Mini 863 - Space Station Mafia: GAME OVER - EVERYONE'S DEAD

[milkshake]

Hiphop was scum, I'm impressed with us. No kill night one... super lucky doc? Anyway, this might be the easiest game ever. (Too early to tell though).

So, according to my theory, this means Messiah is scum. (Hiphop betrayed him.)

vote: Messiah

Peabody-with-bussing also doesn't seem too ridiculous. I also notice we haven't heard from CoCo or empking in forever, and they weren't voting yesterday. CoCo? Empking? You there?

[Hoopla]

Gut tells me Messiah might not be hiphop's scumbuddy, but I am willing to entertain the idea. Hiphop's defense of Messiah certainly is incriminating, although I suspect hiphop may have acted the same way regardless of who I set-up a bandwagon on.

My current preference is a policy lynch on Empking or CoCo. I think we can afford it.

[NewAgeWarrior]

Wow. I wasn't as certain as all of you about hiphop, but i guess it worked out for the best.
I need to re-read and rethink my list, because AGM hammered quickly. This doesn't clear him, but I just don't think how him doing this would have helped scum.

I wouldn't mind an Empking lynch, but I defiantly need more time to make any clear decisions.

Also the thought of a SK is little in my mind, and the thought of a doc is high.

[Sposh]

Whoooo yeah we got that scum! *dances*

The no kill is incredibly odd. Either we've got a town RB or a town Doc, I think. Question: would it be advisable for them to claim with their night action so we can automatically get rid of another scum?

[NewAgeWarrior]

Sposh, you make no sense.

[charlatan]

Whoooo yeah we got that scum! *dances*

The no kill is incredibly odd. Either we've got a town RB or a town Doc, I think. Question: would it be advisable for them to claim with their night action so we can automatically get rid of another scum?

No. That's not a good suggestion at all. Run the possibilities through your heard and tell me you don't see why that's a bad idea. What if there's a doc? How does that help us catch scum? I don't think you thought the question through, which bothers me a little.

------

Okay, on to general observations. I would expect that scum wouldn't want to vote as a block on Day 1, and I'd also think that they would not want to lose hiphop if there was a chance of avoiding it. So, everyone who avoided the hiphop wagon without strong reasons for doing so's scum-stock will go up in my book though, granted, not much. I'm going to have to re-read Day 1 with fresh eyes now, though.

-----

My current preference is a policy lynch on Empking or CoCo. I think we can afford it.

I am not totally unopposed to this, but by my watch it's a little too early to go on a lurker hunt. We're more likely to hit town than scum, and if we have the lynch to spend now, we'll probably have it to spend up the road, too. Since we nailed scum on Day 1, I feel confident we can do better for ourselves than a flip of the coin with two lurkers at the moment.

------

I need to re-read and rethink my list, because AGM hammered quickly. This doesn't clear him, but I just don't think how him doing this would have helped scum.

Any time a scum lynch is inevitable and they can get away with it, it's in their best interest to hammer quickly to limit discussion and maybe gain townie cred, in my opinion.

Also the thought of a SK is little in my mind, and the thought of a doc is high.

SK? Please explain, because I don't see where you'd get that at all.

[Messiah]

@milkshake: What do you think of the possibility that hiphop was simply trying to play to his town meta(as he mentions in post 219), perhaps going a bit overboard in the process? Why wasn't this included in your possible scenarios in post 292?

@Hoopla: Why do you want to policy lynch today?

@Sposh: No, they shouldn't claim. There's other ways a no kill can occur, and even if a doc did block the kill he would have no way of knowing it.

---

I'm going to have limited access for a few days.

[NewAgeWarrior]

@charlatan
I'm saying that there is pretty much no chance of their being a serial killer in this game. We probably would have a kill if there was.

Also, I don't think i stated it well enough in my last post. I feel Sposh really shot himself up with his totally careless post that he made.

