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

[Pablo Molinero]

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.

Ah, see, you specified nothing about the speed of the wagon in question. "Random bandwagons" did not jump out as "quick lynches" to me. Your clarification makes sense; imagine that.

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?

Sarcastic remarks, jokes, mistakes that can be written off as 'jokes': we don't know what's genuine in the RVS and it can let mafia get away with pretty much anything.

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.

Well said. At the risk of going, "I agree", I'm also of the mind that Day 1 is huge for information purposes later in the game.

unvote

[semioldguy]

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

Not only do I think the above quote is completely wrong, but comparing it to your following post…

I'm determined to keep things in the random vote stage, looking at everyone and yes, fishing for reactions before we go tunnelling in on any subset of players.

If the votes don’t mean suspicion, what exactly are you expecting to get out of the random voting stage by determining to keep the game from moving past that?

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.

We are by no means stuck here. As can now clearly be seen. This is way too premature to think we are stuck anywhere. It’s only the third page.

...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

.

I don’t see a bunch of tunneling going on right now. I see a variety of discussion for how early in the game it is with multiple people and things being discussed. Again, it is premature to make this claim as the game has hardly begun. Could you point out this tunneling to me?

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

As of your post (Post 56), kabenon007
Since then, kirroha

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.

How is there actual contributing in the random voting stage? Especially considering your previous point that you don’t think votes mean much of anything during the random voting stage.

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

The game has hardly been open, again I will reiterate that it is page three, and I also think this game is surprisingly active at this point and that not all that much lurking is going on yet. Who were you thinking of as lurking when you made this post?

I strongly disagree with your playstyle so far and the way you look at things. I would like some input as to why you think these things and in some places where you seem to jump to early conclusions and state contradictory opinions.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

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. But I really want to listen to some sort of defense from Psycho.

Looking back through the thread, this quote contradicts itself. You state that you don’t want to get started on either Percy or Psycho right now. Then in the very next sentence you say you want to hear a defense from Psycho. How is this not getting started on Psycho?

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.

This seems to go against what you thought in Post 37. You already explained that when iamusername pointed it out, so I am not looking for an answer again. But to me this seems like you are acting in a way to avoid your own lynch. Now obviously no one wants to get lynched, but if you are town and act accordingly you shouldn’t have any fear of being lynched in my opinion because (1) You shouldn’t be a target; and (2) If you are a target the town is likely going to be gaining a decent amount of information if you were to be killed and your alignment then confirmed.

Your actions as town will speak for themselves and you pointing your previous game out in this way only seems to point out your worry of self-preservation. I don’t like that. This situation is different than your last one. No one here was thinking that Percy is your scumbuddy or getting on you to pressure him more. This looks to me like preempting a future possible concern. If you are town I think you’d be able to address it as it comes and act accordingly.

It is further emphasized when you quote part of this segment yourself “just for reference” in Post 68. To me this is something a scum player would be thinking about in order to avoid a previous unfavorable outcome. If you were town you could have just played the same way you did before and pointed to your previous game(s) as just being your playstyle.

Vote: kirroha

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

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.

I’m still running this claim through my head. Right now I think it would have been better not to reveal yourself to the town. Yes, I understand that by revealing you are making a move that hinders Mafia who plan on fake role claiming, but it does not prevent them from doing so. It just limits what they are able to fake claim as. I’m not suggesting this is bad; it’s good as far as I can tell. It’s just not all inclusive.

However, I think you should have waited to claim until after the first claimed power role. This could have possibly caught a fake-claim in the act or helped prove someone innocent who claims a power role. A town power role isn’t going to fake claim, so this does not really affect their actions any aside from choosing you as a target during the nights; but if they do that because of your claim, then they could be wasting a night when they could have used their ability in a more beneficial way. Additionally, scum are now aware of a situation that they were not aware of before.

I don’t like most day one claims out of the blue. There are a few exceptions to that, but this isn't one of them. I’m willing to believe it for now, but I don’t think it was the best move.

I would like to hear what others think of this claim though.

[semioldguy]

One more thing...

@ CJMiller

Please add more content to your posts. Thank you.

[CJMiller]

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

So I'm scum just because I don't post a 15-page dissertation every 24 hours?

Unvote

Vote: Pablo Molinero

for discriminating against new players.

[Pablo Molinero]

Hah, how petty. Gonna FoS semioldguy while you're at it?

