Mini 391 - Fairytale Mafia, Game Over

[Green Crayons]

vote: bird

. Was the double post necessary?

[Green Crayons]

Hello, hello Raythr and others.

[quote=bird]You can't see what number the dice come up with until you post. [/quote]Oh, there's an actual roll-dice option on the server? Hunh. When did this place get so fancy?

[Green Crayons]

You know what'd really make this site awesome, is if you didn't have to put quotation marks around the names of those you are quoting.

[Green Crayons]

Just what kind of crazy, clap-happy hands do you have, Echo?

[Green Crayons]

Don't you know that being suitably alarmed is 999/1000th of a scum tell? This just isn't your game.

Unvote, Vote: LuckayLuck

for aparently seeing nothing else more suspicious. One should look harder, then.

[Green Crayons]

Eh, I took it more as a joke myself. Especially when he made the (what I took to be) sarcastic remark into something of a scum tell.

Bingo. I just got bored with my bird vote, and we're still only on page two with - as you have so aptly pointed out - little to go on, so a pointless vote shift was what I was feeling at the moment.

But hurrah, you helped me chalk up a suspicion tally under Echo (granted a small one). So it wasn't all for shits.

[Green Crayons]

CONTRARY to what you think actually GC. I think the more posts that happens, the clearer a pitcure and story is painted for townie observation.

I'd like for you to point out to me at what point I said that more posts somehow equate to a bad thing.

[Green Crayons]

This implies that you thought echo's post was scummy, I thought echo's post was townie. Neither of us said having more posts was a bad thing.

Oh. With the punctuation of your comments, it looked like you were saying that contrary to what I believe, you think that more posts equals good.

Granted, now I'm curious as to why you think Echo's post made him a bit more on the town side for you. His comment "Seems like they're jumping on each other for small reasons." seems like he's reaching for something to post simply so he can post something, which is what I've done a few times while scum. Granted, it's not much and is a pretty weak suspicion point (more or less just giving me a nudge to scruitinize his posts a bit more), but it's there nonetheless. I'm curious as to why he was moved in the opposite direction in your opinion.

However, without sounding like a scummy counter-OMGUSer, I think that GC is rather agressive today, unlike the way he played in the last game he was in, werewolf 183 or something.

Different games means different players, which means different ways of interacting. I'm curious if you find "aggressive" to be a bad/suspicious, or are simply stating an obvservation to let others believe that :aggressive" should be interpreted in the negative.

[Green Crayons]

yes, yes I do. Not good in the sense that the guy who posts more is necessarily townie, but the more posts we get collectively, the better we can deduce intentions and such. I mean, I know you know this, and I feel really silly explaining this, but we've just had miscommunication due to "punctuation" and interpreting quotes wrong...yaddayadda.

Alright, for the sake of clarification I'm going to go over this, but now I do think it

has

gotten out of hand, so anything else you say on the matter will be the final word. You don't have to explain that, generally, more posts = a good thing. I know that.

Because of your punctuation in the comment

In other news, I think that Echo419 demonstrated a 1/100th townie tell. CONTRARY to what you think actually GC. I think the more posts that happens, the clearer a pitcure and story is painted for townie observation.

the "CONTRARY to what you think actually GC" could have applied to the first or last sentence. When originally reading through, I mistakingly applied it to the third sentence rather than the first, which you apparently were meaning for it to reference. Therefore, I thought you were saing contrary to what I believe, more posts are a good thing. Yay, confusion, etc., etc.

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

I'm separating this section of my post, as the above is the only part where there was any confusion on my behalf. If you respond to anything above the line, I'm going to let it die with what you say, as there's no point in continuing arguing over confusion caused by punctuation.

See, as a townie, I want more pages of "spam" to be able to find mafia. The way it was put, the very nonchalant "I was hoping for three pages of spam" thing very minorly says "hey, I'm a townie trying to figure things out."

wait, what the? You knew this already.

I don't see how or why you're assuming this portion of your comments are "understood" or "fact," as what you're presenting them as. Your quoted comments regarding Echo's townish behavior was 1. never part of my confusion, and 2. never explicitly explained as why that's why you believe he's more town, which is why I asked for you to explain. Just because he says that he hopes there is more spam in no way equates him to a townie "tell," which I agree with IH in their nonexistance.

As for three pages of spam, I can't find that to be too constructive. If everyone's talking about the Lakers and how awesome they are (or aren't... I don't really keep up with basketball), and we fill up with ten pages of spam, that doesn't really help me - or I would imagine most people besides Luck - in determining who is scum. "Spam" denotes random discussion that doesn't pertain to the game. "Lots of posts regarding suspicion and votes" is constructive, on the other hand, and doesn't equate to spam in my book.

