Mini 775 - Hammersmouth Is Under Attack! (Game over)

[CJMiller]

@Artem and Percy: I wanted to say something on-topic so I wouldn't be seen as a lurker.

[kirroha]

How can you have hard feelings on people this early in the game? Inside information?

I meant that if I were in such a situation I would do that too, by accident, but that could be because I am rather absent-minded. Anyway, doubt on Percy has kind of regained for me, since he said:

You can do better than that, buddy. Some reason flashed through your brain when you were working your fingers around that keyboard of yours. Care to enlighten us?

Unvote
Vote: Pablo Molinero

Percy, I sort of defended you a bit since I didn't believe that you were the mafia, but this post you made made me think twice. Are you buddying up to me, by voting for the person who showed some suspicion at me? It's a pretty anti-town action, and you didn't give any case on Pablo before voting for him. I change my mind.

Unvote

Vote: Percy

[CJMiller]

The question at the front of my mind: Who's tying Percy's noose?

[Wulfy]

Unvote, vote: Percy

Diescumdie.

You're mafia in my book.

Unvote; Vote kabnenon007

This is purely wagon based and holds absolutely no reasoning of your own or even the VAGUEST attempts at a case. *Stradles you, holding your neck in my maw*

QUICK! GIVE ME THE COMMAND AND I'LL KILL HIM!

How can you have hard feelings on people this early in the game? Inside information?

I meant that if I were in such a situation I would do that too, by accident, but that could be because I am rather absent-minded. Anyway, doubt on Percy has kind of regained for me, since he said:

You can do better than that, buddy. Some reason flashed through your brain when you were working your fingers around that keyboard of yours. Care to enlighten us?

Unvote
Vote: Pablo Molinero

Percy, I sort of defended you a bit since I didn't believe that you were the mafia, but this post you made made me think twice. Are you buddying up to me, by voting for the person who showed some suspicion at me? It's a pretty anti-town action, and you didn't give any case on Pablo before voting for him. I change my mind.

Unvote

Vote: Percy

*Barks angrily*

How is it a good idea to let your emotions cloud your judgment (which is flawed) and place someone this close to a lynch when a pure bandwagon vote was just placed on him? The bandwagon is automatically scummier since town would NEVER rush to lynch someone. AND, judging from the list, it appears to me that the mafia is big, bad, and powerful. Be more careful next time.

Against your argument: You clearly didn't read carefully.

First: Pablo didn't really express any kind of quality suspicion against you.

Second: Percy didn't buddy up to you by defending you. He voted Pablo to maintain the RVS, which, incidently, Pablo claims we were out of. If anything, Percy was defending the Psycho, who placed the fourth vote on Percy. (This is a slightly more logical, though still reaching, conclusion.)

*Kicks you with my paws since someone else is in my maw)
And third: You never really explain how this particular kind of buddying is scummy... a vote on page 2 doesn't always (if ever?) express sincere opinion of suspicion agaisnt the player being voted for.

FoS: Kirr

[Wulfy]

The question at the front of my mind: Who's tying Percy's noose?

*Releases kabe, strolls over, bites your hand, returns to holding down kabe*

[Percy]

Holy shit, I am at L-1.

This is

INSANITY

.

I am posting this while I type my reply. Do not hammer, goddamn.

[Percy]

First up, on a careful re-read I have noticed that two people have unvoted me, putting me at L-3 rather than L-1. I'm sorry, I saw 6 votes for me and panicked.

Anyway, here's my analysis so far.

Why do you want to stay in the random voting stage for longer than need be? What is the purpose of the random voting stage as you see it? I personally dislike the random voting stage and I'll tell you why I want to move on from the it, which you say has generated this information... but then you answered your own question...

because it generated this information

and now we actually have something to discuss.

In answer to your first question, I don't think it's been "too long" in the random voting stage. There are clearly some players who have

completely

coasted by, and I don't want them being neglected.

