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

[Flameaxe]

It's both a defense and an attack in one! WHOA!

[DrippingGoofball]

Is that a defense of him I hear?

I want people to vote him, and I say I think he's scummy. If that's how I defend people, god forbid I should think you're a townie...

[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?

[DrippingGoofball]

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 ^_^

Only scum can be sure, and CES sounded very certain. He was proven right, too. Hence my vote.

[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.)

[petroleumjelly]

Official Day Two Vote Count: #3

originality – 4 – Cogito Ergo Scum, Flameaxe, Bookitty, Mirth

Unright – 2 – dybeck, jmar

Bookitty – 1 – originality
Cogito Ergo Scum – 1 – DrippingGoofball

With

10

alive, it takes

6

to lynch!

Not Voting – 2 – Joubert, Unright

I am not in the habit of disclosing who has and who has not picked up their prods in a given game. That would be giving information which may affect the game; something I try to do minimally as a mod.

[dybeck]

Okay, I realise you didn't ask me, Originality, but I thought I'd weigh in anyway.

First, this is scummy:

Oh crap, I didn't see he already had two votes on him. unvote

Why do you care if you're the third vote on someone? If you think they're scummy enough to pressure with a vote, then three votes don't matter, do they?

You point out Peers (town) and then post this:

Why are you guys ganging up on Peers? Now I bad for pointing him out. Let's not forget that the mafia will do whatever they can to lynch a possible powerrole, so FoS everyone against Peers for crappy reasons.

A bit odd. Why are you defending him? Why not just say it's risky to lynch a powerrole and leave it at that? Seems a bit too certain Peers is town.

And this:

Nope, he had 3 votes in him already, with me it would make it 4. When I say I hadn't seen he already had two votes I meant the votes on the previous page, because one of them was right above me. There was no sense of me putting him at -3.

But you thought you were putting him at L-4, didn't you? Or did you think you were putting him at L-3?

I jumped off because there were too many votes on the dude, why would I keep my vote on him, its not like he had anything substantial against him anyway.

So why vote him in the first place? And why is a third vote (you did think it was a third vote, right? or was it the fourth vote? Do you remember what you said?) too many votes?

He might not have been dangerously close to a lynch, but why would I keep a fourth vote on someone I don't find especially suspicious? Now if he had some sort of case against him thats a different story, but it was a pressure thing anyway, and 3 votes are enough for some pressure.

But remember, you thought yours was the third vote when you unvoted... I know it's hard to remember what lies you've told.

Blight catches this (plus town points for Blight!):

And you thought your vote was the third one. So, why unvote?

Because I had just gone back and looked at the last postcount, which to my surprise showed that there was one vote more then I had previously thought. Pretty implied. Did you even read my unvoting post? It says there, "I didn't see the votes". You then are supposed use logic to understand that I did see them later.

This doesn't make sense. You said you thought it was the second vote (Oh crap, I didn't see he already had two votes on him)... so... why wouldn't you correct Blight on this, if you were telling the truth earlier? And you explain this to Blight by quoting yourself? It's a nonexplanation. It's a discrepancy. It's a lie.

Tries to set up a lynch for the next day on Cogito Ergo Sum:

If Peers came out town, then a mafia CES would be a good possibility, as it seems as if he is trying to build credibility for himself on the town's eyes by supporting someone he knows for a fact to be town, which would explain his strong conviction. Something to remark is how CES defends Peers so much in these final moments when its 90% sure Peers is going to be lynched.

And this weird appeal to emotion about Flameaxe:

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.

Flameaxe may be picking on you, Originality, but I think I've made a pretty good case against you using your own words. So try to think of it as you picking on you.

Did nobody read this and think "Actually, the case against originality IS a bit shaky after all..."?

Is this what we call mob mentality? I mean... seriously... some of this is quite a reach...

[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.

[Bookitty]

The reason I think it's valid is that in my experience, scum sometimes forget their stated motivations for their actions. It's easy to remember why you did something as town, because you only have to remember the truth. But scum gets tripped up in the treachery of their own mind, because they're trying to remember the true version of events, and the version they told everyone else. (It's the same way most lies are told.)

It's not Originality's unvote that is especially scummy, though it was weird and seemed rather self-aware. It's the alternating statements that he thought it was a third vote, no, a fourth vote, no a third, don't you read? that really perturb me. He did it again within the same post, in response to me. He said originally (pun accidental, but delightful) that "Oh crap, I didn't see he already had two votes on him" which indicates clearly that at the time he thought he was a third vote. Then in justifying it later he says he unvoted because "He might not have been dangerously close to a lynch, but why would I keep a fourth vote on someone I don't find especially suspicious? Now if he had some sort of case against him thats a different story, but it was a pressure thing anyway, and 3 votes are enough for some pressure." This indicates that now he remembers knowing that there were two votes already. So why did he unvote?

