Mini 722: Neapolitan Mafia (Over)

[Zachrulez]

/confirm

[Zachrulez]

Obviously this is a conspiracy.

Vote: magnus_orion

For discovering my super secret plan.

[Zachrulez]

why do I finding not random voting suspicious?
Well, random voting is supposed to be used to guage reactions. Guaging reactions is a way of finding scum. Therefore guaging reactions is pro-town. Therefore, by extension, random voting is pro-town. Not participating in a pro-town action is anti-town. Therefore not random voting is anti-town, and Anti-town is scummy. I expect, by page 3, for everyone whose posted to have made a random vote, unless something happened which ended the random vote stage. At which point random votes become scummy.

I agree that random voting can have it's uses.

I don't agree that not random voting is either anti-town or scummy. It's a player preference really isn't it?

I think your analysis here is a bit of a reach...

However

Sorry, double post, this was posted while I was posting....

No one IS discussing anything at the beginning of the day. Also, as bad as the random vote jokes are, they do (at least for me) convey a sense of community and friendliness which can be nice since the rest of the game is full of arguing and murder.

haha, true, true....

As for the fact that no one is discussing anything at the beginning of the day, we could maybe take cracks at the roles in this game, how the game is balanced, or other random things that have to do with this particular game.....but that's just one man's opinion...

We should be trying to figure out what the roles are? To what end? So mafia can false claim?

unvote vote: Tyhess

This is an interesting point. On top of false claim, my main concern with "taking cracks" at roles is that we will draw a map for the mafia so that they know exactly who to kill at night and in what order.

FOS: Tyhess

[Zachrulez]

I'm not sure what you meant by taking cracks at roles.

What I got out of that is that you placed a suggestion for us to try to figure out what roles are in the game and who has them.

Who is going to confirm the roles except for the people who actually possess them? (Or worse yet scum fake-confirming via claim.)

Outing roles that have not yet had a chance to gather any information doesn't benefit the town in any way that I can imagine. I can however, imagine how the scum could use the outing of a doctor or a cop to their advantage. (Makes it much easier to figure out who to kill first.)

Unless you meant something else by taking cracks at roles?

[Zachrulez]

No one IS discussing anything at the beginning of the day. Also, as bad as the random vote jokes are, they do (at least for me) convey a sense of community and friendliness which can be nice since the rest of the game is full of arguing and murder.

haha, true, true....

As for the fact that no one is discussing anything at the beginning of the day, we could maybe take cracks at the roles in this game

, how the game is balanced, or other random things that have to do with this particular game.....but that's just one man's opinion...

Taking cracks at roles or setup mechanisms will benefit scum more than town at this stage, considering Town has no information to work with this early. The scum are in a better position to learn more from these speculations.

It

might

have been more viable if we had started on a Night, where at least Town would have had a bit of info concerning the number of nightkills that occurred, or whatever the power-roles could have learned by their night actions. In our current state where Town knows nothing, it's a big no-no, IMO.

FOS tyhess

for what I consider to be an anti-town suggestion.

I was naming things that could be talked about, not necessarily what should happen in this game.

Nightless is an example of where that would work.

I just think talking about the game will give better leads than a random vote.

The second underlined portion is a blatant lie when taken along with the wording of the first underlined portion. That is my opinion.

I can see how the suggestion of taking cracks at roles can be anti-town.

But I don't see this blatant lie that you think you have pointed out. The first underlined portion said we could maybe take cracks at roles. The rest of the statement suggested other things we could discuss in the same context.

The 2nd underlined statement basically reiterated the same thing.

I don't see the lie.

Could you please elaborate further on this lie you believe you have discovered?

[Zachrulez]

I am interested in how Lindisfarne turned this...

haha, true, true....

As for the fact that no one is discussing anything at the beginning of the day, we could maybe take cracks at the roles in this game, how the game is balanced, or other random things that have to do with this particular game.....but that's just one man's opinion...

Into this...

Now, your backpeddling and methods in defense on this are just scumym to me. Saying that you wern't referencing this game when you recommended taking a crack at a role claim? Christ, give me a break. Your suggestion for a claim I can understand for a new player (which you arn't). It's your shifty defense that gets me.

unvote, vote: tyhess

The reason I am interested is because you used the taking a crack part from post 69... but changed taking a crack at roles in this game to taking a crack at a role claim.

Much like Magnus' assertion that Tyress lied, this portion of Lindisfarne's post 101 looks to be fiction to me.

[Zachrulez]

Besides once you reveal your plan, if it turns out to be anti-town, we can always lynch you...

I'm doing my plan right now. I'll reveal what's going on when it actually works.

oh, and my even/odd question is open to everyone. Don't answer if you are confused by the question. And don't guess an answer. Because I WILL know if you are lying, and will reveal why you are scum.

Why wouldn't you just let the scum lie and then point out why you know they're lying as scum?

If you can do that, it would seem a lot easier to me than warning them not to do so and thus be more cautious.

But what do I know?

[Zachrulez]

Depends on what you are asking.

I think I know what you are asking, but I'm not sure.

[Zachrulez]

But what do I know?

Not enough.

I take it you're not gonna answer?

I'm weary about this.

But, even.

[Zachrulez]

I wont reveal more about it unless zach agrees to.

And to be honest, it wasn't some huge plan. I was hoping if I worded it right, I could catch a scum, but oh well, that narrows it down to 10 people.

And zach, you can probably guess which I am :p

Actually I'm still a bit confused on all of that.

It did take a bit of thinking to understand what you were asking... and that is about the only thing I understand out of your experiment.

I'm trying to understand though....

But uhh... you're odd?

[Zachrulez]

I wont reveal more about it unless zach agrees to.

And to be honest, it wasn't some huge plan. I was hoping if I worded it right, I could catch a scum, but oh well, that narrows it down to 10 people.

And zach, you can probably guess which I am :p

Do you mean about even/odd?

Or about roles?

[Zachrulez]

Well, I think

I'm even

Linde is odd and we possibly have the same role

Or he has a role where he can tell whether roles of the dynamic that mine are set up in are even or odd, and is thus easily able to tell who lies about this.

I don't know. I must admit I'm a bit confused as to what exactly his experiment is myself.

But I do know what he was asking now, with the odd/even thing.

[Zachrulez]

I understand what you were trying to do now.

I don't understand why Rogue came out and flat out said we were cops... unless he wanted a confirmation on that.

Unvote : Magnus
Vote: Rogue

Will be interesting to see what his explanation is.

[Zachrulez]

I apologize for taking so long to respond. This topic moves faster than I thought, and I had a lot of catching-up to do today.

Firstly, I realise it's too late for me say this, but let me just say that I really hate the idea of outing both cops on Day 1. I understand what Lindisfarne is trying to do, but there're quite a few things we need to take into account, such as:

1) We don't know if we have enough doc roles to protect both cops

2) Even if we do, it makes it difficult for the cops to clear any innocents, because that will paint a target on the innocents' back, and the docs will be hardpressed to decide who to protect (especially when everyone is apparently a power role in this game).

3) Most importantly, the fact that there are no vanilla townies in this game makes me suspect that scum may have a power role or two of their own (role-blocker, framer, etc) to balance out the system. It they do, our cops may well be rendered useless.

With that said, I'm inclined to believe Lindisfarne is who he says he is. It

may

be as Percy says, that LF and Zach may be scumbuddies, but IMO it's too big a risk for scum to come up with a plot like this on Day 1. I believe LF's claim.

Zachrulez, though, is a different matter. I'm curious why so many of you appear to be accepting him as the other cop on face value (at least that's how it's coming off to me). The fact is, Rogue wasn't exactly wrong when he said that LF's "trap" wasn't particularly hard to spot. If Rogue could guess what LF was up to, I won't be surprised if Zach has also already spotted it. Let's face it, all he had to do is to make a 50/50 guess between odd and even to get the right answer. It's a risk, yes, but nowhere as big as the one LF is taking. I'm not so sure if I trust Zach in this.

Zach never once claimed to be the other cop. His answer was vague enough for him to make a good cover later. Like I said, I'm not a big fan of outing the cops so early, but Zach seems have gotten the trust of quite a few other players just by his "even" answer, so much so that he may be in a position to mislead the two later if he's not who he appears to be.

I'm afraid I have to ask Zach to give a definite answer: are you, in fact, the other cop that LF is trying to find?

And here's something else I'd like to ask:

is there anyone else who have the "odd/even" mechanism in his role?

Note: I'm not asking any one else (besides Zach) to claim power or role, or even if they are odd or even, I just need to know whether they have similar "odd/even" restrictions.

I know some people may see this as fishing for role info, but in this game everyone has something special about their role, so I doubt this will reveal too much, especially since LF already revealed that the odd/even mechanism exists. Like I said, I don't want anyone to claim power, I just need the odd/even thing answered.

