Mafia 87 - New Age Mafia - Game Over!

[OhGodMyLife]

Prodding Caboose and TAX.

[Jazzmyn]

I, too, have to do a re-read and catch up on new posts, and will post something more substantive then - hopefully later tonight but if not, definitely tomorrow.

Update: unfortunately, real life interfered with my good intentions of getting caught up by last night but I will certainly catch up and post more over the weekend (and I hope everyone is enjoying theirs).


Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

This seems moot because Der Hammer has a majority of the votes.

Actually, he had already been hammered four and a half hours before you posted that.

Let me explain myself again, because it seems that we're unclear.

#270 doesn't address Der Hammer directly, only in terms of relative use. It doesn't reveal anything new about your thoughts on him. All it says is that he's less deserving of a lynch than me, which was already clear from your vote.

That's why I asked what exactly you thought and cited a post to which I thought you might have more of a reaction. Why? Because in your previous mention of his vote, you mentioned it only as a note and mentioned "that consideration must be added" to what you had just written.

I wanted to know what consideration.

I do not understand your confusion, Sche. In post #246, I said that I did not find DerHammer particularly suspicious, but that I thought he over-reacted to strife's post, that I didn't like his early vanilla claim, and that I had noticed he had voted for a dubious reason which also had to be added to the equation.

In post #273, I answered your question about what I thought of his reaction to Juls, saying that I thought his reaction was pretty lame, and that it was the impetus for my agreement with Vi that the choice at the time was between "useless and more useless" but I still found you more suspicious than DerHammer.

In #273, you merely repeat the sentiment that you'll address it later. He was about to be lynched, but you were filing your thoughts away for later? Why? What thoughts? Were they vindicating? Damning? I wanted something concrete, not "I'm going to think about it later." That wasn't the time for that kind of thinking.

No, in #273, I specifically answered your question about what I thought of his reaction to Juls' post, as noted above. The latter part of my post in which I said I had filed away

ribwich's

response for future reference was about ribwich, not DerHammer. It was in direct response to your question asking whether my suspicion of ribwich had changed. You can tell this because I quoted your question and responded directly to it.

So, again, I do not understand your confusion.

Regards,
Jazz

[ribwich]

Looking through the thread again, one person that sticks out to me is TAX. He hasn't really done anything other than random voting, suspecting people without actually voting, and then just dissapears until he conveniently shows up right when the day is over. Looks to me like he's trying to avoid getting noticed.

Vote: TAX

My suspicions for Scheh are pretty much the same as they were before. If he is scum, I have a good feeling at least one of the people that switched their vote to Hammer at the end are also scum.

[Caboose]

I'm terribly sorry if this was said already, I must have missed it.

What did Gerrendus mean by "There's always tomorrow" at the bottom of the hammer vote?

That is something I had neglected considering. At least we know all of Scheh's posts are filled with logical fallacies, which while a time waster he is trying to help as you said al4xz.

Unvote: Scheh
Vote: Der
EBoS(Entire Body of Suspicion): Scheh

There's always tomorrow

.

[Gerrendus]

I already did...

I actually did not know how many votes Der-Hammer had on him. "there's always tomorrow" referred to the fact that Der would most likely end up lynched. I realized that the vote was sliding that way, and Der had always been my number 2. I wasn't going to try to push for my number one most suspicious, especially when my number two was very close to number one. The post percy made forced me to realize that hypothetically if both sche and Der were town then of the two, we're better off without Der. At least with Sche we are aware that sche uses logical fallacies and thus we can avoid wasting our time by ignoring/skimming. Der's posts are much shorter and we cannot tell whether or not he is being serious.

I later had to explain other parts of that post, but those are explained in the thread (just as this one was)

[Vi]

Right...

First, the lurker list. I started by trying to remember what they had done in this game, and failing.
*Juls
*iamausername
*Caboose
*DoomCow
*TAX

So rereading their posts...

Juls: Until Der Hammer came up being himself at the end of the Day, Juls seemed to mostly coast by. Puta Puta, you're replacing Juls. Based on your first post in this game, I'm not interested in that continuing.

iamausername: You voted for Der Hammer early yesterday, but disappeared for a while. What's your opinion of the Der Hammer wagon?

Caboose: Why did it take you so long to vote Scheherazade yesterday?

**In fact, a general question toward everyone who was on the Scheherazade wagon - do you still find him suspicious?

DoomCow: You're barely skimming by activity-wise, and your content is disappointing at best. I'm looking forward to content in general.

