Mini 545 - The Final Stand Mafia - Dramatic Finish!

[Mizzy]

/confirm

[Mizzy]

Vote: yeahthatguy224

for having 3 too many numbers in his name.

[Mizzy]

Figures.

Vote: TheJiveMachine

Oh shits, the dice has it out for you! I'd have voted for the dice...they're obviously loaded and therefor scum.

[Mizzy]

DERP BANDWAGON

DERP DERP DERP

These are my thoughts on RetroDucts and shaka

Is there something about Khelvaster having 3 votes on him that worries you?

You gotta admit, a wagon now is a bit...well...fast?

[Mizzy]

Mizzy, the sooner we're out of the random stage, the better, imo. Khelvaster's late entrance seemed a good enough place to start. And like Trebis said, with 7 to lynch, 3's not too much of a concern.

Jive, I'm actually curious about how shaka's vote, which was apparently 'for shits and giggles', came across to you as bandwagoning.

True, true. It's just that wagons skurr me. When they're all, you know, fast and stuff.

As for how many mafia are in here, it's usually 25%, and it's not scummy to ask because townies kinda need to keep in mind how many scum need to die for a win and to keep track of how many are around in general.

[Mizzy]

On a side note, Khel, care to explain your reasoning behind the role fishing vote, since no one else noticed it.

Ditto, please...it totally flew by me...I didn't notice such a thing.

[Mizzy]

Unvote

since random votes don't seem to be doing much now.

[Mizzy]

Does a nonvote seem to be doing much right now?

About as much as a random vote on someone who doesn't give a damn

[Mizzy]

Unvote since random votes don't seem to be doing much now.

Subtle attempt at looking more pro-town? No way to prove it one way or the other, but I'm just throwing that out there.

I just meant that it felt like random vote phase was coming to an end.

[Mizzy]

The fact that his vote wans't actually a pressure vote doesn't change his intentions.

If I'm reading this correctly, you believe that Shaka's intention was to get a role claim out of you (on page 2) and this is what you've based your vote on. I think that's a bit of a reach.

Honestly, Shaka saying that he vote was for "shits and giggles" comes off as being kind of accurate. "For shits and giggles" can mean for entertainment or to watch reactions, or both. In this case, I am sure Shaka just wanted to see what would happen, which is a form of pressure vote.

Pressure votes can be cast for a variety of reasons; To incite activity, to gauge reactions, to gain a role claim, to entertain, to cause mischief.

I don't think that on page 2, a pressure vote can be construed as anything as for pure shits and giggles, because honestly, what good do any of the other uses do you when they don't apply yet?

[Mizzy]

Honestly, Shaka saying that he vote was for "shits and giggles" comes off as being kind of accurate. "For shits and giggles" can mean for entertainment or to watch reactions, or both. In this case, I am sure Shaka just wanted to see what would happen, which is a form of pressure vote.

Pressure votes can be cast for a variety of reasons; To incite activity, to gauge reactions, to gain a role claim, to entertain, to cause mischief.

I don't think that on page 2, a pressure vote can be construed as anything as for pure shits and giggles, because honestly, what good do any of the other uses do you when they don't apply yet?

EBWOP because I can't type for crap over VNC, apparently:

Honestly, Shaka saying that

he

his vote was for "shits and giggles" comes off as being kind of accurate.

I don't think that on page 2, a pressure vote can be construed as anything

as

but for pure shits and giggles, because honestly, what good do any of the other uses do you when they don't apply yet?

[Mizzy]

Bah, I get y'all's point. I misinterpreted what a "pressure vote" was.

Unvote

No problem :3

[Mizzy]

Unvote, Vote: Trebis


You should claim. Immediately.

Maybe I'm not understanding something, but I don't see why that's necessary at all.

I think it's an acute case of sarcasm.

[Mizzy]

Bah, I get y'all's point. I misinterpreted what a "pressure vote" was.

Unvote

The misinterpretation doesn't change the fact that it was a reach. Unless it wasn't a reach. Do you think it wasn't?


Why exactly did you unvote, OGMY?

If someone were to push for a claim straight out of random voting, you wouldn't think it was a reach to vote for him? I thought he was pushing for me to claim, so I voted him posthaste thinking he was misplaying scum this game. Given what I thought at the time, I don't think it was a reach to vote him.

For his understanding of what a pressure vote was his reactions seems reasonable.

I was more interested in how everyone else would react towards the vote rather than Khel, how ever I didn't get to see much.

How ever I did find it odd how everyone seemed to question why Khel had assumed I was role fishing, people use pressure a lot when trying to get someone to claim, I think it would be highly likely that one or two scum are hiding with the townies how had questioned the vote.

This may be of use later on in the game.

He was under the assumption that pressure votes are only used to get role claims...or so he says.

[Mizzy]

I fail to see what he would have gained by making up that opinion.


Do you think he may have been lying about being under said assumption, Mizzy? Why or why not?

Honestly, I'm not sure...not enough evidence. I'm inclined to believe him because I lack evidence that proves he lied. I'm waiting to see what happens later :3

[Mizzy]

Mizzy, you seem to be suggesting what the motivations behind our actions are quite a bit. Don't you think it would be more interesting to wait and see what the player to whom a question was directed had to say themselves?

I was asked, so, I thought about it and answered. Plus, did you notice the part where I was all:

I'm waiting to see what happens later :3

[Mizzy]

I was talking about other times. Specifically, post 32 when I asked JiveMachine a question, post 64 where you provide a reason for shaka's vote and post 70 when you explain Glorks vote.

I give my opinions in an attempt to help the game progress...would you prefer I lurk and give no actual content to the game?

[Mizzy]

I think all of you make very good points...but I also think this whole thing was been completely blown out of proportion. I don't know about the rest of you, but I found the exchange a little hard to follow (my eyebrows hurt from raising them so much) and it feels like one big distraction, though not one done on purpose.

No one has really stood out as scum yet, and we should maybe try to put some focus on those who haven't said much?

[Mizzy]

General gut?

I can't really say for sure. The post which I quoted, when I voted you to claim still feels off to me. I guess my train of thought goes something like this: "If you think the 'trying to get X to claim' conclusion by Khev was false to begin with, why would you go out of your way to point out that even if it were true, it's a sign that Shaka is probably not scum?"

Unnecessary and out-of-place defenses of other players ping my radar. I think it's worth looking into.

I'm interested in why you feel it warranted a vote as opposed to just a FoS. Explain, please?

[Mizzy]

EBWOP: Also, I generally don't FoS unless I've got multiple suspicions which I want to voice and only one vote to place. FoSing people without voting usually seems really weak to me (though I will admit that there are times when it's appropraite). If you've got the vote, why not throw it around?

Ah, I see, it's more of a playstyle thing. That explains it Myself, once past the random vote stage, I try and only vote for people I would not regret lynching and use FoS to point out a target before I am 100% ready to see them die.

Thanks

[Mizzy]

Trebis has pinged my WTFdar but not so much my scumdar as of yet...however, I can see how he might have pinged some other radars. Most of his statements are unhelpful at best, but I don't have a terribly good read on him.

[Mizzy]

At the very least, Trebis, respond to RD and myself so that your replacement isn't stuck in the position of having significant suspicion levied on them to which they cannot respond.

Anything less is horribly rude and selfish.

I agree, the timing on that was just horrid.

[Mizzy]

@Trebis:

I don't need to look active...I AM active. There's not been a whole lot to point out, unless you count the annoying bickering and your similar attempts at looking "helpful" and "active." Just because I have nothing to point out in every post does not mean that your posts, which point out (in my opinion) useless BS are worth more than mine. At least I'm not being a distraction.

