BM's Mystery Mafia!! GAME OVER???

[Erg0]

I don't think that I'll win all arguments, I just know that I'll win this one because MoS, Kison and GoW are all arguing from a faulty premise - in reading their posts, I can clearly see that they don't understand what I'm saying. Having said that , I'm not going to discuss this particular subject any further unless and until a larger number of people show that they care about it.

As for the attitude, I'm annoyed with some people for wasting the town's time with pointless votes this close to deadline. We've had a hard enough time gaining a full majority in this game as it is without this kind of grandstanding distracting the town. We've got 42 pages' worth of posts to use as evidence, yet they're focusing on one quote from two pages ago that they don't even grasp the meaning of. It frustrates me.

I agree with you that Skruffs' idea to get ABR to hammer you seems odd and out of place. There's no reason to do anything other than vote to lynch at this point, we just don't have time for anything else. I'm going with Setael because I still have my suspicions of N9V from yesterday, and Setael has done nothing to change those feelings. I think that basing our second lynch entirely on how people reacted to Oman's claim is extremely risky.

[Setael]

erg0, can you explain your vote on me? Your main reasons seemed to be that I didn't think Oman was scum... which at this point doesn't really hold water.

I don't know what to think about ABR, since I have seen him be extremely unhelpful Town before, so his play here doesn't seem out of the ordinary. However, if he always plays that way, he could very well be scum and I would be none the wiser.

I'm a little confused by this statement:

I've argued the WIFOM with myself for a long time, and I just can't come up with a definitive reason to think that TCS' offer to hammer makes him protown.

It seems to me that the

only

way to interpret TCS' offer to hammer was protown. It doesn't make sense to think that scum would have offered at all. Did you just think TCS was bluffing?

I've been thinking about these 2 things TCS said:

If Oman comes up town, and I really die, I suggest lynching Paradox tomorrow.

I'm guessing he said this because Paradox thought oman was innocent, but voted him anyway. I have my own ideas of why Para voted for oman and took him to -1 but I'd rather hear it from Para.

By the way, should he be town, scum are either those afraid to hammer or very much wanting someone else to.

I agree on this point, and looking over the last few pages, I think erg0 was the strongest at "very much wanting someone else to."

vote: erg0

[Erg0]

Setael: We simulposted, my reasons are above. Add shameless wagoning with flimsy reasoning to the list.

[Setael]

I still have my suspicions of N9V from yesterday, and Setael has done nothing to change those feelings.

So... gut? No real reasons? Until I voted you.. and now your reason is I'm wagoning. The case on you happens to be a lot better than the one on ABR, and I do think you pushed awfully hard to get someone to hammer Oman when most of us believed his claim. So I feel very comfortable voting you.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Ok then:

The plan, as proposed, was that we should vote on the next scummiest player and require that player to hammer Oman. The idea is that we essentially get a second lynch option for the day if Oman is telling the truth about his role, because the person we select to hammer will die. The point of the exercise is to choose the person that we would lynch of we were not going to lynch Oman. The selected individual's opinions on Oman are irrelevant to the exercise, the point is that the will of the town states that they are scummiest and should be the one to potentially die.

This is why I say that we should lynch any player that refuses to comply. If this were a real lynch vote rather than a simulation, the individual does not have an option on whether to be lynched - once the town decides, that's it. My statement was intended to convey the the concept that the same would apply if we were to vote on the chosen hammerer. As with a normal lynch, if the person chose to claim before they reached a majority then that would be taken into account in the voting as each individual saw fit, but it doesn't get them an auto-out. The person who receives the majority of votes hammers or gets lynched - the town has spoken. If we didn't apply this rule then the entire exercise would be completely pointless.

Point is, we

didn't

fully adopt the plan, and therefore this isn't relevant to anything. At all.

And this is why you needed to explain yourself. The way you phrased it the first time, and the way most people read it, you were saying that anyone unwilling to hammer should be lynched. This is not the same as saying that anyone unwilling to hammer, after we've chosen them as the scummiest person, should be lynched.

I want to be clear that while we obviously didn't understand you, Erg0, at least admit that your statement made it very easy to misunderstand.

Unvote

If I didn't think GoW was just a very, very misguided townie, I'd vote him for saying your explanation was babble and worthless, because it makes perfect sense.

I'm a little confused by this statement:

I've argued the WIFOM with myself for a long time, and I just can't come up with a definitive reason to think that TCS' offer to hammer makes him protown.

It seems to me that the

only

way to interpret TCS' offer to hammer was protown. It doesn't make sense to think that scum would have offered at all. Did you just think TCS was bluffing?

Yes, it could easily have been a gambit, since most people had been trying to get the town to decide who to hammer, he *could* have offered to hammer as a ploy to get people to say "no, no, you're obv protown, we'll all decide to have so-and-so hammer..."

I later decided that TCS was actually more likely to be protown, hence my unvote.

