Mini 540: Nightmare (Game Over)

[farside22]

My problem is I'm not as sure about Opie. As I stated I think Anglemouse has made some good points, but I think Opie has explained himself well. Most people seemed to be between Opie and Holy. I'm starting to look at Lullebelle as my next hightest suspect. I'm not sure if Holy is telling the truth, but no one is going to want to hammer unless pushed. Two people come to mind for some so if either one want to claim then do so. We have till Saturday and need to keep this active so there is no mislynch.

[Rishi]

I still like the idea of having Nocmen hammer, but I would be okay with Lulubelle. I agree that opie has been defending himself well. I don't think anyone else's name has really come up in this discussion.

[mikeburnfire]

Official Vote Count
7 votes needed to lynch

4 Holy (Glork, farside22, pete d, Nocmen)
5 opie (roffman, gorckat, angelmouse, Lulubelle, Holy)
1 roffman (opie)
1 Nocmen (Rishi)
1 pete d (skitzer)

Deadline: Saturday the 26th at 11:59 PM EST
If you do not have the needed majority for a lynch when deadline rolls around, no lynch will occur.

[Lulubelle]

I'm not jazzed with her recent posts. She's asking whether everyone else thinks Holy is scum and/or lying about her role, bit hasn't answered that herself.

I don't need to say my opinion on that matter. My point is that

either

viewpoint is contradictory.

If Holy is scum, she is probably lying about her role, meaning we can hammer with no risk, making his whole discussion pointless. If she is telling the truth about her role then she is probably town and we shouldn't be lynching her in the first place, making this whole discussion pointless. Instead of trying to decide on a second scummiest person to perform the lynch, maybe we should just

lynch that person

? That's kind of the point of Mafia.

Is there a problem with my logic or not? If there is, feel free to point it out.

I'm not completely satisfied by lulubelles posts recently either, something just doesn't seem right by them and I'm not entirely sure why.

I'll make things easy for you: everything I've posted for the last week has been to try and get this heel-dragging town to come to something vaguely resembling a concensus before the deadline arrives. I find it immensely strange that nobody seems to disagree that a no lynch is anti-town but everyone seems to think me as scummy for trying desperately to prevent something anti-town from happening.

I would be okay with Lulubelle.

I'm starting to look at Lullebelle as my next hightest suspect.

hammer: Lulubelle

Did you all miss the point where I

volunteered

to do it? If you seriously think Holy is scum and needs to be lynched, put her at L-1. I will deliver the coup de grace before the deadline. I am trying to take away the risk of getting yourselves killed so that maybe you'll

make up your damn minds

.

[opie]

Okay, I think its time to update my player by player analysis. This go round I've got groups. Wee.

GROUP 1: The On-The-Block-Power-Role-Claimers

roffman
Rishi
skitzer
Holy

I'll discuss these four all together. At various times, I have found these players to be the most suspicious in the game. It seems that roffman, Rishi and skitzer's claim provided a stay of execution. I've also given the benefit of the doubt to see how there roles play out. For some reason Holy's claim has not afforded her the same luxury even though of the four I find her to be the least suspicious. I wonder why several seem so gung-ho on going forward with a lynch, when they've given a pass to the others.

GROUP 2: Possible Town

Nocmen

A serious improvement over Disciple Slayer. He hasn't been in the game long but I've like what I've seen from him so far.

Glork

I was impressed by his earlier posts and got a general pro-town feeling. Has been relatively quiet lately. I don't really agree with his plan for Holy, but all balanced I suspect pro-town.

farside22

Throughout the game she has been pretty active and has contributed to the game without. I generally trust her to be pro-town.

pete d

Found it odd that he didn't have much to post about for a week, but overall his posts have been pretty solid and substantial.

GROUP 3: Suspicious

angelmouse

Since replacing thedragonprincess, has had 10 posts. Has been pretty active, and OMGUS aside, I question some of her conclusions and the logic. I haven't heard enough yet though to determine if I think this is scum trying to force a case or just a townie a disagree with.

