Mini #553: Over!

[massive]

Vote Coolbot

since that's the only name I recognize.

[massive]

I'm trying to decide if I think Matt_S is being a responsible townie, or is simply acting like one so we all trust him.

Spindax

: Can you explain some of your reasoning behind how Khelvaster's "plan" might have been a trap?

destructor

: Two times in the first page, you've mentioned the possibility that Mafia have been given safe-claims. Do you consider this a commonplace occurence in Mafia games?

unvote, vote eljcko

Your last post was completely noncommital, almost as if you were unwilling to pick a side, waiting to see which way the town would twist. Plus, your spelling is rEdiculous.

[massive]

I'm still content with my vote on eljcko.

[massive]

Man, this wagon is a-rollin' right along. As soon as I saw GSGold's post voting for Khelvaster (in the "mafia spot" no less -- is that still a valid thing?), my scumdar started tingling. So I went back and had a read. Both GSGold and crazy_vlad hopped onto this bandwagon despite posting about the mass-nameclaim on page 1 but not voting:

I don't think Khelvaster is a scum; it would be too obvious and a much too simple play from the first post.

I'm not sure what to think on this whole name-claim argument, but I don't think it's a good idea on Day 1.

That's some pretty wiggly posts right there. GSGold even eventually goes the other way, FOS'ing Matt_S. crazy_vlad gets points for starting the ball rolling and actually giving reasons, but it's clear that GoldGS is just opportunistic scum hopping on a wagon that he really doesn't believe in.

unvote
vote GoldGS

[massive]

eljcko

: Do you really believe that there are only two options for Khelvaster's suggestions? In other words, do you really believe EITHER he is a scum fishing for ideas OR he is a townie with a stupid idea?

[massive]

No, but those are the two main ones, and the most reasonable. Do you think there are more? Just like to hear more thoughts as to other viewpoints, what do you think?

There's also the possibility that he could be Mafia with a dumb idea. But me personally, I think it's obvious that he's town with a dumb idea. Here's why: The problem with Khelvaster's idea being a "Mafia ploy" is that it requires two other things be true, which we have no substantiated evidence of: that Mafia somehow had safe role claims, and that the Mafia all had role claims that would survive this gambit.

Now, go back and read Khelvaster's original post -- it's obvious (and I'm sorry to have to do this, Khel, but people are voting for you and you should have done it yourself by now) from the way that his post is worded that his original role was one of the names he listed. That is a point in his favor. But even if you go the extra step and believe that he had a safe role claim, he still is running a gambit that could possibly out the entire rest of his team -- there's been no night, so he hastn't talked to his supposed cronies to find out if their safe role claims would fit into the gambit.

So in order for you to believe that Khelvaster's plan was a scummy attempt at outing power roles, you have to believe that (a) the Mafia have safe role claims and probably (b) the Mafia's role PMs also denote what safe role claims the other scum in the group have. That seems wildly irresponsible.

The thing that strikes me upon going back and looking at those first initial posts is that Matt_S clearly understands that this is the case, based on his post immediately after Khelvaster's post:

I don't know whether to call you a scum or a power role.

It appears that he has read that Khelvaster is essentially claiming one of the nine names he listed, but he always seems to walk that line between the two options: power role, or scum. When he finally does jump on the Khelvaster bandwagon, he does so seemingly at random, and then when pressed gives reasons that don't stand up to his previous actions. Here, I'll quote it:

I didn't want to vote him at first because I didn't think scum would ask for a mass name claim.

The more I thought about it, the more I've been thinking that a townie would ask for one on day 1.

I just don't get what Khelvaster's logic would be no matter what side he'd be on, and like you said we really don't have anything else to go on. Right now, this seems like the only good play other than voting Zyrconium for lurking, which we can do later.

Bolding mine. Moving off of the lurky lynch, he says "the more I think about it, the more likely it is he's town, but since you all are voting for him, why not?"

The logic that Matt_S seems to be missing seems pretty obvious to me:

1. I'm Fellowship.
2. If I'm Fellowship, there are probably other Fellowship roles out there.
3. If there are other Fellowship roles out there, there is a possibility that all nine are out there.
4. If there are nine Fellowship roles, they are the town.

That's not even hard to follow. Khelvaster readjusted his attacking points, but that is the logic flow of it, in a nutshell.

unvote, vote Matt_S

I think Matt_S got lucky, in that CoolBot came out as a non-Fellowship-er before he had to make a definitive stand. I think vanilla townie is the safest fake claim a scum can make. I think he is bandwagoning despite admitting that he thinks the actions of Khelvaster are more likely those of a townie. Is this the part where I type DIE SCUM DIE?

[massive]

1. I'm a townsman with no name and no powers
2. Other people without powers are townsmen without names
3. If someone has a name, they aren't vanilla, a.k.a. power roles or possibly lying scum.
4. Everyone who asks for a name claim has a name or is scum.

I don't make the logical connection between three and four here. I got to three. I fail to see how "having a name" immediately translates into "asking for names."

As for what would have happened if you had immediately said, "I have no name?" I think it's probably a moot point to discuss, but since it's been established that there DID exist other people who had names but weren't in the Fellowship, I think you would have been easily vindicated. It's fairly safe for someone (as CoolBot did, and others if I remember correctly) to come out and say "I'm not in the Fellowship." CoolBot did on the first page.

I don't believe that any scum could have been caught by watching people's reactions to the idea. It is simple enough for any Mafia member to abstain long enough to see how the town is leaning, and then to put in their opinion. Especially considering a topic so volatile as mass-claiming -- that idea is sure to see townspeople on both sides of the argument.