[Erg0]

Setael: The reason that I pushed hard for someone to hammer was that if Oman's claim was truthful then he wasn't going to die. If we had a scummy player hammer him then it was a no-lose situation for the town - if Oman's scum, he dies, if Oman's town, the scummy player dies. TCS wasn't my ideal candidate (you were), but he seemed a reasonable compromise since his was the second biggest wagon today. Would you have preferred that we all back off and not test the claim? I'd rather find out now if he's telling the truth than have to risk losing a player at a crucial point in the game.

Besides which, there was no way we were going to get another wagon up before deadline and I really didn't want a second consecutive no lynch.

I gave plenty of reasons to vote N9V on day 1, and they just haven't changed all that much. With the limited time available, that seems like a good loose end to pursue.

MoS: Actually,

this

is how I put it the first time:

We need a secondary vote on who is the second scummiest player, and that person should hammer Oman. That will effectively give us two shots at killing scum today, because if Oman is lying scum he dies and if he's telling the truth then the scummy player dropping the hammer dies. If the scummy player refuses to do it we can lynch them instead.

The quote that was being bandied about was an offhand reference to a single aspect of this plan, which I made with the assumption that people had actually read the original post. I referred back to post 925 in 981, which came almost immediately after you first voted me for this. Perhaps now you can see the source of my annoyance.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Setael: The reason that I pushed hard for someone to hammer was that if Oman's claim was truthful then he wasn't going to die. If we had a scummy player hammer him then it was a no-lose situation for the town - if Oman's scum, he dies, if Oman's town, the scummy player dies. TCS wasn't my ideal candidate (you were), but he seemed a reasonable compromise since his was the second biggest wagon today. Would you have preferred that we all back off and not test the claim? I'd rather find out now if he's telling the truth than have to risk losing a player at a crucial point in the game.

Besides which, there was no way we were going to get another wagon up before deadline and I really didn't want a second consecutive no lynch.

I gave plenty of reasons to vote N9V on day 1, and they just haven't changed all that much. With the limited time available, that seems like a good loose end to pursue.

MoS: Actually,

this

is how I put it the first time:

We need a secondary vote on who is the second scummiest player, and that person should hammer Oman. That will effectively give us two shots at killing scum today, because if Oman is lying scum he dies and if he's telling the truth then the scummy player dropping the hammer dies. If the scummy player refuses to do it we can lynch them instead.

The quote that was being bandied about was an offhand reference to a single aspect of this plan, which I made with the assumption that people had actually read the original post. I referred back to post 925 in 981, which came almost immediately after you first voted me for this. Perhaps now you can see the source of my annoyance.

What you said in the first post was completely different from what you said in the second post. That's why no one had a problem with it in 925, but the second time we all noticed that you were advocating something that was very anti-town. You did *not* make it clear that it was merely a vague reference to a previous plan, because you didn't even say the same plan. You have got to understand that your wording caused this misunderstanding.

[Erg0]

The only way that it's not obvious what I was referring to is if you read that post and that post only. A quick glance through my last ten or so posts would have revealed that I'd already discussed the same point twice. Even if you didn't look back, after you voted me for it in 978 I told you directly in posts 979 and 981 that it wasn't the first time I'd said it, and referred you back to 925. Despite this, you left your vote in place and re-voted me for the same thing in 1027, and it wasn't until I explained it

again

that you unvoted. Either you didn't read all of my posts, or you're looking way too hard for someone to wagon. Possibly both.

I'm liking Kison and GoW even less for just following you on without looking beyond the information that you presented. GoW doesn't even seem to have been aware of the fact that I was talking about a past event rather than a current idea.

[Mastermind of Sin]

I did not read 925 until you quoted it. I had not seen it when I voted you the first time. You said that you said the same thing in an earlier post, so I assumed you said the same thing. If you had said the same thing, I would've had the same problem with it. Since you *didn't* say the same thing, but you told me you had, that's where the misunderstanding deepened, because there was no reason for me to go back and check 925 if it was the same plan as in the later post.

[Erg0]

Yeah, ok. It's

my

fault that you didn't read the post that I directed you to in my defence. If you were paying proper attention then I wouldn't have had to point it out in the first place, and I wouldn't have had to explain the same thing three times before it sank in. Try to be a little more sure of your facts the next time you feel like posting something like this:

I voted Erg0 as an expression of my belief that he should be the one to die. Not Oman, not TCS. Erg0-scum is the one we need dead.

[Kison]

Point is, we

didn't

fully adopt the plan, and therefore this isn't relevant to anything. At all.

So if I say we should lynch the claimed cop, and it doesn't happen, we just disregard that attempt?

No, we shouldn't - but I didn't say that, or anything like it. I said we should force the person with the most votes to hammer, regardless of other factors. If somebody claims cop and a bunch of people still vote for them, then on their heads be it.

You're either not reading carefully or deliberately strawmanning me.

The plan I proposed is functionally identical to the normal lynching process.

Feel free to take the idea into account in your assessment of my play, but at least try to understand what I'm saying first.

