Adel was right on the forefront of flushing the lurkers out, but Ryan, well he was 100% for flushing out, like he said, but, I wonder, if he would have done the same without Lowell and Adel leading him. Like Theo said before, he was trying too hard to fit in.

On Lowell:

Until this, I wasn't paying too muh attention towards Lowell -- I was too distracted by A Papaya's non posting, and Adel and Ryan's crusading against him along with their petty bickerings with ARB. But, if either Ryan or Adel or both turn out to be scum, Lowell will certainly be the person I would vote for next.

A Papaya:

All we know about him is that he is a mason (I think he is telling the truth).

Lawrencelot

He is 4th on my list, after the three I mentioned. The reason is his refusal to believe in ARB's claim. However, though I say he is 4th on my list, I don't think the reason is good enough to even have a FOS on him, so, for now, if I have to say, I'll say he's a townie.

Aimee

No clue whatsoever. But, I think, it would be a great idea for the scum to have one lurker as a back up, and 2 people out and out flushing out the remaining lurkers. Even if they are called bluff, the remaining scum can stay on. So, I am looking for Aimee to post some content after she returns from her vacation.

Theo and Ripley

I'd say Townie. Haven't rung any alarm bells as of yet. Both seem fairly consistent in their opinions, no wishy washy voting so far...

Bird1111

I almost missed him out here. Can't say anything on him at all.

I would like to say one thing though:

We should not lynch anyone at all until all the people -- those who are on vacation that is -- have had their say. It means, ABR: Stop your countdown until Lowell returns on Tuesday. (if not permantantly)

[Sir Tornado]

@Sir Tornado: I appreciate you don't FOS me, while your reasoning about me is logical, and I respect your opinions, but, how can you be 100% sure about ABR's claim? Same goes for Ripley and Theo, I don't understand how you guys can believe ABR so easily. To me, he is scummier than scummy.

Sir Tornado seems to be in the same group as ripley and theo I think, and because there are no more than 3 scum, I'll

UnFOS: Theopor and Ripley

. My suspicion of ABR and A Papaya stays, as I am not convinced by the post above but I can see the logic of Theo, Ripley and SirTornado. I hope you understand why I do not believe ABR.

So, my list above changed a bit, one scum is gone. So to make it 3 again, I agree with SirTornado: it's likely one of the lurkers is scum too.

I see no point in lynching ABR right now. He is claiming to be a mason. Who do you think the Mafia would NK first?

If the scum do not NK him, then it would be proof positive that he is the scum and is lying, and we lynch him on day 2.

If the scum do NK him, then we will know whether he is indeed a mason or a townie claiming to be one falsely. If it is the later case, we go after A Papaya on day 2.

If he does turn out to be a mason, then we would know that A Papaya is one too, and that gives us one person less to consider as a scum on day 2.

Oh, and Lawrencelot, you do realise the fallacy of your statement, don't you? I don't quite get how I am in the same group as theo and ripley. In fact, I had thought you would accuse me of being A Papaya and Albert's scum buddy...

And, there is one more thing that is quite nagging me.

Has anyone considered what happens if Bird1111 and Aimee are scum? We go chasing after Adel, Ryan and Lowell because they are trying to flush out lurkers, while the lurkers themselves may turn out to be the real scum. Right now, if I were scum, the best thing I could do is to disappear for a while. The heat is currently on Adel and Ryan, precisely for trying to flush out lurkers. I don't think anyone else would try to flush out the remaining lurkers right now. So, the best strategy for the scum would be to lurk (which seems to be what Lowell, Bird and Aimee are doing, I might add)

The worst case scenario is (assuming Albert is telling the truth) that we fail to lynch the right persons in the next two days. We already have 2 masons out in open. If we don't get 2 scums during the next 2 lynches, we would be facing the possibility of having to play with 2 or 3 scum out of 7 without any masons. It is potentially game losing situation for us.

PS: One of my queries in my last post went unanswered: Are Masons and Scum allowed to PM during the day time? ARB seems to imply that he PMed A Papaya. Is that allowed? The game rules just say Masons and Scum are allowed to speak with each other during the night time and pre confirmation stage. Because if they are, it may change the game a bit (We have to make allowances for the scum managing to change tactics during the day time via private conversations)

[Sir Tornado]

Ok. We already have, I think all the pay dirt we need on Adel and Ryan. I find it hard to see that this would go anywhere other than returning to the name calling and pointless bickering that Adel and Albert seem to engage in every few pages apart.

I suggest we keep this Adel-Ryan slip up firmly at the back of our minds and move on to get some thing from our other posters. Since Adel and Ryan seem in no condition to flush out the remaining lurkers, and Lowell seems to be away till Tuesday, I'll start the bandwagon

Vote Aimee

She should be returning from her vacation tomorrow. Let us put enough pressure on her till then so she is compelled to actually post something relevant about the game. I have got a sick feeling that at least one scum is hiding and trying not to come in the spot light. Seems a good idea, doesn't it? Two scums go on all out attack on lurkers while third on just stays quiet. If the quiet one is found out and lynched, then the lurker flushing scums can claim the credit. If the lurker lynching scum are caught and lynched, no one shall actually try to lynch the remaining lurkers without trying to appear scummy, and the third one can survive.

[Sir Tornado]

I'm more scummier than somebody else?

When did I say that? (I will assume that this post was directed at me)

I'm in no condition to flush out the remaining lurkers?

Because, it will look like you are deliberately trying to shift the blame to someone else. I assumed you would not try to do this. But if you want to, then go ahead.

Look, I am not comfortable with lynching anyone until we have heard from everyone. That is what I have been saying for a long time. So, before someone extends the already extending Adel-wagon, I'd rather hear from the rest of the lurkers.

I want to hear how each player really feels about Albert trying to blackmail the town into a quick (72 hours!) lynch on me, while three players were on vacation.

Well, I am interested in hearing this too. I thought that was pretty anti-town move, but I understand that he rescinded it later on.

Yet, why did you set up the deadline at all Albert?

[Sir Tornado]

Sir Tornado why are you ignoring the current situation and voting Aimee?

I have already given my reason for that.

If the voting goes as per the current trend, we will have our lynch before we hear from everyone and I don't want that to happen. I will be happy to vote for Adel, Ryan or Lowell before this day is over.

However, I don't think now is the time, because I sense this as a potentially lynchable situation. I feel that we are lynching too quickly.

[Sir Tornado]

Sir Tornado why are you ignoring the current situation and voting Aimee?

EBWOP: Please ignore my last post as there were some formating errors in it. I will retype (or, rather copy-paste) it again here

I have already given my reason for that.

If the voting goes as per the current trend, we will have our lynch before we hear from everyone and I don't want that to happen. I will be happy to vote for Adel, Ryan or Lowell before this day is over.

However, I don't think now is the time, because I sense this as a potentially lynchable situation. I feel that we are lynching too quickly.

[Sir Tornado]

I'm eagerly awaiting some input from Bird and Aimee, a fresh face to scan over everything, shall we say.

That was in effect, exactly what I was saying for the last page or so.

But, I am "going after the lurkers" while you are not.

Moral of the story: I really need to learn to express myself better...

The vote on Aimee was not of any great consequence. It will be off the moment she posts... besides, I wanted to put my vote on someone, and that someone was not to be Adel, Ryan or Lowell (for reasons I gave above) nor on A Papaya or Albert (because I believe in their claim) nor on you or Ripley (because I feel I am already getting all I want out of both of you without prodding)

A vote on Lawrencelot seemed to be a bit idiotic, because I feel he is a townie who has a grudge on ABR for some reason I cannot fathom, and me voting on him might start a bandwagon on him, which would be anti-town.

So, whose left? Bird and Aimee... I choose Aimee because Bird had actually posted something early on.

Having said that, I really don't think I should have actually taken efforts to type exactly how my brain is working right now, but there you are anyway...

[Sir Tornado]

[quote="In post 331, theopor_COD]
Okay fair enough, although I don't see why your voting Aimee when she hasn't posted for yonks. As I state above hearing from Bird and Aimee is something that I'm looking forward to, both have been detached since the claim and there input would be appreciated.
[/quote]

Actually they have been detached since before the claim...

What is your take on ARB's 72 hour issued and then canceled deadline? Can you guess the reason for him to issue it in the first place?

[Sir Tornado]

EBWOP

Okay fair enough, although I don't see why your voting Aimee when she hasn't posted for yonks. As I state above hearing from Bird and Aimee is something that I'm looking forward to, both have been detached since the claim and there input would be appreciated.

[Sir Tornado]

I agree with Sir Tornado that we need to hear from the absentees and that scum could easily be found among them. I think the ryan/Adel/Lowell scum group is probably too obvious.

Or, that could be exactly what the scum wants us to think... that's a possibility we shouldn't neglect either.

You can surely see the flaw with that. You just offered the scum a free pass to use their first night kill to try and find the third mason, and promised that the town would lynch ABR next day for them.

Put it this way: If we get a scum right now, and they don't get a mason in NK, their chances are really very slim. 9 players, 2 scum, 3 masons, and that on day 2 when we have some information on everyone. It really becomes too easy for us after that.

[Sir Tornado]

Same goes for Ripley and Theo, I don't understand how you guys can believe ABR so easily. To me, he is scummier than scummy.

He may well be scummier than scum, but he and Papaya have both claimed mason, without a counter-claim I believe them. End of story.

Hmm... I had missed this part earlier it seems...

Here's a question for you and Ripley. If anyone (especially one of the guys on the hotseat) counter-claim now, would you believe them?

[Sir Tornado]

A vote on Lawrencelot seemed to be a bit idiotic, because I feel he is a townie who has a grudge on ABR for some reason I cannot fathom, and me voting on him might start a bandwagon on him, which would be anti-town.

Does ABR's claim that Lawrencelot would only post that way out of a grudge hold water with you? I read it like "Hey guys, ignore his logic because his case is nothing more than a personal vendetta" without addressing the actual points raised.

Well, there was something else too... he marked you down as a mason when you'd claimed early on that you weren't. Then there was this:

Theo is on the same side as ABR I think. I agree it doesn't make sense for Albert to claim mason if they were scum, but claiming mason while they were both mason makes just as much sense. ABR thought A Papaya was getting lynched or something, so claiming mason while he's scum makes as much sense as claiming mason while he's mason.

That, for me is simply logic defying. It makes no sense whatsoever for ABR to claim if both were scum. Wouldn't he try to cut the scum losses and dissociate himself from his doomed scum mate when he felt the game was up? Remember that A Papaya was heavily besieged at the moment, with 3 people doubting his claim, which, if false, would be snubbed by a counter claim.

[Sir Tornado]

I really think that the answer here is quite simple. Today, we lynch Adel/Ryan/Lawrencalot. If one of them is scum, then we're good to go.

If the one we lynch is town, then we try the second possible group, of Aimee/bird, etc.

And if none of those are scum, we take it from there. It seems to me to be worth finding out if one of Adel/ryan/lawrencalot is scum before day 2.