[Mizzy]

Sorry, but that really didn't make a lot of sense. Trebis' unvoting his random vote really doesn't warrant a vote, and it seems like you're just fishing for something to jump on there. I don't like Trebis very much, but that just jumped out at me as a case of "what are you thinking"?

What don't you like about Trebis? Anything specific?

[Mizzy]

Vote: yeahthatguy224

for saying that analysis is "blowing the smallest problems out of proportion".

All there is to go on Day 1 is the smallest tidbits of information.

Yes, but making mountains out of molehills just makes it easier for the scum to make us turn on each other...I don't think that JUST that opinion is worthy of a vote. Is that the only reason you're voting for him?

[Mizzy]

That and lurking, which I didn't want to bring up since it would be wholly hypocritical of me.

At least you're honest.

I don't know...lurking is rarely a valid scumtell and can really only be used when the player is validly lurking as opposed to busy in RL.

I don't really agree with the vote and it makes me raise an eyebrow in your general direction, but I also don't really find the vote scummy persay...just unhelpful.

[Mizzy]

Huzzah!

This is one occasion where I can be almost sure my play will improve on that of my predecessor.

Welcome, Erg0! Cheers for replacing in.

Completely not game related: BTW, Joudas wants me to vote for you because, as he says, you're dirty, rotten scum. However, Joud's a pain in my ass, so I hit him and told him to GTFO. Thought you might want to know for shits 'n' giggles.

[Mizzy]

Is the fact that he asked to replace out of the game some time ago a factor for or against him, or does it not weigh into your decision?

You have to admit, the TIMING of his asking to be replaces was a little suspicious...though he hasn't posted on the site at all since the 8th.

[Mizzy]

What do you think have been the molehills this game? What do you think are more sensible leads?

The whole Khev/roleclaim thing was definitely blown out of proportion, and I honestly think we have too little participation to get many good leads at the moment. Glork was coming off as scummy at first but now I think that's just his scumhunting techniques.

[Mizzy]

You seem to posting very actively, but only for the sake of appearing active. The vast majority of your posts have little content and are just two liners with a neutral opinion. Neither attacking or defending, it seems as if she is trying to buddy up to everyone but not picking a fight with anyone.

What good is actively picking a fight with someone? No one has attacked me, so I have had no reason to defend, I answer questions when asked and try not to post drivel, and pay attention to the game. But no, I'm not going to cause a giant distraction and make an ass out of myself...thanks for the concern, though.

Perhaps, before you whine about someone who does post, you should consider being more active, yourself.

[Mizzy]

A dear friend of mine is leaving for America on Friday and another dear friend of mine has been kicked out his house and is staying at mine. I post when I can. How ever I was never complaining about you being active, I was complaining about you being active and doing nothing

productive

.

We ALL have RL stuff going on...I, myself, am 6 months pregnant and sick as hell and require 12-14 hours a sleep a night on top of working full time and dealing with many other things. But I still read and post.

As for posting anything productive, I think it's a matter of opinion on that one. You haven't exactly posted anything groundbreaking, yourself.

As for not actively picking a fight with someone, maybe I worded it wrong, but I believe the correct term is scum hunting.

Last I knew, being an asshole and pulling unwarranted attention onto yourself was extremely anti-town and isn't actually scum hunting. What you're doing, aka, pulling attention onto us both, is probably going to cause a giant distraction (whew, history might repeat itself here, guys) and do more harm than good.

People are discussing issues and actually talking, the new posts they make on the matter at hand are where we will get our future discussions from.

People are making tiny posts back and forth like it's an IM client in here. I don't really see that as discussing issues...I see that as chatting quietly over a cup of tea. I will ask questions when I have them, and answer questions as they come. I'm not going to finger someone I don't suspect, and I'm not going to blow stuff out of proportion just to make a point of it.

I mean, you do realize that a good portion of the game has been 1-2 liner posts that are not made from just me, right? Why don't you go bark up their trees?

There is no rule saying you can only focus on one thing at time, but for some reason everyone one of your posts seem to read to me "I don't think this case is going anywhere lets look elsewhere".

Actually, I have made only ONE like that. #104.

Trebis also bitched about my small posts, but I know that people bitch about large posts, content-less posts, helpful posts, meaningful posts, empty posts, funny posts, stupid posts...any post anyone makes, someone can and probably will bitch. So no, I haven't jumped into the pit of obvious bullshit each time a semantics war breaks out and I'm not going to.

I don't have solid opinions or any solid proof as of yet on who is scum and who isn't, and I'm absolutely not going to tarnish the game by tossing out half-thought-out ideas and suspicions when everyone else is already doing that and not really scumhunting.

So while I can see where you are coming from, I'm also going to - politely - ask you to sit down and rethink your entire beef with me. Sparse posts does not make someone scummy, and neither does refusing to wagon or "pick fights" for the hell of it. I'm not going to fight with you and if you have any

real

case against me, then I suggest you spit it out or move on.

I would also like to mention that the forums have been down 90% of the time when I try and post, so all I can manage out most times is a couple sentences. I don't have the time after work to post books and refresh pages until the forums come back up to post them.

[Mizzy]

By the way, I am SERIOUSLY ticked off at these forums...that reply in parts sat in the window waiting to be able to submitted for what, nearly 4 hours? GRR.

[Mizzy]

I'm seeing a lot of similarities between Mizzy and Trebis so far. Their defences seem to be quite different, however - Mizzy is claiming playstyle and Trebis is claiming disinterest. That was a very strident response from Mizzy, probably over-defensive in my view since nobody seems to care much about my similar case on Trebis.

shaka!!, do you agree on the similarities between the two? How do you feel about Mizzy's response compared to Trebis'?

I'm on the defensive because a) I'm ticked off at the forums and b) Trebis already tried to whine at me about the same thing (pot, kettle; kettle, pot) and I'm a smidge annoyed that shaka is acting like this is ground-breaking new evidence. It's already been brought up and I already answered to it...I would have thought shaka would have been more original, at least.

I still maintain that sparce or small posts is NOT inherently scummy...it depends on what is in the posts and what context things are held in.

Plus, I already got bitched at for putting in my two cents when the conversation wasn't being directed at me and while I still do that, I'm trying to not piss off too many people. I get yelled at a lot for being too active.

[Mizzy]

That was me. And I didn't mean to bitch, let alone yell. It was a suggestions/probe as part of the game. I think scum may jump in to answer questions for their partners or even direct conversations. I wondered whether this is what you were doing.

I was trying to contribute...and felt a little taken aback that it was questioned.

Why are you worrying about pissing people off? Is there something you would be doing that you're not?

Well, in the first game I was in here, the newbie game, I was a very, very prolific poster. I pissed off one of the ICs in there with my exuberant playing and posting and nearly got myself killed which was bas because I was townie. I'm trying to not make quite the same mistake and your comment about addressing everything reminded me of that first game and how I almost caused us to go into lylo.

You say that there's not enough participation to find a good lead. This to me means that you think scum are lurking. Who, of the least active posters, would you think is most suspicious?

Shaka's and Erg0's sudden mind-connection bugs the crap out of me. It's like a sudden, "Oooh, here's a target, let's get her!" If it's an attempt to see how I would respond, it was a scummy as hell way to do it. Especially since the points brought up were not new, and they were on Trebis for the same shit. Take this, for example:

That was a very strident response from Mizzy, probably over-defensive in my view since nobody seems to care much about my similar case on Trebis.

That smacks of, "This wagon didn't roll on Trebis, so let me express my consternation and attempt it somewhere else because, shuckydarns, I want it to work!"

So right now, Erg0 smells like scum and I'm eying shaka's blatant aggression tactic with suspicion, as well.

[Mizzy]

Ugh, I hit post too soon.

I get some scum-pings on Tarhalindur for his 118 post...it seems very wordy without saying much except that he thinks not much is being said. He asks a lot of questions and I don't think he followed up very well.