Nor do I believe you could have had any fear of being lynched simply for not going along with Khelvaster's suggestion -- it would have required eight Fellowship members, three Mafia, and a generic townie (you). Even THAT seems like a preposterous setup.

[massive]

ting: Do you believe that, in the original configuration of the town, there were only Fellowship Named Roles and Unnamed Roles?

I don't think I'm quite up to skill to play a game with Talitha yet.

[massive]

ting

: Could you see his posts coming from someone who was unsure of the makeup of the game, but trusted the mod enough not to build the game so it could be broken by a simple nameclaim? Is his townness necessary inclusive of his unnamedness?

[massive]

ting

: My question, more specifically, is: Do you believe that all Named Town players must have Fellowship names? Although, in all honesty, I can't remember why I'm asking it.

I am content with my vote on Matt_S. It's not a pressure vote. He's already claimed "unnamed vanilla" so there's nothing to gain. I just don't believe him.

[massive]

Can we move on from this name claim nonsense? No one was for it the first time around, and no one wants to do it now. Geez already.

On a related note, however, Matt_S does not claim "unnamed" until after the theme gets pulled. Up until that point, he had merely said there was something in his PM that only vanilla townies would know. Can you read and infer that he's saying "we have no name?" It's possible. But it's also possible that he was hedging his bets and hoping that no one would keep pushing.

[massive]

In other words, a name claim won't work because vanillas were unnamed(or so I thought). The more people seemed to have no idea what I was talking about, the more I hinted at it. And unless my memory has failed, nobody else has actually claimed unnamed either. It's always been my worry that the mod was screwing with me.

True, but we can also say you are thinking, "Now that no one's come out as vanilla townie to support me, I can claim the mod is screwing with me!" It's WIFOM. Paying attention to your "hints" is just distraction, in my opinion, because the revelation of the "meaning" of the hints always seems to come after someone comes along to tell you what is factual (ie, Coolbot and the non-Fellowship, then The Mod and the unnamedness).

[massive]

ting

: What was it, in GSGold and Spindax's "so little posts" that made you suspcious of them to begin with?

[massive]

I'm still content with my vote. And this day needs to end.

[massive]

Page Eleven Vote Count!

Votes required:

7 to lynch

4, Matt_s

-

massive, Khelvaster, Coolbot, Talitha

1, Eljcko

-

Destructor

1, Talitha

-

Qman

Not Voting:

6, Petunho, Matt_S, eljcko, crazy_vlad, Imat, ting =)

My role pm says I'm a townsman who's in the fellowship.

So is it "townsman who's in the fellowship" or "townsman, fellowship means townie"? My PM does not specifically say that the Fellowship is the Town; it says a lot of stuff about conquering the baddies, but it doesn't say anything about the Fellowship.

[massive]

I don't understand why you're considering this. The way I'm reading this, you're suggesting that Matt was improvising a gambit, hoping that there

was

something in the townie PM that implied a mass name-claim wouldn't work. I guess it's possible, but not as likely as him actually not having a name, being vanilla and assuming all vanillas were like him, in my opinion.

I think (a) "vanilla townie" is the easiest scum fake claim to make, (b) good mods make sure that there is no "common thread" among generic role PMs that townies can use to clear each other, and (c) given the initial flavor of the game, "vanilla townie" is a very unlikely role to have.

But you think all the scum were given safeclaims, so I see why you think the opposite. Where's my eyeroll emoticon?

[massive]

No, I mean "vanilla townie" as in a generic role.

[massive]

All right, FINE. The mod has obviously decided to continuously interject himself into this game so we don't lynch you, so let's move on.

unvote

[massive]

mod

: I disagree, I don't think anything should have been said about the makeup of the game, confirming or denying whether named or unnamed roles existed, which you did in post 42.

destructor

: I was saying that, yes, I could see this as being a game with no vanilla townies. I think that, in terms of the original set up and theme, that having a generic nameless vanilla townie is unusual. There are plenty of flavorful characters in the stories that you could assign a "name" to everyone, even if you don't give them an ability.

Unfortunately this means I need to reread the whole thing.

[massive]

I agree with ting about eljcko. Eljcko goes from indicating unnamed townieness to indicating named (and Fellowship no less), then adamantly denying one way or the other. And now most recently has stated that we should move on from the flavor of the initial roles.

vote eljcko

I also think I have a read on what category ting fits into. I must be getting some of the ring rust off. =]

[massive]

I get a feeling maybe I have a different idea of what a vanilla townie is. My understanding of what it means to be 'vanilla' is that you have no abilities besides your vote. I didn't think it made a difference whether you had a name or not. When Matt claimed vanilla, I just assumed that was his

role

but that this didn't have any bearing on his

rolename

. Is this different from what you thought?

No, I agree with your assessment of "vanilla" -- that it means that you are a generic townsperson with no ability except your vote. When Matt_S claimed "vanilla", I assumed that he was vanilla but still with flavor (vanilla-flavored, if you will) because, honestly, what's the point of theming a game if you're going to be lazy and not theme that one last role? Finding out he was claiming to be vanilla AND unflavored is what led me down his path at the start. It didn't make sense to me.

[massive]

I find that question very interesting, ting, because here in my notes it says "ting: not Fellowship" ... guess I ought to look back and find what made me think that, but I bet I got some more questions now.

[massive]

Can anyone here confirm for certain that we have named-nonfellowship people? All we have, as far as I can tell, is Coolbot's word. Well, coolbot's half-word, he mentioned that he wouldn't confirm or deny either way.

