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

[theopor_COD]

Adel out of curiousity - how much of MrBuddyLee's scum hunting ideals do you think you've followed so far? Let me remind you of an earlier post . . .

Adel: Being a new player (as you stated above) What is your strategy in this game for finding sucm?

Post analysis. This thread in the forums gaves me some ideas http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5301

MrBuddyLee wrote:
1) Inconsisency of suspicion
2) Phrases that sound like lying
3) Overedited posts indicating overcautiousness
4) Defensiveness
5) Lack of curiosity

I like his list.

I'll also look at patterns in lurking/inactivity, and for arguments that depend upon a logical fallacy or are unexplained. And people who don't forward original insights but just follow the arguments of others.

I'm still ploughing through your posts in between work and meetings, so I will comment at some stage.

[Adel]

Honestly, I was waiting to get a large enough sample of posts before going through the players systmatically. The common alternative seems to be targeting the most oppertune player. I got hung up on Papaya... and it look like he had 4 and 5 as faults. Albert presented an argument in defense of PApaya that I felt had a logical fallacy, but that from the part I added there.

[theopor_COD]

Okay, another question . . . assuming Papaya and Albert are telling the truth (which as I've stated I think they are) who do you think are the likely 3 scum now? Obviously you can continue on with the argument against Papaya and Albert as an answer but until we see a counterclaim, it's pretty given to me they are telling the truth.

[Adel]

It is obvious to me as well. Should've been sooner. I guess I have to agree that ryan, and Lowell and I would be the easy choices. ryan said more scummy things post-claim, while Lowell went on vacation. Lowell said things pre-claim that had one mason and one other player target him. Which action is scummier? Me? Well, I'm innocent

Getting Aimee and Bird1111 to say more before day 2 would help, and I think Lawerencalot and Tornado could be pitching in more.

I want more posts from the lurkers before evaluating who is the scummiest.. and do some serious reviewing of the thread, but so much is interaction and about with Papaya I'm not confident about how much information is there.

Albert and Ripley: what was your case against Lowell earlier? I'm afraid I didn't understand it or pay much attention to it. Was it just that he wanted to place his vote on who had posted the least, and you guys thought he meant word count? ryan made that comment about finding "scum and masons" that I didn't catch until earlier today, and kinda followed the lead. Lawrencealot stuk me as a little wishy washy, and Sir Tornado didn't post much then posted well without prompting. Ripley is off my radar, theopor could be scum taking advantage of the confusion of the claims.

I refuse to consider an earlier vote on Papaya as a scumtell. The dude looked guilty as sin.

Can I give you my scum list tomorrow?

[theopor_COD]

Okay let's have a look at Adel



1. random votes Lowell

2. Some fluff at Lawrence, for not sticking a random vote on Albert.

3. Responds to Lawrence

4. Has obviously been reading the previous game. Asks for advice.

5. Has been doing research answers Ryan's question. re-catching scum. Adel gives her main thoughts as to catching scum uses a list MrBuddyLee posted somewhere. Also states the lurker issue and that of people not following up original insights.

6. More fluff on lurking, possibly looking to start an attack at those voting Bird.

7. Post with regard lurking, why it should be frowned upon. I agree it isn't helpful but isn't the only way to catch scum. I've stated throughout the thread lurker hunting gives scum an argument to attack people with.

Same reason scum do. To avoid drawing attention and, potentially, votes. Pressuring lurkers will be the key, more than in other games. That's what makes this setup different.


Lurking is an anti-town action. The more information each individual player provides the more information each pro-town player has to evaluate and base a vote upon. I consider content free posts just as bad if not worse than not posting at all. If only masons and mafia lurk than the mafia will be able to identify each mason for NKs, and we saw what that leads to in the other game, so it doesn't benefit our town for masons to lurk. Hopefully an active scum player will drop enough scum tells for us to decide that he is scum and vote for him, but that probably means we have to chase the scum out of lurk first. So long as we have several lurkers, the scum can hid among them. This is my understanding of the rationale behind the "lynch the lurkers" tactic, which seems like a good idea to me.

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.

Anyone else care to comment?

8. More attack of the lurker theme.

right now the clearest anti-town action is lurking. It is bad for the town and is bad for the quality of the game, and increases our odds of a mis-lynch. Get out of the lurk!