[charlatan]

@charlatan
I'm saying that there is pretty much no chance of their being a serial killer in this game. We probably would have a kill if there was.

Oh, sorry, I think I misinterpreted the comment. I took it to mean you were thinking about it a little, as in you had a bit of a suspicion there was one. Thanks for clarifying.

[NewAgeWarrior]

I just never disregard any possibilities. It is technically possible for a town doc to block a NK and a mafia RB to RB an SK kill, or the sk is not NK till later so he can throw a wrench into the towns plans, but the chances of that are too little for me to feel that they should be entertained.

Also, it is possible for scum to have gone with a no-kill, setting themselves up with a fake claim doc if they are about to be lynched, saying "I'm doc, I protected soandso N1 and that's why he wasn't killed". Highly unlikely, yet not an impossible scenario.

If it's not impossible, it could happen. I say it so I can people's minds open, so they I don't tunnel vision into their own beliefs of what the game set up is which can be disastrous.

[charlatan]

Indeed. That's why we definitely don't want anyone claiming right now, though I am inclined to think it's unlikely that scum no-killed last night after losing a person.

And here's the thing. I'm not sure I should even point this out, but did anyone else notice hiphop's lack of an actual role? This is what we got upon the reveal:

hiphop (lynched Day One)

-

MAFIA

This suggests to me that they're all the same role, which almost certainly means they're all goons (in other words, no scum roleblocker.) Not that we should ignore the possibility of one, but it's surely worth noting.

[NewAgeWarrior]

Meh. I just think it means he's a vanilla mafia.

[AlmasterGM]

I'd totally be down with a CoCo vote. He needs to either die or post and then die, like, NOW.

[charlatan]

I'd totally be down with a CoCo vote. He needs to either die or post and then die, like, NOW.

This is completely asinine.

You've been gunning for CoCo and Peabody since Day 1, and in both cases it seems to be for personal reasons relating to other games. I have seen little to no evidence to indicate that you have even given any consideration to their alignment. You seem to actually believe that you have made cases against them, based on this quote:

I don't see how you can criticize me not liking Peabody and CoCo given that I've made legitimate arguments against them and they are both scummy.

But, really you haven't. Your entire case is your post nine (in isolation), which is hard to take seriously for a variety of reasons (which I would be happy to explain if I must.)

On Day 1 I was content to mostly ignore this stuff because I was hoping you'd get over it, but so far you haven't.

[AlmasterGM]

But, really you haven't. Your entire case is your post nine (in isolation), which is hard to take seriously for a variety of reasons (which I would be happy to explain if I must.)

Please do explain.

[charlatan]

But, really you haven't. Your entire case is your post nine (in isolation), which is hard to take seriously for a variety of reasons (which I would be happy to explain if I must.)

Please do explain.

Sure. I'll do a rundown of your mentions of both of them up until the point you claimed you had made a case against them.

Post 3: Self-proclaimed non-random vote on Peabody because he "annoys you."
Post 4: An affirmation that you are voting him for personal reasons.
Post 5: Saying you'd kill Peabody with DK powers for mispelling your name if you could.
Post 6: Saying you "don't like" Peabody and CoCo. Because we hadn't figured that out.
Post 8: Jumping on the Messiah bandwagon and prematurely asking for a claim, though reiterating once again that you don't like them.

Up until that point, your attacks on them were 100% personal in nature. You'd established from the get-go that you want them dead.

Post 9 is bigger. The whole of your CoCo case in this post is that he's lurking and that he did something in a previous game that "annoyed you." If you want to lynch him because he's lurking, okay, that has its merits and is not a problem. Pretending that there's more to your case than that, however, is nonsense.

Your Peabody case is essentially that you did not like that he thought hiphop's erratic, jumpy, and defensive behavior was scummy (which, by the way, several us did, and we were right). The other main point was his unexplained CooLDoG vote (which was definitely anti-town), but he

did

deliver the promised explanation when he caught up, in my mind making that a moot point.

