Mini 673 - Game Over!

[Darox]

Right, that's me read up.

I'll lay down some opinions on people in the near future, but first a question.
Hascow, you never said who you investigated last night. Who did you investigate?

[Darox]

Right, that's me read up.

I'll lay down some opinions on people in the near future, but first a question.

I am a terrible person and a liar.


So lets use the big brush of generalizations and annoy some people, shall we?

It's time for a list. Or rather, a set of lists. You may call it a list of lists if you are so inclined.

Not Scummy

scotmany12
Simenon
hasdgfas
stark
Tomato/MadCrawdad

Scummy

Haterade/Strife220
IH/Lord Gurgi

Cardboard Cutout

Flameaxe

Feel free to abuse me and demand that I elaborate.

[Darox]

I actually plan to post sometime in the near future when my schedule allows.

[Darox]

Unvote, Vote: Gurgi

I have the amazing ability to wake up on time.

[Darox]

Real life issues are getting in the way, but by the end of today I will be able to finish my post.

[Darox]

My apologies on my play (Or lack thereof) recently. Hopefully the reasons for this have been remedied.

And now, the moment you've all been waiting for.

FlameAxe - Sean Connery

Really not a lot I can say here. Jumps on an assortment of wagons with no given reason, asks a couple of people to clarify/explain further, and that's it. We could replace him with a cardboard cutout of Sean Connery and no one would notice.

scotmany12 - Town

Random vote then nothing for 6 days, before coming back to say 'No comment' then defending his stance. Overall, I think his responses to the queries about his lack of input are genuine. Then we get to the fun bit, Scot vs Gurgi. Scot votes Gurgi for his predecessors unexplained vote and subsequent replacement. After Gurgi dismisses this as too little, scot expands on this by showing

why

IH's disappearance is suspect. For some reason this gets him attacked and again I think he's being genuine in responding to these attacks. Overall, he looks like town.

Simenon - Neutral

Spends a large part of day 1 going after anyone seen as not contributing rather than anyone he thinks is particularly scummy, but he does change this later when he starts attacking hascow. Day 2 he claims he thinks he's figured out the setup (Uh, what?) then starts laying down thoughts on IH/Gurgi and Flameaxe, which is good, but he doesn't really make clear what his conclusions are. He still has his vote sitting on Flameaxe, but agrees with scot that Flameaxe "always pulls this shit". The comment about the setup is off, but aside from that nothing really sticks out.

Haterade/Strife220 - Scum

Haterade - Doesn't random vote, explains why, dips out of view for a bit then votes hascow for wagon hopping and being useless. Not really a lot to go on here.
Strife - Shows up day 2 disappointed that fuzzylightning died overnight which wasted his prepared thoughts on the matter. Pokes some suspicion at Tomato based on the actions of the two dead scum. Kind of makes sense describing Simpor's post, but when talking about PEG's post doesn't make any sense at all. Say's he's "not sure if [he's] comfortable interpreting peg's quoted post" but that "it's certainly interesting." What?
Moving on, he thinks discussion should be postponed until hascow reveals his investigation result (What?) then reveals that his big speech prepared on fuzzylightning boiled down to "He survived Day 1" (Uh, okay?) Goes on to explain a bit more about his points against tomato and on PEG. This is just baffling. He states that PEG clearly ordered his list of the wagons at that time in a specific way (Clearly ) then goes on to say that there is lots of information in the post (Mind sharing some?) but that "Strong Conclusions can't be made" (Que?) and to top it all off, he says people should make up their own minds. (How about telling us what's on yours first, hmm?) Moving on, in response to further questions about his prior statements on PEG, he responds "I'm not going to answer this question (No change here then), because I don't think such subtle town- tells (Err... I'm at a loss for words at this)" and then goes on with some poorly considered WIFOM questions. Actually makes sense for a brief, hopeful moment when he says Sim's "I think I know the set-up" line was quite scummy, but then ruins it again by saying hascow claimed MadCrawdad as innocent and by delving into the field of utterly pointless maths.