[Artem]

However, I think you should have waited to claim until after the first claimed power role. This could have possibly caught a fake-claim in the act or helped prove someone innocent who claims a power role. A town power role isn’t going to fake claim, so this does not really affect their actions any aside from choosing you as a target during the nights; but if they do that because of your claim, then they could be wasting a night when they could have used their ability in a more beneficial way. Additionally, scum are now aware of a situation that they were not aware of before.

I can't prove somebody innocent unless they appear on my list at the beginning of the day. By claiming early, I'm maximizing the utility of my role, because now every other power role can choose to target me... or they may choose not to (to avoid wasting their power). In either case, they are more aware of the consequences of their move and can plan accordingly. I'm not advocating any roles behaving a certain way, I'm simply providing options.

Yes, the mafia is now aware of a situation they weren't aware of in the past. But now they have to choose between allowing me to have investigation results or to waste their NK (or potentially a role-block) on me, allowing other, more powerful, roles to go uninterrupted.

Claiming day 2 or later makes less sense for me as I would have wasted the first night with nobody targeting me (or I would have to bet on a chance that somebody targets me).

A self-watcher is a lot like a miller, in the sense that my role is inherent to my existence rather than to my actions. As such, claiming early is the correct move.

(The only thing we've lost is a chance of a mafia claiming a self-watcher and me counter-claiming, but I think that chance is pretty slim because such a fake-claim would be pretty hard for the mafia to execute since they know our alignment but not roles.)

[_over9000]

Please note that I have only read up to page 70.

unvote

first of all.


Second, I would like to officially

FOS: PsychoSniper

Psycho gets an FOS from me because, from what I've read of his posts, he appears to be using a strategy of becoming overly friendly with the town. He has refrained from making any actual arguments, instead using very polite phrases and overall tone. I find it hard to believe, were he town, that he would be so passive in his mannerisms.

[Artem]

I just realized that if there's a watcher in the game, they can watch me the next night and if I die or get blocked, they will know the name of a mafia.

[Artem]

...unless they are ninja. Nevermind. :-/

[semioldguy]

I understand your reasoning, it's just different than my own. That doesn't necessarily make one of us wrong about how to play the Self-Watcher role, just different methods. The Self-Watcher is also a moderately testable role as another player can target you and if he claims later on, he can ask you what night he targeted you. If you answer correctly, then it can help toward confirm both of you. So your role claim can help in that regard in a way that I didn't think of during my previous post. For now I believe your role claim, it's just been handled differently than I might have.

Also I don't know that a counter-claim would necessarily mean anything as I don't see anywhere in the rules that states we can't have more than one of the same role.

[semioldguy]

So I'm scum just because I don't post a 15-page dissertation every 24 hours?

Unvote

Vote: Pablo Molinero

for discriminating against new players.

Discriminating against short posts is not the same as discriminating against new players.

[_over9000]

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.

He then went on to say that he "hates it do to the quick lynches... that give no information". However, he seems to have no problem with jumping on a bandwagon on the very first page.

But

I didn't gather the information to try to lead the town somewhere,

I gathered it just to get some information out there.

You just directly confessed that what you were doing wasnt helping the town in any way. If you aren't with the town, you're against it. No in-between.

I've read up to the most recent post, and I am definitely confident in a

vote: kabenon007

Now, I have a couple of questions for two of the other players.



First of all, PsychoSniper, can you defend my FOS against you in my previous post?


CJMiller, where do you get "discriminating against new players" out of Pablo Molinero's comments? He wasn't the only one telling you to add more content, so why did you vote for him? In fact, why did you find it to be worthy of a vote towards any of them?

FOS: CJMiller

[kirroha]

This seems to go against what you thought in Post 37. You already explained that when iamusername pointed it out, so I am not looking for an answer again. But to me this seems like you are acting in a way to avoid your own lynch. Now obviously no one wants to get lynched, but if you are town and act accordingly you shouldn’t have any fear of being lynched in my opinion because (1) You shouldn’t be a target; and (2) If you are a target the town is likely going to be gaining a decent amount of information if you were to be killed and your alignment then confirmed.

Your actions as town will speak for themselves and you pointing your previous game out in this way only seems to point out your worry of self-preservation. I don’t like that. This situation is different than your last one. No one here was thinking that Percy is your scumbuddy or getting on you to pressure him more. This looks to me like preempting a future possible concern. If you are town I think you’d be able to address it as it comes and act accordingly.

