Countdown of the Illuminati GAME OVER

[Albert B. Rampage]

And finally, unlike most games you should never claim, ever, and it would be useles as masons would claim town, mafia would claim town and serial killer would claim town...

Way to state the obvious Max Goof!

Vote: Max

Unhelpfully scummy as always.

[ooba]

ooba's 20 is trying to look helpful, but isn't imo -- how else do we get the game started, sir??

fos: ooba

The game has started without random voting now , hasn't it?

vote : neko2086

for the being the first to mention the SK kill and bringing up mafia codes ..

[NabakovNabakov]

And finally, unlike most games you should never claim, ever, and it would be useles as masons would claim town, mafia would claim town and serial killer would claim town...

Way to state the obvious Max Goof!

Vote: Max

Unhelpfully scummy as always.

As always = meta?

[neko2086]

vote : neko2086 for the being the first to mention the SK kill

Actually, Beep Beep was the first, but I don't find that in itself particularly scummy anyway.

and bringing up mafia codes ..

Mitzef brought it up originally, actually. Do you find what I've said to be unhelpful to town? Do you find what I've said more unhelpful to town than what Mitzef has said?

[Guardian]

and bringing up mafia codes ..

Mitzef brought it up originally, actually. Do you find what I've said to be unhelpful to town?

No, I think it is quite helpful in indicating you are scum.

Do you find what I've said more unhelpful to town than what Mitzef has said?

I find your comment much more likely to be revealing your scum alignment than Miztef's.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Mitzef brought it up originally, actually. Do you find what I've said to be unhelpful to town? Do you find what I've said more unhelpful to town than what Mitzef has said?

Miztef posted useful content. You posted WIFOMy rubbish. See the difference ?

[armlx]

Mitzef brought it up originally, actually. Do you find what I've said to be unhelpful to town? Do you find what I've said more unhelpful to town than what Mitzef has said?

Miztef posted useful content. You posted WIFOMy rubbish. See the difference ?

I endorse this post and/or service.

[Sarcastro]

I'm starting to like the new ABR.

[muffinhead]

How can i possibly tell whos a mafia member and whos a serial killer? this all seems impossible. The way i know the game there is a hint every week and without one is like pulling a rabbit out of the hat.

[Sarcastro]

Why does it matter whether someone is mafia or SK? We need to lynch both.

And there are no "hints" here. This is proper mafia - you need to figure out who the scum are based on their play, not based on mod clues or whatever else you're used to.

[muffinhead]

ok cheers 4 that, ill somehow figue it out lol

[neko2086]

my intention wasn't to be WIFOMy, though I see how I was. Mitzef said that the mafia would be creating codes, and I only wanted to warn people, especially the newbies, that they could potentially be misleading. Mitzef himself said "You probably won't pick up on it," so naturally, I'm concerned about trying to find such a code and interpreting it incorrectly. I suppose, though, that I shouldn't have even said anything unless that started to happen.


muffinhead, you will want to start by reading the previous game, to which there is a link on pg 2 of this thread. Since you're very new, I would suggest reading that game thoroughly. Make yourself a list of who is scum, mason, and town, then read the thread to see what they each do. It'll be a tad different this time with the SK, but I think the gameplay will be very similar, so that will be your best place to start.

[DrippingGoofball]

Reading some other game is long and not terribly exciting. A short version has already been provided. Is it not adequate?

[Miztef]

Ok, I don't like these posts:

and bringing up mafia codes ..

Mitzef brought it up originally, actually. Do you find what I've said to be unhelpful to town?

No, I think it is quite helpful in indicating you are scum.

Do you find what I've said more unhelpful to town than what Mitzef has said?

I find your comment much more likely to be revealing your scum alignment than Miztef's.

How do you find his post worse then mine. There needs to be reasons behind why something is scummier then something else.

ooba's 20 is trying to look helpful, but isn't imo -- how else do we get the game started, sir??

fos: ooba

The game has started without random voting now , hasn't it?

vote : neko2086

for the being the first to mention the SK kill and bringing up mafia codes ..