Give me one reason why we shouldn't lynch YOU or ABR if your choice of lynch turns out to be a townie? Ok, so, you've claimed mason, and I believe that for now, but I will have major doubts over that if your lynch does not turn out to be a scum.

Your saying we lynch A/R/L today and Aimee/Bird tomorrow if the first lynch is a townie sounds highly suspicious to me. The reason being, that if we get 2 lynches incorrect, we lose the game. It is as simple as that. This is exactly what a Scum would do.

And, even if you indeed are a Mason (which I believe at least right now) you seem dripping with scuminess.

[Sir Tornado]

Ripley, I have been giving some thought on the numbers...

scum/players

Assuming we get first 2 lynches wrong:

Day 1: 3/11

Day 2: 3/9

Day 3: 3/7

That brings us to a LyLo situation and we have to get them

three times in a row

. It is as good as a loss, because then you can have a situation where one of the scum can start a bandwagon on another and claim to be a townie later on... it's just too risky.

The second case Why is it important for Scum to bump off one mason if we strike out one scum today:

Assuming they don't:

scum/masons/vanilla townies

Day 1: 3/3/5

Day 2: 2/3/4

This is at a time when we have a good idea about who is who at least for half the vanilla townies too. So, the masons just have to shift through a couple of townies before hitting their mark. It becomes too easy for the town after that.

Plus, there is this one other thing:

Supposing in the next 2 days, we have 1 townie lynch and 1 scum lynch and even 2 mason NKs...

Day 4: 1/1/3.

With 1 mason NK...

Day 4: 1/2/2

If all the masons are made known at this juncture, the game is as good as over (with the amount of information we would have on the players at that juncture) with a town win.

I will not say that my reasoning here is air tight. But, it is quite close to the truth.

[Sir Tornado]

Albert. I am still waiting to hear why you imposed that 72 hour deadline. I know you backtracked later on, but could you please explain why you imposed it in the first place?

[Sir Tornado]

Give me one reason why we shouldn't lynch YOU or ABR if your choice of lynch turns out to be a townie?

Sir T, you seem convinced that the scum will NK a known mason if possible, so you must surely believe that if ABR and A Papaya are masons it will be apparent to everybody on Day 2 by the fact that one of them will be dead.

I don't quite get the connection between what you have quoted me and what you are asking me.

[Sir Tornado]

Albert:

Ok, then can I have your take on different players? I know your position on Adel and Papaya, but what do you feel about the other players?

[Sir Tornado]

Give me one reason why we shouldn't lynch YOU or ABR if your choice of lynch turns out to be a townie?

Sir T, you seem convinced that the scum will NK a known mason if possible, so you must surely believe that if ABR and A Papaya are masons it will be apparent to everybody on Day 2 by the fact that one of them will be dead.

I don't quite get the connection between what you have quoted me and what you are asking me.

Sir T, please inquire me if I fail to explain this concept to you:

If we lynch Adel, and she turns innocent, and the mafia don't NK a mason then the last mason will claim, with me and papaya confirming his identity. We will then lynch ryan. If ryan turns innocent too, and the mafia still doesn't NK a mason, we are at 4-3, with 3 players confirmed to be of the same alignment. It is

impossible

to mislynch that way. You lynch one mason, if he is mafia, town wins. If he is mason, town loses. This is of course the worse possible scenario, and I am always against predicting so far in the future when the obvious move would be to NK me and papaya.

You are assuming quite a lot here...

Firstly, we have to assume that you and A Papaya are telling the truth. Fine. Right now, there is no counter claim, so we do.

But, what happens if Bird or Aimee turns out to be the mason and you do not, and he is, for some reason holding a counter claim? You take out Adel, and she turns out to be innocent. Then, you go and take out Ryan. HE turns out to be innocent. So, you go after Bird or Aimee and they turn out to be mason. At this point, the town realises that you are scum and have taken them for a ride.

This was, primarily the reason why I was deeply suspicious of your 72 hour deadline early on. You see, the players on vacation would not have been back in those 72 hours. So, if either one or both of them were masons, then the third one, who could be active right now, would not have any way to counter claim, because there is no one to verify it. And, in the mean time, in order to get your quick lynch (before the vacationing players turn up) you set up your 72 hour deadline to get one townie out. Then, you NK a mason at night, and the game swings in your favour.

I realise that what I have said in the last para or so would sound highly fantastic to a lot of people, but that was my actual thoughts when I read about that deadline. (But it sounded a bit far-fetched to me because it would mean you being sure of the identity of the three masons, which is would be hard to detect)

Then there is another matter: Even if you are not masons, I don't think any counter-claim against you could actually stand right now. The general tendency has been to believe you, and I doubt whether it would be stemed if we get a single counter-claim from anyone at all... in fact, that counter-claim may be the first to be lynched, followed by a possible mason NK, which would be disasterous. Plus, I don't think revealing masonry on day 1 is a very nice play at all... I wouldn't have done it if I were a mason. And, even if I was a mason in this situation, I would not counter-claim two mason claims, not on day 1 anyway. It's foolish to reveal all your cards on day 1.

The only reason I believe your claim, despite all this foolishness, is not because there is no counter-claim, but because I find it hard to believe that a scum -- let alone

two

scums -- would make a mason claim on day 1. That would be a height of foolishness surpassing all others.

But, if you turn out to be a townie... god help you.

[Sir Tornado]

Oh, and Adel, I love your diagrams too. In fact, I want to play more games with you just because you post those diagrams

[Sir Tornado]

Give me one reason why we shouldn't lynch YOU or ABR if your choice of lynch turns out to be a townie?

Sir T, you seem convinced that the scum will NK a known mason if possible, so you must surely believe that if ABR and A Papaya are masons it will be apparent to everybody on Day 2 by the fact that one of them will be dead.

I don't quite get the connection between what you have quoted me and what you are asking me.

You were saying (or I thought you were) that if ABR and Papaya led the lynch on someone who turned out to be town, they should expect one of themselves (ABR/Papaya) to be lynched the next day. But you had earlier said you were sure the scum would Nk a claimed mason (if they are indeed masons). Therefore according to your own theory (which I don't support) we would know by Day 2 whether ABR and Papaya were masons. Therefore their choice of lynch on Day 1 would be irrelevant towards the issue of their innocence.

Or maybe I've misunderstood you somewhere along the way. Actually I see ABR has answered you as well, maybe his answer is the one you wanted.

If A Papaya/ABR's choice of lynch for today turns out to be a townie, my trust in their claim will be shaken. See my post above this one (I think I posted it while you were typing this one) for more.

Adel is either scum or the most disastrously deluded townie I've seen in a considerable while. I still think, and I believe somebody else has agreed, that she's trying all she can to bait ABR into revealing the third mason, or if that doesn't work to build up pressure on him to do so by campaigning to have either him or Papaya (uncounterclaimed masons) lynched today. Scum, or a townie blinded by the inability to accept that she's been totally wrong? I'm still not sure.

I am not sure. She seems scummy to me. But I am not 100% sure because of one thing: She hasn't really wavered much. Has kept her "lynch all lurkers" line right till the end. And, I think that the feud between ABR and Adel got a bit too personal that it may be interfering with their perceptions of each other.

[Sir Tornado]

I've considered it. I just think it's very unlikely.

Papaya's claim alone yes - there'd be more of a case for thinking possibly scum. Scum I think would just as likely claim townie than mason. Albert's second claim is totally non-sensical if he isn't a mason. If Albert's scum he is seriously stupid, I know he rubs people up the wrong way but he's a competent player.

Go back and re-read around page 8 or so pre-Payapa claim, Albert acts like he knows Papaya's innocent, the scum ain't stupid they had probably figured if Papaya was a mason, then Albert was likely to be one aswell.

Yes but what if

they are the scum

?

I will not consider this possibility right now because both of them have claimed. Unlikely if they were both scum. But, if their lynch for today is not a scum, then I will have to consider it. (and, we may have a counter claim too by then, if indeed there is to be one)

[Sir Tornado]

theo you are by far the most just and objective person I have ever played with. You never cease to impress me with your air of detachment in the middle of all this chaos and bickering. You sure set the bar high, even tough I know you were tempted at least a few times to attack me. Please do not respond to this, as I'm only speaking my mind.

Sir T, that was a very sharp observation, and you bring a fresh perspective to view this situation from. Indeed, I agree with most of what you say, however, I invite anyone to counter-claim. This is what will happen if someone counter-claims:

1) We will ask that person one of his partners. We will need confirmation from both players that they are indeed mason to eachother.

2) I will reveal the third member of my masonry, and each member will confirm this.

3) We will ask the third member of the counter-claimant party to reveal themselves. At this point we can lynch me, Adel or whoever you want in the two opposing parties, and then it will be a straight lynching without possibility of error from that point, with an resonant town victory.

Hmm.. I like it. For it, I think we should postpone any lynchings till all the players come back from vacation. We need to have all of them active and posting for this purpose.

Now, that brings be back to saying exactly what I was saying 6 hours and 3 pages ago... we do not need a quick lynching. So, stop the adel-wagon till we get everyone on board and have all possible pay-dirt on everyone.

[Sir Tornado]

Albert:

So, if you are the masons, and the scum do counter claim, you reveal your third member.

But, what happens if the scum refuse to reveal their third member

?

I change my opinion. I am not too sure about this plan...

[Sir Tornado]

I was still reading page 17 as I typed this, so I may have missed any developments on page 18, if that's the case, then kindly excuse me, but I think the personal feud between ABR and Ryan is getting quite out of hand (at least in page 17) and I would appreciate it if, in future, both of you behave like mature people and keep this petty bickering out of the thread.

Thanks.

Sir T

[Sir Tornado]

I was still reading page 17 as I typed this, so I may have missed any developments on page 18, if that's the case, then kindly excuse me, but I think the personal feud between ABR and Ryan is getting quite out of hand (at least in page 17) and I would appreciate it if, in future, both of you behave like mature people and keep this petty bickering out of the thread.

Thanks.

Sir T

[Sir Tornado]

Ok, the way I see things:

1) Adel, Ryan and one of Lawrencelot/Lowell may be scums. We lynch one today, see if they turn out to be innocent. If they do, we go after the scummiest looking person on board: A Papaya (I would definitely be voting A Papaya right now, had he not been a claimed mason)

2) A Papaya, ABR and a third person are scums.

Now, why would they claim otherwise?

The theory would go like this (I have a thing for making up unbelievable theories, so please bear with me)

It could be possible that the above mentioned trio could be scum. In the ensuing persecution of Papaya by Adel, Lowell and Ryan, we saw ABR jumping to his rescue one time too many. Despite that, A Papaya had reached -1. So, if the hammer were to drop then, and A Papaya were to turn out to be a scum, who would be his most likely scum buddy? Based on the situation at that time, I would have said ABR. So, A Papaya panics and claims, and, left with no option, ABR claims with him.

However, I will not be believing in anything like this unless the first lynch turns out to be a townie.

