Mini #509: Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers, Game Over!

[Mirth]

Not so random vote: PlaysWithSquirrels

for having the most awesome name here. "Lose one friend, lose all friends, lose yourself."

Flameaxe, any reason why you're so eager?

[Mirth]

vote: Originality

'cause I recently said I'd drop any game if I saw him sign up for it, and I forgot to check the list on this game...

This a warning for the rest of us?

[Mirth]

Cogito Ergo Scum is worried about scum tells. Even if he is only joking.

Vote Cogito Ergo Scum

Is this a sort of random vote? Because I notice you failed to make one before.

[Mirth]

Unvote, Vote: UA.

Officially a bandwagon now!

Why are you wagoning on him?

[Mirth]

I'm not a fan of pointless bandwagons, sorry.

[Mirth]

Unvote: PlaysWith

FOS: Cogito Ergo Scum

I do not like that you just put a furth vote on Avalon for no reason. Please explain yourself.

[Mirth]

Why exactly? This is page 3. He hasn't done anything worthy of lynching.

[Mirth]

...Why in the name of sweet baby Jesus stuck up a tree did you just put an L-2 vote on him?

[Mirth]

Because I do not see a point in wasting a day of conversation with an ill-advised groundless quicklynch. We do not know how many bad guys we have in this game, nor what type of bad guys they are. (Thus we don't know how many dead people a night will result in. Therefore we shouldn't rush into it blindly. I wonder if perhaps the game starting with a day-phase is indicitive of anything in terms of a scum/townie balance.

Additionally, Avalon, I'd like to know your motivation for wanting to be lynched.

[Mirth]

I agree with Peers. Not funny and a waste of time = not good. I don't see what Avalon's crappy attempt as joking has to do with the rest of you piling on pointlessly? I also don't understand why Avalon would have such a ridiculously annoying method of joking, but I'm of the belief that playing along with juvenile behavior only further encourages and enables it, so I'd like the extend the humorless schoolmarm headshaking to everyone who plays along with this kind of nonsese.

[Mirth]

Since this is getting nowhere (and none of you are funny. Get over it) I will purpose the fowwing. Since Avalon's bandwagon hd 5 people on it (including himself) it would be satistically sound to assume that at least one of them is scum. In a game likje this, I will also assume that we have probably three or four mafia players (could be 2, could be 5 cause of the five rangers, but one mislynch and one nightkill would put town in LYLO with that, so I'm going to assume that 5 is less likely than 3 or 4 for that reason, though it is still possible due to the number of rangers). Possibly some other killing role, don't know yet since we started on day.

So, in no particular order, Blight, Avalon, Flame, CES, Unright, what do you all think about my above comment.

[Mirth]

I *am* assuming and speculating too much, but at least I'm trying for an actual conversation that extends past "ohh, lets vote someone pointlessly and see if we can lynch him." Though my assumption that at least one person on that bandwagon (barring the possibility of there only being two scum) is most likely correct due to probability.

[Mirth]

If you are thinking about focusing pressure on just those 5: I say, screw dat, scum.

First of all, you neglected to actually answer my question. Second, it is a place to start. I am of the opinion that WIFOM is a useful tool for extracting information. It's crappy logic, yes, but it gets people talking, which, for some reason, you lot don't seem too keen on.

I don't see why we can't come to a partially informed decision, Peers, as opposed to voting either randomly or not voting at all. Do you see a rush to get to a lynch? I certainly don't. We more or less have until the mod decides that we should move (so at least a month) to talk and argue and try to do something that isn't random or just piling on to a convienent bandwagon. Speaking of, why exactly did you vote for Avalon? Self-voting, if anything, is a null-tell. (By the way, this means 6 people, including Avalon, were at some point on the wagon already.)

CES: why do you think Avalon and Unright are townish? And if you do why is your vote still on Avalon?

[Mirth]

I'm not up to speculating about names yet (and would like to avoid that until claiming becomes inevitable...for the record, I don't like claiming), but I do vaguely remember the original show, though not particularly well and there are a wagonload of oneshot monsters. The mod does have all the bases covered there since anything is claimable.

I do not think there are 5 rangers here, as that would be too unbalanced. I think there might be four however, or three with an SK.

[Mirth]

FOS: unright

. I have my eye on you.

Care to share why?

jmar: more then one mafia team is possible, but then there'd be a total of 6 or 4 scum with 3 or 2 to a team. And probably no SK. I think it's a little less likely then a one team mafia, though it might be possible with ranger replacements.

[Mirth]

No, he admitted to having a named character role. There's a difference. A mod can always choose to name townies.

[Mirth]

I'll agree to drop it, but I don't think it means anything in and of itself just yet.

[Mirth]

I understand what you're saying, but it's a null tell for now. Unright needs to talk more before we can use that post to weigh anything.

[Mirth]

Well, Unright, I wasn't going to look into it very closely but then you had to go ahead and say you're spooked and make it sound like you were considering a "vanishing act." This doesn't sit well with me. What makes you even consider it?

[Mirth]

Unright, the fact that you mentioned that you weren't going to do a vanishing act alone means that you had thought about it (since you felt the need to reassure us you weren't). I will drop this for now, as I don't see anything to indicate role at this point or think its worth speculating, but my last point will be that thinking about going into lurking mode is *bad*

[Mirth]

Gah. Sorry for not posting. It's been an insanely busy weekend that I wasn't able to predict ahead of time.

First, I don't think what Peers has said is necessarily indicitive of a power role or a scum tell. I don't like post 155 though because retroactively justifying statements like that makes me edgy.

Second, PlaysWith, I have to disagree with your suspicion of JMar. It's too early to be actively lurking, especially not much having happened in this game as of yet. That and I don't consider lurking to be necessarily correlated with scumminess due to past experiences.

[Mirth]

That and I don't consider lurking to be necessarily correlated with scumminess due to past experiences.

Do you mind expounding on that? What good reason would a townie have to lurk?

There isn't a good reason for a townie to lurk, but some people tend to do this regardless of role. (See my game history for examples.) Because I've encountered it coming from both scum *and* townies, I don't consider a scum tell in and of itself. There has to be something more going on than just plain lurking for me to get suspicious.

[Mirth]

Peers, why are you being defensive now?

[Mirth]

Peers, why are you being defensive now?

... because I'm being attacked? Pretty much the only time to get defensive, really, when you think about it.

I'm curious because your not being attacked particularly strongly.

[Mirth]

That depends on a number of things, actually.

[Mirth]

I do not like this wagon hopping one bit. I also think Playswith's case is awful, so, for now,

vote: Playswithsquirrels

until he explains his last post.

Mod: can we have a vote count?

[Mirth]

Thanks, Jelly.

Yup, just as I thought, Unright *is* wagon-jumping afterall. I wasn't too sure what number vote he was on Jmar before

So...since I'm still waiting for Playswith to talk, I'm only going to throw an FOS your way, Unright.

[Mirth]

That's fine. But why aren't you commenting on Originality's "Oh shit I'm suspiciously forth I better unvote" move?

Because I don't find it suspicious. I'm inclined to think that avoiding baseless bandwagons is a good thing, and the unvote gives Originality brownie points in my opinion. Bob (and the rest of you), I don't see your logic in suspecting anyone from avoiding a totally unfounded bandwagon. I do, however, fail to understand why Originality voted Jmar in the first place, as I think the "OMG! You're lurking in plain sight!" argument is a poor basis for anything, expecially day 1.

PlaysWith, I'm going to keep my vote on you for the time being.

[Mirth]

I do agree that Jmar hasn't said anything particularly useful, yes. Neither have a couple other people.

[Mirth]

PlaysWith: I agree with you on that but it's not a scum tell this early in the game. It is indicitive of nothing, ergo not a valid basis for a bandwagon attempt, ergo I am suspicious of you for trying to start a bandwagon on what coule basically amount to playstyle. (I'm also not a fan of Unright at this moment, but I'm going to keep my vote on you for the time being.)

[Mirth]

In no particular order:

PlaysWith: Reasonless bandwagon.
Unright: Wagon hopping.
Flameaxe: See page 1.

[Mirth]

So let me get this straight...I am on your top scum list because of "being eager" for random votes? This is just plain dumb in my opinion.

Oh. I made a mistake there. Shoulda put "See page 2."

[Mirth]

Everyone keeps saying there's "nothing to go on" etc. but that doesn't change the fact that we have to be lynching someone today. Sitting here with our thumbs up our asses isn't going to accomplish anything. If you guys are waiting for someone to jump up and admit that they kill people at night and need professional help will be sorely disappointed. It is page 10, people. Do something.

We do have to lynch someone today, yes, but not this very minute, which is what seems to be the common assumption here.

Flameaxe: for jumping on the jokewagon and staying on it until page 8.

[Mirth]

Why, though?

[Mirth]

Let me rephrase my question: why pile on so enthusiastically to the "joke"wagon?

[Mirth]

Mirth is another possibility. UA's BW was obviously a joke, but the fact that she was seriously opposing it could be her trying real hard to look like town. Maybe she thought that everyone would really lynch UA and then she'd have some credibility by being the only one to oppose it. I just saw this in another game with UA. But...again...I don't know. I'm kind of in between with her too. I see her as pro-town, but then she keeps bringing up the UA BW like it was more than just a joke to get things started.

