Doctor Who Mafia 2- GAME OVER!

[mcpaltp]

Vote MoS

because there is much love here. And so I can laugh as he can't OMGUS vote me. Teehee.

Vote:Flameaxe.

I remember this one. In his own words:

Diescumdie.

[mcpaltp]

Haste makes waste. It is not yet time.

5 votes on Taffmaster, by my unofficial count.

[mcpaltp]

SA posters: There is a clear train of reasoning that leads to the conclusion that anyone who claims that another player is his scumbuddy needs to be lynched. Simply put, there is never a good reason for a pro-town player should claim that another player is his scumbuddy (since there's no basis for the claim and it distracts from finding the real scum). Scum, by way of contrast, can have perfectly good reasons to claim that another player is their scumbuddy (it introduces all kinds of WIFOM considerations).

Given these facts and my past experiences with scumbuddy claims in games, I hold that scumbuddy claims are the biggest scumtell in the book, and that the correct response to a scumbuddy claim is to lynch the offending player and disregard the actual claim, period. This should result in the lynch of a scum and cut out any WIFOM considerations from the claim. I am unwilling to make exceptions from this policy - if a townie doesn't know that claiming a scumbuddy, even in jest, is unacceptable, then that townie needs to find out the hard way, and the loss of a single townie shouldn't lose the game for the town.

As for the "he was joking!" argument: Just because you claim to be joking doesn't mean that you should be let off the hook, except during the random vote stage (and sometimes not even then).

(Aside: I also think that scumbuddy claims should be a modkillable offense for many of the same reasons that quoting your role PM is a modkillable offense, and I will be adding a clause to that effect in any future game that I mod. Unfortunately, I'm not the mod in this game, so my opinion won't have any effect here.)

Uh, it's not like it's that hard to just ignore them. I see you're setting up to compare this to lynch all liars (the similar "if it's a townie then oh well they'll learn not to do it next time!") but in a similar way to how people generally assume all townie claims to be

true

, you can assume all scumbuddy claims to be

false

. You said yourself that they should be ignored if it turns out the person in question WAS scum, so I don't see why we can't just ignore them, period. Then they cease to be a distraction.

Seems like a far easier solution than lynching a townie just to "teach them a lesson". I'm not willing to compromise with "well we can afford to lose

just one townie

" because a) you don't know if he has a power role and I certainly don't think we should ask and b) LYNCHING TOWNIES IS NEVER A GOOD IDEA (sorry for the shouting, it's kind of a catchphrase of mine to repeat that over and over in all caps whenever somone suggests lynching a townie for 'information' or otherwise)

You start on

this

slippery slope, who knows where it'll end? Soon we'll be lynching people just because we don't like their attitude or we feel they are "too much of a distraction" and we can afford to lose

just one more townie

. We might as well not even be playing the game anymore at that point.

And that is why my vote is on you. Because despite how you try to rationalise it,

lynching townies is absolutely, positively, never a good idea

. If you had actual reason to think Aisar is scum, then it would be different, but it honestly seems like you're just trying to teach him a lesson without even caring to put any thought into whether he is scum or not. To me, that's not acceptable.

The only power we have is the force of our majority. To waste that power would be a grave error.

vote: Tarhalindur

When emotions run high, good people can get hurt. When two sides unite, light will previal. When two sides are at war, darkness reigns.

Mod: Votecount please?

[mcpaltp]

[Mcpaltp-Please unvote before making a new vote.

Unvote:Flameaxe
Vote:Tarharlindur

[mcpaltp]

Upon first examination, any success can be seen as a blessing.

[mcpaltp]

It is not yet time.

[mcpaltp]

One may be something one is not, but that one says one is. What is that which is in front of me? The truth or a lie? What is, is. What isn't, isn't. Who a person really is will be revealed in time.

[mcpaltp]

We are beset on more than one side. We must remain vigilant, as to fail invites ruin.

[mcpaltp]

You are welcome to it. As there was a question, I assisted in the best way I could.

[mcpaltp]

Also, I am in total agreement with what Vollkan said about scum groups. But I read BM's opening post not to say that the scum have "safe claims" per se, but that there will be members of the

town

with scummy sounding role-names, who we might think were scummy if we were strictly looking at their alignment on the TV show.

You are not alone. One may not be who one claims to be.

[mcpaltp]

Rules may provide helpful boundries to the truth, but those boundries may contrict until the truth has no more room. Be cautious in trusting outside influences.

