Mini 275: Subject Mafia - It's all over!

[snowmonkey]

Can we lynch him now?

you crack me up.

[RangeroftheNorth]

Glad I could be an amusement

[Stewie]

Make one. [an argument against claiming]

Off to the top of my head, claiming gives the mafia far more information than it gives the town. The town can rarely, if ever, be sure that you speak the truth, whereas the mafia will always know.

If the scum have good safe-claims (or are good at making up false claims), a mass-claim will hurt the town. Individual claims are just a small piece of a mass-claim, and although it could be said there is a better chance of forcing just scum to claim because of how the lynches go, this is no guarantee.

Are those arguments particularly watertight? Probably not. But some people believe claiming is a bad idea, and those are some possible reasons why.

Gives the mafia more information than it gives the town? Newsflash: the mafia have more information about the game setup than the town does. Any information released is bound to help the town more than the scum, because the town is learning more new information than the town. Assuming that sk is town, the mafia already know that, while we don't. A claim might help us decide which is more likely (for example, if he claims vigilante, we might think he did not act like one, and lynch him).

Also, you can't pass a single claim as a part of a mass claim. A mass claim is a release of all information and is only useful at the endgame. One claim is useful when you are against a wall and there's no other way out. Which just happens to be the situation. You argue against claiming in general, but make no reference to this specific situation.

It is certainly not only the scum who will refuse to claim. I've seen frustrated townies do it all the time in newbie games, and I imagine it happens elsewhere too.

Rarely if ever. I can't recall any situations off the top of my head.

Well, I've seen people give the following speech a bunch of times:

what am I supposed to do?

If I claim vanilla townie, you guys will lynch me anyway.
If I claim scum, you guys will lynch me.
If I claim power-role then the scum will kill me at night.

To be honest, I haven't actually made sure that only scum give these speeches.

Those are nice examples for newbie games, where there's only town, mafia, and one or two power roles. However, this game has a closed setup, giving countless posibilities. The town might not want to lynch a role, while the mafia is scared of a doc-block or doesn't care about killing that role.

You want a good reason why a pro-town player would not claim? Well, I don't know if it could ever be considered "good play" to flat-out refuse to claim, especially when it looks like pressure won't let up. But just because it isn't good play doesn't mean a townie couldn't do it.

I want you to tell me what good for the town could come out of not claiming when the pressure won't let up. You didn't give me a reason, you gave me a WIFOM.

What I said was in no way a WIFOM. All I said is "townies don't always make good plays". You really want to call that a WIFOM? [/quote]

I said WIFOM because one could say "snowmonkey is simply not making a good play, but is town" or "snowmonkey is not making a good play because he's scum." I realize now that I probably picked the wrong logical fallacy, but it's a logical fallacy nontheless. You are basically saing "he made a bad play, but he can still be town!"

[snowmonkey]

he made a

bad

good play,

but

and he

can still be

is town!"

fixed


what is WIFOM?

[Turbovolver]

*Lots of stuff*

I might go through and check all of your reponses, I might not. All you've shown by going on this little "claim crusade" is that you are desparate to avoid answering players' suspicions against you, if you ask me. This is one argument I've been in that *I* can recognise as stupid before it's been pointed out

You are basically saing "he made a bad play, but he can still be town!"

Yes, I am. What, you've never seen a townie make a mistake before?
Ridiculous.

[petroleumjelly]

Blatant defense of Stewie (to hopefully stop this silly back-and-forth arguing):

I might go through and check all of your reponses, I might not.

This is not pro-town behavior. This is what I call "selective attention", or "tunnel vision". You only look at what goes into your theory of Stewie as scum, but disregard that which is inconsistent. Sometimes it helps to read responses to what you have to say.

All you've shown by going on this little "claim crusade" is that you are desparate to avoid answering players' suspicions against you, if you ask me. This is one argument I've been in that *I* can recognise as stupid before it's been pointed out

So Stewie has given responses (see quote above), but is desperate to avoid answering players' suspicions? I believe Stewie has answered you quite consistently, and thoroughly. I do not keep track of every word said in this thread, but I am beginning to think your insistence on Stewie is becoming a smoke screen for scum to hide behind.

Also, if you know the argument you are in is "stupid",

why

are you pursuing it?

What, you've never seen a townie make a mistake before?
Ridiculous.

A few questions then:
1.) Has Stewie done anything you would classify as "a mistake"?
2.) If he has, why are you not considering that he is a

townie

who made a mistake? I believe you said a while ago that "Stewie is going down". Is there something in particular that makes you so confident he is scum?