[Green Crayons]

Just because he says that he hopes there is more spam in no way equates him to a townie "tell," which I agree with IH in their nonexistance

Rather, I meant this to say "Just because he says that he hopes there is more spam in no way equates him to a townie "tell"

in my opinion

, which I agre with IH in their nonexistance." Don't want to get overzealous in my convictions, after all.

Nor do I see where you believe I "know this already" in terms of Echo simply stating he wants more spam as a minor-town hint. Why are you making the assumption that I agree with your "townie tells?"

[Green Crayons]

Hunh, my "go to first new posts" link totally skipped IH's last post on page two.

It's page 1 on a day 2 start.

Page 2 day 1 start?

You also just seemed to contradict yourself. He's reaching for something to post, and posts a small suspicion. You say you do that as scum. You then say that's not much, and is still a weak suspicion.

If you just explained how I'm contradicting myself, I need you to spell it out for me in more simple terms. Just because something I have done (note: a few times; not as in a hard and fast rule) before as scum doesn't mean that everyone does it, merely that it is something that I personally know that scum have done before (since I have been scum that has done it). Likewise, just because

I

did it doesn't mean that every scum will do it, or that if it is done it would necessarily be done by scum. How is that not an inherently weak suspicion?

Aggressiveness is good at times, bad at others.

Why don't you tell me whether or not your aggressiveness is good?

I would like to think that my play style, whatever it may be from game to game or even from day to day, is ultimately beneficial to the town. However, what you are doing right here is fishing for comments and opinions, because it appears that you are noncommittal until someone gives something blantantly obvious as suspicious and which will give you a free-ride on a bandwagon. It's also seen in your previous post, which is why I called attention to it.

Unvote: LuckayLuck, Vote: Rathyr

.

We've had dice tags for about two years now.

Crazy.

Being suitably alarmed is not a scum tell.

That was sarcasm in my post. Hence the "999/1000th" comment, as simple math would add up to 1000/1000th of a scum tell, ie: he must be scum. Obviously, I didn't vote him because it was sarcasm/a stupid joke. The whole post was.

Avoiding/ignoring solid attacks is a useful tell.

See beginning of post. Also, if there's one thing that

is

constant in all of my games, is that I love arguing. It's a personal flaw, as you can ask any of my friends (well, you can't seeing as how you don't know them, but whatever; it's the principle). I love arguing, even if I don't believe the side that I'm on, just because I like it - it probably stems from a desire to have everyone at least see my point of view. Therefore, I will argue and respond to points regardless of my alignment, I can promise you. If I ever miss anything that needs to be addressed, point it out to me and you can be sure that I'll get to it. But feel free to chalk up suspicious points under my name.

Now this seems totally unnecessary and just a little over-defensive - of course it was your opinion. Back to the whole point about disclaiming your own position.

Making a point, it's what I was attempting to do. Obviously there's a division of thought between Luckay and myself, be it from confusion, misunderstanding, different play styles or whathaveyou. Regardless, I don't feel like putting a further division between Luckay and myself by out and out claiming that what he thinks is completely wrong; after all, it is merely opinion. Maybe there are town tells. However, the only thing accomplished by saying that "oh, what you think is wrong and what I think is right" when arguing about an opinion is an instinctive rift based off of difference of opinions. I didn't feel like being a cause of a greater rift between Luck and myself when he may very well see something that I missed, or I might catch something that he failed to see - which, if we're needlessly at each other's throats, could be dismissed since it's coming from an "absolutely wrong" opinion/perspective.

[Green Crayons]

You said he was accusing someone on a weak suspicion, which could be suspicious.

No I didn't. I said he was simply making a comment to make it look like he was adding to the conversation. The comment of his that I quoted specifically said that he didn't find anything about us suspicious. There was no accusation, no suspicion on his behalf.

[Green Crayons]

Also, I don't personally think anyone's suspicious for posting something early with a "weak suspicious point" but I was showing GC the error in his logic.

Which you have yet to do.

It seems like you're reaching for something to post about there, like Echo, so you would look more suspicious in your own eyes. Its small, but it's there nonetheless?

What Echo's statement did (along with bird's, which didn't escape my notice) was, was simply say "Hey, look guys! I'm here, I'm not a lurker; ie: I'm a productive townie!" To me, that looks suspicious; apparently, to Luck, it looks good. Regardless, all it did was add no substance, it did nothing productive in and of itself. In other words, it was reaching to simply post something.

On the other than, the part of my post that you quoted ("Granted, now I'm curious as to why you think Echo's post...." onwards) actually was productive, as it was explaining to Luck as to why I thought Echo was a bit suspicious, and at the same time I was hoping and inviting him to explain why he thought otherwise. Moreover, it was showing that something good came from my sarcastic vote on Luck, in the sense that it was able to give me some sort of read on another player. Ultimately, I don't see how you're comparing the two as "reaching to post something," as I can see a clear distinction between the two.