I see the random voting stage as forcing everyone to talk. Not just one person doing an investigation on another person, and others agreeing with or knocking down that investigation - everyone has to start somewhere. I like the random vote stage because it allows me to see a little bit of each player.

I know we have information now, and I think the way my wagon has progressed is good information. But I didn't want this to be what we're working with, and now we're stuck here.

You claim that this "exploded out of not much at all" and I don't disagree with that, but what do you really expect to develop from the random voting? Would you suggest we jump over skyscrapers while we're still standing on the ground, or should we jump somewhere not as high first to get us in better position to jump the skyscrapers?

I believe I answered your first question - I want to see each player talk and state opinions, even if they're small and dumb. I don't really understand your second question, but I think a lack of a good starting point (in the random voting stage) leads to unnecessary tunnelling,

as evidenced by my current state

.

How do we not generate any useful content unless one of you is scum? That makes no sense at all to me. You can get reads off of the other players and how they see the situation as well as use what people say to start going off in new directions. Just because we start somewhere doesn't mean we are going to stay with that same focus until the end of the day or that other things aren't going to be coming up for discussion.

OK, I phrased that poorly. When I said "useful", I meant "information accurately identified as scumtells". I'm wary of the situation where the three of us get honed in on, our posts picked apart, scumtells manufactured until one of us is dead, and there isn't

any

chance we could hit scum because we're all town. Maybe we're not, maybe one of us is scum and it would be a great idea to shine the light on the three of us, but unless that's the case we're narrowing our search too early.

If anything, what you are saying is something that could help us to find scum if you are all town, by seeing who is trying to convince and hasten the lynching of one of you without further support.

Well, with the current state of affairs, who on my wagon do you think is scummy?


@Artem: I hope some of your questions were answered above, but I will answer this one separately:

What information do you hope to gather from the RVS that you can't after leaving it?

Sure, I can gather similar information as the day progresses, but the random vote stage makes it easy for everyone to contribute without having to weigh in on this case or that case.

I don't think the entirety of our playerbase is stupid enough to tunnel-vision on 3/12 of the players, without calling out lurkers.

Perhaps you are mistaken?

Seriously though, there hasn't been enough talk, and too much lurking.

Unvote, vote: Percy

Diescumdie.

FoS

. This is opportunistic scumwagonning.

@Artem and Percy: I wanted to say something on-topic so I wouldn't be seen as a lurker.

What, so "Filler." is saying something on topic? You said you had no idea why you said what you said, I asked for more information, and you just said "Filler."
Explanation now, please. You're avoiding the issue.

Are you buddying up to me, by voting for the person who showed some suspicion at me? It's a pretty anti-town action, and you didn't give any case on Pablo before voting for him. I change my mind.

There was no buddying. The content of my post was "It is still the random vote phase let's get everyone talking goddamn", and I voted Pablo simply because he posted directly before me. That was the only reason. Ascribing scummy motives and then voting me earns my

FoS

.

The question at the front of my mind: Who's tying Percy's noose?

How about you put the question I asked you at the front of my mind and examine who is voting for me and why.


Summary of my suspicions so far:
1. I am suspicious of

CJMiller

, for his post 23 and avoiding all questioning on the subject.
2. I am suspicious of

kabenon007

, for his wagon-jumping
3. I am suspicious of

kirroha

for her accusation of "buddying" which seems entirely manufactured.

Note that I am not suspicious of PsychoSniper in particular. I know he said "I think we can all agree" and spoke on behalf of the town, but I am willing to put that down to poor phrasing at the moment.

Well, looks like the random vote phase is over, despite my best attempts. I'll therefore

Unvote

and put my vote on my number one suspect,

Vote: CJMiller

.

[kirroha]

How is it a good idea to let your emotions cloud your judgment (which is flawed) and place someone this close to a lynch when a pure bandwagon vote was just placed on him? The bandwagon is automatically scummier since town would NEVER rush to lynch someone. AND, judging from the list, it appears to me that the mafia is big, bad, and powerful. Be more careful next time.