Originality invited a case from Flameaxe, I'm guessing, because he didn't think that invitation would be accepted. When I stated the case I'd seen against him, he didn't seem to like it much, or see it as an opportunity to explain that he'd gotten confused and misstated himself, which would have been better. He just reiterated his previous statement, seemingly not even seeing that he was contradicting himself.

To make sure the self contradiction isn't missed:

Oh crap, I didn't see he already had two votes on him. unvote

I thought he had 2 votes on him but actually he had 3.

To refresh your mind for the fifth time: I thought it was the fourth vote, not the third.

Confusion about your own stated motives is a really good scumtell. Scum can't ever have pure motives, and generally won't tell you they're scum even when asked really nicely. So when I get a clue that someone is contradicting their previous story about why they did something, I point it out. Sometimes there might be an innocuous explanation. Mostly in my experience there's not.

[Mirth]

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

[Bookitty]

I don't see how it doesn't make sense.

Originality unvoted because, he said, he didn't see that the person had two votes on them already. With me so far?

Then later in justifying this, he said, I was fine being the third vote, but the fourth vote is too much for pressure. But he unvoted because he didn't see that the person had two votes on them already, not because he didn't see that the person had three votes on them already. So he clearly wasn't fine with being the third vote, because he unvoted because "I didn't see he already had two votes on him".

I think that's really clear, isn't it? So what's not making sense?

[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.

[Bookitty]

Ah. No, I have read the game. I have some suspicions of CES and Unright and questions for others as well, but Originality invited a case on him, so I obliged, and his reactions have not reassured me. Since his vote on me Originality hasn't responded, and a couple other people have reacted, so I didn't want to derail what I felt was useful discussion.

It's a definite scumtell, in my view anyway, because it's easy to skim and see WHAT you've done, to keep your lies straight, but more difficult to keep straight WHY you did it. Motive is an important factor, and lying about motive or being confused about it indicates insincerity on some level, at least in my eyes. It's not proof. It's evidence, though.

[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.

[DrippingGoofball]

@Bookitty

Amazingly I got a telegram this morning from CES and Unright, and they asked me to pass the message to you.

They are currently getting married in Canada, and they'd love for you to make a case on them. They'll read it with pleasure when they come back home.

Will you entertain their request?

[Bookitty]

I'd be pleased to make my cases on them separately, since they have requested it.

I think it's in poor taste to speculate on their chances or in fact their alignments as a couple. After all, they deserve their chance too.

[DrippingGoofball]

I think it's in poor taste to speculate on their chances or in fact their alignments as a couple. After all, they deserve their chance too.

Oh yes, I am Canadian, I'm all for it. I bought the lovebirds "his and his" towels, one pink and one blue. Mazel Tov!

[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.

[originality]

The reason I voted for bookitty, Mirth, is because it looks like she is being purposefully confusing and mixing things up in ways that make me look rather bad. It makes me think shes manipulating words on purpose. Not a town move.


Bookitty, on that last post of yours you are half right. I did make a mistake in recounting events, but its an honest confusion. Sorry about that, but I believe you can tell what I really meant and my previous post delivers the same message regardless. You can see my ABCD thing in that same post, which is acurate. I would hardly be able to actually forget a "lie" I said in the beginning of a post by the end of it. If you are town, I ask you not to scumhunt based on some sort of psychological hunt for mistakes like you're some expert mental analyst or whatever, everybody makes mistakes like that. It is rather WIFOM to assume I'm scum just because of a small writing mistake. I actually make number mistakes like that in pretty much all games I've played. I get distracted easily with numbers, I guess. If you are scum I have nothing to say to you, you are doing the expected.

[DrippingGoofball]

I think she's trying to be clear, actually.

[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?

[Bookitty]

I'm working on my analyses of Unright and CES and I'll happily add KillerBob to that list, but in general I can't be unbiased because I know KillerBob's role, and so every action he took will be filtered through that knowledge. If you're still interested, I'm game.

[Mirth]

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

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

My excuses to everyone. I was unable to post for a few days, and I forgot to notice PJ beforehand.

Another thing thing I noticed is that CES seemed to be setting himself to look good knowing there would be a mislynch. =scummy.

It wasn't certain at all that Peers was going to be lynched. If anything, I turned the tide when I started defending Peers, bringing more attention to Jmar's scumminess. At some point, he even had more votes than Peers, but somehow people hopped back on Peers' wagon when the deadline was set (this is actually a point against Jmar, now I think of it).

Also, I know scum often try to save a soon-to-be-mislynched townie, but I wonder how you think a townie that has faith in the innocence of someone about to be lynched would act.

The suggestion I didn't give an explanation is false. I said I didn't have the time to give an in-depth analysis of Peers' posts, but I gave pretty much every reason I had for me to think Peers was a Putty Patroller. Apparently, people are too lazy to read back and try to find out what I mean, rather than repeatedly asking clarification (looking at Mirth here). It's been suggested several times that I didn't (and don't) explain myself, while I believe I have.

[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?