Open 108 - Weak M.D. - Game over before 725

[ryan2754]

I agree about Sekinj. Just saying hi in a game like this isn't very effective.

GIEFF, I can't think to believe you are serious about your comments...

ROFL, if you "random vote" someone every game you play, that doesn't seem very "random."

Of the three, GIEFF's saying people are quiet after 17 minutes of being accuses is sketchy.

Vote: GIEFF

[ryan2754]

Sounds good to me. I dont have a preference either way right now, as this hypo thing is new to me. Ill go with whatever everyone else thinks is optimal.

[ryan2754]

Unvote

Vote: Gamma

as well

[ryan2754]

My reason is the same as Caboose's that post is extremely scummy in my eyes.

[ryan2754]

Ok, so looks like I have some explaining to do. Gamma, I guess I just didn't see the humor in it. Yes, I saw the strikethroughs, but I have always been under the impression that humor isn't a good thing for mafia. It detracts from the main goal.

In the board I play on, it is around the same 10 to 13 players that play every game. It's not a message board where there are a crap ton of games going on. Thus, one indicator of scummy behavior is a change in playing style, or subtle changes in playing style from their suual antics. It's fairly easy to pick up, especially if the sample size with that person is > 3, which happens a lot. Here it seems, playing with the same people happens a lot less frequently. Thus, considering playing style changes is one of my biggest leads when it comes to voting, its extremely hard since I'm new to the forums and have no idea who anyone is to use my normal path of logic and argument. Thus, my basic posts and just reading through. Also in my other boards, the first round kill can give a lot of information, and the first round of RVS as you call it isn't as random as it is here. There are a lot of trends when it comes to my other board regarding lynching patterns and such, especially because the same people play every 2 weeks or so (games usually last around 2 weeks).

Thus, since the majority of my analysis comes from playing style changes, I don't have much to say, seeing as this is my first game on this site. Call it opportunistic, call it me having a gut feeling. It just didn't sit well, and that is all I really have to go off of because my normal outlets of analysis are not yet available given that I know well, no one's playing style.

It looks as though my logic is faulty in your eyes, and I see I am going to get lynched. It's ok, this forum plays out a lot differently (discussion is much more intense on things I never thought to previous have looked at in mafia, considering I look a lot into voting patterns and playing style changes, one of which isn't readily available to me yet since I'm new), and I will learn from my mistakes. In addition, a lot of talk has been of this hypo-claim stuff and generally considering, my head is spinning. It all makes sense, it's just a little deep for me.

And and about this not being a newbie game, well I joined the site and thought I was ready to play without reading previous games, which in hindsight was a terrible idea.

I believe mafia is anything but random chance. I attack things because it puts people in a defensive situation, which I find the easiest situation to find scum. My current game on another board if you would like to see how I play (when I know the styles of my fellow teammates - if you would like to know my alignment in the game, I would be happy to discuss: Mafia

[ryan2754]

Mafia...stupid UBB Code

[ryan2754]

It looks as though my logic is faulty in your eyes, and I see I am going to get lynched.

I wouldn't call your fate sealed Ryan... Games aren't two weeks long here, and if you can call the day's lynch by the end of page 4, you are a wiser man than I.

Again, a reason why I should have looked at a game before actually joining games. In all my previous games, votings are due by a certain time - no majority is needed, whereas here, a majority is needed, which seems like a mucher harder task than I thought.
Oh and btw, definitely not a wiser man than you.

[ryan2754]

I like to press as much as possible on things I find that may be scummy. Not only does it provide opportunities for people to mess up or crack under pressure, but it's interesting to see who comes to the defense of the person I'm questioning, and who piles on. This sort of information is invaluable on later days once we start knowing people's alignments and roles after lynches and NK's. Who defended scum? Who piled on innocents? Which people did known scum attack? Which people did known scum defend? Answers to these questions become vital in the later stages of the game.

Also there is no need for you to be so antagonistic. Voting with emotion and anger instead of logic and reasoning is anti-town, and when you act so antagonistic, you push everyone more towards the former than the latter.

I agree with both of these statements. Those are some of the best things to look at when playing in game, and the more and more rounds go on, the moee hard evidence (voting, style, etc.) that's revealed.
Antagonism is an interesting ploy in this game. Some cits draw out anger when they are being voting against, as do scum. Also, anger also comes in the form of retaliatory votes, and can be done by scum and town. However, he is right in saying that either way, it's Anti-town.