On another note, I would like to see

A Papaya

post

something

. I feel that, as a claimed mason he should be on the forefront trying to hunt the scum down. Why the heck is not doing it right now? I am, frankly speaking sick of A Papaya's behaviour in this game. Had I been a vig, and he not been a claimed mason, I would have got him night 1, I swear, I would have. He is, basically a scum's dream mason.

So, A Papaya: May I have your views on what you think of all the players? And, please don't give any of your

"I don't think there is anything to comment on"

bullshit anymore. Because, I would seriously begin to question your sanity if you do so.

Sorry if the attack on A Papaya sounds too personal, but I am totally frustrated by his behaviour in this game.

Sir T.

[Sir Tornado]

I don't get it. Are you trying to psyche me out or something? The reality is I've been telling the truth, and I know I'm fairly articulate, and I've stated my case fairly respectfully and completely, so I still feel pretty good that this game will work out very well for town. By trying to buy your scummate another day, I think you exposed him on accident.

If you somehow succeed in mis-lynching me today, my only hope is that the mason's claim is believed tomorrow and your scummy crew gets lynched in three quick days.

In any case I do not think your illusion will last much longer.

This is exactly why you should die no matter what your alignment. We have to cull the weak. The herd cannot survive with you alive.

What do you mean? I admit that I can't quite make the connection between the post your quoted and your reply. Are you trying to say that Adel should be lynched even if she's a townie?

[Sir Tornado]

Albert

I would like Bird and Aimee to post a bit more. Personally, the timing of Ryan's elimination wasn't good for the town. Well, at least I don't think so, because I am for hearing from

each and every member

before the first lynch. Since that did not happen, I suggest our first order of business would be to hear Bird1111's and Aimee's take on the game as it has progressed till now. Also waiting for Lowell to come back tomorrow. I will reserve my judgement till then.

[Sir Tornado]

Albert

I am not comfortable with Lawrencelot being on -2.

If he is not the scum, the scum can drop the hammer at any instant, by double posting at the same time, and then later claim that they were trying to put more pressure on him. I'd say put Lawrencelot on

-3

That is much safer.

[Sir Tornado]

Albert

Yes, I'll do that in a bit. I need to re read everything taking int consideration your last post about you thinking Ryan PMing Lawrencelot. Need to ascertain if that may be true, and if it is, then what kind of strategy they were jointly pursuing that needed to be changed.

[Sir Tornado]

Ok, Albert accused Lawrencelot of being scum. I would say, looking at Lawrencelot's last post, it definitely has a lot of scum tells:

Throughout this post, I will be refering to this:

As everyone would expect, I admit I was really wrong on who was scum etc. Ryan being mafia makes the chance that ABR and Papaya are mafia less than 1%. They both acted very scummy the whole game, but I will believe them now. Luckily it took only a mafia kill for me to believe it, no mason is killed. So, I have less doubt that ABR and Papaya are mafia, but there is one important question left: why isn't ABR or Papaya nightkilled if they are mason?

For the record, although I now believe ABR and Papaya, I still don't think Adel is that scummy. She acted very townie-ish to me, and although she was wrong, there were more people wrong (more than 3 I thought), so that doesn't necessarily mean she's scum. But, Adel, me and Lowell are most suspicious, but I don't think we should vote one of us right away, at least until the lurkers catched up.

@ABR 1: I don't think we should lynch anybody yet. Wait for the lurkers.
2: Alright.
3: No. I will not let you lead the town. No one should do that, and especially not you. Even though I believe you are mason now, you definately did not act pro-town the whole game, and you definately don't deserve to become the leader of the town. If I wasn't wrong all the time, I would laugh at this proposal, but I have no rights to do that now.

In more detail:

As everyone would expect, I admit I was really wrong on who was scum etc. Ryan being mafia makes the chance that ABR and Papaya are mafia less than 1%. They both acted very scummy the whole game, but I will believe them now.

I never thought ABR acted much scummy. A Papaya, yes, acted tremendously scummy. But, I always had ABR somewhere in the middle, more scummy than Theo and Ripley (and, obviously myself!), but less than Lowell, Adel, Ryan and Lawrencelot (will leave Bird and Aimee out of this, because no idea on them yet). But, as I had stated several times on Day 1, I too had said that unless the claimed masons get their choice of lynch 100% correct, I would not believe them on day 2. Well, they did call Ryan scum, and he turned out to be one, so, I believe them completely now.

For the record, although I now believe ABR and Papaya, I still don't think Adel is that scummy. She acted very townie-ish to me, and although she was wrong, there were more people wrong (more than 3 I thought), so that doesn't necessarily mean she's scum. But, Adel, me and Lowell are most suspicious, but I don't think we should vote one of us right away, at least until the lurkers catched up.

What I don't understand here is, why is Lawrencelot sticking up for Adel if he is a scum? I don't think Ryan/Adel/Lawrencelot can be a scum team. It is too obvious a team. I don't think they would all be on the same side day 1. Some one would pretend to be a town or lurk.

Lawrencelot says that there were more than 3 people wrong... I don't know where he gets it. The only people who thought Ryan was not a scum were Adel and Lawrencelot. I, Ripley, Theopor, ABR and A Papaya all at some point or other claimed Ryan as scummy. One of us (Theo?) even voted him after RBR and Papaya claim.

@ABR 1: I don't think we should lynch anybody yet. Wait for the lurkers.

Agreed! I think everyone would agree to this one. Seems fair enough to me.

2: Alright.

I agree to this too. And, if the day 1 vote is carried forward to day 2, then

unvote

(my day 1 vote was on Aimee till she posted, which she has now, and if it is carried to day 2, I don't see a reason why I should keep it)

3: No. I will not let you lead the town. No one should do that, and especially not you. Even though I believe you are mason now, you definately did not act pro-town the whole game, and you definately don't deserve to become the leader of the town. If I wasn't wrong all the time, I would laugh at this proposal, but I have no rights to do that now.

Why not? I remember that early in the game, we agreed that Masons should be on the forefront to hunt the mafia. They can formulate strategy during the night (which they seem to have) and they know the third innocent mason whom they can eliminate from the equation, and we can. I do not have doubts of ABR's claim any more, not even a shred of it. I think it would be a good idea to follow ABR right now, because that seems to be our best chance.

More to follow.

[Sir Tornado]

Haha this is hilarious. Look at Lawrence's and Adel's posts today. It's clear what the plan is.

"I defended Lowell and ryan repeatedly." -Adel, said with sincere regret

"[ryan] had a couple posts defending Lowell and Lawrencelot." -Adel, poingiantly

"Adel, me, and Lowell are the most suspicious." -Lawrence, factually

"Lowell sure had a change of mind." -Lawrence, aghast


1) Lawrence, nice try grouping me with you two. "Change of mind"? Really? Show me where I doubted anyone's claim and I'll give you a cookie. In fact, the one hasty post I DID make after the claim was to chide albert for REVEALING himself. No one is confused by the "uh, oh, 3 suspicious people but only 2 scum left!" tactic.

2) Here, I'll answer your "important question": ABR and Papaya aren't dead because, by killing them, you're exposing them as masons, whereas now you can try the pathetic "still not sure about them" angle.

Hey, I love the shotgun approach to confusing the town here (throw a bunch of theories, hope one hits), but it just isn't working. Wow this win was easy. I mean, just wow.

Lowell,

You seemed on the same wavelength to me as Adel during the day 1. She defended you many times, and you did not make any comment regarding it. You both went lurker hunting -- I remember an incident where both of you unvoted Theopor and voted A Papaya within 10 posts of each other. If I would be honest with you, had Adel been lynched and turned out to be a scum on day 1, you would have been 2nd or 3rd in my list of suspects after Ryan and Lawrencelot

Why is ABR or A Papaya not nightkilled if they are masons?

I found this a bit intriguing too. The only reason I could surmise is, perhaps, that the scum might have felt that NKing ABR would confirm that he is the mason.

[Sir Tornado]

Albert

Well, I am not fussy about who puts the case out, really... just be done with it

[Sir Tornado]

Throughout this post, I will be referring to this post by Aimee.

I am going to do a post focussing exclusively on Adel. I think that is the best course of action. I will then do another post focussing on other players.

Adel's early game policy can be summed up entirely from this quote:

Lurking is an anti-town action.

In the same post, she refers to "lynching all lurkers", and from this point on, an intense lurker hunt was established, and followed, by Adel, Ryan and Lowell. Speaking of Lowell, an early connection was formed from Adel to Lowell. In the same post as the above quote, she comments:

Lowell: from your post I take it you agree with me- am I correct in this assumption? I think it will take a group of active players cooperating to pressure the lurkers, and that may mean following "lynch the lurkers" to succeed. I am not sure how far we can safely take it though.

I am immediately uneasy here. Not only is it clearly apparent she is seeking to form a connection with Lowell, she proposes a sort of bizarre alliance system. A group of active players pressurising the lurkers. Sounds far too structured and tactical, and merely like alliance play.

After then voting against Theo for lurking along with Lawrencelot, she immediately takes her vote off after he posts. Her post when she says this is interesting though:

unvote: theopor_COD that is what i would call a content-filled post. One lurker flushed. Next up: let's flush A Papaya. I'll place the second vote again.
vote:A Papaya for not posting. I'll move it once some real content is shown under your by-line.

BTW: I am totally going to qualify for that Wishy-Washy tell. I'm expecting to move my vote two or three more times over the next few pages, so long as there is a lurker left to be flushed or until I am totally convinced that someone is scum. More information is better for town, and I can't think of a better way to flush lurkers than being Wishy-Washy like this.

Two things here are established. Firstly, the lurker "flushing out" scheme is shown, when she immediately moves towards a new lurker, A Papaya. Also, she attempts to give an excuse for her vote hopping which may occur in the future. Excuses here are irrelevant - what is clear is that Adel is attempting to open herself up to allowing her vote to freely move between all lurkers.

A diagram is posted in post 93. Whilst I do love my pretty pictures, I do find them a bit pointless. It is like players doing vote counts (one of my pet hates). Players doing diagrams and vote counts just annoys me. It is just an attempt to look active, without actually doing much. In this case, the diagram wasn't useful, because it focused heavily on random voting and not on real votes, as it was too early for this. As a result, it has basically no use.

Lowell: we are on the same page. That is a great metric to track. Are you willing to track people's time since last post and list them in order here periodically, say every three or four days? It would save several of us from having to do the same work, and quality assurance would not be a problem. FoS: Sir Tornado

As well as moving onto another lurker, she focuses again on the link she seems to desire between herself and Lowell. Whilst Lowell doesn't seem to be saying anything Adel, Adel is almost leading Lowell - in the above quote she is seemingly coaching him and leading him into following her "lynch all lurkers" scheme. It seems again like an attempt to form links with active players so she can achieve her personal goals.

Adel's playstyle does seem very strategic. As Ripley argues:

The last time I saw a player like Adel, he was scum. The resemblances are uncanny: the bounding enthusiasm, the helpfulness, the taking charge, the quirky approach illustrated by posting charts and diagrams in thread. Maybe he (the other guy) always played that way, but I can say for sure that it's a most effective cover for scum.