TAX: You are not scumhunting. At all. Please rectify this situation immediately.

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

About al4xz and Gerrendus...

al4xz, yesterday you said that if Scheherazade was confirmed Town, you would not be suspicious of Percy. Does it work the other way around, since Percy is gone?
I'm actually very interested in hearing your opinion on Scheherazade right now, considering your last three votes yesterday.

A quick opinion on Mafia theory, though--I wouldn't hold the pre-claim hammer against you personally. Claims are meant to be last-ditch defenses, not obligatory rights. Considering Der Hammer was in quite a bit of trouble before he was placed at exactly L-1, didn't seem interested in helping the Town, and

had already claimed Vanilla

; I don't think it's an Unforgivable Sin that the claim didn't happen. Meanwhile, if Der Hammer claimed a non-VT role, would you believe him? Would it have been enough to stop your vote?
The only real loss IMO would have been from hitting a Cop before displaying N0 results, and once again I'd expect he'd have done that noticeably sooner under the circumstances. As far as Der Hammer's opinions went, I'll note that just because someone is confirmed Town doesn't mean they're right; to demonstrate the point I'll point to how Der Hammer suspected strife.

Gerrendus: And how is Scheherazade? You flipped to Der Hammer Der Hammer, but even then you noted that you thought Scheherazade was scummier. IMO, you should always pick the person you find scummier (if you can make the decision) over a policy lynch.

-----

Scheherazade: I'm --still-- waiting for you to place a vote. Yesterday, you were leaning against Jazzmyn; is this still accurate?

-----
@@
-----

I'll wait until the responses come in before placing a vote. Large games mean there are several places attention should go, and I've only one vote.

[Tom Mason]

I want to know how in 24 HOURS he could forget that he already voted for Der Hammer... especially when an updated vote count was posted between both his voting posts.

Tells me someone is: (a) not paying attention, or (b) reaching for excuses.

- Tom Mason

Have it your way. Think what you want. Not everyone can remember everything. Have you ever heard the expression, "people don't notice what's right underneath their noses?"

It was not a matter of remembering, it was a matter of taking five seconds to check the voting. You made two mistakes in that process... (1) You thought you had not already voted for Der Hammer and (2) you thought that you helped to hammer Der Hammer.

I do not like your reaction because it makes it seem like you took nothing into consideration until AFTER the fact. You were more than happy to make the move and then think about what you did. When, if you are scum, you do not need to think of your vote.

And to those who question the witch-hunt of Scheherazade, I do not disagree that his play has been erratic. But something about this situation does not sit well with me at the moment.

Vote: al4xz

[iamausername]

iamausername: You voted for Der Hammer early yesterday, but disappeared for a while. What's your opinion of the Der Hammer wagon?

I might not have been posting a lot, but I was following closely enough to move my vote if I felt there was a need. Since I didn't move my vote, clearly I didn't have a problem with the wagon.

I think his writing off half of his own posts as jokes was extremely suspect when there wasn't any clear distinction between these posts and his 'serious' posts, and I don't think anyone is overly suspicious for voting him on this basis. I mean, the people on the wagon should be under scrutiny, especially if it later turns out that Zade is scum, but right now I don't think it should be particularly higher than the scrutiny that everybody should be under.

To me, if you don't give the guy-who-everyone-wants-to-lynch (DH) a final chance to defend himself/herself, then you deny the town possible information, more or less depending on what role they were. If they were a Townie, normal final attempt to defend themselves, post their suspiscions, etc. Scum, more or less not too much information if you lynch them before they have a chance to speak, unless there are two scum groups. Cop, lots of information - results, suspiscions, a "investigation failed" PM (meaning there is a roleblocker), etc.
However, by lynching DH before the Town gave him a chance to speak, you are denying the Town alot of information.

Does this mean you weren't aware that Der Hammer had already claimed vanilla townie when you cast your vote?

At the risk of speculating about setup I would like to say that with two kills the previous night we should all keep in the back of our minds that there appear to be two killing factions and we should thus exercise care in our lynches or we may be unable to recover.

As opposed to a game with one killing faction, where you should throw caution to the wind and lynch people at random? What is the point of this comment?

If Scheh were town, I don't think they would have been making those comments. I don't even think they would have bothered changing their vote, since a lynch on either Scheh or Der would have essentially been the same. Why risk getting more attention on yourself unless you were protecting your partner?