Lulubelle

I thought she had been contributing quite well until recently. She seems desperate to lynch

anybody

to avoid a no lynch. So desperate that she doesn't seem to care is that are town or scum. Her last to votes have been for those who have the most votes or growing wagons. Say that angelmouse is her top candidate but doesn't seem really committed to making a case against her. Seems more interested more interested in voting for whoever everyone else is voting for. I'm not sure what advantage scum would have by being so open about it. A WIFOM argument. The whole thing is odd to me.

gorckat

First off, I'm sincerely sorry about your dog. Has been pretty active but somethings don't sit well with me. It's little things like he earlier vote for Rishi in Post 186 without really explaining why. And then when ask why he only quotes my post in response (Post 191). Also his vote for Draux in Post 204 seemed odd to me. Then there was his response to roffman's player by player. Wondering why he wouldn't vote skitzer since he had more votes. I understand his point but as I said, I think people should make the case first for their number one suspect before moving down on the list. He then defends himself in Post 275 in part with topic on the message boards encouraging people to be more aggressive and not to worry about being wrong. However, I wouldn't characterize gorckat as an aggressive player in this game. Also, I think this approach would lead you to go for the person at the top of your list and not just go along with who everyone else believes to be scum. Then his Vote for me in Post 353 just sort of echos angelmouse's without offering much else of his own. Overall at this point in the game I believe him to be the most suspicous.

unvote
vote: gorckat

[gorckat]

unvote: vote Holy

I fully expect you to hammer, Lulu. You're avoiding the part where you say "Holy is scum and I'd be glad to take her out" or "Holy isn't scum, I'd rather see this person hammer".

[gorckat]

If voting the person with the most votes is the strongest point you have, take a gander at how long its taken me to move to Holy from you. Also, that question and stance was based on roffman holding the two people at equal suspicion, which he clarified he didn't.

Yes, I echoed angelmouse and am surprised it took this long for someone to bring it up. I expected that to get pounced on sooner, but I truly had the same thought, was about to post, got sidetracked at work, iirc, and came back just in time to act like one of those little keychain voice playback fobs.

I understand your vote becuase at times, especially after Glork joined in, I've felt like more of a spectator than a participant, but you're on the wrong path.

[Lulubelle]

You're avoiding the part where you say "Holy is scum and I'd be glad to take her out" or "Holy isn't scum, I'd rather see this person hammer".

I did a quick reread on Holy a while ago, looking for some of the points people raised about her. I don't think the case against her is quite as weak as I originally assessed it. As I mentioned before, I also find the gap between claiming her role name and claiming her role function odd.

[angelmouse]

GROUP 1: The On-The-Block-Power-Role-Claimers
roffman
Rishi
skitzer
Holy
I'll discuss these four all together. At various times, I have found these players to be the most suspicious in the game. It seems that roffman, Rishi and skitzer's claim provided a stay of execution. I've also given the benefit of the doubt to see how there roles play out. For some reason Holy's claim has not afforded her the same luxury even though of the four I find her to be the least suspicious. I wonder why several seem so gung-ho on going forward with a lynch, when they've given a pass to the others.

I don't understand why you discussed them together. Do you mean you believe all their claims? Maybe it's my way of playing, but i don't always believe claims. Why should Holy have the luxury or not being lynched simply because she claimed? If she were scum,(or any of the others mentioned were), she isn't going to claim that she is now is she. Can you just explain whether or not you belive their claims please?

I'm not sure what to make of Holy and the claim. For some reason I have always favoured town for her although I just don't know.

The latter point i do agree with quite strongly. I do also wonder why several people are "gung-ho" on going forward with the lynch. Somewhere in Lulubelle's warped logic lies a truth. Why doesn't someone that is so intent on hammering her do it. If you are that convinced to lynch her then you must think she is scum so why not prove your point? You could pressure someone else to do it, but a scummy player is never going to to do it (as they would know that there was at least some truth to her claim) and then you have to convince everyone else to lynch that player cause they wont hammer her.....not sure that plan would or could work. Initially i saw the benefits, but after thinking about it sounds like a tactic to get rid of 2 town folk.

The rest of your post opie was very interesting. I liked what you said about gorckat and you did make me think about his play style and what he has said. I will have to keep an eye on him as the deadline approches and pos read back on his posts.

One thing i will say is...

unvote: vote Holy

I fully expect you to hammer, Lulu. You're avoiding the part where you say "Holy is scum and I'd be glad to take her out" or "Holy isn't scum, I'd rather see this person hammer".