I am personally growing tired of having to read the constant banter between yourself and Stewie. It may serve it's purpose later in the game, but I think we need to make a change in direction.

Snowmonkey seems to be in the "no-claim" club, but he has stayed consistently at 5 votes (although I have shown willingness to add a vote, I still will not place a sixth vote for the time being). I agree that Snowmonkey is under such pressure that if he continues in his refusal to claim, I would feel no shame in moving my vote to him.

From what I remember, both Quailman and Sineish seem to have been forgotten in this game. My vote is already on Quailman: I think we need to pressure them both into coming back to this game. Fresh eyes bring fresh perspectives.

Mod

, if it has not already been done, could we give prods to those players who have not been posting?

And a friendly reminder: I will have little to no access beginning later today until Sunday evening (February 12). If I need to be replaced, I apologize for the inconvenience, but I would rather finish games that I sign up to play.

Sorry for the double request, but

Mod

, if you set a deadline, would be please be sure to allow me a sufficient chance to re-read by the time I return?

[Turbovolver]

I might go through and check all of your reponses, I might not.

This is not pro-town behavior. This is what I call "selective attention", or "tunnel vision". You only look at what goes into your theory of Stewie as scum, but disregard that which is inconsistent. Sometimes it helps to read responses to what you have to say.

The argument has degenerated into a discussion about whether claiming is good behaviour or not - despite me leaning slightly towards claiming being the better play. All I did was post arguments when Stewie asked me to, and I admitted myself that I made them up off the top of my head and they probably weren't holeproof. That is, there wasn't really much to gain by reading why my quickly-constructed arguments were wrong - so I didn't. I did notice the point about the WIFOM thing being rubbish, so I pointed that out.

I'll go read his post just for you though. And resist the urge to point out the other places where I don't agree.

All you've shown by going on this little "claim crusade" is that you are desparate to avoid answering players' suspicions against you, if you ask me. This is one argument I've been in that *I* can recognise as stupid before it's been pointed out

So Stewie has given responses (see quote above), but is desperate to avoid answering players' suspicions? I believe Stewie has answered you quite consistently, and thoroughly. I do not keep track of every word said in this thread, but I am beginning to think your insistence on Stewie is becoming a smoke screen for scum to hide behind.

He himself has specifically said that he isn't fully responding to me, in this post:

Then you won't mind me not addressing any points in the thread (until snowmonkey claims). If snowmonkey can get away with being two away from a lynch and not claiming, surely it's also ok for me not to address any points you bring up

---------------------------------------------------------------

Also, if you know the argument you are in is "stupid",

why

are you pursuing it?

The only persuing I did was the OMGUS thing, because it was blatantly wrong. This seems almost like misrepresentation to me - I only posted that I realised the argument was stupid in the same post that I refused to continue arguing.

What, you've never seen a townie make a mistake before?
Ridiculous.

A few questions then:
1.) Has Stewie done anything you would classify as "a mistake"?
2.) If he has, why are you not considering that he is a

townie

who made a mistake? I believe you said a while ago that "Stewie is going down". Is there something in particular that makes you so confident he is scum?

1) Yes, he has - misunderstanding the reasons behind snowmonkey's votes. At least this.
2) Because in addition to this, he's also posted almost no content that wasn't bandwagon-justification or self-defense. In fact, he basically avoided doing anything at all until he found a weak player to stick too, and that he did. I think this is scummy. I haven't been satisfied with his replies.

I am personally growing tired of having to read the constant banter between yourself and Stewie. It may serve it's purpose later in the game, but I think we need to make a change in direction.

Good idea. I'm thinking maybe we should list the scummy things Stewie has done and you can tell us why they don't make you suspicious.

Sorry for the double request, but

Mod

, if you set a deadline, would be please be sure to allow me a sufficient chance to re-read by the time I return?

A deadline is already set - 8PM GMT on Saturday. So you should probably put your vote where it counts if you are going to be away.

FOS: petroleumjelly

In that recent "trap post" #221, I was wanting to see what PJ would say about lynching on a "half-assed reason". If he had straight-up said he believed in it, then I could call him out for voting Quailman and not contributing to one of the lynches. I know some people think such "trap" posts are bad play, but here I think it was justified - was I the only one suspicious when he voted Quailman?

It seemed to me like PJ didn't want to vote his scum partner, didn't want to put another scum on the lynch of a townie, so instead he analysed everybody and took the easy way out by voting a lurker.