Additionally, I didn't fail to notice the fact that, in seeing that your breakdown of my contradiction being based off of a flat out wrong assertion (that I said that he was accusing someone), you ignored the false statements on your behalf that I pointed out and quietly shifted the "contradiction" to a different basis. Now, instead of him having accused someone on a weak suspicion and myself accusing him on a weak suspicion (which is what you originally said it was), you're saying that he put forth a pointless post and that I did the same (see above as to where this argument doesn't hold weight).

Is there really no such thing as a townie tell? Are there not power role tells, which by extension would be townie tells?

I differeniate townies and power town roles, so when someone says a "townie" tell, I'm assuming they're referring to something simply a pro-aligned player would do. While players can attempt to tip off everyone as to their power role, a "tell" or sorts, it just doesn't really... work. Nor does it make sense - a good aligned player is just as likely to pick it up as a evil aligned player. If you're going to allude to your role, you might as well just go out and say it.


jl2704 - Why did you go from a random vote to no voting to "digest" posts in four minutes? Did you not see all the posts prior to your vote?

[Green Crayons]

How many of those posts on page 2 have substance? Are they all suspicious?

There's a point where the random chatter ceases to become random and all the posts start having a function. When something started to happen, ie: Luck and I starting to point fingers at one another, that's when I start paying more attention to posts. Also, when posts start respecting actual events in the game, I pay heed. Echo's post was referring to actual in-game conflict (me vs. Luck). A lot of page two stuff was fluff. I can't help it if you can't see the difference, but seeing as how I give you more credit than being a complete dolt, I'm starting to come to the conclusion that you're forcing blinders on yourself if you're honestly asking such insipid questions.

I took it as you were using circular reasoning. He had posted something small, and you had, in turn, posted something small.

No, he had posted something

useless

that was independent of conversation while being presented as adding to the discussion without actually doing so. I, in a conversation with Luck, was explaining what good I thought was coming from my sarcastic vote; it wasn't a statement with the objective of simply being put out there (which he was doing), it was part of an attachment to a larger conversation.

It would be circular logic if

You said he was accusing someone on a weak suspicion, which could be suspicious.
You then say that this in itself is a weak suspicion.
Therefore, wouldn't you just have called yourself suspicious?

was true. But, as I have stated and repeated, your first accusation is totally and completely false. Not true. A lie. I never said that, nor did I ever imply it. You're poorly shifted argument of "well, you both posted small things" also holds no weight because Echo's post and mine aren't in the same catagory - read above, though it's simple repetition of things I said in my previous post, so I'm thinking you'll ignore the point again.

Is yours supposed to make you look even MORE townie because you pointed out something slightly suspicious?

No, my comment, as I have explained repeatedly, was explaining to Luck why I thought Echo was a bit suspicious, and was hoping he would explain to me why he thought Echo was a bit townish for the exact same behavior. It's not supposed to make me look like anything, it's supposed to explain what judgment I was gathering from other players' posts. Why are you trying so hard to paint my actions in a light that is contrary to how I have explained them already without addressing my explinations?

I wasn't accusing you of anything, I was just saying how flawed a statement that was.

You weren't accusing me of anything, so you felt the need to vote me? I thought the point of a vote, assuming it isn't random, is because you are suspicious of a person. A vote is the nonverbal accusation of suspicion.

...And it wasn't a flawed statement.

Now, IMO, it seems like you're trying to turn a page 2 post with no substance into a something majorly suspicious. That is something I will accuse you of.

You're kidding me, right? "Majorly suspicious?" Have I voted Echo? Have I even FoSed him? It was a passing comment that I was hoping to shed some light for Luck/others as to what I saw going on with another player. The only thing since that comment that I have been discussing is how totally skewed you're perspective is. I'm not making my suspicion of Echo into anything more than a minimal suspicion; what is occuring, however, is your steady rise under the "most suspicious" list, ranked neck and neck with rathyr at this point due to your arguments completely devoid of sound reasoning. Oh, and the fact that you have yet to address your lie and quiet shift in argument.

The only reason at this point that you don't have my vote is because I can't decide if you'd make such horrible arguments if you were scum - I usually tend to think them as attempting to play it safe, ie: raythr's actions.

[Green Crayons]

I wasn't accusing you of anything, I was just saying how flawed a statement that was.

You weren't accusing me of anything, so you felt the need to vote me? I thought the point of a vote, assuming it isn't random, is because you are suspicious of a person. A vote is the nonverbal accusation of suspicion.

Note: This is in reference to the vote made by IH against myself in post 49, on the bottom of page two - not IH's post two above this one.

[Green Crayons]

Interesting you felt the need to say it, when you consider that in context:

Being suitably alarmed is

not

a scum tell. Being inappropriately alarmed, however,

is.

LL is being inappropriately alarmed.

I thought it was fairly clear the first comment was being flip

, leading up to the serious point. Not sure what that means, I might come back to it later.

It wasn't.