I agree completely with the above quote, which emphasises completely the ways Adel is acting.

After Ripley's post, which was also against Lowell, Adel replied with this defence for Lowell:

I don't buy the anti-Lowell argument for a second. Everyone of his actions has been pro-town...

This is, of course, far-fetched to the extreme. Lowell's actions have hardly all be pro-town. Note on page 2, for example, when he seemingly wanted to hide and make all the masons do the work. So this is clearly a blind defence of Lowell. As Albert later argues:

I find Adel too quick to rise in support of Lowell with lack of evidence and little explanation for her rejected proposal.

Adel then replies to Ripley with:

Fos: Ripley for trying to derail the lurker hunting, again.

Again, she argues the importance of her lurker hunt, placing suspicion on those who actually look at other actions.

Isn't that slightly hypocritical? Adel wants the lurkers to post so she can get real content from them. But when Ripley utilises previous content from Adel, she plants a FoS on them for "derailing the lurker hunt". Isn't that actually derailing the

real

discussion, though, which is clearly more important? Suspicion should be able to flow naturally.

Ripley then makes an excellent point:

Adel, you are sounding somewhat obsessive about lurker hunting, and I'm also starting to question your following Lowell so blindly and uncritically. It's not something I've seen before, especially so early in a game.

I fundamentally believe that Adel's lurker hunt actually prohibited discussion during the early pages. It was attempting to bring lurkers into the light, and meant Adel wasn't actually focussing on the actions that had already happened. Raradoxically for Adel, who was arguing she was helping the town with her lurker hunt, in my opinion it was a detriment to the town and its discussion.

On page 6, Adel has a bit of crap logic:

The player who thinks like me and acts like me is likely to be playing the same alignment as me, therefore I will think Lowell is likely town until some real evidence comes to light.

Wrong. Absolutely ridiculous. The problem is she seemingly bases her argument around this. She seems to presume Lowell is innocent, with absolutely no reason for doing so.

Promoting a system that would facilitate a scum victory is indeed scummy...

Why are you doing it then? You understand that lynching lurkers

benefits the town in no way whatsoever

. Only scum benefit from lynching lurkers. Therefore by attempting to lynch the lurkers, you are acting scummy, something you freely admit is scummy. Therefore, you admit you are scummy. Argument is therefore flawed.

Also, at this point, Ryan seemingly latched himself onto Adel. Oh no for Adel. Especially since now Ryan has been proved to be scum. Although initially Adel ignores Ryan's linking, just like Lowell ignored hers. This, to me, suggests that she is scum trying to link with town (Lowell), and Ryan is an idiot scum trying to link with his partner.

After this, Adel seemingly "calls" the scum as A Papaya and Albert. Oh dear. How this occurred I don't know. But it fits with her whole "Lynch all Lurkers or die" approach.

Not much occurs until page 10, where Adel and others' forceful play pushed a mason out of the closet (although not in that way). She then refers to Ryan as "part of the posse", which indeed shows that links do exist.

Adel then makes a fatal blow.

...if nothing convincing and serious comes up my vote goes back to A Papaya. I'm mostly convinced that he is scum; if he is town or mason he isn't much good to us as town or mason.

Horrible idea. So you want to lynch a claimed mason on day 1? That is a horrible horrible idea. If I had been there I would have pounced on you for that. And saying he is useless doesn't help - if he is a mason, he is a mason, and they are incredibly useful to have. Lynching a mason would be horrible.

I've got to page 11, but I am missing things and stuff, so I am giving up now. I will be back for more later. But it is clear, Albert and everyone, that Adel is who I suspect today.

Now,

Adel's early game policy can be summed up entirely from this quote:

Lurking is an anti-town action.

In the same post, she refers to "lynching all lurkers", and from this point on, an intense lurker hunt was established, and followed, by Adel, Ryan and Lowell. Speaking of Lowell, an early connection was formed from Adel to Lowell. In the same post as the above quote, she comments:

Lowell: from your post I take it you agree with me- am I correct in this assumption? I think it will take a group of active players cooperating to pressure the lurkers, and that may mean following "lynch the lurkers" to succeed. I am not sure how far we can safely take it though.

I am immediately uneasy here. Not only is it clearly apparent she is seeking to form a connection with Lowell, she proposes a sort of bizarre alliance system. A group of active players pressurising the lurkers. Sounds far too structured and tactical, and merely like alliance play.

After then voting against Theo for lurking along with Lawrencelot, she immediately takes her vote off after he posts. Her post when she says this is interesting though:

unvote: theopor_COD that is what i would call a content-filled post. One lurker flushed. Next up: let's flush A Papaya. I'll place the second vote again.
vote:A Papaya for not posting. I'll move it once some real content is shown under your by-line.

BTW: I am totally going to qualify for that Wishy-Washy tell. I'm expecting to move my vote two or three more times over the next few pages, so long as there is a lurker left to be flushed or until I am totally convinced that someone is scum. More information is better for town, and I can't think of a better way to flush lurkers than being Wishy-Washy like this.

Two things here are established. Firstly, the lurker "flushing out" scheme is shown, when she immediately moves towards a new lurker, A Papaya. Also, she attempts to give an excuse for her vote hopping which may occur in the future. Excuses here are irrelevant - what is clear is that Adel is attempting to open herself up to allowing her vote to freely move between all lurkers.

I want to know Lowell's take on this. I have already mentioned this incident in less detail than Aimee has in my last post (well, actually my post before the last one)

However, I disagree with Aimee on one count. I don't think Lowell or Adel actually meant to lynch the lurkers. I think that she and Lowell both wanted the lurkers to post, and they have, consistently taken the votes off the lurkers after the lurkers posted. Personally, I favour the policy of pressurising the lurkers -- consistent pressure ensures that there aren't any lurkers in the first place. However, care must be taken that while applying the pressure that the lurkers should not be lynched without giving them adequate time to put forth their views.

A diagram is posted in post 93. Whilst I do love my pretty pictures, I do find them a bit pointless. It is like players doing vote counts (one of my pet hates). Players doing diagrams and vote counts just annoys me. It is just an attempt to look active, without actually doing much. In this case, the diagram wasn't useful, because it focused heavily on random voting and not on real votes, as it was too early for this. As a result, it has basically no use.

Actually, I remember you saying it rather differently after diagrams were posted. Personally, I love diagrams, especially the ones created by Adel. And, since Adel was about the most active poster back then, I don't think you can accuse her of posting diagrams because she had nothing else to post. I appreciate the effort she would have put in creating them.

Lowell: we are on the same page. That is a great metric to track. Are you willing to track people's time since last post and list them in order here periodically, say every three or four days? It would save several of us from having to do the same work, and quality assurance would not be a problem. FoS: Sir Tornado

As well as moving onto another lurker, she focuses again on the link she seems to desire between herself and Lowell. Whilst Lowell doesn't seem to be saying anything Adel, Adel is almost leading Lowell - in the above quote she is seemingly coaching him and leading him into following her "lynch all lurkers" scheme. It seems again like an attempt to form links with active players so she can achieve her personal goals.

Adel's playstyle does seem very strategic. As Ripley argues:

The last time I saw a player like Adel, he was scum. The resemblances are uncanny: the bounding enthusiasm, the helpfulness, the taking charge, the quirky approach illustrated by posting charts and diagrams in thread. Maybe he (the other guy) always played that way, but I can say for sure that it's a most effective cover for scum.

I agree completely with the above quote, which emphasises completely the ways Adel is acting.

After Ripley's post, which was also against Lowell, Adel replied with this defence for Lowell:

I don't buy the anti-Lowell argument for a second. Everyone of his actions has been pro-town...

This is, of course, far-fetched to the extreme. Lowell's actions have hardly all be pro-town. Note on page 2, for example, when he seemingly wanted to hide and make all the masons do the work. So this is clearly a blind defence of Lowell. As Albert later argues:

I find Adel too quick to rise in support of Lowell with lack of evidence and little explanation for her rejected proposal.

Adel then replies to Ripley with:

Fos: Ripley for trying to derail the lurker hunting, again.

Again, she argues the importance of her lurker hunt, placing suspicion on those who actually look at other actions.

Isn't that slightly hypocritical? Adel wants the lurkers to post so she can get real content from them. But when Ripley utilises previous content from Adel, she plants a FoS on them for "derailing the lurker hunt". Isn't that actually derailing the

real

discussion, though, which is clearly more important? Suspicion should be able to flow naturally.

Ripley then makes an excellent point:

Adel, you are sounding somewhat obsessive about lurker hunting, and I'm also starting to question your following Lowell so blindly and uncritically. It's not something I've seen before, especially so early in a game.

I fundamentally believe that Adel's lurker hunt actually prohibited discussion during the early pages. It was attempting to bring lurkers into the light, and meant Adel wasn't actually focussing on the actions that had already happened. Raradoxically for Adel, who was arguing she was helping the town with her lurker hunt, in my opinion it was a detriment to the town and its discussion.

Ok, I agree with you on this point. I do believe, that at some point on day 1, the lurker flushers lost the plot completely and went overboard being obsessive about their lurker hunting, and that pretty much stopped all discussions except lurking. However, that lead to pressure being put on Papaya, and the double claim later on, which lead to the eventual modkilling of Ryan, so, I don't think it went too badly at all.

On page 6, Adel has a bit of crap logic:

The player who thinks like me and acts like me is likely to be playing the same alignment as me, therefore I will think Lowell is likely town until some real evidence comes to light.

Wrong. Absolutely ridiculous. The problem is she seemingly bases her argument around this. She seems to presume Lowell is innocent, with absolutely no reason for doing so.

Promoting a system that would facilitate a scum victory is indeed scummy...

Why are you doing it then? You understand that lynching lurkers

benefits the town in no way whatsoever

. Only scum benefit from lynching lurkers. Therefore by attempting to lynch the lurkers, you are acting scummy, something you freely admit is scummy. Therefore, you admit you are scummy. Argument is therefore flawed.

Also, at this point, Ryan seemingly latched himself onto Adel. Oh no for Adel. Especially since now Ryan has been proved to be scum. Although initially Adel ignores Ryan's linking, just like Lowell ignored hers. This, to me, suggests that she is scum trying to link with town (Lowell), and Ryan is an idiot scum trying to link with his partner.

After this, Adel seemingly "calls" the scum as A Papaya and Albert. Oh dear. How this occurred I don't know. But it fits with her whole "Lynch all Lurkers or die" approach.

Not much occurs until page 10, where Adel and others' forceful play pushed a mason out of the closet (although not in that way). She then refers to Ryan as "part of the posse", which indeed shows that links do exist.

Adel then makes a fatal blow.

...if nothing convincing and serious comes up my vote goes back to A Papaya. I'm mostly convinced that he is scum; if he is town or mason he isn't much good to us as town or mason.