Stark! - Town

Kicks the day off by beating up fuzzy, but for good reasons, then starts "reverse tunnel-visioning" Simenon, which seems a bit nonsensical at first but I think I get the general idea of what he's doing. I get the feelgoods from stark, I think he's a man of the people.

Tomato/MadCrawdad - Obvious for Obvious Reasons

Hascow.

And thus is done my thoughts on the living players. (Yes, I know Sim died, but I started this thing yesterday)

Crawdad, I "dove in right before the wire" because I managed to wake up just in time to beat the deadline. (Unfortunately I missed another deadline on the same day because it was an hour before this one) After the no lynch day one I felt we had to get some democratic action in.

And HP, I totally did finish it today. My time zone strikes again.

[Darox]

Whoops, I forgot my

Vote: Strife220

That's better.

[Darox]

Here's what bugs me about your analysis of the players, Darox... the fact that Sim is on it. I assume this was to show us how hard you really were working on Day 2, even though most of us assumed that your cardboard cutout was standing next to that of Flameaxe.

So you've decided to include Simenon in your analysis (as you claim to have started it on Day 2). Fine. Then where the heck is Gurgi on that list? He was one of your suspects, so it would seem to me that you'd likely pull together information on him first.

Apparently knowing that your time was limited, it would make sense to me that you would pull together cases on your suspects before wasting time and effort to say why you thought others were NOT scummy.

Logically you would want to give reasons to lynch your suspects first. So once again, where the heck is Gurgi on that list?

Also, you think Stark is a man of the people? Stark did nothing at all yesterday...didn't even vote. Then comes back and says that Sim was his biggest suspect on Day 2. Funny...he never mentioned it before.

I don't know Stark's role, but the fact that you find him so pro-town is a little off-putting.

FOS: Darox

Actually I did it in the order listed on the front page.

I had gotten up to strife by the end of day 2 (Yeah yeah, I'm a terrible procrastinator) and decided there was no point in removing what I had already written on Sim.

[Darox]

I don't think you're getting it.

Since I had already written stuff on Sim, I saw no reason to delete it. I figured there was no point in not sharing what my thoughts on sim were when I had already written them.

I'm not sure how you can think the section on Sim, which you call "'old' crap" (In scare quotes no less) makes the rest of the evaluation irrelevant.

[Darox]

It's hilarious because you're assuming my actions in this game can be related to my actions in other games in any way, or that my posting levels can be related to my alignment in any way.

My posting in this game has been low because I didn't have anyone I really suspected. Crazy huh?

Also I hammered Gurgi because I don't believe doc claims out of hand. Is that really so hard to infer from my vote on him that I didn't believe his claim?

I'll get onto showing why your 427 doesn't provide any points later.

[Darox]

talking about PEG's post doesn't make any sense at all. Say's he's "not sure if [he's] comfortable interpreting peg's quoted post" but that "it's certainly interesting." What?

Can't recall the specifics of this comment, but I don't see what's wrong with saying something is interesting/relevant but not concrete enough to draw immediate specific conclusions.

Because you are drawing attention to something without attaching any of your own opinions to it. It's a very 'safe' move which is at best a distraction and at worst a way to mislead the town without putting yourself in the spotlight.

then reveals that his big speech prepared on fuzzylightning boiled down to "He survived Day 1" (Uh, okay?)

Adding 'Uh, Okay?' to the end of comments is not an argument. You asked why I was suspicious of Fuzzy. I gave my legitimate reasoning. You're using the fact that I was obviously wrong to paint me as scum. Now let me flip the attack around - What information could possibly be gained out of requesting a player to make an attack on a confirmed innocent, besides the opportunity to stand up on a high-horse and state the obvious 'you're wrong'?