Also, if there's one thing that is constant in all of my games, is that I love arguing. It's a personal flaw, as you can ask any of my friends (well, you can't seeing as how you don't know them, but whatever; it's the principle).

I can tell.

Good, then you'll realize that I don't shy away from arguments. Therefore, when I don't address something, it's because I missed it.

That's twice you seem to draw attention to the fact you'd be playing this way as scum in as many sentences.

Since I don't have a plethora of games under my belt (15-20 max with a liberal recollection), and what games I have played have been over an extended period of time, I don't remember much on how other people play as scum. What I do remember, however, is how I have played as scum. Therefore, I base a lot of my suspicions - at least initial ones that form in Day One/Day Two - off of how I have acted as scum. I reference my own actions while scum in other games in pretty much every game I play.

If I ever miss anything that needs to be addressed, point it out to me and you can be sure that I'll get to it.

Oh, I will do.

Thanks, I like addressing all questions that come my way.

"Go ahead, find me suspicious" comments always ring alarm bells with me. Not in an "ok, I was wrong, fair enough" but "you're wrong, this is why, but go ahead and find me suspicious if you like". If I'm wrong, then I

shouldn't

be finding you suspicious - saying it's OK to find you suspicious for the behaviour is tacitly acknowledging it

was

suspicious.

Just because you're wrong doesn't mean you'll agree with me. And of course it's suspicious - I did, after all, neglect to respond to another player's direct inquiries, regardless of whatever the cause of that neglect may be. You said so yourself, that failing to respond to an inquiry is suspicious. I gave you my reason, but that's really up to you to decide whether or not you truly want to believe it.

Frankly, I don't care if you think I'm suspicious for not initially responding to IH's inquiry (which is where the comment you quoted stemmed from) because I personally don't think that much suspicion can be gained from it - namely because IH's analysis of my actions is complete crap. You said that it wasn't IH's specific inquiry that I ignored, just simply the fact that I ignored him that caused you to be suspicious. Sure, suspicion can be derived from simply ignoring a point being made by another player, but I think a lot of that suspicion's weight depends upon what was being brought into question. It would be different if IH really had a zinger of a point and I was trying to sneak my way around it, but he doesn't. It wouldn't make sense for me to try to ignore his post simply because of how easy it was to respond to, but that - once again - simply boils down to whether or not you want to believe that I did it on purpose. After telling you my reason, it's truly out of my hands.

As to why I don't care if you find my actions suspicious is because 1. I don't think much suspicion

can

be gleaned from it, and 2. there are plenty of more suspicious people than myself. Town players can't help but acquire suspicion, so I consider it a good thing when these two conditions occur.

There aren't. There are power-role tells, sure, but there's no such thing as a townie tell, because of what a tell

is

. Townies have nothing

to

tell. There's pro-town behaviour... but everyone plays (or tries to play) pro-town as much as possible.

Townie tell, pro-town behavior... I'm pretty sure he meant them to be the same way. If he didn't, that's how I interpreted his vocabulary.

It was quite clearly a matter of interpretation, not fact. The vast majority of day 1 is. That you felt the need to draw attention to it

indicates that you lack confidence in your own position

.

But, the thing is, is that it doesn't. I already explained why I posted it. If you want to attribute it to some sort of uncomfortable stance that I have with my own opinions, feel free to do so, but I'm telling you now that I am quite confident with the opinions that I voice. I just don't want us getting hung up on an irrevelant piece of conversation because I'm yelling how completely wrong someone else is until I'm blue in the face about an opinion. It doesn't help anything, and, in my opinion, can be quite detrimental to the town.

GreenCrayons, I am extending my masonry offer to you as well.

No. Your mason-reasoning lacks the reasoning.

[Green Crayons]

I'm also getting the impression you care about winning. Sometimes arguments will be put forward which you realise will hurt your chances of winning to draw attention to, and then there will be conflict between your love of arguing and your desire to win. The convenient omission has proven to be a much stronger tell with those who love arguing and rarely back away from arguments than those who have less of a debating style.

Ah. Well, now I understand why you put so much emphasis on IH's question. Subsequent points in this most recent post of yours that are merely clarifying your reasoning/position in related matters are omitted as the response would be a resounding "Ah, now I see."

You weren't talking about your suspicions. You weren't even talking about anyone else - you were talking specifically about how

you

are playing, right

now

.

This is true, so I must have skimmed or skipped or mixed up a referenced quotation somewhere. My mistake. So let me respond once again to your original assertion:

I love arguing,

even if I don't believe the side that I'm on

, just because I like it - it probably stems from a desire to have everyone at least see my point of view. Therefore, I will argue and respond to points

regardless of my alignment

, I can promise you.

That's twice you seem to draw attention to the fact you'd be playing this way as scum in as many sentences.

