US Election 08 Mafia(Someone has won, has America lost?)

[Vi]

I guess voting to not lynch is impossible?

Ah... the rules don't say, actually.
Unless we're guaranteed a lot of hidden power roles, though, No Lynch D1 is not a good idea.

[Jon Stewart]

I guess voting to not lynch is impossible?

Ah... the rules don't say, actually.

You may, of course, void your vote. We might ridicule you, and if you happen to be in the state of Florida, it would likely end up counting for the Republican Party, but you may void your vote.

Ummm...that is, unless Mr. Steven Colbert comes along to contradict me. I mean, the sponsors have decided to make him lead anchor in this broadcast, so what he says goes.

Note that the flavour is just that, flavour. Yes, you may vote for No Lynch. Unless Colbert says otherwise.

[Yaw]

Missed this earlier:

Here's an idea to test Nat: Since Vi is acting suspicious (per my and Nikelaos' reasons), we lynch Vi D1. If it turns out that Vi was a townie, either/both the cop and the vig investigate/kill Nat. Either way, we lynch a suspicious player and find out how trustworthy the second most suspicious player is. Then we can bandwagon Badguy.

This would do nothing. Nat has no information about any other alignments, unless he's scum or a mason in a group with confirmed innocents. (Note that we haven't had a night yet.) So at best, you're testing the reliability of Nat's methods for finding scum. But that has no relation to his alignment. And if Nat's suspicious enough to require viging or investigating, that's not necessarily tied to Vi's alignment either.

Basically, if we feel Vi is scummy, we should lynch Vi. If we feel Nat is scummy, we should lynch Nat. (Or if we feel someone else is scummy, we lynch them.) Going after Vi because you feel Nat is scummy is just silly.

[Vi]

I guess voting to not lynch is impossible?

Ah... the rules don't say, actually.

You may, of course, void your vote. We might ridicule you, and if you happen to be in the state of Florida, it would likely end up counting for the Republican Party, but you may void your vote.

Ummm...that is, unless Mr. Steven Colbert comes along to contradict me. I mean, the sponsors have decided to make him lead anchor in this broadcast, so what he says goes.

Note that the flavour is just that, flavour. Yes, you may vote for No Lynch. Unless Colbert says otherwise.

I see who wears the pants in

this

studio...
Also, what American puts 'u's in "flavor"?

[Stephen Colbert]

I guess voting to not lynch is impossible?

Ah... the rules don't say, actually.

You may, of course, void your vote. We might ridicule you, and if you happen to be in the state of Florida, it would likely end up counting for the Republican Party, but you may void your vote.

Ummm...that is, unless

Mr. Steven Colbert

comes along to contradict me. I mean, the sponsors have decided to make him lead anchor in this broadcast, so what he says goes.

This important announcement

It appears that Mr. Jon Stewart has been killed by a mob of angry Colbert Report fans for misspelling Mr. Colbert's name. No more information has been made public at this time.

wait, what, he's still right there? Across the room from me? Oh, ok

actually, it appears that was just wishful thinking on my part. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

yes, you may vote No Lynch if you want to.

Mod: EvilBlonde633 in particular needs to be prodded with something sharp.

That already happened and she has assured me she will be posting soon.

[Kairyuu]

That already happened and she has assured me she will be posting soon.

This. Bad.

vote: evilblond

for intentional lurking.

Note, I will be V/LA for a few days. Probably until Thursday.

[charter]

Here's an idea to test Nat: Since Vi is acting suspicious (per my and Nikelaos' reasons), we lynch Vi D1. If it turns out that Vi was a townie, either/both the cop and the vig investigate/kill Nat. Either way, we lynch a suspicious player and find out how trustworthy the second most suspicious player is. Then we can bandwagon Badguy.

I'm voting you because of this. First off, testing Nat (whatever that's supposed to mean) serves no point. Second, trying to determine already who to lynch today is a HORRIBLE idea. Third, planning out two powerroles' (of which we may or may not have) night actions is a scummy idea. FOURTH, you've already decided to bandwagon Badguy tomorrow, which is MONUMENTALLY scummy of you. Basically this is the worst post I've seen in I don't know how long.

162- Fos Max for presuming there are multiple scum groups, only scum would have knowledge leading them to think this.

[charter]

Also, for just one game, I want to not spend time day one discussing notorius less than useful players. Don't really care if it's this one or not, but gotta start asking sometime.

[charter]

Also, for just one game, I want to not spend time day one discussing notorius less than useful players. Don't really care if it's this one or not, but gotta start asking sometime.

Make that, spending lots of time day one, and then inevitably lynching them.

[Badguy]

I disagree with you on Joe the Plumber being a scummy rolename. I thought Joe would come off as a very pro-town. He's a regular working man that spoke for the people. I also said before I name claimed that these names have to be taken with caution as a name alone isn't good grounds for a lynching.

You poor, credulous thing. Your information about

Joe

Samuel the (unlicenced) Plumber seems to be copied from the Republican Party. The rest of us know him as a hypocritical sleaze. (Hint: You can't really "speak for the people" if you complain about "spreading the wealth around" and then defend your family receiving welfare

in the same interview

.)