Horrible idea. So you want to lynch a claimed mason on day 1? That is a horrible horrible idea. If I had been there I would have pounced on you for that. And saying he is useless doesn't help - if he is a mason, he is a mason, and they are incredibly useful to have. Lynching a mason would be horrible.

I've got to page 11, but I am missing things and stuff, so I am giving up now. I will be back for more later. But it is clear, Albert and everyone, that Adel is who I suspect today.

Agree with this.

[Sir Tornado]

Albert

Well, I am not fussy about who puts the case out, really... just be done with it

Sure 8)

Sir Tornado, could you continue placing your vote on Aimee until she posts the person-by-person analysis she promised ?

Lawrencelot case coming up asap.

Aimee has already posted a analysis of Adel in post 514 (and which I have replied to in the last post), which is why I un-voted her. She has posted and is no longer lurking, and am think she would post analysis on other people soon (

To Aimee: Make sure you do post it!

), so I don't see any point in voting her again.

[Sir Tornado]

No idea at all.

Right now, attacking Adel and Lawrencelot seems to be a very safe option to everyone. I don't know if you can call anyone a townie just because they take potshots at the aforementioned duo.

But, since there an be only 2 more scums, Aimee is not high up on my suspect list... above Ripley, you and A Papaya but below everyone else.

[Sir Tornado]

Just for the record, the "You" in the above post refers to Albert

[Sir Tornado]

Tornado, what do you think of a Bird/Lawrencelot scum pair ?

Lawrencelot is currently at first position, especially after I reconsidered after reading your post: 527.

I don't think Lawrencelot and Adel would be the remaining pair. That is too obvious... and I do not believe in anything that seems to be easy (my general belief in life is that nothing is easy. If something looks easy, I am suspicious of it).

However, I am not excluding Adel from the possible suspects list yet. Adel, as I had said on day 1 looked pretty scummy then.

About Bird1111, I can say absolutely nothing at all. So, I really can't comment about Lawrencelot/Bird1111 being scum at this instant. I would like to reserve my judgment on Bird1111 till he returns and starts posting.

[Sir Tornado]

Um... Masons...

The case against Lawrencelot, please?

[Sir Tornado]

Tornado, read from papaya's claim (page 10, I think) until the end of D1. You can't seriously believe that anyone other than Law and Adel are scum, can you? Can you???

In post 557, on being asked my list of suspects, I clearly said:

Lawrencelot is currently at first position, especially after I reconsidered after reading your post: 527.

I don't think Lawrencelot and Adel would be the remaining pair. That is too obvious... and I do not believe in anything that seems to be easy (my general belief in life is that nothing is easy. If something looks easy, I am suspicious of it).

However, I am not excluding Adel from the possible suspects list yet. Adel, as I had said on day 1 looked pretty scummy then.

I stick to that. Adel and Lawrencelot are the most probable scum. But, I don't both of them can be scum.

Tornado, I'm growing a little weary of your caution. First, no scum will "quicklynch" someone when they get to lynch-2. It's not lynch or lose, so that tactic would be idiotic. Stop acting like we're treading on pins and needles when the game is clearly in hand. Also, quit grouping me with Adel and Law. Show me anywhere, at ANY TIME, that I attempted to cast doubt on papaya or albert. Show me where I asked for a 2nd mason to come out after the first one did. In fact, I DIDN'T WANT a second mason exposed and WASN'T VOTING PAPAYA. I'd be suspicious of you if I weren't so sure that you're innocent.

I seem to remember you strongly recommending against the mason claim altogether. And, back then, I agreed with you. (But, as it turned out, both of us were wrong. Mason claim turned out pretty good one for the town because Albert B is going on a rampage against the scum) But, my problem isn't what you did after the claim. It is what you did before the claim. You seem too much in league with Adel before the mason claim, especially at the start of Day 1.

And, you could never have cast any doubt on Albert. You posted exactly once after ABR claim till the end of day 1. Not much to analyze your reaction to the claim. All we have about your take on ABR's claim is your behaviour on day 2, about which, I concede that there is nothing scummy to note.

I also concede that my case against you is a very, very weak one, based too much on early day 1 incidents. But you do have to consider that Ripley, I think is the most townish looking person right now, in fact, he appears even more townie than Papaya and ABR who are the masons.

Bird1111, and Aimee, I have too little information about, which is the sole reason why you are on my list after Lawrencelot and Adel.

However, be assured, that whatever my suspicions about you may be, they aren't enough for me to even consider voting you.

[Sir Tornado]

I don't agree with this at all.

I don't see

ANYTHING

scummy about Ripley at all. I think his (or is it her?) play has been great so far, and totally townie.

I said I would follow mason's lead. But if that lead includes voting Ripley out, then I put my foot down and say

NO!

I would much prefer to follow my own instincts in this case, which say that Ripley is innocent townie.

[Sir Tornado]

Aimee...

Your analysis?

[Sir Tornado]

The tornado part I had guessed (back when you said you'd be "surprised" if anyone guessed it).

Sorry to disappoint you. I am not a mason.

[Sir Tornado]

Aimee...

Your analysis?

Sorry. I absolutely promise tomorrow morning. For definite.

Ok... As long as you do post it, it is fine by me.

[Sir Tornado]

I consider

A Papaya

,

Ripley

and

Albert B Rampage

out of the equation for today's lynch (I am assuming that you guys know that I am automatically included in my own list). Anyone else, I cannot certify as being 100% Townie.

[Sir Tornado]

I consider

A Papaya

,

Ripley

and

Albert B Rampage

out of the equation for today's lynch (I am assuming that you guys know that I am automatically included in my own list). Anyone else, I cannot certify as being 100% Townie.

Ripley...?

What did you not follow? I think I have made it clear over my last 3-4 posts that I believe Ripley is 100% town.

[Sir Tornado]

Hmm...well, might as well tell the truth.

Post is Ripley's Post 52. The names are in this paragraph:

"I think you're radically oversimplifying things if you assume that (a) all townies are able to act townie (b) no scum are able to act townie and (c) the masons would be able to tell the difference with perfect accuracy, which is what this plan seems to require since it exposes the masons. If the masons take the lead and get it wrong, well, apart from scum

that helps nobody. The first attempt

at lynching scum that fails leaves us in real trouble in that scenario, so I can't see how it's

an option you might want to use

. Is the ability of 3 masons to pick 3 scum out of 8 people so very much greater than the ability of 8 protown players to pick scum from the whole field? Lowell seems very certain that it is."

1. ABR. The third letters of the words colored blue spell ALBERT.

2. A Papaya. This one's a bit more complicated, but I wanted to make sure if one code had to be revealed it wouldn't lead to discovery of the other.

Take the first letters of the words colored red to get AOYMWTU. Now, move each successive letter forward an increasing number of letters in the alphabet, starting with zero so the first letter is unchanged. That is,

A+0 = A
O+1 = P
Y+2 = A
M+3 = P
W+4 = A
T+5 = Y
U+6 = A

And voila, A Papaya.

What is that supposed to mean? Are you telling us that the masons meant to reveal themselves to everyone on the first day right from the start?

[Sir Tornado]

WTF? Does that mean she is the third mason or that she is scum identifing masons? Excuse me if I am just being dense.

He, and yes. Half the town figured it out, Tornado declared he wasn't mason, Ripley would be uncovered either way. Sryyy Ripley. You must have taken a while to do that, but I don't think it will be of use. Beat me up after the game

Albert, if you did not want me to say I was not a mason, then you should not have indicated that I was one. I feel that lying is not an option here.

[Sir Tornado]

The possible scenarios I see, in ascending order from the most popular at the top are:

Aimee/Lawrencelot
Adel/Lawrencelot
Adel/Aimee
Bird/Lawrencelot
Bird/Adel

How does the Bird get into that list? Haven't seen anything scummy from him so far.

[Sir Tornado]

Lowell, please stop pretending me and Adel are scum for sure. I voted Adel now, and I will keep my vote on her to prove I'm not scum with her. Now that Aimee is the target, and people think Aimee is scum with me, I think I might vote for her to prove that I'm not scum with her. And the difference with distancing myself from someone is: I will keep the vote, and only remove it if town wants it.

So, this is my question for the town: if you believe I am not scum with Adel, can I put my vote on Aimee now? Or will you think I am scum with Adel when I do that? In other words, I don't mind that Adel is lynched, and I don't mind that Aimee is lynched. You tell me who to vote. Here are my possible scenarios:

Aimee/Adel
Adel/Bird
Aimee/Bird
Aimee/Lowell
Lowell/Bird

I think Lowell is scummy because he still wants to lynch me because he thinks me and Adel are both scum. If you think that, I will keep my vote on Adel if you like. Bird can be scum because we know nothing about him, it's just less likely he's scum than that the others are scum.

So, for the last time: don't vote me if you think both me and Adel are scum, because I will keep my vote on Adel if I have to. Don't vote me if you think both me and Aimee are scum (which I wouldn't find very likely if I was in your position), because I will vote Aimee and keep my vote on her if you want.

I am a bit disturbed by this. It seems that you would vote for whom the rest of the town feel is scum (in other words, join the bandwagon) rather than make up your own mind.

[Sir Tornado]

Aimee.

I am not sure if ABR actually meant you as scum. He seems to be vote hopping a lot today, and then claiming that he was just guaging reactions. I feel that this may be the same.

I suspect that this could also have been a ploy to get you out of your procrastination and finally post your analysis (which, I might add, you still haven't)

[Sir Tornado]

Aimee.

I am not sure if ABR actually meant you as scum. He seems to be vote hopping a lot today, and then claiming that he was just guaging reactions. I feel that this may be the same.

I only went from Lawrencelot to Aimee, I don't consider that "a lot". I am dead serious about lynching Aimee today. Lowell, you say that it won't make a difference which way we go, so I'll ask you to put your vote on Aimee too. All roads lead to rome, my friend. 8)[/quote]

I am sorry. It isn't going to happen so soon.

You will have to

convince

me about Aimee. Look, I know you are a mason, I do not suspect that. But, I think I sense a touch of over confidence in your play today. Now, many may feel that over confidence is justified because you were right about Ryan yesterday, but, I am always vary of over confidence. It can lead to mis lynchings and potential game breaking. What you are proposing is a quick lynch, and I am fundamentally against a quick lynch (I have said this many times in this game). Plus, I prefer to use my own brain, and my own thinking than blindly following the masons. So, want me to vote for Aimee? I will do that if you show me considerable amount of proof that she is scum. So far, I feel Aimee has posted too less (I am still on page 26 as I type this) for me to pick enough scum-tells to confirm her as a scum. We need to hear more from her. If she is scum, she will dig her own grave. Your case is basically based mainly on one post. Not enough.

At this point, there isn't much difference between a mason and an ordinary townie. The only differences are as follows:

1) Masons are 100% innocent.
2) Masons can talk at night.

The main advantage that masons have in these games, however, that they have lesser people to hunt through than your average townie, is negated due to the claim by all three mason claims.

Last point: You have vote hopped (or main suspect hopped) from Adel to Lawrencelot to Ripley to Aimee today (today as in day 2). That's almost half the playing field. That is what I meant by you vote hopping today.

