Mini 535: Pick Your Poison 2 (Game Over!)

[Patrick]

Votecount

Bookitty (1) -- Ether
Ether (3) -- ckillor, Gorrad, thedragonsprincess
JDodge (1) -- perfect628
skitzer (3) -- Bookitty, YvonneSeer, Porochaz

Not voting: scotmany12, JordanA24, JDodge, skitzer
12 alive, 7 to lynch.

[scotmany12]

I really don't know what to think of the whole ether-bookitty thing yet. Though I do have a question for bookitty. Why are you voting for skitzer over ether? Just skimming over your posts make it seem like you believer her to be scum. Or am I wrong about that.

I do want to suggest ether's vig idea. I really do not see how it will help us, especially if everyone but the vig says they did not send in a choice. Also, we aren't even sure if we have a vig or not.

[Gorrad]

Scotmany, if you're not sure we have a vig, what DO you think we have?

[JDodge]

Sick and busy. Will post content sometime soon, but not right now.

[scotmany12]

Scotmany, if you're not sure we have a vig, what DO you think we have?

First off, noone is sure if we have a vig not except for the scum and the vig, if there is one. Its also hard for me to think of what we have as I am not viewing that game from a scum point of view. My initial thought, however, was doc, weak doc, and masoniser, but I honestly don't know as of now. The one I am pretty sure they gave us was the weak doc.

[Bookitty]

It's a good point, scotmany. I simply hadn't removed my vote from Skitzer from the random phase, because I've been concentrating on trying to figure out what Ether was getting at with her posts directed at me. I will do that now, though.

unvote

I'm not sure if Ether is scum. She's very focused on me, but that doesn't necessarily paint her as scum in my eyes; being wrong is not a scumtell in my view. Additionally, my read of Ether's playstyle is that she's very aggressive, and this wouldn't be out of character for that, so even though she's tunneling on me fairly exclusively and pushing for my lynch, I can't really read that as a scumtell either. I do not know if she is scum, and I'm not going to push for her lynch simply because of her accusations of me.

About the vig idea, here's how I envisioned it playing out, assuming I understood it fully:

• Every day that there was no previous night vig-kill, each of us state who we would have targeted.
  
  If all of us state no-choice, we have no possibility of outing the vig, which is good, but we gain no new information from it.
  
  If one person states a choice, then it's the same as them admitting to being the vig. This draws the doc's protection immediately, assuming there is one; if not, then we just killed our vig, most likely. If we trade our vig for the godfather, that's good. If we don't, then that's not so good.
  
  If several people state a choice, then any of them could draw the NK, martyring themselves to hide the Vig's identity. However, if he targeted the godfather, and he says so honestly, then the Vig's identity would immediately be known to scum, though not to town and any doctors that might afford protection.
  
  Additionally scum might state a choice in hopes of attracting weak-doc protection (assuming there is one) and killing a threat to themselves. This scenario leaves the doc (assuming there is one) unsure of whom to protect, but this is not significantly worse than if the vig does not reveal himself at all.

My own thought is that the vig should only reveal his NK attempt if it is unsuccessful, because in that case, either a doc protected his target, or he has hit the godfather. If it is the first, then the doc can switch his protection to the vig immediately. If it is the second, then we are trading vig for godfather, and at least if I were the vig, I'd make that trade for town in an instant. In any case, I think this plan minimises the problems associated with multiple people claiming no-choice and is much simpler as well.

[skitzer]

One question: Does Ether always play like this? If

she

(woot! no gender confusion!) finds someone somewhat scummy, does she stick to it and focus on them?

To clarify, Bookitty's vote was random, but we have settled this because now I have a lovely picture of Taylor as my avatar.

<------she's so cool.

[Porochaz]

Limited posting will try and post as much as I can stand. Still find skitzer more scummy than Ether and Bookitty combined

[YvonneSeer]

Oh no, the skitzer wagon is broken! Hopping onto the Ether one now.

unvote, vote: Ether

[thedragonsprincess]

Limited posting will try and post as much as I can stand. Still find skitzer more scummy than Ether and Bookitty combined

what do you find so scummy about skitzer compared to ether and bookitty?

Oh no, the skitzer wagon is broken! Hopping onto the Ether one now.

unvote, vote: Ether

why are you so anxious to hop on any bandwagon that forms? why dont you state your opinions on people rather than just following everyone else? that seems rather scummy to me

[Ether]

Name call all you like, it doesn't make your case any better. I'm done addressing this with you, since you can't even be civil.