9. Votes me for supposed lurking.

I'll place a second vote to se where this goes, and I do agree with Lawrencelot's caution.
unvote: Lowell for posting more than average, and putting some actual content into his posts
vote: theopor_COD until he follows Lowell's lead.

Seperately I'll never follow someone's lead. Lurking isn't the be all and all, lynching a lurker is usually a bad move, we can replace em.

10. Unvotes after I post. Votes Papaya another lurker. Makes a reason for the wishy-washy voting, uses it as a net to catch supposed lurkers out, which happens with Papaya. Plus there wasn't any real attack at me, more of a vibe that I'll vote a lurker and if he/she doesn't respond I'll attack harder. i.e their an easier target.

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.

11. Continued pressure on Papaya, note at this time Papaya's lack of content alarms me aswell.

12. Papaya appears posts no content. Vote stays. One lurker captured into the net.

My vote stays where it is. What a shame, this was supposed to be the game where I voted around a lot.

13.

Asks

Papaya, Aimee, Tornado and

Me to unvote random votes

. I respond mine isn't a random vote, hence a tick in the defends Ryan box.

14. Then asks Albert to remove his random vote, all this seems to be pushing votes in the direction of Papaya. Albert responds his vote isnt random.

15. Response to mine and Alberts posts.

16. Diagram.

17. Throws an FOS at another quiet player Sir Tornado.

18. Ripley has made a disagreement to the lurker hunt, Adel calls him out on it, notice that yet none of MrBuddyLee's 5 ideals have been used as a way to catch scum, just the ongoing lurker crap. Disagrees with Ripley re: Lowell so a tick in the defends Lowell box, not much scum catching going on so far, just the mindless hunt to out a lurker.

19. More lurking stuff.

20. Attacks Ripley, who's openly criticised the lurker hunt. I agree that the lurker hunt gives cover to scum, more I'm reading more I'm disliking. Attacks three more lurkers - Aimee, Sir T and Papaya.

Ripley hasn't posted since Monday, only has 5 posts, her last post was critical of hunting lurkers. Her case was that hunting lurkers gives cover to scum, and calls Lowell scummy for doing it. At least that counts as content.

Aimee is on vacation through Sunday, but while she was here her posts were utterly devoid of content.

So far we already have Sir Tornado (was on vacation, but still needs to post) and A Papaya (posts but doesn't say anything).

21. Doesn't buy the Anti-Lowell, points out all of his actions have been pro-town. Annoyed that Ripley wants to derail the lurker hunt

I don't buy the anti-Lowell argument for a second. Everyone of his actions has been pro-town, and you have a minor difference of opinion on how he bases his vote. The reasons behind his vote was explained, makes sense from a pro-town perspective, and is the sole evidence you have against him. And you base your vote against him on that?!?. Fos: Ripley for trying to derail the lurker hunting, again. Extra heavy FoS on Albert for following along so easily.

Take your time in responding. I am much more eager to hear from A Papaya.

22. Nothing relevant.

23. Continues with the lurker hunt, comments not following Lowell

The trend I'm sick of is seeing on Day 1 is active players only scum hunt among other active players, with the result being the mislynch of a townie on a wagon started by a townie and the hammer being dropped by a townie.

I'm not following Lowell, I was just happy to see another player on the same page as me. I'd rather we coordinated a little better, if anything. 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.

The point in hunting lurkers is to get everyone up to a decent level of content, so that I (as an active player) will have a decent pool of information to shift through for scum. I do think the best approach for masons is to follow the best approach for regular townies: Post content and hunt for scum. The post at #38 gave me pause, but doesn't prove what you think it does. I think it amounts to a "lynch the lurker-lyncher" meta, which I do not like, but I would rather debate that later. Can we just hold the Lowell wagon until the lurkers have flushed?

If A Papaya is scum, and all he has to do to avoid the current wagon is to do nothing, we are totally rewarding lurking. How would that be good for town?

I think Albert B. Rampage needs to reread the last line of mine he quoted. What was I trying to say with that? Does it support your conclusion? Isn't reading comprehension a prerequisite for good play?