Guradian's FoS here seems very forced. He has no reason to mention ooba, and the town had many posts of discussion without random voting. I know that guardian had a peek at the orignal game, he posted in the aftermath of it. It seems unreasonable that he did not realize ooba was in the former game and knew what he was doing, not to mention that he could have seen that we discourage random voting in the previous game as well.

Then Ooba's vote is not very convincing... both his statements are incorrect, and neither do I find as reasons to someone being scummy.

The mafia will (almost certainly) have a code for when they are "daykilling".

Yes, but they could also make up a fake code to lead the town to draw incorrect conclusions and connections, so I'd be careful when searching for such things.

This is silliness. To a certain extent, it would be helpful to crack the code so we know who the mafia intend to kill, but all we would really have to do is

identify

a code, real or fake. It doesn' t matter if that scum player actually intends to kill the person indicated in the code. What matters is that they used a code to indicate a kill and are therefore scum and should be lynched.

SK driven lynches should help, but a major concern should be preventing the scum from placing a desperate kill before they are lynched. Don't hover around L-1, L-2. Don't give conditions for a lynch or threats that make a lynch seem inevitable. The ideal would be to actually

lynch

the scum, not to let them go down shooting.

I agree with nabakov here to an extent. However, scum will probably only use the code near death... so finding the real code is much more valuable, in order to stop them from being able to use it freely (not near death).

Squashing the scum like bugs is the best bet. I completely agree with nabakov on that front. No lingering at L-1, L-2. once it's at L-3, L-4, just speed lynch if you have any real suspicion of the player. We need to get players dead at least once a week. That means in order to surprise the scum, we have to jump at the 5-6 day mark as well sometimes.

It looks like the SK made their first guarantee kill. We have a week before they can make another one.

This sentence feel really forced to anyone else?

fos: neko

it does seem somewhat suspicious but not enough for a vote yet

just no. Way too vague and unhelpful, not even a real vote placed.

Another reason not to stay at L-1 is that Mafia (or more unlikely SK) might risk a kill just to lower the amount of people needed for a lynch. This only applies when there is an even number of players alive (like today).

I'll check out the previous game as suggested.

Also,

vote: Max

. (Not purely a bandwagon vote.)

The first line of this is correct and should be noted.

Sarcastro just came out and voted max, and then this vote... both with no reasoning behind them. These are just as bad as random votes, which should be discouraged here.

Vote: Max

Let's get this bandwagon started.

I'm starting to like the new ABR.

Why does it matter whether someone is mafia or SK? We need to lynch both.

And there are no "hints" here. This is proper mafia - you need to figure out who the scum are based on their play, not based on mod clues or whatever else you're used to.

That is all of sarcastro's posts in this game. Too unhelpful overall for my tastes, but enough to make people think he is an active participant. I don't like it.


I'm going to

vote: guardian

and

FOS: Ooba, Neko, Sarcastro, Samruc, dahill1

[Albert B. Rampage]

Interesting logic, Miztef!

I find your comment much more likely to be revealing your scum alignment than Miztef's.

How do you find his post worse then mine. There needs to be reasons behind why something is scummier then something else.

Double standard IS a powerful scumtell, however it doesn't seem like you are living in alignment with what you preach:

Sarcastro just came out and voted max, and then this vote*... both with no reasoning behind them. These are just as bad as random votes, which should be discouraged here.

You berate the first two players who voted Max, but say nothing about the third person on the bandwagon. How do you explain this ?

*

referring to Samruc voting Max

[Miztef]

oh, you mean your vote ABR? You actually put

some

reasoning behind it. You state that you voted him for stating the obvious and being unhelpful, which is acceptable reasoning for a third vote in my opinion.

The others have no reasoning, which = close to random vote which = I don't like.

[Samruc]

...with no reasoning behind...

I thought I made it clear that there *was* reasoning behind my vote.

I also want more input from Max.