[mcpaltp]

Taffmaster unofficial votecount

Taffmaster- 7.

14 needed to lynch.

[quote='Chronx']
Taff, come out and EXPLICITLY claim your role
[/quote]

This may not be in our self interest.

[mcpaltp]

Personally, I think a great policy answer to the above would be to just systematically lynch every experienced player behaving like that so that over time scum couldnt hide that way and people would have to play better. So I need to bite down on my urge to say - OK Town, let's just lynch all the people who've been pains in the ass today and let the chips fall where they may. Hell we're off to a great town start if not now, then when? You're so big on policy lynches, Tar, what do you think of that one?

This proposition is tempting.

[mcpaltp]

All that annoys need not be punished with death. Halfway to death, but still a long way to go. Truth will be revealed in time, or when truly needed. I do not think that now is the time.

The cusp of unveiling is dishonestly. Choose a side. If it is time, reveal yourself. If it is not, do not. We always have a choice.

[mcpaltp]

Just assume that there's only one scum group. When someone starts planting ideas that there's two scum groups, that gives the real scum reasons to say "Well, even though he voted for confirmed scum to lynch, he could still be a member of ScumGroupB!"

I have serious issues with this.

Yes, in the event there are two scum groups then the fact that people are actively scum-hunting is not a town-tell. That is, unless they can be proven to have been in pursuit of persons from both groups (though even then is still cause for reasonable doubt)

Your suggestion equates to saying that we should assume there is only one scumgroup so that scum-hunting will appear inherently pro-town. There are serious problems with that sort of thinking, given the near-confirmation of multiple scumgroups.

It simpl creates a fictional means by which members of scumgroup B can be held to give off town-tells.

Even if there is a guilty lynch today, the persons on the wagon are not demonstrably pro-town. That is a fact that we need to accept. Assuming otherwise is just shoving our heads in the sand.

Don't even start to discuss if there's an SK or second or third scum group. Just let the game play out, and vote who you think is scum in general. Once we can confirm separate scum groups, fine, let's think it out. But for now? Doing that only hurts the town.

No. Doing so is necessary because if we take your approach and assume there is only one scumgroup, then we are naively making people out to be pro-town scumhunters when the reality could be very different.

I don't think there is a third scum group, but a SK is a perfectly viable probability. The fact it was not mentioned leans against it somewhat, but it is open for contemplation and you have failed to convince me that such contemplation is unhelpful.

With discussion, comes speculation. When three die, all will talk.

[mcpaltp]

Such specualtion is both bad and good. It is. With three deaths, contemplation is natural. Discussion is the strongest power we have, and specuation is discussion. To end discussion is to lose

A

ll power.

We are beset on all sides and from within. Those who cry for vengeance may answer to themselves. Even he who holds the noose may be false.

Gibberish holds the seed of understanding. Read. The context is the key.

[mcpaltp]

[quote="Axelrod"]Hey mcpaltp, please quote whichever of these statements is most appropriate:
quote]

Answers must come from within. Trust only that information.

[mcpaltp]

I think I know who mcpaltp is.

You are not alone.

[mcpaltp]

Yup, that's what I thought.

Many think they know who I am.

[mcpaltp]

FoS: Flameaxe for being a troll for the first, what, 9-10 pages?

Who can not be accused as such? The answer lies not within.

[mcpaltp]

He's another candidate for a policy lynch.

A loss of a townperson is a loss to the town. Taking such a loss deserves deliberation, and simply policy is not enough.

I am who I am. All I know for sure is myself. Revealing everything at this point would be detrimental. I will not expose my role in this drama. And drama this truly is.

[mcpaltp]

*when you kept saying "You Are Not Alone"

around the time I was suggesting the possibility of the Master,

were you

I did not notice this. Any confusion I caused was unintentional. I am who I am, and that is all I am.

[mcpaltp]

Are there any other really MAJOR recurring enemies or friends of the Doctor that I should check out?

The doctor's companion and her family may be wise. Rose and Martha were their names.

[mcpaltp]

Mcpaltp has been softclaiming the Face of Boe for some time. However, I have role-based information (I can elaborate if needed, but I think that it is not a good idea to spill the beans just yet) that gives me reason to doubt that the Face of Boe is even in game, and I suspect that if mcpaltp is telling the truth he is neutral.