Gah. I'm sorry; I sometimes get like that. I'll try to stay calmer.

It seems to me that bookitty truly has been making an effort to answer ether's questions but ether seems to have been making it difficult to distinguish what she wanted answered, almost as if she was trying to form a bandwagon for bookitty's lynch, which screams scum.

unvote, vote ether

But she

hasn't

been answering them, see below. I think Bookitty has been confusing the issue more than I ever have by forcing me to repeat myself and ignoring or redirecting many of the questions. The things I originally pushed her for, I really

don't

mind all that much anymore--but I'm still suspicious for other aspects of her arguments.

I do wonder why, if they weren't meant to be questions, you objected to my not responding to them in the first place.

Semantics--if you posted an attack against me, I would consider myself obligated to respond to the attack, even if you did not explicitly use any question marks. Also, um, I

did

add some questions in my posts, and you ignored them.

Why did you post this:

So, uh, I made this big post about supporting a roleblocker/encryptor combination and believing that there could easily be a cop.

when in fact you never made such a post, and you never argued your case for this combination?

I indeed made such a post, but I never actually posted it because I read the game and it proved irrelevant. (I don't have it in its typed-out form anymore, but I can remember the arguments if you'd like.)

When the thread opened and I read everyone else's posts, I changed my mind from roleblocker to godfather as a direct result of your own actions. Your own shift in opinion felt off to me, and the fact that you didn't vote the godfather but nodded along with the bandwagon after it appeared made me feel better about the godfather.

Read: are you even reading my posts? How was my answer to that not completely obvious?

How did I not put my opinions on the line?

Read: how are you not stifling discussion?

I can answer your answers, not all of which are bad, more the things on more recent issues and what you

didn't

say. But I again need to hurry to post.

Your vigplan makes the "No target" announcements kind of arbitrary, but I do see how targets can alert the mafia who already know who the godfather is. I wouldn't mind just leaving the vig to act naturally at this point.

I don't like Yvonne or Gorrad, though I worry that this is reflexive.

[Bookitty]

Read: are you even reading my posts? How was my answer to that not completely obvious?

How did I not put my opinions on the line?

You wrote a long post defending your roleblocker idea, but you didn't share it. I don't understand why, having put the work into that, you didn't feel that your thoughts would be useful to the town. I mean, it was already written, and I know for myself when I write something lengthy, I tend to post it just on the basis that I put a lot of work into it.

In preference to actually sharing your own ideas (and apparently opening yourself up to attack), you chose to attack someone else who had had the same idea, and make a case out of that person changing their mind. You claimed that I usually expressed certainty, which you know isn't true, and when confronted on this, you made some vague justifications, none of which really made sense to me.

As to why your points aren't obvious, it's because you're posting them in a fairly random and confusing manner. I read your posts carefully, since they are mostly directed to me, and I didn't get the sense of what you were getting at for a long time. Other people have said they didn't understand your point. You've had to clarify pretty much every point you've made, and that's why I asked you to make your points in question form, so I knew what was rhetorical accusation and what you actually wanted a response to. You apparently had your mind made up well in advance of any possible response on my part, so most of your posts were filled with accusations about my usual playstyle (false, and I believe you knew them to be false if you'd considered it) and accusations about my motives (which is false, but clearly can't be proven to be false, since I can't prove my motives).

If your posts were clear and your questions obvious, then surely you wouldn't need to make a general statement like:

I should probably start quizzing people on my posts to make sure they're paying attention. This is ridiculous.

while you yourself are ignoring posts like this:

Ether, I have no idea what you're trying to get at. Sorry!

which arguably is about as specific as your posts directed at me have been, but apparently didn't merit a response from you.

Read: how are you not stifling discussion?

I absolutely agree that this argument has derailed useful discussion, cost the town the random vote phase that might have allowed some analysis on other people (though I don't accept responsibility for that part), and has largely monopolised the conversation. However, I note that you stated this:

if you posted an attack against me, I would consider myself obligated to respond to the attack

So I would argue that if I hadn't participated in trying to decipher what you were talking about, and tried to respond to it, you'd have decided that was scummy and tried to construct a case out of that. So I think that while we're both guilty of stifling discussion on other topics, I'm doing so by defending myself against baseless attacks, while you are the one making them.

