California Trilogy - Dantès in Fresno (Game Over!)

[Mr. Grey]

Vote Count:

9 to lynch.

Skruffs: 3 (Cogito Ergo Sum, foolinc, Tamuz)
Dani Banani: 2 (Dragon Phoenix, Talitha)
foolinc: 2 (Gaspar, LoudmouthLee)
Mgm: 2 (Dani Banani, logicticus)
Adele: 1 (VitaminR)
logicticus: 1 (Mgm)
LoudmouthLee: 1 (IH)
Tamuz: 1 (Skruffs)

[foolinc]

Speaking of Mgm, I've taken a look at jeep's and xyzzy's posts and discovered that mgm, PlaysWithSquirrels (who was replaced by Gaspar), LoudMouthLee, and Skruffs are common votes between both players. There has to be a reason that both were nightkilled instead of scum attempting to get the town to lynch them.

Bogus. You think that the majority of the town would have "followed" Xyzzy to a lynch of any of these players? Why do you think that Xyzzy was nearly the condorcet winner? (By a 9-8 vote, Xyzzy outlasted Cubsfan). Xyzzy had a lot of heat on him. I severely doubt that he would have led the town on a crusade to get anyone.

Your right, he most likely would have been the lynch of day 2, maybe even a quick lynch. Isn't there a possiblity that the mafia would set up someone to be that guy? I'm still not quite sure that the poisoning (or whatever sort of attack caused a delayed heart attack) of Xyzzy was done by a vig either. Call it gut, but even though the game is only loosely based on The Count of Monte Cristo, with the way Xyzzy died that I think their is a serial killer in the game (I guess a second family that uses poison could also be a possiblity as well).

You say that they were both voting for me (and a few others), and that may be true, but that sample set is irrevelant. A little bit less than the majority of the town was voting for me at my greatest VC and the majority votyed me at least once throughout the day.

In other words, throw a rock at two players. Chances are both voted me at some point D1.

It is not irrelevant, it's less relevant. If they voted for you once, then it would be irrelevant, but they didn't. They voted for you throughout the day. And it's not like I'm saying this makes you scum. I'm saying this and Cubs less than accurate role claim makes has put doubts in my mind. If I had thought it was that relevant for you I would have moved you up higher on the list that were I put you.

@Foolinc - Please outline your case on Gaspar. Is it just the "I think he's the killing party that killed either Xyzzy or BM because both had voted for PWS at some point?"

It looks like a blatant framing job.

Or it's a new player being a bit overagressive. This move is going probably going to haunt me for the rest of the game, but it's better to admit a mistake and get it over with. While, I had other reasons to go along with moving everyone else up, I moved Gaspar up because I was being a bit overzealous because I thought I was on to something. The fact it was late probably didn't help matter much either.

Note: After reading Gaspar's posts again I'm going to pull a 160 and place him down the list wth the people I think are townies. Posts 3, 9, and 32 are good examples of why.

And today's discussions DID go into the process. Skruffs had his softclaim. The events between Mgm and IH also played a part in them getting bumped up (I was close to moving logicticus up as well), and the fact that LML is grouped with my likely townie group and not by himself inbetween that group and no lynch or even on the other side of the no lynch should have tipped you off that I have some suspisions about him, even with his role claim and the whole duel.

Okay, let's attack this point-by-point:
1. Skruffs did his softclaim, but what are your exact thoughts on it? You just now brought it up without actually

saying

anything about it.

My exact thoughts on the matter is that when he said he was roleblocked and then an action popped up, I thought he did it. Hense the question about whether or not he got a message or not (Which I admit was really freaking stupid of me). There is also a possiblity that he didn't do it, but I'm not a fan of the soft claim in general because it points out that you are a powerrole which will make you a target of scum, while not giving information to the town. And as I've already said, information is vital to the town overcoming the mafia.

2. Again -- Reasons? What about the discussion bothers you about Mgm, IH, and Logic?

3.. Almost logic.... so you suspect IH for being suspicious of Logic, but you suspect Logic and almost bumped him up on your list. Care to elaborate on this one?

