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

[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?

[originality]

Seriously, I think the reason UA got NKd was because they thought he was annoying. I don't see anywhere where it could give a hint as to him being a powerrole which attracted scum attention.

Which leads me to the question of why would they kill someone they thought was annoying, (a choice only taken when scum has no leads for powerroles) instead of someone who pretty much claimed being some special role. Unright. You can see the specific quote right above me on Mir's post.

This is very odd, and unright being scum would be a reasonable answer.

so

vote Unright

until someone shows me a good reason why UA was NK'd over Unright.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

I'll react to the Unright case as soon as he's given his own explanation.

Seriously, I think the reason UA got NKd was because they thought he was annoying.

I'm wondering how exactly you came to this conclusion.

[originality]

Seriously, I think the reason UA got NKd was because they thought he was annoying.

I'm wondering how exactly you came to this conclusion.

Are you serious? Its pretty obvious. Ok. Wonder no more:

1) UA is annoying. 2)He gave no indication of being a powerrole. Therefore, I think that they NKd him because they thought he was annoying, not because they thought he was a powerrole. Really, I explain it pretty well on the rest of my post you quoted. Admit it, you didn't read it all, did you? It really is looking like you have a personal agenda against me. Why do you want to find flaws that just aren't there? Why do you feign ignorance on matters that are already established and explained?

[jmar]

But scum killing them off just because they found him annoying? That's a bit of a stretch for me. And you don't really have anything to back up this theory.

[jmar]

them should be him. Whoops.

[Flameaxe]

That is a BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG stretch. Big even being an understatement. Orig, you logic is severly flawed (both points you made are), your day 1 actions were all scummy and stuff.

It really is looking like you have a personal agenda against me.

I'm not getting this from CES on the topic at all, nor do I see how you get it either.

Vote: Originality

Diescumdie.

[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.

[Joubert]

Hi people, just to confirm my activity...
I'll do a thorough review of the game and present my comments as soon as possible...

[Unright]

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?

Could be any number of scenarios. A doc protected me, scum figured a doc would protect me so they went after another target for Nking and/or decided it'd be easier to paint me as scum the next day. I'm not a mind-reader, just happy to be alive. Whatever the reason, it sure as hell ain't this:

Seriously, I think the reason UA got NKd was because they thought he was annoying.

Unless the scum group are incredibly petty noobs.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Well.. I pretty much figured so too, and I don't think Unright's really looking worse right now because of the nightkill. UA is, although annoying, a good player, and most people thought he was fairly townish.

Also:

So...you're saying this is potentially a fight between three Vanillas?

I think UA gave the impression he wasn't a Putty Patroller here.

I'd rather think scums would tend to leave annoying people alive. I think it's pretty clear that some people's annoyance pretty much screwed the town up yesterday.

Originality doesn't make much sense, and I think he's doing so to try and make Unright look bad. No unvote here.

[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.

[originality]

It really is looking like you have a personal agenda against me.

I'm not getting this from CES on the topic at all, nor do I see how you get it either.

Vote: Originality

Far from an unreasonable assumption. He kept going after me for (crappy imho) reasons yesterday, now he finds crappy reasons against me today. I just don't see how what I'm doing is scummy. How is it weird me saying what you quoted when he keeps going after me? I'm not implying that he literally doesn't like me personally and wants me dead, it is a figure of speech if thats not obvious. Still, even if I was trying to imply a weird feud thing between me and him, you cannot say "I'm not getting this at all". Has he been doing anything other then try to find reasons against me? You could say that you thought it was rather unlikely or something, but completely turn a blind eye on something like that is too much ignoring facts on your part.


@Mirth: I honestly had not noticed if you posted opinions similar to mine, and going back to review now I still only see the only thing similar being both of us suspecting Unright. But I did not see you with my reasoning. Care to explain how you think I'm mimicking you?


And I've been asking for an alternate reason besides being annoying that could have meant UA's end. If you would look at my voting post I stated that same thing. CES, I like that quote of yours by UA. Its a pretty valid reason.

But lets reason for a second. Unright is proposing that he could have been protected by a doctor. Really, if you were scum, would you not attack the person that made a clear claim of powerrole instead of someone who you think might be a powerrole? Yea. Thats why its too weird for him to be alive right now. So if the mafia was blocked on their attempted kill on Unright, then who could have killed UA? I'd say a third party killer, SK of sorts, because if there were 2 scumgroups I doubt they would not both attack the claimed role. But SKs don't want powerroles down as much because it doesn't affect them as much, so I can see UA being SK'd and Unright being mafia'd and then protected, I guess.

This is all using quite a bit of "ifs", so Unright is still an odd case. Mafia could have not killed him to purposefully make him suspicious today, but why go through that risk when they could just kill him? I don't get this.

[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.

[Flameaxe]

I still like my orig. vote.

[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?

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Far from an unreasonable assumption. He kept going after me for (crappy imho) reasons yesterday, now he finds crappy reasons against me today. I just don't see how what I'm doing is scummy. How is it weird me saying what you quoted when he keeps going after me? I'm not implying that he literally doesn't like me personally and wants me dead, it is a figure of speech if thats not obvious. Still, even if I was trying to imply a weird feud thing between me and him, you cannot say "I'm not getting this at all". Has he been doing anything other then try to find reasons against me? You could say that you thought it was rather unlikely or something, but completely turn a blind eye on something like that is too much ignoring facts on your part.

First of all, I have no personal bias against you whatsoever. Sorry for my behavior against you. However, I

am

pursuing you because I think you're scum, and tbh, I think that's a pretty valid reason. Ofcourse, the fact you made unreasonable assumptions regarding the nightkill wouldn't alone be enough for a vote, but together with the reasons I gave yesterday, I'm feeling perfectly fine about my vote. If you think my reasons are crappy, so be it. You have the opportunity to defend yourself against them, if you can.

But lets reason for a second. Unright is proposing that he could have been protected by a doctor. Really, if you were scum, would you not attack the person that made a clear claim of powerrole instead of someone who you think might be a powerrole?

Unright did claim a powerrole, and he was the only one. I don't think it's unreasonable to think the doctor protected him last night, wether he's mafia or not. Also, I don't think the mafia would risk losing the nightkill, and killed someone they were sure wasn't going to be protected.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

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

I believe this is the third time you're asking this, Mirth, and I'm unable to explain it any better than I already have.

[petroleumjelly]

dybeck and PlaysWithSquirrels have each been prodded.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Guys?

Guys?

Guys?

[Joubert]

That is a BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG stretch. Big even being an understatement. Orig, you logic is severly flawed (both points you made are), your day 1 actions were all scummy and stuff.

Flameaxe did say Orig's logic was flawed, but he didn't explain how it is flawed, and he voted him...

[Flameaxe]

Care to comment on anything else?

[dybeck]

Hey gang... sorry I forgot about you all.

So anyway, Unright is still scum just like he was yesterday.

vote: Unright

[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?

[dybeck]

Unright's confession of not being a townie still warrants more investigation.