The first highlight was referencing to my attitude towards argument in my actual life, not specifically mafia. Therefore, I wasn't referencing directly to any alignment that I may be, though I can understand how you could interpret it in such a fashion. That point, however, led to the second highlight which was merely attempting to explain to you that I won't actively avoid any points made against me; the fact it makes reference to it'd be my play style regardless of alignment is of no consequence in my opinion - this is how I play mafia, no matter what role I am.

How else are we going to find if ANYONE is suspicious, other than by their actions/posts? Blind guessing? Doing as LuckayLuck is doing and assuming people are town openly?

If you were actually paying attention to the conversation between Seol and I in regards to what specifically he was finding suspicious about me, I fail to see how my quotation says that, in general, we shouldn't find people suspicious by their actions and posts. I was making a specific reference to the fact that I didn't think much suspicion could be gleaned from me ignoring an accusation (which was yours) when that accusation was trash. Now, thanks to

your

posts and actions, I have to come to some sort of conclusions as to whether or not you're ignoring the context of my comments on accident because you're skimming, or you're ignoring the context of my comments on purpose in order to reach for reasons to continue some sembalance of support for your otherwise weak vote.

Also, there are more suspicious people than you? IMO that says "there are other people scummier than me, why don't you say something about them?"

I don't need Seol to speak for me in terms of finding people who are suspicious (I'm still convinced Raythr is a fine play for Day One), nor do I need him to "get off my case," which is what you seem to be insinuating that I was attempting to have him do. In his first post regarding myself he already had not only openly dictated his suspicions for someone else were stronger (Luck), but also put his money where his mouth was and followed up with a vote for someone else. If I wanted to divert his attention to someone else, I wouldn't have made lengthy posts arguing a lot of his points.

Now, I know you really,

really

want to twist my words around, so to preempt your undoubted response, I will say, no, me engaging in lengthy arguments with him does not make me innocent. What it does mean, however, is that if I wanted attention to pass over me - which is what you're implying I was hinting at with my comment - I wouldn't have gone about employing such a tactic by pretty much becoming a central figure of discussion, much less one who is insistantly discussing himself.

[Green Crayons]

I'm not twisting. I'm just saying how it comes off to me. It's what it looks like to me. Not to mention this is complete WIFOM.

It's just interesting that a lot of how you interpret what I do is off base. And while I agree all "If I were scum/If I wanted to do this/If such and such/If... If... If..." comments are reduced to WIFOM, but almost

everything

can be reduced to WIFOM when it comes to interpreting actions. Therefore, with some situations you can acknowledge that while WIFOM can be applied to the situation, you also can reasonably accept or reject a notion. I'm saying that it would have been the smarter, stronger play that, if I wanted to keep attention off of me, I wouldn't have done the exact opposite and brought more attention to myself. That's just a logic argument, but you could easily say (and apparently are) "WIFOM! WIFOM! But because that's the

logical

thing to do, you did the opposite because guilty would never do it!" The only problem is that it doesn't really add up - the two actions (wanting to divert attention from myself and drawing attention to myself) are completely incompatiable and

just don't make sense

. Why would I employ one tactic when up until that point I had been acting in a completely reverse manner? However, instead of acknowledging this logical incompatibility, you're sidestepping the point by simply shrugging it off by crying WIFOM.

You said I don't care if you find my actions suspicious.

You're ignoring the reasons why I said I didn't care if he found my actions suspicious.

If you don't care about your actions, I took that to mean you don't care about others either.

Keeping in mind those reasons that you apparently missed/ignored/forgot (take your pick), how in the world did you make that jump?

Then you go on to say surely there are others scummier than you, which I took to mean "Why are you grilling me, there are others worse than I."

Why would you take it to mean that when I already explained the meaning behind it with why it was one of my reasons (that though I, as town, cannot help but acquire some amount of suspicion, that's fine with me because there are others out there who are more suspicious, as indicated by both my and Seol's own opinion - even prior to post 88 ). The "Why are you grilling me" assumption contradicts me putting myself in the thick of conversation (suspicion often goes to those who talk more than those who don't), not to mention the fact that not conceeding directly to another player's point only incites them to respond in kind - a "grilling," if you will. If I didn't want to continue having a lengthy discussion with Seol, surely you can give me credit for not attempting to employ two contradictory tactics (subtly telling him to look elsewhere while simultaneously trying to keep his attention on me with discussion). Or you can just shout WIFOM again, whatever works for you.

[Green Crayons]

A mafia just can't possibly make THIS post 30 minutes after my crazy proposal of masonry. It's near impossible.

I have no idea how in the world this makes sense, and have subsequently disregarded Luck's unintelligible tactics as nothing more than an extremely poor playing style. To each their own, but unless if Luck starts providing more provocative arguments than those similiar to the above quotation, his ideas will soon take a backseat to... everyone.

Granted, I don't know if I can support the notion that a poor play style is reason enough to vote someone. That's simply how he approaches the game, and to vote someone based off of that seems to be incredibly weak in the reasoning department, in my opinion.