It was back then that I started thinking PJ and Stewie could be scum together, and that's why I posed the question. And now he's defending Stewie, and in my opinion not very well. Not to mention he thinks Stewie hasn't done anything to move up or down in scumminess.

Anybody else agree that they are looking rather linked?

[petroleumjelly]

Oh my, yes, Turbo: I am so linked to Stewie that I opened my post with the phrase:

Blatant defense of Stewie

(to hopefully stop this silly back-and-forth arguing)

I think you have been stretching in your arguments: anybody who disagrees with you (i.e.

ME

) comes under your suspicions. Not everybody is going to agree with you: I did not interpret Stewie's posts the same way you have.

Also, my suspicions on Quailman is not only "lurker hunting". As I have previously mentioned:

His reason for voting Turbovolver early in the thread (“I wonder what will happen if he gets more”) did not strike me as pro-town. His unexplained following for the voting of Sineish was odd. And he is apparently gone until Sunday. His lack of posts and lack of content does nothing to make me less suspicious of him.

His only actions just so happen to be suspect. He said he would post here by Sunday, and yet he has not. My vote will be staying on him.

Further, I think you are making convenient links now. As of late, you have been saying that you think Sotty7 and Stewie were scum partners: now you have switched it to being myself and Stewie. Just because I don't find somebody as suspicious as you do does not make me scum. I already posted my explanations for where everybody stands in my eyes for this game: perhaps you should go back and read it so you understand where I'm coming from.

In my eyes, you are wasting time when you could be pressuring other people. I am sure I am not alone in this sentiment.

[Don Gaetano]

If sm continues to refuse to give a full claim, he is acting in a way that is not beneficial to the town and therefore should be lynched.

It is not our goal to eliminate those who are not beneficial, it is our goal to eliminate the scum. Advocating a lynch based on anything but alignment is a bit scummy to me.

I know this argument is over, but I have a very important thing to point out. You actually HAVE to lynch people who are not beneficial in extreme situations (like this one). Infact the entire game breaks down if people who do no act in the best interest of the town are allowed to live. That's why the game has evolved to where it is today, with the "rules" it has today.

To take an example: The only reason why "lynch a liar" should be applied is because in the big picture, lying (even if it's done by a pro-town player with good intentions) reduces the town's chance of winning. Isolated, it would be correct play for a doctor to lie about his role, because he'll probably be nightkilled, but when you see the effects of lies like this in the long run, they make it harder for the town. Let's say scum claims roleblocker, and then when the town figure out that he's lying, he says he's a doc and didn't want to claim that, or a real doc claims something else and is lynched later on when the town figures out he's lying.

In Snowmonkey's case, it's the same thing. A claim when you have the amount of votes on you that snowmonkey has, is the town's most important "safety valve". Let's face it, almost all lynches in mafia, expecially early in the game, are based on evidence that wouldn't exactly get you convicted in a court of law. Without hearing a claim, the town's decision is basically a flip of the coin, and since scum in all closed setup games have to make up atleast part of their claim, not claiming is much more convenient for them than the town in the long run. If that means we have to reveal a cop or two in the process, so be it. It's easily outweighed by the scum we catch by doing it. So if we allow him to refuse to claim, scum will take advantage of it later on, in this game and in others. Therefor "lynch people who hurt the town" has the same reasoning as "lynch a liar". I can come up with hundreds of more reasons and examples of why bad players should be lynched, but I won't unless I'm asked to, because this post is long enough as it is.

I'm going to claim the honour of maybe being the first to say this in a mafia game, but as long as Snowmonkey doesn't claim "I COULDN'T CARE LESS, IF HE"S SCUM OR NOT, LYNCH HIM!". If he still refuses, it's in the town's interest to do so anyway, as far as I'm concerned.

=====

I agree that the question of if Stewie and myself are partners is something that is just wasting time for today

You would, wouldn't you



Acually I agree with you, Sotty. Expecially since Turbo has linked Stewie to PJ and Pablito aswell as Sotty so far today. It's starting to enter the realm of FOSing everyone that's done something suspicious during the game, since you can't be sure that anyone's pro-town. So while the chance of one of those links being true is pretty high, it does become pointless to point them out, if you can't narrow them down.

=====

what is WIFOM?

Wine In Front Of Me

=====

In my eyes, you are wasting time when you could be pressuring other people. I am sure I am not alone in this sentiment.

