xkcd

by **Misnomer** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 5:45 pm UTC

Night!

Day end results will be processed shortly.

by **Servant-of_Christ** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:33 pm UTC

Woops it's night

by **Misnomer** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 12:03 am UTC

Apologies for the delay, I've spent most of the last few days either stuck in archives or stuck on trains. I seem to be managing to pick these deadlines at the most inconveniant times...

Now this was more like it! The shaky suspicions and sly suggestions of the first day were long gone... not only did they now have clear accusations, but they also had a confession!

But yet, things were still not simple. Yes, one of the Mafia appeared to have admitted his guilt, but they did they also have an arsonist in their midst? The townsfolk looked long and hard at eculc, undecided whether to act or not. His accuser was an admitted villain... yet did that make their claims false? In the end, the night answered their question before the townspeople could make up their minds, and they hastily lynched Adam H. Had they made the right decision? They could only wait until morning...

Adam H has been lynched. It is now Night 2 (and has been for some time...). Please send in all actions to me ASAP, and no later than 6pm BST Thursday 28th June.

by **Misnomer** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:43 pm UTC

I am still waiting for A LOT of night actions to be sent in. If you haven't done so already, send yours in ASAP.

by **Misnomer** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:59 pm UTC

Not all actions have been sent in, but night has gone on long enough.

The night was long, yet strangely quiet. It's almost as if some people had actually decided to sleep, rather than sneak around in the shadows... madness!

At any rate, the night eventually came to an end, as all nights must. As dawn broke, the townsfolk once again gathered at the gallows for a closer inspection...

Adam H's role: Mafia Ninja

You are an expert at sneaking around in the shadows, and carrying out kills without being detected.

If you are selected to carry out the Mafia kill on any given night, you will not be detected by any watcher or tracker type roles.

The confession had been true! And now the Mafia was a man down... but yet, the townsfolk were puzzled. The mayor had shown no signs of being killed by a ninja...

Their thoughts were soon interrupted, however, by the discovery of Adam H's accuser - or rather, the discovery of his body. Unsurprisingly, Ahammel was killed in the night.

Ahammel's role: Macho Cop

Other detectives might be cowardly and hide behind their desks investigating “evidence” all day, but not you! You like to be right at the heart of the action! Unfortunately, this dangerous lifestyle does have its risks…

Each night, you may send me the name of another player. If your action is successful, I will tell you whether or not that player is part of the Mafia. Note however that because you are Macho, any protection abilities used on you will be unsuccessful.

You are Town, and win when all Anti-Town factions have been eliminated. Good luck!

The townspeople had kind of expected this, but it was still annoying. Enemies were everywhere, and their cop was no more... how would they fare now?

It is now Day 3. 7 players remaining, so 4 to majority lynch. Deadline provisionally set for 6pm BST Thursday 5th July.

by **UniqueScreenname** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:11 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:I really can't see the case for just allowing claimed scum to direct our lynches. All we've got on eculc is Adam's say-so; and there's no reason to leave it at that. I'll investigate him tonight, and if scum interfere we should treat the claim as a lie.

Either mafia killed ahammel and eculc is not the arsonist or eculc killed ahammel to get us to think that. Or mafia killed him just cuz he's a cop. Hard to tell.

I'm probably gonna end up voting for eculc unless something better comes up. I'm not gonna vote right away because we obviously should talk about it first.

by **wam** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:49 pm UTC

I was debating whether this was a good idea or not but I think in the end the benefits outweigh the downsides.

Right so roleclaim time, Im an odd sort of watcher. If one person visits someone I get told who it was, if more than one person visits, I get told how many people visit. Last night I watched ahammel and 4 people (including me visited). The reason Im saying this is that I think that it shows that there are two anti town factions and they both went for ahammel last night. Im assuming the other was a doctor trying to save him but that didn't work due to him being "macho".

As we are down to 7, the fact we probably have two anti town factions means that I think we need to be very careful who we lynch.

Just for reference, N1 I watched adam and saw ahammel visit him. Hence why I never doubted his cop result. I didn't see any point in claiming then as adam was going to be lynched and I didn't want to out myself as a watcher.

