Mini 499: Just Your typical Mafia Game GAME OVER!!!!!!!!

[cicero]

Cicero, you keep saying that you and PWayne are scum buddies. I know you are 'joking', but if it turns out that pwayne IS scum (this is assuming you are town making jokes), how do you thinkt hat would reflect back on you?

/Shrug.

If we lynch Pwayne and he's scum people can come after me if they want. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I'll just be happy to have two dead scum. ESPECIALLY if one of them is the serial killer.

Mod Edit

Vote Count

TheHermit- 3 (pwayne66, Skruffs, Toaster Strudel)

pwayne66- 2 (HackerHuck, cicero)
Toaster Strudel- 2 (ChocolateAttack, TheHermit)




Not Voting- 1 (shaka!!)

5 to lynch

6 days till deadline

[HackerHuck]

Cicero, you keep saying that you and PWayne are scum buddies. I know you are 'joking', but if it turns out that pwayne IS scum (this is assuming you are town making jokes), how do you thinkt hat would reflect back on you?

Cicero's behaviour in this regard is definitely not pro-town. It only serves to confuse the issue if Pwayne does turn out to be scum. It's certainly not a useful defence.

I'm going to do a careful vote count and see where I should land before deadline. I still think that Pwayne is the best option for today, but I don't want to risk a no-lynch.

[HackerHuck]

OK, it looks like we've got two votes on Pwayne, two on The Hermit and two on Toaster Strudel.

That means no lynch if I do the math right. We need half of the normally required votes, which is 5 given 8 living. By my reckoning that's 3 votes that we need.

I really would like someone to switch to Pwayne. Does someone have a good reason not to vote for him?

[shaka!!]

My reason not to vote Pwayne is because I think TS would be a better choice.

[TheHermit]

I feel the same as shaka. And you can forget about trying to convince me to switch my vote to myself.

[shaka!!]

Vote: Toaster Strudel

I wasn't aware the deadline was so close.

[Skruffs]

Maybe the three players at risk of being lynched should claim?

[HackerHuck]

Maybe the three players at risk of being lynched should claim?

At the very least, we need a claim from TS, although I believe she may have already said she's vanilla.

At least with three votes, we've got a lynch. If anyone's thinking about pulling their vote from TS, you better move it to either Pwayne or TheHermit.

[cicero]

I see good and bad in all these wagons.

-------------
Pwayne I've expounded upon. I think he's the SK. Am worried that this is outing or lynching a power role though. Skruffs point about him changing up his playstyle because I'm in the game makes some sense.

TS's play has been uber-scummy. Metaing her shows she is often "zany" in her play style. May very well be the kooky vanilla townie she claims to be. This is a dangerous wagon.

Hermit: Was Flea. Flea was scummy to me. Hermit's play is a vast improvement but I have some sympathy for TS's point about him jumping on an easy wagon. I also liked Pwayne's demonstration that Flea was on all the major bandwagons. I am also hugely on bandwagons apparently, but unlike Flea, I'm actually

playing

.

I have misgivings about most other players as well:

Chocolate Attack: opaque and lurking

Shaka: Riding bandwagons

Hackerhuck: Every player here has been scummy. I disagree that Huck's play has been clean. I think it's been written in a measured tone. There's a difference.

Skruffs: Bad logic, refusal to listen to anyone, scummy predecessors

Cicero: You can all fill in your own reasons here.

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

Pick your poison I guess. This is a lottery at this point.

When exactly is our deadline now? I cant seem to find that.

[Toaster Strudel]

Maybe the three players at risk of being lynched should claim?

At the very least, we need a claim from TS, although I believe she may have already said she's vanilla.

At least with three votes, we've got a lynch. If anyone's thinking about pulling their vote from TS, you better move it to either Pwayne or TheHermit.

I've already claimed. I am vanilla.

I'm a good lynch for today. We're losing a townie, but at least we're not losing a power role. And I hope that my antics will allow you to find real scum tomorrow with greater ease.

Do take a good look at CA; as it's been pointed out, CA is a very opaque player.

Do take a good look at Hermit. My gut says Hermit is scum. Other feel his predecessor SSF is scum. Put that together.

[Toaster Strudel]

Oh, and just as a parting gift.