I should also mention that while shaka feels suspicious, I think it's just me being over-reactive. So I can't judge him at the moment.

[Mizzy]

If you had waited a little bit longer before posting there you would've found out that I in fact didn't warrant much suspicion on you nor Trebis, which is what I was going to say when I was going to type up my proper response to erg0.

Yeah, I'm sorry...I was mid-moodswing and it kind of came out like RAWRPOST. That's why I haven't mentioned being pregnant before...it's usually easy to spot and control moodswings but one kind of slipped through. It's not really a good excuse for me.

Oh, and if you are 6 months pregnant you should be resting more rather then playing this silly game. Mood swings are bad for all of us (: Congrads btw.

Yeah, I try, but I can't get comfy right now so I get much less sleep than I want. Thanks for the congrads!

So to conclude I believe that both Trebis and Mizzy (and myself and most others) are just having trouble including themselves in the game rather than purposely posting all talk and no action.

I've felt a little afraid to contribute much because I haven't wanted to get involved or cause a big hullabaloo like we had earlier on Khev. So, yes, I think that might be the case.

[Mizzy]

EBWOP:

I've felt a little afraid to contribute much because I haven't wanted to get involved

with

or cause a big hullabaloo like we had earlier on Khev. So, yes, I think that might be the case.

Cripes, I need sleep. *Waddles off*

[Mizzy]

Mizzy: This may have already been raised, but it was a single sentence in the middle of a long post by Trebis so you shouldn't assume that it's foremost in people's minds. I still feel its a valid point against both of you, as "information without analysis" is a very valid scumtell in my experience. It's not the length of your posts I have an issue with, it's the general lack of substance. I'm not exactly campaigning for your lynch here, so a proportionate response would serve you better.

It's a matter of opinion, I suppose. I feel I have added to the game, and I feel like there's not much of a game to add more to right now. We have too many quiet islands, as it were, and very little real participation. I also wonder, again, why you're bugging me about it and not really anyone else but Trebis.

[Mizzy]

Mizzy: This may have already been raised, but it was a single sentence in the middle of a long post by Trebis so you shouldn't assume that it's foremost in people's minds.

By the way, this bothers me. No, maybe it's not right in the front of everyone's minds, but as soon as I brought it up, it should have been. This game is about keeping past actions in mind for future reference and while yes, it was in the middle of a long post, I can expect that people would have read the entire thing and put the case he made into the back of their minds, at least, for later recall. Not to mention the ability to re-read.

[Mizzy]

I generally agree, but it's difficult to keep track of every single vague aspersion that's been cast in the course of the game. Once you raised it I was certainly aware of it, but you seem to be implying that shaka and I deliberately ignored Trebis' earlier comment and pretended we were talking about something new.

What I meant, and how I feel, is that a case was attempted to be made without first re-reading what had already been brought up. If I were going to post out of the blue that I had re-read things and found x person's actions to be noteworthy, I would first make sure someone hadn't done that before and to use specific points.

[Mizzy]

Um, no. We shan't be doing that, a no-lynch on day 1 is almost never the correct play.

QFT. In fact, I have yet to see a normal scenario where a no-lynch on day 1 IS a good thing, and I don't know about you all, but I feel that letting the mafia get a free kill when we still have so many players not contributing would be like saying, "Hey, we suck, pick us off now!"

I really feel like this is basically a playstyle argument - I can see it from your point of view but I just don't think it's a particularly big deal.

Agreed. Shall we move on?

[Mizzy]

Suggesting No Lynch on Day One seems pretty shady.

Agreed. I can only imagine a scum or newbie power role wanting to get to N1 so fast. Or maybe a newb in general, but he's NOT a newb...he's been enough games now that I can assume he's read

The Big Book of Shit Not To Do In Mafia

. Or at least skimmed the cliff notes.

FoS: Joubert

For the record, I FoS when I am not convinced enough to vote quite yet, so please don't stab me.

[Mizzy]

Mizzy: Could you give me a quick summary -- without going back and reading -- of what your current thoughts are on the following players:
RetroDucts
Glork
yeahthatguy224
Sangy
Death's Door/Erg0

Sure can! Keep in mind this is without having re-read.

RetroDucts: He comes off as terse, to put it simply. Most of his posts come off as to-the-point, and a smidge on the aggressive side. I feel he posts when he feels he needs to.

Glork: Interesting ideas, also with a tendency to use post smaller, more compact and to-the-point messages. He seems to be someone who pokes very valid holes in shoddy defenses and enjoys it.

yeahthatguy224: I get fence-sitter vibes from him...and he hasn't contributed all that much. Possibly busy, he's a bit of a lurker, and I hope to see more from him soon. Needs replacing.

Sangy: Wishy-washy as of late...he posts some opinions earlier after saying he was sorry for being away that kind of had the feeling of, "Yeah, so, I kinda think this, and don't think that, and, yeah, stuff." Needs replacing.

Erg0: Erg0 comes off as being blunt but with a fair bit of logic behind his posts. I don't like some of his actions, but he's very willing to debate with others about them, and sticks to his guns. Death's Door I didn't get a very good read on.

Put in order from most suspicious to least (not including anyone else):

Erg0
Glork
RetroDucts
yeahthatguy224
Sangy

Again, that list doesn't hold everyone, and the lurkers are at the bottom because I suck at reading lurkers.

[Mizzy]

/prodded, and noted reason for absence in V/LA

Unvote, Vote: thejivemachine

Um, explanation please?

[Mizzy]

Vote: Glork

, for unparalleled behavior...

FoS: Mizzy

, for thinking there's only one way to play Mafia...

Oh wait, Mizzy is female... That explains all...

Woah, hold the phone there. Firstly, that's blatant OMGUS and not a valid reason for a vote at this time. Glork is well-known for his "unparalleled behavior" and his playstyle isn't a scumtell.

Secondly, you have shown a blatant lack of understanding about mafia in general, I think, and about what protocol is and is not accepted. Sexism notwithstanding.

Under what twisted, malformed logic do you actually think a No-Lynch is good in a mini normal on day 1 when we have no deadline? If the scum offed a lurker, what good would that do us? We'd have zero to go on in Day 2 and be minus one townie to boot.

[Mizzy]

Mind explaining what "unparalleled behavior" you are talking about, and how that makes you believe I am more likely to be scum?

[sarcasm]Clearly, good sir, your behavior lines meet at least at one point somewhere. Therefor, you are scum. [/sarcasm]

[Mizzy]

Are we talking in three dimensions?

I could be skew.

You know, I actually had a feeling that you'd say that. Smart bastard. And no, I was actually thinking one dimension, which I know is awfully shallow of me.

Glork = | /
| /
|/
/|
/ |

[Mizzy]

OMG it ate my whitespace. LAME.

[Mizzy]

Aaah, I'm glad I said those funky things, very funny posts ensued...

Funny != helping the town when you pull attention onto yourself like that. If you ARE town, then you did a very stupid and anti-town thing.

Frankly, I didn't intend sexism against anyone, and I admit "unparalleled" was

almost

taken at random in the dictionary.

You sure got it in there for not intending it.

Unvote

, mostly because Glork could be Jester.

Backpedaling. I wonder if Joub's unvote is ACTUALLY because he feels Glork has a role or if he wants a non-scummy-looking reason to pull his hand out of the fire?

By the way, Shaka, what does "pull a Glork on you" mean exactly...

Read Glork's wiki page. That, and think.

[Mizzy]

Jumpy nervous unvote with no reasoning blah blah blah you still never explained why you voted him in the first place yadda yadda yadda diversionary tactics yip yip yip

In-effing-deed. Oh, and I forgot to vote him in my last post, so here goes:

Vote: Joubert

[Mizzy]

@Tarhalindur:

Good answer, thanks much!