I understand why suspicion is on Rogue. Even if LF's "trap" isn't the most brilliant one there was no need for Rogue to spill it all so quickly. There was still a chance that scum may fall for it. He's definitely high up on my suspect list, too, but I'd like to hear the answers to my 2 questions above before I place my vote.

BTW, it's night time where I live, and I have an outdoor visit to make tomorrow, so it may be another whole day and night before I can post again. So if you happen to post any question after I go to bed, please be patient. I will respond as soon as I can.

Wow, a bandwagon sure built up on Rogue fast.

I did find this post by Psycho to be disturbing too.

Important observations.

Rogue is assuming I am cop. Never asked for a claim. Asked questions about LF claim after it was made.

Psycho Sniper wants me to confirm my role.

Why? To me this is tantamount to wanting to assess my value to the town and determine whether I am valuable enough to attempt to kill at night.

Also problematic is that LF can't confirm my role. Why the hell does PsychoSniper think he can? All LF knows is that I possess an even night role, and even admitted he doesn't know what it is.

Unvote: Rogue
Vote: PsychoSniper

For the record, I believe Rogue and PsychoSniper to be a possible scumpair. PsychoSniper wins the vote for asking me to confirm my role.

[Zachrulez]

Alrught, I don't see this moving anywhere, so I'm going to explain the real reasons for my actions yesterday.

I asked 2 questions yesterday: 1) that Zach confirms whether or not he's the even-night cop that LF was looking for, and 2) whether anyone else has a even/odd night clause in their role.

First of all, let me just say that tyhess has summed up very well in post 219 why I do not think my questions were all that damaging to the town. We already know the odd/even mechanism exists, we already know everyone has a special role. I felt that my second question would not have revealed any more harmful information that hasn't already been revealed.

As for my first question, yes, it's risky. I can't really fault Zach for not wanting to claim like I ask, he has no real reason to trust me, but I have a good reason to want a straight answer for the cop question. I also have a good reason to trust LF, but not Zach.

I said that wanted Zach to claim to confirm LF. That's not really true. I didn't need Zach to confirm LF for me, because I can do that myself.

I'm the even-night cop

. I trust LF because he has revealed role info that parallels with mine. Everything, right down to the name/aligtnment conditions. I hope you can all see why I'm much more wary about Zach than everyone else, after his exchanges with LF.

I know Zach hasn't claimed to be the even-night cop, but 2 things about him worry me:

1) Before Zach decided to answer LF's odd/even question, LF flat out asked me and Rogue whether either of us were cops. It was obvious that he was looking for a cop. Even better, Rogue not only worked out his intentions, but went as far as spilling his little "trap" and pretty much told everyone what LF was probably looking for. If Zach isn't the cop, then why did he choose to answer LF's question? LF wanted a cop, and Zach wasn't the one he was looking for. It looked to me like a scum seizing the opportunity to set up a fake cop claim for later. Him not admitting to be cop directly just adds to my suspicions, because should the real even-night cop decide to counter-claim, Zach can then easily point out that he did not claim to be cop.

Why would Zach want to bring attention to himself by answering LF's question, if he wasn't trying to tell LF that he was the person LF is seeking? If he

was

indicating to LF that he's the person LF is seeking, than he would be lying, because

I'm

the person LF was looking for.

If LF had

only

asked the odd/even question, and Zach answered it, I would not have pressed Zach for more info. I might have just presumed that Zach could be another pro-town role with similar night restrictions. But LF specifically asked for cop, and Zach still chose to answer him. It just screams imposter scum to me.

With that said, this should make clear why I asked my second question: I wanted to know if there might be any other roles that might have this mechanism, because I'm aware that Zach may be another pro-town role with such condition. If everyone else had answered negative to my second question, I would be sure Zach was lying. Like tyhess and LF, I'm assuming the even/odd roles probably come in pairs, and I don't think that's an unfair assumption to make.

2) I was also worried by how much people seem to be buying the idea that Zach and LF are probably cleared together because of their exchange. At least 2 guys seemed convinced that Zach is the other cop, and there were others seem to be leaning that way, too. It puts Zach in a good position to mislead the town if he so chooses.

Of course, after all this, Zach's claiming isn't going to confirm anything, not that I think he would now. But I felt it was worth a try at catching a possible imposter.

Unvote : PsychoSniper

All I did was claim I had an even role.

I did NOT claim in order to protect the even cop.

I voted for you because your play seemed to want to out the even cop.

You have now outed your own role.

Thus I can now confirm that I do not possess a cop role.

I'm still not claiming... but your gambit sucks. If you're both telling the truth, both cops are now outed and USELESS.

I don't understand why a refusal to claim in order to not let the scum know whether or not killing me would kill a cop is scummy, but I don't understand why anyone thinks this mass claiming is a good idea.

All I did was claim that I had an even night role and shit exploded to the point that we now apparently have 2 outed cops.

Anyone have any bright ideas now?

[Zachrulez]

I didn't have a read on zach until his answer, but if psycho is counter claiming, I'm going to have to

unvote vote: zach

. Unless theres another pair willing to come forward, one of the two of them is lying.
Simply someone else saying they have an odd role would be sufficient for my unvote. I don't need a full claim from zach, because I won't believe it until I see the other half.

*Shakes head*

Psycho isn't counterclaiming. He's claiming even cop.

I NEVER claimed I was even cop.

This leap is just incredibly ridiculous.

[Zachrulez]

So there are 2 even cop claims? I'm confused as to where this 2nd even cop claim comes from.

I claimed an even night role. I DID NOT CLAIM EVEN COP.

Get your facts straight on that one.

LF asked even/odd, and said the question was open for anyone. Since I possessed an even role, I answered the question.

It doesn't mean I was claiming cop.

I would greatly appreciate any townie who has an odd role coming forward at this point and saying they have an odd role.

For now I do believe that some strength is being added onto my bandwagon from scum.

Psycho's reasoning is weak. He is analyzing my non cop claim solely from the perspective of what scum would have to gain from that play, and not from what town would have to gain from NOT fully claiming.

Ironically, my non claim was meant to protect him, leaving a question mark on me so that the scum wouldn't know whether or not I was worth killing.

And while there was a belief that I might be the even cop, the even cop was then pretty safe. Scum kills me. I'm not even cop. Even cop is out there not known and is free to investigate.

Unvoting you is the obvious play... but I will say it right now. You played your claim poorly Psycho. I frankly believe your claim, because you'd have to have completely lost your brain to claim cop as scum, because a counterclaim would expose you. The reason you played your claim poorly is because I non claimed to protect you and keep your role unknown to scum. You have basically pissed that down the toilet, and even worse then that, you're now risking a lynch of a townie in a situation where both cops are likely outed.

So it's very possible that both cop roles are now useless... and that I may well be in a situation where the only thing that

might

save me is a full claim.

Which would hurt the town even more, because with both cops outed now... scum are now most definitely going to be fishing for doctor roles.

And I'd rather die then help the scum gather any kind of information on that. We're in bad enough as it is.

With that said. I have analyzed the reasons that have been giving for all those bandwagoning on me.

Psycho's reasons are bad, but he's a claimed cop and givin the circumstances, I find it hard to believe he's not town.

Rogue and Magnus have an analysis that we have a claimed even cop and a counterclaim (I assume they are trying to say I claimed even cop when I answered LF's question)

Tyhess' reasoning stemmed from a belief that I could have backtracked from my answer if LF claimed to have exposed me as scum. Maybe I could have tried... but I don't see how you can unanswer that question... or how the town could possibly let you unanswer at that point. I'm not sure how many scum are in this game... but I do find this a little scummy... I will chalk it up to what I believe to be a poor analysis for now.

The claim/counterclaim case Magnus and Rogue are making stink. I suspect a possible scumpair here. I never claimed cop, but they are continuing to assert that I did and was counterclaimed by Psycho.

Vote: Magnus
FOS: Rogue

[Zachrulez]

I didn't have a read on zach until his answer, but if psycho is counter claiming, I'm going to have to

unvote vote: zach

. Unless theres another pair willing to come forward, one of the two of them is lying.
Simply someone else saying they have an odd role would be sufficient for my unvote. I don't need a full claim from zach, because I won't believe it until I see the other half.

[Zachrulez]

You constantly attack and jump on anyone who disagrees with you and try to redirect suspicion away from yourself. Just because I agree with someone else doesn't mean I'm trying to "buddy up." I'm trying to prevent the lynching of the player with the most votes on him right now because I believe him to be town. Also, if you're so sure he's scum, why would I want to buddy up with him in the first place? That would make no sense

unless

he was town, thus your argument is contradictory. Actually, it's very scummy; it seems like you want to off a townie. And your suggestion is ridiculous if you're trying to say my whole post was plagiarized: I am the only one thus far to suggest the other odd not to reveal himself now.

For the reasons I outlined,

unvote

Vote: magnus

Ack. I want to properly respond to this. Ignore anything I addressed to you in my last post.

Magnus_Orion]

Unless

you

thought he was town. Contradiction gone.

Doesn't seem to make much sense for scum to buddy up to another scum, they like distance right?