24. Comments that those making noise are possibly four-pro town players. Wants others to speak, decent.

25. Continued defence of Lowell. Attacks those who derail the lurker party, Ripley and Albert. Some issue regarding another game where a lurker lynch was town.

26. Not relevant. What I will say is if Albert's scum Adel ain't.

27. More banter with Albert

28. NRC

29. I point out content is more important than not posting. Adel responds that Ripley has posted content, Papaya hasn't - again I agree here.

30. More lurker stuff.

31. Posts that Papaya has reached -2, although isn't concerned.

32. Joke re - Alberts "being anti-town doesn't = scum"

33. Defence of Lowell. If Ryan and Adel are scum then Lowell aint looking too cracking.

34. Quotes Alberts attacking the lurkers.

35. Some more tit for tat between em

36. Hmm . . if Papaya is mason, then this quote alone would probably convince the mafia Albert was too

So, who is the third member of your scum group with A Papaya?

37. More lurker stuff. The whole subject of these posts.

38. More stuff re - Albert/Papaya - hence if Papaya's telling the truth, it's pretty obvious post-claim Albert was partner. Which is why the recent posts re - Albert's claim are pointless, scum would have noticed his defence of Papaya.

Now I am convinced that you are a scum buddy with A Papaya, trying in vain to provide cover so that he can lurk his way out of this mess. And I thought you were town before.

39. More argument with Albert.


40. I think it's more than likely Adel is mafia at this juncture, Albert is now claimed mason.

Nice try, scum.

I'm done with this. It isn't doing the town any good to continue. Our cases are out there for the other players to read and judge. Going on with this conversation this long makes both of us look petty, and I'm moving on. I feel like I've exposed you, so it has been worth it.

41. Mason link - emerges Adel attacks em. At the time fine but know assuming the masons are not lieing, they look obvious.

And A Papaya emerges to join Albert in attacking me. How predictable. Did I call for your lynch A Papaya? No, I called for you to post some content. A call I began many pages ago, and several other players joined me in calling for it. So please, post away.

42. Papaya calls Adel scum. Adel says that she will look like scum, if Papaya is town . . .

If you are town, and you get lynched, I will look like scum. You are right about that. The question is, will six (or 5 or 4 or 3 or 2) townies decide that you seem enough like scum to lynch? Your posts are what are going to decide that.

43. NRC

44. Calls out Papaya on his joke claim at 6 votes, Papaya seems to not want to claim to me from this, hence indicating probably masonry.

45. Dirt thrown at Bird. Who has been useless so fair enough.

46. Diagram stuff.

47. Doesn't respond at Tornado's post. Still okay with Papaya at -1.

I think I can go to sleep feeling ok about A Papaya being at -1. The case seems pretty good, and I'll be the person most likely to be blamed if he turns out to be town, which I doubt. If he hadn't posted those awefull posts today I would probably be unvoting right now.

This alone is probably the scummiest post, if Papaya talks the truth and as I've said until a counter-claim I think he does. Even with a counter-claim I'd probably believe Papaya and Albert - it would be non-sensical for two scum to claim two masons.

48. Attacks several ppl. Lowell, Aimee and Bird for dissapearing. Third one re- Albert again links to the possible mason pair.

I don't like a vote on a vacationing player. It is like not voting, but with a name.
I don't like a player vacationing at the very beginning of a game, esp this game.
I don't like how Ripley and Albert have not really considered A Papaya as scum in thread, but have not defended him either.
I don't like how Lawrencelot is using me for cover to aviod responsibility in his voting decision.

I really don't like that A Papaya is doing nothing for his defense.

I do like that the hammer didn't fall just yet. It looks like Lowell or Lawrencelot are the only two who are possibly willing to cast the #6: take all the time you need guys.

I like that I stand a really good chance of being the NK. I will take that as a compliment for being good at my job. If I die tonight: I think A Papaya's scum buddies are Ripley and Albert, possibly Aimee.... of course one of his mated could be bussing him... but those players are where I would first look for the next scum.

49. More discussion re- the Papaya wagon.

50. Ryan is in the third tier of suspicion with me, Bird and Lawrence. Scummier than Lowell not than the rest. Asks me to look at Bird, possibly wants me to avert my attention from Ryan.