It is further emphasized when you quote part of this segment yourself “just for reference” in Post 68. To me this is something a scum player would be thinking about in order to avoid a previous unfavorable outcome. If you were town you could have just played the same way you did before and pointed to your previous game(s) as just being your playstyle.

The "Just for Reference" bit was one of my previous posts that I think you all might have missed, not a quote from another game. And sorry, I didn't really get what you meant about why you suspected me. Can you explain?

[kirroha]

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.

Second post then, but still, you jumped on a wagon in your first post. How is that not called wagon hopping? You posted little or no proof on why you suspect someone. You just try to go with the flow and explain it with "I hate the first day with a passion". Then if that's the case, you mean you don't mind if somebody bandwagons you either? In the first day it is extremely crucial to gather information. You saying that you can't get any information from the first day does not sound very appealing to me. Is that a defensive statement to state that we are not supposed to gather any information from the posts that you made?

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.

Yup, that is true. But even though he had posted a wrong statement, it does not seem to make him any scummier. Why would scum do that? Sure, it's a very "missing the point" post, but I fail to see how scum may benefit from posting something like that. I don't think that constitutes as a valid point.

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.

Even then, if he purposely posts a random vote after the RVS, I don't think it counts as scummy behavior either, as with the previous point that you had made. It's just him making lots of mistakes, not a scum slipping up. He can't benefit from it, it only serves to make him seem more suspicious. He failed to understand this bit. True, this makes him seem quite village-idioty, but not scummy. He doesn't deserve a lynch.

From what you said I think you're just trying hard to squeeze things to explain your bandwagoning vote. If you had had reasons earlier, you would've posted earlier. Thus, I think you're just posting all these to make yourself seem more innocent. It is very scummy in my opinion.

Confirm Vote kabenon007

[Wulfy]

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.

I can wholeheartedly contend that everyone who thought you were a scumbuddy for not wanting to put more pressure at L-2 is a complete and total idiot. I will personally go up them, hike my leg and pee on them.

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.

By the book, vote four and vote five are the scummiest votes next to the delayed hammer.

Psycho: You didn't unvote because you...nope, don't follow.

@artem:
...
*growls angrily*
I don't care if its cute now...
*kills the fucking cat*
You're a complete idiot. You do realize this game is open thus making you far more valuable to just shut the hell up and say nothing?

Semioldguy is right by the book, and you failure to recognize ninja just proves:

1. You're town almost irrefutably
2. You're an idiot. Almost irrefutably. [/sarcasm]

I enjoy that attack on kabenon007. It makes me happy since I was able to play lassie with it.

[Artem]

@Kirr:

Can you please answer my question?

----------------------------
@Wulfy

@artem:
...
*growls angrily*
I don't care if its cute now...
*kills the fucking cat*
You're a complete idiot. You do realize this game is open thus making you far more valuable to just shut the hell up and say nothing?

Semioldguy is right by the book, and you failure to recognize ninja just proves:

1. You're town almost irrefutably
2. You're an idiot. Almost irrefutably. [/sarcasm]

You've obviously made your point with the emotes, the name-calling and a complete lack of content in the entire paragraph. [/sarcasm]

You're welcome to try again and explain why you think I should not have claimed. Until then, I stand by my reasoning.

[semioldguy]

This seems to go against what you thought in Post 37. You already explained that when iamusername pointed it out, so I am not looking for an answer again. But to me this seems like you are acting in a way to avoid your own lynch. Now obviously no one wants to get lynched, but if you are town and act accordingly you shouldn’t have any fear of being lynched in my opinion because (1) You shouldn’t be a target; and (2) If you are a target the town is likely going to be gaining a decent amount of information if you were to be killed and your alignment then confirmed.

Your actions as town will speak for themselves and you pointing your previous game out in this way only seems to point out your worry of self-preservation. I don’t like that. This situation is different than your last one. No one here was thinking that Percy is your scumbuddy or getting on you to pressure him more. This looks to me like preempting a future possible concern. If you are town I think you’d be able to address it as it comes and act accordingly.

It is further emphasized when you quote part of this segment yourself “just for reference” in Post 68. To me this is something a scum player would be thinking about in order to avoid a previous unfavorable outcome. If you were town you could have just played the same way you did before and pointed to your previous game(s) as just being your playstyle.

The "Just for Reference" bit was one of my previous posts that I think you all might have missed, not a quote from another game. And sorry, I didn't really get what you meant about why you suspected me. Can you explain?