I'll try to put into words why I find Hermit scummy. Maybe it'll help you tomorrow.

cicero - His whole posting style rubs me the wrong way. I don't like how he reacted to Gorgon's cardflip; the pairing is too obvious for him to be a scumbuddy, but his contrition makes me think he's got something else to hide. On the one hand, he's been trying to get everyone to scumhunt. On the other, he tried to organize a lynch on a player he knew to be inactive. I haven't been here so maybe I don't understand the level of malaise this town sunk to, but that's not something I can overlook easily. Maybe SK.

Doesn't have a good thing to say about cicero. However, cicero was not considered voteworthy. Why not?

[Toaster Strudel]

Toaster Strudel - His play today has been terrible. Keeps claiming vanilla townie, and started when he wasn't under any pressure. Uh-huh. Made a huge screaming deal (going so far as to change the color of his text for emphasis) then admits that it's not a huge deal once it's proven to be full of crap. Severe tunnel vision regarding cicero and everyone that defends him; I expect him to roleclaim cop who got a guilty investigation if he gets into trouble, but I don't buy it. Probably scum.

For some bizarre reason finds a gratuitous vanilla townie claim to be as good as claiming scum. Further claims that he finds me suspicious for something I cannot possibly ever do, having claimed vanilla, which is to roleclaim cop with a guilty investigation.

Seriously folks. I'm scum for claiming vanilla. I'm scum because I'll be roleclaiming cop with a guilty result when I get in trouble.

Yes, I suffer from tunnel vision. I'm afraid it's incurable.

The person I suspect most right now is Toaster Strudel. I don't really have a problem with putting him at L-1. And since he already claimed vanilla, I wouldn't have much of a problem with a hammer either because I don't believe that claim.

How can I be THE MOST SUSPICIOUS player because of a -wow- unbelievable VANILLA claim? Look at how he doesn't mind putting me at -1. And read the sentence again: "And since he already claimed vanilla, I wouldn't have much of a problem with a hammer either because I don't believe that claim." I can't put my finger on it, but it's like... "I don't believe that claim" - what's up with that? Vanilla is not the sort of claim where you normally say "I believe it!" or "I don't believe it" - because vanilla is not a claim, it's a non-claim, it's just a statement of alignment, or a statement that says I don't have a special role.

My gut just reacts with the wording. I dunno. Maybe other people don't see it the way I see it.

And he's ready to HAMMER me because of a vanilla claim, and for (in some future) claiming cop with a guilty when I'm in trouble?

The punishment (the vote) doesn't fit the crime, as described by Hermit.

He might be full of baloney. Keep an eye on him tomorrow.

[Toaster Strudel]

HackerHuck - I really didn't like BM's playstyle, and Hacker has subbed into his role. Despite this, he's been playing a pretty good game. His logic is solid, his scumhunting looks genuine... Not really sure where he stands yet, but with so many more deserving targets I would NOT be supportive of an HH lynch today. Neutral, leaning town.

That seems like a fair assessment.

shaka!! - I see this guy as a provocateur. I notice that he doesn't post long diatribes like most of the other posters in this game, but he instead needles his victim whenever he thinks the conversation is shifting away from him. Nothing about him jumps out at me right now, so I'm going to give him the default maybe scum. Yes, I start off my games thinking everyone's a little bit scummy.

That also seems like a fair assessment.

pwayne - While I don't like how he seems to be trying to hover on the edge of the battlefield, he's been remarkably adept at defense. And after one particular Mini I was in recently, I don't see arguing strongly for one's innocence as "overdefensive" or scummy. Neutral.

He's trying to say something, yet say nothing about pwayne. Watch pwayne.

Skruffs - How this position lasted through Hurricane Guppy I'll never understand; in almost every other mafia game I've been in he'd have been lynched three times before he hit the ground (though Guppy was more obviously noob than scum). pwayne posted an entire list of questions he hadn't answered, then he shrugs and says he thought he answered everything. His case against cicero isn't very solid, and I say this even while I'm fingering cicero as the most probable SK candidate. Probably scum.

Interesting that Skruffs is the other player that Hermit finds to be scummy. Personally, I find that Skruffs is a little disinvested in this game, compared to other games he's in, and I doubt he'd lose interest like this if he were scum. The fact that Skruffs isn't paying close attention leads me to believe he might be another bored vanilla townie. So I find it very, very interesting that Hermit has pegged Skruffs as scum.