"Joke" bandwagons bother me when they pass 3 votes. I dont see a point in themto begin with, but when you carry it past a certain point, I have to wonder "why"? (By the way, no one had yet explained that to me)

[Mirth]

4 is crossing over into legitimate wagon territory past pressure votes and past joke votes.

[Mirth]

Or rather, let me correct that: past pressure votes without too much to base them on. Now if someone did something that might actually be damning, I think the line moves up to 5.

[Mirth]

It wasn't obviously a joke. I didn't know that; it's not hard to believe people who'd never played with UA or any of the others involved would think that way, too.

I was aware that it wasn't a completely serious bandwagon, I just happen to not have a sense of humor. Especially when probability tells me that at least one person who was on that bandwagon is probably scum.

And why do I keep bringing it up? Because y'all keep trying to write it off as "Avalon always does this." Regardless of what he always does or does not do, you should not automatically go along with it. And I honestly don't believe that everyone who at some point voted for him was only voting to be "funny"

[Mirth]

I was aware that it wasn't a completely serious bandwagon, I just happen to not have a sense of humor. Especially when probability tells me that at least one person who was on that bandwagon is probably scum.

This doesn't have anything to do with probability. You don't know how many scums are in the game, and even if you knew, this argument doesn't make sense at all. If there was one scum on the wagon, that means two scum (assuming there are 3 scum total, which seems to be the usual number in mini's) weren't on the wagon, and that means the people not wagonning have a higher probability of being scum. I also don't see why the possibility of a scum being on the wagon makes you wary of the wagon itself. Do you honestly believe anyone on the wagon was ever intent on lynching Avalon? Because I'm pretty sure you don't. Let's face it: Votes have no practical value whatsoever if they're not actually used to lynch someone.

This train of thought however still makes more sense than a pointless bandwagon, as I'm trying to find motives and not just jump for the sake of jumping. You are right, however, that my use of probability is naive. I should have included the following clause: If Avalon is town, then there was probably more than one scum on the wagon. If Avalon is scum, I'd suspect they stay clear entirely.

Blight: Maybe. It in part depends on Avalon's alignment and in part on vote order. I doubt scum would be vote 6 or a hammer, but if it's seemingly innocuous, with me being the only person in this game paying very much attention to it, well, there's no harm in jumping and letting an idiot townie hammer, but it depends on timing it right and playing well over all.

[Mirth]

Peers, could you please explain your vote on Flameaxe right now?

Also, here is the post where you voted for Avalon:

I dunno... a five-person bandwagon (4 not counting the self-voter) in a 12-person game... it's perfectly reasonable for the scum to not be on that bandwagon. The problem is, you get into a WIFOM arguement over if they would or wouldn't avoid it.

The sad thing is, we have very little to go on, and what we do have is based on randomness and bad humor. We either lynch someone totally at random, or don't lynch anyone at all. If we lynch at random, at least there's a chance of hitting a scum... and UA may just be trying to protect himself with that "Oh, I always do this" 'joke'...

Vote: UltimaAvalon

Which means that after mentioning that you didn't like the joke wagon, you piled on anyway. (And you did mention not liking it:)

Considering you haven't played with UA before, I'll let the fact that you don't realinze it was a total joke that he does every game slide...

... don't get me started on jokes that a) aren't funny and b) waste time... I already have one person almost on my always-drop list because of that...

So...why jump on?

[Mirth]

CES, you're right in my lack of voting (though the second time I put my vote on Playswith, it was for an non-random reason). I'm tentative by nature and don't feel comfortable voting just for the sake of voting. In fact, that reminds me:

unvote:Playswithsquirrels

as don't see any reason to keep it there any longer. Still don't agree with his reasoning, though.

Peers I fail to understand your reasoning for either vote.

Originality, why do you think that CES is most suspicious of you now?

Also, I would very much like to hear a bit more from Jmar and Bob, who haven't said much lately.

[Mirth]

By that same token, Unright, if Avalon and Flameaxe were partners, you're saying that if one says the other is not guilty, you'd let it slide. Even if they are familiar with each other and each other's playstyle, it shouldn't make too much of a difference, in that a good player should always theoretically play the same way, or roughly the same. Otherwise it's pure metagaming. I mostly don't metagame anymore as metagaming could convince you of things that don't exist in a particular game setting.

[Mirth]

Peers, give me a good reason why not to vote you right now, please. Because I'm not sure how much longer the already sizable wagon on you will continue to deter me.

This is the third time you've wagon jumped. For very poor reasons. Yes, Flameaxe is obnoxious. Being obnoxious is not a scumtell.

Unright: Your logic is still flawed. If one were to call the other scummy, could be scum casting suspicion on a townie.

[Mirth]

Peers, could you please try to make some sense, please?

Avalon, Flame, could you stop being jerks, please?

Even if a townie is damned annoying, lynching them is a stupid move. Why? Well this is a closed set-up. We don't know how many mislynches we can afford or how many killing roles there are. We don't want to purposefully mislynch because it might put us in a bad, bad, very bad spot. Now then, I don't know if Flame is town or scum, but in the case of this particular argument it doesn't matter. Yes, he's a jerk. Yes, he's annoying. That does not mean lynching him on just those two grounds is justified, because, see above. Also, you seem to be treating lynching Flame as town lynch, more than a possible scum lynch. Why would you be leaning that way?

Also, I'd like to

Vote: Peers

I'm pretty sure this puts you at L-2 Peers. So please, explain yourself. Without advocating town lynches please.

[Mirth]

Can we stop arguing about this please? I think we all agree that Flame is a jerk and nothing new and original can be said on that matter.

[Mirth]

CES, why defend Peers?

[Mirth]

"Backfired attempt at casusing paranoia among Mafia" sounds like you're ascribing meaning to an event post hoc. Who do you think is suspicious? Because you've been making me uncomfortable with your actions for a while now, and I'd like to get as far inside your head as possible short of imitating Ed Gein.

[Mirth]

"Backfired attempt at casusing paranoia among Mafia" sounds like you're ascribing meaning to an event post hoc. Who do you think is suspicious? Because you've been making me uncomfortable with your actions for a while now, and I'd like to get as far inside your head as possible short of imitating Ed Gein.

I never said I wasn't suspicious. I know I am. But after the huge blow-up between me, FlameAxe, and UltimaAvalon... the word 'Unvote' was used. Why? Because I said I was town, they said they were town, and the odd thing... we believed each other despite how much we pissed each other off and everything else we might consider evidence to the contrary.

I do not understand your motivation for posting this. If it is to encourage me to unvote, it has failed.

Think about it. What -possible- reason could I have for saying "Maybe we all have power roles" other than trying to put that suggestion into the Mafia's head? Most people think that I was outing myself as a power role, but they seem to think it was unintentional. I say I was trying to confuse the Mafia. And there's the outside chance that I'm Mafia trying to screw up the players mindless of the fact it would draw attention to myself, in which case, wow, that worked wonders, huh? (Come to think of it, it worked 'wonders' no matter what my intentions about it were...)

Other possible reason? Townie trying to break the game by having those of the non-putty sort among us speculate over the possibility of a non-vanilla game. I don't find your original statement damning in the least, but I don't like your explanation for your current claim.

Mirth, you've already got your vote on me. If all I've done is make you uncomfortable, then isn't a vote a bit strong? Aren't you already inside my head, and you think it's scummy? Because if not...

I consider uncomfortable a sufficient category of suspicion, because it takes at least one dead body for me to get anything more than antsy. I'm not going take my vote off you because I don't find anyone else all that suspicious at the moment. I'm still less than happy with Unright, but I'd like to him to talk some more before I reconsider him. I also honestly don't understand the current wagon on JMar, as I don't find him suspicious at the moment. And no, I'm not already inside your head. Your skull still seems to be intact.

[Mirth]

Actually, Jmar wouldn't have killed you. When originality put you at L-1, dybeck unvoted. You're still alive regardless of whether Avalon's unvote counts or not.

Speaking of, Avalon, why unvote in quotes?

[Mirth]

I get what the quotes say but why use them?

[Mirth]

Unright: It's a couple of things actually. You half-claim, this:

I understand what you're saying, but it's a null tell for now. Unright needs to talk more before we can use that post to weigh anything.

I've typed up posts, but I've been too spooked out to actually hit the reply button. I feel that I've already stumbled twice so far this game (jumping on UA's self-bandwagon, and making stupid assumptions) and it's still very early, so I've got some self-doubt going on.

(You did answer my original question on it, but your answer shrugged it off and accused me of role fishing.)

Your wagoning of Jmar (I'd like to know why y'all think Jmar is being being scummy, please?), wagoning for the sake of wagoning, jumping on Originality for unvoting, and some crap logic. I don't suspect you enough to vote you, but I'm keeping my eye on you.

As for Dybeck, I'm not a fanof the unvote, but wasn't going to say anything about it until Unright reacted. Sooo...Dybeck...why did you unvote?

[Mirth]

Avalon, why sort of revote Peers now?

[Mirth]

and there's no chance of being able to lynch anyone else.

Why do you say so? Also even if there is no no apparent chance to lynch someone else, if one believes that someone else is a better target for lynching, why not try anyway?

[Mirth]

and there's no chance of being able to lynch anyone else.

Why do you say so? Also even if there is no no apparent chance to lynch someone else, if one believes that someone else is a better target for lynching, why not try anyway?

For the same reason you're better off not voting for a third-party candidate in the American Presidential Elections. You have no chance of success, your vote is mainly to say "I support voting for this guy in the future, where I hope there will be more support for him, and eventually we can get him in."