Right now, I agree 100%. That by the way means that I'm scum with Stewie.

at Turbo.

Later on, the circumstances might change, but right now it's a waste of posts, and a divertion from what I feel is the obvious thing to do. Get a claim from Snowmonkey or lynch him. Bad play I can accept, but refusing to admit that it is bad play, and continuing to do the same, envokes part one of this post.

=====

This will be my last "rant" against snowmonkey today, because I'm personally becoming incredibly angry with him for putting the town in this position. If he should by any chance turn out to be pro-town, I'll probably explode, because he could've stopped this from happening ages ago, and getting himself lynched as a townie when it could've been avoided so easily would be the most irritating thing I've ever experienced in mafia. Still, like I've said, I can't see how we can allow him to live if he doesn't claim pretty soon.

[Turbovolver]

Oh my, yes, Turbo: I am so linked to Stewie that I opened my post with the phrase:

Blatant defense of Stewie

(to hopefully stop this silly back-and-forth arguing)

That means nothing. Trying to make anything out of that statement is WIFOM (PS Snowmonkey, WIFOM stands for Wine in Front of Me, and you can look it up in the wiki - I'm no good at explaining it).

I think you have been stretching in your arguments: anybody who disagrees with you (i.e.

ME

) comes under your suspicions. Not everybody is going to agree with you: I did not interpret Stewie's posts the same way you have.

I am quite happy to accept we disagree if you can accept that that isn't the reason for my post.

Also, my suspicions on Quailman is not only "lurker hunting". As I have previously mentioned:
His only actions just so happen to be suspect. He said he would post here by Sunday, and yet he has not. My vote will be staying on him.

Yeah, we all know he is suspect. It also looks very unlikely he'll be lynched today.

Further, I think you are making convenient links now. As of late, you have been saying that you think Sotty7 and Stewie were scum partners: now you have switched it to being myself and Stewie.

Switched? No, I still think Sotty7 and Stewie are linked.

Just because I don't find somebody as suspicious as you do does not make me scum. I already posted my explanations for where everybody stands in my eyes for this game: perhaps you should go back and read it so you understand where I'm coming from.

I obvious had read it, because I referred to it in my post. That analysis is one of the things that makes me MORE suspicious, in that you don't think Stewie has done

anything

suspicious all game.

Acually I agree with you, Sotty. Expecially since Turbo has linked Stewie to PJ and Pablito aswell as Sotty so far today. It's starting to enter the realm of FOSing everyone that's done something suspicious during the game, since you can't be sure that anyone's pro-town. So while the chance of one of those links being true is pretty high, it does become pointless to point them out, if you can't narrow them down.

I think it has been rather telling. Here's my narrowing down.

Ok, there is player 1 P1, and there is player 2 P2. I accuse P1 of being linked with P2.

In the case that

P1 is town: P1 doesn't know the alignment of P2, but if P1 just defended P2 then he thinks P2 is more likely to be town. Why protest a link with a player you think is likely pro-town? It's going to become useless the second either one of you is killed.

P1 is scum, P2 is town: P1 won't deny the link at all. If P2 dies first P1 looks cleaner, and if P1 dies first there is a chance of a mislynch.

P1 is scum, P2 is scum: They cannot be linked, it would be disastrous. Must deny the accusation at all costs.

Using the reasoning that if two people deny being linked it's looking

most likely

that they are scum together (unless of course the linking reason is rubbish logic... I don't feel that mine have been), it really doesn't look good for Stewie, petroleumjelly and Sotty7.

So cross off the pablito link, I think it's much less likely than the other two.

[Stewie]

I might go through and check all of your reponses, I might not. All you've shown by going on this little "claim crusade" is that you are desparate to avoid answering players' suspicions against you, if you ask me. This is one argument I've been in that *I* can recognise as stupid before it's been pointed out.

You don't like me not answering your questions, but you are completly fine with snowmonkey not answering pleas for a claim? You don't like me not refuting your posts, but you "might" check my responses, or "might not." Conflict of interest?

You are basically saing "he made a bad play, but he can still be town!"

Yes, I am. What, you've never seen a townie make a mistake before?
Ridiculous.

I've seen townies making mistakes before, but not one as big as this one... either that, or they got lynched for it, as they should, since most of the time when a player makes a mistake they are scum. Especially a mistake this big.