Yet you argue that Nikelaos is buddying up to me and that it's a scumtell.

That IS contradictory.

If he's scum, and buddying up to me, doesn't that make me town? If I am scum, please explain how this makes sense.

Nikelaos is buddying up to me and you find that scummy. If that leads you to believe that he is scum, then the odds are probably good that he's buddying up to a townie.

And you are voting to lynch me, on a contradictory argument based on the fact that scum is buddying up to scum?

I am liking my vote on you more and more.

[Zachrulez]

Having no odd claim is problematic to me whether I'm scum or town.

This is the part of things that totally frustrates me in the general analysis of me.

You make the leap that I am scum if a series of events doesn't happen, and that I'm town if a series of events does.

What if you simply don't know as much as you think about the game setup?

[Zachrulez]

You think it's possible that the reason we haven't seen another odd claim yet is because of what happened to me simply for answering even to a question LF said was open to everyone?

[Zachrulez]

Big thing though: Zach, does your role have some weird aspects of it like mine, or is it a normal role? A lot hinges on that. I'll reveal more on Sunday.

The role is normal. The only thing I would say is weird about it is the fact that I can only use it on even nights.

[Zachrulez]

You guys are discussing the possibility of lynching a partially claimed power role.

You're also into faulty logic that an odd claim will clear me.

Lets humor the scenario that I'm mafia... and also the scenario that EVERY possible odd/even role has a pair.

Ok, So I'm mafia... I had no real suspicion on me before LF opened up that question. I take a shot at it, lie, and claim even.

Whether or not someone eventually claims odd in this situation. I'm still lying.

Your making an assumption about the game setup that you are likely not able to even begin to understand.

You're assuming that because I claimed even I must have an odd paired role in order to be telling the truth, there is no reason to believe this assumption.

You're assuming if someone else claims odd that I am automatically cleared. I could still be lying. Hell, someone could claim odd, and then someone else even after that and we'd be right back where we started!

I frankly don't care much for all this crap of trying to outguess the mod, or trying to outguess the mod in order to figure out what the value of the play would be if I was scum.

I was not heavily suspected prior to the odd/even question and as scum I would have no reason to take a risk like that when I was more then likely sitting pretty good to get through day one without having any real attention on me.

Seems to me that there's a lot of playing into fear here about what I am, whether I'm telling the truth about what I have claimed so far, and whether or not I was gambiting as scum.

This lynch mob on me makes no sense at all... namely the lynching a partially claimed role part. Is there not a reasonable amount of time in the subsequent days to figure out whether or not I'm lying or how consistent I am?

I'll tell you this much. Lynching me is going to reveal nothing more then the fact that I've been telling you guys the truth all along.

[Zachrulez]

Alright, that seems fair to me. Here are my three.

Note that none of them I feel are

good

lynches

, but they are the best I see at this point in time.

1st: Rogue -

One of my hard to reads, I feel his is the best at this point because

I think a lot could be gathered from his death

, based on some of the interactions he's had with others. Honestly, my gut instinct is uneasy with him.

2nd: Magnus -

Honestly, basically the same reasons as Rogue. I have a bad feeling regarding him, not strong but it's there. More importantly though,

I feel we could learn from his death.

3rd: Don -

Super weak, but

he and Tyhess I think are the most likely to give us information from their deaths

, and he is just barely more scummy than Tyhess has been so far.


Again, I wouldn't at all support any lynches at this particular moment, because I feel really unsure about calling out anyone at this point. And I really don't think any of these people are great choices yet, but he asked for the best. I think I want to see a lot more happen before we consider lynching anyone.

So you don't feel like these are good lynches, but you want to lynch them anyway to gain information?

Got it...

But don't we want to make a strong lynch that we feel has a damn good chance of flipping scum rather then lynching someone with the excuse that we're not sure... but just want information?

You seem to be speaking in a sense to dissociate yourself from any lynch that might end up going bad... as if you're almost certain that the person we lynch ISN'T going to flip scum.

I don't like it... I don't like it at all.

FOS: Isacc

[Zachrulez]

Alright, that seems fair to me. Here are my three.

Note that none of them I feel are

good

lynches

, but they are the best I see at this point in time.

1st: Rogue -

One of my hard to reads, I feel his is the best at this point because

I think a lot could be gathered from his death

, based on some of the interactions he's had with others. Honestly, my gut instinct is uneasy with him.

2nd: Magnus -

Honestly, basically the same reasons as Rogue. I have a bad feeling regarding him, not strong but it's there. More importantly though,

I feel we could learn from his death.

3rd: Don -

Super weak, but

he and Tyhess I think are the most likely to give us information from their deaths

, and he is just barely more scummy than Tyhess has been so far.


Again, I wouldn't at all support any lynches at this particular moment, because I feel really unsure about calling out anyone at this point. And I really don't think any of these people are great choices yet, but he asked for the best. I think I want to see a lot more happen before we consider lynching anyone.

So you don't feel like these are good lynches, but you want to lynch them anyway to gain information?

Got it...

But don't we want to make a strong lynch that we feel has a damn good chance of flipping scum rather then lynching someone with the excuse that we're not sure... but just want information?

You seem to be speaking in a sense to dissociate yourself from any lynch that might end up going bad... as if you're almost certain that the person we lynch ISN'T going to flip scum.

I don't like it... I don't like it at all.

FOS: Isacc

Haven't read any farther than this yet, but what? Are you kidding?

We were asked by Don to give our top 3. I specifically said, if I HAD to choose, it'd be these three, but I don't think anyone is lynch worthy yet.

It's kinda suspicious that you didn't even read my post (or the one it was answering) and tried to take it out of context and FOS me for it.

The point is not about attacking you specifically for giving your top 3.

It's the way you say "I think a lot could be gathered from his death" that bothers me.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying who your top 3 suspects are and why you suspect them... but to go and say "I think a lot could be gathered from his death" ... yeah, I really don't like hearing that statement.

I find it off. I find it suspicious. Not suspicious enough to change my vote, but I don't see what's wrong with me voicing why I didn't like the way you made your top 3.

I just don't see why you keep saying "I think a lot could be gathered from his death" rather then trying to actually come up with decent reasons why the mentioned people are in your top 3.

The only real reason you gave for suspecting anyone is that you just have a gut instinct about them. I just find the lack of substantive reasons coupled with "I think a lot could be gathered from his death" to be... strange.

Maybe you want to try to find those reasons, instead of trying to say that I'm unfairly coming after you. I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be suspicious of you over this. I find it especially amusing the way you barked back at me after it seemed totally fair to you for me to be suspected for some odd/even semantics, and told me to calm down because I only had 3 votes on me. You have a mere FOS on you and just look at the way you reacted to it.

By the way... I did read your post... I think that much was made obvious by the fact that I

quoted

your post. I also read the post you were answering. If there's one thing in mafia that completely drives me up the wall... it's people who claim that other people don't read their posts. I can't understand why people are allowed to get away with claiming that. It's like just because you say I didn't read your post it has to be true.

Maybe you want a better defense then that... like explaining to me how I might have misinterpreted what you said.

[Zachrulez]

You misrepresented my post by claiming IN ANY WAY that I wanted those people lynched. They are only more suspicious in comparison to others, meaning that they are more my "least townie" than my "most scummy."

Your original remark involved comments like "So you don't feel like these are good lynches, but you want to lynch them anyway to gain information?" This is misrepresentation, because I

don't

want to lynch them.

But don't we want to make a strong lynch that we feel has a damn good chance of flipping scum rather then lynching someone with the excuse that we're not sure... but just want information?

Yes, I DO want to make a strong lynch that is scum. I was just giving the top three

at this point

in time, all of whom I thought should

not

be lynched yet.


Anyways you want my reasonings? I do think that the most could be learned from lynching them, because I feel they've made the most connections to others.

However, I am not going to name exactly what those connections are just so that the people in question can begin their distancing. That would just warn any potential scum of my suspicions, which would be plain stupid.


Finally, I specifically said my cases weren't strong against

anyone

. I never wanted a lynch, so stop claiming I did. I was asked the top three, I named the top three. Just because one person is a

better

lynch does not mean I said they were a good lynch. 2 is higher than 1, but it still isn't 1000, get it?

And earlier you posted this.

Ok, is anyone paying attention to me? How many times do I have to remind you that there isn't really a lynch mob on you, Zach? You have three votes, I think, maybe 2 depending on who else has taken votes off of you.

Stop being so defensive about the votes.

Who's being defensive now? And over an FOS to boot...

[Zachrulez]

That wasn't a denial.

[Zachrulez]

No you didn't.

You simply twisted my concerns and spun a counterattack claiming suspicion on me for having concerns.

All I stated was why I was bothered by your post.

You seem more concerned about breaking down the logic then the actual concern.

That's your choice I guess, but I have noted it.

[Zachrulez]

FYI: defending yourself by "breaking down my logic" is still being defensive, especially with all the capitalized and bolded words, sorry.