51. Links the Diagrams.

52. I reply re- Bird, Adel adds that Bird leaving his vote on Papaya was odd.

53. Papaya has claimed. Adel unvotes.

54. Wants Papaya to contribute and place a vote, as yet this still hasn't happened and I'd rather Papaya came forward with some attack.

55. Claims the real masons won't out him if he's lying.

56. Me and Ryan have a little argument, I basically suspect Ryan, Adel's take on it, seems neutral. Doesn't see anything alarming with Ryan but does attack him for being defensive, the overall vibe from this post gives me one of defending Ryan. If Ryan's scum then I can see Adel as a partner.

That was just a little OMGUS'y ryan, you are being defensive.

theopor_COD: now that you've pressured ryan into dropping a couple of scumtells, where do you want to go from here? Looking through his post history, I don't see anything really alarming.

I like that ryan is part of the posse chasing lurkers out of the shadows. I see a couple poorly chosen words, and a defensive tone when attacked, but no real red flags. I would like to see him post more insightful words, but I don't see any of his actions as being anti-town so far.

57. NRC

58. I ask Adel with regard the lurker hunt, responds that scum are more likely to be lurkers and also that if scum were among the lurker hunt they'd be more likely to act like me or Bird than Ryan.

It is very possible that a scum or two will join in in chasing lurkers, but I believe that there is a greater chance of a lurker being scum than a chaser being scum. I would think that a scum among the chasers would act more like you or Bird11 than ryan though.

59. Diverts the discussion back to everyone else. Looking for another target to me ... suggests we ignore Papaya and brainstorm on everyone else.

60. Will go back to voting a claimed mason

I also want to take a look at other players, but 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.

61. Albert claims mason and that Papaya is telling the truth. As I say go back and read the interactions, if scum believe Papaya to be telling the truth, they would automatically I think have Albert as a partner without Albert's claim. This quote I don't get . . . more defence of Ryan aswell, not really one attack of Ryan.

I hope that one or both of you are lying, but aren't scum. I am interested in hearing your case against ryan though.

62. Moans about the lurking again

63. Adel is not a mason, hence another reason why I believe the Papaya/Albert claims. More defence of Lowell and Ryan but does attempt a little distancing but re-iterates the flushing lurkers is the best tactic to catch scum.

I am not a mason with Lowell or Ryan, so I can not vouch for their alignment.

Yes, I did defend Lowell and ryan. For their actions. Pressuring lurkers into posting is good for the town. Now we have three players on vacation. I still expect scum to be laying low and laughing at the silly townies exposing the masons and lynching other townies.

That said, I won't bet my life on both Lowell and ryan being innocent. I've been more focused on flushing lurkers, and then poking holes in Albert's "don't hunt lurkers" argument then suspecting the people helping me get more content out into the open.

64. Wants to divert attention away and back to lurkers like Aimee, Bird etc back to the earlier brainstorm plan, notice Ryan agrees with this plan


65. Calls out Albert for being a little snot, for getting others pissed at him, as town I have no problems with it, i have nothing to hide, hence why Ryan's reaction to our little argument on Page 10, seemed pretty off. Sympathises with Ryan, agrees Alberts post regarding Papaya make sense. Goes through Ryan's posts again - note nothing after Papaya's claim - including the Theo/Ryan argument, just brushes it off as dealing with fallout of a beloved thoery. Calls out Lowell for the lurker hunt more than anyone. Broadside at Aimee and Bird - and says at least one scum is hiding in the shadows.

After A Papaya's claim, I was dealing with the fallout of losing a beloved theory, and I suspect that ryan was as well, in addition to the hostility that Albert draws out so well.

I sill hold my opinion of lurking and lurkers to be true. If one of the three of me ryan and Lowell are going to be scum, my money is on Lowell. He was smart enough to keep a low profile while ryan and I charged on like bulls in a china shop. Maybe he was smarter and realized that the evidence clearing Albert and A Papaya was overwhelming befoer ryan or I did, or...

I also don't like how we have 0 content from Aimee, and pretty much the only significant thing bird111 did was vote for A Papaya.
I still think that at least one scum is hiding in the shadows, or is on vacation. Getting positions and alliances is essential information for later play.