If you can't beat them, attack them hard and fast with a misrep to try and catch them off guard. I never suggested that because you thought fuzzy was scum when he was a survivor made you scum.
Your entry into the game consisted of "I had a lot written on fuzzy, but he's dead, oh well" which smacks of being an excuse for any input. When pressed on what your thoughts on fuzzy were exactly by Madcraw (Who gets townie points for this) your summary boils down to "He survived day 1" which is pretty bare boned considering you said you "had a lot ready to say about the fuzzylightning issue." Basically, it looks like a stretch to find something to fill the gap after being called out on not having any opinions.

Goes on to explain a bit more about his points against tomato and on PEG. This is just baffling. He states that PEG clearly ordered his list of the wagons at that time in a specific way (Clearly )

What are you trying to convey with your sarcasm this time? How is what I said scummy or incorrect?

You're taking PEG's list of bandwagons and trying to stretch it in the mad hope it will turn into evidence. Normally I would call this blatant misrep but your lack of anything other than "Hey look at this" and your general play in the rest of the game makes me think you're just trying to seem helpful when really you're just twiddling your thumbs.

then goes on to say that there is lots of information in the post (Mind sharing some?) but that "Strong Conclusions can't be made" (Que?) and to top it all off, he says people should make up their own minds. (How about telling us what's on yours first, hmm?)

I noticed you didn't answer this, and this isn't too surprising.

Moving on, in response to further questions about his prior statements on PEG, he responds "I'm not going to answer this question (No change here then), because I don't think such subtle town- tells (Err... I'm at a loss for words at this)" and then goes on with some poorly considered WIFOM questions.

This can be broken down into my belief that scum-tells should always be brought up, but town tells should usually be kept to ones-self, at least until said person is at risk of getting lynched. If you don't understand why, I'm sure there are some lengthy posts in the mafia discussion forum discussing this issue.
The specific issue I was referring to is PEG's defense on Scot, which I considered to be a town-tell for Scot, because scum seldom defend their partners so explicitly. However me making this argument at that time would not have been helpful to the town for the same reason town-tells are seldom worth bringing up. If he was close to being lynched, I would have explicitly brought it up. However, he wasn't close to being lynched, so I just highlighted it so that others could see its significance.

So you believe towntells should be kept to ones self because they just help the scum pick off the most pro town players, but then you spit one out at me while explaining the dangers of revealing towntells? Come on, really? And you completely ignored my comments about you avoiding questions and using bad WIFOM.
--

In other news, I'm fine with a massclaim, although I haven't had much success with them.

[Darox]

So apparently MadCrawdad was a vig.

What do you have to say about that, Strife-"I fakeclaimed vig to stop people lynching me"-220?

[Darox]

I targeted Darox last night.

My vig claim wasn't fake. But I didn't know there were 2 Vig's, and somehow Crawdad apparently knew I wasn't lying...

I'd say it's definitely time for a massclaim, because the kills in this game aren't making any sense to me.

Lynch all Liars definetly applies in this case.

Vote: Strife220

[Darox]

So I'm pretty sure Strife is a serial killer.

I'm a vig. I killed PEG N1 right after I subbed in to the game.

Please keep in mind that if I was the SK, I would have no motivation to claim Vig.

Barring a counter-claim, I believe my claim is indisputable. If someone does counterclaim, then he is the SK and we will shoot each other overnight. Darox has played the entire game with the motivation of a serial killer. He should be the lynch today. We have a few hours until deadline, lets please get a good lynch off today.

Remember this?
He was quick to try and dispel any thoughts that he is not in fact a pro town vig despite having no backing for this.
Not only that, but he was quick to inform us that if he was a SK he would not have claimed vig. WIFOM does not suit you, as I can quite easily give a reason right off the top of my head, namely to dodge the lynch. It worked quite well at the time too.

But now, a new day dawns, and it turns out MadCrawdad is a Vig! This must have been a real problem for you, because that put the death total up to 3 mafia and one vig, and seems to account for two of the three initial killers evidenced in the first night, with you apparently being the missing piece.