As for Joubert, he's not even remotely tried to defend himself and I am quite happy with my vote. Under normal circumstances, I cringe when someone is a -1L when I have had such little interaction with them...but he screams scum so loudly that my ears hurt.

[Mizzy]

I should also mention that if you suspect someone is a power role, or extraneous pro-town role of any kind, saying so where the scum can see it is really, really, really anti-town.

[Mizzy]

After thinking about it, Glork, by his behavior, seemed to try to "stir the shitstorm" (citation from the JFK movie), which is usually not advantageous for the Town. Actually, it makes more sense after reading Glork's last posts where he asks for a claim. Looks scummy even.

If stirring YOUR shit is stirring a shitstorm, then yes, I suppose he did. But I don't think he stirred anyone else's shit. And how is asking for a claim when you're at -1L scummy? That's kinda part of a normal game strategy.

I wish Mizzy won't vote me forever for personal reasons, which is a possibility. Unfortunately, we'll have to take all her posts with a grain of salt for now...

I didn't, actually, I voted for you because any decent player who was playing as a pro-town would NEVER suggest a no-lynch for D1 in a mini normal with no special conditions or deadlines because they would know that a no-lynch comes with the following bad consequences:

1) You lose a townie whom the mafia can kill without worry of the kill being linked to anything.
2) We begin D2 with no more information than we started with because mafia aren't going to kill an active player if they don't have to.
3) We start D2 needing the same number of people for a lynch but we are down a townie, making it harder to lynch.

And those are just SOME of the bad consequences of a no-lynch on D1. As for assuming there are 3 mafia, well duh, mafia games tend to be 25% mafia in normal games.

Not to mention voting no-lynch is effectively not playing the game. The game is to hunt scum, not let scum win.

Want to know why I suggested a No Lynch? Look at the numbers. If there's 12 players, let's assume there's 3 Mafia. So 3/12 chances we lynch Mafia, and 9/12 chances we lynch Town...

Let me direct your attention to this:

In many games, it is possible to end the daytime phase by a majority of players voting for "No Lynch". No one dies during the daytime phase, and night falls.

The appropriateness of this strategy has been much debated, but it generally comes down to two things: preserving favorable voting ratios (see Numbers, Part 1), or waiting for investigations. It becomes more strategically viable in the endgame, when an extra vote or investigation may make the difference between Lynch-or-Lose and having an extra chance.

Conversely, it is frequently put forward early in the game as a strategy by newbie Scum, to try to divert the town from using their most powerful weapon.

Certain Game Moderators handle No Lynch differently: for instance, one variation says that someone voting for "No Lynch" "goes home" and may not post for the rest of the Day, unless they later receive Votes totaling half of what would be required to lynch them.

That is why my vote is on you.

By the way, it is against forum rules to discuss on-going games:

Do not talk outside the game thread about an ongoing game except where allowed to do so by your role. Likewise, do not use bbcode to hide secret messages - this equates to discussion outside the thread.

You can read that at:

After thinking about it, Glork, by his behavior, seemed to try to "stir the shitstorm" (citation from the JFK movie), which is usually not advantageous for the Town. Actually, it makes more sense after reading Glork's last posts where he asks for a claim. Looks scummy even.

If stirring YOUR shit is stirring a shitstorm, then yes, I suppose he did. But I don't think he stirred anyone else's shit. And how is asking for a claim when you're at -1L scummy? That's kinda part of a normal game strategy.

I wish Mizzy won't vote me forever for personal reasons, which is a possibility. Unfortunately, we'll have to take all her posts with a grain of salt for now...

I didn't, actually, I voted for you because any decent player who was playing as a pro-town would NEVER suggest a no-lynch for D1 in a mini normal with no special conditions or deadlines because they would know that a no-lynch comes with the following bad consequences:

1) You lose a townie whom the mafia can kill without worry of the kill being linked to anything.
2) We begin D2 with no more information than we started with because mafia aren't going to kill an active player if they don't have to.
3) We start D2 needing the same number of people for a lynch but we are down a townie, making it harder to lynch.

And those are just SOME of the bad consequences of a no-lynch on D1. As for assuming there are 3 mafia, well duh, mafia games tend to be 25% mafia in normal games.

Not to mention voting no-lynch is effectively not playing the game. The game is to hunt scum, not let scum win.

Want to know why I suggested a No Lynch? Look at the numbers. If there's 12 players, let's assume there's 3 Mafia. So 3/12 chances we lynch Mafia, and 9/12 chances we lynch Town...

Let me direct your attention to this:

In many games, it is possible to end the daytime phase by a majority of players voting for "No Lynch". No one dies during the daytime phase, and night falls.

The appropriateness of this strategy has been much debated, but it generally comes down to two things: preserving favorable voting ratios (see Numbers, Part 1), or waiting for investigations. It becomes more strategically viable in the endgame, when an extra vote or investigation may make the difference between Lynch-or-Lose and having an extra chance.

Conversely, it is frequently put forward early in the game as a strategy by newbie Scum, to try to divert the town from using their most powerful weapon.

Certain Game Moderators handle No Lynch differently: for instance, one variation says that someone voting for "No Lynch" "goes home" and may not post for the rest of the Day, unless they later receive Votes totaling half of what would be required to lynch them.

That is why my vote is on you.

By the way, it is against forum rules to discuss on-going games:

Do not talk outside the game thread about an ongoing game except where allowed to do so by your role. Likewise, do not use bbcode to hide secret messages - this equates to discussion outside the thread.

You can read that at: This page

[Mizzy]

EBWOP: Sorry for the weird copy/paste, stupid forums were down and I was half a sleep when I wrote it

[Mizzy]

Okay, no No Lynch. I suggested this initially because I felt the prior discussions were more like people throwing empty suspicions to each other, OMGing and such, that seemed to go nowhere.

I know why you suggested it, I just don't think it would ever have worked the way you think it would have.

But then, after rethinking, I thought it could be jesterish behavior, so I

retired my vote without even reading the new posts

, because obviously the Jester wants to be lynched...

But Glork wasn't ever in danger of being lynched so I don't see how you could see that as him being the jester...if he is a jester, he's a crappy one.

Also, see the bolded part above? What the hell is that about?

By the way, it is against forum rules to discuss on-going games:

You're still not supposed to refer to or take into consideration on-going games.

[Mizzy]

I'm going to keep my vote on him for the moment but I do want to hear more from him that's not

sexist bullshit

psychobabble.

[Mizzy]

Oh my God that was the most boring reread I've ever done.

The worst thing is that I can't pick anything up on anyone in this game so far because every quarrel that has been held between people has ended with a friendly hand shake and moving the conversation onto something completely irrelevant.

My word I just realized how scummy of a tactic that would be. I'll reread again and investigate scum distancing and buddying up possibilities when my brain has reformed from its melted state due to the reread I just took.

Cripes, you managed a WHOLE re-read? You poor, poor bastard. I tried, got most of the way through, and my lack of attention span due to circumstances outside my control made me scream and run off.

Just keep in mind that just because person A and person B argue and then make up all nicey-sweety doesn't mean it's a scumtell. Either of them, or both, could be town OR scum. That's why my brain hurts.

[Mizzy]

What the hell is it with crappy replacement entrances in here?

@killa seven:

You do know that blatant OMGUS votes with no logic or reasons, however lame, behind them are generally considered to be bullshit scummy moves, yes?

[Mizzy]

Killa is a noob. He was voted for no reason. For no-reason votes, taken seriously, an OMGUS is a totally appropriate answer.

He was voted for because of his nooby entrance, I think. Right, wrong? If so, that's not no-reason. And OMGUS votes don't help outside of the random vote stage.

[Mizzy]

What the hell is it with crappy replacement entrances in here?