Nothing has become to scummy to me outside of Gamma's behavior.

[ryan2754]

@ryan:
I agree with others who have said your latest post was scummy. You have gone inactive ever since the wagon built on you, and after being prodded, your latest post has absolutely no new content. It looks like you are trying to post just enough to avoid being replaced, but are afraid to post anything of substance.

I really don't see how my last post was scummy. I was prodded because I was in the process of moving and packing for schooll after CHristmas break, and didn't have internet up in that time frame.

I read what he wrote, and agreed. Nothing really has caught my eye so far yet since the site crash, except:

WELL GEE IF I WERENT AT L1 FOR MOST OF THE GAME I GUESS I COULD CONSIDER WHO'S BEEN PLAYING SCUM IN THIS GAME

i suddenly remember why ryan was a good lynch

An explanation would be nice...Trying to start the wagon again?

EIther way, ROFL's willingness to just throw a lynch around and try to start a bandwagon is interesting, as is Gamma's continued play.

How does being under suspicion warrant an inability to scum hunt? I do understand that there is a high level posting that you will make to defend yourself, but you can still look for the bad guys.

[ryan2754]

While this may have been the case, your explanation rubs me the wrong way. What connection is there between "my last post was not scummy" and the circumstances in which you were prodded? Moving does not absolve you of being non-committing and piggy-backing on others' arguments.

I also don't think your jab at rofl is justified. rofl's playstyle is more opinion-orientated than based on thorough analysis.

Ummm, isn't this game about making a case about someone as scummy and then getting others to follow suit to get someone lynched? Thus, I really don't seem anything wrong with "piggy-backing" or simply agreeing with someone else's argument, especially if it makes sense.

Umm, whether or not it is his "style," opinion-oriented << thorough analysis.

[ryan2754]

The "trying to start the wagon" ignores the possibility that a wagon would be justified and seems like a typical comment that scum would throw out.

Ummm, ok, but I'm pretty sure other people have asked the same questions to other people. Whether or not the wagon seems justified, I am pretty sure I can ask him why he feels I am suspicious. Other have been doing the same thing.
For example, ESOMonty Post 234 asks Gamma why he suspects me. Apparently he isn't suspicious for doing it, but I am.

[ryan2754]

Wow this game has grown a little stagnant as of late. Not many new posts to go through. Then again, it looks like we are waiting on eso or Gieff to do the hypo claiming.

[ryan2754]

If I am the doc: I will hypo protect: pops
If I am the Hider: I will hypo hide: Camn

Go pops

[ryan2754]

Empking - New, no read.

Korts - Helpful town or trying to play helpful/active town.
BSG (replacing sekinj during Day 1) - Pretty silent, not much to really say on him.

GIEFF - Nothing really surprising anymore.

EsoMonty - No real read on him. Posts don't seem fishy.

Netlava (replacing Clausewitz during confirmations) - Scum hunting, a lot of pressure on me, seems somewhat unwarranted and "reaching" at times.

Xtoxm (replacing Badguy during Day 1) - No read

camn (replacing BlakAdder during Day 1) - No read

popsofctown - Quiet. Says little.

roflcopter - Makes quick assumptions. Not many explanations of votes. Posts in one or two sentences most of the time.

Gamma - Suspicious behavior and posting.

ryan2754 - For you to decipher.

[ryan2754]

However.. I couldn't be bothered to figure out all your rules.... so someone please explain. Who should I target? Actually, check that --

RYAN

please explain, concisely, what I need to do in regards to the hypoclaim.. and when. Thank you.

Ummm, you pick someone who hasn't been picked previously for your hypo-claims? And you do it when someone asks you to continue the chain? I beleive that's concise enough, considering you have more experience with the hypoclaim situation than me, but nice try.

[ryan2754]

no that's not right. The weak doc hypo claim can be anyone, only the hypo hide claim is restricted to previously unhypohided people. (we reached the decision by a well documented process). Try to hypo people you actually would target if you have that role (read the pms to make that call). If you do have that role, it's imperative you follow through with your own hypo claim. (otherwise you could quite possibly blow up the town). nominate someone who hasn't gone yet to hypoclaim, after you do so.

Ahh, didn't catch that subtlety about the weak MD.

[ryan2754]

Thank you for that explanation, ryan....
But what does this mean?

... but nice try.

