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

[PlaysWithSquirrels]

Still waiting for my question to be answered, but thank you, PlaysWithSquirrels, for your continuing lack of adding anything valuable to this game.

You'll have to tune in at 11. :teach:

[Flameaxe]

Tuning in at 11 is what all the cool people do.

[Unright]

You'll have to tune in at 11. :teach:

*sets Tivo*

[jmar]

Well, as much as I'm on pins and needles for your explanation, which I assume is coming in 5 minutes, my question was more directed at everything else on the bandwagon. You've explained your position more than anyone, even if I don't agree with it you're entitled to it. I was more interested in why everyone else is voting me, and if they have their own reasons.

[Mirth]

So...is anybody going to explain the wagon on Jmar? Also Avalon, are you going to answer my question now?

[UltimaAvalon]

Peers answered it better than I would've. Now that its deadlined, unless something substantial happens, one of the two of Peers and jmar will be lynched. I think the bandwagon behind jmar (HE'S HUMAN! HE'S CHANGED HIS MIND IN THE LAST 2 WEEKS! KILL HEEM!) is stupid. I'd much rather see Peers lynched

[PlaysWithSquirrels]

We're four pages in and we've gotten nowhere. I for one am not happy with a random lynch- in my opinion it shouldn't even be up for discussion.

This is the post that first made me suspicious of jmar. Posts that say things that appear to be helpful but really just state a basic truth/common knowledge are really suspicious.

That's an interesting accusation coming from someone who's barely posted at all yet. You just made 4 posts that could have easily been one, and you had one before that which didn't say anything. But the reason I haven't said too much is because nothings really happened so far. The first 3 pages are discussions about random lynchings and people being pissed off at each other, then there was the whole power claim which I also offered my thoughts on. But there's not much to go on yet, so far I have no idea who could be scum. You say stop with the speculation on the setup, yet you offer no alternative? What would you have us discuss?

After I stated my suspicions, here is what jmar replies with. This is a pretty intense reaction from my simple declaration that he seems the scummiest. I'm pretty sure he's a new player so maybe he's just overreacting because of inexperience. This isn't particularly damning, but it doesn't make me feel better about him.

I've already defended myself against PlaysWithSquirrels' accusations. If you still wanna bandwagon me I've got no problem with it. But I'm gonna unvote, vote: PlaysWithSquirrels, because A, he seems like a jackass, and B, he's really pushing for a lynch when he has very little to go on. Plus he showed up around the 5th page and accused me of lurking. So, yeah.

Apparently he refuted everything I said. I just got owned. OMGUS ensues. Nice job.

That's about where I am at the moment. I'd like to see jmar hang.

[jmar]

It's not really OMGUS. I can safely say if that was the case against anybody else I'd still be voting for you, you don't really have a case in my opinion. You say my response was overreacting, but really, I think I logically refuted your accusation, which didn't make sense to me. I think I more got caught up in the irony of you accusing me of not contributing when that was like, your first post of any substance. I can see why the first post would appear scummy, I don't really have anything to say about it. It was just something I posted because that's where I felt the conversation was going at that point and I was trying to get everyone back on track.

Whatever. I don't think anything I'm gonna say is gonna convince you I'm not scum, mostly because I'm pretty sure you're scum and you've found your target, so I'm not too worried about it. If I do get lynched, you're going down the next day easily once everyone sees I'm town, so I guess that's good. Like I said before, I'm much more interested in the others on my bandwagon.

[Mirth]

So basically, you don't actually have a case PlaysWith?

[PlaysWithSquirrels]

So basically, you don't actually have a case PlaysWith?

I mean, there it is. It's basically the only analysis anybody has done in the game thus far.

[Peers]

So basically, you don't actually have a case PlaysWith?

It's as good a case as the one against me, honestly.

[originality]

Back and checkin in, what up.

[petroleumjelly]

Official Day One Vote Count: #11

jmar – 4 – PlaysWithSquirrelsCogito Ergo Scum, Blight, Peers
Peers – 4 – Mirth, originality, jmar, UltimaAvalon

Flameaxe – 1 – Unright
Unright – 1 – dybeck

With

12

alive, it takes

7

to lynch!

Not Voting – 2 – Flameaxe, killerbob

[Blight]

Hey. Sorry I haven't been to active lately. Been busy with work and school.

Here's the reason I chose to vote JMar.