From minute 1 you were gunning at these guys, though you took a break to jump on the Messiah bandwagon when it started picking up steam (with no explanation except that you believed Hoopla) and again on the tail end of the hiphop bandwagon after a lengthy theory debate.

Keep in mind, I think a lurker lynch is a viable option for us. Pushing a lurker lynch is not scummy. Pushing a lurker lynch and pretending it's something else, however, is.

In case you're wondering why I'm bothering to spend so many words on this, I think your voting history is suspect given the day's flip. Messiah became a very convenient vote when Hoopla gambited, and you followed the leader without even bothering to give any reasons of your own. When hiphop started to come under fire, you gave a vague "liking hiphop less and less by the post" (perhaps laying the groundwork for a later accusation without actually explaining anything?) then eventually argued with him about theory for a bit before hammering. A hammer does not impress me. It was obvious where the bandwagon was headed, and for someone who will vote based on so little and claim it's a solid case, I found it odd that you would scuffle with hiphop so much (easily the most active period of Day 1 for you) without casting a vote until the last possible minute.

Vote: AlmasterGM

[CooLDoG]

But, really you haven't. Your entire case is your post nine (in isolation), which is hard to take seriously for a variety of reasons (which I would be happy to explain if I must.)

Please do explain.

Sure. I'll do a rundown of your mentions of both of them up until the point you claimed you had made a case against them.

Post 3: Self-proclaimed non-random vote on Peabody because he "annoys you."
Post 4: An affirmation that you are voting him for personal reasons.
Post 5: Saying you'd kill Peabody with DK powers for mispelling your name if you could.
Post 6: Saying you "don't like" Peabody and CoCo. Because we hadn't figured that out.
Post 8: Jumping on the Messiah bandwagon and prematurely asking for a claim, though reiterating once again that you don't like them.

Up until that point, your attacks on them were 100% personal in nature. You'd established from the get-go that you want them dead.

Post 9 is bigger. The whole of your CoCo case in this post is that he's lurking and that he did something in a previous game that "annoyed you." If you want to lynch him because he's lurking, okay, that has its merits and is not a problem. Pretending that there's more to your case than that, however, is nonsense.

Your Peabody case is essentially that you did not like that he thought hiphop's erratic, jumpy, and defensive behavior was scummy (which, by the way, several us did, and we were right). The other main point was his unexplained CooLDoG vote (which was definitely anti-town), but he

did

deliver the promised explanation when he caught up, in my mind making that a moot point.

From minute 1 you were gunning at these guys, though you took a break to jump on the Messiah bandwagon when it started picking up steam (with no explanation except that you believed Hoopla) and again on the tail end of the hiphop bandwagon after a lengthy theory debate.

Keep in mind, I think a lurker lynch is a viable option for us. Pushing a lurker lynch is not scummy. Pushing a lurker lynch and pretending it's something else, however, is.

In case you're wondering why I'm bothering to spend so many words on this, I think your voting history is suspect given the day's flip. Messiah became a very convenient vote when Hoopla gambited, and you followed the leader without even bothering to give any reasons of your own. When hiphop started to come under fire, you gave a vague "liking hiphop less and less by the post" (perhaps laying the groundwork for a later accusation without actually explaining anything?) then eventually argued with him about theory for a bit before hammering. A hammer does not impress me. It was obvious where the bandwagon was headed, and for someone who will vote based on so little and claim it's a solid case, I found it odd that you would scuffle with hiphop so much (easily the most active period of Day 1 for you) without casting a vote until the last possible minute.

Vote: AlmasterGM

like this post ^^

however, I think AGM needs to explain his un-premeditated hammer... why the hell did you just come in and say "hammer time folks!" I know we got the right guy, but just a 1-2 line post say i'm coming in to hammer! Is in my mind not good play and thus worents and explination on your part.