Unique, Do we really want to lynch eculc based on the word of a confirmed scum. Also reading adams role PM there is no mention of any investigative powers.

For reference what Adam claimed

Spoiler:

by **UniqueScreenname** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:12 am UTC

I'm not sure of anything, and my mind definitely can be changed, but I think this is more of what makes me want to vote for him.

UniqueScreenname wrote:Vote: eculc

No defense whatsoever, and my guess is ahammel wouldn't make it through the night to let us know what he is. Also, I originally came up with the theory that got OB lynched. I would hardly call that jumping on the bandwagon.

The underlined part is my strongest scumtell. I'm going to do a full readthrough though, as I don't want to let this blind me from any scumtells.

by **UniqueScreenname** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 1:06 am UTC

Can you update the list of players in the OP please?

by **Servant-of_Christ** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:14 am UTC

Ok, I observed last day, and am ready to participate.I have two questions for y'all

1 can someone summarize current suspicions for me, so I know the current mindset?
2 since we may have two anti town factions, should vigilante's claim, so we can use their kill?

by **KrO2** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 4:30 am UTC

Servant-of_Christ wrote:1 can someone summarize current suspicions for me, so I know the current mindset?

This question seems weird. It rings of "someone tell me what to say." But it's also a legitimate question and scum would have asked their scummates instead, so I think it's OK to answer it.
Basically, what happened was that ahammel caught Adam. Adam confessed, and claimed to have a role cop result saying that eculc was the arsonist. Since eculc had been acting suspicious, this carried some weight even though Adam was known mafia. Now apparently US thinks eculc is still worth lynching even though there was no role cop. Personally I'm not confident one way or the other; I'm busy trying to get over my surprise that Adam lied about his power.

FoS for that second question. We don't need to know the vigilante's secret identity to talk about who they should kill. Scum would want to know who to get rid of, though.
If we even have a vigilante. I thought we did because I thought mpolo looked scummy enough to have been more likely to be killed by a vig rather than scum. But now I'm not so sure, because while operating under that theory I was kind of expecting eculc to get vig-killed. I would probably have killed him if I were a vigilante. And there were no "extra" kills last night, so a vig is looking unlikely.

Speaking of mpolo, if there are two anti-town factions does that mean mpolo was killed by one of them and not by a vig? Two anti-town kills plus an arsonist sounds pretty stacked against us.

About the information from wam, here's the first few possibilities I could think of:
1. What wam said. I hope he's wrong, because I was pretty happy with the idea of town+mafia+arsonist. I can't immediately think of obvious problems with it other than the fact that it conflicts with what I had thought. But that might be a pretty big problem depending on what it implies about the setup.
2. There was an unaccounted-for power targeting ahammel. If any town power roles other than the doctor targeted ahammel, they should consider saying so. They shouldn't tell us unless they think the extra information to town outweighs the loss of secrecy. It's a long shot but I might as well ask. It would mean wam claimed in vain if this is true, but we can't help that. This is the simplest explanation and I hope it's the right one because it doesn't require upsetting any previous setup speculation.
3. wam is lying. If so, we could ignore the "four people targeted ahammel" altogether. The problem I have with this is that I don't see the gain for wam here if he's scum.
4. The arsonist targeted ahammel. I guess this is technically a subset of 2. That would be all four people, and the arsonist would presumably want to make sure the cop is included in the eventual kaboom. If you are the arsonist and you targeted ahammel, you should say so so that we don't get confused.
I don't think this possibility is all that likely because why would the arsonist waste a prime on someone who is already a high-priority target of the mafia?
5. There are probably other explanations I haven't thought of. Maybe one of them is the right one. Other people should add/subtract/edit these.

by **UniqueScreenname** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:20 pm UTC

Update: I'm going to consider everything from a fresh perspective adding in only Adam being scum when I reread. I am keeping an open mind about this arsonist thing, because I know if I were mod it would be so much fun to add in a role that protected people from another role that didn't even exist. Or would that be considered bastardy? The sign-ups did say this was a nonbastard game. Oh, well. I'll consider it as I reread.

by **Misnomer** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:45 pm UTC

UniqueScreenname wrote:Can you update the list of players in the OP please?