....Your reason for voting Holy is to see lulubelle hammer??!??!? That logic is completely flawed. Vote lulubelle if you want her to take the fall. You have given no reasons for changing your vote to her other than this. That doesn't sit with me very well at all.

FOS Gorckat

[skitzer]

Lulubelle makes the most sense to me to hammer. She volunteered herself, and plus, holy may be lying.

[farside22]

Wow I find myself agreeing with Anglemouse once again. If gorckat thinks Lulubelle is scummie you should be voting against her, not forcing her hand by voting Holy. Your vote is very questionable to me. It seems you believed Holy and want to make sure you are not the hammer vote. Grrr.

@Opie:

I think when the deadline came in place people found it harder to move their vote to there second choice pick without a mislynch. Lulubelle had a point about people targeting their second choice however I get the impression more that she is trying to save her scum buddy from lynch. Lulubelle is willing to hammer, but is that because she knows something about Holy's claim. I don't know but it feels like someone is trying to manipulate the votes.

[gorckat]

....Your reason for voting Holy is to see lulubelle hammer??!??!?

No. I've been agreeing, silently, with Holy's lynch since I supported Glork's idea to have another scummy player hammer her.

Like skitzer points out and Lulu was right in saying- Holy could be lying scum, in which case poof! We lynched scum!

If she's not lying and another scummy, yet town, player goes down poof! One less scummy person on day 2 to have our focus.

I think Lulu's statement to hammer is some level of WIFOM. If she's scum, then saying it may get her off the hook, but we'd think that so she wouldn't say it but she did so it must be sincere...I'm calling her down, so to speak.

I don't get why a townsperson

would

hammer unless they think there's a good chance Holy's scum. Lulu just now seems to be coming around to that, which I see (possibly confirmation bias) as affirming scumminess.

If a townsperson is scummy enough to get serious lynch attention, they'd be better off not hammering if they thought Holy was town.

[gorckat]

It seems you believed Holy and want to make sure you are not the hammer vote. Grrr.

Another pokerish way off looking at it, but its +EV (expected value) to have another scummy player hammer Holy, for the reasons I stated above.

[angelmouse]

....Your reason for voting Holy is to see lulubelle hammer??!??!?

No. I've been agreeing, silently, with Holy's lynch since I supported Glork's idea to have another scummy player hammer her.

Convienent that it's silent. last i heard you were on for an opie lynch. Remember you have to think Holy is scummy or that is a waste of a vote in my eyes.

Like skitzer points out and Lulu was right in saying- Holy could be lying scum, in which case poof! We lynched scum!

But what if she isn't? We lose a town. Willing to take the risk when we could go for a different player who displays scummy behaviour and have a better chance of hitting scum? If she is then maybe we could have a better grasp tomorrow after the night kills anayway. Granted i would rather have a lynch than a no lynch, but there is still a few days to hunt.

If she's not lying and another scummy, yet town, player goes down poof! One less scummy person on day 2 to have our focus.

This time you suggest we lose 2 town players, summy play or not that is stupid play and i can't believe you suggest this as a positive!!!! There will be night kill (maybe more, not sure) and bam on day 2 the town will be very close to losing?!? Logic here is very warped. I myself would rather hit scum than have any town player lynched or lost. If lulubelle is town and Holy is a saint, why do we want to lose either?! (Im not saying i believe either of their claims). If Holy is scum then it's a gamble, one which if time runs out i would see as an option, but a last resort.

I think Lulu's statement to hammer is some level of WIFOM. If she's scum, then saying it may get her off the hook, but we'd think that so she wouldn't say it but she did so it must be sincere...I'm calling her down, so to speak.

I see your point here, but is it worth losing the wrong player just to see if we can call her bluff?

I don't get why a townsperson

would

hammer unless they think there's a good chance Holy's scum. Lulu just now seems to be coming around to that, which I see (possibly confirmation bias) as affirming scumminess.

Ok, so you think Lulubelle is scum, then vote her!?

If a townsperson is scummy enough to get serious lynch attention, they'd be better off not hammering if they thought Holy was town.