[Sir Tornado]

EBWOP

Aimee.

I am not sure if ABR actually meant you as scum. He seems to be vote hopping a lot today, and then claiming that he was just guaging reactions. I feel that this may be the same.

I only went from Lawrencelot to Aimee, I don't consider that "a lot". I am dead serious about lynching Aimee today. Lowell, you say that it won't make a difference which way we go, so I'll ask you to put your vote on Aimee too. All roads lead to rome, my friend. 8)

I am sorry. It isn't going to happen so soon.

You will have to

convince

me about Aimee. Look, I know you are a mason, I do not suspect that. But, I think I sense a touch of over confidence in your play today. Now, many may feel that over confidence is justified because you were right about Ryan yesterday, but, I am always vary of over confidence. It can lead to mis lynchings and potential game breaking. What you are proposing is a quick lynch, and I am fundamentally against a quick lynch (I have said this many times in this game). Plus, I prefer to use my own brain, and my own thinking than blindly following the masons. So, want me to vote for Aimee? I will do that if you show me considerable amount of proof that she is scum. So far, I feel Aimee has posted too less (I am still on page 26 as I type this) for me to pick enough scum-tells to confirm her as a scum. We need to hear more from her. If she is scum, she will dig her own grave. Your case is basically based mainly on one post. Not enough.

At this point, there isn't much difference between a mason and an ordinary townie. The only differences are as follows:

1) Masons are 100% innocent.
2) Masons can talk at night.

The main advantage that masons have in these games, however, that they have lesser people to hunt through than your average townie, is negated due to the claim by all three mason claims.

Last point: You have vote hopped (or main suspect hopped) from Adel to Lawrencelot to Ripley to Aimee today (today as in day 2). That's almost half the playing field. That is what I meant by you vote hopping today.

[Sir Tornado]

Last point: You have vote hopped (or main suspect hopped) from Adel to Lawrencelot to Ripley to Aimee today (today as in day 2). That's almost half the playing field. That is what I meant by you vote hopping today.

That's BS, I didn't vote Adel nor Ripley. Ripley was a bluff, and I never ever stated Adel was today's lynch.

Well, the thing is, when I made that comment to Aimee, I thought your accusation of Aimee was a bluff too. If you read my original post to Aimee again, you will realize that that is what I was trying to say. Now, with more elaboration on your part, I see that I was wrong in my assessment there.

[Sir Tornado]

I said in post 637,

Aimee.

I am not sure if ABR actually meant you as scum. He seems to be vote hopping a lot today, and then claiming that he was just guaging reactions. I feel that this may be the same.

I suspect that this could also have been a ploy to get you out of your procrastination and finally post your analysis (which, I might add, you still haven't)

This was my comment.

Look again, this has everything to do with your accusation of Aimee. I think I should not have used the term "vote hopping" "Suspicion hopping" should have been used (because, you never actually voted for Ripley or Adel on the day)

Basically, I think your trend of (prime) suspicion went as today follows:

Adel (At the end of day 1)
Lawrencelot
Ripley (bluff)
Aimee
Lawrencelot

What my post said was that I felt your suspicion on Aimee was a bluff. As I said in my last post, I think I was mistaken.

[Sir Tornado]

Is anyone keeping a vote count? Who is on how many votes?

[Sir Tornado]

Albert, are you suggesting a lynch on Aimee based on that one post only?

[Sir Tornado]

Albert, so, if I am to understand, you are suggesting lynching Aimee, not so because you think she is a scum, but because you feel that the game might open up and everything will become clear based on result of Aimee's allignment?

[Sir Tornado]

General note:

I'd be much happy if you call me

Sir T

or

Sir Torny

rather than just

Tornado

if you feel

Sir Tornado

is too big...

It gives a big boost to my ego

[Sir Tornado]

Albert, so, if I am to understand, you are suggesting lynching Aimee, not so because you think she is a scum, but because you feel that the game might open up and everything will become clear based on result of Aimee's allignment?

That is exact. Plus my hunch that she is scum.

Yeah, Lawrencelot is definitely 2nd scummiest, I don't mind lynching him.

Ok. I see your point here.

Vote Aimee

[Sir Tornado]

vote Lawrence

I've listened to Albert long enough.

I really can't believe we didnt' do this yesterday.

Why Lawrencelot? Why not Adel? Any difference between them, or are you totally convinced that they are the two scum (as you said yesterday) and you don't care in which order they are lynched?

[Sir Tornado]

I wouldn't say we learned nothing. Looking at the Aimee bandwagon, there was me, papaya, Lawrencelot, I find it slightly suspicious that Sir T would vote Aimee after this post I made:

Albert, are you suggesting a lynch on Aimee based on that one post only?

I believe that lynching Aimee will provide us with far more information than anybody else.

If Aimee turns scum, Bird is immediately town. Adel is very close to cleared. You become a possible scum.

If Aimee turns town, you are immediately town.

With two shots remaining and only Adel, Lawrencelot and Bird left, we have a confirmed victory.

To this, he replies:

Albert, so, if I am to understand, you are suggesting lynching Aimee, not so because you think she is a scum, but because you feel that the game might open up and everything will become clear based on result of Aimee's allignment?

I find it a bit ridiculous that he votes Aimee as soon as I say this, because was acting very independently until that point. Eg:

You will have to

convince

me about Aimee. Look, I know you are a mason, I do not suspect that. But, I think I sense a touch of over confidence in your play today.

My logic doesn't make a damn sense, and he jumped on it too fast. Going from a stance of non-compliance to jumping on Aimee and -1-ing her is ridiculously scummy. With Papaya as the NK, it would make sense that he left me alive because of the quote in italic above.

I am leaning on Lawrencelot/Sir Tornado as a scum pair now. Keeping vote on Law.

Perhaps you left out this little post of yours in between me agreeing to vote for Aimee and your post you just quoted?

All I asked is for you guys to close your eyes for one day, trust me and vote Aimee.

[Sir Tornado]

In case anyone is wondering, the one line post of ABR I just quoted was post 679.

Let me reconstruct the exact sequence that led to Aimee's lynching:

Post 676:

I question ABR why he wants me (and everyone else) to vote for Aimee so badly, based on evidence of just one post.

Post 677:

ABR replies:

I believe that lynching Aimee will provide us with far more information than anybody else.

If Aimee turns scum, Bird is immediately town. Adel is very close to cleared. You become a possible scum.

If Aimee turns town, you are immediately town. With two shots remaining and only Adel, Lawrencelot and Bird left, we have a confirmed victory.

Post 678

A Papaya agrees with my earlier assessment that ABR is getting too overconfident in lynching Aimee (I made that comment about ABR getting overconfident in post 665)

Post 679

ABR makes the following post:

All I asked is for you guys to close your eyes for one day, trust me and vote Aimee.

Post 682

I question ABR on whether the Aimee lynch is because ABR feels she is a scum or because it is a strategic lynch on his part.

Posts 681 and 682

A Papaya basically says Aimee may be town, but we may know a lot by lynching her.

Post 683

ABR replies that Aimee lynch is basically strategic, but he also feels that it was his hunch that Aimee was scum.

Post 686

I vote for Aimee.

Post 689

A Papaya drops the hammer after asking ABR.

Through out this discussion, ABR led me to believe that he was lynching Aimee because it was good for the game and it would help to identify the remaining scum, rather than because he felt she was a scum strongly, and he even accepted that there Lawrencelot looked more scummy than Aimee. If you notice my earlier comments, I had repeatedly said that I would not vote for Aimee unless he convinced me to vote for her. I voted for her only because ABR felt (and I agree with him) that it would open the game up and give us a clear path for day 3.

Hasn't it done that?

I've got one question for ABR...

Had Aimee turned out to be a scum (after the exact sequence of events that we have now) would you be voting me as the remaining scum? (considering that I voted for Aimee?)

[Sir Tornado]

We can do this two ways today:

1) Conclude that we already have all the information we need and lynch someone right now.

2) Decide that we do not have enough information for a lynch, and try to gather more by having more discussion.

What would the majority of town prefer?

[Sir Tornado]

Sir Tornado, I understand your last post, but you said that you would vote Aimee because then "the game would open up", not because you were going to shut an eye Is that correct ?

What do you mean by "you were going to shut an eye"? I am not sure I understand that at all.

[Sir Tornado]

Perhaps you left out this little post of yours in between me agreeing to vote for Aimee and your post you just quoted?

All I asked is for you guys to close your eyes for one day, trust me and vote Aimee.

You didn't seem like you were closing an eye. Rather, you looked like you thought it would be a good logical move.

Ok, I will put it this way, had it been suggested by a non-mason and someone who was not a confirmed townie, I would not have done it. It took a bit of trust in the person who proposed it along with the logic for me to vote for it, especially because (as you might have guessed already from my posts before that page) I wasn't entirely sure of the case against Aimee.

[Sir Tornado]

1) You were acting independently thus far
2) You suddenly decided to follow me after talking a lot about overconfidence
3) You put Aimee at -1, and we quicklynched her

Adel and Lawrencelot both have a cover for their move(something I regret of course), while you said you were unfazed by the way I was acting. I don't see why you suddenly changed your mind and attacked Aimee if you thought she was likely innocent. On what grounds did you go against her ? You claim it was blind trust, but is that really true ?

I did not attack Aimee anywhere. In fact, if you recollect, I actually defended her against your accusations for the lack of proper evidence. And, if you see some of the my posts on day 2, you will realise that I was not unfazed by your behaviour. Notice my posts questioning your behaviour especially after you attacked Ripley (and before you said it was a bluff) and soon after you attacked Aimee.

Especially after you attacked Aimee, I mentioned that I felt you were becoming overconfident. Then the next page, I voted for the candidate of your choice.

However, you should notice that I accused you of overconfidence over your conviction of Aimee being scum. I would never have followed you had you kept your case against Aimee at that level. But, you upgraded your case against Aimee to it being a strategic vote ("This will open up the game") and followed that with a plea to take your word for it ("Close your eyes and vote for Aimee today").

I never claimed that it was blind trust alone. It was a mixture of your logic about the strategic vote as well as the trust that you were a mason. And, I think that is more or less what I said in my last post.

[Sir Tornado]

Thank you for clarifying things.

However, a question itches me: what was strategical about lynching Aimee ? How would it open up the game ?

I believe that lynching Aimee will provide us with far more information than anybody else.

If Aimee turns scum, Bird is immediately town. Adel is very close to cleared. You become a possible scum.

If Aimee turns town, you are immediately town. With two shots remaining and only Adel, Lawrencelot and Bird left, we have a confirmed victory.

[Sir Tornado]

I don't think we can deduce a thing from bird1111's failure to post. He appears to have been away more or less when he said he was. We have already reached page 30. That's a lot of catching up.

Sir Tornado. Some questions.