You should take a quick look at the first page of the cursed Mini #499.

Holy shitz, man, the replacement list alone on there is enough to make me cry.

[Mizzy]

I'm also of the opinion that outting any role, even a Jester, is not a good thing. If he were about to be lynched, and you suspected him as being a Jester, sure, say so then, but don't say it when he's no where even remotely close to being lynched with zero evidence against him anyway.

[Mizzy]

Okay, so it's unlikely that there's a Jester in this game? Is that what you mean?

It's more than just that. Yes, it's incredibly unlikely that this game has a Jester, but the fact that you even brought it up as a possibility when Glork's history in this game doesn't scream Jester one bit looked a little to me like you said, "Oh shit, I need an excuse...um...I'll go read the roles list and see if I can pull one of those out of my ass!"

You're doing ZERO scumhunting, and your latest one- and two-line posts show a lack of desire to even try.

[Mizzy]

@Glork:

Any thoughts on killa seven? Is there a way we can make him participate more? Anyone else can chime in, too.

[Mizzy]

Because I can't see Killa being anything but distracting to us in day 2, same goes with Joubert.

I, sadly, agree with that.

[Mizzy]

i respect that, but i havent thrown any crazy things out there, to me it seems like your tryna find a scapegoat vote and picking of weak players who have just entered the game as far as me being "distracting" i havent really done much i havent called no one out to any signifigance

You haven't given us any content at all and you've been with us for 5 RL days. Have you no opinions other than what you just said? Did you bother reading the thread?

[Mizzy]

yea i have, its been kinda boring no offense, joubert seems to have made the most questionable moves, with the jester subject and the no lynch and dancing around questions i dont really have much imput because i have been targeted since i got here and the best reponse i have gotten why is that i may be a "distraction" im new to mafia games i admitt but im picking up on it kinda quick

Why not, you know, try asking questions? Point out some things or maybe try and play? If it's boring, then try making it not-boring.

I also suggest trying a newbie game. That's what they are for.

[Mizzy]

What makes you say he'd be a distraction? Same question goes to Mizzy.

Other than the fact that he hasn't given any content, nor even TRIED to, all he's done is whine about being targeted. He's made no defense other than, "I just got here and I'm a noob!" It, quite frankly, annoys the crap out of me.

I don't think killa is scummy at the moment, which is why I'm not voting him, but I also don't think he's exceptionally helpful to the town and with a deadline so close and us so far from agreeing on scum to lynch, my gut tells me that even someone who isn't scum should go if they are not helping the town. I don't play on gut instinct, though, and since the only other targets are Joubert and shaka, I'll stick with Joubert because I feel shaka's trying to scumhunt at least a little.

[Mizzy]

Well, yeah I was waiting for the hammer or until the deadline closed in on us a bit more. A lot can happen in 48 hours.

Does this deadline even require a hammer or will the person with the most votes be auto-lynched?

[Mizzy]

Well, yeah I was waiting for the hammer or until the deadline closed in on us a bit more. A lot can happen in 48 hours.

Does this deadline even require a hammer or will the person with the most votes be auto-lynched?

If the rules post is to be believed, we need a majority.

More later, I'm short on time.

Oh shits, if a majority isn't reached, then a no lynch happens. That's not good.

[Mizzy]

This is partly why I'm miffed that half the players in the game aren't voting at all.

No one seems to give too much of a damn.

After thinking it over, I feel like while Joub and Killa ARE distractions, they also won't give us much info if we lynch them and they do turn up down. In fact, that would suck a whole lot because we'd be back to D1 with no more info than when we started.

Unvote

Imma re-read...AGAIN...and see if I see anything else.

[Mizzy]

EBWOP: ...they also won't give us much info if we lynch them and they do turn up

down

town.

[Mizzy]

Sure they can. The dynamics of how the lynch went down can be

very

informative.

Plus, D1, there is zero reason not to lynch. Though I don't think he's a good lynch today, I will move to Joubert tomorrow if I absolutely must.

Well, I think we might get more information by lynching someone else first, is my point, which I think you echo. Yes, no?

[Mizzy]

Yes. I agree completely. But realistically speaking, the level of activity in this game makes that virtually impossible. :/

Yes, I suppose so. And any "proper" lynch is better than a no-lynch.

*Sigh* This makes me very, very, VERY miffed.

[Mizzy]

Vote: Joubert

Because, as I said, he's been a bit scummy and a "proper" lynch is better than a no-lynch, and we only have 24 hours left. Don't agree with me? Then get off your asses and vote.

[Mizzy]

Major FoS: shaka!!

Glork is one of the best scum hunters known to man, or woman. I tend to agree. Re-reading, though, just to make sure.

[Mizzy]

Sucks that we lost the doctor so early...

Anyone have reasons for suspecting shaka other than Glork dying?

I did have some minor scumvibes on him before, yes, but I more wanted to see his reaction. I don't suspect him enough to vote, which is obviously why I haven't. The reactions are often more telling (for both guilty and innocent) than the kill and link.

Honestly, Glork was the most dangerous townie to have in here. Must have made the mafia piss themselves. He'd have been killed, PR or not, no matter who he was voting.

Shaka's reaction seems like one I would have had, so he's off my hook.

[Mizzy]

I wonder if I'm reading into the flavour text too much, but it does seem to imply a thing or two about this setup.

Either I'm as blind as a bat (totally possible) or there aren't any implications in the flavor text? Show, please?

[Mizzy]

Actually, it is worth bringing up. If I'm reading it correctly, it wouldn't give anything away that scum don't already know.

Town aligned doc implies to me that there may be a scum Doc. "Sire" implies to me that there's probably a Godfather type role in the scum, but given the presence of a scum Doc, they're probably investigation immune rather than unnightkillable. A scum Doc also implies a second night killing role/faction, which may be pro-town or scum.

Or perhaps it could be a roleblocker of some sort? That's in a sense what a doctor is...hrm. I honestly hadn't noticed that. The "sire" I DID notice...but I didn't think much of it.

I wonder then if we have some sort of cop?

[Mizzy]

Deeerp

How poetic...and completely unhelpful. Can I buy a real defense for a dollar here?

[Mizzy]

I think it's a silly attack

Really there isn't a lot to say in response

I agree, I don't find it a scumtell, but I did find your lack of at least a non-retarded response interesting. It's one thing to have not much of a response to what you believe is a silly attack, but it would have been more helpful to have said that in so many words.

[Mizzy]

Well apparently you are seen as a complete idiot often enough to need to caution me about it. Mizzy certainly followed up the post where you voted shaka by shining the light of suspicion on him some more, which went right along with you.

Ah, but I did not vote, and was quite upfront about my motivations once I had the information I wanted.

[Mizzy]

Vote: Erg0

Given the situation, I feel a scum slip-up and backtrack is likely. Erg0 did something idiotic, and he is trying to WIFOM to cover it up.

But...wouldn't a townie do the same thing? ANYONE who does something stupid would try and backpedal. Getting lynched isn't pro-town or pro-scum, you know. I know it's WIFOM but I think it's a scum OR towntell and voting just on that alone is just silly.

[Mizzy]

Mizzy wins the prize.

First a cookie, then the prize, now the

world

GAME!

[Mizzy]

Eh.. I'm pretty surebackpedalling implies being dishonest about your intentions. I think the pro-town reaction to having a slip-up pointed out is not lying about it, AKA backpedalling, but accepting the mistake.

Perhaps, IF you remove the "human" and "ego" elements from the equation. I think, though, that this scenario contains both.

[Mizzy]

Eh.. I'm pretty surebackpedalling implies being dishonest about your intentions. I think the pro-town reaction to having a slip-up pointed out is not lying about it, AKA backpedalling, but accepting the mistake.