I am not liking the sposh post very much, over joy for lynching scum on d-1, wants power roles to claim with a rather stupid reason, was first on the hip-hop wagon, hmmmm....
so just to make it correct

fos: sposh, and fos on agm untill he gives us a solid answer.

I am still with holding my vote till a latter time, no point so early to build a wagon on no d-2 stuff so far.

(I am also working on a very bad computer with a worse then hell keeyboard, and that does not have a good back space key, so if there is any miss spelling that are very very gross I will try to re-spell them once I get on a good computer this one suck! )

[Sposh]

I don't see why my idea was so bad! I mean, sure, we'd have a townie roleblocker or doctor out in the open, but we'd also be down one more scum. Surely that's worth something, right?

In ANY case, I'm looking at the votes from yesterday:

hiphop (7): Sposh, Peabody, Hoopla, CooLDoG, charlatan, milkshake, AlmasterGM

AlmasterGM (2): NewAgeWarrior, Messiah
Peabody (1): hiphop

Not Voting (2): Coco, Empking

I'm thinking there's one scum on the hiphop wagon as a bussing attempt, and one scum out of CoCo/Emp/NAW/Messiah. I need to do a re-read. When I have time!

[Empking]

Vote; Messiah

Play based on actions in regards to hip hop.

Messiah, what are your thoughts on Milkshake.

[charlatan]

I don't see why my idea was so bad! I mean, sure, we'd have a townie roleblocker or doctor out in the open, but we'd also be down one more scum. Surely that's worth something, right?

We wouldn't necessarily be down one scum at all! For instance, if there was a doctor AND a roleblocker, the roleblocker might block a townie but we'd still have no night kill. The scum could also choose to no kill in order to try and draw out a claim (and possible frame a townie, too). There are a bunch of different situations in which we could have no kill without a claim pointing to scum.

I think it's extremely suspicious that you are pushing for it, really. If you were scum that purposely chose a no-kill, this would be exactly what you want.

[Peabody]

For the entirety of Day 1, I have been getting a neutral read on Almaster because of his consistent one-liners with hardly any content. I tried to not let his personal attack against my character affect my view of his alignment. His case against me was very weak, and to be honest, I didn't understand all of his reasonings behind it.

In my opinion, Almaster is just as bad as Coco and Empking in regards to lurking because all his posts are one line. I fail to see any reasoning behind many of his arguments.

---

I don't like Sposh's post 328. It's just weird and unnecessary.

---

I need to do a reread of day 1 and look at hiphop's play in regard to other players.

[Hoopla]

@Hoopla: Why do you want to policy lynch today?

Proactive towns need to worry about more than just lynching scum - keeping people active and ensuring we're not left in lylo or later game scenarios with multiple lurkers (or even people incapable of analysing things).

We lynched scum D1, so we're ahead and can afford to do some tidying up. I think Empking is quite an excellent choice in my opinion - he was not on hiphop's lynch which is a good place to start. Coupled with his lack of content, I won't settle for much less.

Vote: Empking

I will have more soon when I've more time on my hands.

[NewAgeWarrior]

Vote: Hoopla

Yea, lynching townies just to "tidy up" because we are "ahead". That is an excellent town practice.

[Peabody]

@Hoopla: Why do you want to policy lynch today?

Proactive towns need to worry about more than just lynching scum - keeping people active and ensuring we're not left in lylo or later game scenarios with multiple lurkers (or even people incapable of analysing things).

We lynched scum D1, so we're ahead and can afford to do some tidying up. I think Empking is quite an excellent choice in my opinion - he was not on hiphop's lynch which is a good place to start. Coupled with his lack of content, I won't settle for much less.

Vote: Empking

I will have more soon when I've more time on my hands.

I agree with NAW. What the heck are you talking about? We're supposed to lynch scum, not inactive players.

[Messiah]

Messiah, what are your thoughts on Milkshake.

Leaning town.

---

As for the policy lynching, while I'm not opposed to policy lynches in general, I think we should lynch someone that we think is more likely than average to be scum at the moment.