The whole breadcrumb thing as made me suspsious of all of them because it made me question the motives of three people I thought I had a read on. Right now there are a bunch of ideas going on through my head: Was mgm's breadcrumb truthful, is IH trying to get some heat on logic by calling into question how fast he got the crumb? Did logic and mgm work together? It is possible that mgm and IH are working together and tried to trap someone? Are all three working together to make a scene? Or are they all just townies?

Now to answer why I didn't move logic up. Well when trying to work out the questions, it lead me to the realization that if logic was with mgm scum he wouldn't have answered to the question as quickly as he did because it would call into question on how he got it so fast. And if he was scum alone he wouldn't have been the first one to answer the breadcrumb.

4. The LmL thing is interesting. You have suspicions of LmL, but you've got IH (who is the only other person, as far as I can tell, actively going after LmL's claim) "bumped up" and near the top of your list. Do you suspect busing? How does the LmL/IH debate affect your suspicions? This

also

seems inconsistent to me.

This seems inconsistent to you because you are asuming that I think that believe that one scum group killed both innocents. As I already said, I think that there are two groups (most likely a mob and a SK). Plus as I already stated, I bumped up LML into a group with people I beleive are townies, this is much different than moving IH from the group of townies to the neutral/undecided group.

Also, you failed to address my questions regarding Skruffs/Tamuz, Thesp, and CES.

Skruffs/Tamuz: I agree that with Tamuz that Skruffs soft role claimed, however I'm not sold on the Skurffs/Thesp connection.

Thesp: I still thinks he's a townie. He's asking a lot of good questions IMO. The only thing that makes me question him is that he wouldn't share his theory, however that only isn't going make me move him.

CES: I am entitled to beleive that CES's "Yay dayvig" comment is a null tell. The rest of his post are in line with my feelings that he is proabaly a townie.

And the reason you are on the same level as Danni is because I did augment my old list and while you were moved up I did see any reason to move Danni.

So what you're saying is that even though everyone has posted today, none of your other suspicions have shifted at all?
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure I have already answered this question above.

And no, I don't think that they were both killed by the same scum group, however I do believe that they both were on the right track in some fashion or else they wouldn't have been killed.

CES already pointed out why this is flawed.
BM claimed to be an information role. Those, regardless of whether they are "on the right track" are always threats to the scums and instantly become viable nightkill targets.
Xyzzy was being run up, which indicates that his death likelly came from somebody who A) vigilante; or B) wants us to think they are a vigilante.[/quote]

BM might have claimed a information role, but he wasn't confirmable, wasn't comfortble, and had a bad past. Hell, I thought he was scum even after the claim.

And I do think Xyzzy was NK'd (or the less probable day kill) by a SK (though of vig isn't out of the question). I am also in the mindset that if it is a SK they will want to look like a vig, so I'm guessing that someone who vote for him would have made the kill to try and prove that they are a vig and not a SK. And if they are voting for him in such a way to make this claim, Xyzzy would have gotten suspicious and put them on his list.

Unvote; Vote: Skruffs,

Dani Banani, [PookyTheMagicalBear, IH, Mgm, Talitha, Tamuz], [Adele, Cogito Ergo Sum, Dragon Phoenix, Gaspar, logicticus, LoudmouthLee, Thesp, VitaminR, Zindaras], no lynch, foolinc

[Skruffs]

Foolinc - I'm at the top of the list, but you aren't explaining why.

WHYYYY? Because I was fricking roleblocked??

I know this sounds whiny, but I need to figure out why I'm so easy of a target. I'm pointing out things I think are honestly worth looking at. Scum know I'm not one of them, so I'm going to accumulate snide remarks until I have another wagon on them, and then I will be asked to claim. I can see it now. If you are suspicious of me for being roleblocked

and saying so

, just bring it out now, directly, with an accusation.

CES never explained his vote, foolinc hasn't explained his, and tamuz, well, he's pretty much indecipherable. I get the impression he's running his posts through altavista, translating them to italian and then to korean and then back to english. Or I'm just ignorant, but he says impossible fragments of statements and thten when asked about them, just doesn't respond or lapses into deeper discussions. IT's like listening to another Bush debate, which is funny, because he's sayign I have some sort of fanatic thing about Thesp, when as far as I am aware, I've never asked THesp for his opinion on anything.