[snowmonkey]

=====

This will be my last "rant" against snowmonkey today, because I'm personally becoming incredibly angry with him for putting the town in this position. If he should by any chance turn out to be pro-town, I'll probably explode, because he could've stopped this from happening ages ago, and getting himself lynched as a townie when it could've been avoided so easily would be the most irritating thing I've ever experienced in mafia. Still, like I've said, I can't see how we can allow him to live if he doesn't claim pretty soon.

dude, seriously, go back, read my posts, decide for yourself. if you cant figure it out then you have no business playing this game. im not going to spoon feed it to you. but, in reality, I already have. lynch me or not. maybe if you took off your blinders you could see the whole picture. then again, maybe you just have natural tunnel vision. At this point though, I don't know and I don't really care.

[Sotty7]

His actual defense of you is fair enough. I think both you and Stewie are likely to be scum based on

individual evidence

, so when one of you defends the other I will note that. While it would look even worse if the defense wasn't solid, it doesn't mean it still doesn't look suspicious to me.

Grudgingly I'll have to say that this is a good answer. If you truly believe that we are both scum based of individual evidence then I guess you are allowed your opinion (as wrong as it might be). If you were to try and push the “link” that does not exist then my slight suspicions of you would have sky rocketed.

Using the reasoning that if two people deny being linked it's looking

most likely

that they are scum together

(unless of course the linking reason is rubbish logic... I don't feel that mine have been)

, it really doesn't look good for Stewie, petroleumjelly and Sotty7.

So cross off the pablito link, I think it's much less likely than the other two.

Here you go again. To me, individual evidence means that there is no link, and the only thing that we share is that

you

happen to find both of us suspicious. Now here you are talking about a big link again, with the added effect of throwing PJ in there too.

FOS: Turbo

Yes Turbo, I actually do think that the linking reason is rubbish logic and that everybody that disagrees with you some how is scum. I stated my reasons before as to why the idea of day one link between any two players is flimsy at best. If you are going to say it's all because Stewie defended me, then that blows up in your face too. You say yourself his defense was solid, basically he made valid and true points as to why most of your attack on me was baseless. How is that suspicious?

Like most of the town, I'm finding Snow's play to be very harmful, unhelpful and frustrating. The post he made in answer to my question (247) was actually the most pro town I think he has sounded all day, and even there there are plenty things that just sit wrong with me. The fact that there are others in the thread that are willing to just let him play this way is even more mind boggling to me than trying to read Snow in the first place.

[Don Gaetano]

dude, seriously, go back, read my posts, decide for yourself. if you cant figure it out then you have no business playing this game. im not going to spoon feed it to you. but, in reality, I already have. lynch me or not. maybe if you took off your blinders you could see the whole picture. then again, maybe you just have natural tunnel vision. At this point though, I don't know and I don't really care.

If I ask you to spoon feed me, then why the **** can't you just do it. If you think I'm a blind idiot, then why don't you point out what you think I'm overlooking, as any sensible pro-town player would when confronted with an idiot.

No matter what your alignment is, I've never seen anyone play as badly as you. I don't even care what your alignment is anymore. This concerns mafia basics. Unless you have a suicidal role, which I doubt you have, your goal will always be to stay alive unless it's a big advantage to your side if you sacrifice yourself. You're playing against this basic principle, which is just as idiotic no matter what your alignment is, and makes it impossible for anyone without out-of-thread information to judge what your alignment is. Deliberately making it impossible for the town to judge your alignment is in itselt ample reason for a lynch, and is the reason why the town will go on a lurker-hunt from time to time. You're allowed to get pissed and whatever else you want at people you feel aren't "getting it", but then you just have to spoon feed them, to save your ass. It's a part of the game. Since I've repeatedly told you that I don't get it, and that I can't even see what I'm supposed to get, you better spell it out for me, if you have any respect for this game at all.

=====

Yes, I know I just broke my promise from the last post, but I never imagined I could get this worked up by someone's playstyle in a game.

[pablito]

dude, seriously, go back, read my posts, decide for yourself. if you cant figure it out then you have no business playing this game. im not going to spoon feed it to you. but, in reality, I already have. lynch me or not.

No need to resort to ad hominem attacks. We've all been giving opinions on each other's gameplay and behavior, but no need to attack personality.

And snowmonkey, you tell us that you've spoon fed us, but if almost half of us can't understand where you stand, then something's wrong with the communication.