You still haven't answered why you think Holy is scummy? If you think she is lying then you provide the hammer, simple as, but as i can gather from your posts your simply placing your vote to get lulubelle to hammer or then refuse to hammer. I don't think this is a wise place of vote at all. Just doesn't seem like town play to me.


This hammer business is a gamble in my eyes. Could happen like this

1) Holy Scum, Hammer Scum

Could happen since this would mean Holy's claim was false, but unlikely a scum hammer would happen since why would you bus your partner that badly. Decoy trick maybe to hide other scums identity, but doubt it would happen.

2) Holy Scum, Hammer Town

Town lives and scum dies. Perfect result and something that could be very likely, if indeed Holy lied.

3) Holy Town, Hammer Scum

Doubtful in my eyes since the scum would know that there may be a piece of truth in Holy's claim so would never put the hammer vote on her. No matter how much we pressure, scum just aren't going to put their vote to hammer here. Better to live on for another day and try to implicate others to try and get yourself off the hook to resigning to hammering. They could always ride out the time arguing back until the deadline and a no lynch occurs.

4) Holy Town, Hammer Town

Something gorckat suggests as a positive is disguise, i disagree. This is the worst result and something that is looking very likely as the deadline approches if Holy's claim is true.

So basically 2 and 4 are, in my eyes the most likey to happen. 2 is the best result possible and 4 is the worst. But it's a gamble. It all comes down to whether or not you see Holy as lying and that is it. Those that are so certain that she is, should drop the hammer, it would prove your point and get rid of your number one suspect or end in tears. I just have this gut feeling that those so willing to get someone else to hammer her are more likely to be scum and trying to get the ideal solution of 2 townies dead before they even get their hands dirty.

Me, I'm in 2 minds about the claim. Part of me believes it and part of me sees it as scummy play. I'm not willing to risk another town person to find out though.

[farside22]

@Anglemouse:

This may surprise you, but scum can and will hammer their partner. It is not uncommon or unheard of. That is why I wonder about Lulubelle's comment and williness to sacrifice herself.

[angelmouse]

I know that, just seems silly on day 1 when there could be a no lynch thats all. I don't think if i was in that position i would bus someone, but I can't talk for others obviously. I see what you mean about the willingness to sacrifice though.

[gorckat]

Convienent that it's silent. last i heard you were on for an opie lynch. Remember you have to think Holy is scummy or that is a waste of a vote in my eyes.

I should have said implied when I said silent. I've been pushing for a hammerer to do the deed, which I think implies my support for Holy's lynch. If opie were to drop, I'm still okay with that.

This time you suggest we lose 2 town players, summy play or not that is stupid play and i can't believe you suggest this as a positive!!!!

I know its a little bit radical, but its something I've suggested before (in other games). If a townie is that much of a distraction, I think the town is better off without them.

Ok, so you think Lulubelle is scum, then vote her!?

Normally, I would. Exceptional circumstances abound.

Something gorckat suggests as a positive is disguise, i disagree.

If the hammer could have been lynched themselves day 1, they'd most likely be under the same suspicion day 2 barring some sort of exculpatory evidence, but we can't bank on that since none of the power roles claimed to be investigators.

[roffman]

Sorry i havn't been posting, net's been kinda erratic. ATM i'm agreeing with lullabelle that any lynch is better than no lynch, however, i'm hesitant about the whole holy thing. I still think opie is the most suspcious, so my vote will stay there, but if anyone else besides holy manages to get wagoned to -1 before the deadline, i will hammer.

[Holy]

@Lulubelle: My gap(s) are almost the same on every games I play on MS, and in general I only visit the forum once a day.

@Mod:

I have unvote and vote opie on post #408.

Mod note: Fixed it.

I'm not really impressed with opie's new PBPA anyway.

[farside22]

I know that, just seems silly on day 1 when there could be a no lynch thats all. I don't think if i was in that position i would bus someone, but I can't talk for others obviously. I see what you mean about the willingness to sacrifice though.

I'm seen scum hammer even on the first day it is to look town. It's usually a really good ploy.
Right now I'm for Lulubelle or gorckat for the hammer. His lastest comments makes me wonder what he knows. If we can get everyone to focus and if need be lynch are second choice so that there is not a mislynch that would be helpful. We have 2 days to decide and I'm not understanding Skitzer's comment about Holy at all. I'm surprised he would be okay with lynching anyone but Holy.