[Zachrulez]

No you didn't.

You simply twisted my concerns and spun a counterattack claiming suspicion on me for having concerns.

All I stated was why I was bothered by your post.

You seem more concerned about breaking down the logic then the actual concern.

That's your choice I guess, but I have noted it.

Yes I did. You claimed I was suggesting things I wasn't, therefore the logic of your suspicion was essentially made up.

As for the bold, umm yes, craplogic is often a scumtell, so yes I am concerned about breaking down your logic. That's in fact the best thing to do really.

FYI: defending yourself by "breaking down my logic" is still being defensive, especially with all the capitalized and bolded words, sorry.

Yes, I was defensive. But here's the deal.

When you were defensive, it was based in crappy logic, that people were about to lynch you, when they weren't.

However, I am defensive because you made a nonsense accusation to try and throw suspicion on me, based on false claims. This is perfectly acceptable.

My logic is craplogic because you said so?

Got it.

[Zachrulez]

No you didn't.

You simply twisted my concerns and spun a counterattack claiming suspicion on me for having concerns.

All I stated was why I was bothered by your post.

You seem more concerned about breaking down the logic then the actual concern.

That's your choice I guess, but I have noted it.

Yes I did. You claimed I was suggesting things I wasn't, therefore the logic of your suspicion was essentially made up.

As for the bold, umm yes, craplogic is often a scumtell, so yes I am concerned about breaking down your logic. That's in fact the best thing to do really.

FYI: defending yourself by "breaking down my logic" is still being defensive, especially with all the capitalized and bolded words, sorry.

Yes, I was defensive. But here's the deal.

When you were defensive, it was based in crappy logic, that people were about to lynch you, when they weren't.

However, I am defensive because you made a nonsense accusation to try and throw suspicion on me, based on false claims. This is perfectly acceptable.

My logic is craplogic because you said so?

Got it.

No, your logic is craplogic for the reasons I already explained, the very reasons that you ignored and didn't respond to.

What, do you have no argument? I don't see any other reason you keep ignoring my commentary on your nonsense logic. Kinda sounds like you're trying to avoid an argument you know you'll lose by making snarky comments. This reeks of scum.

I think you've officially moved to the top of my most likely scum list. Consider yourself

FOS'ed

.

Oh really? I guess this post doesn't exist now?

Post 356

Alright, that seems fair to me. Here are my three.

Note that none of them I feel are

good

lynches

, but they are the best I see at this point in time.

1st: Rogue -

One of my hard to reads, I feel his is the best at this point because

I think a lot could be gathered from his death

, based on some of the interactions he's had with others. Honestly, my gut instinct is uneasy with him.

2nd: Magnus -

Honestly, basically the same reasons as Rogue. I have a bad feeling regarding him, not strong but it's there. More importantly though,

I feel we could learn from his death.

3rd: Don -

Super weak, but

he and Tyhess I think are the most likely to give us information from their deaths

, and he is just barely more scummy than Tyhess has been so far.


Again, I wouldn't at all support any lynches at this particular moment, because I feel really unsure about calling out anyone at this point. And I really don't think any of these people are great choices yet, but he asked for the best. I think I want to see a lot more happen before we consider lynching anyone.

So you don't feel like these are good lynches, but you want to lynch them anyway to gain information?

Got it...

But don't we want to make a strong lynch that we feel has a damn good chance of flipping scum rather then lynching someone with the excuse that we're not sure... but just want information?

You seem to be speaking in a sense to dissociate yourself from any lynch that might end up going bad... as if you're almost certain that the person we lynch ISN'T going to flip scum.

I don't like it... I don't like it at all.

FOS: Isacc

Haven't read any farther than this yet, but what? Are you kidding?

We were asked by Don to give our top 3. I specifically said, if I HAD to choose, it'd be these three, but I don't think anyone is lynch worthy yet.

It's kinda suspicious that you didn't even read my post (or the one it was answering) and tried to take it out of context and FOS me for it.

The point is not about attacking you specifically for giving your top 3.

It's the way you say "I think a lot could be gathered from his death" that bothers me.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying who your top 3 suspects are and why you suspect them... but to go and say "I think a lot could be gathered from his death" ... yeah, I really don't like hearing that statement.

I find it off. I find it suspicious. Not suspicious enough to change my vote, but I don't see what's wrong with me voicing why I didn't like the way you made your top 3.

I just don't see why you keep saying "I think a lot could be gathered from his death" rather then trying to actually come up with decent reasons why the mentioned people are in your top 3.

The only real reason you gave for suspecting anyone is that you just have a gut instinct about them. I just find the lack of substantive reasons coupled with "I think a lot could be gathered from his death" to be... strange.

Maybe you want to try to find those reasons, instead of trying to say that I'm unfairly coming after you. I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be suspicious of you over this. I find it especially amusing the way you barked back at me after it seemed totally fair to you for me to be suspected for some odd/even semantics, and told me to calm down because I only had 3 votes on me. You have a mere FOS on you and just look at the way you reacted to it.

By the way... I did read your post... I think that much was made obvious by the fact that I

quoted

your post. I also read the post you were answering. If there's one thing in mafia that completely drives me up the wall... it's people who claim that other people don't read their posts. I can't understand why people are allowed to get away with claiming that. It's like just because you say I didn't read your post it has to be true.

Maybe you want a better defense then that... like explaining to me how I might have misinterpreted what you said.

[Zachrulez]

I don't believe my argument is dismantled.

My problem is based on the fact that he believes information can be gained from people's deaths.

What kind of information?

We should not be lynching to gain information, we should be lynching to kill scum.

While you're all over me trying to prove me scum because you hate the way I made my argument, you're distracting from the far more important problem I had with your post.

Mainly that it lacked any reasons for suspecting anyone beyond the fact that you believed we could gain information from people's deaths.

If you're not sure what lynch to support, and your top 3 suspects lack a case behind them, what's the point of even answering Don's question at all?

Never mind that! Let's focus on how scummy you think my fos was!

Also keep in mind that he feels he's being misrepresented. The post is not DESIGNED to state for fact that he is scum, but the arguments are presented in a way to show why I believe him stating his post the way he did appeared to be scummy to me.

Of course his post was never meant to represent that he thought it was a good lynch! My representation was more to the concern of a subtle suggestion of wanting to gain information from someone's death if he's scum as opposed to actively making a case on someone. I'm reading into possible subtlety here.

Surely you can see the possibility of what he

could

be trying to do in that post if he's scum.

And frankly he does seem really bothered by it. I can't understand why he's blown up such a minor FOS and minor speculation over such a serious concern... unless he really DOES have something to hide.

I felt his post MIGHT have been a subtle nudge to get us to lynch a townie creating a reason to make us feel better about doing it (That we gained information from the lynch.)

It seems silly to say that in response to a post that wants a top 3 list of suspects... preferably with evidence and good reasons why... not because you think information could be gained from their deaths.

The whole idea of stating that seems silly to me anyway. Wouldn't it be better to remind the town of the information we gained from a lynch after the fact... to help point out the fact that the lynch actually wasn't pointless at all (In response to someone who might feel that it was.)... saying it before we actually decide on a lynch does bother me a little.

It doesn't prove anything and I never said you should be strung up for it. I just felt it was a little bit suspicious... but apparently you felt my suspicion was suspicious.

... This has been such an annoying distraction. I think maybe I'd be better served to reread the game and actually come up with my own top 3 list, something I have not been able to do up to this point for obvious reasons.

By the way, not all bad arguments or logic are necessarily scummy. Some come from misinterpretation of posts, tunnel vision, or just reading too much into what someone said.

Maybe I did read too much into your "information can be gained" thing, maybe I lucked out and got it perfectly right. But I'm not going to wuss out of being suspicious of it just because you attacked my logic, because that's exactly what you want me to do if you are scum.

[Zachrulez]

Alright, that seems fair to me. Here are my three.

Note that none of them I feel are

good

lynches

, but they are the best I see at this point in time.

1st: Rogue -

One of my hard to reads, I feel his is the best at this point because

I think a lot could be gathered from his death

, based on some of the interactions he's had with others. Honestly, my gut instinct is uneasy with him.

2nd: Magnus -

Honestly, basically the same reasons as Rogue. I have a bad feeling regarding him, not strong but it's there. More importantly though,

I feel we could learn from his death.

3rd: Don -

Super weak, but

he and Tyhess I think are the most likely to give us information from their deaths

, and he is just barely more scummy than Tyhess has been so far.


Again, I wouldn't at all support any lynches at this particular moment, because I feel really unsure about calling out anyone at this point. And I really don't think any of these people are great choices yet, but he asked for the best. I think I want to see a lot more happen before we consider lynching anyone.

So you don't feel like these are good lynches, but you want to lynch them anyway to gain information?

Got it...

But don't we want to make a strong lynch that we feel has a damn good chance of flipping scum rather then lynching someone with the excuse that we're not sure... but just want information?