Done. A replacement log has also been added.

by **UniqueScreenname** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 3:36 pm UTC

Ok, this game has been very heavily pushed in the direction of looking at just a couple people at a time. This makes scumhunting a bit harder as they can easily hide. For lack of time, I will leave my impressions of how scummy everyone and only explain a few.
Town
KrO2
DBC
lynx
eculc
SoC
wam
Scum

SoC has been lurking. I don't like lurking. I've mentioned being suspicious of wam before, but one of the reasons he voted for me on D1 was because I was pushing an Adam lynch (as seen here), and Adam ended up being scum, so that doesn't look good for him.

by **eculc** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:57 pm UTC

US: How exactly would you like me to defend myself? I'm not the arsonist. I don't have any proof, but the only thing pointing to me as being said arsonist is the accusation of a confirmed scum that doesn't have an investigation. I'm not really sure what you want me to say here.

townie points to wam for claiming before being pressured.

SoC has been lurking, and having a "whats going on plz tell me" post doesn't help.

everyone else is reading pretty neutral so far today.

by **UniqueScreenname** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:46 pm UTC

Gif, I'm really not paying attention in any of my games. I'll be back to make more sense later.

by **KrO2** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:55 am UTC

I just thought of something. I've only ever played as a cop before once, so I don't know if this is normal, but tell me if it makes sense.
The time I was a cop, I got my result a little before the end of the night phase. If I had been in a group with night chat, I would have told them about it right away. So my thought was, what if Adam got told the result on eculc by one of his scummates? They couldn't have announced it in-thread, but once one of them was outed as scum he might as well accuse eculc.

I'm still trying to figure out why Adam might have told a lie when he knew that it would be exposed by the time we might act on it. I don't know how plausible this idea is, but it at least answers the question I haven't been able to figure out. The problem is that if this were true then Adam could have just said it instead of claiming that he was the one with the role cop.
Basically, the question is whether "someone else caught arsonist-eculc and told Adam" is more likely than "Adam lied to get town-eculc lynched next" given everything we've seen so far. It's just a thought.

Question for SoC: You've been in officially since about halfway through D2. Why wait until now to jump in?

by **lynx** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:39 am UTC

Just realised I haven't made a post today and felt I probably ought to. I was surprised to see the lack of kills last night, as I thought eculc would almost certainly be vigged. The fact that he wasn't most likely means either that our hypothetical vig witheld their kill or that we don't have one (or it was one-shot). I'm on my phone at the moment but I'll go through mpolo's posts later on as he wasn't playing very townie so there must have been an ulterior motive for his killing by scum. Or again, perhaps it was one-shot and I'm wasting my time.

Anyway, I'd be happy with an eculc lynch today to clear things up. If something better comes up, we can of course discuss it but I can see KrO2's point about a team-mate possibly telling him the night before. Two things though, although Adam's outing him makes sense as scum trying to kill off another faction, it also makes sense as scum trying to ensure we make it a one for one trade. Second, that must have been some framing his mind as scum that Kr did to consider the night chat possibility. Not a big scumtell really, just putting all my thoughts down before going to work.

by **wam** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:17 am UTC

UniqueScreenname wrote:
SoC has been lurking. I don't like lurking. I've mentioned being suspicious of wam before, but one of the reasons he voted for me on D1 was because I was pushing an Adam lynch (as seen here), and Adam ended up being scum, so that doesn't look good for him.

To be fair, my point still stands. Voting someone, unvoting them and then revoting them 4 posts later for a different reason still looks scummy even if the target does turn up scum.

Player anaylsis

UniqueScreenname, despite the stuff above leaning town
Eculc undecided see below
lynx scummy (see below)
DaBigCheez no content today would be good to hear from him
KrO2 town
Servant-of_Christ lurky lurky but annoyingly probably town

Im torn with the whole Eculc thing, on one hand, if he is the arsonist we have to lynch him quickly. On the other all we really have agianst him is what adam said. My natural instincts are that adam was trying to take a townie down with him. The following are my gut feeling for how likely each situtation is.