Right now, unless there's a huge swing towards someone else, either jmar or myself is being lynched. I don't think this town is stupid enough to do a day-one no-lynch, and there isn't enough evidence or arguments for the town to go after anyone else... at least, not to the point of getting enough votes. A third candidate for lynching will only take votes away from the other two, and most likely cause a no-lynch.

I'm not saying "Don't vote for someone else". I'm just saying, unless you really think you have a strong enough argument to get people to unvote from jmar and me, it's not going to do the town any good. Personally? i'd love to hear a good case that gets people to unvote from me, but it's day one... I don't think there's enough action out there to make such a case. If someone can prove me wrong, please do.

And this is why my vote is staying on you...you're discouraging thought. We have two weeks. Two weeks is more than enough time to swing another bandwagon, given there is enough evidence for it, so if anyone has any suspicions besides you and JMar, they should voice them. You also, obviously, did not read game rules:

Jelly's Rules

Rules On what is Allowable:

[05] When a deadline has been placed, I will require only a majority of what would normally be a majority for a lynch (i.e. 7 players needs 4 to lynch, so I would require 3 to lynch in such a scenario). If this number is not reached, day will end in no-lynch, and the game will progress directly into night. If the town is in a Lynch-or-Lose situation, however, there will be no lowered requirements for lynching.

We don't infact, need seven for a lynch.

Mod, would it be correct to assume that because of deadline we need at least 4 for a lynch?

So...Peers, have anything helpful to say? Or do you want to let Avalon talk for himself now?

[Mirth]

That's what I thought, thanks.

[Mirth]

So...is anybody going to explain the wagon on Jmar? Also Avalon, are you going to answer my question now?

[Mirth]

So basically, you don't actually have a case PlaysWith?

[Mirth]

Sorry it's been a busy, hectic, evil weekend. I'll have my analysis of why I think Peers is suspicious up in a short bit.

[Mirth]

Pbp of Peers:

1: votes Originality for some meta game reason.
2:

No, more a warning for him, really. I'm more than willing to give him a second chance, but I don't give thirds.

Which, I know, is scummy, because voting for someone regardless of what their role is can hurt the town... but I've yet to see actual logic applied on the first day, so...

3. votes Jmar for monty python quote
4. logistics of page 1 lynch
5. asks about point of Avalon bandwagon
6. doesn't like Avalong bandwagon, as it isnt funny and wastes time
7. comments about my name since I agree with him at this point
8. votes Avalon (...the hell?)
9.

If a logical lynch were possible, I'd be all for it. But it's not, given that we don't have any information to go on that doesn't stem from someone's attempts to get laughs out of the first day.

<-- why so fatalistic here and not even try?
10. mentions odds even for scum on bandwagon

11.

Unless, of course, nobody received that PM because nobody is a vanilla townie. It'd be a little high-powered for a small game, but this -is- Power Rangers...

12. Says its hypothetical, reserves right to claim Putty
13. Says last two posts might have not been slipped and used to confuse mafia. (My inner scientists says this sounds like bull)
14.

Because in the first place, I said one thing, and people implied something compeltely different -- I've given up trying to predict what I need to say in the first place or what needs to be justified.

<-- why try to predict how other people react to you, why not just play?
15. says he's getting defensive because he's being attacked
16. Asks why C.E.S. voted for him based on the last post
17. Says that I admit he's being attacked, so defense shouldn't be strange
18. Asks how one lurks in plain sight
19. Unvotes Avalon, says the bandwagoning in strange
20. Says suspects are: Avalon for generally being suspicious, Originality for vote/unvote, Jmar for saying Peers backtracked on the Putty thing

21. Says Avalon's voting wasn't obviously a joke and that he didn't know that it was
22. Votes Flameaxe, for misattributing quotes
23.

Note that I did not vote for UA until post 89 (or so), after I was aware it was some sort of joke bandwagon, and I gave as my reason for voting the fact that such jokes are not helpful to the town.

24. Attackes Flameaxe for "willfully" confusing him with Unright
25. Says jokes hurt the town, best solution is to elliminate the joker, trys to refute Avalon's post that miscounting is not a scumtell
26. Unvotes because he assumed that LAL was a "hard and fast rule"
27. Sarcasm
28. Asks CES about suspects
29. Acuses Avalon and someone else (probably Flame) of twisting words around
30. Says he himself never twisted words around

31. Votes Flame for being a jerk
32. Says lynching obnoious people is good for town even if they aren't scum
33. Says Flame's jerkiness is bad for town
34.

I have already answered this question. It doesn't. You may very well be town. However, if you are, you're the worst kind of town, one that pretty much ensures the game will be a scum victory. And therefor, you need to go.

35.

Amazingly enough, the reason you're bad town to me is that you attack with flimsy reasons. Go fig.

And now my new big scumtell is that... I don't care if you're town or scum? Wow.

Now, I'll agree with you, to a point. Wanting all the townies dead? Scumtell. Wanting lots of townies dead? Scumtell. Wanting one particular townie dead so he can't screw over the town and the rest of us can get the scum? Not a scumtell.

I'm fairly confident that if you don't get lynched today or tomorrow, the game will end in a scum victory, whether you're scum or not. And that, my friend, is why I don't care if you're scum or town... I know that your survival means the town loses.

36.

PEERS!

If you're so concerned about your ability to scumhunt, why are you willing to admit Flameaxe is town, but still convinced he needs to die. I see you turn IC in a few days, but you've obviously missed a very important lesson about what Town is supposed to do in Mafia. Town is supposed to LYNCH MAFIA! If there's someone who is townie yet obstructive, you don't waste a lynch. YOU IGNORE HIM!

The goal of the town is not to lynch mafia. The goal of the town is to win.

Most of the time, yes, the best way to do this is to lynch mafia. But there are cases (say, a goon who is siblings with a town power-role, or some situations involving SKs, or those involving town players who are acting like scum players) where it's best to lynch someone else. They are rare, but they exist, and we have one here.

Just because I'm going after you for something I find to be scummy, doesn't mean I'm here to screw over the town.

And yet, going after you for something I find to be scummy (note: In this case 'scummy' does not mean 'is scum' but means 'will make scum win') is a bad reason for me to vote for you? Double standards only apply if the two people are different factions.

I'm town. Which means you are... what, again?

37. Wants to lynch possible "bad townie" Flame to get rid of obstruction to scum hunting. see above.
38. sarcasm
39. Claims we're at a brick wall, thinks Flame is an obstruction
40.

If I'm lynched, then the town loses a member, no matter what you may believe. But that's okay; I think you're scum, too.

<-- and yet, lynching Flame, even if he is town, is A-Okay?

41. Claims Putty, Says mafia is a game using emotions and not logical, and that while lynching town is bad, he's still fine with it if it gets stuff done
42. says his "hypothetical" and putty claims are not contridictions
43. says he hasn't lied
44. thinks he's dead from voting
45.

Unvote

Don't know if it'll make a difference right now, but might as well.

And PWS, what has jmar done besides, y'know, listen to Originality and vote for me?

<---and yet you change your tune soon and accuse him of stuff. post hocing much?
46. Asks Jmar to clarify something
47. Says Jmar's point is from 2 weeks ago, asks why he didnt act on it before
48. Asks Originality why Jmar voting for Peers is bad, but Originality voting is not
49. Says that because of the "reserve right to claim putty" post his claim isnt contridictory of anything. (Not true)
50. Says power role post was an attempt to bother the mafia.

51. Says that he knows he's suspicious. Asks what other possible reason he could have for power role posts. Asks if my vote on him is too strong
52. Votes JMar for OMGUS reasons (thinks his vote is a hammer)
53. Says stuff without really making a point.
54. Admits the Jmar vote is OMGUS and that he missed an unvote
55. No point really. Arguing with Jmar over the putty thing
56. Says theres no dybeck/Peers connection. Scum apparently don't bus their buddies day 1
57. Answers for Avalon, says no chance to lynch anyone but Peers and Jmar
58. Says voting anyone else would be a waste
59. Said he missed the deadline rules
60. said he wasn't putting words any Avalons mouth

61. says PlaysWith's vote on Jmar may be a playstyle thing
62. says case against him is bad
63. doesn't seem to understand Avalon's sarcasm
64. Analysis of Jmar to make him look scummy.

Conclusion:

Confirm vote: Peers

[Mirth]

While I don't like Unright's sudden vote-hop, I must say he's right here. Peers, if you're a townie, your goal isn't to survive. Your goal is to make sure the scum don't. That being said, if you're a townie, you should be more concerned with getting rid of scum then making sure that you, yourself, are not lynched. This is because win conditions apply post mortem and all. What you're doing, however, is simply giving up. And you keep saying you are over and over again. You pretty much gave up even before the deadline with your wagon votes. Except for your original two random/joke votes, you've been wagon hopping and yet to actually express any original suspicion or make a claim that does not reak of being formulated post hoc.

[Mirth]

Prior to your change in voting, you were defending yourself and attacking Flame. You didn't really express suspicion of Peers. Note how I say that I'm also letting this go (for the time being at least) because Peers has just hit the allergic reaction level of my discomfort radar.

Peers, Flame and Unright have explained my point well enough. You're not scum hunting, period. You're randomly finger pointing because you think Jmar might have a better chance of being lynched than you do, even though there's plenty of time to discuss other people.