[Toaster Strudel]

Chocolate Attack - Lurking as much as possible without being replaced. And yeah, I can see that it's not his fault so I won't ding him too badly for it. Honestly, I get a headache when I look at his posts. No offense, but I'm one of those sticklers for spelling and grammar that gets annoyed when a sentence starts with a lowercase letter. I know it's a horrible thing to say (isn't English his second language?) but that's just me, not my role. If he said anything really insightful I'd appreciate it being pointed out to me, otherwise I'm going to give him the default maybe scum designation.

Understandably it's difficult to say anything of substance regarding CA.

According to TheHermit, the two other players (CA and shaka!!) are players that he himself has deemed to be on the scummy side of the equation, and that happen to be "hard to read."

Also interesting is that when shaka!! changed votes, it was when TheHermit was ahead in the count with 3 votes. By voting for me, TheHermit and I are head to head with 3 votes.

Just a thing for you to remember tomorrow.

[shaka!!]

A big part of me wants to unvote TS.

What do I do ):

[shaka!!]

That post won't look good if she turns up scum :\

[cicero]

So there's a three person Flea wagon now named TheHermit. I'm on it.

vote TheHermit

L-1. Let's see what happens.

[cicero]

Unvote. Vote TheHermit

for sticklers.

[Skruffs]

Umm....t he last time I voted was for "Guardian" who isn't uin the game, though it was meant to be for Cicero.

Unvote, Vote: Cicero

I never voted TheHermit. That is just clarifying a faulty vote count, though.

TS, you seem to be quick to have yourself lynched in every game we share. I see your arguments about TheHermit but I am not sure that they are any more reasonable than hsi arguments against you. Until you actually claim a cop with a guilty, him saying that he can see you doing that is just that, him saying it. He can't use that as an excuse to vote you - and I think he meant it sarcastically. I don't think iti's a reason to vote HIM, either, though I am not running the risk of defending him.

I actually think that he's put a good amount of effort into analysis, even though he seems to think I am scum. Cicero is just battle maging me now, but I think it's interesting how he's turned sides on PWayne so completely. I am getting a "The jig is up, time to take someone down with me" feel from his play ever since the prsesure on him and pwayne came from more than one source.



So the vote count Should be (unless there are other errors, like with Toaster Strudel)

Toaster Strudel- 3 (ChocolateAttack, TheHermit, shaka!!!)
pwayne66- 2 (HackerHuck, cicero)
TheHermit- 2 (pwayne66, Toaster Strudel)
cicero- 1 (Skruffs)

[cicero]

I was never ON pwaynes side. I was stuck with him because of your bad logic and the fact that Pwayne and I wanted to avoid a shrill confrontation for a while.

He was always the person I felt was most likely to be serial killer. I phrased it as 65% town 35% serial killer because the chances are more likely than not that everyone here is town. But I dont think anyone is MORE likely to be the SK than Pwayne. Capish?

Even though I think he's playing like he has a survivor role, the odds of pegging anyone as the SK are long odds. So I can't go acting all sure of myself, ya know?

[cicero]

Skruffs: do you have any useful insight on ToasterStrudel town play vs. Toaster strudel scum? I have trouble because on the one hand she's been misquoting and playing fast and loose with the facts. On the other hand there is an "oh that's just her" meta.

[Godot]

Unvote:

I have to make a decision as to whether to follow my heart or my head.

[cicero]

Um... who are you?

[Skruffs]

That being said, Toaster Strudel could be reverse-psychologizing us, or whatnot.
I don't really think she is scum, and I am also not sure if lynching her is a good idea, even if it reveals information, with the possibility that she isn't scum.

With three nightkills, we can't really afford to lynch a vanilla townie.

Unvote, Vote Pwayne66

[cicero]

I'm in agreement with Skruffs on the fact that lynching a vanilla townie claim gets us nowhere. As scummy as she can play, TS as a lynch is worrying me. I could go for Pwayne or Hermit. This has as much to do with playing with TS and seeing her type of play referred to by others as it does with anything she is doing. I've always found Hermit's predecessor scummy and I don't trust Pwayne any further than I can throw him, contrary to popular belief in this game.