GAH.

[Skruffs]

Foolinc - you think xyzzy was targetted at night and died the following day? Okay. What's your reasoning?

[foolinc]

Foolinc - you think xyzzy was targetted at night and died the following day? Okay. What's your reasoning?

If it was poison that caused the heart attack (and from the background given to us, that is very likely) then I think it was a delayed NK since poison would take time before causing death.

[LoudmouthLee]

Foolinc - you think xyzzy was targetted at night and died the following day? Okay. What's your reasoning?

"Because he was doing the poisoning?" quips LML, the eager contestant.

"Survey says...!" calls out Richard Dawson.

All of a sudden, the #1 answer turns over and says "Foolinc is a bad man." The families politely clap.

[Thesp]

i also believe that since xyzzy is dead, Mgm is the correct play for today...

I don't know that I got the proper answer to this. What about xyzzy's death makes Mgm the correct play?

Skruffs: his comment (626) that he was blocked suggest "town" to me. This is a dangerous gambit to try to pull as scum, because if there is no role blocker (or if there is one that denies the action) he's screwed.

While I agree he's slightly more likely to be town (as scum don't do this

often

), it's not a gambit if he

is

a mafia roleblocker. (I've seen this used to great effect by someone who later claimed cop in a game - it even gave him one less investigation to fake.)

I find foolinc to be relatively uninteresting. I do enjoy the Adele hate.

Vote: IH

, Adele, Cogito Ergo Sum, Dani Banani, [Gaspar, PookyTheMagicalBear, Tamuz, Zindaras], [Dragon Phoenix, foolinc, logicticus, Mgm, Skruffs, Talitha], [LoudmouthLee, VitaminR], No Lynch, Thesp

[foolinc]

Foolinc - you think xyzzy was targetted at night and died the following day? Okay. What's your reasoning?

"Because he was doing the poisoning?" quips LML, the eager contestant.

"Survey says...!" calls out Richard Dawson.

All of a sudden, the #1 answer turns over and says "Foolinc is a bad man." The families politely clap.

I was always more of a fan of work comedies like Scrubs and The Office than game shows.

And for the record Ray Combs > Richard Dawson

[Skruffs]

You've posted twice without responding to my qusetion, foolinc
WHY ARE YOU VOTING ME???

[foolinc]

You've posted twice without responding to my qusetion, foolinc
WHY ARE YOU VOTING ME???

I've already gone through this in other posts but here we go again:
- As I've already said, I used my old list from day 1 as a starting point where you where on top.
- You have made a soft claim, which I have already said I didn't like
- You were also on both lists

[Skruffs]

You used your list... which I was on... which is why you think I'm scummy.
Why did you think I was scummy before I revealed I had been blocked?
And why is being blocked scummy, in your eyes?

[Skruffs]

Wasn't your old list based on cubs and me being scum together?
Cubs is dead. That apparently doesn't mean anything?
BM also thought I was town, and is dead. I am quickly losing supporters here.
Doest hat make me scum?
And in regards to my soft claim, I'm sorry, but... it seems to me the best way to find scum is to be as honest as possible and as just as willing to share information. That gives us the best possible chance of the uniformed majority becoming informed before the mafia become the majority (ok, so the mafia will only get to 50% before winning, but screw it, I'm on a roll).

[foolinc]

You used your list... which I was on... which is why you think I'm scummy.
Why did you think I was scummy before I revealed I had been blocked?
And why is being blocked scummy, in your eyes?

Skruffs: I didn't like the way he reacted to the bandwagon at all. I thought he lashed out at other too much when he was trying to defending himself. However, some people have stated this is just his personality; Mostly scummy with a change of town.

I then moved you down because I, incorrectly, thought others were better choices. However, since both choices are now dead you moved up.

It's not the fact you said you were blocked. It's:

I'm not a fan of the soft claim in general because it points out that you are a powerrole which will make you a target of scum, while not giving information to the town.