[Mirth]

Yes, you did so only after multiple posts where you admitted it was an OMGUS vote and that you didn't understand other people's reasons for voting him. Thus you formulated a case after stating a lack of case. Thus you're just trying to grope onto anything to justify your vote.

[Mirth]

Another reason why I think Peers is scum: Only decides to jump on Unright now, when he himself is at L-1 and sees that a bandwagon on Jmar has failed, after whining for a week about how we don't have a third-party lynch candidate. In detail.

Peers, care you explain why you're only seeming to try now, as opposed to before, where, you had the same amount of information on Unright, and more time to discuss it in?

[Mirth]

Peers, weren't you the one who spent pages arguing how Flameaxe needed to die because you thought he was annoying and useless?

[Mirth]

Actually that largely depends on what happens when you die, if you are indeed today's lynch, as you are the only obvious suspect right now, and nobody else has made such a spectical of themselves. It also largely depends on who ends up dead tomorrow. I say this for a couple of reasons. Depending on your alignment certain other players may appear more or less suspicious. Additionally we don't know how many killing roles there are in this game. I do believe you're scum, but that still begs the question: what type of scum.

[Mirth]

Why? Giving up?

[Mirth]

I have a feeling that Avalon's just being a jackass again...

[Mirth]

Flameaxe, my comment was directed at CES, since he felt the need to ask a pointless question.

[Mirth]

No, I have a theory about that. It involves how CES is busy defending you. It also involves the baseless wagon on Jmar.

[Mirth]

Mirth has no sense of humor, if you haven't noticed.

Originality, your calling for a hammer kind of sets of some alarm bells in my head, but not too many, as Peers has been getting on my nerves with his bad playing.

[Mirth]

CES why are you so set against lynching Peers?

[Mirth]

Now Peers, you're being too simplistic there. The only people who actually know your alignment are you and your potential partners. If you're not mafia, then the mafia has no way of knowing your alignment either. Because none of us know how many killing roles are in this game. We won't have any ideas as to number and type of killing role until after night.

That said, I'm not a fan of Unright (look back for why) but what sealed the deal for me about you is your comment about how annoying townies should be lynched to help town when you were attacking Flameaxe. Last time I encountered someone with that playing philosophy, they were scum.

[Mirth]

No, you missunderstand. I said that you said lynch the annoying player. And saying that means that you dont particularly care if a protown player is lynched. It is the non-caring that bothers me, not the annoyingness.

[Mirth]

I don't think its a lost day at all. There is some other information floating around, and I don't know about anybody else, but I find CES's defense of you really interesting. I also find the non-participation of a few people interesting.

[Mirth]

It's interesting either way you look at it. If you're town, why is he so sure. If you're not town, why is he trying so hard.

[Mirth]

Not a lack of information. CES is saying he is convinced Peers is town because he "can't imagine scum playing that way." The problem here isn't that CES is defending Peers, it's how he chooses to defend Peers. He's making a blanket statement that he doesnt think Peers is scum even though Peers isn't playing well. He's not trying to justify this statement, he just keeps repeating it. Look back at his posts and notice that he doesn't try to back-up his support of Peers with quotes from Peers' posts that might suggest townishness. (The only post he quoted in his defense of Peers was the reserve the right to claim putty post). Yet before this he was very suspicious of Peers, and then turned around almost without warning and started defending him. I'm curious as to why. I'm don't know if CES is scum, but his defense does not make sense to me, and thus I'm going to be suspicious of him until I'm given reason not to be.

[Mirth]

Originality, I must say that contrary to what your name declares, you've been anything but newand innovative. Do you have anything to say that wasn't said already?

[Mirth]

They could be mason partners, but I don't think that possibility is likely at this moment because of Peers' claim.

[Mirth]

Hmmmmm...interesting night choice.

I'm going to

vote: Unright

. Unright, why do you think I'm voting you now?

[Mirth]

Well if you do think you know, I'd appreciate if you didn't say anything until Unright answers. I want to see what he thinks he knows.

[Mirth]

Hmmmmm...interesting night choice.

I'm going to

vote: Unright

. Unright, why do you think I'm voting you now?

Because you're basing it off the night choice?

I didn't think very highly of him because of his self-voting gimmick and I prodded UA pretty strongly over his meta-defending of Flameaxe. As such I was high on his list of suspects, but he wasn't very high on mine.

Did I miss anything?

BZZT. Wrong Answer. This has nothing to do with your attacks on Avalon. The reason I voted you:

Also, way to give away the fact that you have a named character role.

What are you talking about? I was researching Putty Patrolers! I swear!

...




......





Aw crap. That's what I get for venturing out of the newbie game areas, huh? I guess I just figured that with a theme with as many reoccuring and one-shot characters as MMPR that all 12 players are probably named characters. It's not really that much of a stretch.

I was just trying to kick-start some conversation...

Now then, unless I'm mistaken, scum try to eliminate possible protown powerroles early. Your post suggests that you have a character name. Yet, you're alive. Any comments on this?

[Mirth]

Originality, why do you feel the need to parrot my reasoning? Also, do you actually have any original points that make sense? Avalon being annoying would only impact nightkills for really really stupid scum.

I'm waiting for Unright's answer before I do anything further, but I have half a mind to change my vote to Originality now.

[Mirth]

Hmmm fair enough answer.

Unvote: Unright

. I'm still suspicious of you, but your reaction makes originality eclipse you in suspiciousness. Though if you had a successful doc protection, then we have more than one killing faction.

Originality give me one good reason not to vote you right now.

[Mirth]

Originality, this is actually the first post you made that actually seems to have thinking behind it. I say this because all of your other posts try to throw suspicion onto people who already have had suspicion thrown onto them without really giving any reasoning. This isn't just a case of you deciding Unright is susicious after I voted him. This is the case of you not suspecting anybody who wasn't already being suspected. This is seriously the first post you've made that actually attempts to elaborate on what you think.

[Mirth]

I wonder where everybody else is?

Mod: is it too soon to ask for prods on dybeck and PlaysWith?

Also, question for CES: why were you so sure of Peers' alignment?

[Mirth]

Dybeck, why do you say Unright is scum?

Joubert: I think it's pretty clear whats flawed with Originality's argument. What don't you understand about it?

[Mirth]

That it does, but you did not answer my question.

[Mirth]

CES, care to elaborate?

Also, since Unright's bndwagon seems to be only for the purpose of a role claim, why don't we just ask him to claim now?

[Mirth]

I'd like to take a poll: who here wants Unright to just claim now?

My personal opinion on this is undecided.

[Mirth]

I state my opinions freely when I have them. I am undecided because I do not like role claims until absolutely necessary, but Unright pretty much claimed non-townie. So the question is pin a role on him and make him stick with it, or give it one more night and see if he turns up dead.

Dybeck, could you please actually answer my question?

[Mirth]

His claim *can't* help town at this very moment, actually. Its a matter of what is less harmful here or what mightbe less harmful in the long run. If he's town, he might be setting himself up for a kill. If he's scum, he may impair a townie's counterclaim later on. We dont know what roles we have, so even if he claims cop/tracker, that might still be bad. We don't know if we have protective roles. We don't know sanities. This is a lose/lose since he admitted to not being vanilla. And honestly we can't make him claim anything (though you should notice the start of a wagon for just that purpose, hence why I bring it up). We can come to a consensus about what we think is best as the town, but ultimately, he can just fakeclaim, which if he's mafia, he would do anyway.

[Mirth]

Nobody else has anything to say? At all?

[Mirth]

Yes, I agree that I don't like Originality's play so far, but I'm very hesitant to decide who bothers me most at the moment. Its between Originality's parroting (well, he's been showing an opinion of his own lately) and eagerness to lynch, Unright's half-claim, and CES's lack of explanation for his opinions. And I really can't get any closer to deciding what with no one else saying anything. So...

Mod: Can we get a mass prod? Pretty please with sugar on top? Thank you

[Mirth]

Or, alternatively, we could actually do that whole discussing thing today. Dybeck, do you feel like finally responding to my question about whether or not you think Unright shoud claim?

[Mirth]

Woot ^_^ One less non-player. I hope...

[Mirth]

Mod:I seem to have overlooked your question about prods. Please prod the following people, since its been at least 5 days since last post: Unright, CES, Originalisty, Joubert, and PWS, if he is still here. Thanks

[Mirth]

question: DG, hae you read the whole thread thoroughly before voting?

[Mirth]

So you didn't read the whole game then?

Well, when you get a chance to, could I please get your opinion on Originality's lack of originality in most of his comments? Also on Unright's semi-claim. And I agree with you about CES. I'm not liking his explanations of "because I think so."

[Mirth]

...Originality, what exactly is your case against Bookitty, other than her making a case against you? No, seriously? Bob was pretty much not playing since somewhere in the middle of yesterday and has a 12 posts besides, where he doesn't say very much contentwise. Oh, wait, what's this? Bob didn't like you either but happened to unvote before he disappeared? Surely, he/Kitty must be scum then! And pointing out your early nonsense?!? Definately a scumtell! You've sure as heck convinced me. So I'm going to:

Vote Originality

I'm *not* currently happy with Unright or CES either, but they're not talking so I can't badger them if they're not responding. But I am comfortable enough to be the L-2 vote on you.

[Mirth]

Vote Originality

I'm *not* currently happy with Unright or CES either, but they're not talking so I can't badger them if they're not responding. But I am comfortable enough to be the L-2 vote on you.