[Green Crayons]

Echo - Check post 105.

[Green Crayons]

I'm still here, just took an unofficial break from my mafia games for about a week.

I've completed my 4th readthrough. (I'm lucky this is only 7 pages...)

Currently, I have no scum tells on anyone. The previous pages consist of people picking out weak scum tells, accusing the people who make the scumtell, then other people accusing the accuser for accusing someone with weak reasons. Then other people siding with either the original accuser or the people who are accusing with the accuser. (Yup, I know that's a confusing scummary.)

I'm finding this to be counterproductive. As I believe Seol pointed out (somewhere on page five or six), Day One has nothing to go off of and therefore you start out with the little things and build your way up from there. Spectrum seems to feel as if somehow her readings were going to give her an incredible insight that everyone else failed to pick up on, and that just seems to be irresponsible. You have to start somewhere, and more often than not, that somewhere is very, very small; however, she seems to be neglecting these smaller indicators of suspicion in lieu of the Big Tell that's just waiting to jump out at her.

FoS: Spectrum

for expecting nothing short of a miracle.

I've decided, after looking him over, it's his playstlye, and not inherent scumminess. Unfortunately I can see scum WIFOMing this a lot in future days... beware.

This sentence struck me as incredibly suspicious - not quite sure why, though probably due to the reference to what mafia might do; I've seen scum do that before (not saying it's a tell or anything, just something that popped up at me). Add that to the cases of loaded wording (Seol's post 143 highlights), shallow repetition of stance failing to contribute to discussion (of which he described as "Consistently supporting my causes" - post 137 - though I would hardly describe simply pointing out the same minor point over and over as a "cause," much less in the plural), and Lowell's comment "He seems to want to "support the town vibe" more than do anything productive." sums up his playstyle to the T. Because of this, I'll

Unvote: Raythr, Vote: Echo

.

[Green Crayons]

Ripley- Why are you not in the votecount? Are you voting/ suspicious of anyone currently- if so, who and why?

1. Not my responsibility.
2a. No.
2b. No.
3a. Not applicable.
3b. Not applicable.

How are you not suspicious of anyone after eight/nine pages? I'm not talking vote-worthy, merely suspicious. Are you saying that all 11 other people are acting like saints?

[Green Crayons]

.....It looks like you're trying to DISCOURAGE her from rereading the game here. It seems to me that you're trying to shoot down her 4 rereads, but I believe she replaced in. You also FoSed her because she didn't find anything to much, just people nitpicking at others.

Please show me where I said something along the lines of "Spectrum, don't read and reread over and over again the game. That's bad. Bad, Spectrum, bad, bad, bad." The point of my post was "When you reread the game, don't expect a whopping tell to jump out at you" which is what it appeared she had been expecting with each of her rereads.

That said,

Unvote, Vote: IH

. You consistant misrepresentation of my words as if you're looking for a reason to vote me alongside your horrible logic/lack thereof has finally earned you my vote.

[Green Crayons]

I've been checking in, but not enough to add anything. I'm happy with my vote still, and I'll be doing a reread from where I dropped off (beginning of winter break), though I don't think I'll find anything to change my mind.

[Green Crayons]

Did I miss the part where SV has actually mentioned suspicion regarding echo beyond his absense?

[Green Crayons]

I'm curious if M4yhem's requests from Raythr and ogre (posts 181 and 220, respectively) extend to Vaughn.

[Green Crayons]

Unvote

. Will fall back to Raythr (whomever his replacement may be) or Echo after a reread.

[Green Crayons]

Vote: Vaughn

(Rathyr's replacement), for all reasons I had against Rathyr (don't remember them, but one can go back and look for themself). Also, Vaughn has made only two posts - the first, notifying the thread that he's here. The second is actual content. However, when M4yhem questions this content (post 265) with what I see as some valid concerns, the only defense comes from wolfsbane (post 266). Vaughn has yet to respond to M4yhem's points, much less post anything at all.

Also, since I'm deciding between Vaughn and Echo, if Vaughn comes up scum, I'll be reviewing wolfsbane's posts in a reread. If Echo were to turn up scum, I don't have an immediate go-to for review in connection to Echo.

[Green Crayons]

Commuters have, sure, but they're rare. One-shot commuter I haven't seen. I'm not saying it's impossible, merely rare and excessively hosed.

I'm pretty sure I've had a limited commuter role before, though I don't really remember specifics. Didn't know they were SK tells, though.

Learn something new every day, hunh?

[Green Crayons]

I just got finished with exams, so now I need to get back into the groove of my mafia games - which means rereads. I'll post something soon.

[Green Crayons]

So that means we have a Vig, an SK and Mafia. And the Vig killed either Echo or Masterchief, I'd be inclined to think Echo personally.

I'm always leery of people who comment right away on the night kills - I have found that it's a clear indication that they're one of the people who participated in the nighttime festivities. I bring this to attention because the deaths were caused by squishing/eaten, clawed, and "unknown," of which only the latter of the three I would consider a possible town kill style.