Perhaps, IF you remove the "human" and "ego" elements from the equation. I think, though, that this scenario contains both.

Once again: your theory is that I was unaware that nightkill WIFOM is a bad idea? I'll find a game where I specifically argue against drawing conclusions from nightkills if that helps.

What I meant was that I don't think he made a slip-up, and I don't think that dishonestly is always a valid scumtell. It's nice to go on when you have other forms of proof, too, but I think you guys are reaching a bit. If you don't agree with me, then show me some proof.

I have lied as town...who hasn't? I'll do it again, too, if that's what it takes to win.

I'm not saying that Erg0 is totally scumless...I don't like some of his actions.

Can I quickly throw in here that this smacks of being too confident of info a townie couldn't be 100% sure of?

Glork's town alignment means his suspicions were exactly that... just suspicions. Yes, he's a good scum hunter, and it was

almost definitely his reputation that got him NKed and not any suspicion on the scum's part that he was a power role

, but in the end he had exactly as much information as any other townie.

[Mizzy]

Hmm... yes and no. Glork can be a bit scary, but the main thing that I drew from the nightkill was that at least one of the scum is aware of Glork's reputation as a scumhunter.

It's hard to miss his reputation...all you need to do is look at his badge and his wiki page.

[Mizzy]

Speculating about power roles and setup details is generally anti-town, as it does not contribute to scumhunting (the exception - intricate theme games with questionable balance - is not relevant here). The way in which Mizzy speculates about power roles, however, is outright scummy (specifically naming power roles, raising out of nowhere the possibility of a powerful role that would be a priority target now that the Doctor is dead). Mizzy is rolefishing, either intentionally or inadvertently, and she needs to be called out on it.

I am not the only one who did it, so why then am I the only one to be called on it? Besides, I already WAS called on it. Not smart of me, perhaps,

Yeah, that was a rather scummy action, wasn't it, Mizzy? But then again, you're bringing up a legitimately scummy action while trying to pass it off as an "afterthought" - and, therefore, without following up on it. Looks like distancing to me.

The reason that it seemed like an afterthought interjection was because it actually WAS an afterthought. I was getting ready to go to bed (not really a valid excuse, I know) and when I was answering Erg0, I saw OGML's post again and that part stood out at me. It hadn't before. I had planned on waiting a bit to see if OGML responded to it before saying anything else on it.

I'm sure you guys know by now that I'm a cautious player. I don't vote unless I wouldn't mind seeing that person dead, and I also use FoSes pretty rarely. That's why I didn't do more about it...I wanted to be sure, first. I also didn't want a response from me to come off as OMGUS since he'd just fingered me, which also would make made me look scummy.

[Mizzy]

Here's what I think. I think that at least one of OMGL and Mizzy is scum, and that there is a fairly high chance that they are, in fact, scumbuddies.

And it also could be that he is attempting to link himself to a townie so that if he were to die and come up scum, you'd then lynch me. Funny thing is, if he dies and turns up town, you might ALSO lynch me because "OGML was right about her all along!" Such linking actions could be townie or scummy. Hell, Tar could be scum trying to make that happen to two townies.

WIFOM, but still something to keep in mind.

[Mizzy]

honestly i didnt know it was a hammer vote, i wanted to get one in before the deadline he seemed the the best option at the time he didnt really defend himself well,

i guess i should have paid attention to the vote count

ive been overloaded at work.
anyone else have any other questions for me

Yes, you should have.

Can you catch up a bit and tell us your take on current events in the game?

[Mizzy]

This is seriously alerting.

You do know that scum often use WIFOM to try clear there name, right?

vote: Mizzy

I was pointing out that the case against me is WIFOM because it's full of circular logic and can only be really proved/disproved with more circular logic. I also mentioned that my post WAS WIFOM and hinted that while it's not a valid defense, it IS something to keep in mind. I fully admit that it's WIFOM and I think your vote is a stupid, just like your joke was.

If you're going to attack one person for WIFOM (who at least admits it) you should attack the other people who do it, too.

[Mizzy]

I disagree. Tar presented proof that leads to the reasonable accusation that the two of you are scum buddies. His proof does not derive from WIFOM arguments or theories and imo does not contain a WIFOM argument and or theory. How ever, you try to make it look like WIFOM in post 369 by introducing the possibilities that he is scum trying to make you two look bad, or OGML is scum trying to buddy up to town. Tar does not present this case, you do.

And as for admitting your post was WIFOM and such, doesn't really matter if you ask my opinion. That's like doing something scummy and then at the end of the post admitting it is a scummy thing to do. It doesn't clear your name.

I also have to disagree with you.

His suspicion of me stems from an exchange between myself and OGML wherein me gives me a FoS and I point out something that he did that I felt was scummy. He also doesn't like my role speculation.

In other words, OGML is pointing out Mizzy's scummy actions without actually attacking Mizzy. In my experience, this kind of play usually indicates distancing scum.

He DID FoS me, even if it was minor, which is an attack. I'd also been called on it before, so why would one person dismissing it with a slap on the wrist NOT be bussing but suddenly this is? That, to me, smacks of WIFOM.

Yeah, that was a rather scummy action, wasn't it, Mizzy? But then again, you're bringing up a legitimately scummy action while trying to pass it off as an "afterthought" - and, therefore, without following up on it. Looks like distancing to me.

This is the big problem I have with his argument...my meta information holds true through this game, same as all the others I've been in, because (funny that) it's how I play. I don't toss around votes and FoSes until I am beyond-a-doubt sure, or my scumdar has been really, really pinged. OGML did something scummy, but cripes, haven't we all? I wanted/want to see more from him before I decide one way or the other about him. I ain't gonna attack him on it until I have something concrete to go on.

That was where my WIFOM post came in. Sure, he

could

be right, but if you circle the logic back around, it works just as well. Circular logic = WIFOM = crap case.

[Mizzy]

Really stretching here to find something to say about OGML...I'll

FoS:Mizzy

for this

You assume that I was

trying

. I just found it when re-reading some posts. Something you should try doing.

[Mizzy]

Shaka!! and Khelvaster are focusing exclusively on Mizzy and ignoring OGML, when I consider the OGML case the stronger case of the two (please note who I am voting, and it's not Mizzy).

Something's been eating at me about Khel's FoS...We all had an entire conversation about what I said and yet he didn't quote or comment on any of it. Just my original post.

[Mizzy]

and the one logical reason why you might have asked about the Cop is that you might be scum trying to draw out the Cop now that the Doc is dead[/i].

You're completely missing the other logical reason I might have asked...because I

made a mistake

. We were picking apart the flavor text, I had a thought, I put it in.

Speculating about a cop is bad, I admit, but considering I didn't speculate on who it might be, and only about its existence or not, and then never took that any further, I don't think it's nearly as bad as you think it is.

If that is the only basis for you thinking I'm scummy, and don't have further evidence, then you can't reasonably say for sure whether or not it was intentional or a mistake. Hell, the fact that you didn't even factor in the possibility of a mistake, and in failing to do so, didn't factor in that you might have made a mistake in finding me scummy for it, is a pretty big flaw in the whole thing to me.

[Mizzy]

Just a heads up:

I will be away with limited or no internet access until late Monday, Feb. 18th.

[Mizzy]

Welcome, Sierra! Thanks for replacing in

[Mizzy]

Whether it was a mistake or not, it was a bad mistake to make, possibly even scum mistake. Now scum are aware that the cop is likely to be out there and they are probably going to be looking for him a lot more carefully now.

Mizzy, I think if it was any other player I'd probably let the mistake excuse fly, but for some reason I've got you pinned down as a very cautious player, one that isn't likely to make a mistake like that. Am I wrong in saying so?