That's pretty scummy. And it's rewarding your scumbuddies for lurking.

Maybe you should metagame a little and look at my general opinion of lurkers. I don't see lurking in and of itself as a scum tell. I'd rather get an answer than go "oh! lurker! lynch him!" Right now, Originality's answers are more salient than Unright and CES's lurking. I would like to hear more from Unright and CES. If what I hear from one of them bothers me more than what I hear from Originality, I will move my vote. Not until then.

[Mirth]

Still, I prefer not to put too much weight into lurking. CES does bother me, but he bothers me not as a lurker, but because his answer to everything is some variant of "because I said so." I want to hear more from him about that.

[Mirth]

Is that a defense of him I hear?

[Mirth]

Well, I would discourage you from thinking that I'm a townie for the same reason that I would discourage you from thinking anyone is a townie: you can never be completely sure ^_^

Mod: do you know if any of the people you prodded picked up their prods?

[Mirth]

I'm not disputing your vote. I'm just saying that, for the moment, I like my vote where it is. If CES starts talking, I might be inclined to move my vote depending on what he says. (And, if anything else, I'm fishing for a read on you, since you clearly have a 25 page advantage of backlog.)

[Mirth]

It is shaky. Just like any case in any mafia game is shakey unless the person more or less claims scum or does something really really really stupid.

I can't speak for anyone else though, but my vote on Originality is not based on Kitty's attempt at analysis from the first few pages of play. It's based on a pattern of his parrotting. He was recently started actually having an opinion, yes, but not one that makes very much sense. The ultimate trigger to make me feel guiltless about my vote was his vote for Kitty. That was a totally OMGUS vote. On day 2. When there are definately at least two other players who are actually acting suspicious. Now I don't know about you, but that really really bothers me.

[Mirth]

Kitty, that makes no sense. At all. I think I'm going to keep my eye on you...

[Mirth]

Why it's a definite scum tell. It seems to me, since you're focusing so much on this early vote/unvote that you haven't read the whole game yet.

[Mirth]

I do not agree with you there, just as I don't agree with DG about lurking (I don't believe in absolutes). I will let that slide for now. I will be watching you however, since, like DG, you do have the advantage of backlog.

[Mirth]

I don't understand why they had to run off all the way to Canada when they could have gotten perfectly good marriage licenses in [Mirth's city of residence].

Anyway, Unright has apparently been AWOL since Nov 16...from everywhere. It's a pity, that, since I *really* would like to hear from him.

And to CES, since you haven't been gone that long, I really would like to hear from you.

[Mirth]

Originality: I still don't see your vote as merited. You acknowledge that she's half right, despite the fact that you say she's "purposefully" trying to make you look bad, but this isn't my problem with your vote. My problem with your vote is she has done nothing, as of right now, to make herself look scummy. So far, she's singlemindedly latched onto attacking you, yes, but this, at the moment, is not a scum tell because a) she's only been around for a couple of pages and b) you have been acting suspiciously and definately bothering at least Flame, CES, and myself. (Though the fact that you're supposedly bothering CES bothers me a bit, since I don't like him either at the moment.)

My problem with your vote is not that you go after Kitty specifically, but that you have no grounds for going after Kitty at this present time. She, unlike Unright, CES, and yourself, has yet to do anything worth voting for. So I am suspicious of your vote, which, according to your own words, is based on the fact that she makes you look bad.

Why is making another player look bad not a town move? What you say there is a pro-town truism, to steal a phrase from someone in my last completed game. Saying that is not actually saying anything. Your vote is still completely OMGUS in nature. Instead of explaining yourself again, you vote like a knee-jerk reaction. If she's really wrong, why don't you go over, once again, why she's wrong. Not by attacking her playstyle, as you do now, but by explaining the facts again?

I am even less happy with you.

Oh...speaking of not happy...I got so distracted by DG being communicative that I forgot to ask her and Kitty the questions I always have for replacements.

DG: What do you think of PlaysWithSquirrels?
Kitty: What do you think of KillerBob? Also what do you think of CES? And Unright? And DG for that matter?

I'm also tempted to ask everyone for lists of suspicion but I'll forgo that for the time being since we have so many people MIA at the moment.

And Dybeck, since you didn't like Kitty's case against Originality, what do you think of Originality's case against Kitty?

[Mirth]

I do still want to know what you think of him.

[Mirth]

No, your defense of Peers is a point against you and not Jmar because the attack on Jmar was insubstantial and had pretty much nothing to go on. I've read back, and I don't see much of a reason for your defense of Peers. Maybe I'll read back yet again sometime this weekend, but I'm pretty sure that that's not going to change the fact that you don't provide solid reasoning.

Also, CES, give me one good reason why I shouldn't change my vote to you?

[Mirth]

Jmar, do you have anything to add that isn't just popping in and saying someone is up for a lynch? And what do you understand about the case about CES? What do you think of Originality? Any reason why you only appear when your name has been mentioned and gloss over everything?

[Mirth]

Argh. Life has decided to be difficult. I'll respond to/comment on stuff tomorrow. Now it is time to chase after that much elusive animal called sleep.

[Mirth]

Ah, sleep! Now comments in order:

dybeck: we could tell? really? because it obviously wasn't obvious. only hindsight is 20/20. why aren't you in the least bit suspicious of CES?

jmar: why do you feel that Originality is town? what exactly bothers you about DG?

CES: you didn't give me a good reason not to vote you, I'm waiting for one. Really, I am.

Kitty: i dont see anything townish about admiting self doubt. nice analyses though.

[Mirth]

You do realize that DG is female, yes?

[Mirth]

You've been wary when it came to voting people all game, but you want to vote me because I defended a townie and because I didn't explain my actions well enough. I'm trying to give my reasons, but your questionaires honestly upset me. As for defending Peers, I've been accused of being his scumbuddy as well as defending a townie to make me look good, so I guess people would've come after me regardless of Peers' alignment. If I think someone who's town is about to get lynched, I defend that person. Abstaining from a wagon and seeing that person get lynched, although I see people doing it more often than defending someone, isn't really optimal play, IMO.

No, you totally misunderstood that question (which is good, becauase I am still fishing). I'm happy with my vote on Originality for the time being. I'm still not a fan of you and Unright, and Dybeck has now made the list of people I'm not a fan of too, but I just wanted to know why you think you're not the best lynch candidate here.

DG: I think I asked you what you think of PWS. I really really really would like an answer. I mean it.

On Kitty's latest analysis: Oh! That reminds me! I have another theory about game set up that I think I want to share.

Okay, so, we know that we don't have five scum. (Or at least not 5 mafia, though having 4 mafia and an SK is a 12 person game seems really unbalanced but possible.)

Now then, I'm thinking we either have 4 or 3. Which breaks down into the following possibilities:
4 mafia
3 mafia, 1 SK
3 mafia
2 mafia 1 SK

Now then, I'm hesitant to buy that we have an SK due to 1 night kill, *but* because of Unrights half-claim, I can't rule that possibility out for obvious reasons that if you don't understand already, I'm not going to explain them. It's als interesting that the game started off with a day phase...so that would suggest a heavier scum loading. </speculation>

[Mirth]

Any reason for that, Flameaxe?

[Mirth]

Anything in particular about it?

[Mirth]

You think or you know?

[Mirth]

Well could you be a dear and make it more obvious? (and also possibly scrub your mouth out with soap?)

As to why I'm speculating, well, Originality actually said something useful there. I'm trying to figure out lylo...because, and I'm sure y'all can do the math, if we have 4 mafia, then we might be in lylo.

[Mirth]

Can you please not insult the mentally handicapped and spell it out for us? Slowly and with diagrams and/or slideshows?

[Mirth]

I want DG's opinion of PWS, but I really really want an explanation from Flameaxe.

[Mirth]

Any reason why you're voting DG out of the blue like that? And why do you think voting her will make her talk?

[Mirth]

Hi. Welcome to the game. I'm happy we have a replacement for Unright, but I'm sad that now we can't harass Unright anymore to actually answer.

Soooo...when you get a chance to go through the thread, could you be a dear and tell us what you think about your predecessor, and his half-claim? (Also, I ask that you please don't claim yet, until we can get a decent consesus going over whether you should or you shouldn't claim.)

[Mirth]

She doesn't post for two days and that's lurking? Pretty hypocritical of you, considering you have longer time stretches of not posting. By your logic, should we all jump on you at the very next instant you disapear?

[Mirth]

Albert, why did you just claim "not scum"?

[Mirth]

EBWOP: I ask this because anyone who claims "not scum" when not provoked bothers me. A lot.

[Mirth]

Second EBWOP: Post 767 is directed at Jmar.

[Mirth]

Quit fishing

Now why should I do that? You're replacing someone whose play I am *not* happy with. I intend to fish quite heavily, for just about everything short of a claim. Because I don't want a claim. Yet. And in doing so, I shall be especially determined in getting to the bottom of your unprovoked "not scum" claim, because I don't know if I beleive it.

[Mirth]

...wait...don't tell me...you like to spout nonsense just like Flameaxe?

I don't like pro-town claims because most of the time they are uncalled for. I'm actually completely against claiming unless it becomes totally necessary or unaviodable. Claims give scum a definate advantage. Why?