I was feeling real confident with my Peers vote, until JMar chimed in with the whole "contradiction" statement after having admitted already that he thought Peers "power claim post" was hypothetical.

Unvote, Vote: JMar

To me, it seemed like JMar was being a little too opportunistic when he decided to go after Peers.

[Peers]

I'll just cruise along until Peers decides to stop speaking for me.

Peers answered it better than I would've.

Trying to reconcile these two posts... first he wants me to stop speaking for him (after I've stated I'm not speaking for him), and then he says I spoke for him better than he could... Do you really think I'm scum, or am I just too good at getting into your head and knowing what you're thinking, and you need to defend yourself?

[jmar]

Well nothing I can say is going to change your mind then, since I've already addressed that. But I think it's kinda obvious I should be on the Peers bandwagon just in terms of survival (I have plenty of other reasons, all of which I've stated at various points). It's pretty obvious that either me or Peers are gonna go, so not voting for him is A) Throwing my vote away and B) Not helping my case for remaining amongst the living.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

I'd like a claim from Jmar before the deadline.

[Peers]

Reasons to vote for Jmar:

Sept 28, 12:24 pm: Yeah its mostly random. I didn't mean much by it- I know he's joking but I felt like tossin in a random vote.

Oct 2, 9:12 pm: We're four pages in and we've gotten nowhere. I for one am not happy with a random lynch- in my opinion it shouldn't even be up for discussion.

There's our first contradiction... he votes randomly but does not want a random lynch. So then... why vote randomly?


Oct 5, 7:50pm: Care to elaborate why you find that scummy? Because it seems hypothetical to me. I understand your points guys but i think it's a bit of a leap to say Peers just power claimed.

Oct 11, 4:26 pm: Can somebody explain to me why originality's last move was so scummy? I'm not following you guys on this one. Seems minor at best to me.

He constantly seems unable to see why other people are scummy until others explain to him... the classic sign of a scum who wants to vote for someone but wants to do it in a way that he can claim innocence. "Yes, I voted to lynch townie X, but it's because Player Y explained why we should! Y must be scum! Not me!"


Oct 18, 3:18 pm: Also, isn't OMGUS voting this late in a scum tell? I'm not the most experienced here, so I can't be sure.

This on the same day of the game in which he, himself, OMGUS'd PlaysWithSquirrels. Coupled with another claim that he's not the most experienced here, so he can't be at fault for his choices.


Oct 19, 9:12 am: Is it just me or does dybeck voting for Peers, then unvoting and voting for Unright two posts later highly suspicious? One of his reasons was "I don't want this day to end just yet," but most of the Peers bandwagon unvoted. And Unright didn't even say anything to change dybecks mind, he just said he's going with his gut. IDK, seems like it could be a dybeck-Peers connection to me.

I guess having someone unvote for you is a scumtell now... he saw several people unvoting me and pulled a 'connection' out of thin air to try and convince people to get back on the bandwagon.

Jmar, I think you're scummy, especially from how you try to defend yourself with "I'm not the most experienced here" and a constant inability to see how other people are scummy until it's 'explained' to you. But at the end of the day... it doesn't matter which of us die. Remember saying this?

Oct 25, 11:54 pm: If I do get lynched, you're going down the next day easily once everyone sees I'm town, so I guess that's good.

You better believe it works both ways. When I die my death, my noble death, my Putty death... you'd better believe you're going down the next day. And no claims of "But I only voted for him after originality explained why I should" or "But I thought that OMGUS was a scumtell! I didn't know!" will save you.

[jmar]

Reasons to vote for Jmar:

Sept 28, 12:24 pm: Yeah its mostly random. I didn't mean much by it- I know he's joking but I felt like tossin in a random vote.

Oct 2, 9:12 pm: We're four pages in and we've gotten nowhere. I for one am not happy with a random lynch- in my opinion it shouldn't even be up for discussion.

There's our first contradiction... he votes randomly but does not want a random lynch. So then... why vote randomly?

Everyone votes randomly to start things off. I don't think anybody keeps their first random vote on and leaves it until the person is lynched... although you seem to have proposed it on the very same page...

We either lynch someone totally at random, or don't lynch anyone at all. If we lynch at random, at least there's a chance of hitting a scum... and UA may just be trying to protect himself with that "Oh, I always do this" 'joke'...

I find it a bit ironic that the post everybody keeps quoting from me was in response to your suggestion to lynch randomly.