That aside, if you really thought

Joe

Samuel the Plumber were very pro-town, why would you require a disclaimer?

Alright, I did some looking into "Joe the Plumber" and found out he's not quite as noble as he had been portrayed on television. Well, it seems I've made a mistake. I thought he would come off as a very pro-town type of guy. The disclaimer was not because I thought Joe was a scummy rolename, but because I nameclaimed out of the blue and I didn't want people to try to give me the heave-ho just for that.

Opinions on the name claim were hardly neutral; there was a definite leaning against it from my perspective, and there were very few supporters. But ignoring that, why would we want to talk about the name claim if we weren't supposed to take it seriously? It would be wasted discussion if the names are meaningless. Your argument is contradictory and a bit suspicious, truthfully.

Well the names have some meaning to them, obviously. If someone nameclaimed Rod Blagojevich or Larry Sinclair(I know that they didn't have any relevance to the actual election) then a few questions would have to be asked. I just didn't want someone to get lynched(I foolishly assumed some people might have followed) just because of the name.

Unvote, Vote zwetschenwasser

@zwetschenwasser: I have grown suspicious of you. When I first nameclaimed, you didn't say anything about it and you even agreed with the part of my post about Nat. After a few players rip me up for it, you come up with a questionable plan(that has already been shown to be foolishness) that ends in me getting bandwagoned for the same thing you didn't seem to have a problem with earlier. You also said earlier in post #86 that you weren't going to vote for Natirasha unless a bandwagon forms.

Who do

you

think are scum? You seem to just follow who ever is on the spotlight at the time.

[ortolan]

@ortolan: What thinkest thou of zwetschenwasser?

Scummy, now you mention it.

Kairyuu seems to be acting too defensively, by smashing on random people. I don't particularly find that a scum tell, per his sig, and Nat's justification for an SK claim makes sense to me. So, unless a bandwagon forms, I'll hold off on my vote. Maybe the cop (if we have one) can investigate Nat tonight and drop us some breadcrumbs...

This is just stupid, any breadcrumbs are as likely to be picked up by scum as they are townies; = dead cop.

Badguy is right. Everyone is overreacting at Nat's probably joking SK claim, although he's certainly screwing with everyone's head. However, I do see something very scummy with Vi: he made no attempt to defend himself after Nat called him suspicious. I'd like an explanation, so

Vote: Vi

Clearly Natirasha hadn't provided any reasons, and Vi even asked for some as a result. Voting for Vi for this was again, scummy/stupid.

Post 160:

Here's an idea to test Nat: Since Vi is acting suspicious (per my and Nikelaos' reasons)

Neither you *nor* Nikelaos have offered a single piece of evidence that Vi's play is "suspicious", beyond citing his non-response to Natirasha's suspicion of him, which itself was offered without explanation.

Here's an idea to test Nat: Since Vi is acting suspicious (per my and Nikelaos' reasons), we lynch Vi D1. If it turns out that Vi was a townie, either/both the cop and the vig investigate/kill Nat. Either way, we lynch a suspicious player and find out how trustworthy the second most suspicious player is. Then we can bandwagon Badguy.

You seem to be implying there is consensus that these players are suspicious. You are far more suspicious to me than any of them.

Vote: zwetschenwasser

[ortolan]

And I hate day ones, and not too fond of day twos, either. My activity level(and insight) generally increases as the days go later.

Which implies a desire to go through the first two days with minimal content.

For me, the basic problem is that someone that tries to reduce the content they post in thread becomes unreadable. Kind of a bad thing to have an unreadable person when you're trying to find scum. If Nat continues to post actual content, I'm willing to say the point's been made and move on. I do think it was essential to make the point about they way he was playing, and make it with votes.

I think you're drawing a long bow here in saying that Natirasha expressing a dislike of the first two days of a game means he intends to lurk. And again, if lurking is consistent with his meta, although it's irritating, I'm not sure a vote on him is justified because of it.

[zwetschenwasser]

Maybe Nat and Vi are scum buddies, and Nat is trying to make himself appear innocent by claiming a vague suspicion of Vi. In no way am I implying a consensus, but that's what I think.

[Natirasha]

Actually, and this is one of my theories, is that one should never bus their partner unless they have to. It makes no sense to bus someone day one.

[Max]

Yaw, does nat actually claim SK every game? Because I seriously thought that was a joke on his part

[Lindisfarne]

Because there are probably the two major parties having their own election victory plans.

I dislike this assumption. What basis do you have to believe this? Seems like someone has more info than the rest of us.

Here's an idea to test Nat: Since Vi is acting suspicious (per my and Nikelaos' reasons), we lynch Vi D1. If it turns out that Vi was a townie, either/both the cop and the vig investigate/kill Nat. Either way, we lynch a suspicious player and find out how trustworthy the second most suspicious player is. Then we can bandwagon Badguy.

Why don't you go ahead and plot out the rest of the game too, while you're at it?

Basically, if we feel Vi is scummy, we should lynch Vi. If we feel Nat is scummy, we should lynch Nat. (Or if we feel someone else is scummy, we lynch them.) Going after Vi because you feel Nat is scummy is just silly.