Townie with adam trying to do a 1 for 1 trade 60%
trying to kill a different scum faction 35%
Other 5%,

Other, it has occured to me that it could be an epic distancing effort, or eculc could randomly be indie etc but this is unlikely.

My suspicouns of lynx comes from this line

lynx wrote:Anyway, I'd be happy with an eculc lynch today to clear things up.

Lynching someone to "clear things up" really stick out as rather scummy to me. It feels like scum thinking ah yeah we can easily push a eculc lynch tomorrow.

vote:lynx

by **Misnomer** » Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:30 pm UTC

Votals:

lynx (1): wam

4 to lynch.

by **KrO2** » Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:59 am UTC

lynx wrote:Second, that must have been some framing his mind as scum that Kr did to consider the night chat possibility.

Thank you; that's a compliment, right?
I would be assuming Adam was just trying to get eculc lynched, except for the fact that we'd see his role PM in the morning. What's the point of lying if it's just going to come out right away?
I've spent more thought on this than pretty much anywhere else and still haven't figured it out.

To switch gears, I've been rereading what we have so far today. A few things stuck out.

I didn't like this first post.

UniqueScreenname wrote:
ahammel wrote:I really can't see the case for just allowing claimed scum to direct our lynches. All we've got on eculc is Adam's say-so; and there's no reason to leave it at that. I'll investigate him tonight, and if scum interfere we should treat the claim as a lie.

Either mafia killed ahammel and eculc is not the arsonist or eculc killed ahammel to get us to think that. Or mafia killed him just cuz he's a cop. Hard to tell.

I'm probably gonna end up voting for eculc unless something better comes up. I'm not gonna vote right away because we obviously should talk about it first.

What I didn't like about that post was that it didn't really say very much. Mafia killed ahammel and eculc is the arsonist or mafia killed ahammel and eculc is not the arsonist or eculc killed ahammel. No statement on which she thinks is more likely. The only thing we can get from this is that US thinks we can't take ahammel's death as meaning that eculc is innocent.

When wam claimed, I thought it looked like he was jumping to conclusions. If his claim is true, it doesn't have to mean ahammel was targeted by two kills. I'm not sure whether it's a scumtell to immediately assume a worst-case scenario, but he did say he had thought about it and that post had no mention of the fact that it could mean something else. If I had that result and was trying to figure out what it meant, "second scum faction" wouldn't be the first thing I'd decide on, let alone the only one.

I remember in the past I thought eculc was scummyish, then it got superseded by Adam's claim, and when that went away/got confusing (depending on your point of view) I realized I don't remember my original reasons.
lynx, why do you consider eculc scum? (Partly asked for the usual reasons, partly because I don't feel like trying to figure out what I used to think and I'd rather judge someone else's reasons than try to reconstruct mine.)

by **UniqueScreenname** » Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:38 am UTC

KrO2 wrote:
UniqueScreenname wrote:
ahammel wrote:I really can't see the case for just allowing claimed scum to direct our lynches. All we've got on eculc is Adam's say-so; and there's no reason to leave it at that. I'll investigate him tonight, and if scum interfere we should treat the claim as a lie.

Either mafia killed ahammel and eculc is not the arsonist or eculc killed ahammel to get us to think that. Or mafia killed him just cuz he's a cop. Hard to tell.

I'm probably gonna end up voting for eculc unless something better comes up. I'm not gonna vote right away because we obviously should talk about it first.
What I didn't like about that post was that it didn't really say very much. Mafia killed ahammel and eculc is the arsonist or mafia killed ahammel and eculc is not the arsonist or eculc killed ahammel. No statement on which she thinks is more likely. The only thing we can get from this is that US thinks we can't take ahammel's death as meaning that eculc is innocent.

Yes, precisely. I had no idea which one was more likely. I very often will lay out all the possible scenarios for the NK so that I can go back and see if I can cross any out, also to start conversation. Why is it scummy not to have an opinion?

Also, updated scummy list based on how I had forgotten wam had claimed in the last one.
Town
KrO2
wam
DBC
lynx
eculc
SoC
Scum

I want a lot more content from SoC.

by **DaBigCheez** » Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 am UTC

You know what, I've been thinking about whether to do this, but I just realized that there's two good reasons, so I may as well do what I can.