Firstly, anyone who reads the first post on the thread and sees the lack of roles should, if they give a damn about the game, ponder in their own minds about what we may and may not have. My mentioning a power role was a bad mistake, yes, but I doubt it made the scum go, "OH SNAP! Gotta find that cop that may not actually exist!"

Yes, I AM extremely cautious...but I am also only semi-experienced, despite my post count. I have only ever finished one game on this site; a newbie game. So I can understand why you are on me so hard on one hand, but on the other, I do make mistakes yet. I haven't been around that long, and as much as I read, I am going to make mistakes until I've learned more than what one finished game can teach me.

[Mizzy]

ok im here i forgot about this game....

No worries, just please read up on the game and give your two cents on what's going on, if you could We need all the participation we can get.

[Mizzy]

Killa:

Just because there's nothing going on doesn't mean you sit on your laurels. We've heard so very little from you that it's sad. Contribute or be replaced, please.

[Mizzy]

shaka:

I'm not sure what to say...Thanks, I think?

All:

I've been quite a while, and I apologize for that, but I

am

dying to hear what killa has to say.

[Mizzy]

I am still waiting for something even remotely contributive from killa before voicing my opinions. I'm pretty ticked that he's shrugging the whole game off.

[Mizzy]

I am still waiting for something even remotely contributive from killa before voicing my opinions. I'm pretty ticked that he's shrugging the whole game off.

Mizzy, nothing to say on tar's case on Shaka? Mine on Erg0? Shaka's or Erg0's defenses? There's a lot more going on in this game than killa lurking.

Additionally, I brought up your personal meta of being a very cautious player in my post for a reason. I don't think it is scummy, but I do think it is not helpful. Aggression is the town's greatest asset. Sitting back waiting for things to happen which you can respond to and probe will not win this game. I think the days long lull in which literally nobody posted anything of value is proof of that. Glork mentioned it late day one, but I'll reiterate, the scum must love this town right now for its seeming utter disinterest.

Opinions is something I am never short on, but right now I have limited time to play and I really, really hate Killa's lack of participation.

I've only been able to skim the latest posts and plan to read them again this coming weekend. I got me a case of strep-throat and an ear infection and am pretty down for the count at the moment, but by the weekend, I should feel a lot better.

[Mizzy]

I'm trying to re-read things in a medicated stupor, so please don't hate on me too badly.

Firstly, I don't like either the Erg0 or shaka cases that have been presented right now. Maybe it's because I'm missing the big picture, but Erg0 doesn't seem that scummy to me, and neither does shaka. They both really answered for themselves really well, and I can't find any holes to prod at that won't result in WIFOM. Maybe I will later, once the meds are no longer needed, but right now, I can't bring myself to suspect either one of them past a 3.5 out of 10 on the scum-scale.

However, this post by OGML stuck out at me:

I've bolded the biggest problem I have with this leading question. Objectively, I'd like to humbly propose a third explanation for your vote:

3. Your day one play was under scrutiny because it was scummy, so you tried to redirect focus elsewhere. If Shaka were somehow run up for what you said, bonus for you, but this was not necessarily your intention.

It was considerably easier for you to defend yourself from the original WIFOM with further WIFOM, this time along the lines of "Do you really think I'm this stupid." I posit that no, you're not stupid enough to think it would work, but you do think we're stupid enough to let you get away with an "I'm not that stupid" defense of what was undeniably a scummy move. And you did accomplish this third objective, for until I reread day one and posted about it, nobody had gone back and looked at what it was about your play day one that was pinging scumdars. Your scummy action at the beginning of day two took the focus off of the evidence from day one, and you had an easier time defending simply against the accusations of mudslinging and WIFOM than against everything you'd done the previous day.

The facts have been considered, and I still think you're scum.

I know it's been said, but his humble #3 option is really centered around Erg0 being blatant, opportunistic, moronic scum. Erg0 is NOT a moron, and I don't see him being opportunistic, either. OGML is trying to fight WIFOM with WIFOM and is failing horribly.

The question of, "Am I stupid enough to do something that obviously scummy?" is very WIFOM, true, but anyone who's played with Adel will understand that not all WIFOM statements like that one are full of shit. So, screw the wine, I'll use logic. Has Erg0 been known (in this game, at the very least) to do moronic shit in a bid for some valiant play? Not that I can find. Did Erg0 have any need to try and pull off a stupid play like that? No.

Just because you think something is obvscum doesn't mean it actually is. Conversely, just because you think something is obvtown doesn't mean it actually is. I know Erg0 has a bit more than that for a case on him, but this feels like the core to that, and I feel like OGML is using it to hide himself from his past scummy actions.

Because of my past suspicions and the current events:

Vote: OhGodMyLife

.

[Mizzy]

Mizzy, this defense of Shaka is duly noted, especially given all your previous interactions with him. I may be alone in barking up Erg0's tree right now, but Shaka is the prime suspect for a large contingent of the active players. If he is scum, you're going to have a lot to answer for.

Please elucidate on what scummy actions you think I've taken, especially any you think I haven't already answered to today.

Please be warned, there's some inner bitch coming out in this response. Continue reading at your own risk.

OGML:

Just because I don't think Shaka is scummy enough to vote (or even FoS right now) doesn't mean I don't still intend to keep an eye on him. If you want to put words into my mouth and actions on my plate, feel free, but I will bite your hand off if it comes too close. Just because you say things were said and proclaim things happened doesn't mean that they actually did. Misrepresenting words and actions is anti-town and you would be advised to not pull such scummy-ass bullshit in the future if you are pro-town.

I also find it interesting that you accuse me of defending shaka when my post was clearly more about the case on Erg0 than the case on shaka. If I could be accused of defending anyone, it wouldn't be shaka. And yes, before you bother trying to shove more crap down my throat, I AM defending Erg0's intelligence at the very least.

As to what makes you scummy? I'm not going to bother rehashing everything when I don't have time and you can't be f*cked (look, censoring!) to remember, check my post #389 and Tarhalindur's post #393. Just answering them doesn't make them less scummy.

I am glad to see you're now willing to use your vote instead of FoSing and fence-sitting, its a much better way to take an active role in the game.

Considering the fact that I have been much more active in this game than you have, I suggest you save your snide remarks for someone who cares.

[Mizzy]

vote omgl

sorry i havent been participating.

If you were sorry, then we'd get more than this crapass post from you. You're voting without a case, without giving content, and you either need to allow yourself to be replaced or get with the program. Preferably the replace option.

[Mizzy]

Errrr.. wut? That second post is in contradiction with the first and it's an OMGUS vote (revenge vote) too. I'm now considering whether you are newb town or newb scum, and I'm favoring the second.

Actually, I did some thinking on that, and I concluded that he most likely is noob town. I can't be sure, obviously, but here's why I think he's noobtown:

As we have probably all seen, in a newbie game, there is a tell where a noob who is plain townie will often times get bored with the game and go elsewhere, leaving the game behind. He is asking for /in in a ton of games, and the majority of games played here will give him a townie role...so I'm thinking he's just bored of plain townie and wants either a game where he is not many or wants to be in many other games to keep from being bored.

[Mizzy]

mizzy who is your top 2 scum suspects other than omgl

I'm keeping an eye on Khelvaster and TheJiveMachine.

[Mizzy]

Do you all understand now why I said killa or Joubert for the day 1 lynch?

As much as Killa makes me want to rip my hair out by the fist-full, I can't condone lynching him or even thinking of it now that I think he's noobtown. We were wrong about Joub, too. Well, at least I was, I thought he was scummy.

[Mizzy]

Do you all understand now why I said killa or Joubert for the day 1 lynch?

As much as Killa makes me want to rip my hair out by the fist-full, I can't condone lynching him or even thinking of it now that I think he's noobtown. We were wrong about Joub, too. Well, at least I was, I thought he was scummy.