You seem to be speaking in a sense to dissociate yourself from any lynch that might end up going bad... as if you're almost certain that the person we lynch ISN'T going to flip scum.

I don't like it... I don't like it at all.

FOS: Isacc

"Beyond_Birthday"]Bad Zachary! You have misrepresented Isacc's post entirely. Isacc never said that a weak lynch is preferred to a strong lynch. Isacc is basing his lynch list off of the current situation, in which a strong lynch is lacking. By Isacc's calculation, it is better to lynch the person from whom we would gain the most information is far preferred to a no lynch from which we gain nothing.

minor, meaningless, fos, only because I am sure you did not intend this. (I am posting this knowing full well Isacc defended himself on this matter.)

I understand why you feel I misrepped him. I wasn't arguing that he actively said it. I was arguing what I felt to be a position he might possibly not want to reveal if there is in fact anything to my concern over the point I previously stated to the "information from death" thing.

I probably should have made is clear that I was arguing from a possibility standpoint... and not as fact. I apologize for that much. I did not intend to misrepresent him in order to make him look scummy. I'm just trying to keep my mind open.

Also don't you think he'd have been a little bit better served to actually state reasons for suspecting his top 3, rather then the same blanket statement of gut feeling coupled with the belief that we can gain information from their deaths?

I do. But that's just one man's opinion.

[Zachrulez]

Also, I pointed out that if I attacked your logic and proved you were wrong (which you have yet to disprove), then it would be pro-town to back down. Otherwise, you are casting suspicion on something you

know

is false. Sticking to your guns when you are wrong is stupid.

This is the only thing I am really going to respond to now.

I think you would have voted me for backing down anything. I could see from the moment you responded to my FOS that you were looking for a good reason to vote for me. I'm pretty sure you would have argued backtracking.

I don't know it's false. I am keeping my mind open to possibilities and explaining something I didn't like about your post. I have no reason to believe you are being truthful about anything you've said.

You have turned a minor FOS into something huge. You are trying to blow something up that I didn't really go about in a particularly good way. What I feel you are trying to accomplish from this is... To get the sentiment of why I didn't like your post ignored. In order to accomplish this, you need to make me look as scummy as possible. If you can make me scummy... then perhaps no one will read into what you did.

By the way...

It doesn't make sense to say what you said in your 3 points post. It does make sense to actually make a case on your top 3 which is something you DIDN'T DO.

By the way... WHAT post? There's like 20-30 now... Funny that you hit me on your commentary, and surround me with an attack of all these damn posts, and then expect me to know exactly what post you are talking about and even go as far as to argue that it's scummy that I'm ignoring it...

Whatever, I'll try to find it myself.

[Zachrulez]

Do you mean this?

You misrepresented my post by claiming IN ANY WAY that I wanted those people lynched. They are only more suspicious in comparison to others, meaning that they are more my "least townie" than my "most scummy."

If you are scum you do. Advancing the idea that their deaths will gain us information seems to be a nudge to get us into that direction. I noted what I thought might be a subtle push towards that.

I never said you were scum, I never said you were actually trying to do it. I just kinda felt like it might have been nudging us in that direction though...

But it's apparent to me that you refuse to see why the way you worded your post might have looked bad.

Your original remark involved comments like "So you don't feel like these are good lynches, but you want to lynch them anyway to gain information?" This is misrepresentation, because I

don't

want to lynch them.

I said that because I saw what you were saying via gain information via deaths to be a subtle push to lynching them. It is important to understand that.

But don't we want to make a strong lynch that we feel has a damn good chance of flipping scum rather then lynching someone with the excuse that we're not sure... but just want information?

Yes, I DO want to make a strong lynch that is scum. I was just giving the top three

at this point

in time, all of whom I thought should

not

be lynched yet.

Good, then don't post something problematic saying that you think we can gain information from someone's death. It makes me think you might want to lynch for that reason instead of wanting a strong lynch.

Anyways you want my reasonings? I do think that the most could be learned from lynching them, because I feel they've made the most connections to others.

You're still lacking a case. That bothers me.

However, I am not going to name exactly what those connections are just so that the people in question can begin their distancing. That would just warn any potential scum of my suspicions, which would be plain stupid.

Refusing to point out the connections you see is not beneficial to the town. It only serves to advance your own agenda on who you desire to attack. If you see connections. Let the town see them too. Or do you not trust anyone's judgment but you own?

Finally, I specifically said my cases weren't strong against

anyone

. I never wanted a lynch, so stop claiming I did. I was asked the top three, I named the top three. Just because one person is a

better

lynch does not mean I said they were a good lynch. 2 is higher than 1, but it still isn't 1000, get it?

I get it. I wasn't ignoring the fact you said this. I was pointing out what I saw as possible contradictions to that statement.

You blew the FOS way out of proportion. You made it look like I was trying to string you up. That was not even close to what I was doing at that point in time.

What is more scummy is the way you reacted, and how you eventually voted for me over it.

All you have done is opened up the possibility that you are on the attack against me only because of the FOS against you and that it JUST MIGHT BE that the reason you're on the attack and voting me now is because what I said may have rung more true then I initially realized when I actually pointed the post out.

I'm sure if my case was really so scummy, other people in the town could have pointed it out and come after me... but the speed and efficiency that you came onto the attack against me for nothing more then a simple FOS really does make me wonder.

[Zachrulez]

While your general post is good (Honestly, neither of you are looking any scummier to me, just saying that I disagree with your PoV Zach; my fos is entirely off of the fact that I feel you are misrepresenting Isacc's statement, but that is just null cause you weren't about to get Isacc lynched so quickly off of that *in my mind), you must admit that the actual bickering here isn't benefiting town at this moment. In fact, zach, why not give the town as to who your top three lynches are and why?

I am going to have to think this over a little bit more. I had a list and was going through the reasons why I thought they were lynch worthy, when Isacc's overreaction to my FOS distracted me.

My list is going to look a little bit different now, so I'm going to have to sleep on it and try to put things into perspective tommorow.

[Zachrulez]

Ok scum.

Feel free to continue to verify that my case has at least some merit since you are claiming I am arguing WIFOM.

You're scum and you're fucked.

I think the most likely thing that's going to happen today is that either I am going to get lynched or you are.

And once I am confirmed as town post lynch, there's no way out for you tomorrow.

I wasn't trying to avoid your vote by the way, because I saw it as inevitable no matter what I said anyway. The fact that you voted for me does not surprise or bother me at all.

I am positive you are scum... so I might as well vote for you now, regardless of the OMGUS accusations that are bound to come for doing so.

%% unvote
%% Vote : Isacc

I think it's obvious that Isacc is number 1 on my scum list right now. I'll get the other 2 people and my reasons up tomorrow.

[Zachrulez]

This is taking a lot longer then I thought and my list has changed a bit since I started re-reading portions of the game.

At the moment

Top 3 scum

1. Issac. I have already gone through why at length in previous posts.

2. Tyhess. Interesting he was accused of wanting a massclaim and we've now had a partial massclaim, and seems to be trying to role analyze everyone and look to clear people based on more claims. I'm also bothered by the fact that Isacc went out of his way to defend tyhess when he was getting attacked by Magnus for floating out the suggestion for possibly discussing roles. Magnus was concerned about a massclaim, and we seem to be part of the way there... and getting closer by the post.

3. Rogue. For the cop antics earlier. Running on the assumption that both me and LF were cops... which may have possibly been to try to get me to out myself as a cop. Well Psycho Sniper eventually did... which was nice... because I was refusing to claim in order to prevent the other cop from being outed.

Magnus WAS on my scumlist list as my number 2... but a few LF posts caught my eye... so I started rereading the game at the point that LF, Isacc, Tyhess, and Magnus were all exchanging posts... from post 111. It gave me some interesting insights to what I think is actually going on here... I would recommend that everyone reread the game from that point.

I have changed my mind on Magnus... I now think there's a good chance he's town, and interestingly enough Isacc attacked his "craplogic" on his points about tyhess while going out of his way to defend tyhess.

Then there's LF and Sniper. Both claimed cops. That's all I need to say there.

So top 3 town would be as follows.

1. Psycho Sniper

2. Lindsfarne

3. Magnus

PS and LF are about even, with Magnus just a little bit behind them.

[Zachrulez]

My problem is based on the fact that he believes information can be gained from people's deaths.

....
Are you saying that you believe that that isn't true?

No... I just don't understand why it needs to be said... and repeatedly reinforced.

[Zachrulez]

Alright, that seems fair to me. Here are my three. Note that none of them I feel are

good

lynches, but they are the best I see at this point in time.

1st: Rogue -

One of my hard to reads, I feel his is the best at this point because I think a lot could be gathered from his death, based on some of the interactions he's had with others. Honestly, my gut instinct is uneasy with him.

2nd: Magnus -

Honestly, basically the same reasons as Rogue. I have a bad feeling regarding him, not strong but it's there. More importantly though, I feel we could learn from his death.