Oct 5, 7:50pm: Care to elaborate why you find that scummy? Because it seems hypothetical to me. I understand your points guys but i think it's a bit of a leap to say Peers just power claimed.

Oct 11, 4:26 pm: Can somebody explain to me why originality's last move was so scummy? I'm not following you guys on this one. Seems minor at best to me.

He constantly seems unable to see why other people are scummy until others explain to him... the classic sign of a scum who wants to vote for someone but wants to do it in a way that he can claim innocence. "Yes, I voted to lynch townie X, but it's because Player Y explained why we should! Y must be scum! Not me!"

Peers, the dead horse called. He wants you to stop beating him. I've already said this over and over, I just didn't understand in either case. And I don't think I've ever tried to shift blame toward originality. I accept full responsibility for voting you. Hear that everybody? If Peers turns up town, lynch away. Originality has no blame for my actions.

Oct 18, 3:18 pm: Also, isn't OMGUS voting this late in a scum tell? I'm not the most experienced here, so I can't be sure.

This on the same day of the game in which he, himself, OMGUS'd PlaysWithSquirrels. Coupled with another claim that he's not the most experienced here, so he can't be at fault for his choices.

I didn't OMGUS PlaysWithSquirrels. I voted him because I thought he was grasping at straws, kind of like how you are here. If someone put up that weak of a case against anybody I'd be voting for them.

Oct 19, 9:12 am: Is it just me or does dybeck voting for Peers, then unvoting and voting for Unright two posts later highly suspicious? One of his reasons was "I don't want this day to end just yet," but most of the Peers bandwagon unvoted. And Unright didn't even say anything to change dybecks mind, he just said he's going with his gut. IDK, seems like it could be a dybeck-Peers connection to me.

I guess having someone unvote for you is a scumtell now... he saw several people unvoting me and pulled a 'connection' out of thin air to try and convince people to get back on the bandwagon.

Unvoting and then voting for someone else with basically no explanation seems pretty scummy in my opinion. Anyways, how is this convincing people to get back on your bandwagon? If anything it was turning attention away from you and toward dybeck.

Jmar, I think you're scummy, especially from how you try to defend yourself with "I'm not the most experienced here" and a constant inability to see how other people are scummy until it's 'explained' to you.

That quote was not used in defense. I said that when I was asking if OMGUS voting was a scum tell, leaving open the possibility that I could be wrong because I may have remembered it wrong. I wouldn't say its a constant inability to see how others are scum, I was asking people to explain their ideas more fully because I wasn't following their line of questioning. In my opinion, jumping on someone as scum because they simply didn't understand something is a lot more scummy, no?

But at the end of the day... it doesn't matter which of us die. Remember saying this?

Oct 25, 11:54 pm: If I do get lynched, you're going down the next day easily once everyone sees I'm town, so I guess that's good.

You better believe it works both ways. When I die my death, my noble death, my Putty death... you'd better believe you're going down the next day. And no claims of "But I only voted for him after originality explained why I should" or "But I thought that OMGUS was a scumtell! I didn't know!" will save you.

You don't scare me, scum. I'm willing to be one of us is scum, and I know its not me, so you're statement is basically meaningless, and your attempts at guessing what my hypothetical defense would be the next day are laughable at best. You're pissed that you've been caught, and so you go into a mocking tone as defense, except you forgot that I never actually used either of those as defense, and never will.

[Mirth]

Sorry it's been a busy, hectic, evil weekend. I'll have my analysis of why I think Peers is suspicious up in a short bit.

[Mirth]

Pbp of Peers:

1: votes Originality for some meta game reason.
2:

No, more a warning for him, really. I'm more than willing to give him a second chance, but I don't give thirds.

Which, I know, is scummy, because voting for someone regardless of what their role is can hurt the town... but I've yet to see actual logic applied on the first day, so...

3. votes Jmar for monty python quote
4. logistics of page 1 lynch
5. asks about point of Avalon bandwagon
6. doesn't like Avalong bandwagon, as it isnt funny and wastes time
7. comments about my name since I agree with him at this point
8. votes Avalon (...the hell?)
9.

If a logical lynch were possible, I'd be all for it. But it's not, given that we don't have any information to go on that doesn't stem from someone's attempts to get laughs out of the first day.

<-- why so fatalistic here and not even try?
10. mentions odds even for scum on bandwagon

11.

Unless, of course, nobody received that PM because nobody is a vanilla townie. It'd be a little high-powered for a small game, but this -is- Power Rangers...