I am a townie who targeted ahammel last night, accounting for one of the 4 visits - wam's watch (if truthful) was another, and the kill is a third. That leaves the final visit as either a naive doctor, or something else, perhaps another faction - and I believe it was the latter.

Why, you may ask? Because my role indicates to me we have another threat in our midst, as indicated by my first post of the game (formatting altered to make the message clearer):

Confirming, and ready to join in now.
On the one hand...
Maybe ahammel has a point, though.
My redirect role in Gargoyles...
I'm not really sure...
(Even if he was a confirmed PGO...
Such a role probably wouldn't have wanted to claim D1...)

That's right, everyone - the Communists lurk among us! As a government agent, I know all about them and am able to warn people against this insidious threat, making them immune to Communist recruitment powers for the rest of the game. I tried to warn ahammel last night, to protect him against this insidious influence, but someone else apparently took a more direct approach.

I'm still kind of bemused as to what Commie recruitment powers actually *do*, though - according to Misnomer's start post there aren't any cults in the game, and given the not-all-roles-guaranteed-sane thing I'm concerned that they might really just be masons or something (giving someone what feels like an anti-cult role but is really anti-mason sounds really similar to something I did while modding Gargoyles). That's the main reason I'm not pushing harder right now - I *assume* the Commies are anti-town, but I can think of plausible explanations for them not being so and my role just being misguided.

Either way, and whatever the Commie recruit does, that seems like the most plausible explanation for last night - wam watched, I warned, commies recruited, scum killed. It's also plausible that the arsonist targeted ahammel, or doesn't exist, but any group with a "recruitment" power I'd expect to be on the cop like grease on pizza.

Hopefully that clears up a bit about the events of last night, and at least clarifies that ahammel wasn't targeted by doc+2x kills (again, assuming wam didn't just kill ahammel and is lying through his teeth or something, the watcher result'd be a ballsy claim but I've seen ballsier). As far as what to do, I don't know why we're giving any weight whatsoever to Adam's claim yesterday after it was revealed that his role has no investigative powers at all. eculc may look scummy on his own merits, I'll have to read back and decide for sure, but discussing whether he's the arsonist specifically or whether Adam's claim still holds water seems ludicrous to me.

by **Servant-of_Christ** » Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:25 am UTC

I personally have no reason to think eculc is an arsonist, and think that those who are pushing that may be mafia. I don't know what to think about the "communists"

by **wam** » Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:48 am UTC

So we started with 12, we have already lost 4 townies and one mafia.

Leaves 7.

Based on snarks role pm we have an arsonist, based on DBCs post we have "communists"

So that leave 5 left at least one of which is mafia based on the flabour for adams death.

Which means we are best case scenario at 4/1/1. Assuming DBC is right and the commies are masons rather than a cult.

Worse case (3 starting mafia, recruiting cult)

1/2/1/3

I doubt that the mod would set it up that on day 3 there could be only one townie left.

What all that says is that I think its much more likely that the communists are a mason group than a recruting cult. Or misnomers been a bastard mod and the roles don't exist. Althoguh the signups said it was non-bastard (that would be the ultimate level of bastardly, lying in the sign ups!)

The other option is that DBC is talking absolute bollocks and actually killed ahammel.

The other thing that has occured to me is that we could have 2 people "primed" (thats the term mafiawiki uses). Therefore we need to be careful.

by **UniqueScreenname** » Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:22 pm UTC

I'm not buying the only one NK thing. We've had two NKs every other night. This time we had one and a watcher that said he saw 3 people show up. I think it's more likely the doctor didn't try (or maybe we don't have a doctor and my role is fake too) since ahammel kept trying to get the mafia to cooperate.

Oh, wait, never mind.

Misnomer wrote:Not all actions have been sent in, but night has gone on long enough.

It's completely plausible now.

As far as what commies would be, I refuse to believe we have a cult and 2 NKs with only 12 people at the start. Plus an arsonist allegedly. I personally wouldn't find it a surprise that there were a whole bunch of fake roles (I just said mine could be a weird fake one too) and have that be considered non-bastard. Bastardry comes when mods change the flow of the game. Fake roles are there from the beginning and are already worked into how the game is setup. (And here come the influx of FoSs because I'm trying to get town to ignore possible threats. I'm not saying ignore them. I'm saying we know mafia exists. Let's get the mafia! If we get an NK out of the way, the game will be infinitely easier.)