I am not rushing a lynch. I am merely trying to put more pressure on Percy to see if he would actually react differently. When people are pressured, they would tend to give out scummish signals or pro-town signals depending on their alignment. In another game I played (now over) I refrained from pressuring somebody and got accused because of that, since they started thinking that the person I refused to pressure because he's already at L-2 was my scumbuddy.

[Pablo Molinero]

Are you buddying up to me, by voting for the person who showed some suspicion at me? It's a pretty anti-town action, and you didn't give any case on Pablo before voting for him. I change my mind.

I think your logic is far fetched, kirroha, and the situation you proposed was a little too leaps in logic/speculation for my liking. It seems to me Percy was just continuing on with his RVS (which we are most definitely out of now) since I wasn't even mentioned in Percy's post where he voted me.

Between CJMiller's one-line style that I abhor (not really helpful to the town) and kabenon007's very blatant (sarcastic?) wagon hopping, I think there are two top suspects with kirroha bringing up the rear at #3. Let's get a bit more pressure on here:

Unvote; Vote kabnenon007

[kirroha]

I think your logic is far fetched, kirroha, and the situation you proposed was a little too leaps in logic/speculation for my liking. It seems to me Percy was just continuing on with his RVS (which we are most definitely out of now) since I wasn't even mentioned in Percy's post where he voted me.

Oh! I see. Thanks for clearing it up. I felt it suspicious because I thought RVS was over, and yet Percy voted for someone without any reason at all and the person whom he voted for was the person who showed a tiny bit of suspicion of me at that time, so I thought he was trying to buddy up. Sorry, I'm a bit paranoid. ^^;

Anyway, thanks for clearing up.

Unvote

[kabenon007]

Wagons are used to lynch. Getting on them serves the town. I jumped on as vote four. If you're going to get pissed at someone for a wagon, go after the ones who put him at -2 and -1. I jumped on because I believed at that moment that Percy was the scummiest, therefore my vote would rest with him. I witheld my reasons for reactions, which I got.

@Pablo

You criticize me for wagon hopping. How is it any different from any of the other random voting stage antics that go on Day 1? You yourself say that my hopping was blatant (sarcastic?) So, you've got your answers right there... why vote me for it?

[Tarballs]

2nd Vote Count of Day 1

3 - Percy

(CJMiller, PsychoSniper, kabenon007)

2 - PsychoSniper

(iamausername, Farkshinsoup)

2 - kabenon007

(Wulfy, Pablo Molinero)

1 - Artem

(_over9000)

1 - iamausername

(Artem)

1 - CJMiller

(Percy)

2 - Not Voting

(semioldguy, kirroha)


With 12 alive, it takes 7 votes to lynch.

Deadline: May 12th, 2009

[kirroha]

Wagons are used to lynch. Getting on them serves the town. I jumped on as vote four. If you're going to get pissed at someone for a wagon, go after the ones who put him at -2 and -1. I jumped on because I believed at that moment that Percy was the scummiest, therefore my vote would rest with him. I witheld my reasons for reactions, which I got.

Erm, is that directed at me? Because I failed to find any relevance of that with what I posted just now.

[PsychoSniper]

I know that I've gotten 2 votes for my presumptious statement. I suppose I deserved that. You're right, I should not have behaved as though I was speaking on behalf of the town. From my point of view, it was obvious that Percy was the only one who'd done anything really suspicious at the time, but I shouldn't have spoken for anyone else. You guys have every right to take offense at that, and I apologize. If you really suspect me of being scum because of that...I don't what else I can say except that I tend to get carried away occasionally in a game.

With regards to Percy, though, I don't think I was wrong to place my vote, even if it's the 4th. Perosnally, I consider -3 to be still a safe margin away from lynch, and I definitely wanted to pressure him for a explanation. Considering all the other 3 votes on him at the time were random votes, I'm sure they would have been removed if the rest of the town think my vote was unjustified. I certainly didn't think my vote would have led to a quick-lynch, it requires 3 other guys to hammer-pile on after me in quick succession without givng Percy time to respond, and if that happens, they would risk have the rest of the town after them, myself included.