Let's have a look at last nights kills, shall we?

MadCrawdad had a kill, obviously, and given that he had voted stark previously in the day and would not commit suicide, it's pretty safe to assume that MadCrawdad killed stark.
Which leaves you as the only claimed killer, and MadCrawdad's blood on your hands.

You claim to have targeted me, but as we can plainly see, I am still alive. The doctor is dead, so what explanation do you have for my lack of rigor mortis? Instead, the bigger threat to scum, the person hascow breadcrumbed as his innocent result is dead. Not only that, but not killing me, you keep the person who was nearly lynched in your steed yesterday alive, just in time for the end game.

[Darox]

So after three mafia goon kills, you're now assuming there is now a fourth mafia who is not a goon but in fact a NK immune mafia member?

Contrary to what your teachers may have told you, reaching for the stars isn't a good thing.

[Darox]

A little birdy told me MadCraw thought stark was scummy.

Where as he only mentions you twice, once in his first post and once yesterday.

Why do you think he would try to vig you over stark?

[Darox]

Vanilla.

[Darox]

Stark's dead.

[Darox]

Because it's usually a safe assumption that there's only 1 of each power-role in a mini. And I would have assumed him to be lying if he claimed vig. It's a pretty safe assumption. So Crawdad somehow knew I wasn't lying with my claim, yet if his PM was the same as mine, he had no information out of the ordinary. Hence my confusion. Role-claims didn't really solve that problem.

It's actually a pretty safe bet Crawdad didn't read your claim, being as it was at the bottom of the last page and him not having posted since then.

[Darox]

I think Strifes trying to buy another day of freedom.

Before we do anything, can you please explain to us why we should follow what you say?

So far you've had a lot of evidence pointing to you being the remaining scum, and you claim that we shouldn't kill you because the "game is more complex" and that "a full-disclosure is the only way to come out of this without a SK-win."

Having said that, you then proceed to disclose NOTHING and insist we should no-lynch based on your whim.

So I ask you, why?
Why should we follow along with this little game of yours?

[Darox]

Why should we follow along with this little game of yours?

Because HP-Leaves clicked in to what I'm getting at. No-lynch benefits everyone but the SK here. If I'm alive tomorrow, I can be lynched.

Vote: No lynch

Deadline is in 4 days. Today will be a no lynch whether people want to vote with me now or wait until deadline. I'll give full disclosure tomorrow if I'm still alive, or in post-game if I die.

So your reasoning for why we should no lynch is a smug satisfaction that because HP is chasing butterflies it's going to force a no lynch regardless?

Yeah, that's not going to fly.

[Darox]

So basically, I think this forced no lynch is bullshit and that strife is the serial killer.

HP, we've already covered why all the evidence shows he's a serial killer, what reason do you have for letting him bluff his way out of being lynched for a second day in a row?

[Darox]

Why not now?

[Darox]

Scot has already shown why there being another serial killer is an absurdity.

[Darox]

The real SK might not be him and accidentally kill him in the night.

This makes no sense whatsoever.
How could someone accidentally kill him? I'll tell you. They can't. They get a choice of who to kill you know.

Also, as scot already showed, having another serial killer and strife being a second vig doesn't work out because of the numbers of kills and general absurdity of 4 killers. Which means strife either lied about his vig role, or he lied about his vig role AND he's the serial killer. In both cases it makes strife a liar who claimed vig to avoid being lynched.

[Darox]

Strife needs to be lynched.

Come on HP, get to it.

[Darox]

The fact that the Mafia were not differentiated in death threw me off.

In the final night I thought I was damned no matter what I did, seeing as I would have been bumped off anyway, but on the off chance I did survive I thought hp dying would make me seem more suspicious to scot.

In retrospect I should have killed him because it would have left me and scot as the majority should hp try to fudge the day again.