12. Says its hypothetical, reserves right to claim Putty
13. Says last two posts might have not been slipped and used to confuse mafia. (My inner scientists says this sounds like bull)
14.

Because in the first place, I said one thing, and people implied something compeltely different -- I've given up trying to predict what I need to say in the first place or what needs to be justified.

<-- why try to predict how other people react to you, why not just play?
15. says he's getting defensive because he's being attacked
16. Asks why C.E.S. voted for him based on the last post
17. Says that I admit he's being attacked, so defense shouldn't be strange
18. Asks how one lurks in plain sight
19. Unvotes Avalon, says the bandwagoning in strange
20. Says suspects are: Avalon for generally being suspicious, Originality for vote/unvote, Jmar for saying Peers backtracked on the Putty thing

21. Says Avalon's voting wasn't obviously a joke and that he didn't know that it was
22. Votes Flameaxe, for misattributing quotes
23.

Note that I did not vote for UA until post 89 (or so), after I was aware it was some sort of joke bandwagon, and I gave as my reason for voting the fact that such jokes are not helpful to the town.

24. Attackes Flameaxe for "willfully" confusing him with Unright
25. Says jokes hurt the town, best solution is to elliminate the joker, trys to refute Avalon's post that miscounting is not a scumtell
26. Unvotes because he assumed that LAL was a "hard and fast rule"
27. Sarcasm
28. Asks CES about suspects
29. Acuses Avalon and someone else (probably Flame) of twisting words around
30. Says he himself never twisted words around

31. Votes Flame for being a jerk
32. Says lynching obnoious people is good for town even if they aren't scum
33. Says Flame's jerkiness is bad for town
34.

I have already answered this question. It doesn't. You may very well be town. However, if you are, you're the worst kind of town, one that pretty much ensures the game will be a scum victory. And therefor, you need to go.

35.

Amazingly enough, the reason you're bad town to me is that you attack with flimsy reasons. Go fig.

And now my new big scumtell is that... I don't care if you're town or scum? Wow.

Now, I'll agree with you, to a point. Wanting all the townies dead? Scumtell. Wanting lots of townies dead? Scumtell. Wanting one particular townie dead so he can't screw over the town and the rest of us can get the scum? Not a scumtell.

I'm fairly confident that if you don't get lynched today or tomorrow, the game will end in a scum victory, whether you're scum or not. And that, my friend, is why I don't care if you're scum or town... I know that your survival means the town loses.

36.

PEERS!

If you're so concerned about your ability to scumhunt, why are you willing to admit Flameaxe is town, but still convinced he needs to die. I see you turn IC in a few days, but you've obviously missed a very important lesson about what Town is supposed to do in Mafia. Town is supposed to LYNCH MAFIA! If there's someone who is townie yet obstructive, you don't waste a lynch. YOU IGNORE HIM!

The goal of the town is not to lynch mafia. The goal of the town is to win.

Most of the time, yes, the best way to do this is to lynch mafia. But there are cases (say, a goon who is siblings with a town power-role, or some situations involving SKs, or those involving town players who are acting like scum players) where it's best to lynch someone else. They are rare, but they exist, and we have one here.

Just because I'm going after you for something I find to be scummy, doesn't mean I'm here to screw over the town.

And yet, going after you for something I find to be scummy (note: In this case 'scummy' does not mean 'is scum' but means 'will make scum win') is a bad reason for me to vote for you? Double standards only apply if the two people are different factions.

I'm town. Which means you are... what, again?

37. Wants to lynch possible "bad townie" Flame to get rid of obstruction to scum hunting. see above.
38. sarcasm
39. Claims we're at a brick wall, thinks Flame is an obstruction
40.

If I'm lynched, then the town loses a member, no matter what you may believe. But that's okay; I think you're scum, too.

<-- and yet, lynching Flame, even if he is town, is A-Okay?

41. Claims Putty, Says mafia is a game using emotions and not logical, and that while lynching town is bad, he's still fine with it if it gets stuff done
42. says his "hypothetical" and putty claims are not contridictions
43. says he hasn't lied
44. thinks he's dead from voting
45.

Unvote

Don't know if it'll make a difference right now, but might as well.

And PWS, what has jmar done besides, y'know, listen to Originality and vote for me?