I have read Percy's explanation since, and I'm not sure if i can buy it. Your determination to keep this in the RVS may indeed explain your switch of vote away from CJM (although I'm still rather dubioous about that point), but when you placed yet another "random" vote on Pablo Molinero, I find that even more suspicious. I just don't see what that vote can possibly achieve

after

you've already publicly announced that your votes are random. What kind of reaction other than a good laugh can you possibly get out of that vote? Who's going to take it seriously when they already know the vote on them was purely random, whether they're town or scum? If anything, IMO throwing too much random votes around only diminish the effectiveness of the vote.

Personally, I think your third "random" vote was just a red herring make us think that your previous vote was also random. At this point, my suspicion is on you and CJM being scumbuddies. He did something that looked odd (his warning about the number of votes you had may be him trying too hard to look town when there was no need to), you realised how that could have been interpreted as scummy, and you FOSed him as a warning. Then you were afraid that he might attract votes for that action, so you moved your own away for safety. I don't think you vote-switched was as "random" as it may seem.

For now, I'm happy to keep my vote where it is, although my theory leads me to believe that CJM is also scum.

And then there's kabenon007, whose behaviour has been bizzare to me too, and doesn't seem to be helpful to the town. 3 posts so far, 2 of them just plain random wagon votes, and the last post....I don't quite know what to make of it. If he's scum, I don't think he's with Percy and CJM, since he just waggoned Percy and put him at -2.

For now,

FOS: CJM and kabenon007

, although I don't think they're scum together, but I think at least one of them is.

[PsychoSniper]

Wagons are used to lynch. Getting on them serves the town. I jumped on as vote four. If you're going to get pissed at someone for a wagon, go after the ones who put him at -2 and -1. I jumped on because I believed at that moment that Percy was the scummiest, therefore my vote would rest with him. I witheld my reasons for reactions, which I got.

@Pablo

You criticize me for wagon hopping. How is it any different from any of the other random voting stage antics that go on Day 1? You yourself say that my hopping was blatant (sarcastic?) So, you've got your answers right there... why vote me for it?

I think you've answered your own questions too. You withheld your reason for a vote that put someone at -2, and I think it would be strange if people

don't

attack you for it.

I

got heat for putting someone at -3, and at least I stated my reasons.

You claimed that you held back your reasons for "reaction", which you got. Well, now that you got what you set out for, would you care to share if any of these "reactions" have helped you in scum-hunting?

[iamausername]

Percy and Psycho could both be innocents making mistakes during the RVS, or could be scum slipping up. There is pretty much equal chance of both, so I do not think we should really get started on either of them right now.

The whole point of "getting started on them" is to try to help us figure out if they are more likely to be innocents making mistakes or scum slipping up. If we don't questions things because they might be coming from town or scum, we will never get anything done.

@iamausername and Farkshinsoup: You're voting Psycho for over-generalizing his suspicion to the whole town, but you're ignoring the fact that he's right. Percy's removal of the vote from somebody he FoSed is unusual. Why are you ignoring Psycho's point?

I don't think Percy's action was overtly scummy, but it did need further explanation. But since people had already asked him for further explanation, I had nothing more to add to that line of enquiry.

At this point in the game, my votes don't mean suspicion (

and neither does anyone else's, for the most part

).

Wrong.

Yes, getting started on us will generate content, but it won't be useful content unless one of Psycho, CJMiller or myself is scum.

Wrong.

If we're all town caught in a clusterfuck of vague reads, the scum will rub their hands and hasten this along until one of us gets lynched.

Exactly. If you think you know how the scum will react in the situation where Psycho, Percy and CJ are all town, how can you say that it won't help us catch them?