Also, I have one more word for you: Torchwood.

I know exactly what you are hinting at ^^ and do not reveal anything more. I don't think it necessarily invalidates mcpaltp's softclaiming of Boe, because what you are talking about was never confirmed on the show anyway and, moreover, it still wouldn't rule them out as distinct game characters.

This. This was never confirmed. I do not think it is so.

I will not stand by to see innocencents fall. I am no monster.

[mcpaltp]

To be honest, I missed it too. Often the most obvious things are overlooked.

[mcpaltp]

Consider the identity of the first to die. She was not a major mover. It is probable that we are only dealing with the most recent chronicles.

But,

Surprises do exist.

[mcpaltp]

When the ice rink is closed, skaters will be slow to return when it opens again. Give it time.

[mcpaltp]

All of this wasted time is counter-productive. I may have all the time in the world, but we do not. What suspicions are held? Now is the time to speak. Now more than ever.

[mcpaltp]

Aisar was a man.

[mcpaltp]

^^

A vote without explanation fails to help the town.

The blue box is no mere telephone booth-- it is a police box.

[mcpaltp]

The poor man is only a little more than half dead, now.

8/14

[mcpaltp]

"playstyle" is a crutch for hiding true intentions. I am unconvinced by your paltry defence.

##Unvote:Tarharlindur
##Vote:Roach

9/14, -5

[mcpaltp]

I tire of this sordid business. Those who excuse malicious actions by claiming a malicious reputation contribute only malice.

Beware those with innocent names, they may not be their own.

##unvote:Roach
##Vote:Albert B. Rampage

[mcpaltp]

##unvote:Roach
##Vote:Albert B. Rampage

[mcpaltp]

Those who reveal themselves do a great disservice. Four suspicions do not a consensus make. I am reminded of a smokescreen. An early preventative measure, perhaps? Evil can hide in obscurations.

My sight is darkened by the encroaching twilight. We have time now. let us not waste it.

##Unvote:ABR
##Vote:Iammars

[mcpaltp]

Vote Vote

What are you trying to say?

[mcpaltp]

I see. I forgot that, thanks.

[mcpaltp]

What makes Caps more a villain than Tar? Mercurial, unexplained suspicions hide deception.

[mcpaltp]

I have seen this one before. She trusts no psychology and thinks that math will reveal all secrets.

[mcpaltp]

This is neither the time nor the place.

[mcpaltp]

I wish I could say I knew he was scum, but sadly he does do this every game*, and yes, it does bother me.

*based on the one other game I played with him.

Should a beast be killed just for what you call it's nature? Your justification is lacking.

##unvote:Iammars
##Vote:Shteven

[mcpaltp]

I wish I could say I knew he was scum, but sadly he does do this every game*, and yes, it does bother me.

*based on the one other game I played with him.

Should a beast be killed just for what you call it's nature? Your justification is lacking.

##unvote:Iammars
##Vote:Shteven

You overlooked this, cicero.

[mcpaltp]

Cicero got it nearly right. I think voting someone for any other reason than to catch scum in the game in which the vote is made or in MS games in general should be lynched on policy because if it isn't it creates a nice excuse for scum, who will feign outrage about someone doing something that isn't scummy but deserves disapproval for other reasons, those reasons not including that it makes it easier for scum to win. Remind me to ask about this in the mafia discussion forum postgame.

.

You're suggesting policy-lynching anyone who votes for any reason other than finding the player they're voting scummy. This is like the biggest self-contradiction ever, since policy lynching is

by definition

doing precisely that.

This is a wise statement.

[mcpaltp]

He claims to have targeted me, and I live. I did not notice him at night. I feel evil in his nature, but also feel his aloneness. He is too dangerous to live.

Vote:Cicero

[mcpaltp]

I cannot be killed unnaturally. I did not see if I was a target. No.

[mcpaltp]

Those who walk with evil have no hold over me.

[mcpaltp]

[mcpaltp]

: roll:

[mcpaltp]

Never lynch tomorrow a player you should lynch today.

[mcpaltp]

We have he who claims to see evil in our midst. If we do not act now, we will have the same problem in the future. Waiting and failing to seek evil harms the forces of good. Those who claim so harm the cause of light.

[mcpaltp]

?

[mcpaltp]

If an evil is known, why not remove it?

[mcpaltp]

I am no more or less than I claim to be. If I confuse you, I can clarify.