You've had five vote you and only Don Gaetano has unvoted you (but very shortly re-voted you), despite the strong danger that you'll be the lynch-target today. Of course, I believe that there's at least one scum putting up your total - but fact is, no one has been unswayed by any of your arguments. In fact, everyone probably suspects you to some point - but those who aren't voting you are probably doing so because they think someone is MORE suspicious (PJ, Turbo, and Pablito have all stated that lynching snowmonkey is an activity they'd be willing to join). I'm not sure that you are scum, mainly because I don't think any scum could get away with some of your statements - just because you've taken way too many risks so far. And your half claim was good enough for me. I guess, this is the moment when I stupidly defend snowmonkey for a small bit.

Math is a huge subject. If we are to believe that roles logically match their subjects (and I believe the majority do), then I would believe that Math should be an important role. It's one of the three Rs ('rithemetic) and such a core subject should have some importance in this game. So assuming what little snow has given us from his half-claim, I can only assume that snow either has some role (not-townie) or he's scum and that's why we aren't getting the second part.

So regarding the "lynch snowmonkey or not" predicament we're in. If snowmonkey is scum, I would look specifically at one of Quailman/Sineish as scum (this may explain why snowmonkey seems to be giving up - one of his scum partners is practically gone), and the other being of PJ/Turbo/Pablito - as those who have stated that voting for snowmonkey is a possibility but these were the last to have jumped on. As for the five that vote snowmonkey - most votes were fairly early - and unless one of these five unvotes within the next two days - I wouldn't suspect them too much, but I wouldn't rule them out. As for cropcircles, he hasn't been around, so that might be lurking a bit, so that still keeps him in.

Now if snowmonkey is not scum, I would look at any of the five who originally voted him - because there's a strong chance at least one of those five are scum then.

But if everyone changes their mind and goes after someone else (which makes more sense to me - even though snowmonkey is still in my top 4 list of suspects), then things change.

I will keep my vote the same - I feel comfortable with my vote on Stewie, especially after reading some others' analyses. And I already said I'll be gone before deadline, so discuss - just don't let complacency and too many diversions keep away from coming to a sensible conclusion while some of us are gone before deadline (PJ also said he'll be gone this weekend).

[Don Gaetano]

Pablito, how can it make sense to you to go after someone else?

I still don't understand why anyone can advocate going after someone else. Without a clarification from Snowmonkey, he's our best lynch today, period.

Maybe it's just that none of you (who don't think we should lynch Snowmonkey) looks at this from a metagaming point of view. If you don't even consider meta-gaming issues then I can see how many people have come to the conclusion that he could very well be pro-town, but when you take metagaming issues into account, it's impossible to let him live right now. If it's this statement you disagree with, then read my reasoning for it, and tell me what you disagree with.

=====

And Pablito, why do you refer to yourself in the 3rd person and even advocate, that we may want to lynch you tomorow?

[pablito]

Maybe it's just that none of you (who don't think we should lynch Snowmonkey) looks at this from a metagaming point of view. If you don't even consider meta-gaming issues then I can see how many people have come to the conclusion that he could very well be pro-town, but when you take metagaming issues into account, it's impossible to let him live right now. If it's this statement you disagree with, then read my reasoning for it, and tell me what you disagree with.

=====

And Pablito, why do you refer to yourself in the 3rd person and even advocate, that we may want to lynch you tomorow?

First I'll answer your second question. Sometimes during long posts it's hard to remember who the speaker is, so that's why the third person when listing people. And I include myself as a possibility whenever possible because if I purposely exclude myself someone might interpret it as a ploy to subconsciously divert readers away from my presence.

And Don, I agree that snowmonkey has not acted in the town's best interests and may be detrimental to keep around - "pro-town" or scum. But at the moment, I cannot comfortably add the sixth vote on snowmonkey.

However, after my last post, I realized that a tie vote could be possible if one person switched from snowmonkey to Stewie. And a tie vote would lead to no-lynch this day, since we need a simple majority. So I'm going to

Unvote: Stewie

. But I'll check tomorrow before I leave to see if I want to place any vote at all.

[Stewie]

I hope snowmonkey's next post cointains the following sentence:

"Here comes the plane..."

[Turbovolver]

I just realised I missed a post by Sotty7 - the one where she summarises her views on Stewie. I was wondering why there was quoted text I'd never seen before. I read it and posted my thoughts at the bottom of this post.

FOS: Turbovolver

Way to leave out another thing I said, namely

Also, you are the only person Stewie has defended, despite him saying that he thinks pretty much all of the attacks people have made are over-reasoned and insignificant. When both of you are scummy in my mind (for individual reasons) and then something like that happens, I think it's rather natural to link the two of you together.