[Tamuz]

tamuz, well, he's pretty much indecipherable. I get the impression he's running his posts through altavista, translating them to italian and then to korean and then back to english. Or I'm just ignorant, but he says impossible fragments of statements and thten when asked about them, just doesn't respond or lapses into deeper discussions. IT's like listening to another Bush debate, which is funny, because he's sayign I have some sort of fanatic thing about Thesp, when as far as I am aware, I've never asked THesp for his opinion on anything.

Nice Ad hominem

Lucky for you I'm not an douche or I'd try to get you tossed for this.

I'll respond to your content later. I feel like shit right now.

[Gaspar]

(Glork.)

It's not the fact you said you were blocked. It's:

I'm not a fan of the soft claim in general because it points out that you are a powerrole which will make you a target of scum, while not giving information to the town.

Erm... this logic is flawed.
1) He might not be power. Though they are relatively rare, there

are

roleblockers whose targets are told that they are blocked, regardless of whether they have an active ability or not.
2) Unless I am mistaken, your reason for suspicion assumes that Skruffs' claim of "power role" is legit. If you believe that he gave information about his role to the scums, then wouldn't that mean that he's not scum? In contrast, if you believe his scum, why would his claim of "I was roleblocked" have to do with anything? Do you believe that he is scum with power and that he was roleblocked? If so, why would he choose to share that with the town?


I think foolinc slipped up here, though I'm not certain. There's something here that I can't quite articulate properly... a presque vu of sorts. But there's definitely something wrong with this line of thought.

[Talitha]

Talitha: do not like post 685. You cannot keep repeating that you can't get a read on players - sounds very non-committing and scummy to me. Likely scum.

1. I have NOT repeated it. I mentioned once. I did NOT say "can't", I said it was difficult. I feel like I'm channelling Skruffs from day 1 here but if you are sincere in trying to catch scum, PLEASE get your facts right and make your comments accurate.

2. Your accusation doesn't make much sense because in the post you talk about I DO commit, make a vote, and give a reason.

3. The 'having a hard time getting a read' was

part of the reason for my vote

and therefore had to be said!!

4. The 'offending' comment of mine was partially due to how I felt about being wrong about cubsfan. You (DP) were also wrong about him, in fact you referred to him also as "likely scum" in post 231. This is interesting to me, because I think that of everyone in the game, DP should have been able to relate to what I said. He gets a FOS, for now.


To everyone: I am still catching up with the game and have only had time to skim and respond to things directly concerning me. The annoyance I mentioned earlier is mainly due to having a bad week and was not directed at anyone in this game.

Tags removed. Please use bold tags only for voting and unvoting. - Mod

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

*hugs tally to try to cheer her up*

your fantasy football teams aren't looking healthy.

though since no AC matches have been played yet by your teams, you could be getting the losses out of the way early.

@Tamuz, I'm pretty sure Skruffs is just trying to be funny with that comment, I don't think any malice was behind his comment.

unvote

vote Foolinc

[Dragon Phoenix]

Talitha: do not like post 685. You cannot keep repeating that you can't get a read on players - sounds very non-committing and scummy to me. Likely scum.

1. I have NOT repeated it. I mentioned once. I did NOT say "can't", I said it was difficult. I feel like I'm channelling Skruffs from day 1 here but if you are sincere in trying to catch scum, PLEASE get your facts right and make your comments accurate.

2. Your accusation doesn't make much sense because in the post you talk about I DO commit, make a vote, and give a reason.

3. The 'having a hard time getting a read' was

part of the reason for my vote

and therefore had to be said!!

4. The 'offending' comment of mine was partially due to how I felt about being wrong about cubsfan. You (DP) were also wrong about him, in fact you referred to him also as "likely scum" in post 231. This is interesting to me, because I think that of everyone in the game, DP should have been able to relate to what I said. He gets a

FOS

, for now.

I went back through your posts, and I stand corrected. Apologies. IGMEOY still, but you are moving down my list.

Unvote

Vote Dani Banani

, Mgm, [Cogito Ergo Sum, Foolinc], [Adele, Gaspar, Pooky, Talitha, Tamuz], [IH, Logisticus, Skruffs, Thesp, VitaminR, Zindaras], LML, DP, no lynch

[Dragon Phoenix]

Skruffs: his comment (626) that he was blocked suggest "town" to me. This is a dangerous gambit to try to pull as scum, because if there is no role blocker (or if there is one that denies the action) he's screwed.