On a related theme, if I were sure you were scum, or even moderately convinced of it, I wouldn't care about you calling it OMGUS. I'd just vote you. But with the bandwagon building on you, I'm viewing that as a point in your favour, ironically enough.

[skitzer]

Oh no, the skitzer wagon is broken! Hopping onto the Ether one now.

unvote, vote: Ether

Why are you jumping bandwagons?

FoS: YvonneSeer

She is possibly weak doc who doesn't like her role, but still...

[scotmany12]

Oh no, the skitzer wagon is broken! Hopping onto the Ether one now.

unvote, vote: Ether

Why are you jumping bandwagons?

FoS: YvonneSeer

She is possibly weak doc who doesn't like her role, but still...

That makes no sense. I don't see how her jumping bandwagons makes her a candidate for a weak doc.

[skitzer]

I just thought that if someone did not enjoy the powerrole they received, they would purposely get themselves killed. Makes sense to me...

It sounds kind of dumb, now, but...

[scotmany12]

Um, no, that makes no sense at all. A power role will not purposely get themselves killed. Its just ludicrous to think like that.

[skitzer]

Oh, I thought weak docs couldn't protect at all. That was really, really stupid. Sorry for that. Still, YS's jumping is not something town would do.

[thedragonsprincess]

this argument between bookitty and ether seems to be neverending, and is becomming rather hard to follow. so until I find time to reread everything(hopefully tomorrow) I am going to

unvote

and go with someone who seems extremely scummy

vote YvonneSeer

[YvonneSeer]

Hey town, it seems that I've drawn some attention to myself. The main reason why I'm jumping bandwagons is because I'm trying out a different playstyle in this game. You might not believe me, but it's true. I've never had much pressure on me and I want to see how I respond when the spotlight's on me.

The second reason is mostly because I want to generate a different discussion. From what I could see, it was mostly an Ether vs Bookitty thing going on (which I think is blown out of proportion) and most of the players were lurking (some still are). I'm not speaking for the other players, but I think a lot of us couldn't add anything to that discussion, and therefore didn't post anything of substance. Well, at least that was how it was for me.

Well, I'm explaining my actions and if you still find them scummy, feel free to put some votes on me and continue to interrogate me. I won't pretend that jumping bandwagons is pro-town but I ain't the scum you're hunting for.

[skitzer]

Hmmm...I don't know. IGMEOY.

[Bookitty]

I am going to buck the trend and say that trying to provoke discussion and reaction by jumping on bandwagons is not really anti-town in my view. Especially in a situation where two people are arguing and derailing all other discussion, sometimes that is exactly what's needed to try to get back to some sort of normalcy.

Skitzer, what roles do you think the scum likely gave us? And back to your original justification for your scum-role choices, in what situation do you think it would be advantageous for the town to mass claim?

[skitzer]

probably Weak Doc, because it is the worst role on there.

I would also think Vig, because more than likely the Vig would accidentally kill town, which would beneficial for Mafia.

The third one is a toss up. All these roles could be beneficial to the Town, so I'm not sure. I'd have to say Masonizer, because they don't do any actions during the night except talk.

I don't know why we would massclaim. Do we really ever know? When discussion slows, it is usually an advantage just to spark up conversation, but I don't see that here.

[Gorrad]

Hey town, it seems that I've drawn some attention to myself. The main reason why I'm jumping bandwagons is because I'm trying out a different playstyle in this game. You might not believe me, but it's true. I've never had much pressure on me and I want to see how I respond when the spotlight's on me.

The second reason is mostly because I want to generate a different discussion. From what I could see, it was mostly an Ether vs Bookitty thing going on (which I think is blown out of proportion) and most of the players were lurking (some still are). I'm not speaking for the other players, but I think a lot of us couldn't add anything to that discussion, and therefore didn't post anything of substance. Well, at least that was how it was for me.

Well, I'm explaining my actions and if you still find them scummy, feel free to put some votes on me and continue to interrogate me. I won't pretend that jumping bandwagons is pro-town but I ain't the scum you're hunting for.

I don't like this at all. I'm reading this as 'Please ignore the fact that I'm being scummy, I'm being so on purpose.' If we do that, then there's really no way to create an argument against you- you'll just say you did something scummy on purpose.

Unvote, Vote: YvonneSeer

. I think everything's a trap, that's why I'm still alive.

[JDodge]

Guys, skitzer just practically admitted to being scum. Lynch kplzthxbai.

Unvote, vote: skitzer

[skitzer]

How did I do such?