I've been thinking also. If Adam knew he was going down, he could have been trying to bus eculc, knowing that after we lynched him and he came up without an investigative power, we would consider everything he said bollocks and then his scummate would be siting pretty. It's super winey, highly convoluted, and a bit of a stretch, but it is Adam we're talking about.

by **DaBigCheez** » Tue Jul 03, 2012 4:29 pm UTC

USN/wam: The main reason I don't believe we have a cult is because of

Misnomer wrote:There is no cult. Other recruiting roles may be present, however.

The next plausible option in my mind was masonry, but I remain suspicious - you can never trust a Commie. I definitely haven't ruled out the possibility that my role does absolutely nothing due to no communists existing (as a government agent getting all worked up over a nonexistent communist threat seems like pretty likely flavor), but I've been proceeding under the assumption that I am sane.

It's possible that one of the Communists is the arsonist and is anti-town, but if so, it's not like our procedure for catching them will be any different from catching regular scum, so scumhunting as usual is the order of the day.

USN - interesting theory about Adam/eculc. It's definitely a gambit I could see him trying to pull off.

(And yes, I acknowledge that there's no proof I didn't just kill ahammel - but perhaps if the others who targeted him feel like coming out and claiming we could see who trusts whom?)

by **Misnomer** » Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:11 pm UTC

Deadline in just under 48 hours.

by **eculc** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:43 am UTC

While I don't feel particularly trusting of communists, I can see how they could be a mason group, but also something else entirely. maybe the communists' win condition is to have everyone alive recruited, no matter whose side they're on? I suppose it really depends on what a "cult" is, specifically. does it refer to any anti-town recruit group, or specifically an indie one? I realize there's no actual way to tell, but it's something to think about.

Re: adam distancing from me: it seems like that would be a really risky move for scum. if enough people had outright believed him, both he and his scumbuddy (me in this example) would be dead, and scum would have lost.

by **KrO2** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:05 am UTC

DaBigCheez wrote:(And yes, I acknowledge that there's no proof I didn't just kill ahammel - but perhaps if the others who targeted him feel like coming out and claiming we could see who trusts whom?)

Just wanted to clarify that this might be a bad idea. The upside is what DaBigCheez said, the downside is the blowing of the cover. It'll depend on the role, but I'm guessing for most roles you shouldn't. If we already had three claims, or even four, then it might be a different story.

So, it's interesting that we now have almost the same evidence for the existence of communists as we do for an arsonist. Well, except for the fact that we've actually seen Snark's role PM and DBC seems uncertain, but it's the same type of evidence at least.
DBC, how strongly does your role PM imply that the communists are Evil? I can't think of any other recruiting scum roles that aren't cult, so if it sounds like there's no other possibility then it might just be a red herring.

If communists exist and are town masons, it might be nice if one of them claimed. Help town clear up some of this. Unfortunately that doesn't sound like nearly enough reason and I don't know a better one at the moment. So they probably shouldn't.
eculc's suggestion seemed strangely specific. Are you saying that would be an example of an anti-town recruiting group that isn't a cult? That would nicely answer my question above.

US, when you say there were two NK's every other night, you're referring to all one of them, right? We don't have very strong evidence yet, especially since we don't even know the alignment of one of the N1 kills.

by **UniqueScreenname** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:14 am UTC

Hm, I suppose there has only been one. I'm obviously playing too many games if you can't already tell. I think I also was basing it on how there's obviously more than one anti-scum faction because the OP said that mafia didn't kill the mayor. I've come to realize there's a whole bunch of reasons there could be one less NK too. Party mafia just had a role that would kill someone the next night, or having to choose between either an NK or another action. I have to try to train myself not to be blinded to possibilities.

@eculc - We are talking about Adam. Unless you plan on claiming, there isn't a better way to find out.

Vote: eculc

by **eculc** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:12 am UTC

KrO2: it was more of an example of a recruiting group that wasn't a cult OR a mason group, not specifically an anti-town one.