I don't know why you tagged that on.
And while we are at it, can you (that is,

Ryan

) explain why we wouldn't want to duplicate Hider claims, but we don't care about Doc claims?

Also. I guess I am up, right?
If I am the Doc OR the Hider, I target GIEFF.

Speaking of Gieff..

For camn, replacing BlakAdder: Repeated requests for posts and analysis based on the hardcore lurking.

Is this a serious question?
If so.. could you re-phrase it as a question?

And, for pressure...

VOTE : BSG

This is just lurker-pressure. Plus, I don't like seeing my name next to hers in the "no-vote" category....

Nice try because I don't really see the need to play your game that you are trying to play with me. You already know the situation better than I, considering your previous experience, so prodding such information from someone like me doesn't seem to be pointless and a waste of my time, to be honest.

Why do you keep asking me? Read post 44. I really have no desire to go back and reread that portion of the thread to appease you. Pops already said its well documented, so you should know anyway. The reason we want to hypo hide EVERYONE is that so no matter what, if someone dies due to hiding someone (since they died, they hid behind mafia), so that everyone is accounted for as we find a mafia member no matter what the round that that person hid behind a mafia and died. With regards to the doc, at least to my knowledge it's not necessary to hypo-doc protect everyone (I guess I still don't see the point in not doing everyone) because he can protect anyone. Sure, a Weak MD died when he protects mafia, which gives us a mafia, but the only issue I could find with that is that we then lose his protective role and lets the doc do as he chooses for his role (POst 47).

[ryan2754]

Vote: RedCoyote

[ryan2754]

I just re-read RC's long post, and noticed a mistake in the voting history; RC's gamma-vote in that post was not picked up because the macros only look at the first few bolded phrases in each post.

So the below quote is wrong:

EsoMonty put Gamma at L-1 in 344 for "getting worse and worse." And Netlava hammered in 399.

EsoMonty put Gamma at L-2 in 344, RC put Gamma at L-1 in 385, and Netlava hammered in 399; sorry for the mix-up.



Xtoxm, I agree with you that RC defended ryan so blatantly that ryan is less likely to be scum than if the defending was more subtle, although I wouldn't go so far as to say ryan is confirmed town. I'm also not sure why RC wanted to lynch Gamma, who would have continued to be absolutely no use to the town if left alive.

Trying to analyze RC's intentions in that post is difficult, but what pops out at me most are defending ryan and attacking EsoMonty followed by finding EsoMonty somewhat redeemed. I'm not sure what to make of either of these things.

Definitely don't like his attack on Eso, and then what he said later.

I would like to hear what other people have to say outside of ROFL, xtoxm, and gieff.

ANyways, with regards to the Netlava kill, does that tell us anything? He was attacking me hardcore. I could definitely see the wolves trying to use that to get me lynched, but I find that to be a pretty interesting move. Netlava in my opinion was a an outspoken town, and he gets killed. Thus, my reasoning to want to hear from the less talkative players.

[ryan2754]

Vote: Ryan

Scum defended him.

Worst. Logic. Evar.

Scum have the ability to defend and attack whoever they want because they have more information than we do. Thus, this leads to the double bluff scenario. Am I defending my fellow scum from being lynched, or a townie to gain standing with the masses. Either way, your logic poses a sproblem and implies that if scum defends someone, then they are scum. With situations like this, you must also look at how "close" the person was to getting lynched that was defended/attacked, and also how hard the accuser/defender "pushed" their stance. For example, if a fellow mafia has a strong wagon against him, and he's at L-2 or L-1, and most likelky defending him will only put you in worse standing with the town, there is no point in even trying, but instead joining in to blend in better.
Simply put, either way, your simple logic of defense/attack from scum means that person is scum BLOWS, as there are so many other factors that are involved.

Xtoxm, I looked at your posts and noticed this one, the bolded is mine:

Well I think i've said most of them already, but:

Gamma looks as scum, but

wouldn't be surprised if he flipped town

.
Ryan - Town
Pop - Scum
Camn - Scum
BSG - Town
EM - Town

That's all i've developed so far.

I'm sorry, but I'm always skeptical of people who use language like that in their posts, as more often than not, they are scum. You use the same language in post 472. Not to mention your posts that hint at you understanding the inner workings of the scum decision process, as previously noted.

I'd like to get responses from both of these players, but at the the present moment, they are at the top of my suspicion list, with Empking at the top.