1. If a townie claims (a powerrole or convincingly), scum has less quams about doing away with him. first because a claim is more likely to draw an investigation to confirm or deny it. second because killing someone who claimed causes more confusion.
2. If scum claims,there is the chance of that role not exisiting, and town being to scared to do away with him because of that.
3. If scum claims and that role does exist, scum has a chance of getting town to lynch the real person with that role. so thats 1 scum for both a night kill and a lynch, which is a pretty good gambit at some points in the game.
4. any townie role claims beyond "vanilla" give scum more information that they give town. In game breaking, the town wants to know how many bad guys they have to kill. Scum already knows how many people they need to kill, they just want to know what their obstacles are. Let's say someone claims mason. Scum knows that person is town and could be at any point confirmed by a partner. but scum also knows that that person has no power role. so they know to take their nightkill elsewhere if they suspect a doctor that they want to get rid of.

This is why I am hesistant about asking you for a full claim. Unright already claimed powerrole and you acknowledged it. On one hand, we would want to pin you to a role so if you're scum you're stuck with it. On the other hand, we dont want to lose a protown powerrole.

I think this dilemna is avoided if claims are made at points of absolute necessity, such as cop with guilties (even then it would be better if cop didn't claim until forced to), or L-1 situations.

[Mirth]

...wait...don't tell me...you like to spout nonsense just like Flameaxe?

Yeah, but I do it better.

Darwindamnit!

Also, Flameaxe, please, in the name of evolution and all else that is holy, please explain your vote?

[Mirth]

But why do you say he's scum? I know it's a hard and scary thing to ask, but let me inside your head and lead me through your thought process. I have a shotgun, I can handle whatever twisted mishapen monstrosities lurk in there.

[Mirth]

...That last post was to Flameaxe. We seem to be simulposting again.

[Mirth]

So by that logic, Flameaxe, a large chunk of the American South (and midwest) is scum?

[Mirth]

No response there. If you're going to say you didn't acknowledge that Unright's powerrole claim was right, I'm not going to push it. For the time being.

[Mirth]

No. I'm not backtracking. I think your wording was an acknowledgement. I just really don't feel like pushing it now.

[Mirth]

Actually, we don't really know if Avalon and Peers are truly vanilla or if this is a limited reveal game. We only know what our individual role pms say, nothing more, nothing less.

Your second paragraph makes no sense. But then again, I am tired. I shall look over it again when I wake up.

[Mirth]

You should make a better attempt at reading a single post, namely the first one.

They were revealed as Putty Patrollers, and in the sample vanilla PM we see:

Putty Patroller

“Ooble ooble ooble!” That's right – you are a Putty, and your ability at making nonsensical noises is nearly unsurpassed. You can't do much of anything except flail your arms around and try to look menacing, so you are essentially a

Townie

. You might not have a night action, but you

do

have a vote – use it well!

You win when all threats to Rita Repulsa (which may include characters other than Power Rangers) are destroyed. Please confirm you have received this role, and feel free to ask me questions.

Woo!

Did it ever cross your mind that the Mod might be revealing all townies, regardless of whether or not they actually are putty, as putty? This may be sleep deprivation talking, but couldn't Rita morph her monsters at will?

Also, Albert, why in the name of Darwin did you just say that?

[Mirth]

Let me try to make this clear.

We know that Putty Patrollers exist in this game. But we do not know if both Peers and Avalon were in fact patrollers. The first post says they were, but this could be a limited reveal game, where any townie who dies, regardless of actual role, could be labeled by the mod as patroller. We will not know this until someone who has claimed not-putty dies. While this scenerio is not very likely, it is possible, and shouldn't be thrown out right away.

And Albert, what exactly was the point in claiming your character name there?

[Mirth]

I'm not saying the mod is lying, I'm saying there is a possibility of limited reveal on death. I don't see how its too much of a stretch, actually and I'm not totally discounting it. Why? Well, in Mini 487 when someone died, all we found out was alignment and name, but not actual role. We knew someone was town, but not what kind of town, so the deaths were all ability blind. I don't see why a similar thing would be too much of a stretch here. Albert, you, yourself, say that they might have had character names. Why would you consider that, if you're sure this is a full reveal game and both dead players are clearly marked Putty Patroller? For the same reason I'm considering that death might not be completely open, since Peer's claim to have a name was really weird, considering that once he died, he came out Putty. It could be just a mistake on his part where he said something he didn't mean, or it could be a case of limited reveal, we don't know. And Dybeck, it disturbs me that you're willing to write off any possibility at all. I see nothing wrong with spouting theory. I acknowledge that it is not very likely, but if its not 100% confirmed-impossible, I'm not discounting anything.

[Mirth]

Then what would the purpose of only naming one of the 6 be?

[Mirth]

I understand that, but why only name 1 of them. Why not just give all the vanillas named then?

[Mirth]

Then by all means consider me a complete idiot. At least it's got some of you arguing with me.

Albert, I suppose you've had a chance to read the thread by now. Sooo...question for you: why do you think Avalon was the night kill choice? Same question for Kitty too, actually.

And Flameaxe, could you please just answer the question about Jmar already? I promise to stop spouting theory if you do so?

[Mirth]

But why do you say he's scum?

[Mirth]

But know do you know, Flameaxe? And why are you so resistant to giving a straight answer?

[Mirth]

Dybeck, why are you jumping at Flameaxe all of a sudden? Surely, you've noticed he's been annoying and resistant for the past few pages?

[Mirth]

You didn't actually answer my question, you know. I didn't ask why you voted him. I asked why you voted him *now* as opposed to some earlier point in time, since he's been keeping this nonsense up.

[Mirth]

Thanks, Originality, it makes me feel so much better knowing that the person I find most suspicious at the moment agrees with an understands a vote.

[Mirth]

You didn't actually answer my question, you know. I didn't ask why you voted him. I asked why you voted him *now* as opposed to some earlier point in time, since he's been keeping this nonsense up.

Being annoying is not the same as being scum. However, we should encourage him to help the town, and a small bandwagon will focus his mind. It would be helpful to us to have Flameaxe make a pro-town contribution, if that is what he is.

Encouraging him in his childishness is not the way forward. Put him on the back foot so we can get a true picture of his colours, because all we're seeing at the moment is him being silly.

Albert: Could you please repeat your question for me?

This is not an answer.

Unvote: Originality

Vote: Dybeck

Because, obviously, voting for someone who is no longer playing and in desperate need of replacement in order to get answers is good scumhunting. Also I'm not liking how you jumped on Flameaxe without giving a reason and jumped off just as casually.

[Mirth]

Oh wait...you replaced Unright...then my last post needs a correction, because I for some reason spaced and though DG replaced Unright.

[Mirth]

^ Good Posting, but I still want to know why you voted jmar.

[Mirth]

EBWOP: the good posting comment was to Flameaxe. for some reason i didnt see page 35.

[Mirth]

Dybeck: is there a reason why everything you type doesnt really say anything new and/or productive?

[Mirth]

Flameaxe, your comments are useless without posts to refer to. Nobody in their right mind is going to go through and match up your comments to the posts because that's stupid. All of a sudden it sounds like you don't agree with any of dybecks posts, so why did you just vote him now if he's been so scummy the entire time?

It's really not that hard to open a new window, scroll down to the bottom, and click on "show all posts by dybeck." To be fair, Flameaxe hasn't been agreeing with most people throughout the course of this game so far. You, however, haven't been doing very much talking. I'd like to hear more from you.

As to dybeck's list of suspicion, I'm not liking how he's writing pretty much everyone except Unright/Albert and Flameaxe as probably town.

I also especially like how my other main suspect is featured as 90% town on Dybeck's list. Which leads to a whole lot of WIFOM. If Dybeck is scum, he can't *possibly* be that stupid as to say he thinks his partner is town. But he knows we think this, so he is saying he thinks his partner is town. But we know he knows this, so...and on and on and on. And yes, I do suppose that Originality is scum. Why? Because he hasn't done very much to make me think otherwise. Or done very much, period.

[Mirth]

As to dybeck's list of suspicion, I'm not liking how he's writing pretty much everyone except Unright/Albert and Flameaxe as probably town.

This particular piece of misrepresentation is totally beneath you. I clearly stated that there are two people I think are town, one that I think is scum, and the rest I'm not sure about.

I question why you would lie to make a town player look like scum. Why would this be?

Where did I lie? As far as I'm concerned, "no reason to suspect," which was your wording = writing people off as probably town. That and I want a decent reaction out of you, since you don't like to answer questions the way that they are posed to you.

Your accusation, by the way, since it came out as a pro-town claim, bothers me even more. You have no reason to call yourself a pro-town player at this point in time. Premature town claims bother me. Writing off someone as 90% on day two *really* bothers me. There are only three ways you could possibly know that someone is town. And you don't want to be admitting to any of them. Posting a list of not-suspicion (which is what your post pretty much is, except for your mistrust of Flameaxe and your continuted pursuit of Unright/Albert), doesn't really help anyone. Obvious reasons why.

[Mirth]

Wow. An actual attack from Originality. I'm pleasently surprised. Would you care to elaborate more on what you don't like about my playstyle? Because I'd actually love to hear it. Because that would mean you'd be contributing.

[Mirth]

Speaking of requets, you wanna talk yet, Flameaxe?

[Mirth]

I did. I think I know why you voted Jmar, but I'd like to hear you say it. Whenever you feel like it, that is.

[Mirth]

Hmmm...I think I get it now. But I do wish you'd give straight answers more often.