I'm not calling to lynch him I'm just using his actions to explain my day 1 line of thought.

Oh, I know Sorry if I wasn't clearer. I mean that yes, I see why, and saw why before, and as much as I hate his lack of contribution, and WANT him gone, I'm glad we didn't lynch him and unless we get evidence that I am wrong about his noobtown tells, would not vote or want to lynch him in the future.

[Mizzy]

Killa:

That is all way old material and TJM is not the only one who voted to lynch Joubert. I would like to see more recent case points.

[Mizzy]

I'm particularly not loving the fact that he was just pointed out as a townie, which is not something that a pro-town player should

ever

do in-thread.

I said it because I don't think he ought to be lynched. Scum already know who's pro-town and who isn't, and I don't really see an issue with voicing my opinion on the matter considering it doesn't hurt town. Sure, he might have been a NK target and might not be now, but I'd much rather him be replaced than die if he IS pro-town, regardless of role.

[Mizzy]

Does the age of the material make it in any way less telling? I don't like this post at all. I actually think killa makes some good points that you shouldn't be so willing to brush off. Its especially interesting given that he pointed out a possible connection with you, and you seem to want to write off killa's case altogether.

No, I read it, and liked it, but I want to see more from him that's more recent. It's more me wanting to see him continually participate than writing him off; remember, I think JTM is a bit scummy, too, but some of Khel's reasoning doesn't work out for me and I was hoping he had more.

To answer your question quickly, because I am having some severe computer problems and will need to show you analysis later, Khel's lack of attention to the game coupled with his action without having read or seen or remembered all the facts bothers me. He could be busy, or he could be attempting to active-lurk, no idea. JTM is also pretty lurky, and that bothers me, but one thing about both of these two is that I am not convinced that they are scum, just lurking. I'd rather them be replaced than lynched because being away from the game is not a scumtell unless we prove active-lurking.

[Mizzy]

I think killa seven has actually made a compelling case. I have some comments on it that I'm going to withhold until I have time to make a real post (Its 2 AM and I'm procrastinating on my paper too much already ) but if TJM doesn't get back here and actually contribute something of meaning very soon my vote is switching to him. The deadline is looming and unless he has a very convincing reason to the contrary I think he's the play.

The case is really built around lurking and the lack of contribution. I don't like either count against JTM, but I also know that those traits are not indicative of scum all the time. Lemme do me some meta on him to make sure of my feelings on the situation and I will come back with my findings.

[Mizzy]

Retro:

I was waiting on Killa because I had some set opinions on him and having such opinions when judging tends to get in my way. I was also waiting a bit, as I explained later, because I was pretty damned sick for roughly a week and a half and really didn't want to post about such things when medicated and feeling particularly anti-lurker; it's not like me. I hate lurkers but I don't tend to think lurkers are scummy without other proof.

Just because someone thinks I'm scumbuddies with someone else doesn't make it true; while I didn't agree with that part of Tar's post, a lot of the other things I could understand. Actually, I can even understand why you all might wonder if I am scumbuddies with OGML, which is why I'm not more mad about it. I can see how that logic would work.

I don't mind if people make a big deal of me making a decision on who to point at, but now that I have, you'll find that I am pretty stalwart in my pointing. I continue to suspect OGML and will until (and probably even if) a better scum-target comes into the light. What I mind is when someone fills their posts with a bunch of crap wit and retorts and tries to pass it off as content.

Also, how could my vote on OGML be OMGUS when I voted before my bitchy post? I'm not quite following that train of thought there.

[Mizzy]

Ugh, I don't want a quicklynch, can someone who is voting him be on their toes to prevent a quicklynch if needed? I want to see a claim and a defense from TJM.

This is the worst insult I have ever received in a mafia game. My wit happens to sparkling, and I'm not passing retorts off as content, I am interspersing my content with retorts.

I apologize if it stung, but that is how most of your posts (and a good many of TJM's posts, too) come off as to me. Yes, there is some good content in what you say, but your fluff "witty" inserts cheapen the content to me and make you seem much less sincere in my eyes.

Aside from those two points, I think killa has very adequately outlined TJM's strategy of looking active without being active. He makes nonsense posts (deeeerp) in response to attacks, deflects others with jokes (I'm being suspected based on math LOLZ) and generally stalls, telling us reasons for his lurking and promising future content without ever delivering. His voting record is also suspect, as he joins the Joubert bandwagon at the height of its popularity with little original thought, and today glomps onto Tar's case against me and sticks to it to the exclusion of, it seems, even bothering to read anything else thats going on.

At this point, I think we all feel that JTM is Lurk McGurk.

Interesting that you bring up the Joubert wagon...I think it might be important to keep in mind that Killa hammered Joubert and claimed that it was a mistake because he hadn't realized he was at -1L.

I also find it interesting that Khel also pulled the "glomps onto a case without reading anything else that's going on" and he hasn't really been looked at.

This, along with post 498 which I commented on earlier, really read like you're now stalling on TJM's behalf.

No, I don't want TJM lynched until he has had a chance to claim and respond adequately to some of what is being said. He was at -2L before the two votes today and I don't want a quicklynch after a d1 mislynch.

FoS: Mizzy

, being cautious and noncommittal may be your playstyle, but I'm finding it hard to ignore the likelihood of a connection between you and TJM, and the two in combination make me think you're very likely to be scum.

I'm very committal in my vote on you; that FoS comes off as a good bit of OMGUS. I was pretty committed to thinking Joubert was scum D1 and I was wrong...too many wrong guesses looses games. I am attempting to learn from my mistakes.

[Mizzy]

Interesting that you bring up the Joubert wagon...I think it might be important to keep in mind that Killa hammered Joubert and claimed that it was a mistake because he hadn't realized he was at -1L.

I also find it interesting that Khel also pulled the "glomps onto a case without reading anything else that's going on" and he hasn't really been looked at.

Oh, and the reasons I bring these two points up is this:

1) Even if I think killa is pro-town, I am much less apt to listen to him after his complete botch of a hammer on D1. It might be silly of me, but I take everything he says right now with an extra grain of salt because heaven knows I've been wrong about my alignment opinions before.

2) I think we're allowing people to slip into the background, and while we DO have an impending deadline and should be working towards a lynch, that does not mean that conversation about other people and other evidence should be forgotten.

[Mizzy]

I've explained my reasons for suspecting you, they're unrelated to the fact that you've voted for me.

Fair enough.

Do you have responses to anything else I've said?

[Mizzy]

Thats not how I read what you were saying before mine and tar's recent votes. It seemed like you were most interested in preventing the wagon from going forward altogether, both through discrediting killa seven's case and waxing philisophical on the value of lurker lynches while asking for time to meta him.

I can see how you might come away with that, and I'm going to explain/clarify a bit. I doubt you'll believe me, but Imma try anyway.

Just because I am not convinced about a lynch on a person doesn't mean I want that wagon to stop...if I think a wagon is an unjust wagon, I WILL step up and get all self-righteous about it. I understand that I am an overly-cautious player and I try really hard not to let that hold the town back, but if I'm not convinced on a wagon, I won't hop on. That doesn't mean I don't want more information.

The meta on him is more for my own benefit, and if his lynch happens before I'm done, then that's the way it happens. I'd rather it didn't, but I don't expect or ask that the world stop turning while I indulge my inner-whiny-self with meta info. I just can't join a wagon until I agree with it fully.

[Mizzy]

I don't know what to say...I'm still here though.

I was hoping you might respond with something a bit more...useful?

FoS: Khelvaster

.

[Mizzy]

AAAAAAARGGGGHH NKED AGAIN >< >< >< ;;;;;

P.S. BAH!

[Mizzy]

Didn't know the game finished! Go town :3

Still don't know why I was NKed when I would have been lynched the next day, but hey, I'm not complaining!