Vote: Empking

At ROFL: Sure, it may look back with regards to RC defending me, and getting Gamma lynched, but a lot of other folks have said that that looks to make me town, the way he pushed for my protection. It turns out that he was scum. He could have definitely gotten the lynch of Gamma, and then (had he not been confirmed scum and been the hider) used his defense of me as leverage if I was ever killed. Again, the double bluff scenario.

[ryan2754]

Vote: Ryan

Scum defended him.

Worst. Logic. Evar.

Scum have the ability to defend and attack whoever they want because they have more information than we do. Thus, this leads to the double bluff scenario. Am I defending my fellow scum from being lynched, or a townie to gain standing with the masses. Either way, your logic poses a sproblem and implies that if scum defends someone, then they are scum. With situations like this, you must also look at how "close" the person was to getting lynched that was defended/attacked, and also how hard the accuser/defender "pushed" their stance. For example, if a fellow mafia has a strong wagon against him, and he's at L-2 or L-1, and most likelky defending him will only put you in worse standing with the town, there is no point in even trying, but instead joining in to blend in better.
Simply put, either way, your simple logic of defense/attack from scum means that person is scum BLOWS, as there are so many other factors that are involved.

Xtoxm, I looked at your posts and noticed this one, the bolded is mine:

Well I think i've said most of them already, but:

Gamma looks as scum, but

wouldn't be surprised if he flipped town

.
Ryan - Town
Pop - Scum
Camn - Scum
BSG - Town
EM - Town

That's all i've developed so far.

I'm sorry, but I'm always skeptical of people who use language like that in their posts, as more often than not, they are scum. You use the same language in post 472. Not to mention your posts that hint at you understanding the inner workings of the scum decision process, as previously noted.

I'd like to get responses from both of these players, but at the the present moment, they are at the top of my suspicion list, with Empking at the top.

Vote: Empking

At ROFL: Sure, it may look back with regards to RC defending me, and getting Gamma lynched, but a lot of other folks have said that that looks to make me town, the way he pushed for my protection. It turns out that he was scum. He could have definitely gotten the lynch of Gamma, and then (had he not been confirmed scum and been the hider) used his defense of me as leverage if I was ever killed. Again, the double bluff scenario.

You're voting me because I'm voting you, right?

Scum wouldn't defend town you because them defending you wouldn't have got them any townie points.

Umm, no I didn't vote for you because you voted me. I voted you because of your terrible logic to give someone a vote. Scum WOULD defend town especially if I were going to be lynched. And when the word came out that I was town, it would definetely score them town points.

ok, i may have been wrong about ryan.

most likely scenario - xtoxm and camn

Why do you think you are wrong about me?

@ryan - the evidence you present against xtox is stronger than that against emp. why did you choose to vote emp and not x?

@emp - stop omgusing

i'm looking at this a new way. coyote probably didn't think he was likely to get lynched day two. in fact, if we assume for a moment ryan is town, i imagine the scum plan was to lynch

him

. it does in fact make sense for one scum to be defending ryan in this position.

i believe x is trying to link me to camn for two reasons - if i get lynched, my town flip will make any evidence against camn come into question, not just whatever bupkiss xtox is saying connects us. and if camnscum should die before me, well its great to have a fall guy isn't it?

camn really hasn't done any scumhunting any time recently. she's just been debating other peoples' understanding of the way the roles worked, or their opinions of likely scenarios for the scum night actions. smells like a serious case of information without analysis.

I voted Empking because I found his apparent "logic" for voting me to be a lot more unsound and pro-scum than some wording choices, tbh.

Well, I know that scum didn't no-kill, because Korts died. But I didn't think we had to discuss the possibility of a NK - why would scum do that? I don't want to get too heavily into the WIFOM aspects of night decisions, but nking in a game like this seems way too risky. Even if they knew that pops was the hider, NKing wouldn't do them any good, because even if pops were the only one to die last night, we would all know that RC was scum, based on the nature of the role.


I think we're all taking RC's long post way too much into our scumhunting considerations. I agree that there can be some clues there, but the fact that he defended ryan doesn't make ryan obvious town, and it doesn't make him obvious scum. There is plenty of other information to analyze; let's not use the words of deadscum as the sole factor in decisions on who is and isn't scum. Empking and Xtoxm seems to be on opposite end of this spectrum, but being so sure that it means one thing or the other looks scummy to me.