I'd like to know because he never mentioned named-nonfellowship until massive asked if it was possible.

Which should have told you that I, too, had a named-non-Fellowship role. I mean, I asked enough questions about it.

[massive]

Game is dragging. I'm content with lynching eljcko; unfortunately, I can't vote twice.

[massive]

Yeah, I get the feeling that eljcko is just repeating what Matt_S has been saying, even though it makes no sense thematically -- remember, we were just going to have a conversation about "unnamed in the fellowship" with Matt_S before the mod proved him town.

I'm content with my vote.

[massive]

The mod "proved" that Matt_S is town, huh?

What Coolbot said. But I will take your, uh, HAND OF SUSPICION!

[massive]

If he quoted me he'd have broken the rules and would've been mod killed.

If he DIDN'T quote you, you shouldn't have deleted his post.

In an unrelated note: Seriously, how many more people do we need to show up in-thread and say they're still voting for eljcko? Is everyone else just content to wait for deadline? I really hate this waiting.

[massive]

Holy bejeezus.

I must say that it is interesting that CoolBot, the Mafia Godfather, started the "named but not Fellowship" train ... which makes me wonder if, in fact, that Mafia DID have safe roleclaims all along. Which makes destructor's initial comments about safeclaims all the more suspicious. Do we still have a destructor?

In that case, I

vote destructor

. I don't see his name in the post above me though ... but he's in the list on the front page ... oh! I see eljcko in the list above me, who we lynched yesterday.

Fixed.

[massive]

There should be, most likely, two Mafia left. And assuming our rogue vigilante will knock off with the killing of random people, we should have a good shot.

I'm actually fairly sure Qman is a killer. I need to go back and re-read the thread and remember who he replaced before I can figure out if he's a good killer or a bad killer.

[massive]

I'm fairly sure Qman is mafia. His posts on this page are of the "hey, I'll refer to my nightkill as 'interesting' to throw people off the trail!" variety, which I recall is one of Jeep's Easy Scum Tells, which points me at him being responsible for one of the kills. Then, I looked back and I noticed that after he replaced in, his big point was to try and get us to stop talking about previous roles, which is important information for the town. He continues on with it to the point that CoolBot makes a point of voting for him and telling him that this is important information, the point of the vote being to make sure his scum partner notices and lays off.

unvote
vote Qman

[massive]

I've said and still believe that worry about the removed flavor/names is bullshit because I was sure there were traitors in the fellowship. Guess what I was right; a mod would have to be a retard to align all the town in a 9 person fellowship. The entire idea is full of it.

Not only do you miss the point of the continued use of flavor as an aid to the town, you have no proof that you are "right" when you say "there were traitors in the fellowship." Calling yourself "right" doesn't make it so.

And if you are aware of Jeep's Scum Tells, why would you use one?

[massive]

In games where I've been scum I've been able to talk with my buddies pre-game. massive implied here that he

knew

the Mafia couldn't in this one.

Well, since *I* didn't get a night action before the game started, I assumed the game started with Day One. So naturally I would assume that the Mafia would NOT get to talk to one another. That follows logically and the fact that you are not only (a) suspicious of me for it but (b) suggesting that the Mafia could have night-talked before the game started actually makes YOU look more suspicious, not me.

The rest of that post, compared to his vote on me today, is worth noting. Why does he vote for me, suggesting that scum may have safe claims? Why does he point at me for suggesting this, when there was another player, Khelvaster, who

asked for a mass nameclaim?

massive went out of his way to defend Khelvaster, who for all we know could be scum with a safe claim. What made him so sure he's town? And why has he not mentioned this now, in light of Coolbot's reveal? Instead, he uses this to attack me, makes no mention of Khelvaster, and now he's using some weak WIFOM argument against Qman, perhaps realising the inconsistency of his initial attack on me.

I went after you because of CoolBot. Knowing that *I* was a named role but not in the Fellowship, I read CoolBot's hints to mean exactly what he intended, and my actions followed that logic. I asked questions, consistently, about the names and makeup of the town, believing that CoolBot was like me -- named but not Fellowship. I had no reason to doubt that until this morning, when he turned up dead. The problem there is that CoolBot is the one who introduced the idea of there being "named but not Fellowship" into the game -- up until that point, it was assumed by most that the town was divided into two groups: unnamed vanilla, and named Fellowship. I don't believe he would have put himself out there if he didn't feel confident that he could survive a bandwagon to roleclaim. And since he intimated that he was "named but not Fellowship" on the first page, I now believe that he may have been given a safeclaim.

Also from the first page, you have consistently indicated that you believe that the Mafia have safeclaims. I still believe that it is VERY unusual to be given a safeclaim. You appear to think otherwise. I think it's because you knew the Mafia had safeclaims -- you had one in your own PM.

Actually, reading his case on Qman, he's being inconsistent again.

Then, I looked back and I noticed that after [Qman] replaced in, his big point was to try and get us to stop talking about previous roles, which is important information for the town.

But you were just saying that you thought scum had safe claims? Why would Qman be suspicious for trying to stop role name discussion other than scum

not

having safe claims? First

I

am suspicious because scum might have safe claims, and now

Qman

is suspicious because scum might not have safe claims. This doesn't add up.

Qman didn't get his original role information in his replacement PM, and therefore had no idea if the scum had safeclaims or not.

ting

: I think Qman is mafia. I think destructor is mafia as well.