[Albert B. Rampage]

For my part, I think it is abundantly clear why these players voted Max. Let us dissect his posts:

First I propose we kill the serial killer, if the 6 mafia die and 6 masons die in a row it would mean that serial killer would win with 5 risky kills in a rown, unlikely scenario but with every lynch away from the serial killer will result in a death. (1)

My proposal, one lynch every week, the serial killer can only kill once a lynch or once every real life week, so we need to be quick, if we go past 7 days we should wait til day 13 before a lynch. If we go at that rate the game will be over reasonably quickly. (2)

And finally, unlike most games you should never claim, ever, and it would be useles as masons would claim town, mafia would claim town and serial killer would claim town... (3)

Also because the serial killer did not get a kill pregame it leads me to believe beepy beep beep is scum

Vote Beep!Beep

First kill, first post, see a connection?(5)

(1) Use of the slippery slope.

(2) Attempting to control the town through craplogic (who's to say that the SK will kill immediately after he gets his second kill ?)

(3) The biggest one IMO, stating the obvious to look pro-town.

(4) Accusation based on craplogic, or failure to pay attention to the rules, which is scummy because mafia and SK need only to fabricate reasons for a vote. This was identified by both armlx and Neko before Samruc's vote:

Max, I see no connection, especially since the kill was in the opening post meaning it could have happened at any time before then.

Mmmm no. Beep Beep posted almost an hour after Pooky posted. The SK probably pre-submitted the first kill.

(5) Defends his vote as legitimate, but doesn't bold it to confirm. Obvious contradiction here (if he were so sure, why didn't he make a proper vote ?)

There were ample reasons for their votes, Samruc in particular, who attacked Max after there was reasoning provided by other players, not to mention that he specified his actions wasn't random.

Not all votes must be followed by an explanation in the same post, especially weak ones based on hunches. For example, here is another reason which I didn't share because it was too shabby: he started his sentence with "I propose", which IMO looks like scum terminology, thus weighing some scumpounds on his scumscale.

[Max]

(1) Use of the slippery slope.

(2) Attempting to control the town through craplogic (who's to say that the SK will kill immediately after he gets his second kill ?)

Yes, SK not killing only ever helps anyone against SK, unless you fail to include delays,

(3) The biggest one IMO, stating the obvious to look pro-town.

So me having a logical ramble in my brain which I write down is scummy?

(4) Accusation based on craplogic, or failure to pay attention to the rules, which is scummy because mafia and SK need only to fabricate reasons for a vote. This was identified by both armlx and Neko before Samruc's vote:

Nowhere in the rules did it state SKs get a kill pregame, neither did it mention making an honest misinterpretation immediately meant in a vote.

Max, I see no connection, especially since the kill was in the opening post meaning it could have happened at any time before then.

Mmmm no. Beep Beep posted almost an hour after Pooky posted. The SK probably pre-submitted the first kill.

(5) Defends his vote as legitimate, but doesn't bold it to confirm. Obvious contradiction here (if he were so sure, why didn't he make a proper vote ?)

how many people do you know that read their own posts

There were ample reasons for their votes, Samruc in particular, who attacked Max after there was reasoning provided by other players, not to mention that he specified his actions wasn't random.

Not all votes must be followed by an explanation in the same post, especially weak ones based on hunches. For example, here is another reason which I didn't share because it was too shabby: he started his sentence with "I propose", which IMO looks like scum terminology, thus weighing some scumpounds on his scumscale.

Now I'm getting lynched for saying I propose instead of I suggest, now that makes me believe that if anything thou art scum

[Miztef]

I do agree with all you've said ABR, I'm just trying to push people to get out their arguements and play aggresively. Noticed I focused a lot on scumminess from low activity in my post.

I actually didn't realize how much evidence max had against him, and thank you for pointing it out.

@Samruc: Until you actually show me some evidence, I'm not gonna like the vote in this game. I'm adament about wanting active and aggresive players this game. The scum had a huge advantage last game (imo) and I believe the same is true here. Therefore, we need all the advantages we can get. Hunches are too weak for me in this game (though I probably won't lynch someone based on such actions, I just believe weak play needs to be minimized).