[Mirth]

Unless I counted wrong just now, you're at 4 votes, so L-2.

As for asserting versus claiming, there isn't a difference. I'll post something more substantial later when my brain can string together a sentence. Now I just want sleep.

[Mirth]

Can y'all please start making sense? Or giving reasons for stuff? I'd really appreciate it.

As to asserting, no, not explicitly, we shouldn't be. Claiming and explicitly asserting is the same thing, as far as I'm concerned. As to why it's a bad thing, there is no practical use for it in most discussions, and since it is superfluous, one has to wonder why its included.

[Mirth]

Well, CES, you just did something really stupid. This is from 3 of your posts ago:

TSQ, CES, jmar, bookitty, DrippingGoofball: What do you think about the latest bandwagon? Am I scum? Opinions people!

Oh, man. This makes you look so stupid.
Don't think you're scum, though.

In between you only commented on Jmar. And now you're ready to vote Dybeck, because you've seen that he's at L-2.

So.

Unvote:Dybeck

Vote:Cogito Ergo Scum

You, sir, better explain yourself. But I don't think you'll be able to, since you've been unhelpful all game so far and mostly ignoring your partner.

[Mirth]

You, sir, better explain yourself. But I don't think you'll be able to, since you've been unhelpful all game so far and mostly ignoring your partner.

Frankly, I'm tired with this game and I'm glad we finally found a player to focus on. Now unless you want to draw attention away from

your

partner, get your vote back on dybeck before you stall the day some more.

So your answer is "anything that ends this game faster"? Not good enough. My vote stays on you for the time being.

Dybeck, what do you have to say in response to Flameaxe or Albert, or are you just happy that CES is drawing the attention away from you?

[Mirth]

I'm not a fan of asking for claims, but I have no objections to Dybeck claiming. (Right now it's kind of hard for me to decide where to place my vote.)

thestatusquo: glad to see that you're finally able to join us. Why do you see CES as townie?

Response to Kitty: I know you asked your top three suspects about their suspicions, but since you opened it up to everyone, my top three suspects are (in no particular order): Originality, Dybeck, and CES

[Mirth]

Well for one thing, he's been attacking the very people that I viewed as scum the whole game. That makes me generally feel good about a player, but in addition to that, he was the strongest opponent to the peers lynch, and while that lynch was going on, I wanted to scream "NO STOP YOU IDIOTS HE'S A TOWNIE." But alas it was to late. The reason for this is something that I picked up on that only CES seemed the notice: For a scum player, a power role claim is better than a vanilla claim, especially at deadline. Most townies say something to the affect of "Phew I'm glad we didn't hit a power role with that wagon, lets lynch this one, and use the information from the lynch." This creates a strong disincentive for scum to claim vanilla day one. (don't even try to say it's wifom, it's not, and I will

brutally sodomize you[/b] be very angry if I have to show you why it isn't. ) Therefore, the only way peers saying "I retain the right to claim putty if need be." and then ACTUALLY doing so, is if he were actually vanilla townie. As soon as I saw that, I was 100% sure peers was a townie, and I was so fucking frustrated as you all lynched him. CES was the only one who picked up on that, and thus I am happy to consider him strongly town.

So you're basing your approval on CES entirely on the fact that his opinions in this game are the same as yours? I'm not going to argue with you about what it means that he was right about the Peers lynch. I'm just going to say that the logic of "this person agrees with me completly, therefore they can't be scum" is flawed.

Also,

Mod: can we get a prod on Originality please?

He hasn't been around for a while and I would really like to hear more from him.

[Mirth]

Who are your top three suspects? It doesn't have to be in order, I'm just interested in getting an idea of whom you find to be scummiest.

I think I made this pretty clear already, but my opinion's changed a little lately. I've found Originality and Jmar the two scummiest players by far all game, but, mainly because those two dropped off the radar, I'm looking at Mirth and Dybeck more now.

That said,

Vote Dybeck

. Mirth may be trying to take the pressure off his wagon (top-suspecting Dybeck but yet unvoting him when he's at the point where he should claim?), but he shouldn't get away.

Also, I think we should hammer dybeck after Christmas if he hasn't claimed by then.

And I think you need to answer my question about why you all of a sudden out of the blue decided to vote dybeck considering the fact that you were defending him not more than 5 posts ago.

[Mirth]

First of all, sorry for disappearing for the past two days. Family decided to kidnap me. Merry Christmas all, btw.

Now to answer stuff.
@ Thestatusquo, post 935:
Watch your language please. First of all, I'm not going to argue about the Peers lynch because CES was on that bandwagon at first. Then he switched rather arbitrarily without really giving a good justification. In fact, he hasn't been saying particularly much all game in the way of justifying his actions. I'm not going to argue it because it's been argued.

And I am not misrepresenting your post. Regardless of the fact that CES finds the people you find suspicious supicious independently, you're still basing your opinion of him off that fact that you share opinions.

@ Jmar, post 936: so you're saying he's not suspicious at all then? Who do you think *is* suspicious then?

@ CES 939: Actually, I don't think anybody is less suspicious of Originality.

@ Albert 944: Job here is done you say? Why? What makes you so sure of those four? And would you like to actually make a case against me if you're going to put me on the list?

@ Jmar 947: What is the purpose of pulling an OMGUS vote now? Why not try to be productive?

unvote:Cogito Ergo Scum

I still don't buy your answers, but this vote is pretty useless.

I still don't really see why y'all think Jmar is suspicious. I'd feel more comfortable lynching Originality or Dybeck, and if Originality isn't going to be around, then probably Dybeck.

[Mirth]

I still don't really see why y'all think Jmar is suspicious. I'd feel more comfortable lynching Originality or Dybeck, and if Originality isn't going to be around, then probably Dybeck.

Then why exactly did you unvote him when he was in claim range?

Because you decided to jump onto his bandwagon. Considering you were of the opinion he was town until pretty much right that second, your vote-switch just in time for a call for a claim struck me as something worth pursuing. And I still am rather suspicious of you, for the record. But I realize now that my suspicion of you is useless for the time being. That and Dybeck wasn't actually going to claim right that second, considering how wonderful of a job he did ignoring any and all calls for a claim despite being at L-2.

[Mirth]

Mirth unvoted CES to vote CES guys...vote count...few posts ago.

?

You mean I unvoted Dybeck to vote CES?

[Mirth]

I was tempted to, but I'm going to hold off on voting for another couple of days. I think I know where my vote is going, but I'd like a bit more input from a couple of people before it gets there.

[Mirth]

don't you guys have no life ?

Yes, but I'm on the internet to try to escape it.

[Mirth]

I did see CES's post actually. I don't completely buy it. And, unlike you, I don't think it writes him off as town, and my point about your reasoning still stands regardless of what he said.

In addition,

Huge honking FOS: Mirth

you're saying that no one is more suspicious to you than Originality, and yet you've spent the majority of this day prodding other people and not voting him? That is a HUGE tell of a scumbuddy distancing.

I did not say that I found no one more suspicious than Originality. I said that my vote shall probably return to Originality or Dybeck. Difference there. I also would like Originality to talk more. As for where my votes been, I see no rush for any lynch. The more discussion here beyond oneliners (that means you, Flameaxe), the better, I think. So if you wish to FOS me with actions of mine as opposed to supposed scumtells (and, I will tell you right now I don't think most "scumtells" are actual scumtells), I ask you and Albert to actually make a case against me.

[Mirth]

I would like someone to actually post a case against Jmar if you think he's all that suspicious.

[Mirth]

Happy new year all.

Or you could actually read the contents of my posts and note that NONE OF YOU HAVE PRESENTED A CASE. I'm not asking you to not vote him. I'm asking that if you choose to vote him to actually make a case as to why.

[Mirth]

I just want one of you to actually make a case instead of going back at one another with insults and oneliners. Is that too much to ask?

[Mirth]

But *why* do you think he's scum?

[Mirth]

CES, I have derailed nothing. I refuse to be a party to unexplained actions, that is all.

My vote will either go to Dybeck or Originality. I am not going to vote right this second, because I want to hear from one or the other before I decide.

[Mirth]

Sorry for not being as responsive as I usually am, I'm having internet problems at the moment. (I think the computer needs a good cleaning or something). Didn't expect it to be a problem in this thread, as it was going kinda slow, but it looks like I missed a page. Will catch up in a short bit.

[Mirth]

Kitty, 987: They seem to be genuinely MIA. (Though I haven't had a chance to meta game. If my connection holds longer than it takes me to answer this post, I'l check). Pressurevoting people who are genuinely MIA doesn't do much.

TSQ 990: Then I must have missed your justification for Jmar. Please restate it.

Albert 994: I will ask you yet again, why am I scummy?

TSQ 997: This is not an answer, you are avoiding the question.

And I will state this explicitly: I will NOT vote for Jmar unless I see an actual case. The fact that you are pushing it so heavily without giving reasoning for it bothers me.

[Mirth]

This "I'm right because I said so" business is unacceptable.

QFT

TSQ: I just went back and read every single one of your posts. NO WHERE do you actually post a case against Jmar. You just say he needs to be lynched.

You defend CES, yes, but the only thing you actually say about Jmar is that he's scummy because he is. No justification, period.