[massive]

I'm not suspicious of Khelvaster because his actions would only be understandable if he (a) had a named role and (b) his named role was a member of the Fellowship. Otherwise his plan to "break the mod" by nameclaiming has absolutely no point.

What's suspicious about someone noting that Mafia could talk pre-game

in other games

and that same someone noting that Mafia have been given fake roleclaims

in other games

? That someone is continuously talking about

other games

and trying to apply the rules and role PMs from other games to THIS game. If you have no basis for supposing that the Mafia could talk pre-game and that there were safe roleclaims, you are just wildly speculating, and that's not helpful for the town. ESPECIALLY when one of these wild speculations is your reason for not wanting to go along with the nameclaim in the first place.

Yes, it's very possible that whatever answer you gave would be suspicious, mostly because you mentioned safeclaims out of the blue on Day One without any provocation.

[massive]

Because I think it's a huge, unnecessary gamble for a scum with a safeclaim to make. If you're scum with a safeclaim, you STILL want to lay as low as possible and keep all the role names from coming out -- otherwise, the first time a scum turns up dead, the town has a pretty good idea that scum have safeclaims and invalidates the whole thing.

Also, there's this: If Khelvaster is scum and DOESN'T know the safeclaims of his scum buddies, then his play is doubly dangerous, as he could potentially out his buddies. If Khelvaster is scum and DOES know the safeclaims of his scum buddies, then he knows CoolBot has a "named non-Fellowship" safeclaim, and wouldn't come up with the idea. Cogito ergo not scum.

[massive]

CoolBot's claim is inferrable if not stated outright:

I'm not part of the Fellowship. That's shouldn't be surprising, as the game would be seriously broken if the town was only the Fellowship. So it's likely all a mass claim would accomplish is give the mafia clues to who our power roles are.

And then he fails to back YOU when you say you are unnamed. And he says this:

I never claimed whether I have a name or not. And I won't do so until necessary. I don't know why ting thinks I don't have a name, but I didn't want to address it for fear that it might help scum craft a claim by knowing for sure whether there are named townies outside the fellowship.

I -inferred- that he had a name from this, because I was also named-non-Fellowship.

And look, I don't know one way or the other if the scum have safeclaims. I wouldn't even be visiting this possibility if it wasn't for destructor saying, TWICE ON THE FIRST PAGE, something about scum having safeclaims. Obviously CoolBot was lying and being vague about his role and trying to fish out What Exactly the makeup of the town was, and I imagine it's easy to say that trying to figure out "if the scum have safeclaims" is WIFOM.

My "evidence" for Khelvaster being town is, quite simply, his idea of the name claim. I believe that, in order for him to even POSIT that the entire town might have the roles listed in his very first post, he MUST be one of them himself. That's not WIFOM. He wouldn't come up with a plan to out the non-Fellowship people and then sheepishly raise his own hand.

[massive]

I don't think it's WIFOM. I think it's Occam's Razor. The conclusion that Khelvaster is town requires the least number of assumptions of game conditions that we don't absolutely know.

What IS WIFOM is using the possibility of him having a safeclaim as a reason to believe he is scum. There is still no proof anywhere that these safeclaims exist.

Looking back over the thread, I can definitely see where I may have misinterpreted CoolBot's "role reveal" -- it could very well have been an outright guess, based on his own beliefs of the setup and not, in fact, on a safeclaim. It may have just been because he picked someone obtuse as his own fake claim, should it have come to that -- obviously that's the easiest route to take without the knowledge that random unnamed townies exist. He may have just rolled with it. I was probably placing my OWN information and my OWN alignment in place of his -- "how else would he know that named-non-Fellowship existed if he wasn't too?" -- that certainly seems much more likely to me than this safeclaim nonsense.

And NONE of this changes the fact that Qman is mafia.

[massive]

I think, in the future, I will avoid playing games with Qman.

My opinion that you are scum has nothing to do with misinterpreting CoolBot, or with safeclaims, and I find your "Angry Townie Defense" insulting.

[massive]

What would you have me do, just ignore the fact that people are dead? I'll do that from now on. There is always someone that comments on the kills first, and I don't care to dither around waiting for someone else to post first. You still haven't answered if it was my first post of the day that got you all riled up or my second. That does matter.

It's the second. I realize that I am having a tendency to ignore the top post of each page ... I see the red and the vote count and immediately skip to the next post.

There's more than just "Jeep Scum Tell" to that, too. Obviously at that point there is three killing parties (hence the three dead bodies) and presumably one of them is a vig kill -- so going out of your way to state the obvious (to me) is you setting up for a possible vig claim down the line. Hence my first post after that says "I'm actually fairly sure Qman is a killer. I need to go back and re-read the thread and remember who he replaced before I can figure out if he's a good killer or a bad killer. "

I mean, if you want to go ahead and admit to being the vig and explain your thought process behind your kill, go nuts. =]

Yes how dare i expect a normal mini to not have flavor, and how dare I do what the mod told me to do: Ignore the fellowship flavor and talk. I still think it's retarded, if you care to know.

If you ignore the flavor and the talk surrounding the nameclaim suggestion from Day One, you are at the very least guilty of being lazy in your scumhunting efforts. It's important information, and obviously now that we have dead bodies, going back and looking for reactions could be key. So is it stubbornness, laziness? If you're town, please explain why you are willing to ignore such a big part of Day One's activity.

Heres the Coolbot thing, you thought he was pressing something and then used that mistake on your part to link me to him as him telling me to chill. Again, i didn't chill on it, I still feel the way I have felt, and I haven't been unvocal about it. You realy have nothing to link me to coolbot beyond a mistake you made because you misunderstood something earlier in the game. You don't expect that to annoy me a bit?