Even if Zade is town, I think they'd have an incentive to switch votes just to end the day as soon as possible, before anyone had a chance to present a decent case on anyone else and maybe stop us from limiting ourselves to two lynch candidates. If it didn't seem like anyone was particularly eager to switch from Hammer to Zade, and I think that was probably the case, then they'd have to go the other way for this to happen.

---

I do think it's odd that not a single person is voting for Scheherazade today, when he was one of the two prime lynch candidates yesterday, and the other guy turned up town.

Gerrendus, Jazzmyn, DoomCow, Caboose. You were all voting Scheherazade for a significant period of D1; what's changed since then to keep you from voting him now?

[ribwich]

Even if Zade is town, I think they'd have an incentive to switch votes just to end the day as soon as possible, before anyone had a chance to present a decent case on anyone else and maybe stop us from limiting ourselves to two lynch candidates. If it didn't seem like anyone was particularly eager to switch from Hammer to Zade, and I think that was probably the case, then they'd have to go the other way for this to happen.

True, but I don't think the incentive was very strong since the deadline was approaching soon anyway and it looked very unlikely that anyone else was going to be a lynch candidate.

[al4xz]

al4xz, yesterday you said that if Scheherazade was confirmed Town, you would not be suspicious of Percy. Does it work the other way around, since Percy is gone?

No. Scheh has been acting like a blasted fool on drugs whether Percy is here or not.

I'm actually very interested in hearing your opinion on Scheherazade right now, considering your last three votes yesterday.

I'm waiting on a vote, accusations, etc. from him, but he's not looking too scummy as of right now.

A quick opinion on Mafia theory, though--I wouldn't hold the pre-claim hammer against you personally. Claims are meant to be last-ditch defenses, not obligatory rights. Considering Der Hammer was in quite a bit of trouble before he was placed at exactly L-1, didn't seem interested in helping the Town, and had already claimed Vanilla; I don't think it's an Unforgivable Sin that the claim didn't happen. Meanwhile, if Der Hammer claimed a non-VT role, would you believe him? Would it have been enough to stop your vote?

True.

The only real loss IMO would have been from hitting a Cop before displaying N0 results, and once again I'd expect he'd have done that noticeably sooner under the circumstances. As far as Der Hammer's opinions went, I'll note that just because someone is confirmed Town doesn't mean they're right; to demonstrate the point I'll point to how Der Hammer suspected strife.

al4xz wrote:
To me, if you don't give the guy-who-everyone-wants-to-lynch (DH) a final chance to defend himself/herself, then you deny the town possible information, more or less depending on what role they were. If they were a Townie, normal final attempt to defend themselves, post their suspiscions, etc. Scum, more or less not too much information if you lynch them before they have a chance to speak, unless there are two scum groups. Cop, lots of information - results, suspiscions, a "investigation failed" PM (meaning there is a roleblocker), etc.
However, by lynching DH before the Town gave him a chance to speak, you are denying the Town alot of information.

Does this mean you weren't aware that Der Hammer had already claimed vanilla townie when you cast your vote?

I was aware of this, but I didn't take it too seriously as it had been claimed early. If I was a doctor, then I would claim VT at first, and then if I got L-1ed then I'd claim Doctor.

Gerrendus, Jazzmyn, DoomCow, Caboose. You were all voting Scheherazade for a significant period of D1; what's changed since then to keep you from voting him now?

I'd like an answer to that question as well, though I suspect I know the answer.

It was not a matter of remembering, it was a matter of taking five seconds to check the voting. You made two mistakes in that process... (1) You thought you had not already voted for Der Hammer and (2) you thought that you helped to hammer Der Hammer.

I do not like your reaction because it makes it seem like you took nothing into consideration until AFTER the fact. You were more than happy to make the move and then think about what you did. When, if you are scum, you do not need to think of your vote.

And to those who question the witch-hunt of Scheherazade, I do not disagree that his play has been erratic. But something about this situation does not sit well with me at the moment.

That's bullshit. The scum always think about their vote before they make it so that they can't be pushed around about it. The town

should

always think about their vote before they make it, but sometimes they don't think too closely enough.[/quote]

[Gerrendus]

Gerrendus: And how is Scheherazade? You flipped to Der Hammer Der Hammer, but even then you noted that you thought Scheherazade was scummier. IMO, you should always pick the person you find scummier (if you can make the decision) over a policy lynch.