First, the quote should be from me, not Pablo. Second, I specifically mention the fact the quote was of yourself from a previous game... in fact I quoted the first time you did this to point this out. I suspect you didn't read my post very well if these two things slipped by you and that may be the culprit for why you don't really get what I mean about why I suspect you. I am suspecting you because there are contradictions in your posts, both textual and personality contradictions. You also seem to be too worried about appearing town. If you are town, there shouldn't be a need to emphasize it as much as you are. You seem to be forcing it. The excuses you have used so far for some of your actions don't apply to the questions asked of you, they have been deflections that don't actually resolve the question asked.

One more thing... How come you didn't address the other part of my post about you and ignored the one question I did ask?

[kabenon007]

He then went on to say that he "hates it do to the quick lynches... that give no information". However, he seems to have no problem with jumping on a bandwagon on the very first page.

Le sigh... there exists a difference between jumping on a wagon at -3 and a quick lynch. I joined at -3... if that became a quick lynch, w'd simply have a case of dumb scum.

But I didn't gather the information to try to lead the town somewhere, I gathered it just to get some information out there.

To which _over9000 responded:

You just directly confessed that what you were doing wasnt helping the town in any way. If you aren't with the town, you're against it. No in-between.

Double sigh... why on Earth would I want to lead the town? Leading town=bad, over9000. Leading town=bad. We've discussed this before in this game, I believe.

Second post then, but still, you jumped on a wagon in your first post. How is that not called wagon hopping? You posted little or no proof on why you suspect someone. You just try to go with the flow and explain it with "I hate the first day with a passion". Then if that's the case, you mean you don't mind if somebody bandwagons you either?

Random vote onto a bandwagon produces more information than a plain random vote. No one posts proof of why they suspect someone in the random voting stage, which is where we were at the time of my first vote. Then, the second vote was going from a random wagon to one I supported. So this was not random.

I've only voted for two people.

That is not what I call wagon hopping, that is going from random to what I viewed as scum. Not hopping. And no, I don't mind if people bandwagon me. I defend myself, provide information, and if it so happens, die.

In the first day it is extremely crucial to gather information. You saying that you can't get any information from the first day does not sound very appealing to me. Is that a defensive statement to state that we are not supposed to gather any information from the posts that you made?

Seriously, do I have a disclaimer or something on my avatar that says misinterpret my posts? Where do I say that you can't get information from the first day? I said I hate it when that happens, not that it happens everytime. Why do you think I'm causing such a ruckus if not to get information? My post 71 was almost entirely based on the fact that I was trying to get information out of Day 1. Why would I be trying to get information out of Day 1 if I believed it to be impossible?



@Wulfy

...

Until you come up with something that is your own material and not you just agreeing with someone else so you can "play lassie," all you receive from me is ...

[kirroha]

@Kirr:

Can you please answer my question?

Aye, I will.

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?

Whenever I login into MS.net, and check this thread, I'll check the newest post first before looking backwards. That time, Percy's post was newer than Pablo's, so I saw his first instead of Pablo's. I live on the other side of the world from most of you all, so it was quite annoying that whenever I post, nobody replies, and whenever come back home from school, 2 extra pages of posts have appeared.

First, the quote should be from me, not Pablo. Second, I specifically mention the fact the quote was of yourself from a previous game... in fact I quoted the first time you did this to point this out. I suspect you didn't read my post very well if these two things slipped by you and that may be the culprit for why you don't really get what I mean about why I suspect you. I am suspecting you because there are contradictions in your posts, both textual and personality contradictions. You also seem to be too worried about appearing town. If you are town, there shouldn't be a need to emphasize it as much as you are. You seem to be forcing it. The excuses you have used so far for some of your actions don't apply to the questions asked of you, they have been deflections that don't actually resolve the question asked.

Sorry about the misquote. I messed both of your posts up.

And I didn't know the quote was from a previous game. If so, can you give me the URL to the post that I had made? Sorry, since I play quite a few games at a time, I do mess things up a bit.

However, I'm kinda sure that I've posted that post in this game. Somewhere on Page 2, I think.

And about the two things that slipped by me... it was very late at night when I read the post and my brain felt extremely foggy. I will answer those questions again now.