^ This

you've already decided to bandwagon Badguy tomorrow, which is MONUMENTALLY scummy of you.

^ and this.

vote:zwet

Actually, and this is one of my theories, is that one should never bus their partner unless they have to. It makes no sense to bus someone day one.

Actually, I think it's situational. Especially depending on the set up of the game. Prime example being a CP, Newbie 681 to be exact. From d1 I gunned for my scum buddy and, when she was lynched, it pretty much cleared me, since I was so against her from the beginning. So to say it should never be done is a stretch. Is it always a good play? No. Is it often a good play? No. Can it be a good play if circumstances allow it? definatly. Just my thoughts.

[Lindisfarne]

EBWOP: I meant C9, not CP in my previous post. Drat.

[Vi]

Maybe Nat and Vi are scum buddies, and Nat is trying to make himself appear innocent by claiming a vague suspicion of Vi. In no way am I implying a consensus, but that's what I think.

How is this any more valid than--

Maybe zwet and Nat are scum buddies, and zwet is trying to make himself appear innocent by claiming a vague suspicion of Nat. In no way am I implying a consensus, but that's what I think.

[Yaw]

Yaw, does nat actually claim SK every game? Because I seriously thought that was a joke on his part

He's claimed he will in this game. Apparently he's done it elsewhere. I happen to think it's a dumb thing to do, but I don't doubt he's willing to do it.

162- Fos Max for presuming there are multiple scum groups, only scum would have knowledge leading them to think this.

Eh, would really depend on the way role PMs are worded. Most scum groups aren't likely to know there are other groups, unless they're given that information. That said, a

SK

probably would be able to intuit that there's a scum group in existence apart from their own evil role...

In short, good eye, and something that may be worth coming back to.

I think you're drawing a long bow here in saying that Natirasha expressing a dislike of the first two days of a game means he intends to lurk. And again, if lurking is consistent with his meta, although it's irritating, I'm not sure a vote on him is justified because of it.

Well, as I mentioned, the other game I was in with Nat he did lurk. So I'll admit I'm biased. I do recognize that information increases as the game goes on, so one's accuracy in scumhunting would be expected to increase similarly...but it doesn't follow that one's involvement in the game should similarly go up unless there's a noticeable difference in posting rate. At any rate, people should be expected to take positions in this game, and the earlier it happens the more useful they become in hindsight.

Speaking of which,

Unvote, Vote: zwetschenwasser

. For what others have mentioned. Also, looked through his posts and he seems to be making up stuff to make others (notably Vi) look scummy.

[Natirasha]

Vote: zwetschenwasser

Because he suspects me, is drawing very very out-there conclusions. And what Charter/Yaw said. And because the shorter the day, the happier the Nat.

[EvilBlonde633]

Mod: RL has gotten crazy-busy this past week, and I'm going to need to request a replacement. =/

[ortolan]

Maybe Nat and Vi are scum buddies, and Nat is trying to make himself appear innocent by claiming a vague suspicion of Vi. In no way am I implying a consensus, but that's what I think.

That's true, scum bus each other all the time. However you've offered no good evidence to establish that either of them are scummy to begin with so far.

And why do you think Badguy is scummy?

[EmpTyger]

Unvote: Natirasha

. While he’s playing only minimally helpfully, others have managed to play significantly worse.

---

zwet:
There’s plenty of awfulness here to go around from your [160], with varying degrees of inexcusability. The fact that you think it would be a good idea to have the cop and vigilante target the same player, however, is just too much.

Vote: zwetschenwasser

. By my count, that’s 6.

---

ortolan:

How has Natirasha acted in an anti-town fashion beyond doing what he does in every game, which is similar to what many others do e.g. self-voting (but without the SK claim)?

If the only facts you have regarding Natirasha are (1) he’s acting antitown and (2) he does it every game, how do you expect the town to win?

---

Kairyuu:
My point was that you seem to be rather certain about the mafia’s reaction to a Natirasha bandwagon *before the fact*.

What specifically did you find slightly odd about Badguy’s claim?

---

Yos:
You seemed remarkably tolerate of zwet’s [160] until he attracted votes.

---

charter:
Well, for just one game, I want to not spend time day one forcing notorius less than useful players to help the town or be inevitably lynched. What’s your point.

[Stephen Colbert]

And now, another announcement

Hello, I'm still here.

It may seem that I'm making a lot of announcements, and you are correct. However, every one of them is important. It has nothing to do with the fact that I really like the attention.

But enough about me, I have an announcement.
One person seems to have been magically shifted into someone else inside the building. Other than it probably being extremely painful, it will be interesting to see how it affects their behavior.
And now, back to whatever you were doing.

vollkan replaces EvilBlonde633. Thanks!
Also, vote count coming tomorrow at the latest.

[ortolan]

ortolan:

How has Natirasha acted in an anti-town fashion beyond doing what he does in every game, which is similar to what many others do e.g. self-voting (but without the SK claim)?

If the only facts you have regarding Natirasha are (1) he’s acting antitown and (2) he does it every game, how do you expect the town to win?

The way town usually wins, by lynching scummy players. What point are you trying to make here?