Even if you want to discount a defense as evidence just because the defense wasn't flawed (I can see arguments either way here), what about the point above?

If you are trying to defend against being linked based on a misrepresentation, that only furthers in my mind that you are trying to get yourself away from Stewie because you know him to be scum.

...at the very least your FOS seems rather baseless.


As for the other recent talk between Don Gaetano and pablito... I'm thinking this day is basically at an end. There's the people who like the look of snowmonkey as a lynch, and those who like the look of Stewie. I think Don could be right when he says that it's the players who aren't metagaming who think snowmonkey could be town.

I do find it strange how Don seems so keen to stifle discussion about anybody but snowmonkey though - it seems likely that snowmonkey's going to be lynched come Saturday anyways, so what's wrong with talking about other people in the game? Then again, Don's "mini-explosion" appeared rather genuine to me (and he made some good points), so it wouldn't suprise me if he's just a bit hung-up on the snowmonkey issue (and no I don't think that's necessarily bad play either).

You don't like me not refuting your posts, but you "might" check my responses, or "might not." Conflict of interest?

I feel I've already explained this. The responses I was only maybe going to check (and I have since checked - if you want comments on them just ask) were telling me why the arguments I made up on the spot were wrong - I didn't even necessarily agree with those arguments myself, I was just showing what a pro-town person refusing to claim might be thinking. So it didn't seem very fruitful to discuss things further.

That discussion was bordering on off-topic, whereas suspicions on players are certainly on-topic - I don't see a "conflict of interest" here.

You are basically saing "he made a bad play, but he can still be town!"

Yes, I am. What, you've never seen a townie make a mistake before?
Ridiculous.

I've seen townies making mistakes before, but not one as big as this one... either that, or they got lynched for it, as they should, since most of the time when a player makes a mistake they are scum. Especially a mistake this big.

What happened to all the stuff about WIFOM? You've subtley changed the subject here by switching from the general to a specific case (snowmonkey). I think this makes it clear the stuff you said above was rubbish and couldn't be defended. Perhaps you are right about snowmonkey needing to be lynched, but I'm suspicious of what you did here.


OK, I read Sotty7's post #245 that I missed. Frankly, it seems like a fair enough opinion but at the same time it doesn't really add or take away any heat on Stewie so I could see scum or town writing it. It probably would've swayed me just a little away from the Sotty7/Stewie link, if it wasn't for her then trying to use misrepresentation to shoot down said link in her next post.

Hope that addresses everything.

[Turbovolver]

Because (like I said above) I think this day is pretty much over, I'll post a quick little thing about tomorrow for us to discuss.

Today it seems almost certain that either snowmonkey or Stewie will be lynched (if somebody causes a no-lynch I think we should look at THEM hard the next day).

If snowmonkey is lynched

And turns up town: I think Stewie is the best person to look at tomorrow in this case, for (in my opinion) having the shiftiest reasons to vote for snowmonkey.

And turns up scum: I think people will probably be looking at me.

If Stewie is lynched

And turns up town: I propose we look at me for being a liability to the town.

And turns up scum: I think PJ or Sotty7 are the people to check out in this case.



It's true, I probably am fingering too many people (at this point in the game, I'd probably be happy with a lynch on any of cropcircles, Quailman, Stewie, Sotty7, possibly PJ and possibly Sineish), but I disagree with the statement "anybody who disagrees with Turbo is scum". That's far from the case - everybody on the snowmonkey bandwagon disagrees with me and I don't think they're ALL scum.


That's enough spewing words for me.

[pablito]

I slept on it, and I decided to

Vote: snowmonkey

. I've suspected him before, but I only excluded him from the short list because I thought he was way too scummy.

[snowmonkey]

I was told that you guys live in your own little world over here, and they were right. you guys have no imagination, no logic, no reasoning or any real interest in finding bad guys. most of you need to take a step back and read what I posted. its all very clear and transparent. pablito and don, seriously, grow up. ad hominum attacks? wow, get a life. dont take the game personally, you will only die that much sooner. I will not tell you any more about my role. why do you think that is? BECAUSE IVE TOLD YOU EVERYTHING ABOUT IT ALREADY. morons. Im town. Ive said it in some fashion in every post Ive made. this isnt really a hard game to figure out if you open your eyes. but if you remain close minded and refuse to change/grow then you will never be good at this game. lynch me, dont lynch me do whatever. its obvious to me who the wolves(scum) are but my opinion doesnt mean anything because you already have me pegged as scum. my vote stands and it will only move to sineish. ranger and sineish are the only two people I would be willing to vote for at this point. so, now armed with this earth shattering information what are you morons going to do?