Paragraph 1: Yeah, but Couldn't Korts die because he protected you, if you were scum? At that point, it would be an obvious choice to No Kill, because if you killed, then three people would have died and we would have two scum members foretold.
Paragraph 2: Agreed.


ROFL looks pretty deep in poo right now. I would also like to hear the answers to Camn's questions.

With regards to the quick vote vs. prolongued vote. Seeing as we all knew, given the situation that RC was scum, there's not point in waiting at that point. Scum know that RC is going to lose, and they will post accordingly as they feel fit not to give any information away. Again, double-bluff scenario. I feel as though the information during that round we have gathered would be null and void for that such reason.

[ryan2754]

You said "at that point." At what point? If the scum knew that the real doc was visiting one of them, then I agree that the correct play would be to NK. But how would scum know that?

I don't see why ANY of you are so sure that RC's defense means one thing or the other. RC and Empking seems convinced that RC was defending a scumbuddy, and Xtoxm seems convinced that RC was pretending to defend a townie in order to implicate him later on.

Paragraph 1. I think I might be a little confused. Now that I think about it, the wolves wouldn't know if the doctor died, because he gives the mod the information he chooses at the same time as the wolves. Thus, the wolves (unless they knew who was the doc), would still lynch someone and had he protected a mafia member, we then could use it as conclusive evidence. I'm sorry, I was under the assumption that the wolves knew about him being the doctor before they got their lynch, which seems like an incorrect assumption.

Paragraph 2: Agreed. Although I know my own role, we can't use what RC, a confirmed scum, says about me. He again has more information than the town, and will act accordingly. However, because I know my role, RC was defending me in the occurrence that I get lynched, and am revealed as town, so he would earn town points. But yes, in the grand scheme of things, we can't look at what RC said as gospel. So in essence, I agree with Eso.

[ryan2754]

That was just the only new reason, my reasons for voting him before are still valid.

That made me LOL.

[ryan2754]

ryan2754 - His shameless bandwagon and then his explanatin for his vote was also poor. (I dislike "This game is so boring" posts as well.)

I don't think you should be just trying to laugh off his accusation ryan.

Shameless bandwagon? What is he referring to? the RC lynch?
Umm, yeah, I'm pretty sure I laid a pretty decent foundation for my vote.
Oh and I also pretty much explained how I feel towards his accusation, and how I find his logic flawed. Therefore I find his reasons invalid.

[ryan2754]

Yeah, I'm still here. We really need to start talking. However, I do find that rofl's silence when saying he would post isn't helpful. Then again, most people in the game aren't talking...

[ryan2754]

Unvote: Empking

Vote: ROFL

[ryan2754]

Is this by the same logic as before, or something new?
What's the reasoning behind ROFL and eso?

[ryan2754]

Sorry, family emergency has kept me from posting in a while.

A very interesting turn of events. I had posted a vote for ROFL. Well, as we would have it,

Unvote

He posts a coherent post, and makes a lot of logical bases for his arguments. And in my opinion, he has a very good argument. Scum do often like to keep their phrases open ended, and try to stay away from judging their comrades, while still saying a little bit about them. I do beleive ROFL has a ligitimate case on Camn, and I could definitely see a Camn/Xotxm pair. Although I don't find ROFL COMPLETELY off the hook (although he seems extremely protown at this point), this argument he lays definitely changes my perspective, and puts others into the limelight over him.

Gieff, am I right in saying you see either a Camn/Xtoxm pair or a Emp/ROFL pair?
I could see this as extremely viable. You make the same case on ROFL and Emp as ROFL does on Camn/Xtoxm. This being said, a smart wolf would see that his own logic could be applied to others, and would address this or at least be cognizant enough that others would. Thus, I would like to see ROFL's and Empking's response before I make a vote.

Given all the information:
FOS: Camn

[ryan2754]

Whoever insisted on certain people hinting at Camn+X pair, please recap why you think so, and your reasoning.

Oh, nice job btw ROFL...

[ryan2754]

/?

[ryan2754]

You, primarily because you keep holding onto an argument that I pretty reasonably broke down.

[ryan2754]

I'm pretty sure that a majority of people agreed with me that just saying scum defended me doesn't show which side I'm on.

Oh I find Xtoxm quite scummy as well, I would happy with a lynch for either.

I honestly fell one of them is the last scum, and well, we get two lynches.