I don't think me being fooled by CoolBot's "named-but-not-Fellowship" role ruse has anything to do with whether or not he has trying to give you advice in-game. But if you do, please do explain.

In other news: I am really trying hard to figure out where all this presumptuous metagame guessing is coming from. It may simply be because I haven't played here in a while, but it really is flustering me. On top of destructor's safeclaim stuff, now Imat posted twice on the last page about the possible existence of a "CPR Doc", whatever that is -- I infer that it's some role that can protect or kill thanks to one post, but I don't understand it beyond that. I don't think it's common enough for Imat to presume it exists randomly ... just as I don't think safeclaims or pre-game Mafia talk are common enough for destructor to mention them out of the blue. So what's the deal? Imat?

[massive]

Matt_S, Khelvaster:

Please, by all means, tell us who YOU think is suspicious.

[massive]

Obviously you think that he either (a) failed to read that CoolBot was the Mafia Godfather or (b) is scum and completely forgot that CoolBot was his Godfather. Which do you think is more likely?

[massive]

Well let's not wait too long. All these replacements don't mean that WE should be inactive. It's been three days since the last post. Brutal.

[massive]

If I'm Mafia, putting myself in with Coolbot at that point in time doesn't gain me anything. He's not under pressure, he's not being voted. With no knowledge of the kill makeup of the game, I wouldn't be willing to risk having one of us turn up dead and the other one be autolynched. I realize that it's the "I'm not stupid enough to do this as Mafia" defense, but so be it.

(unless you want to go back to the safeclaim)

[massive]

Maybe I've been off this site / gone from Mafia too long, but we used to just let the Mafia figure out their own fake claims. Maybe scum need coddling nowadays? Somehow I doubt it.

It sure would be nice if there weren't just half the people playing.

[massive]

Imat

: Did you find anything in your reread?

destructor

: Can you approximate how many themed minis you've played in?

Khelvaster

: Can you supply us with some of your own suspicions? You've posted twice on this page, mostly about the lack of discussion. Maybe your thoughts could help spur us on?

[massive]

It is Occam's Razor -- the simplest explanation. There's no secondary, circular assumptions being made to make it WIFOM, so maybe you can explain? I'll try and be concise.

I'm not suspicious of Khelvaster. There's no reason, for me, to believe that there are safeclaims in this game, so there's no reason to view Khelvaster's actions as anything short of townie, albeit probably misguided. While his attempt to "break the mod" could easily be seen as "not going to work," I think there's a difference between "not going to work" and "misleading to the town."

I am suspicious of destructor. He used "what if scum have safeclaims?" as an argument against the massclaim when there was no proof such thing existed. He used "what if mafia can talk at night?" as an argument to vote for me, when I suggested that scum wouldn't have been given the chance to talk to make Khelvaster's plan work (as scum), when there was no proof such thing existed. I feel, at the very least, that these "out-of-game experiences" are clouding the town's ability to see what information the game is really giving us. I'm unsure if destructor is doing this on purpose, but I am still suspicious of him, yes.

Using safeclaims to question Khelvaster's innocence, now THAT is WIFOM.

It's also fasinating to watch Matt_S play so positively scummy and have to give HIM a free pass because the mod deleted his role claim and confirmed his townieness.

[massive]

What would it take to convince you of the mafia having safeclaims? One of them coming out and saying it? That isn't going to happen. You know, you could just as easily assume that there is never a cop in a mafia game, so that anyone who claims cop must be scum. That's Occam's Razor as well. All vanilla is simpler than vanilla and powers.

I don't know if the mafia have safeclaims or not. All I'm saying is that, so far, there is no reason for me to assume that the mafia have safeclaims. Using "the mafia have safeclaims" as a logical step to prove or disprove any argument, therefore, is ridiculous.

You're assuming that Khelvaster is confirmed town again, and destroying our ability to refute your assumption. That's not very nice.

I'm not saying Khelvaster is confirmed town OR destroying your ability to refute my assumption. I'm saying that using "the mafia have safeclaims" is a ridiculous way to do so. You want to talk about Khelvaster being scummy? Use real proof from the actual game thread, not some supposed metagame state that may or may not be true.

Yeah, you're ignoring the possibility of safeclaims there. I never wanted a free pass.

Hopping on this bandwagon to use safeclaims as an argument DOES NOT WIN YOU POINTS.

[massive]

Khelvaster

: I'm not bandwagoning anyone because of the safeclaim nonsense. I believe I'm still voting for Qman, who I thought was a killer three weeks ago and haven't had anything change my mind. I'm just trying to make people realize that it's a moot point to debate. We DON'T KNOW if there are safeclaims -- therefore, it's ridiculous to make decisions based on something we DON'T KNOW.

Matt_S

: This:

Why do you think I'm voting for you? Do you think I'm trying to get your approval? The fact is, I find your logic about safeclaims to be unsatisfactory. The possibility of safeclaims shouldn't be used as evidence, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend that the mafia doesn't have them when we interpret people's actions.

is what we call WIFOM. "So-and-so wouldn't do that as Mafia, BUT! He might have a safeclaim! So he WOULD do it! BUT! He might think we'd guess about the safeclaims, so he WOULDN'T do it!" I realize you haven't gotten to the third part yet, but clearly you can see why, EXACTLY, using the supposed possibility of safeclaims in any argument is WIFOM and therefore useless.

My "does not win you points" is trying to get you to play like a townie. No one in this town will lynch you. The least you can do for us in return is NOT play scummy.