US: you attack me for not defending myself, then you attack me when I do. I have a hard time believing that this is all because of adam accusing me (and trying to make his death a 1-for-1 trade). it's unlikely you (or anyone else, for that matter) would believe me, and assuming I made a claim that could protect me from the lynch (regardless of what my actual role is) I'd be a target for the NK. why should I believe that claiming would help (as you suggested)? I've already claimed that I'm not the arsonist, and THAT didn't help at all. more likely, you're trying to decide if I need to be NKed tonight, and you're putting pressure on me by voting.

Vote: UniqueScreenname

by **DaBigCheez** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:33 am UTC

My role PM implies quite strongly that the communists are evil (or at least that my role believes so, standard disclaimers about sanity and such). If they're not anti-town my role would still make sense to be "sane" in the traditional sense, of doing exactly what it says on the tin, but would go against the flavor I was provided and would mean that doing exactly what my actions say on the tin would not be helpful.

by **UniqueScreenname** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:57 am UTC

eculc wrote:US: you attack me for not defending myself, then you attack me when I do.

I didn't know that I was supposed to accept every explanation I am given. They didn't tell me lying was banned. We should just ask everyone if they're mafia or not then.

I have a hard time believing that this is all because of adam accusing me (and trying to make his death a 1-for-1 trade).

I already said I think he was bussing you. And I'm not just going according to what he said. You've also been the scummiest acting person, as I mentioned before. If you had been acting like a saint this whole game, I would have called what Adam said bull and moved on.

it's unlikely you (or anyone else, for that matter) would believe me, and assuming I made a claim that could protect me from the lynch (regardless of what my actual role is) I'd be a target for the NK. why should I believe that claiming would help (as you suggested)?

I was going to get lynched D1. I had a reasonable claim. I'm still here. If you have a reasonable claim, I would believe you.

I've already claimed that I'm not the arsonist, and THAT didn't help at all.

Again, why has no one told me that lying is banned from this game? This is going to be so easy!

more likely, you're trying to decide if I need to be NKed tonight, and you're putting pressure on me by voting.

Vote: UniqueScreenname

The worst reason for an OMGUS EVER. That's the definition of what town is supposed to do. Yes, I'm putting pressure on you. If you are town, prove it instead of spreading this useless wine. I'm not gunning for you. I'm gunning for scum. If you aren't scum, make me believe you, and I will look elsewhere.

by **wam** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:06 am UTC

Unofficial Votals:

lynx (1): wam
Eculc (1): UniqueScreename
UniqueScreename (1): Eculc
4 to lynch.

about 30 hours to the deadline and we have a 3 way tie with 3 votes! Get voting people!

Also I feel the point I made about lynx seems to have got lost in all the disscussion. Does anyone else find this suspicous or is it just me?

wam wrote:My suspicouns of lynx comes from this line

lynx wrote: Anyway, I'd be happy with an eculc lynch today to clear things up.

Lynching someone to "clear things up" really stick out as rather scummy to me. It feels like scum thinking ah yeah we can easily push a eculc lynch tomorrow.

vote:lynx

The other thing I noticed that struck me as odd on doing a readthrough is the following from DBC

DaBigCheez wrote:
We'll still take a hit even if he's telling the truth, since eculc will almost certainly light up tonight if it's true, but we should be either safe or at high MYLO, which isn't too bad...

My understanding of the arsonist roles that you can have them able to light up at night, in the day or both. In this line DBC suggests that he know that the arsonist can only light up at night? Scum slip or town slip?

FOS DBC for this.

by **UniqueScreenname** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:56 am UTC

EBWOP: the putting pressure part is townie, but I read NK as kill and defaulted to lynch.