While I agree he's slightly more likely to be town (as scum don't do this

often

), it's not a gambit if he

is

a mafia roleblocker. (I've seen this used to great effect by someone who later claimed cop in a game - it even gave him one less investigation to fake.)

Ummm... I think this would only work if Skruffs is mafia and the mafia has a role blocker (not Skruffs) - otherwise eventually Skruffs will find it hard to explain why no-one can claim role blocker. Still a very dangerous gambit, because the moment a mafia role blocker dies, Skruffs hangs.

[Mgm]

Still a very dangerous gambit, because the moment a mafia role blocker dies, Skruffs hangs.

How would you know he played a gambit? A mafia roleblocker dying is not enough information to ascertain his alignment.

[Dragon Phoenix]

You think a mafia role blocker would block Skruffs of all players night one? With a claimed investigation role about, which they could not be sure they could kill?

[Mgm]

I´ve seen mafia do stranger things. If they believed the investigator was totally wrong in his suspicions for example, it would be a shame to waste a block on him that could be used against someone else.

I´m more concerned about how scum was able to kill BM without running into a doctor protection.

[LoudmouthLee]

I´ve seen mafia do stranger things. If they believed the investigator was totally wrong in his suspicions for example, it would be a shame to waste a block on him that could be used against someone else.

I´m more concerned about how scum was able to kill BM without running into a doctor protection.

God.

Since everyone knows I'm not a doctor, I will say this:

PLEASE DO NOT ANSWER MGM.

This seems like blatant doctor rolefishing, and I REALLY dislike it.

His claim seemed fine, but he's acting so scummy, I know not what to do. I feel like moving him up... way way up... on my list again.

[Talitha]

I am almost caught up but my eyes have been glazing over the last couple of pages.

I know that mith does not like players to be lynched or spared based on their role claim (remember the 'lynch or lynch not; there is no claim' avatar?), so I think we will do better to look at the play and not give the claim too much importance.

So I have my reservations about both claims, but in Lee's favour is the fact he survived the duel with cubs which is making him look pretty innocent.

I am extremely interested in the discrepancy between the role cubs claimed and the role revealed on death. I am going to hazard a guess that cubs did not intentionally lie, and that this is some kind of mod bastardry. (If he was really just Kirk Kevorkian, how does the duel fit in???) A wild speculation I had is that maybe we each have two roles.. a monte cristo one, and a (loosely) corresponding Fresno one, but we are only told one or other of the names.

In other news I am really liking the foolinc wagon.
I will give my opinion on all players this weekend, but for now just the list:

(Thesp only just makes the list, to remind myself to look at him more closely.)

unvote: Dani
vote: foolinc,

Adele, Dani, IH, Mgm, Pooky (huggles), Skruffs, Tamuz, Thesp

[Thesp]

Skruffs: his comment (626) that he was blocked suggest "town" to me. This is a dangerous gambit to try to pull as scum, because if there is no role blocker (or if there is one that denies the action) he's screwed.

While I agree he's slightly more likely to be town (as scum don't do this

often

), it's not a gambit if he

is

a mafia roleblocker. (I've seen this used to great effect by someone who later claimed cop in a game - it even gave him one less investigation to fake.)

Ummm... I think this would only work if Skruffs is mafia and the mafia has a role blocker (not Skruffs) - otherwise eventually Skruffs will find it hard to explain why no-one can claim role blocker. Still a very dangerous gambit, because the moment a mafia role blocker dies, Skruffs hangs.

In the game I'm thinking of, a player was presumed accurate because he claimed to be roleblocked N1, and later a mafia roleblocker was confirmed (by being killed). In fact, the mafia blocked

no one

to set up that very claim. It's not so much a gambit as a planned possibility. I don't see how Skruffs would hang if a mafia roleblocker died, and in fact if no one claimed roleblocker if needed, it would be a

more

compelling argument that he was actually blocked (especially if later people claim to have been blocked on subsequent nights). Scum tend to not like wasting their abilities.