[massive]

Then you and I will agree to differ on this one. The only way you can say that is if you KNOW FOR CERTAIN there are safeclaims ... and in order for you to know that, you had to have one.

[massive]

I think, in retrospect, that the longer the debate continued about the nameclaim, the more logical and more SAFE that picking a named, NON-Fellowship person to hide behind became. I put too much of my own role into Coolbot's evasion.

destructor

: I'm not sure if you're posting that because I didn't answer, but here goes: the short answer is no. I have no idea if scum have safeclaims or not. I started being suspicious of you because it seemed like idea came out of nowhere, but now, thinking more about it, the last thing scum would want would be to out the fact that they have safeclaims. So my initial suspicion, while valid in my eyes, would also have to be based around an equal belief that you are a bad player who made a huge mistake. I think, had you been scum, that you would have backtracked on that mistake pretty quickly, and since you haven't ... I guess I have gained some perspective.

[massive]

destructor

: The factor of time is important. I still think my initial interpretation was correct -- that the idea of safeclaims was unusual, and you mentioning it twice on the first page was more unusual. As time has continued and you have continued to press the issue, it's become less like a "scummy slip" and more like "defending townie." I think that, if you were scum with a safeclaim, you would have just said, "Yup you're right."

I may have been a little over-tenacious with my grip on sticking to my initial interpretation. I'll give you that. But please note that I'm not voting for you any longer, so if you'd like to have a discussion about my voting reasons, maybe we should focus on Qman ...

[massive]

Oh, and about Matt_S (dang meant to add this at the end) -- at the point in time when he was claiming nameless townie, we were all pretty much attacking him because there was the possibility that there was No Such Thing as a nameless townie. He was claiming "bastard modding" in making him the only such nameless townie. I think, as scum in that position, he would have been more apt to try a fake claim from inside the stories -- clearly Coolbot was setting up to go that way. Sticking his neck out to say "nameless townie" in a game where there might not be one was risky. Having a dead nameless townie (eljcko) adds weight to his claim. I thought about the fact that Coolbot was the "only one" who saw Matt_S's claim before it was deleted, but I think it was probably more likely to be Coolbot performing what he saw as "proper townie behavior" more than protecting his fellow scum.

[massive]

BAB:

Yes, it did have a LOTR theme. The theme got pulled, but not before a big discussion about the potential a nameclaim might have had in helping the town. The theme got pulled, but the nameclaim discussion still had a lot of merit in terms of talking points -- so it's "still around."

About Matt_S

: I will be the first person to agree that Matt_S has continuously acted scummy through both days. But no matter what he says or does, I still can't wrap my head around him being scum due to the "unnamed townie" stuff from Day One. In a themed game, with players debating the potential of a mass nameclaim, you do NOT stick your neck out and claim "unnamed townie" if you are scum. It will lead you to a sure lynch if the town goes through with the nameclaim and all have names -- it very nearly led to Matt_S's lynch even WITHOUT the nameclaim. The proper path to take (as scum) is the one CoolBot took -- hint at as much as possible without outright agreeing with anything. I just think it's too huge a gambit that has too high a potential of catastrophic fail.

Yes, it has a measure of WIFOM, but now that we KNOW there were unnamed townies in the original configuration of the game (thanks to eljcko), it unfortunately makes it MORE likely that Matt_S is unnamed townie as well.

I think it's reckless to try and lynch him now.

Shamrock

: I read post [334] and thought to myself, "Hrm, Imat is a CPR doc, interesting." I guess you don't believe this is the case. He avoided that part of your post in his response in [462]. So I guess my question to you is: Do YOU believe we have a vig? Or a CPR doc?

[massive]

Shamrock

: While I do believe that uncommon things shouldn't be inserted into games, I also trust in common tells, and the Mafia version of "he who smelt it, dealt it" always seems to hold up more often than not. Which is why I started in on destructor about safeclaims in the first place.

[massive]

In that case, why would he make unnamed townies?

[massive]

I'm going to reread this afternoon and see what I think, but I bet this confusion has given us a clue as to the alignment of the two replacees.

[massive]

BAB

: Do you still want info from me about why I suspect Qman?

[massive]

My suspicion of Qman stems from 3 things:

1) His stubborn refusal to allow the town to continue to discuss the theming of the game. The theming of the game, despite being pulled, is still crucial to determining who's scum and who isn't. Qman, upon his replacement, blasted anyone who wanted to use the theming in discussion. He refused to even contemplate it's place in the game. This is not the action of someone who is pro-town; a townie would want to gather as much information as possible.

2) His "interesting kill" comment at the start of Day Two (352). I may be out of practice, but I always pay attention to anyone who says "Jeez, interesting kills, I hope we have a vigilante." I mean, it's in the Wiki for a reason (Common Tells).

3) His defense to my accusations is basically WIFOM. "I'm not dumb enough to do what you're saying."

So there it is. My reasons for voting Qman.

[massive]

BAB

: As stated in my post, his post [352] is a Common Tell of a killing party.

[massive]

I am still voting for Qman because I believe he's a killer.

[massive]

No, I think we have a vig and the Mafia. When I pegged him as a killer, I gave him ample opportunity to say, "Yeah, I'm the vig" and own up to which kill was his. He didn't -- instead he got argumentative and defensive. So I think he's Mafia.

[massive]

I wanted to give him a chance to explain his actions. I don't believe that we should count a vig who is willing to shoot on day one as necessarily acting in the interest of the town.