I'll decide on if I want to vote max later, right now I'm going out for a bit.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Yes, SK not killing only ever helps anyone against SK, unless you fail to include delays,

You mean the SK would rather have short days with 1-week discussions ? Why ?

So me having a logical ramble in my brain which I write down is scummy?

Absolutely. Its roundabout scum thinking. Why would anyone consider claiming except scum and SK ?

Nowhere in the rules did it state SKs get a kill pregame, neither did it mention making an honest misinterpretation immediately meant in a vote.

Um, yes it did. Mod said both the mafia and SK could queue kills.

how many people do you know that read their own posts

O.K. fine. Blame it on your clumsiness.

Now I'm getting lynched for saying I propose instead of I suggest, now that makes me believe that if anything thou art scum

Woah slow down there, Montana Max! Is that a Straw man you just did ?

[Samruc]

Miztef: I *am* active and playing aggressively. I've never before skipped random voting, and I definitely haven't voted seriously within one day of daybreak... What I'm after in Max's posts will surely not appear if I tell you what I'm looking for. (This is not to say I'm not looking at other people as well.)

[Miztef]

That's fine then samruc. I'm not going to go about voting you.

On the max issue... I'm not sure If I like the guardian vote or max vote better. I will definately

FOS: Max

though, his defense in reposnse to ABR's post seems lacking at best. The arguement "how many people read their own posts" seems woefully misleading, because you really should. you should have just admitted it was a mistake. You

still

haven't corrected it too.

What does everyone think of guardian btw?

[DrippingGoofball]

Albert, who are we lynching today? Thanks.

[farside22]

For my part, I think it is abundantly clear why these players voted Max. Let us dissect his posts:

First I propose we kill the serial killer, if the 6 mafia die and 6 masons die in a row it would mean that serial killer would win with 5 risky kills in a rown, unlikely scenario but with every lynch away from the serial killer will result in a death. (1)

My proposal, one lynch every week, the serial killer can only kill once a lynch or once every real life week, so we need to be quick, if we go past 7 days we should wait til day 13 before a lynch. If we go at that rate the game will be over reasonably quickly. (2)

And finally, unlike most games you should never claim, ever, and it would be useles as masons would claim town, mafia would claim town and serial killer would claim town... (3)

Also because the serial killer did not get a kill pregame it leads me to believe beepy beep beep is scum

Vote Beep!Beep

First kill, first post, see a connection?(5)

(1) Use of the slippery slope.

(2) Attempting to control the town through craplogic (who's to say that the SK will kill immediately after he gets his second kill ?)

(3) The biggest one IMO, stating the obvious to look pro-town.

(4) Accusation based on craplogic, or failure to pay attention to the rules, which is scummy because mafia and SK need only to fabricate reasons for a vote. This was identified by both armlx and Neko before Samruc's vote:

Max, I see no connection, especially since the kill was in the opening post meaning it could have happened at any time before then.

Mmmm no. Beep Beep posted almost an hour after Pooky posted. The SK probably pre-submitted the first kill.

(5) Defends his vote as legitimate, but doesn't bold it to confirm. Obvious contradiction here (if he were so sure, why didn't he make a proper vote ?)

There were ample reasons for their votes, Samruc in particular, who attacked Max after there was reasoning provided by other players, not to mention that he specified his actions wasn't random.

Not all votes must be followed by an explanation in the same post, especially weak ones based on hunches. For example, here is another reason which I didn't share because it was too shabby: he started his sentence with "I propose", which IMO looks like scum terminology, thus weighing some scumpounds on his scumscale.

I agree with Miztef on this one. If you are going to argue about someone's lynch and have reason that is one thing, but to place a vote without reason is scummie. Giving people a reason they didn't state when they voted is based on nothing but at name is bad. They should have there own opinon and state them or they can lie and use what ever logic you just stated as there own. Giving people a free pass to vote without reason should be noted.

Vote: Albert