3rd: Don -

Super weak, but he and Tyhess I think are the most likely to give us information from their deaths, and he is just barely more scummy than Tyhess has been so far.


Again, I wouldn't at all support any lynches at this particular moment, because I feel really unsure about calling out anyone at this point. And I really don't think any of these people are great choices yet, but he asked for the best. I think I want to see a lot more happen before we consider lynching anyone.

Let's establish a few things here.

1. You gain information from every lynch. There is NO reason to make any kinda of case on this basis.

2. Ok, you don't think they're good lynches? Why do you later assert to Magnus that this isn't even your scum group then?

Is that your scum group, Issac?

Nope.

What is the purpose of this list then? A list of 3 people you have a gut instinct on who you simply believe will yield good information upon their deaths? What does this accomplish? How does this help us find scum? It doesn't.

3. The town's purpose first and foremost when they make a top 3 list would be to list the 3 people they think are most likely to flip scum. You've even admitted that you didn't do this here. I don't understand how you think you somehow have some kind of special power not to play this way and not get called on it. Why is it that information based lynches are the best reasons you can come up with for your top 3? Gut feelings too? Ha!

Scum lynches gain the town information... so do town lynches.

This is something that should go without saying... yet you repeatedly make that point in turn for every person you list in your top 3... and you don't even say they're your top 3 scum. What are they? Top 3 town? Top 3 people you've picked at random?

If someone is town and someone doesn't have a good top 3... and knows it. I would expect that they would think it to be a much better idea not to post a top 3 at all so as to not risk a weak lynch. You were NOT forced to answer the question afterall.

I think don said it best when he posed the question in the first place.

i would like top three lists from everyone in regards to who is the best lynch and why. if anyone has an issue with this please explain. if you don't have a top three, then a top two would suffice, however, if you can't find three suspicious people then you're not trying.

Yeah, you never answered the question. You said yourself when you made note that you didn't think any of them were good lynches. So while you're trying to get sympathy points for answering the question... the fact that you

didn't

answer the question was missed.

Also I agree with don wholeheartidely. If you can't find three suspicious people then you aren't trying.

Why aren't you trying?

... Hello scum!

[Zachrulez]

@B_B: About which one I think best to lynch, I'd have to say Zach first. My fear is this.

If Don is lynched, and turns scum, then Zach can hide behind "Well, he was just a scum buddying up to a townie." I don't want to give a scum an out like that, so best to lynch Zach first (basically why my vote is on him).

Also, since it seems very likely at this point that no one will claim odd for Zach (and he tried so hard to show that it wouldn't prove anything), I think that may have been a false statement, which would make him seem very scummy. Only time will tell on that one though.


Also, just because I don't want someone lynched with votes that are unrelated...

Psycho and Rogue: IMPORTANT MESSAGE:

Please, even if you don't have time to make a full post, Unvote Zach until you have reasoned through what has happened recently. I don't want your votes to contribute to a lynch, when they are completely unrelated to whether Zach is actually scummy or not. Also, at the time it seemed like you meant them as pressure votes, rather than lynch votes, so I would hate to have your pressure votes turned into a lynch without your consent.

If somehow Zach reaches L-1 without Psycho and Rogue reaffirming reasons for their votes, I promise to unvote Zach until they have confirmed they want him lynched.

You talk about WIFOM, but I'll be damned if you aren't using it here on the odd/even against me.

If you really think I'm scum... why the hell do you want people to unvote me? I would think you would take a lynch on me however you can get it.

As for your promise to unvote, I again don't understand why you want people unvoting me... or even to unvote yourself if you really think you're on something with me. Why do you need people's consent to watch to lynch me?

Doesn't make any sense to me.

[Zachrulez]

Why are you explaining Isacc's logic for him?

Hell, why have you never even addressed my case against Isacc?

[Zachrulez]

The post above is in response to Tyhess by the way.

[Zachrulez]

@B_B: About which one I think best to lynch, I'd have to say Zach first. My fear is this.

If Don is lynched, and turns scum, then Zach can hide behind "Well, he was just a scum buddying up to a townie." I don't want to give a scum an out like that, so best to lynch Zach first (basically why my vote is on him).

Also, since it seems very likely at this point that no one will claim odd for Zach (and he tried so hard to show that it wouldn't prove anything), I think that may have been a false statement, which would make him seem very scummy. Only time will tell on that one though.


Also, just because I don't want someone lynched with votes that are unrelated...

Psycho and Rogue: IMPORTANT MESSAGE:

Please, even if you don't have time to make a full post, Unvote Zach until you have reasoned through what has happened recently. I don't want your votes to contribute to a lynch, when they are completely unrelated to whether Zach is actually scummy or not. Also, at the time it seemed like you meant them as pressure votes, rather than lynch votes, so I would hate to have your pressure votes turned into a lynch without your consent.

If somehow Zach reaches L-1 without Psycho and Rogue reaffirming reasons for their votes, I promise to unvote Zach until they have confirmed they want him lynched.

You talk about WIFOM, but I'll be damned if you aren't using it here on the odd/even against me.

If you really think I'm scum... why the hell do you want people to unvote me? I would think you would take a lynch on me however you can get it.

As for your promise to unvote, I again don't understand why you want people unvoting me... or even to unvote yourself if you really think you're on something with me. Why do you need people's consent to watch to lynch me?

Doesn't make any sense to me.

It makes perfect sense. I don't want a lynch based on me taking advantage of other people's votes. They weren't voting to lynch, I am, therefore I don't want town to cause lynches they didn't want, as that would be taking advantage of them, and anti-town.

I am not going to allow a lynch without an actual majority of the town supporting it. It'd be no different than to force a lynch through some means. It's anti-town, inherently.


Also, the even/odd thing isn't WIFOM at all. If there is no odd, I don't buy your claim of even. Very simple, not at all WIFOM.

Just because there is no odd claim doesn't mean there's no odd.

Just because I have an even role, doesn't mean there's a similar odd role. Your entire reason for rejecting my claim is based on assumption with no evidence to back it up.

That's a big hole in your logic.

Would you like me to claim my role for you so that you can take a more calculated shot at getting the doctor killed?

Also... if you're voting, you're supporting a lynch. If you don't want someone lynched, you shouldn't vote for them. It's not taking advantage of the town at all. If you don't want to support a lynch, either don't vote or unvote.

By the way... just because it's fun... I will quote this again.

I am not going to allow

a lynch without an actual majority of the town supporting it.

I am not going to allow... haha. You act like you have control over whether or not the rest of the town decides to lynch me or not.

Why is it that having control over the game is so important to you?

[Zachrulez]

YOU CAN NOT CLEAR YOURSELF. IF YOU HAVE INFO ON OTHER PEOPLE, MAYBE.

Yeah... it's not scummy to not be cleared.

Basically it's no different then being at the start of the game and not knowing whether or not I am town or scum.

The funny thing is that the case against me is being argued based on this doubt.

It just makes me laugh... and feel frustrated at the same time.

Nevermind reason...

Let's lynch Zach because he can't be cleared!

Why don't I turn this around on you and Isacc? Where are your claims? Who's cleared you?

... No one.

[Zachrulez]

Did I say there was no odd? I only said I thought it was unlikely at this point.

Also, there is evidence to back up what you claim is an "assumption." There is already one pair, which makes it more likely that things are paired.

Wait... you don't think there's another odd? But you just said there's already one pair, which makes it more likely that things are paired.

So which is it? Is there only one pair? Or are there many? You can't argue this both ways to convieniently make me look like scum...

I do want them lynched, but I want them lynched on fair game. It

is

taking advantage of the town, because what if the other people

don't want them lynched.

Then they would end up lynch-voting someone they didn't want.

All I ask is that they clarify that they want their votes to remain, because it's been a looong time since they voted (or posted).

It's not your place as a player to babysit other people's votes. Let them decide whether or not they want to keep their votes or take them off... several people have had no problem doing this up to this point.

I am not going to allow... haha. You act like you have control over whether or not the rest of the town decides to lynch me or not.

Why is it that having control over the game is so important to you?

An entirely irrelevant point. I don't know why you even posted this, since it said absolutely nothing of value.

Even if I did want control,

it'd be so that scum like you don't fool us into lynching town.

So basically, this random little comment you made was just an attack made in anger, about nothing.

Uh... what? How is lynching me going to fool anyone into lynching town? I'm scum right? Or am I? You don't seem very certain. I'm the target of the bandwagon that you're telling people to unvote on. How can I convince people to accidentally lynch me? That's just retarded.

[Zachrulez]

YOU CAN NOT CLEAR YOURSELF. IF YOU HAVE INFO ON OTHER PEOPLE, MAYBE.

Yeah... it's not scummy to not be cleared.

Basically it's no different then being at the start of the game and not knowing whether or not I am town or scum.

The funny thing is that the case against me is being argued based on this doubt.

It just makes me laugh... and feel frustrated at the same time.

Nevermind reason...

Let's lynch Zach because he can't be cleared!