Plus, after his ridiculous outrage on day one and his statement on day two, I was fairly sure that he was Mafia and would defend himself in a silly enough manner that we'd know for sure.

[massive]

What? This would apply to any vig who shoots night 1. And how does the fact that you disagree with vigging on night 1 influence whether you put pressure on a person the next day? There's nothing wrong with shooting at someone that you think is scummy. There's a lot wrong with wanting to get a claim from a vig.

I completely disagree, and this won't be resolved here. I think that any vig that's randomly shooting on Night One should be held accountable for their actions, because they are clearly not working in the interest of the town. Maybe here you guys shoot first and ask questions later, but to me, it's grossly irresponsible.

ting

: I believe he's Mafia and have said so, numerous times. I think you're playing semantics here.

[massive]

The what? A vigilante has no business killing on Night One. Any vig who claims that they are so confident that they can kill on Night One is either reckless or grossly and incorrectly overconfident. I'm sorry that you think that it's OK to shoot on night one. I don't.

[massive]

The difference between the town lynching (a group of people agreeing, via consensus, on a suspicious person to kill) and the vig killing (a single person making their own decision on a suspicious person to kill) should be obvious. It's checks and balances. Town members are required, during the day, to do their best to hunt scum, because their track record, arguments, and votes are in the thread for all to see. The vig has no accountability and therefore is immune to scrutiny.

And ting, if you want to get all semantic-y on me, we still don't have any proof we have a vig.

[massive]

I think the logical conclusion is that it's a vig.

Three

anti town killing roles in a 12 player game? No way. Even if he's not a vig, I'm pretty sure the last killing role is at least a pro-town role.

Yes, and we also had a player making an unwarranted reference to a CPR Doc. I'm just playing semantics here because you were. Even IF Qman is a reckless vig, he's a liability -- but I think I have a better idea of who the vig is now after the last few pages.

I don't want to direct the vig. I just want the vig to understand that he doesn't have to shoot EVERY night, geez.

[massive]

Actually, no news is ... no news.

[massive]

I called Qman a "killer" due to his comments at the beginning of the day. I changed my accusation to "mafia" due to Qman's defense of himself.

[massive]

Well of COURSE my case against "Qman" is going to look suspicious to you ... because YOU ARE "Qman".

Qman didn't get defensive about just the mass nameclaim -- he got defensive about ANY discussion of the previous theming.

There's no "pointing out" of any arguments between when I say "Qman is a killer" [361] and when I say "Qman is Mafia" [362] -- mostly because there's no POSTS between when I say "Qman is a killer" and "Qman is Mafia."

And don't call me scummy because I believe a vig should be held to a higher degree of responsibility than the town seemingly approves of.

[massive]

The only reason I wasn't "talking to" other players is because of the ridiculousness of the level of scumminess you were putting out, Matt_S. And since the only thing that saved you was quoting your PM and having the mod decide to NOT modkill you for it, you may want to keep that in mind when going back and finding new ways to attack people.

As for my post 99: I reread it and stand by all of it. The logic behind defending Khelvaster is solid. Go back and re-read the first five pages, then read 99 again. Do you think (at that point) that Khelvaster is town with a bad plan, or Mafia with a vicious plot? And if you think he's Mafia, do you believe that the requirements for his plan (safe claims plus safe claims of his teammates in his PM) are true?

As to "confirming" CoolBot -- I've already said, I'm pretty sure numerous times, that I trusted CoolBot because he was hinting at a role combination (town, non-Fellowship) that had not been discussed in the thread and that I also had. Because it hadn't been mentioned AT ALL in the thread, I assumed he had to be like me. I was completely amazed that he was scum and I think it will be interesting to see who shot him (and why) at the end of the game.

[massive]

Sethaniel

: I am talking about NAMED pro-town non-Fellowship roles. Maybe I did not make that clear in that particular post, but I'm pretty sure I have in numerous other places in this thread.

[massive]

unvote, VOTE MATT_S

If you didn't quote your role PM and the mod didn't delete it, we only had CoolBot saying that that was what happened. Matt_S's removed post is 252. Matt_S claims to have quoted his role PM "too much" in 264. CoolBot saying what it was is 266.

[massive]

Empking

: Thank you for taking the time to replace. I wish you were doing an ACTUAL job of replacing rather than just voting the bandwagon. Unfortunately, you're replacing Khelvaster, the one person I most confident about being town.

Matt_S

: You've continuously done scummy things the entire game and the ONLY thing that has saved you from being lynched has been the fact that we all believed that the mod deleted your role PM quote. You are now saying that is not the case despite saying "Oops I guess I quoted too much of my role PM" immediately after it happened. I don't think you faked it, I'd like to think you would be modkilled for faking mod text -- although who knows with the way our original mod was willing to go to great lengths to prevent your lynch. So why don't you go ahead and tell us what exactly happened in that post that required the mod to edit your post?

BAB

: A post saying "I could lynch massive" and a vote for me are two different things. I'm certainly fine with going about the business of presenting my own cases and worrying about the unvoters when the time comes.

Guardian:

I'm more than happy to go back through the entire thread and present, in total, all the scummy things that Matt_S has done, but I am going to post this rejoinder first.

ting:

I "deflected" your attacks because the attacks weren't taking into consideration that there was the possibility of named-non-Fellowship town members, of which I was one. In the face of nameclaim discussion and continued discussion about the Fellowship, which do you think is more likely -- that I would purposefully associate myself with CoolBot and put us both in a category outside of the discussion; or that I would associate CoolBot's "hinted role" with my own role, and take actions to bring the possiblity of named-non-Fellowship to the forefront?