@wam - I agree that what lynx said is scummy, but I've seen so many people say things like that and ended up town, so I'm reluctant to switch. I won't say what I think about the suspicions about DBC until he responds.

by **KrO2** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm UTC

I don't think I've really said much about what I think about eculc. I do think he's been under a lot of pressure. He has responded a bit scummily. His arguments have varied from the strong (That would be an extremely risky distancing move.) to the nonexistent (I said I'm not the arsonist.) He also just assumes Adam's goal was to make a 1-for-1 trade, when that's not the only possibility even if he's town. His unwillingness to claim was also pinging me. This is probably the loudest single ping. Not because he declined to claim but because of the way he did. His argument was "Nobody would believe me and any claim townie enough to not get me lynched would get me NK'ed." There's several things wrong with that, but that's not my main problem with it. My main issue here is that the argument was anything other than "Why claim at only one vote?" If one attacker, however vehement, was enough to require a claim then that would just not work for obvious reasons. The response eculc gave sounds very like he has something to hide from town. And the vote...I didn't understand that vote. Ordinarily I'd assume that whatever immediately preceded it was the reasoning, but then it would just be blatant OMGUS.
I have eculc pretty far onto the scummy side.

UniqueScreenname has been going after eculc. I doubt anyone but she will deny that. Some of her arguments seemed weak, though. Like when she said she already said she thinks Adam was bussing eculc. Let's get the obvious out of the way: No she didn't. What she said was that it's an interesting possibility but a bit of a stretch. Stretching and suggesting a possible interpretation where eculc is scum is not the same thing as believing that interpretation. OK, so maybe she came around to believe that explanation and just forgot she hadn't said so in-thread. But there's not sufficient reason for that. To be fair, it does explain all the evidence we have and I might have listened if that had been her argument. Instead her argument was "This is super winey, Adam loves doing super winey things, therefore Adam did this." There's logic, and then there's logic. This isn't either of them.
I think she may have also said to lynch eculc to clear things up? "If you don't claim there's no better way to find out whether Adam was bussing you," followed by a vote. And she's been trying to get eculc to claim. Why should he do that? It'd be kind of premature if he did it then. There's also her town to scum list: her vote is not on the person she had as scummiest. I suppose her opinion could have changed after one post from each of the bottom two, but it wasn't a particularly townie post by SoC or a particularly scummy one from eculc.
I think US looks pretty scummy too. Since she has claimed I guess I have to adress that. "Nurse" is a safe claim. If you're lying you don't even have to fabricate any results for a while, possibly ever. Doesn't mean she is lying, just that it's hard to prove one way or the other.

When I started this post I intended to vote for US, but after looking at each of their scumtells I think eculc's were worse. Both of their votes smelled bad enough that I don't like the idea of piling on top of either of them, but since most of the scumtells came from one or the other of them I'd be wrong to vote for someone else entirely. Doesn't mean I think everyone else is townie, just that US and eculc going after each other made them both look worse than anyone else.

Vote: eculc

Re: DaBigCheez:
I typed something out but then deleted it because it probably actually is a good idea to wait until he gets back. Thanks US.

by **DaBigCheez** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:43 pm UTC

As far as the arsonist thing, I thought that arsonists typically were able to either douse someone at night or light everyone they'd previously doused. This was based entirely on my own memory, plus thinking of it as a game-balance thing (arsonist has to decide whether to light up based on if they think they'll get lynched the following day, which is/would be a mechanic with interesting choices); I hadn't been thinking about the possibility of it as a daykill role. Checking mafiascum it looks like it can work either way, and doesn't say anything about having to choose between dousing or igniting, so my memory might just fail it wrt how arsonists work, having only read a couple games with them and (I think) not actually participated in any.

And yes, I realize mafiascum uses "prime", I just like the word and imagery of douse better and it's what I started this post with before checking mafiascum. If you want to think that's "another" "slip" go right ahead.

by **Misnomer** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:45 pm UTC

Votals:

lynx (1): wam
eculc (2): uniquescreenname, KrO2
uniquescreenname (1): eculc

4 to lynch. Deadline in just over 24 hours.

by **KrO2** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:56 pm UTC

DaBigCheez wrote:My memory might just fail it wrt how arsonists work, having only read a couple games with them and (I think) not actually participated in any.

Werewolves. Modded by Misnomer. The Anarchist would rig a player with explosives each Night and had a one-shot day detonation. DBC participated in that game.
That was the thing I didn't say earlier, the proof that DBC has played with this kind of thing before. and it was not a night action only in that game. US, what were you waiting to say?

Who is online