What prevented you from voting for Wolfsbane? What do you make of CES's claim that your Vaughn vote was an attempt to start an alternative bandwagon?

1. Because I was bored with the day and wasn't really reading any further. By this point I was merely skimming, waiting for the day to finally end. When the IH wagon fell apart, I knew that I had been voting Raythr and had had suspicions on him, and knew I would be happy with my vote going back to him (or his replacement, as the case had been) - so it was a safe bet for me to be behind that vote, which didn't require me to catch up on all the wolfsbane reasoning. 2. I think it's suspicious at the very least, as I don't see how my paragraph of a post was any type of attempt to descredit any other bandwagons that were currently in affect (including wolf's), much less attempting to rally others behind my vote. It was a simple vote with explanation behind it, and labeling it as "an attempt to distract us [all 10 players that aren't wolfsbane or Green Crayons] from wolfsbane" - CES' words - is ridiculous; much more so, because CES' comment insinuates that any vote that wasn't for wolf at that point was inherently attempting to "distract" everyone from wolf.

IH's post 368: I don't think these examples have much significance simply because it's the dead scum who authored each of these connections. It would be different if it was Vaughn who had made the posts that connected the two, but as it stands, this evidence only shows to me a scum who continually mentions another player - nothing leads me to believe from these posts alone that this other player is more likely to be a scum partner than an unaligned townie whom wolf was attaching himself to.



And I don't know why I was prodded, but I was. Just making sure that chaotic didn't accidently prod me instead of Vaughn.

[Green Crayons]

CoughCough

Post369

CoughCough

[Green Crayons]

Only if it comes with a mind blowing smorgish board side of awesome in-game abilities.

[Green Crayons]

Spectrum: Uh.. because he's a (nearly) confirmed innocent? Mafia will either take a shot in the dark in finding the cop, or will knock off the automatic protown player... that's just obvious to me. I don't see how you would assume the exact opposite, as confirmed townies are anathema to scum wins at the endgame.

1) I'm not saying you never attack anyone. I'm just saying you spend too much time defending yourself from nothing.

Directed towards SV - Could you provide examples?

Crayons- Who do you think we should be voting for then? I agree the Wolfbane-Vaughn connection is one-sided, but what else is there to go on?

So you conceed that the reason to vote Vaughn is weak at best, and yet you're willing to lynch him because "what else is there to go on," or in other words, you don't think there's anyone more suspicious? I don't think I can express clearly enough how horrible of a reason this is to lynch someone. You don't string up someone because there's nobody else who you find suspicious (which I find to be pretty silly considering that we have plenty of pages to read through), you lynch them because you firmly believe that they're scum.

[Green Crayons]

Here. Waiting for IH's order.

[Green Crayons]

I'm just waiting for Lowell.

[Green Crayons]

Sorry, I've been having internet problems. And now I'll be leaving for Paris later today so I won't be back until Sunday evening, when hopefully all internet-issues will be resolved.

I am Pinocchio, cop. Flavor: I want to be a real boy, and to do this, the town needs to get rid of the scum. I thought I would be paranoid since Pinocchio is associted with lying (which is mentioned in my PM about my nose growing longer when I do lie, so maybe it was the mod's way of saying "Hey, you're legit."), but both of my investigations have come up innocent.

Night One: Vaughn, innocent.
Night Two: CES, innocent.

For clarification, I didn't say anything Day Two about Vaughn's innocent result because 1. I was less sure of my cop-type and 2. I was sure I would be killed the next night without doctor protection and I wanted to see if I could get a guilty result.

[Green Crayons]

And GC is nowhere to be found.

Sorry, I've been having internet problems. And now

I'll be leaving for Paris later today so I won't be back until Sunday evening

, when hopefully all internet-issues will be resolved.

Thanks for paying attention. Your attempt to make it look like I've abandoned the game and the town should move on without me is duly noted.

But anyways, I see that the town (IH and CES) are against me in all but action.

LL's explanation makes sense, though you can easily swing his reasoning right back around to him - he is just as likely to be scum as I, and seeing that the cop has been claimed there isn't much else

to

claim that would go by unnoticed, and to help himself out he is looking for a push to lynch the cop by counterclaiming which may sacrifice him but it's endgame so it's a possible win. Frankly, I don't see why either IH or CES have been won over by LL simply saying "GC isn't the cop, I'm the cop, he's lying" but whatever.

I find it curious that Little Red and Wolf are not only so closely connected in their stories, but are also antagonists. If we have a reformed Big Bad Wolf, who is to say that Red hasn't gone bad/godfather (never saw the movie, but didn't Hard Candy have something to do with a girl in a Little Red Riding Hood outfit killing people)?