Why don't I turn this around on you and Isacc? Where are your claims? Who's cleared you?

... No one.

More bullshit. The case on you has absolutely nothing to do with the lack of an odd claim.

However, this is

severe strawman

. You are trying to distract people from the REAL case with this all you want.

Bullshit? Distract from your case? You have no case.

But you think I'm trying to distract from it? Whatever, here's your "case"

I don't believe my argument is dismantled.

Oh dear, I'm sorry. I guess since you believe it, it must not be dismantled!

My problem is based on the fact that he believes information can be gained from people's deaths.

What kind of information?

We should not be lynching to gain information, we should be lynching to kill scum.

Duh, which I never denied or disagreed with. Also, what if the information is

who the scum are

? Then a lynch that provided info would

lead

to a scum lynch.

Mainly that it lacked any reasons for suspecting anyone beyond the fact that you believed we could gain information from people's deaths.

Which is why I DIDN'T WANT THEM LYNCHED.

Look, it doesn't matter if I have no reason for suspecting someone, when I am not trying to get them lynched. Let's just say for a second I suspect McNuke still because I feel like it. Does it matter? No, because I am not voting him, attacking him, or getting him lynched, so my "suspicions" have no effect on the game.

Of course his post was never meant to represent that he thought it was a good lynch! My representation was more to the concern of a subtle suggestion of wanting to gain information from someone's death if he's scum as opposed to actively making a case on someone. I'm reading into possible subtlety here.

Surely you can see the possibility of what he could be trying to do in that post if he's scum.

More WIFOM like before. Any post can be re-interpreted as if it was actually scum trying to suggest things.

And frankly he does seem really bothered by it. I can't understand why he's blown up such a minor FOS and minor speculation over such a serious concern... unless he really DOES have something to hide.

Yes, I am bothered by misrepresentation. Seems like a logical thing to be.

It seems silly to say that in response to a post that wants a top 3 list of suspects... preferably with evidence and good reasons why... not because you think information could be gained from their deaths.

Not really. First, I have explained why information is helpful to town.
Second, he asked my top 3: just because my case is weak against them doesn't mean it still isn't stronger than against other people. I explained this in the other post that I still haven't seen you stop ignoring.

The whole idea of stating that seems silly to me anyway. Wouldn't it be better to remind the town of the information we gained from a lynch after the fact... to help point out the fact that the lynch actually wasn't pointless at all (In response to someone who might feel that it was.)... saying it before we actually decide on a lynch does bother me a little.

Why in all hell would I do that? So that you can call me out for backpedaling and get me lynched for lynching someone else? I don't think I want to hand anyone an easy reason to mislynch me.

Stating arguments ahead of time proves you aren't making things up. If you don't state your arguments first, you can end up fabricating evidence later, which would help the scum out. Thus, the pro-town thing to do is to make my case before I have to backpedal later.

It doesn't prove anything and I never said you should be strung up for it. I just felt it was a little bit suspicious

Oh really? A little bit suspicious? Let's check your original accusation.

You seem to be speaking in a sense to dissociate yourself from any lynch that might end up going bad... as if you're almost certain that the person we lynch ISN'T going to flip scum.

I don't like it... I don't like it at all.

Hmm...doesn't really seem like "a little bit." Seems pretty strong.

So now it seems like you are trying to slowly backpedal off of an argument that you can't win. If you really "don't believe [your] argument is dismantled" then why are you backing down in the strength of your suspicion?

This has been such an annoying distraction.

Yes, I am sure it's annoying when I start figuring out how scummy you are.

By the way, not all bad arguments or logic are necessarily scummy. Some come from misinterpretation of posts, tunnel vision, or just reading too much into what someone said.

Wrong. If you are town, you draw conclusions in an honest manner. Therefore, if you were town you should be able to either A) Prove your point, or B) Cede honestly that you were wrong. However, you did neither of these.

If you are scum, however, you have to often try and make scumtells out of things that town do, therefore you sometimes have to intentionally misinterpret, tunnel, or read farther than makes sense. Thus, these things can often be scumtells.

maybe I lucked out and got it perfectly right.

Why did you "luck out?" Didn't you actually believe in your own argument? If you were "lucky" that would suggest that you were taking a gamble, which would further suggest that you were grabbing at straws in your FOS against me. Kinda scummy to make arguments that will only work if you are "lucky."

But I'm not going to wuss out of being suspicious of it just because you attacked my logic, because that's exactly what you want me to do if you are scum.

Well, I already showed that you backed down somewhat in your suspicion, so a little contradictory here.

Also, I pointed out that if I attacked your logic and proved you were wrong (which you have yet to disprove), then it would be pro-town to back down. Otherwise, you are casting suspicion on something you

know

is false. Sticking to your guns when you are wrong is stupid.


I was only suspicious of you based on your FOS. However, your defense has gotten more and more scummy. So I think this warrants a

%% Vote: ZACHRULEZ

.

My case:

1. Misrep.
2. WIFOM.
3. Straw man argumentation (see Magnus's post)
4. Contradiction in his "level of suspicion"
5. Lot's of really weak logic

I may have a little more proof floating about, but I don't feel like I've fully analyzed it yet. Yeah, that sentence may be confusing, so ask if you don't understand it lol.

EBWOP: Add this to my case:

6. Still ignoring the points I made in one of my posts.

[Zachrulez]

and Zach claimed to have an odd role.

Excuse me?

Don't you mean even?

[Zachrulez]

you see, here's what i love about the "post your top three best lynch list" gig: scum tend to jump at the chance. it gives them the perfect oppurtunity to gently push town towards a lynch while distancing themselves with statements like,"well you asked who i thought was best lynch, not who i thought was scum." Isacc bought it wholesale. he made sure he would have no accountability if anyone he named got lynched. even now while calling zach out as scum he can't resist giving himself an out. also, his "scumgroup", which apparently occupied 2/3 of his list(which, get this, had no scum on it) appeared once the dust settled from his argument with myself and zach, surprisingly, naming myself and zach as the most likely pair in his "scumgroup". rogue being a distant third.

Wait, you're claiming asking for a top three list was apparently some sort of scum trap? And Isaac fell right into it? I can't begin to go on about how ridiculous that is.

Actually attempting to make a top 3 scum list is one thing.

Pretending to make one while stressing that you don't think they are good lynches is another thing entirely.

Even funnier is the way Isacc wants to make sure everyone agrees on my lynch for the same reasons. He wants everyone else to buy it so that he has a decent excuse to get out of being responsible for a mislynch when I flip town.

[Zachrulez]

I have been reading a little bit into my vote being accused of being OMGUS.

So lets go back in time...

1. I fosed Isacc for his list.

2. Isacc's reaction to it eventually led to a vote on me.

3. I voted for him because I don't believe town would have reacted the way he did.

OMGUS? I don't think so. Maybe on Isacc's end.

[Zachrulez]

Ok... in light of everything...

Who wants me to claim?

[Zachrulez]

You find Zach's logic consistent?

He puts words in my mouth, then he says he was only suggesting a "possible" "subtle" thing I was suggesting.

He also puts a pretty strong attack on me, then backpedals, saying his FOS was extremely minor.

I see contradictions aplenty.

So you're now maintaining I backed off from a strong attack?

I thought my attack was weak and without merit...

[Zachrulez]

How do you gather that? I never said it was major. Unless you're reading something in between my words?

And you're the one arguing WIFOM, you're the one arguing I'm the one twisting words.

What a hypocrite...

You reacted to the FOS as if it was major, and thus the FOS became major. It was not initially. It's something called a self fulfilling prophecy.

[Zachrulez]

I'm saying he made the FOS major, not me.

I'm at the point where I simply just don't want to let him get away with the crap that comes out of his mouth.

I don't care as much whether or not I save my own lynch. I'm just going to do what I can to try to win the game for the town.

[Zachrulez]

YOU made the fos major based your interpretations of his reactions
and a major fos is normally an HOS for differential's sake.

Yeah, I did. I'll give you that.

[Zachrulez]

No... follow this very carefully.

1. I commented on behavior I saw as scummy from Isacc

2. The FOS began as a minor passing observation.

3. Isacc reacted as if it was the most preposturous thing in the world.

4. I started wondering why anyone who's a townie would react that strongly to one little FOS.

5. FOS became major.

WHERE'S THE CONTRADICTION?!

[Zachrulez]

Zach is scum and criticized Isaac's perfectly innocent list in hopes of raising chaos and to get the others lynched. This works perfectly with the idea that he attempted to look innocent with the "even" gamble, and then he realized that he couldn't claim cop with Psycho claimed. Knowing that is the new situation, he has shifted his attitude, and he decided to gamble by starting chaos to save himself.