You say you voted Aimee, despite not finding her suspicious, and in a situation that would clearly lead to her lynch since we all knew A Papaya would do whatever he was told - because you believed that her lynch would "open the game up and give us a clear path for day 3". Do you think this has happened, and if so, what is that clear path? I see no sign of enlightment in your posts since Aimee's death. Apart from a query to Lowell that might be interpreted as testing the waters for a diversion of the Lawrencelot lynch to Adel:

Why Lawrencelot? Why not Adel? Any difference between them, or are you totally convinced that they are the two scum (as you said yesterday) and you don't care in which order they are lynched?

<snip>

Did you agree with ABR's deductions based on Aimee's alignment (quoted by you just now in 738)? Did you check them? Did you make predictions of your own based on Aimee's alignment, and if so what were they?

My conclusions after Aimee's alignment was made clear:

Adel/Lawrencelot and Bird

After the NK was revealed:

Adel and Lowell.

I asked Lowell why he voted for Lawrencelot instead of Adel for precisely that reason.

... I can see nothing in your posts to indicate what you learned from Aimee's lynch and who it's directed you towards for a lynch choice today. Which makes it even weirder that you would make post 729, which offers the town two options, one of which is "Conclude that we already have all the information we need and lynch someone right now.". Especially since several people had already stated they wanted to get content from bird1111.

That post (post 729) was mainly directed at Lowell because he seems too eager to vote out Lawrencelot. (check out his post 726)

Anyway. At present I'm just about on the side of those who think Lawrence and Adel are probably not

both

scum. And I've always thought that of the two Lawrence made the most likely scumbag.

One of them can be a scum. However, I feel the chances of both of them being are null. And, I think that person is Adel.

[Sir Tornado]

My conclusions after Aimee's alignment was made clear:

Adel/Lawrencelot and Bird

After the NK was revealed:

Adel and Lowell.

Why did you change your mind?

Failure to NK ABR. I mean why leave ABR? He's the most dangerous mason around... the way he just got Aimee lynch out of nowhere.

Only 2 people benefit from ABR's non-lynch, myself and Lowell. I

know

that I am not a scum. Ergo, Lowell is.

[Sir Tornado]

EBWOP: ABR's non-

NK

(not non-lynch) in the last line of my last post

[Sir Tornado]

Oh, and by the way, I am not going to be voting for anyone just yet.

1) I am opposed to quick voting of Lawrencelot, and do not like Lowell's suggestion of a quick lynch and --

2) I don't like the bandwagon developing on Lowell just yet, because --

3) I am all for having a much bigger day 3. Wait till Bird gets back, and we get his feedback

[Sir Tornado]

Failure to NK ABR. I mean why leave ABR? He's the most dangerous mason around... the way he just got Aimee lynch out of nowhere.

That's a very strange example, since it surely shows ABR as a danger to the

town

. Surely that would encourage scum to leave him alive, hopefully to do the same again?

Only 2 people benefit from ABR's non-lynch, myself and Lowell.

Please would you explain how you have benefited and how Lowell has.

Also, you didn't explain why the nightkill of Papaya caused you to change your suspicion from Adel/Lawrencelot to Adel alone.

ABR had suspected just about everyone except me and Lowell before today, and had stated explicitly on day 2 that he thought both of us were townies.

Look at A Papaya's posts on day 2. They clearly say many times over, that he

wants to lynch Lawrencelot on day 3

. And, he gets NKed on night 2? It is too obvious that Lawrencelot is being framed. (which is why I settled on Adel being scum, but at this instant, it is still close between Adel/Lawrencelot for the scum position for me)

Another factor that must be taken into account is that A Papaya was about to be replaced, and a new player brought into the game. His NK avoided that. This points to the fact that the masons have, till now, completely lost the plot, and the scum wants to avoid letting a new player -- one who would re read the entire thread as a mason.

I suggest we all take a break and reread the entire thread and see if we can arrive at someone other than Lawrencelot/Adel pair as a likely scum. That is precisely what I think Bird will have to do, and why I am waiting for him to post his views on the game.

[Sir Tornado]

OK. I'm probably going to end up triple posting here, with details and analysis and such, but here's my current suspicion list:

Sir Tornado
Adel/Lawrencelot
Lowell
----
Ripley/ABR

Here's the interesting thing I noted from day 1 reactions to the mason claims.

1. Accepted - Theo & Ripley (obviously)
2. Completely rejected - Ryan, Adel & Lawrencelot
3. Accepted and then stopped posting - Lowell (I don't remember if there was a reason for this or not)
4. Never posted about it at all - Aimee, Me
5. Accepted and kept bringing up reasons to lynch the masons the next day? - Sir Tornado

I realize people have started to think he's scum as of today, but I spent my reading time of day one thinking "How can people think he's pro-town?!"

Anyway, I can't see a scum group of Ryan/Adel/Lawrencelot. Not even the most misguided scum group would have all attacked two masons confirming each other.

I'll post quotes from Sir Tornado from day showing what I'm talking about.

I said, many times over, that:

I would back ABR and A Papaya's mason claim and vote 100% on day 1,

but

if they got their day 1 lynches wrong (about which, I might add ABR and A Papaya -- especially Albert -- were very confident about), I might begin suspecting they were not really masons and propose lynching them.

However, because one of the persons they accused (Ryan) turned out to be the scum, you would see that I believed them totally and never again even hinted about lynching any of them again.

What you have to take into account here, is that A Papaya was tremendously scummy on day 1 with his non posting. It was very hard for me to believe at first that he was a mason, and I had serious doubts over A Papaya's claim until ABR confirmed it, and even then, because of his earlier behavior, I still had a small doubt at the back of my mind (until Day 1 end that is)

The point I am trying to make is -- and what I think Lowell was saying is -- I feel that A Papaya's claim will not really help the town at all unless he is a scum. It is, I feel, anti-town and will cause only trouble for us.
That is the reason why I am keeping my vote on A Papaya for now.

Having said that, I would still keep my vote where it is (on A Papaya), at least until we get a confirmation or a denunciation of A Papaya's claim.

Two posts keeping his vote on the claimed mason and a request for confirmation or counter claims. Counter claims make sense, confirmation should NOT have been necessary. (I understand why ABR did it, and I'm not commenting on that.) No protown player should have been looking for a second mason to come out to support A Papaya's claim - a lack of counter claim should have been sufficient proof for day one.

For the same reason, I was not willing to accept A Papaya's claim alone. However, I don't think ABR claiming mason really made much difference to the scum. Here is how I saw it:

1. Only a scum could possibly claim a mason. A townie would have absolutely no reason to. And, if one claims, he should get lynched on Lynch all liars principle

2. So, if someone claims mason, then a vanilla townie could possibly in doubt regarding whether he is scum or a real mason. However, a scum would have no such doubt. They would KNOW that it is a real mason.

3. If the scum knew, after A Papaya was a mason, then, going from previous posts, they would have easily guessed it was ABR. So, me "fishing" for another claim wouldn't have been more helpful for the scum. They would already have known it. What it did do was that it convinced me to follow ABR and A Papaya that day to see what happened.

That was my reason for not lifting the vote on A Papaya. It wouldn't have helped the scum at all.

Interesting. I don't agree with all arguments against Sir Tornado, but there was one quote that I found very interesting:

"Are Masons and Scum allowed to PM during the day time?"

In case some of you forgot, and Jalyn didn't read it yet: ryan was modkilled for pming someone during daytime, right? Ryan was mafia. Sir Tornado could be the one who ryan pmed. Jalyn, could you tell me the page of this quote?

I asked that question on June 9th on Page 13th. Ryan was modkilled 30 hours later in page 21. We had a vote count from the mod in between that (much before the modkill in fact), and I assure you that I would not have waited that much time to inform the mod had I been a scum and had ryan tried to communicate with me outside the game.

[Sir Tornado]

Hi.

I need to re-read day 1. Not being the one to keep notes, I feel that memory is not serving me well. Will post something in the next 12 hours.

[Sir Tornado]

Time's up.

Um, yeah... sorry about that! Took more like 36 hours...

I asked him to tell us what useful info he'd got from Aimee's death. Since this was his alleged reason for joining in her lynch, you'd expect him to have been bursting with this key info for which he sacrificed Aimee, but actually I had to persevere to get it out of him at all. He said after the nightkill, he thought the scum were Adel and Lowell. (This is his ninth post of the day, and he hadn't mentioned Lowell at all. I really think SIr T is making this up as he goes along.) Immediately after Aimee's death but before the NK results, his scum choices were Lawrence/Adel and bird. The fact that he discarded these choices after the nightkill show that Aimee's death turned out to be entirely useless in determining Sir T's scum picks, which are in fact based on the NK of Papaya.

Ok, firstly, I admit that I did not get much information from Aimee's death. I was, in fact hoping that she would come up scum. My views are based on Papaya's NK, yes. I am not making it up as I go along, however.

Therefore I believe his attempt to justify his lynching of Aimee for the info we could gain from it is demolished. He gained nothing, we gained nothing and the comments he makes when pressed about Lawrence and Adel are confused and unconvincing.

Um... I did not lynch Aimee! ABR did. I felt that he made sense in his lynch which was why I voted for Aimee. I agree that we did not gain much from that lynch.

Jalyn also makes the excellent point that Sir T pushed hard for reasons to get a claimed mason, ABR or Papaya, lynched Day 2. The reasons:

Give me one reason why we shouldn't lynch YOU or ABR if your choice of lynch turns out to be a townie? Ok, so, you've claimed mason, and I believe that for now, but I will have major doubts over that if your lynch does not turn out to be a scum.

If ABR and Papaya didn't pick a scum to be lynched, Sir T wants one of them lynched next day. Where's the sense in this? They were masons, not cops. Did they strike you as efficient scum-finding machines? I somehow doubt it. Looks like a plan to follow ABR and Papaya in the lynching of a townie, hold them accountable and lynch a mason next day. Here are the votes at the time of Post 345:

A Papaya (2) -- ryan, bird1111,
Aimee (2) -- Lowell, Sir T
ryan (1) -- Ripley
Adel (3) -- Albert B. Rampage, Papaya, Theopor
ABR (1) – lawrence

Both masons on the Adel wagon, joined by Theo, With several other possible Adel voters on the scene. A mason-led lynch of Adel looks like a real possibility. If Adel is innocent it's all set up for a mason lynch tomorrow. Double whammy for the scum.

I found the claimed masons a bit suspicious on day 1, and like I said on day 1, although I decided to agree with them on that day, I was not sure if they were actually masons.

Reasons for that:

1) Papaya's scummy behaviour
2) ABR issuing 72 hour deadline (later revoked)
3) ABR's extreme confidence in lynching Adel, Ryan and Lawrencelot as you can see in the following post:

GUYS GUYS! I FOUND THE SCUM! THEY'RE ALL HIDING IN ryan's CLOSET!!!

*everybody follows me rushing to the basement of ryan's house*

ALRIGHT, THIS IS IT.

*opens the closet door*

OMG! Adel, ryan and Lowell are all inside!

and

GUYS GUYS! C'MON!

Forget about the alphabetical order, and let's get jiggy with it!