And about the contradictions, it is most likely between my first post that said about not wanting to vote for Percy and the second post that said I voted for him just to put on some pressure. I thought the reason would be pretty obvious: It's because in between the two posts, I didn't know that Percy's vote on Pablo was random and felt it suspicious that he would vote for Pablo for no reason at all. I believe that you all will also feel the same if you all had thought it was a normal vote. Thus, that heightened my suspicions on Percy greatly, and that was why I voted for him and said that it was alright to put some pressure on him.

And about the "emphasizing" and the "unresolving" bit... can you help me quote some of the posts which I made that made me appear so? I looked through all my posts and I believed that I had been answering the questions to my full ability.

Anyway, going back to your old post...

Anyway, please look at Post 68. None of you all have seemed to notice that post. There I answered most of the questions.

This seems to go against what you thought in Post 37. You already explained that when iamusername pointed it out, so I am not looking for an answer again. But to me this seems like you are acting in a way to avoid your own lynch. Now obviously no one wants to get lynched, but if you are town and act accordingly you shouldn’t have any fear of being lynched in my opinion because (1) You shouldn’t be a target; and (2) If you are a target the town is likely going to be gaining a decent amount of information if you were to be killed and your alignment then confirmed.

As you said, nobody wants to get lynched. I want to help the Town as long as I am alive. No corpse can help the Town. Which would you prefer - a pro-towner getting lynched or scum? Definitely scum. Thus, I'm defending myself for two reasons, 1) To stay alive so I can help the town (and here I admit one fact; I also want to stay alive so I can play more), and 2) So that real scum would die instead of me.

Yes, true: No matter how many times I say I'm Town, it's not likely for you all to believe it for sure. But I myself do know that I am Town, and that's why I want to help the Town. I want to have fun just like everyone else too.

You see, it's not like a pro-towner won't defend herself. Like for example, a pro-towner is being voted for. Would he just let himself get voted quietly, thinking, "Well, after I die, they'll gain valuable information" or would they defend themselves and try to convince the others to suspect someone whom he thinks is real scum?

Your actions as town will speak for themselves and you pointing your previous game out in this way only seems to point out your worry of self-preservation. I don’t like that. This situation is different than your last one. No one here was thinking that Percy is your scumbuddy or getting on you to pressure him more. This looks to me like preempting a future possible concern. If you are town I think you’d be able to address it as it comes and act accordingly.

But when I'll be able to address it and act accordingly, as in by defending myself with evidence, you might think that I'm trying act in ways of self-preservation again. I know what it feels to get lynched Day 1 and watch hopelessly as the one you suspect turned out to be scum and won in the end, without being able to warn the rest about your suspicions on him. It hurts not to be able to contribute to the Town when you finally have concrete proof.

It is further emphasized when you quote part of this segment yourself “just for reference” in Post 68. To me this is something a scum player would be thinking about in order to avoid a previous unfavorable outcome. If you were town you could have just played the same way you did before and pointed to your previous game(s) as just being your playstyle.

I was just posting that just in case you all haven't managed to see it yet. I'm the type who likes posting quotes as evidence and likes to clutter my posts full of quotes as it supports my points better than a thousand words.

And speaking of playstyle ... one thing that causes me to get suspected easily is the fact that I don't have a definite playstyle. I change way too easily because of my mood. I suspect I have bipolar disorder, and I plan to get it checked soon.

Do you have any more questions?

[kirroha]

Oh and

Mod can we have a vote count please?

So many things have happened since the last vote count.

[semioldguy]

And I didn't know the quote was from a previous game. If so, can you give me the URL to the post that I had made? Sorry, since I play quite a few games at a time, I do mess things up a bit.

However, I'm kinda sure that I've posted that post in this game. Somewhere on Page 2, I think.

EBWOP, I meant to say wasn't from a previous game. Post 76 should be able to confirm this as a typo from me in post 84. As I quoted it from you and mentioned the post where you quote yourself later, both on page 3 (post 57 and 68 from you, respectively). Sorry for that typo there though in post 84, I've understood the whole time that you were quoting from a post in this game.

[semioldguy]

My question still stands:

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. But I really want to listen to some sort of defense from Psycho.

You state that you don’t want to get started on either Percy or Psycho right now. Then in the very next sentence you say you want to hear a defense from Psycho. How is this not getting started on Psycho?

It's one thing to change opinions on things between posts with new points being brought up and things happening, that can be perfectly understandable depending on the situation, but this still post confuses me.

[kirroha]

You state that you don’t want to get started on either Percy or Psycho right now. Then in the very next sentence you say you want to hear a defense from Psycho. How is this not getting started on Psycho?