[ryan2754]

I do think Xtoxm or Empking is the last scum. I would be happy with a lynch of either, as long as we can get somewhat on the same page.
As of right now, I find empking's insistence on lynching me on shoddy evidence as more town then scum. I feel as though if he were scum he would have left it alone after everyone countered his argument. Thus, I feel Xtoxm to be the last scum.

Unvote

Vote: Xtoxm

[ryan2754]

Personally I am extremely surprised the last wolf NKed Empking, as I feel he was the last mafia, and I'm sure many people would have thought the same. I personally thought Gieff was going to get NKed, but again, I am wrong. I will look over the thread, when I have time (which probably won't be until tomorrow) and then post who I think deserves a vote.

[ryan2754]

Voting Patterns:

Caboose/Magisterrain/Empking (town) - ryan2754, N/A, ryan2754, ryan2754, DEAD
Badguy/Xtoxm (town) - Gamma, RC, Camn, Xtoxm, DEAD
Roflcopter (town) - ryan2754, RC, Camn, DEAD
BlakAdder/Camn (scum) - N/A, N/A, Camn, DEAD
Clausewitz/Netlava (town) - Gamma, RC, DEAD
BSG/Sekinj/RedCoyote (scum) - Gamma, N/A, DEAD
Pops (Hider) - Korts, DEAD
Korts (Doc) - Gamma, DEAD
Gamma (town) - ryan2754, DEAD
EsoMonty - Gamma, RC, Camn, Xtoxm,
Ryan - Gamma, RC, N/A, Xtoxm
GIEFF - Gamma, N/A, N/A, N/A
Round 1, both GIEFF and Eso bust town.
Round 2, Eso on RC, as hammer.


Stuff in Sequential order:
Gieff was extremely helpful in building the cornerstones for the hypo-claiming, which got us a scum, if not two.
ROFL makes a case out of Camn, and his post 119 on re-read is interesting, given the current game status:

gieff is obvtown by this point. esomonty is tickling my scumdar.

@GIEFF: I voted ryan because of his mistating the reason that I voted Gamma. I think that's opportunistic.

I am unsure of how I feel about ryan at the moment. I don't have a good idea on where to vote. So, I am going to stay unvoted at the moment. Allow myself the ability to reread the entire thread again and then come back to a vote.

^Fencesitting, +scumpoints

I'd like to know why Gamma is instructing NetLava to lead a lynch on him if he goes inactive.

Responds to fencesitting with vote on me.

Gieff big on Gamma.

Thanks for the prods, Incognito.

gieff just struck me as being TOO town. also, i didnt like his nitpicking with badguy. badguy warranted suspision but the constant back and forth just made it seem like gieff was trying to get bad reasoning out of someone and then call that person scum based on bad reasoning. townies have bad reasoning all the time, despite what some will say.

I like to press as much as possible on things I find that may be scummy. Not only does it provide opportunities for people to mess up or crack under pressure, but it's interesting to see who comes to the defense of the person I'm questioning, and who piles on. This sort of information is invaluable on later days once we start knowing people's alignments and roles after lynches and NK's. Who defended scum? Who piled on innocents? Which people did known scum attack? Which people did known scum defend? Answers to these questions become vital in the later stages of the game.


BlakAdder said the following on the 8th, in his most recent post:

Still here. Nothing to say at the moment.

His post prior to this was on the 2nd, six days before that. So in the last 9 days, he has posted exactly once, and simply to say "I'm still here." This is very scummy.

Unvote

Vote: BlakAdder

Votes BlakAder early in game.

Eso explains his vote for me.

GIEFF responds to Eso, sees me as scummy.

Eso uses Newbie Card.

Korts attacks Eso.

GIEFF constantly gives vote summaries. Unvotes Camn, votes Gamma.

Camn says GIEFF is internet star, and eso is meh.

RC FOS's EsoMonty, then gives him credit, and finds GIEFF as town.

Eso attacked by GIEFF.

Eso not suspecting GIEFF.

Eso suspects Xtoxm.

Camn calls RC's post as BS. This makes me lean towards it being truth, for some reason.

Eso suspects Xtoxm again and ROFL as well, two confirmed cits.

Xtoxm sees Eso as town.

Eso jumps at Xtoxm.

Xtoxm certain Eso is town.

Doesn't question ROFL anymore, sees Gieff as town still, and looking at Xtoxm/Camn pair. Also early on Camn wagon.

GIEFF also sees Xtoxm/Camn pair, but sort of fencesits with it.