66. Pulls up a scummy Ryan post

67. Back to argument with Albert

68. And more.

69. Why this? Why are you looking to clear anyone as town!!!!

I am actively looking for ways to clear ryan.

70. More stuff re- Albert

71. Back to the reasons for the lurker hunt. Wants to return to it.

Chasing players out of lurking is not a "detrimental plan for the town".

Unless A Papaya is a mason. Then it is. Sorry about that. Otherwise, it is perfectly good plan, and one I would like to go back to. Once our three vacationers get back, I really want to pressure them to catch up on content (even Lowell!).

I've not included the latest ones as I hadn't copied them into notepad, I'll comment shortly - to sum up. Post 69 above is the clincher.

A Papaya and Albert - masons.
Adel and Ryan - scum.

I will be voting one or the other, goodnight vienna.

[A Papaya]

I agree with Thopters Analysis, wholeheartedly. Adel seems to be acting like town TOO much, as does ryan. They seem to use an tiny slip to pound anybody into the ground.

HOWEVER, I am somewhat biased, as you may all know, due to the fact that they have tried to indict me earlier in the game. But I still think that their is sufficient evidence to do the following:

Vote: Adel

, since she seems like a more dangerous scum than Ryan.

[theopor_COD]

I agree with Thopters Analysis.

"Thopter" who's he?

However being as there seems to be a keenness to lynch Adel, I'm happy to switch to -

unvote, vote Adel

. Ryan can stew for another day.

That one quote "I'm actively looking to clear Ryan" is probably worthy of being stuffed into the gullotine head first.

[Adel]

Well it looks like my only hope would be a counterclaim by the real masons... but I think I am being lynched by the real masons. "I'm actively looking to clear Ryan" was supposed to me being open and honest about my bias and motivations. I thought playing as town meant I didn't have to hide that stuff. No, I am not going to vote ryan or Lowell or anyone else, because I do not see any compelling evidence. There isn't a deadline, and three players are on vacation.

Albert: why were you so eager to have a hasty lynch on me? I do not get how that was supposed to be a pro-town move.

[Lawrencelot]

This game goes with a much greater speed than all of the other games I'm in, so apologies for my low activity (which isn't true, I check this game more than twice a day). I'll respond to some quotes and then share my thoughts on who is who, you'll be surprised maybe.

Question for everyone: if A Papaya and Albert are lying about being masons, is it in the best interest of the town for a real mason to step forward? Why or why not?

Yes, I think it is. A Papaya and Albert are almost certainly of the same alignment, if a real mason says they are not mason, we know 2 scum while the scum knows 1 mason. Advantage for the town.

Goddam it.

If papaya claimed mason, the other masons needed to KEEP QUIET!!!

We'd have believed him if nothing was said. The idea was that someone woudl counterclaim IF he was lying...

Whatever. I'll be back Tuesday.

QFT. I think A Papaya and Albert are the worst masons ever, if they are telling the truth. That's why i think A Papaya and Albert are lying. I would like Ripley's and Theo's thoughts on this: it seems to me that you both believe ABR and Papaya, but do you also think they play well as masons? A Papaya claimed while everybody was going to look at other players, ABR claimed while most people believed A Papaya's claim.

Does anyone else think Albert's play to date in this game hasn't been any good?

Yup, here's one.

Adel wrote:
Question for everyone: if A Papaya and Albert are lying about being masons, is it in the best interest of the town for a real mason to step forward? Why or why not?


Thing is if Papaya was scum, why on earth would Albert then claim mason aswell, it makes absolutely no sense for Albert to claim mason if he and Papaya are both scum. I don't think I'd believe a counter-claim to be honest.

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.

ABR: I'm not quite sure why you are on a crusade to take me down but I'll play along because your play for the most part has been lurking and than POOF, Papaya claims and you are out of the woodwork on me for my vote on him. I think one or both of you are lying right now and your threat on the town to vote your choice or you will expose the "alleged" third mason is an extremely anti town play and I know I'm not the only one to see it. Lowell makes a good point in 270, as the 2nd mason shouldn't have said anything. Now we have two mason's exposed to the three scum out there.

I'm with ryan on this, except for this: not one or both are lying, but if they are lying they are both lying. ABR and A Papaya are almost definately the same alignment.

<snip>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.

WTH, how can people still believe your mason after this post?