This seems to be a very complex claim. How do you know I claimed even to look innocent? How do you know it wasn't done out of curiosity to figure out what LF was doing? So if I was scum, and I was gambling a claim in order to gain the town's trust... wouldn't it be better just to come all out with it and full claim cop like Psycho did in order to at least TRY to get a cop lynched if my claim backfired? There seems to be a disconnect here... the disconnect being what I can possibly gain from claiming even... with no desire to get the claimed cop lynched or even to counter his claim. How can I be smart enough to know what LF was leading onto... smart enough to know to "gamble" and claim even... yet not be smart enough to actually claim cop, and get the counterclaimed psycho sniper lynched? You have to put yourself in my shoes as both a townie and scum, and figure out what the most logical thing for me to do in both roles would be in said situation.

I don't see how any of my play adds up as anything close to logical... but as a townie... in the wrong place... answering the wrong question at seemingly the wrong time... well... I don't need to tell you how that one turned out.

Anyway, I'm prepared to full claim now if that's what you guys want. If there is an odd equivalent to my role... maybe I can even be confirmed. If not, it probably won't help me much anyway.

Let me know what you think about a full claim from me.

[Zachrulez]

This seems to be a very complex claim. How do you know I claimed even to look innocent? How do you know it wasn't done out of curiosity to figure out what LF was doing? So if I was scum, and I was gambling a claim in order to gain the town's trust... wouldn't it be better just to come all out with it and full claim cop like Psycho did in order to at least TRY to get a cop lynched if my claim backfired? There seems to be a disconnect here... the disconnect being what I can possibly gain from claiming even... with no desire to get the claimed cop lynched or even to counter his claim. How can I be smart enough to know what LF was leading onto... smart enough to know to "gamble" and claim even... yet not be smart enough to actually claim cop, and get the counterclaimed psycho sniper lynched? You have to put yourself in my shoes as both a townie and scum, and figure out what the most logical thing for me to do in both roles would be in said situation.

I don't see how any of my play adds up as anything close to logical... but as a townie... in the wrong place... answering the wrong question at seemingly the wrong time... well... I don't need to tell you how that one turned out.

WIFOM.

Whatever, you call it WIFOM... but it's bullshit because you give me the intelligence to make the moves I do by gambling the even claim... but then try to argue that I lack it when it comes time to actually make an effective scum play.

I'm tired of getting roasted for this partial claim BS, so I'm now going to full claim, just to prove that I do actually possess an even power.

You wanna know what that even power is?

I am a vigilante, with the power to kill on even nights.

If there's an odd Vig, my role can most definitely be confirmed at this point. If there's not... it really doesn't change anything anyway...

Why didn't I claim sooner? One less doc suspect... makes the most sense that the mafia are going to be after the doctors early in the game and want to figure out who they are. I was hoping to avoid that.

Also, this explains why I did not claim cop... because I WASN'T a cop. Psycho Sniper's gambit was never going to work because I didn't possess an even night cop role... nor was I scum trying to pretend. I actually possessed an even night Vig role (I didn't claim because I didn't want the even cop outed. He tried to trap me into claiming something I never would have claimed as a townie because it's tantamount to suicide and a waste of the town's time. But... thanks for outing yourself as the cop anyway... and suspecting me even though your gambit didn't work. Here's a clue, maybe I actually wasn't scum and that's why it didn't work...

Anyway... just thought you'd want to know who you're about to lynch.

[Zachrulez]

Simulposted...Zach...

Whatever, you call it WIFOM... but it's bullshit because you give me the intelligence to make the moves I do by gambling the even claim... but then try to argue that I lack it when it comes time to actually make an effective scum play.

Could you use better word choice here? This sentence is extremely unclear as to what you're actually saying. Also, it IS wifom, regardless of what argument you make for it.

You wanna know what that even power is? I am a vigilante, with the power to kill on even nights. If there's an odd Vig, my role can most definitely be confirmed at this point. If there's not... it really doesn't change anything anyway...

Well, while you're lucky you didn't claim doc, this is a pretty safe claim to make, were you scum. I'm not saying it was surely a lie, but I can't say this makes me any less confident in voting you.

What worries me more is the discrepancies between your role claim and Doc's "read between the line" outcries. At this point, either you're not fully claiming, or Doc's lying (unless there's some role other than mason that could confirm you town, which I could be wrong about). So what gives with that?

Doc? Do you mean Don?

[Zachrulez]

He's not lying. I'm not sure I'm allowed to claim this particular aspect of my role though. (It was only stated directly to me that I could claim the vig portion of my role)

Don is in a difficult position, because he didn't know I possessed this role or that I was going to claim it.

I think he figured that when I was going to claim, I was going to claim the role he's been hinting at. That's my fault.

While I'm not sure I can claim that part of my role, it does appear he can, so if he wants to do that I'll let him do that now.

[Zachrulez]

Now, this is going strictly by the idea that lovers would indicate in this game that one is mafia and the other town. This is true, right?

Umm...no? Not necessarily. They

might

be, but it isn't guaranteed. There are such things as lovers who simply do not know whether or not the other person is town, but where both are town.


At this point, we need posting from people who have been gone. Psycho, Rogue, and LF have just disappeared, which totally sucks. We need them posting again, or replaced.

I can guarantee you that I am town.

I can NOT guarantee that Don is.

Hope that makes the picture clearer.

I can guarantee you that if you lynch Don, I will die.

But I can't help you with his alignment... because I don't know. Sorry.

[Zachrulez]

Might as well

%% Unvote

now.

Since I think me and Isacc overreacted to each other.

[Zachrulez]

One thought...

If I am the even vig.

Is it sensible to assume that Don has some odd night killing role, regardless of his alignment?

I'm just curious, because I am a lover with a power role, and am wondering if he has a complimentary power.

[Zachrulez]

One thought...

If I am the even vig.

Is it sensible to assume that Don has some odd night killing role, regardless of his alignment?

I'm just curious, because I am a lover with a power role, and am wondering if he has a complimentary power.

Continuing on that line of thought. If I were to die and Don in fact does have some kind of odd power... would he have a chance to use it on night one should I die before he does?

I feel this is important considering the fact that I have an even vig role, and I'm unsure if he holds any power role of any kind scum or otherwise.

If I am lynched first and Don is scum... he MIGHT be able to use a night power if it's odd... or even a normal night role. I'm not sure.

I just wanted to voice that thought out aloud.

I'll leave it for you guys to figure out... it's certain I'll be dead long before I can use my role either way.

[Zachrulez]

hold. it. right. there.
There is an assumption... a major assumption... being made here.

Question for Zachrulez: does your role pm specify that you and don are lovers, or is that simply a similar role?

We're lovers, I am certain of that much.

I know I am town.

I know I have an even-night vig power.

I do NOT know Don's alignment.

I do NOT know if Don has a night power... the post above was a guess... a guess with some staggering implications if correct. I just want to make sure it's considered.

[Zachrulez]

hold. it. right. there.
There is an assumption... a major assumption... being made here.

Question for Zachrulez: does your role pm specify that you and don are lovers, or is that simply a similar role?

We're lovers, I am certain of that much.

I know I am town.

I know I have an even-night vig power.

I do NOT know Don's alignment.

I do NOT know if Don has a night power... the post above was a guess... a guess with some staggering implications if correct. I just want to make sure it's considered.

you son of a bitch! i feel so used...

I guess that answers every question I had about you that I was never sure about...

[Zachrulez]

FACTS: i am not the best lynch. though his argumnents have been poor,

i know that zach is not the best lynch.

100%

start reading between the lines folks.

You went from saying you KNEW I wasn't the best lynch to now believing my to be scum?

You realize you've gone out of your way to defend me at every turn in this game (part of the reason I have looked so suspicious up until now) with the insistence that I am town.

Every word, every purpose you have pursued is with the apparent knowledge that I am town.

Do you know how many times I have actually gone out of my way to defend you? How many times I have insisted you were town, how many times I have stated I KNEW you weren't the best lynch?

The answer? 0. Because I didn't KNOW if you were town or not. Because I am town uncertain of whether or not you were scum. I wasn't about to go and lie to the town asserting that I knew for a fact that you were town when I DID NOT.

On your end of things, you had no trouble insisting this.

As things go... the more I see the more I have to believe it.

The facts fit on you... and the part of it that's most difficult to go through is killing you because in order to kill you, I have to die too.

That's why it's felt so awkward for me to even attempt to make a case against you... because it's like making a case for my own death.

It's the strangest feeling in the world.

[Zachrulez]

It's weird.

That's why.

The weirdness of it is what has made it difficult for me to actually cast the vote.

I guess it's a silly thing to not vote over... since he had no trouble voting for me.

%% Vote : Don

There... it still feels weird though, voting for my own death.

[Zachrulez]

*Puts gun barrel up to head*

It's like there's some unknown force that is forcing me to do this.

*sniff*

I don't want to die... but I'm going to.

[Zachrulez]

I'm glad I was dead.

As I read through day 2, I thought that Issac was scum and Phate was pro-town. Boy was I ever wrong.

My jaw literally dropped when Phate flipped scum, I couldn't believe it.

Still glad the town won. (No thanks to my help, I really did jack shit in this game.)