I'd prefer to keep my focus wide at this point.

I don't understand how this even relates to voting people you find suspicious vs. voting people for no reason whatsoever. You can keep a wide focus just as well while voting with your suspicions as you can voting at random.

Unvote, vote: Percy

Diescumdie.

Reasons are nice.

Percy, I sort of defended you a bit since I didn't believe that you were the mafia, but this post you made made me think twice. Are you buddying up to me, by voting for the person who showed some suspicion at me?

This is a pretty huge leap.

Sure, I can gather similar information as the day progresses, but the random vote stage makes it easy for everyone to contribute without having to weigh in on this case or that case.

If they're not weighing in on any cases, then what are they really contributing?

What, so "Filler." is saying something on topic? You said you had no idea why you said what you said, I asked for more information, and you just said "Filler."
Explanation now, please. You're avoiding the issue.

No, I think "Filler" was the answer to "why did you feel the need to point out that Percy had three votes?", and "I wanted to say something on topic" was an elaboration on what he meant by "Filler". So the pointing out Percy's number of votes was the wanting to say something on topic.

Of course, the attitude of "I wanted to say something on topic, so I wouldn't be seen as a lurker" is still something to be concerned about, whatever it's referring to.

I jumped on because I believed at that moment that Percy was the scummiest, therefore my vote would rest with him. I witheld my reasons for reactions, which I got.

As you've got your reactions now, could you possibly refrain from witholding your reasons?

I am not rushing a lynch. I am merely trying to put more pressure on Percy to see if he would actually react differently. When people are pressured, they would tend to give out scummish signals or pro-town signals depending on their alignment.

Well, this is pretty directly contradictory with the kirroha quote at the very start of this post. When exactly did you change your mind about this being a good idea?

Personally, I think your third "random" vote was just a red herring make us think that your previous vote was also random. At this point, my suspicion is on you and CJM being scumbuddies. He did something that looked odd (his warning about the number of votes you had may be him trying too hard to look town when there was no need to), you realised how that could have been interpreted as scummy, and you FOSed him as a warning. Then you were afraid that he might attract votes for that action, so you moved your own away for safety. I don't think you vote-switched was as "random" as it may seem.

This is all pretty baseless speculation, but it completely falls apart at the end, because Percy clearly tried to move his vote

before

CJ's warning, even if it didn't count due to lack of unvote. So it obviously can't have been done as a reaction to CJ.

---

over9000, where are you?

Unvote, Vote: kirroha

. Definite vibes of "trying too hard to look town" coming from this one.

[CJMiller]

FoS: farkshinsoup

FoS: _over9000

both for lurking.

[Pablo Molinero]

You criticize me for wagon hopping. How is it any different from any of the other random voting stage antics that go on Day 1?

Because despite Percy's best efforts we were out of the RVS and you were putting on the L-2 vote with a zwet/empking/millar-like post.

You yourself say that my hopping was blatant (sarcastic?) So, you've got your answers right there... why vote me for it?

Wait, blatant hopping with little reason shouldn't be reason for a vote? Like hell it shouldn't.

I jumped on because I believed at that moment that Percy was the scummiest, therefore my vote would rest with him. I witheld my reasons for reactions, which I got.

Seems fishy to me due to the fact that anyone deceiving, withholding their motives, can hide behind that "looking for reactions" when there STILL have been no real reasons for the Percy vote. Until you can tell be about these elusive "reactions" and "reasons", my vote stands.

[kirroha]

Okay, I'll do a slight longie.

Defense

The whole point of "getting started on them" is to try to help us figure out if they are more likely to be innocents making mistakes or scum slipping up. If we don't questions things because they might be coming from town or scum, we will never get anything done.

That is true. However, I do believe that pressure had been enough for Percy, and that I was rather convinced at that time that both are innocent. I was not suspicious of Percy's "vote-switching" at that time, as I think that I would have done the same as well - it's human nature to correct mistakes that other people have made. Thus, I did not actually see the point of over-pressurizing Percy. When scum see us fighting among ourselves, it would be better for them without them even lifting a finger.