FOS: Ripley and Theopor

for believing ABR. ABR is scum, a real mason wouldn't reveal a different mason.

If Papaya is scum, which for the record I don't think he is. Why on earth would Albert come out and back up his claim, if Albert was scum with Papaya, he would surely just stay quiet.

For the same reason as why he came out to back up his claim while they were mason. I don't see why you think he can't be scum, it all doesn't make sense, but being mason for them does not make more sense than being scum.

In the list below I will also tell who I think is mason, because I don't think it matters anyway with all these claims. If people believe me, this list won't help scum much.

Lawrencelot's list of who is scum and who is town (Llowisawit):

-A Papaya: scum
-ABR: SCUM! his behaviour is the opposite of townie or mason. He reveals himself as mason while he didn't need to. He threatens us with revealing the third mason. He is a bit too eager to get Adel lynched: scum wants everybody lynched except their scum group, mason does NOT want everybody lynched except their mason group.
-Theopor_cod: Scum. It's a bit obvious that he defends ABR and A Papaya. Defending them is ok, but he doesn't do it the same way as a townie would do. He excludes the possibility that ABR claims mason while being scum, for example.
-Ripley: i don't know. He agrees with theo, mostly, but it's not the same way. I think he's most likely town who has a different opinion than me (maybe it'll change after he reads this post, idk).
-Adel: mason. In particular because of her questions of what masons should do.
-ryan: mason. Adel and ryan defended each other often.
-Lowel: townie or mason. Lowell has about the same opinion as me, as far as I know.
-bird111: no idea, probably townie
-Aimee: no clue, probably townie
-Sir Tornado: dunno, probably townie
-Lawrenelot: townie. If I would read this post as someone else, I would think I'm mason, but I'm a townie.

Vote: Albert B. Rampage
Fos: A Papaya and Theopor_cod

I could vote one of the other 2 instead of ABR, it doesn't matter much. I prefer an ABR lynch first, he really needs to be silenced.

[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)

[Lawrencelot]

@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.

[Patrick]

Votecount

A Papaya (2) -- ryan, bird1111
Aimee (1) -- Lowell
ryan (1) -- Ripley
Adel (3) -- Albert B. Rampage, A Papaya, theopor_COD
Albert B. Rampage (1) -- Lawrencelot

Not Voting: Aimee, Adel, Sir Tornado
11 alive, 6 to lynch.

[A Papaya]

It seems to me that Lawrencalot is scum also, if he is willing to risk lynching a possible mason. It seems he should give it a bit longer, huh?

[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)

[Albert B. Rampage]

First off, I want to announce that everything Lawrencelot says is completely biased because of another game. And I mean

completely

. I really hope he is above meta-gaming at this point, so we can remain focused on this game. But just to let you know, there's a chance he is townie that just wants to bring me down, hence the first vote on me that was not quite random.

Let me point out the obvious flaws in his reasoning:

QFT. I think A Papaya and Albert are the worst masons ever, if they are telling the truth. That's why i think A Papaya and Albert are lying. I would like Ripley's and Theo's thoughts on this: it seems to me that you both believe ABR and Papaya, but do you also think they play well as masons? A Papaya claimed while everybody was going to look at other players, ABR claimed while most people believed A Papaya's claim.

This is an extremely foolish comment to make for an IC. I played the cards I was given to the best of my abilities. Have you even read the reasons why I claimed ? I posted them TWICE for your blind majesty.

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.

You are either trying to purposely draw a curtain of shadow over the situation or you haven't read the reasons why I claimed (twice).

WTH, how can people still believe your mason after this post?

FOS: Ripley and Theopor

for believing ABR. ABR is scum, a real mason wouldn't reveal a different mason.

First of all:

I'm preparing a big post. I withdraw the ultimatum. I will no longer threaten to reveal that person. I would rather nobody vote until we are at the end of our discussion to avoid quicklynching someone.

If I am pressured by the likes of your majesty Lawrencelot, maybe I will be forced to reveal the third member (and you will be surprised who it is). All masons can confirm eachother.

In the list below I will also tell who I think is mason, because I don't think it matters anyway with all these claims. If people believe me, this list won't help scum much.