[mcpaltp]

What is the lie? Who is "us"?

[mcpaltp]

Erg0, its been decided that the town doesn't want to lynch me or Cicero today, because everything will become clear with tonight's deaths.

Who decided? How can the night bring clarity? I disagree.

[mcpaltp]

No.

[mcpaltp]

I am nothing but who I am. I can shed light on dark areas, if light is needed. In a word, no.

Both the supposed doctor and his supposed companion worry me. To delay resolution courts the danger of no information at all, leaving us with naught but ashes to show for it.

[mcpaltp]

I have answered your question. Where lies your confusion now? If my opinions are hidden to you, I can illuminate. Just because you fail to see them doesn't mean that they are not there.

[mcpaltp]

I've tried to read through and am having more that a bit of trouble. I have no idea who any of the characters are, so this isn't going to go well.

I'm just going to sit here until someone forces me to claim, then absolve myself, then lynch someone randomly.

Strike everyone as okay?

Foolish.

Whose eyes shall I look into? My memory is obscured.

[mcpaltp]

And finally, although he's in the middle of my list: Ectomancer (which also brings me to cicero's last post). Why has this guy been ignored? Is he confirmed town in some way that I have missed or is everyone just dismissing him as a 'scummy-type' player? Let's look at the things he's done here.

Voting: Bandwagon jump onto Stheven (yes, I found him scummy too), but within that vote post, he weakly defended Flameaxe (known scum). He also again 'weakly' defended Flameaxe in a future post after Stheven defended himself. He jumped onto the mcpaltp wagon with little reasoning other than just following others (advocating breaking game rules), but then jumped off again after mcpaltp said 'no' and nothing else. I don't really get the Lowell vote, and although I find Lowell (and predecessor - just DGB) a bit suspicious, I don't like the why/how Ecto voted for Lowell. To me, this vote accomplishes two things for Ecto - a way to stay off the two leading deadline wagons (cicero and mcpaltp) and also perhaps attempting to get the claim out of Lowell that was promised.

On to the next thing: Day 1 Ecto says no one wants a no-lynch, but day 2 he votes no-lynch himself giving detailed reasoning about how this is 'okay'. I'm not sure I'm buying it. I also can't believe that he actually thought people would agree to it. Also, when pressed even slightly, he responds with 'I prefer being scummy'. WTF? I HATE THIS ATTITUDE. In fact, this pisses me off more than the idea of ABR possibly being a lying townie.

There's also something I noticed about his mcpaltp interaction if you can call it that. I already mentioned the jump on and off the mcpaltp-wagon. However, when I began looking at people, Ecto was one of the first people I looked at simply because I didn't like both the no lynch idea and the 'I prefer being scummy' comment. I found the defense of Flameaxe, the 'no one wants a no lynch d1' (in direct conflict with his voting no lynch d2) and the jump on and off of mcpaltp's wagon. At that point, I decided to ask my #1 suspicion at the time (mcpaltp) what he thought of my #2 suspicion (Ectomancer). What I found odd is that afterwards, while I've waited for mcpaltp's response, was an appearance of Ecto basically kissing mcpaltp's rear-end.

Other than that, Ecto has done a lot of flavor-talking, which is meaningless to me and probably pretty much null. I am not a fan of it, but it's something both scum and town do, and since I don't know anything about Dr. Who, I can't tell if what Ecto has said flavor-wise is suspicious.

All that said:

FoS: Ectomancer

This would be a vote, except since I've failed to give this game proper attention until we were so close to a deadline, I'm not going to move my vote to a place where it will likely be useless today.

My vote on mcpaltp is going to stay where it is for today for productive purposes. I find him less suspicious than before when I initially voted, but with his lack of responding to my question about Ecto, and my feeling that there is something up with these two people, I'm not willing to drop it right now. Also, although I really believe cicero is wrong in his arguments against Yos and I dislike his semi-attempt to throw suspicion in Yos's direction, I believe waiting to see what night brings is the correct way to deal with cicero.

My eyes were dim, I did not see. His opinions do shift strangely. I wonder.

[mcpaltp]

##Unvote:Cicero

I fear that all is muddied water.

[mcpaltp]

##Unvote:Cicero

I fear that all is muddied water.

[mcpaltp]

##Vote:ABR

Unacceptable.

[mcpaltp]

You are not alone.

[mcpaltp]

I'm so sorry.

Mod:Replacement requested.