Adel asks you to post an analysis on EVERY PLAYER except papaya.
Albert just asks you to post an analysis on Adel and ryan.


WHO'S SIDE YOU ON ?!? SERIOUSSSLY!

Join my campaign! VOTE FOR ALBERT!!! (well, not literally)

*ryan smacks Albert back to his Machiavellian self*

Vote for Adel.

If you don't do what I ask, I will reveal the third member of the masonry within 72 hours.

Don't make me push the red button. 72 hours. Time is of the essence. The clock is ticking. Etc.

It sent general bad vibes to me, with the over confidence and pompousness. (I realized later that ABR always plays like that, but I did not know it back then)

He claims that you (Lawrencelot) were obviously being framed, though somehow despite this he has reverted to the position where it's close between Lawrencelot/Adel in his supicions. I already asked him (Post 761) how a player that was being framed could be scum, but I got no answer.

Hmm... I don't think I should have said "obviously being framed". More like "most likely framed". My fault, yes.

I'm also suspicious of post 729 where Sir T tries to set up a vote on whether we should lynch someone right away. Maybe he didn't want bird, or bird's replacement, taking part in the day (if so, judging by Jalyn's posts, he was right not to want it) But just a few posts later, 751, he is very firmly in favor of a longer day 3 and waiting for bird. Maybe, with absolutely no takers for the idea of the immediate lynch, he thought it wiser to declare his allegiance to the other camp.

Ok, I see that you are referring to this post:

We can do this two ways today:

1) Conclude that we already have all the information we need and lynch someone right now.

2) Decide that we do not have enough information for a lynch, and try to gather more by having more discussion.

What would the majority of town prefer?

First of all, this post was directed mostly at Lowell's post 726 (I made a mistake in NOT quoting that post in there). In that post, he said:

* bangs head against wall *

I can't believe how we're still not seeing this. LOOK AGAIN at the pages leading up to ryan's death. That's pages 10-15ish. You... really think Lawrence might not be guilty? That's insane.

Adel- Wow you're edgy.

First, I'm not even voting you... and I didn't vote you YESTERDAY, so chill out with the "Lowell is attacking me" bit.

Second, if you were an actual townie, you wouldn't CARE that I find you suspicious if I'm voting for someone else. If you think Lawrence is scum you'd vote for him and worry about tomorrow tomorrow. The fact that you're so intent on attacking me NOW makes me think what really worries you is that your scummate will be gone and you'll be left to fend for yourself, and that I'll attack you tomorrow. Which I probably will.

So the question isn't what do you think about ME. The question is

what do you think about Lawrence

? Yesterday you seemed happy to vote him when albert was declaring open season on he and Aimee. Now, on your own, you don't even want to comment on him it seems. You're directing your anger at me to avoid having to take a position on your scumbuddy. Hell you're not even voting ME for fear of buddying up to him too much. You're voting, conveniently enough, for a lurker.

My god this is obvious. People, vote for Lawrence already.

He seems to be very happy to go forth with his lynch of Lawrencelot without much discussion. So, I wasn't selling that idea to anyone. I was trying to point out the fault in Lowell's

"lynch Lawrencelot already"

strategy. I did not do that properly though.


So, you are wrong to say

"Maybe, with absolutely no takers for the idea of the immediate lynch, he thought it wiser to declare his allegiance to the other camp.

" because:

1) I did not support the quick vote idea (I should have stated it)

2) There was one taker for that already -- Lowell, as you can see from his later post:

No, I don't care if Bird posts yet. Lawrence is scum, dear god he's scum.

You're my next target after him. Knowing this town, though, we'll lynch someone stupid and you'll breeze by again. But that is neither here nor there.

I want everyone to look again at Lawrence's posts 250 and then 308. The way he says "maybe I believe papaya" (testing the waters) then turns around and joins Adel and ryan in NOT believing both papaya AND ABR is ... just... bewildering.

Really, the strongest argument AGAINST Adel being scum is Lawrence's willingness to jump to her support. I don't know that he would have joined in ryan's and her defense (pitting all three scum against five or six united townies) had a townie not already been there.

Adel- Though I find it unlikely, I could see you not being scum. However, I CANNOT see Lawrence not being scum. Hence the vote.

Here's why I don't think Bird is scum. Were he scum deciding intentionally to not support his doomed scumbuddies (ryan and Lawrence), he would have made CLEAR this view, if for no other reason than to blend in w/ the rest of us. Being silent and invisible calls more attention than just saying "sure, I agree w/ ABR."

Also, this town never quicklynches anyone. Them's crocodile tears you're shedding in worrying about it.

which gave me the impression that he wants to lynch Lawrencelot quickly before much discussion takes place.

[Sir Tornado]

Lowell hasn't posted since Friday. I would like to see his analysis of possible scum groupings.

He seems to be away. He isn't posting in any of the three games I am in with him.

[Sir Tornado]

If I turn up town, you should go after Lowell, while you still can.

IF

you turn up town?

If

?

[Sir Tornado]

Sir T, what's your take on Jalyn ?

I wasn't sure about Bird at all, but from what I have seen of Jalyn in this game, I am leaning on Jalyn being town.

[Sir Tornado]

Like I have said on this day, I think Adel/Lowell is the scum pair. So, between Lawrencelot and Adel, I would pick Adel.

[Sir Tornado]

I am strongly suspicious of Adel and Lowell.

[Sir Tornado]

Lawrencelot --> mild
Jalyn --> low

[Sir Tornado]

I'll put 3 points for each red, 2 for orange and 1 for yellow.

We have:

Adel: 10
Jalyn: 2
Lawrencelot: 9
Lowell: 10
Sir T: 8

I think this agrees with my list of scum. I am pretty much certain Adel and Lowell are the scum. It makes no difference to me whom among them I vote for today

Adel
Lowell

Original Roll String: 1d2

1 2-Sided Dice: (2) = 2

[Sir Tornado]

Vote: Lowell

[Sir Tornado]

I'll put 3 points for each red, 2 for orange and 1 for yellow.

We have:

Adel: 10
Jalyn: 2
Lawrencelot: 9
Lowell: 10
Sir T: 8

I think this agrees with my list of scum. I am pretty much certain Adel and Lowell are the scum. It makes no difference to me whom among them I vote for today

Adel
Lowell

Original Roll String: 1d2 (STATIC)

1 2-Sided Dice: (2) = 2

lol this is scummy as hell ^

You deliberately use a

model

of the game to set the premises of your conclusion -that we should lynch Adel or Lowell- and then copy my joke to somehow make a Lowell or Adel vote more appealing to me, and submit this set of false truths to the town.

Unvote, vote Sir Tornado

Lawrencelot tomorrow

Ah, well, I guess my lynch is on cards here... there's nothing more I can add really. I know that ABR usually gets the lynch he wants in this game, but I guess you'll know exactly what to do after my lynch.

Good Game all. Would love to participate in another game with anyone of you guys.

[Sir Tornado]

Likewise - this was a fun game

This

is

a fun game.

[Sir Tornado]

Law, Sir T, first to betray his comrade gets a cookie

LOL! You are hilarious.

But, I am, unfortunately not a communist (not a scum either, but we'll leave that one out)

[Sir Tornado]

But, I am, unfortunately not a communist (not a scum either, but we'll leave that one out)

Are my cookies so unappetizing ?

*munch munch*

They seem fine to me

I am sure they are appetizing. But, I am afraid I don't (or, rather can't) fulfill the criteria for receiving them.

[Sir Tornado]

You are making a grave mistake...*chokes on his cookie*

Aha! So you intend to get Law to lynch me by bribing him with the cookie and then get him Night Killed by choking on it?

Not bad

[Sir Tornado]

My master plan has been foiled...

why do you think Law can't be scum ?

Because I think Lowell and Adel are scum. All three of them can't be the scum.

[Sir Tornado]

If we lynch Lawrencelot today and he is innocent, we can still lynch Adel tomorrow.

I followed your reasoning against my better judgement for the Aimee lynch. I am determined not to let the same thing happen here.

[Sir Tornado]

Ok, then why are you so absolutely convinced in Lowell's innocence?

[Sir Tornado]

Ok, then, I'd like to know this:

You lynch me today, I turn up town. Then what will you do? Go after Lowell or Adel or Law?

[Sir Tornado]

All, right, now the hammer has been dropped, I will come clean.

I am

Mafia

. Sorry about lying all the time. I don't like it, but I guess it was sort of necessary...

Lovely game all.

[Sir Tornado]

Brilliant. Thank you Adel for maintaining my 100% win record as scum

Wonderful game all

[Sir Tornado]

Er... sorry Patrick!

[Sir Tornado]

Patrick: I would have survived had Bird1111 not been replaced by Jalyn... Till then, we were looking at a comfortable scum win with Lawrencelot under the scanner. The last day was quite agonizing to watch.

ABR lost the game for the town. He was too overconfident. Ripley and Jalyn played really well. Aimee's lynch was my happiest moment in the game (sorry Aimee!) She was totally after Adel.

And, I really did not understand Lawrencelot's play at all in this game. Had this not been an open game, I would have suspected him of being a jester or something like that.

[Sir Tornado]

Jalyn: Lowell was right about one thing. I and Adel did a huge Newbie scum mistake. We avoided each other a lot until something like D3 when it was becoming obvious I was going to be lynched and had to have Adel on my wagon and likewise had to accuse Adel to try and do some distancing.

[Sir Tornado]

Adel, why did you kill ABR instead of Ripley on N3? I never understood that.

[Sir Tornado]

I've kind of patched things up with Albert, but a piece of advice - when someone asks you for a PBPA, you don't just start wagonning them, and you don't just refuse, especially when they have been not at all scummy. Give a PBPA.

Or, make it a policy of not giving PBPAs at all in any game... Personally, I hate PBPAs. Especially as a scum. It gives you loads of opportunities to drop scum tells.

[Sir Tornado]

Damnit, I told you Lowell was town. I just fucking knew it.

Unfortunately, you also said Aimee and Lawrencelot were scum...

[Sir Tornado]

The Aimee thing helped us find Tornado, which was the equivalent of 2 townies for a "hard" scum. The endgame lynch just blew. Fuck it, man. Killing me was the best thing that ever happened to the scum.

Er... no. You did not have to lynch Aimee at all. In fact, had you not rushed the lynch, and waited for a few more days (for Jalyn to replace A Papaya as a mason) you would have had the game on the platter. Besides, you were on course to lynch Lawrencelot D3 before Jalyn turned up (and even for some time after she attacked me). Had it not been for a series of stupid D3 errors on my part, you would have lynched Lawrencelot on that day. And, personally, I think killing A Papaya, rather than killing you, was the best move we made.

Anyway, this was a most entertaining game. I'm running a Friends & Enemies Redux next week, I hope that all of you can make it (ryan is banned from my games though)

Damn my mini limit. PM me if you need a replacement in that one because I don't think I'll be able to sign up for it.

[Sir Tornado]

Ryan: I think he meant the games he is going to mod... not the ones in which he is playing.