He pretty much took the heat for eljcko and assured me that he was town and that coolbot had the same role.

I think this is probably a mis-statement on your part. At best you can say I had the same "role classification." Saying I had the same role as CoolBot is saying I'm scum.

I'm disappointed by anyone who is using [386] as "evidence" of my fishing for a vig claim. I had already stated TWICE by that point that I am confident Qman is Mafia -- do you think I might be being a LITTLE sarcastic in that ONE SENTENCE?

[massive]

The mod DID take sides. He confirmed the existence of unnamed townies (which Matt_S was alluding to being at the time, without directly saying it) after the theme pull, and then simply deleted Matt_S's post for reasons that no one knows (and Matt_S isn't divulging) rather than modkill him. I called shaka! out for it on both occasions.

Matt_S

: We've had many posts referencing the theme that have not been deleted. What could you have said, specifically, about the theme that would have been so egregious as to result in your post being deleted? In fact, the post is smack in the middle of a discussion ABOUT the theme, and about you calling yourself an "unnamed townie in the Fellowship" in specific.

As for discrediting the case against me, let's see: Matt_S is voting for me because I didn't talk to CoolBot on day one and I random-voted for CoolBot on day one [610]. Sethaniel is voting for me because, as far as I can tell, he's twisting around 20/20 hindsight about unnamed townies, despite the fact that unnamed townies would make no sense in a specifically-themed game as this was [614]. Empking is voting for me because he's lazy and I'm the bandwagon [637]. So please tell me what on that you would like to see me defend against? There also appears to be "vig-fishing" which is, as far as I can tell, one sentence, and should have been easy to read sarcastically.

I can defend against Sethaniel's vote, maybe. Sethaniel says that it would be easy to read Matt_S's initial comments as being that of an unnamed townie. On day one there was no reason to believe we had unnamed townies. Even Matt_S didn't expect us to believe it, saying numerous times that "maybe the mod was screwing with him." The only evidence we have that there were even unnamed townies in the game is because eljcko turned up as one.

[massive]

Oh, and Matt_S, if you want to play the whole "Mafia random vote for Mafia" game, howsabout voting for Spindax, whom CoolBot random voted for on Day One, and who became Qman, who became Sethaniel?

[massive]

The town may be unwilling to lynch Matt_S NOW for different reasons, but at the time of Matt_S's deleted post, he was clearly the lynch for the day. He had 4/7 votes and had just stated that he was a "vanilla townie in the Fellowship" as his original role. In my opinion, it was only his copypasta and deletion (and CoolBot saying "he's confirmed") that prevented it.

I think, BAB, that you and I are parsing it too much -- they go together.

(like bop shoo wadda wadda yippee de boom dee boom)

[massive]

I was Elrond in the unthemed game. I am a doctor who learns who targets their nightchoice. I protected Khelvaster night one. No one targeted him.

Matt_S

: If you don't think I could have inferred that you posted your role PM from a post that said, essentially, "mod deleted," then I clearly have work to do in regaining my reputation for logical thought. And you STILL have not answered the question -- somehow you manage to always turn it into an attack on me. Convenient.

That being said, I think you are a townie, just a bad one. I think if I went back and looked at games where you did not have the benefit of being mod-confirmed, that you would be lynched a lot early in the game.

ting=)

: I think your "finding" of a breadcrumb is rather ridiculous. I don't breadcrumb. "Ring rust" is a legitimate term, I think -- for boxers or wrestlers (or, in this case, Mafia players) who haven't legitimately fought real opponents in a long time. The fact that you needed to find additional justification for your vote makes me feel like it was only destructor calling you out that made you feel the urge to vote.

destructor

: Since Matt_S's "confirmation," he's continued to do scummy things. I'm sure you can find at least one post from me since then that says something like, "I really wish you'd stop doing scummy things now that you're mod-confirmed." He was easily the most suspicious person that didn't get lynched on Day One (mod confirmation aside) and was continuing Day Two. If he says he's NOT really mod-confirmed, why WOULDN'T I lynch him? I only had my inferrence and CoolBot's post about what the deleted information was.

I think

Guardian

is town. I think

Sethaniel

is scum. I am leaning towards

ting=)

being scum.

unvote, vote Sethaniel

[massive]

Good luck town.

[massive]

Thank you town! Although letting Guardian last so long after lynching a claimed doctor with "conflicting results" made my head asplode.

[massive]

Oh I don't remember anything about this game. The only thing I remember is Matt_S being confirmed numerous times by the mod and still acting scummy. To be fair, it started SEVEN MONTHS AGO and I was lynched almost TWO MONTHS AGO. I can't be expected to keep up my thoughts that long. I can barely keep up my thoughts in games that I'm active in.

*halo*

My problem, pretty much all game, was that I was crossing myself up between my actual scumhunting and letting the mod's interference influence my thinking. The Matt_S/shaka! "interaction" colored my thinking from pretty much the start of the game. And Matt_S kept leading me back into it.

Reminded me to ask, either Empking or the mod, who did Khelvaster kill night one? We know he made one of the kills.

ting:

I started to get suspicious of you because you were SO WISHY-WASHY about your vote on the day I was lynched, if I remember correctly.

Qman:

To be fair, you know and I know that Jeep's Common Scum Tells are probably NOT a reason to vote for someone if you want to lynch them. But to vote them to see their reaction, I think it's valid. And man, did your reaction STINK. Getting angry, using profanity, then leaving the game? Why WOULDN'T I be suspicious?