<---and yet you change your tune soon and accuse him of stuff. post hocing much?
46. Asks Jmar to clarify something
47. Says Jmar's point is from 2 weeks ago, asks why he didnt act on it before
48. Asks Originality why Jmar voting for Peers is bad, but Originality voting is not
49. Says that because of the "reserve right to claim putty" post his claim isnt contridictory of anything. (Not true)
50. Says power role post was an attempt to bother the mafia.

51. Says that he knows he's suspicious. Asks what other possible reason he could have for power role posts. Asks if my vote on him is too strong
52. Votes JMar for OMGUS reasons (thinks his vote is a hammer)
53. Says stuff without really making a point.
54. Admits the Jmar vote is OMGUS and that he missed an unvote
55. No point really. Arguing with Jmar over the putty thing
56. Says theres no dybeck/Peers connection. Scum apparently don't bus their buddies day 1
57. Answers for Avalon, says no chance to lynch anyone but Peers and Jmar
58. Says voting anyone else would be a waste
59. Said he missed the deadline rules
60. said he wasn't putting words any Avalons mouth

61. says PlaysWith's vote on Jmar may be a playstyle thing
62. says case against him is bad
63. doesn't seem to understand Avalon's sarcasm
64. Analysis of Jmar to make him look scummy.

Conclusion:

Confirm vote: Peers

[Unright]

I was willing to let the war with Flameaxe slide, but I'm seriously concerned with the fatalist attempt to frame JMar. The deadline is Nov 6th, which is 8 days away, yet Peers is pushing the falsity that he and JMar are the only lynchable candidates. Then he tries to send JMar up the river not because he really believes that JMar is scum, but just because he wants someone else to die instead of him.

I can't ignore such a scummy play.

unvote

vote: Peers

[Peers]

I was willing to let the war with Flameaxe slide, but I'm seriously concerned with the fatalist attempt to frame JMar. The deadline is Nov 6th, which is 8 days away, yet Peers is pushing the falsity that he and JMar are the only lynchable candidates. Then he tries to send JMar up the river not because he really believes that JMar is scum, but just because he wants someone else to die instead of him.

I can't ignore such a scummy play.

unvote

vote: Peers

Okay, in an attempt to get you to change your vote:

Who other than myself and jmar is lynchable at this point? Given that we would need four votes on someone who already has one vote, or five votes on someone who has no votes, to beat either one of us... who has caused enough discussion to get that many votes? I'll wait while you think about it... there isn't one I can see. Maybe you've discussed someone I missed, but I looked at everyone and all the votes, and nobody else has come close to being able to get that many votes.

And let's say you're in a situation where two people are being lynched: one you know 100% is town. One you don't know. Might be 50%, might be 75%, might be 0%. Which one do you try to get lynched? You'd try to get the 'maybe' lynched so the 100% Town can survive.

I know I'm town. Jmar, I'm not sure, but I'm a lot more sure of myself than of him. I'm doing what anyone else in the same situation would do. How many of you are comfortable voting for someone who is just doing exactly what you would do in the same situation?

Give me another target, one who's done more to get attention than jmar, and I'll consider your case and I'll consider changing my vote. But unless you've got a damn good case on someone and we can be sure they're scum... then I have to protect the player I'm 100% sure is town.

[Unright]

The deadline is

8

7 days away. You have plenty of time to re-read the thread. Pick-out your 1-11 most scummiest players. Make a case against them. Solicit responses and further discussion. And push for a lynch against anybody of your choosing. Surely if you're town, somebody must have tipped your scumdar.

But instead you're just picking on the most vulnerable player available. Townies will go after the scummiest players, while scum will just go after convenient prey.

Right now you're like the guy in Austin Powers who is 20 feet away from a slow-moving steamroller shouting "NOOOOOOOOOOO!!" You don't really have a logical grasp on the situation.

And JMar is OMGUSing right back at you so he's not necessarily better, but to be fair you started it.

[Mirth]

While I don't like Unright's sudden vote-hop, I must say he's right here. Peers, if you're a townie, your goal isn't to survive. Your goal is to make sure the scum don't. That being said, if you're a townie, you should be more concerned with getting rid of scum then making sure that you, yourself, are not lynched. This is because win conditions apply post mortem and all. What you're doing, however, is simply giving up. And you keep saying you are over and over again. You pretty much gave up even before the deadline with your wagon votes. Except for your original two random/joke votes, you've been wagon hopping and yet to actually express any original suspicion or make a claim that does not reak of being formulated post hoc.