CES: The reason why I keep asking for a case is because I have read over Jmar's actions and I don't see anything that strikes me as "OMG! SCUM!" I keep asking for a case because maybe I'm missing something (it's happened before). I would like to see TSQ's thought process beyond "OMG! He's scum because I said so!" Same goes to Flameaxe, actually. I would also really like to know why Albert and TSQ are so convinced that I'm also scum? The only reason I'm so against Jmar's lynch is because it is unfounded. Apparently this makes me his scum buddy. If there's anything more to it, I would like to know.

[Mirth]

Sorry guys, I'm still having internet problems. (I thought they stopped, looks like I was wrong.) I don't have time to read what I missed today, but I should be able to get on a public computer tomorrow, so comments then. Again, really sorry.

[Mirth]

Sorry guys, I didn't get a chance to get to a computer yesterday. I'm on a different connection now, so hopefully this one holds.

Doing a read through now.

[Mirth]

Comments on stuff:

Originality, post 1021: Wait, so my being active and responding to stuff makes me scum? This is possibly the most pathetic argument against me that I've heard. (This is even more pathetic than being called too townie...)

Dybeck, post 1028: why are you trying to direct the cop?

TSQ, post 1037: Why don't you think dybeck is scum?

Albert, post 1039: Could you *please* make an actual case against me? Seriously? Why do you think I'm scum? I really want to know.

Originality's scum list makes absolutely no sense.

Dybeck: why do you think there are 3 scum and 3 powers roles left. We don't know any of that

Albert: He didn't outline my case. He accused me of commenting on other people's posts. Which is NOT a case. Now I want you to make a case against me. You and you alone. I was pretty sure where my vote was going today, but I think I've changed my mind. Unless you outline an actual case against me (I've been asking for what, 15 pages now?), I WILL vote you. And it better be something more than just "ooohhh look, she's defending Jmar," because I'd really like to see a case outlined there too.

CES: you can't vote someone claiming vanilla without looking scummy? Since when are vanilla claims 100% infalliable?

TSQ: WTH? What exactly is your point against Kitty?

Oh yay more childishness. Maybe it's a good thing my computer wasn't working.

And Albert, I'm serious about my vote going to you if you don't make a case against me. If you're going to accuse, then do it all out please.

[Mirth]

Internet working for time being. Yay.

Dybeck: I ask questions as I read the thread, so my questions in the lumped-together catch-up posts are more like running commentary. Also, "how long we've waited"? Not very, I should say. My longest internet outtage was a couple of days, and I do try to respond to everything. You disapeared for about 2 weeks, so I don't think you have the right to complain here.

Albert: Thank you for finally doing a case on me. It makes me so warm and happy inside that it only took me 15 page of begging to finally get you to do one ^_^ As to your case, I've resonded to all those points as they had been raised and have nothing new to say, and the lot of it amounts to WIFOM, really, (is she role fishing? isn't she? where did she put the iocaine powder?) but I'm glad to finally see your thought process.

TSQ: Since Albert has been such a dear with actually explaining his thought process, could you please explain yours about why Jmar = most info? I would also like to know why *you* think I'm scummy, if you don't mind. And why you feel the need to buddy up to CES?

That said, since Albert actually answered my question, finally, and the person I've been wanting to go back to voting is back and playing (as I've mentioned many times before, I don't like killing off innactives unless necessary), I can comfortably

vote: Originality

And there my vote shall most likely stay until this day is over.

[Mirth]

New internet connection is evilly slow, but holding.

CES, then I must have misread the original post then. Why do you think it makes people voting him look like scum?

[Mirth]

Your question is in two parts.

Why not claim at L-1?

Claiming at L-1 (was I ever actually at L-1?) would have done me no good, since my claim is so weak. I believe it would allow the final scum/poor town to jump the wagon, using the "Oh well, a townie is no big loss" excuse, allowing him to start the day tomorrow with no additional scrutiny.

I'm not sure I agree there. If anyone attempted to jump on a wagon on the grounds of "oh even if he is just a townie its no big loss" they'd be incriminating themselves before a lynch and possibly changing the target of said lynch. Interesting speculation on Albert though.

Flameaxe: any chance we could get a whole paragraph out of you sometime in the near future?

Mod: you might want to doublecheck that vote count...

[Mirth]

Sorry for the brief absence. Life got a little hectic over the past few days.

Responses to stuff:

Flameaxe: why do you think Albert is town. "Because he is" is not a valid answer, by the way.

post 1095: ...dybeck, how would you know the alignment of your wagon?

...hmmm...that last post rather bothers me....I guess I have to go reread dybeck yet again.

[Mirth]

Sorry for the brief absence. Life got a little hectic over the past few days.

Responses to stuff:

Flameaxe: why do you think Albert is town. "Because he is" is not a valid answer, by the way.

post 1095: ...dybeck, how would you know the alignment of your wagon?

...hmmm...that last post rather bothers me....I guess I have to go reread dybeck yet again.

Interesting. You ask Flameaxe, but not Bookitty.

I ask Flameaxe because I don't really care what he thinks of your alignment but I am getting really frustrated with his one liners and want some sort of answer from him about *anything*. Kitty's posts have actual content, so I don't feel the need to ask her to clarify.

[Mirth]

So could someone please post a case against Jmar then? Maybe I'm just really really really dense, here, but then again I've been asking for pages and pages and pages and it worries me that the people most against him also don't really explain why.

[Mirth]

Sorry guys, got caught up in real life stuff.

Comments on stuff:

Jenter, post 1122: What exactly *is* the argument on Jmar? Could *you* explain since no one else wants to?

Albert 1126: Finally, some sense. Thank you for finally agreeing with me that there is no case as of yet on Jmar.

TSQ, 1127: I'm stil waiting to hear why *you* think I'm scummy. Albert said his peice, but you never answered. And while you're at it, explain why you think Jmar is scum. Also, that is very naive of you to say that Jenter's alignment depends on Dybeck. I think you should know better than to honestly think that.

TSQ 1129: Unless of course all the scum are already on Dybeck's wagon?

Jenter, 1138: Oh? And you don't think Originality is scum? Or how about me? Or Flameaxe? Or Kitty?

Speaking of Originality, I have a question: Why do you all think Dybeck is a better lynch than Originality?

Hmmmm idea: Kitty, can you explain why Jmar is suspicious? Since you actually seem to answer questions and such?

[Mirth]

Thank you, Kitty, for answering my question, since no one else would. So it all boils down to lurking, basically?

[Mirth]

So it all boils down to lurking, basically?

No, not at all. Did you actually read what Bookitty said?

I did. Did you? According to Kitty, the only person who bothered to answer me, the main point is lurking. I see you have another point that you consider the main point. (Thank you for stating it.)

Albert, just curious here, but what do Kitty's other hobbies have to do with the game?

[Mirth]

That leaves my other question unanswered: why are either of them a better lynch than originality? (Who seems to have disappeared again.)

[Mirth]

That leaves my other question unanswered: why are either of them a better lynch than originality? (Who seems to have disappeared again.)

I don't think Jenter is scummy at all. I don't know why he wants to vote Jmar rather than Dybeck, but I haven't seen anything really scummy from his. I also had a townish read on his two predecessors (PWS and DG).

I'd still like an originality lynch, but I don't want to lynch someone who's MIA, and I'm fine with a dybeck lynch. Don't know which of the two I'd prefer, but they're both high up my scumlist, and I'm fine with a lynch on either of them.

I mean Jmar not Jenter for the first part of my question. I don't like attacking inactives either (which is why I held my vote off from Originality for a while), but I'm just wondering why everyone has suddenly forgotten him.

[Mirth]

I'm not a fan of PWS myself, but DG I didn't know what to make of, so I'd like to hear what Jenter has to say for a bit before I completely make up my mind.

[Mirth]

TSQ, did you actually write an explanation? For anything you have said so far? Because I just did another reread on you and don't see one. You only said that you think their alignments were linked. Didn't say how. Only other reference you made to PWS/DG/Jenter was way back when you replaced in saying that PWS was "so townie it hurts" or the like. Other than that, no mention. And you still have yet to answer my questions about Jmar, even though you're pushing that the strongest.

You know what, actually? The more you talk and keep saying "read my previous posts" the more tempted I am to vote you. Because your posts don't really say anything of merit. You have a case for why CES is town. That's pretty much it. The rest is just statements like "Jmar must die" and "because I already explained it." (I've done a reread on your like 10 times by now, and am still finding no explanations anywhere for anything.)

[Mirth]

Have you read my justification for why we should be lynching Jmar over Originality? Do you agree/disagree with it? Are you completely ignoring me? Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc.

There is no "Case" On Jmar per se. There does not have to an actual PBPA on a player for there to be a good "case" (har har) for their lynch. In particular, if you're wondering why I place him above other candidates for lynch, it's because in addition to his scumminess, I would love to analyze d1 with all relevant information.

True that you admit to a lack of case, but you're still pushing it and the fact that you say a PBP is unnecessary for a case kind of negates the rest.

And now, I'm just going to post the relevant part of a couple of posts of yours.

And yet...If you read my posts,

If you read my post it's pretty clear that this is what I am saying,

You keep bringing up people's (specifically my) failure to read what you've been posting on a regular basis.

And no, my focus on this isn't myopic considering that you in all honestly don't say much.

Speaking of people who don't say much. Flameaxe, do you have anything to add that isn't a one liner?

[Mirth]

Sorry for disappearing for a couple of days. Life is getting a little annoying. Will read/respond to stuff when I get back home (sometime after 6 pm)