Based on the voting, GIEFF would much more seem as final scum, as Eso has made cases and been early in bandwagons, where GIEFF, well never got a vote around.

On the flip side, Eso has made cases on a lot of townies, yet plays newb card. Gieff however has been helpful with vote counts and such.

Camn saw Eso as Meh, and GIEFF as town.
RC saw Eso as FOS, then gave him slack, and GIEFF as town.
Camn says RC's post as BS.
Although I want to take this with a grain of salt, it is interesting, particularly where RC backs off on Eso. Both say GIEFF is town, and I am slightly inclined to believe them, but at the same time could be in cahoots.

So wow, I am still at odds with myself. It sucks not being able to cast a vote I feel, since then scum could easily jump on it and win.

Need to sleep on it.

[ryan2754]

Not much over the past few days besides me. Prods, mod?

[ryan2754]

My list was all inclusive on how I saw the game, and what relevant information I believe there was. I know you both find me the most suspicious, but both of you are afraid to throw a vote out, which is completely understandable given the circumstance. After looking it over, i really think Gieff is the last mafia, given his inclination to not vote these last two rounds,w hereas Eso joined bandwagons early. Thus, I find GIEFF as last scum.

[ryan2754]

My vote was a pressure vote. He said he was going to psot, then said he drank too much, then went silent for a while. He constantly criticized me and thought I to be scum, and then when he didn't respond, I was suspicious, and wanted to get him talking.

GIEFF's case on Eso makes sense, but I still feel GIEFF is stretching to try and find a case on EITHER ME OR MONTY. His fencesitting is bothering me. At the same time, I'm not 100% sure I think GIEFF as scum, and hence, I'm not giving a vote. It's so different from the other game sI've played in because at this point, if one villager wrongly votes another, game over. This is why I'm so hesitant to vote. At the same time, wolves will be equally pressed into not voting, hopefully being able to close the deal when one villager votes another. I'd like to say I'm pretty sure GIEFF is scum, but I'd like to hear what Eso has to say.

[ryan2754]

My gut tells me ryan is the last scum.

His case on me is failing so he is hoping I will jump on GIEFF.

He seems eager to hammer in a vote.

FOS: ryan

for the record GIEFF; I was confused by the RC post completely. I didn't see what I was doing at the end that could possibly be making me look more town. I wish I hadn't moved my vote to Gamma, even if he was an unhelpful town member. I was only providing Information to get people to hypoclaim. I didn't want it to slip through the cracks before the eventual Gamma hammering.

I think that 4 confirmed townies voting for Ryan is my last nail in the coffin for him.

I am almost ready to vote. I am just wary to do so when we are this close.

My case on your is failing? How so. I made a case out of both players, looking at what everyone said and what you said in your posts throughout the game, and tried to see it from both angles. That's trying to be inclusive, and getting as much information out there as possible. Sure I built a case, but I did on GIEFF as well. I wouldn't necessarily go to the extreme of saying it failed, but ok.

Pretty much here is what I am coming down to.

Eso voted for two mafia members - one he was the hammer, and the other he was early bandwagon. Seems pretty town.
GIEFF hadn't voted in the last three rounds (slightly scummy), but also started the hypoclaiming process (very town).

So that's where I'm at. This sucks. I have a gut feeling that is telling me one person, and everything else is pointing the other way. I'm getting frustrated. What the hell.

Oh, and lynching me would be a very bad idea, and definitely give the game to the scum.


Screw it.

Vote: Esomonty

[ryan2754]

Son of a bitch....should have went with logic, not gut. Inexperience. Sorry guys, my fault. If I would have just stuck to my voting method/analysis, I should have voted GIEFF, based on his non votes on scum. I felt that I had to do something though, because I felt that Eso was gonna vote for me soon, so. His last post definitely made me think scum trying hard to push. BAH. I suck.

[ryan2754]

So AKA GIEFF got lucky that he lynched Korts the same night that Korts protected him? Because had he picked another person, he would have been revealed as scum, given three different people died. Son of a bitch. I distinctly remember a section in the game where I talked about this possibility (well, a No Kill, but about the same), and then it was quickly dismissed.

[ryan2754]

Bwa ha ha ha!

* GIEFF - Wow. This guy is some sort of internet superstar. If he is scum, we are all screwed.. so I am hoping town.

Gieff = Game MVP.

I even addressed this as a potential reason to see GIEFF as scum. I shouldn't have went with my gut, but with logic.