FOS Skitzer

[opie]

If voting the person with the most votes is the strongest point you have, take a gander at how long its taken me to move to Holy from you.

I assume this is directed at me. I don't think you read my post carefully. I'm not actually accusing you of that. What I did say is that: (a) you find nothing wrong with voting for a person who is a more probable lynch rather than the person you find most suspicious; (b) you are trying to be me more aggressive, not being afraid to be wrong; (c) I argue that those to rationals seem incongruous. Further, I never said that was my strongest point. It is the aggregate of all those things that make you the most suspcious in my eyes.

I don't understand why you discussed them together. Do you mean you believe all their claims?

I don't necessarily believe their claims 100%, but I don't have enough information to disbelieve to the extent that I am comfortable voting for them. It is still Day One and I am generally cautious of Day One claims. However, I've never been confronted with a situation where there's been four claims forced by lynch, so I'm not quite sure how to proceed. If one of the four is not telling the truth I think that cracks will start to show as the game goes on. Also I've given the benefit of the doubt to three, I can't justify why I would extend that to Holy in this situation. Especially when of the four, to me, she is the least suspicious. There are other scum out there to be found. I'd rather make an attempt to find them rather than gamble and risk losing a power role on Day One.

I also agree with you angelmouse on two things regarding gorckat. First his logic regarding his vote for Holy that you noted in Post 433. I don't find his response in 436 to be very compelling. Second is his seeming disregard for collateral death's of townie. His response to you, again, doesn't allay my concern:

I know its a little bit radical, but its something I've suggested before (in other games). If a townie is that much of a distraction, I think the town is better off without them.

I can

maybe

see this argument supporting a lynch of a player like Disciple Slayer, but I don't think any of the players gorckat would like to see lynched could be considered a distraction.

gorckat's last few posts have only made me more comfortable with my vote.

[opie]

We have 2 days to decide and I'm not understanding Skitzer's comment about Holy at all. I'm surprised he would be okay with lynching anyone but Holy.

FOS Skitzer

I can't find what you are referring to here.

[farside22]

@those voting for Holy:

Who would be your second choice for scum and why?
I would say Lulubelle for the whole self sacrifice comments or gorckat who believes it is okay for a scummie looking person whether town or sum do the hammer on Holy.
I ask this because I agree with Opie on one aspect. There is more then one scum out there and if we feel there is someone who is scummie as much as Holy and we don't have a consenses lynch then we will go into night losing.

[Glork]

I'm torn between Opie and Skitzer. Skizter I think I explained well enough earlier, and Opie's dancing around seems to be distracting. I don't get why he'd vote for Gorckat at this point in the day, when it seems apparent that he is not on the list of viable lynch candidates. He also definitely pumps Holy in his lengthy analysis (rawr, scumbuddies), but what I find even more interesting is that -- in spite of the fact that he stated that he found each of the 4 claimed to be "the most suspicious in the game" at certain points, seems to have just accepted the claims on face value. I can understand it for the Masons, but in his "Group 1," the claimed power roles, he just lumps them together and says that they've claimed and doesn't consider any of them any further. I can't decide whether he's just trying to skirt the issue because a scumbuddy (Skitz and/or Holy) is in that group, whether he accidentally let it slip that he knows all four claims to be legit, or whether he's just being really dense, but that rather bothers me. From earlier, his shift onto Holy seemed wrong to me, though I can't exactly place why. He was 4th on the wagon, which is sooner than I'd expect somebody to bus a scumbuddy, but it is consistent with trying to rail a townsperson to death. The only thing getting in the way of me jumping to Opie outright is that I just think Holy was so scummy earlier, and her claim seems like a really safe fakeclaim for scum that I can't bring myself to believe that she's legit.

[gorckat]

(a) you find nothing wrong with voting for a person who is a more probable lynch rather than the person you find most suspicious; (b) you are trying to be me more aggressive, not being afraid to be wrong; (c) I argue that those to rationals seem incongruous.

How are a and b not compatible? If I'm willing to lynch either of two people, why shouldn't I vote the one more likely to go down and not sweat the small stuff?