If I didn't try to understand you, then why do you think I asked the question?

In any event, I accept your explanation, I just wanted to clear up that one part.

Oman - are you perpetually unlynchable? If so, we can just make ABR hammer you this time.

It would be far easier to just lynch him.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Kison, we get an infinite number of lynches today if Oman is continuously unlynchable. That means we never have to go to night and let the scum kill anyone.

[Skruffs]

Thank you, mos. Mos pays attention.

MOD: deadline should reset, since the vote count did.

If oman (who didn't answer my question) is eternally unlynchable, then he is town's greatest known tool right not- regardless of his alignment.

Oman - was that a one shot deal?

[Oman]

F*%$ I really didn't want to have to do this (hence avoiding skruffs).

Yes it was a one-shot deal, I was hoping that I could keep the scum off me today and draw a NK tonight (as I'm only a deathmiller now) while they thought I was unlynchable.

Thanks guys

It will be interesting who jumps back on me now they know they're safe from harm.

[Setael]

Ok

unvote

for now until I reread. I think this makes sense:

By the way, should he be town, scum are either those afraid to hammer or very much wanting someone else to.

I voted erg0 because he was pushing the hardest for someone else to. After his back and forth with MoS, I can understand his motivations and I think I need to reread before I vote.

[Battle Mage]

'New developments' Vote Count

Erg0 2 (Kison, GodofWine)
ABR 2 (Mr Flay, Paradoxombie)
Skruffs 2 (Shanba, ABR)
Paradoxombie 1 (Heatherlou)
Setael 1 (Erg0)

Not Voting (9): Xdaamno, YagamiLight, Fritzler, SSF, Zu Faul, Oman, Skruffs, MoS, Setael

Skruffs-The deadline has been extended, but not removed.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Albert B Rampage is replaced by Cogito Ergo Sum

[Setael]

Welcome Cogito. You have some rather small, tight, annoying shoes to fill.

[Fritzler]

vote: ces

[Paradoxombie]

Para - What is your case on Albert, I happen to think you're wrong. You'll notice MoS refused to hammer me, why aren't you voting him for it?

Here's the case I see

I think that's a pretty obvious an appeal to emotion, ABR. And innacurate too. There's more than enough legitimate reasons to suspect ABR.

-He has taken responsibility for the death of a protown player
-He gives barely any reasoning for most of his actions
-He gives barely any content most noticably since he killed bobby
-He's done essentially no scumhunting since he killed Bobby
-For no apparent reason he agreed to hammer Oman only on the condition that just happened to be quite difficult to meet.
-He was declared protown early on for no clear reason by a player(N9V) who is still considered scummy by many

For all the effort people have been putting into deflating this wagon, it's finally has enough evidence that I'd be willing to lynch.

The key difference between MoS and ABR is that ABR was already on the wagon. Any player not on the wagon might've authentically believed Oman's claim, but by being on the wagon ABR doesn't have that excuse. Which is why I kept insisting we choose someone to hammer who was already on the wagon.

If Oman comes up town, and I really die, I suggest lynching Paradox tomorrow.

I'm guessing he said this because Paradox thought oman was innocent, but voted him anyway. I have my own ideas of why Para voted for oman and took him to -1 but I'd rather hear it from Para.

I don't think any further explanation is needed:

Then why don't you put him at -1 so TCS can hammer, then? He was on the wagon and has only unvoted because he volunteered to hammer. I'm fine with that because it's probably the closest we can get to satisfying both camps at this point in time.

I had thought we had already made sure we had enough people to lynch before we started working out the whole plan-thingy. I guess not. Oh well, my vote is purely to prevent a no lynch.

unvote, Vote:Oman

Any lynch is always better than a no lynch anyway, even someone I don't suspect(and I never said I thought he was inncocent, I just thought the case against him was weak)

[Mr. Flay]

Unvote: ABR, Vote: CES

- that was the biggest appeal to emotion I've seen this year, and I'm not buying it

at all

.

[Oman]

Para I see what you're saying. But lets remember 90% of that list is ABR as a player.

[YagamiLight]

I was rereading, and now, I'm thinking either Oman or ABR are scum. I may be wrong with this, but I'm thinking one of them is lying about their role-claim, given that ABR's role actually matched the kill, and Oman's doesn't,. So basically I was thinking all the role/kills will match, or not. I may be overthinking this though. Anyhow, I'm going back to my reread, and will post a good bit a little later.

[Kison]

Kison, we get an infinite number of lynches today if Oman is continuously unlynchable. That means we never have to go to night and let the scum kill anyone.

My point was that it was safer & easier to lynch him. Using Oman as a suicide tactic against potential scum victims requires that they cooperate. With a deadline as close as it is, I'd rather not have risked it.

Yagami : If Oman is lying, what do you think he really is?

[Erg0]

Para I see what you're saying. But lets remember 90% of that list is ABR as a player.

Has anyone else here (besides me) played with ABRscum before?