Frankly, I believe Lowell is a survivor, simply because if you claim survivor the town is going to lynch you. Nobody claims it. It's a stupid thing to fake claim. Regardless, I believe he's a good play for the day, as I'm curious as to what my result for LL will come up tonight.

Vote: Lowell

.

[Green Crayons]

Ugh. I'm such an idiot and more or less gave this game to LL since IH has said himself that he's "convinced" that I'm scum.

We should have lynched me, and then when my innocence came up, CES could have vigged LL tonight. Now, as it is, you can bet CES is dead tonight (regardless of if I or LL is scum) so that in the 3 person tomorrow the remaining townie (IH, in this case) won't have the opportunity to tie the scum with a night kill.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Ah well. Since IH seems to be completely in LL's pocket, CES, I have one request: Take the game into your hands tonight and kill either me or LL. Granted, my fingers are crossed that you make the choice to kill LL (because he's scum), but I have more trust in you than IH to look the game over and give it an objective read through of both LL's and my own posts.

In rereading, you will see that my posts reflect my investigations (1. originally said on Day One that I would look into a link between wolf and Vaughn if one turned up guilty, but when wolf was guilty the next day I wasn't for a Vaughn lynch - because of my investigation; 2. my investigation of you was because of the comment you made about the night kills, which I noted in one of my posts), which is the only real evidence I can give as to my role.

Is this to say that LL is scum if you were to read into his posts? To be honest, I don't know. I didn't ever really think LL was scum, but since it comes down to either LL or myself, and if I am not lying, then he must be it.

Anyways, CES. Please give this game a chance.

[Green Crayons]

No, it would be:

LL (scum)
Lowell (survivor)
CES (vig)
IH (mason)

CES kills LL, LL kills CES (obv choice), Lowell sides with remaining town and town wins. Once again,

nobody

fake claims survivor, it's a stupid claim to make as it gets you lynched every single time.

[Green Crayons]

Eh, double post.

I can't believe that he didn't at least defend Vaughn at least slightly.

Uh, in what posts I made on Day Two, I was against the Vaughn bandwagon. Stop trying to make other ignore my actions. Thanks.

IH's post 368: I don't think these examples have much significance simply because it's the dead scum who authored each of these connections. It would be different if it was Vaughn who had made the posts that connected the two, but as it stands, this evidence only shows to me a scum who continually mentions another player - nothing leads me to believe from these posts alone that this other player is more likely to be a scum partner than an unaligned townie whom wolf was attaching himself to.

So you conceed that the reason to vote Vaughn is weak at best, and yet you're willing to lynch him because "what else is there to go on," or in other words, you don't think there's anyone more suspicious? I don't think I can express clearly enough how horrible of a reason this is to lynch someone. You don't string up someone because there's nobody else who you find suspicious (which I find to be pretty silly considering that we have plenty of pages to read through), you lynch them because you firmly believe that they're scum.

[Green Crayons]

A survivor isn't pro-town. Stop trying to paint the role in that light, LL.

[Green Crayons]

I will be killing whoever's right about Lowell's true alignment.

I don't see how that makes sense. How does Lowell's role indicate who is lying? For example, say Lowell is scum, meaning LL is right, and there are two scum left (Lowell and either I or LL). How does this make LL more guilty than I (since you'll be killing him in said scenario)? Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be crying in this situation, because you'll be killing LL and not myself, but the flipside of the situation is (in my opinion) the more likely case. That is: if Lowell is truly a survivor, that means you'll be killing me because... I was willing to believe that nobody would be stupid enough to fake-claim a horrible role?

Yeah, but if he's a survivor, and CES kills wrong, town loses...

Yeah, that is part and parcel with CES taking the game into his own hands tonight. It's kill right and win or kill wrong and lose.

[Green Crayons]

LL. Got innocent.

I'll be voting for LL, LL will be voting for me. I'm a cop, LL is not. ...Hey, look, two can play that game.


Looks like LL was right about game construction to the T because he has insider (scum) information. Now CES' reasoning makes a bit more sense, I suppose.


Speaking of which, I'll be curious as to why CES didn't kill last night after the game.

Anyways. Unless if you've somehow completely played the town IH, it's safe enough for me to put my vote where my mouth is.

Vote: LL

.

[Green Crayons]

I assume LuckayLuck was unnightkillable? This should've been apparent to both GC and IH and is the reason why I stated who I was going to kill before going to Night.

Yeah, but I got an innocent result for LL. That made LL not only the usual GF innocent-upon-investigation, but also an added bonus of unkillable at night. That's two for one - it's usually one or the other. He was super-God Father.

GC's insistence that Lowell really was a Survivor was damn strange to me.

That's because nobody ever fake claims survivor because, as Lowell found out, it always gets you lynched. Always. I guess Lowell didn't know that or was hoping someone would mention WIFOM (why would scum mention an auto-lynch claim, etc, etc).

Anyways, good play all around. Didn't expect LL to be scum until at the end when he counter claimed.