Also, I have seen quite a few games where somebody was given a few pressure votes, and gotten lynched as a normal Townie because a few others voted for him later without looking at the previous vote counts. We don't want that to happen.

At this point in the game, my votes don't mean suspicion (and neither does anyone else's, for the most part).

Random voting stage should be almost, if not, over. Most of the votes here already hint at suspicion.

This is a pretty huge leap.

I unvoted him after I realised that RVS was not yet over. I was just confused at why he voted for somebody without any reason stated at all, and the person he voted for was exactly the person who showed a slight hint of suspicion at me at that time.

Well, this is pretty directly contradictory with the kirroha quote at the very start of this post. When exactly did you change your mind about this being a good idea?

When other people before you convinced me that more pressure won't hurt, of course. After all, as long as we make sure that nobody lynches him before everybody is sure, it would be alright.

Also, do note that I only voted for him because of something that I mistook as a scumtell from him, by voting for PsychoSniper.

In another game I played (now over) I refrained from pressuring somebody and got accused because of that, since they started thinking that the person I refused to pressure because he's already at L-2 was my scumbuddy.

Yeah, just for reference.

Definite vibes of "trying too hard to look town" coming from this one.

Um, why may I ask? If it's just your intuition, it is not exactly very reliable since it's mostly based on luck. But if you have any evidence against me or any questions to want to ask, feel free to post here.

Accusation

Okay, purely defending myself isn't going to let the Town go anywhere. I've read through all the posts, so I should post a bit on what I think about the players here so far.

My current biggest suspect whom I'm going to concentrate on is

kabenon007

.

First, let's look at his infamous first post:

Unvote, vote: Percy

Diescumdie.

It was nice of you to join us today in Page 2. And your first post? Hop on the biggest wagon so far without posting any thoughts about why you think he's scum, instead immediately assuming he's scum and saying "Diescumdie". Care to explain that? That "dramatic entry" that you have made halfway into the game?

If you want to jump on a wagon because you agree with the others that the person you're voting for is scum, at least give in your two cents. Provide your own thoughts and feelings before jumping on the wagon, instead of acting like a complete airhead. The way you said "Diescumdie" without anything else, it meant two things: You do not have your own opinion, and yet you are automatically marking him down as scum for absolutely no reason at all.

Wagons are used to lynch. Getting on them serves the town. I jumped on as vote four. If you're going to get pissed at someone for a wagon, go after the ones who put him at -2 and -1. I jumped on because I believed at that moment that Percy was the scummiest, therefore my vote would rest with him. I witheld my reasons for reactions, which I got.

Yes, wagons are used to lynch. Getting on them speeds up a lynch. I'm sure you know that well. But nobody is pissed off at a wagon, kabenon. That time, they're pissed off at you for jumping on the wagon without any proof whatsoever. If you believed that Percy was the scummiest, then say why he is scummy! You said he was scum without providing any evidence or any of your thoughts. What made you so sure, I wonder?

And now, the game has been 3 pages. However, you've only posted two posts - the "diescumdie" post, and the defensive one. What do you have to say about yourself?

I hope you speak up more. Also, looking forward to your proper defense. I might take down my vote on you if you do.

Vote: kabenon007

[Farkshinsoup]

There's already a great level of activity in this game, which bodes well for it.
But am I really getting called out for lurking when 24 hours had not even passed since my last post, and we're only on page 3? And by a player who has posted a lot but said almost nothing (lurking in plain sight)?

I can't go into to much detail right now - I'll post more in the next 12 hours with my thoughts, and I'll answer artem's question and any others.

Unvote

until I reread.