It's one thing to change opinions on things between posts with new points being brought up and things happening, that can be perfectly understandable depending on the situation, but this still post confuses me.

It might be quite confusing, I think. I guess we both have different definitions of the phrase "get started on". To me it meant voting for him or wagoning him. I didn't want to vote for him because of the lack of evidence, but I wanted to see how Psycho would respond to everything that the others have put against him.

Hope that clears things up. (:

[iamausername]

If it's just your intuition, it is not exactly very reliable since it's mostly based on luck.

Sure, you keep on telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

@Percy:

[snip]

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.

QFT.

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

OK, could be that Artem is Godfather trying to draw a Cop, or Ninja trying to draw a Tracker. Those seem like the only scum roles that would have a reason to claim Self-Watcher. But it's more likely that he is on the level, IMO.

Assuming that is the case, I don't know that this was necessarily the best play, but I can see the logic behind it. Not a terrible decision, certainly.

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.)

This concerns me, though. Thinking about it in terms of "Would this be a good idea for scum?" and not "Would this be a good idea for town?" is really not how I'd expect a town player to approach the decision to claim.

Vote: Pablo Molinero

for discriminating against new players.

If you want to be handled with kid gloves, go join a Newbie game. You're in the big leagues here, son.

Also, why do you single out Pablo, when several other players have made essentially the same point as he did?

Please note that I have only read up to page 70.

Game's not THAT active! I'm guessing you mean

post

70?

From what you said I think you're just trying hard to squeeze things to explain your bandwagoning vote. If you had had reasons earlier, you would've posted earlier.

Really? You think scum would just leap onto a bandwagon this early in the game without any thought of what they could use to justify it, and not expect to be caught out?

I don't think kabenon's reasons for voting Percy are particularly great reasons; there's not a lot of explanation of why scum would want to do the things that Percy did that are supposedly scummy. But I think it's fairly silly to believe that he only came up with them after the fact.

Thus, I think you're just posting all these to make yourself seem more innocent. It is very scummy in my opinion.

So, if he was town, what should he do instead when people ask him to give his reasons?

Leading town=bad, over9000. Leading town=bad.

Only if you lead in the wrong direction. If you're leading the town to scum lynches, that sounds like a good thing to me.

You see, it's not like a pro-towner won't defend herself. Like for example, a pro-towner is being voted for. Would he just let himself get voted quietly, thinking, "Well, after I die, they'll gain valuable information" or would they defend themselves and try to convince the others to suspect someone whom he thinks is real scum?

And yet you say this as a point against kabenon:

Thus, I think you're just posting all these to make yourself seem more innocent. It is very scummy in my opinion.

Pretty big double standard there.

[Farkshinsoup]

Kirroha, when you quote, could you please quote with a name? It's very hard to keep track of who you're responding to, especially because your posts contain a lot of quotes.

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!

Do you still feel this certain about Kabenon's guilt? If so, why?

In regards to kirroha, first you post this:

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.

{some other stuff you posted}

FoS: Kirr

In your next post, after she's caught some heat from the town, you change your mind:

I can wholeheartedly contend that everyone who thought you were a scumbuddy for not wanting to put more pressure at L-2 is a complete and total idiot. I will personally go up them, hike my leg and pee on them.

Please help me out here. Who, exactly, thought she was a scumbuddy of Percy's for not wanting to put him at L-2. Who accused her of that? I think I missed that. (Not being sarcastic - if it's there, please point it out)

One way or the other, it seems like your posts contain a lot of flavour, not much content. You vociferously attack the easy target (kabenon) and come to the defense of someone else for poor reasons. Seems scummy to me.

Vote: Wulfy

Also,

@artem:
...
*growls angrily*
I don't care if its cute now...
*kills the fucking cat*
You're a complete idiot.

You do realize this game is open

thus making you far more valuable to just shut the hell up and say nothing?

2.

Semi-open setup

. All the possible roles are listed in the next post.

If you're going to start throwing ad hominem attacks at other players, you might want to get your facts straight first. Better yet, just drop the insults all together.

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

In other news, PsychoSniper totally backed down when Iam and I voted him for his town-leading statement. Haven't heard much from him since. That seems like someone who wants to stay off the radar for the rest of day 1 after drawing unwanted attention.

FoS PsychoSniper

I'm not really sold on the cases on Kirroha or Kabenon - I could be wrong but I don't think either are good lynch candidates for Day 1.