-ABR: SCUM! his behaviour is the opposite of townie or mason. He reveals himself as mason while he didn't need to. He threatens us with revealing the third mason. He is a bit too eager to get Adel lynched: scum wants everybody lynched except their scum group, mason does NOT want everybody lynched except their mason group.
-Adel: mason. In particular because of her questions of what masons should do.
-ryan: mason. Adel and ryan defended each other often.
-Lowel: townie or mason. Lowell has about the same opinion as me, as far as I know.

This is the most

ignorant

paragraph of all. Adel admitted to not being mason, while her head was on the chopping block. She said, and I quote:

Well it looks like my only hope would be a counterclaim by the real masons... but I think I am being lynched by the real masons.

Why are you blocking yourself in your own private fantasy world ? Open your mind and understand that I am on your side. You can hate my guts, but at the end of the day, I won't be the one to slash your throat.

Also, what's up with the role-hunting ? That's at least as bad as my bluff with the ultimatum.

FoS: Lawrencelot

[Albert B. Rampage]

Sir Tornado, I pm'd him during the confirmation stage. Mafia and masons are not allowed to pm eachother during the day.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Lawrencelot, I want you to make a re-read of pages 11 and 12, as it seems you were behind a couple pages at the time you made post 308.

Adel claimed townie, I canceled the countdown, etc., making you look like a fool. I trust that you simply made the post a few pages behind us, so I'd like you to catch up and post your new thoughts.

[Adel]

FoS: Albert B. Rampage

For being in such a hurry, protesting so much, being so defensive, trying to blackmail the town, claiming mason when there was no immediate need, ignoring the possibility that he may be wrong.

theopor_OCD argument was good enough to make me think I was wrong for still harboring doubts about Albert and A Papaya. He is my mod in another game, and I have a thing for putting too much trust in authority figures. I need more backbone.

Albert: If you were a mason, how could you be so sure of what my alignment was? After getting some sleep, it really just doesn't compute. Now I do not believe your claim.

How could the two scummiest players be masons? Easy answer: they aren't. Often the most simple explanation is the most true.

A real mason would wonder about the lurkers. A real mason would be hesitant to FoS me let alone vote for me.

I've been very above board. Your most damning quotes are from passages where I am being my most honest, so that other players will have a better chance of judging my words fairly. By stating my bias and motivation I hoped to assist other town players make an objective and informed decision.

You've accused ryan of being scum mostly for following my lead: now look at A Papaya follow Albert's. Ignore the claim for a second, who has more scum tells?

FoS: A Papaya

for all of the scumtells prior to claiming, and now just puppeting Albert. If you are a mason, give us some insight into more players, don't let Albert bully you into just looking at one person. Think for yourself and give me a fair hearing. I am not scum.

I see four players aligned. Obviously all of you can't be scum. So I hope my argument gets a fair hearing from a least one of you. If only two or three of you are masons, take a look at the person using you for cover to attack another. Can you see why an innocent person would be skeptical of your mason claim? Well I am a skeptic. That doesn't make me scum.

[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.

[ryan]

I'm more scummier than somebody else? I'm in no condition to flush out the remaining lurkers? Please explain those to me Sir Tornado. I've got no problems posting thoughts on the players here and while you FINALLY drop your vote on somebody after dropping FoS's on people and than nutting up and voting, I've at least had conversations where I've tried to find the scum in this game. I'm a little confused on how Lowell and Adel led me to flush out our lurkers in this thread. What part of me engaing in conversations did you miss? We've got people lurking all over (check Papaya's post history) here and I've come under fire from an obvious mafia player (ABR) and anyone who would threaten to rat out the 3rd Mason is an anti town player, straight up. ABR or Papaya is the correct vote today.

[Adel]

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.

What was the need for speed? Concern over a counter-claim? Lack of confidence in maintaining the illusion of me being scum?

[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?

[theopor_COD]

This latest page bewilders me somewhat . . . until any kind of counter-claim comes forward from a supposed other mason group then I believe Albert and A Papaya to be town. I've said they've played poorly but that doesn't mean their scum . . Lawrencelot's posting 308 if he's town is quite possibly the worst post I've ever seen in my four months at scum. Adel has claimed she isn't a mason for christ sakes, we have no counter-claim! Unbelievable really.