[Artem]

@Percy:

I still disagree. Even if we have one/two cases that everybody is honed in on, we can still analyze all of the players:
-A lurker avoiding participation in the case discussion is more suspicious, in my opinion, than a lurker avoiding participation in the RVS;
-A mafia is given more opportunities to manufacture scum-tells when we're honed in on a case, thereby giving us more information to work with than we would have in the RVS;

Just look at Kabenon and Kirr. Players are suspicious of them because of the case on you, not because of the RVS. While the focus started out on you, we've expanded to more players as the case unfolded.

Like I said, I find you anti-town, but that's mostly because I disagree with your playstyle. I don't think you're scummy.

---------------------------------

@Kabe:

Wagons are used to lynch. Getting on them serves the town. I jumped on as vote four. If you're going to get pissed at someone for a wagon, go after the ones who put him at -2 and -1.

Scum would like to be on the wagon early, wouldn't they?

I jumped on because I believed at that moment that Percy was the scummiest, therefore my vote would rest with him. I witheld my reasons for reactions, which I got.

Care to share with us the conclusions you've reached from the reactions you got?

---------------------------

@Kirr:

Oh! I see. Thanks for clearing it up. I felt it suspicious because I thought RVS was over, and yet Percy voted for someone without any reason at all and the person whom he voted for was the person who showed a tiny bit of suspicion of me at that time, so I thought he was trying to buddy up. Sorry, I'm a bit paranoid. ^^;

This is your response to Pablo, who pointed out that Percy voted for him because of the want-more-RVS reasons, and not buddying. This caused you to unvote.

Yet, Percy explained the exact same thing two posts above Pablo's

. Why is that Pablo's word has more weigh to you than Percy's?

Unvote;

FoS: Kirr

Agree with iamausername on Kirr's vibe.

--------------------------------

Now, I'm going to switch gears and talk about my role.

After spending some time thinking about it, I think I'm going to claim, because otherwise I don't see how my role is useful.

I'm a

Self-Watcher

, which means that (unless blocked or jailed) I get a list of players night-targeting me at the beginning of each day.

From what I understand, this is a doubly-edged sword. On the one hand, other than a potential doctor protection, the mafia has no night ability that would not kill or block me. That means that anybody who appears on my list at the beginning of the day is either town or a mafia doctor.

On the other hand, if I reveal my "investigation" results, I would be outing the town's power roles.

I'm still trying to figure out the best play for town with this information, but the reason I claimed is that my role requires others to target me at night, and outside of me being purposefully scummy or a stellar scum-hunter, it's not likely to happen.

[kabenon007]

Phail kirroha. That was my second post. Please read the first page. I jumped on a wagon then as well. Now why would that be, kids? That's how I play the first day. I hate the first day with a passion, more than likely because of my IRL mafia experiences of people just randomly bandwagoning someone to death,

with no information coming out of it.

In this game, information is all we've got to go on, so we need as much of it as possible. Look at all the information that's come out of my short little post. There are people accusing me, there are people who are avoiding talking about my actions (perhaps to keep attention away from themselves?)

I believe that my vote should have rested with Percy because, as I said, he was the scummiest at the time I voted. This was because a) there is never much information to go on in Day 1 and b) because he was the one exhibiting the scummiest behavior.

Point One
He says his FoS's are his signs of suspicion when his votes are not. First off, that's just weird. I never saw an explanation as to why he works like this, and would like one. It does not make sense that the vote that could kill someone is not a symbol of your suspicion, because it should. An FoS won't kill scum. A vote will.

Point Two
He wanted to keep things in the random voting stage. Keeping things in the random voting stage only traps the town in getting random information. Random voting stage yields random information until we find a way to get ourselves out of it, which is another reason for my wagon/ witholding of my reasons. It helped create responses and therefore information.

That is why I voted for Percy.

And now, until I discover who exactly I want to vote for this information, I will

unvote

FoS

on Psycho for his appeal to emotion apology.

Also, can we please realize that I put Percy at -3? Everyone keeps saying I put him at -2, when it's at -3 I put him. Please do research before pulling that accusation on me.