"here comes the plane"

[cropcircles]

Vote snowmonkey

You'll get over it.

[Sotty7]

I just realised I missed a post by Sotty7 - the one where she summarises her views on Stewie. I was wondering why there was quoted text I'd never seen before. I read it and posted my thoughts at the bottom of this post.

FOS: Turbovolver

Way to leave out another thing I said, namely

Also, you are the only person Stewie has defended, despite him saying that he thinks pretty much all of the attacks people have made are over-reasoned and insignificant. When both of you are scummy in my mind (for individual reasons) and then something like that happens, I think it's rather natural to link the two of you together.

Even if you want to discount a defense as evidence just because the defense wasn't flawed (I can see arguments either way here), what about the point above?

Did it ever cross your mind that Stewie has only defended me because your reasoning

was wrong

? If the logic of someones attack is flawed it's players right to point that out! It's just plan commonsense, to correct someones mistake. If he hard augured against your valid points, making no sense, then yes, then I would understand there to be a link between us. The fact he did not do that and yet you

still

insist on this link is baffling to me.

If you are trying to defend against being linked based on a misrepresentation, that only furthers in my mind that you are trying to get yourself away from Stewie because you know him to be scum.

...at the very least your FOS seems rather baseless..

I do not know the alignment of Stewie, and I'm not trying to “get away from him”, I am just pointing out the big holes in your logic. It seems people that do not agree with you or see things in your mindset then they are all grouped together as scum. The fact that you have suddenly linked PJ in too just really waters down your argument. My FOS is not baseless and if Snow was not acting the way he is right now, I would be voting you.

Speaking of Snow, I believe that with pablito and Crops vote, he is a lynch. Can't say I'm sad to see him go as I'm feeling like Don and Ranger are about the whole situation. No where has he tried to save himself, instead insisting on blaming the town for what has happened to him. We all know he could have stopped this a long time ago, but he made no effort to do so.

[Turbovolver]

Even if you want to discount a defense as evidence just because the defense wasn't flawed (I can see arguments either way here), what about the point above?

Did it ever cross your mind that Stewie has only defended me because your reasoning

was wrong

? If the logic of someones attack is flawed it's players right to point that out! It's just plan commonsense, to correct someones mistake. If he hard augured against your valid points, making no sense, then yes, then I would understand there to be a link between us. The fact he did not do that and yet you

still

insist on this link is baffling to me.

So first of all you fail to deny that you left out something I said to make me look worse.

And then second you don't even address the extra point, you just go back to your original argument of "but he made good points, so how can you link us?"

And look at the last sentence, you claim that the fact I still link you two even though his defense was fair enough is

baffling

even though I've already explained myself on this point and you "grudgingly admitted" my response was OK.

Makes me think you're not being very genuine here

(just wanted the rest of the town to see this point).

If you are trying to defend against being linked based on a misrepresentation, that only furthers in my mind that you are trying to get yourself away from Stewie because you know him to be scum.

...at the very least your FOS seems rather baseless..

I do not know the alignment of Stewie, and I'm not trying to “get away from him”, I am just pointing out the big holes in your logic. It seems people that do not agree with you or see things in your mindset then they are all grouped together as scum. The fact that you have suddenly linked PJ in too just really waters down your argument. My FOS is not baseless and if Snow was not acting the way he is right now, I would be voting you.

Oh, so you don't deny that you've misrepresented me? Pointing out "big holes" in my logic doesn't really count when you make your arguments with only half the facts.

Also I haven't "suddenly" linked PJ in - I asked him a question quite a while ago because I was becoming suspicious of a link there. I also don't see how that waters down my argument, especially considering in the very post I'm quoting you said you could understand a link if the defense was weak - and I think PJ's defense was weak.







So umm yeah, I'm pretty sure of Sotty7 being scum now. That was a pretty weak response if you ask me - she basically admits she misrepresented me, tries to strawman by returning to the original argument and ignoring the other points I raise. She also attacks

me

for suggesting there is a link there - I'm sorry but if I was scum I would have nothing to gain by pointing out a link because either of you would just turn up town upon death anyway.

She

really

doesn't want to be linked with this Stewie guy, and she's using scummy arguments to try to sever the connection. I feel there's only one conclusion that can be made about their alignment here.

Unless of course snowmonkey turns up scum. Then, I look pretty bad