[Pablo Molinero]

That's how I play the first day. I hate the first day with a passion, more than likely because of my IRL mafia experiences of people just randomly bandwagoning someone to death, with no information coming out of it.

In this game, information is all we've got to go on, so we need as much of it as possible. Look at all the information that's come out of my short little post.

"That's just how I play" is an insufficient excuse for scummy actions, although you freely admit it (first step to admitting you have a problem). You say that you hate Day 1, due to lack of information we get from it, to rationalize your actions to get it over with as soon as possible. And yet in the same post you pride yourself on getting info and talking points going with your vote. I'm seeing two distinct themes that clash.

There are people accusing me, there are people who are avoiding talking about my actions (perhaps to keep attention away from themselves?)

Yes there are these people. Now what does it all mean? Who are they? Point us in the right direction; info without analysis is useless.

However, I agree with getting out of the RVS as soon as possible and your points on the muddled info you get from it.

CJMiller - Enough with the active lurking. You're coasting. Post something more than 1 line.

And I really, really have no idea how to react to Artem's roleclaim out of the blue. I guess we see on day 2? This either sets you up to be NKed later, be protected, or launch a grand lie. I don't exactly like telegraphing a role in trying to draw out/dictate the doc's protection.

[kabenon007]

"That's just how I play" is an insufficient excuse for scummy actions, although you freely admit it (first step to admitting you have a problem). You say that you hate Day 1, due to lack of information we get from it, to rationalize your actions to get it over with as soon as possible. And yet in the same post you pride yourself on getting info and talking points going with your vote. I'm seeing two distinct themes that clash.

This is hilarious. Where did I say I'm trying to get Day 1 over with as soon as possible? You drew that conclusion on your own my friend. Also, you misinterpreted what I said, drawing your entire accusation from it.

Here's what I wrote:

I hate the first day with a passion, more than likely because of my IRL mafia experiences of people just randomly bandwagoning someone to death,

with no information coming out of it.

which Pablo interpreted as:

You say that you hate Day 1, due to lack of information we get from it,

I hate it due to the quick lynches that I've seen happen that give no information, not the fact that there is no information.

Yes there are these people. Now what does it all mean? Who are they? Point us in the right direction; info without analysis is useless.

I am not omnipotent. Gathering information is gathering information is gathering information. I had no particular goal in who I wanted to get information from, I have no particular person I was trying to trap or whatever. I was just getting information, mostly for use come Day 2. Once we have a couple corpses on our hands, we can then look back and see who defended who, who accused who, and who avoided speaking about anyone. Besides, I don't want to point anyone in the right direction, as that would be leading the town. People can take what they want from the information gathered. They don't need me to "point them in the right direction." Frankly, as of right now, I can't point them in the right direction, because I don't know where it is. But I didn't gather the information to try to lead the town somewhere, I gathered it just to get some information out there.

However, I agree with getting out of the RVS as soon as possible and your points on the muddled info you get from it.

You say it's muddled, but don't say how. How can I defend myself if I don't have anything but "muddled" to defend against?

[Artem]

And I really, really have no idea how to react to Artem's roleclaim out of the blue. I guess we see on day 2? This either sets you up to be NKed later, be protected, or launch a grand lie. I don't exactly like telegraphing a role in trying to draw out/dictate the doc's protection.

Considering, we don't even know there's a doc, I'm hardly dictating what the doc should do.

From what I understand, my role is to confirm other claims. If, say, another watcher or a tracker comes out later in the game and claims their role, I can confirm them if they've targeted me in the past. (assuming I'm still alive at that point, etc.)

I've decided to claim before any other role information was revealed, because in my head it would be more risky for scum to lie at this point. (In other words, you don't know whether or not I'm telling the truth, so I'm setting myself up for higher scum-risk, because I'm confident in the truth of my claim.).... (Yea, yea, I know - borders on WIFOM.)

In the worse case, I'll just soak up an NK or a roleblock, which is not too bad as my role is not as powerful as others may be.