This question was already asked. And I already answered it:

I'm going to answer these two (well respond is more accurate I suppose) at once. If you saw my post to Vi at the bottom of the last page I said that to me sche seemed

slightly

scummier than Der. Seeing as the town seemed to be going that way I was content to lynch my second most suspicious seeing as the disparity in my suspicions upon the two was not that great and the town seemed to be agreeing with both of my suspicions. at the time I saw no need to wait, and I thought that Der was further away from the lynch than he was. This is a fault on my part and I will be sure to remember this in the future.

To restate: The disparity between the two levels of suspicion was of such a low level that I had no qualms switching my lynch.

At the risk of speculating about setup I would like to say that with two kills the previous night we should all keep in the back of our minds that there appear to be two killing factions and we should thus exercise care in our lynches or we may be unable to recover.

As opposed to a game with one killing faction, where you should throw caution to the wind and lynch people at random? What is the point of this comment?

The point of this comment is that in a game with only one killing faction there is more room for screw-ups. I was indicating that the margin of error is much slimmer when we are being picked off two at a time rather than one at a time at night. You should always be careful with who you are voting I was suggesting that

even more

care was necessary in this game with two killing factions.

Gerrendus, Jazzmyn, DoomCow, Caboose. You were all voting Scheherazade for a significant period of D1; what's changed since then to keep you from voting him now?

Refer to my previous comment. I feel that I need to be more sure of my suspicions than simply going off of who is an unhelpful town member, as that was my reasoning for both scheh and der before and Der turned out to be VT. I just want to try to find a little bit more evidence before I make a vote today. For example: I would like to hear a little bit from Scheh

[Jazzmyn]

Gerrendus, Jazzmyn, DoomCow, Caboose. You were all voting Scheherazade for a significant period of D1; what's changed since then to keep you from voting him now?

Not a thing has changed regarding my suspicion of Sche, as should be clear from my post #327 directed to him above. He still seems to be deliberately obfuscating and misrepresenting others, just as he did yesterday. I was kind of waiting for him to respond to my latest post before voting again, but since he doesn't seem to be inclined to respond, I am going to go ahead and:

Vote: Scheherazade

It is probably obvious from my posts and my vote yesterday that I felt he was the best lynch choice then, and I still feel that way now.

Regards,
Jazz

[DoomCow]

Gerrendus, Jazzmyn, DoomCow, Caboose. You were all voting Scheherazade for a significant period of D1; what's changed since then to keep you from voting him now?

For one thing, people died. I like to take these deaths back into everything that happened yesterday. Look for any possible connections that might exist, and see all of yesterdays events in a new light.

I just couldn't find the time to do so, and still don't have the time today. I might be able to reschedule some things tomorrow or wednesday though...

[Incognito]

Vote Count #1 of Day 2

al4xz (2) -- iamausername, Tom Mason
TAX (1) -- ribwich
Scheherazade (1) -- Jazzmyn

Not Voting (9) -- Puta Puta, Vi, Scheherazade, al4xz, DoomCow, TAX, Gerrendus, Caboose, ZazieR

With 13 alive, it takes 7 votes to lynch!

[ZazieR]

To me, if you don't give the guy-who-everyone-wants-to-lynch (DH) a final chance to defend himself/herself, then you deny the town possible information, more or less depending on what role they were.

I agree with this.

I was aware of this, but I didn't take it too seriously as it had been claimed early. If I was a doctor, then I would claim VT at first, and then if I got L-1ed then I'd claim Doctor.

DON'T! I can't give the example, but this happened once in a game. The player who did this was lynched for lying.


Also

Vote al4xz

Here are some quotes from him at the end of day 1 and day 2:

Don't give bullshit. Even though this is internet, I can obviously discern the disgust in Juls tone of voice of said quote. If you can't, I don't trust a single action you make any more, unless it's something you can't screw up.

Vote: Derhammer

This is the third time he talked about DH. The first time is when DH asked why the insane doc is mentioned. The second time is when Ribwich says he's still waiting to hear from DH. This is al4xz responce:

Yeah, we hear only bits from him, but everything he says seems to be scummy.

The third time he votes, with in my opinion a bad reason.

Personally speaking, this will provide us more information, and we don't need a village idiot dragging us down later on in the game (wasting a lynch now to gain some info is alright, wasting a lynch later can be disastorous). Hey, I just realzied something:

Village idiot: Abbreviation: Vi! o.O

You know what I just realized, there's no 'if' in that quote. You refer to DH as village idiot, without an 'if', and you're talking about wasting a lynch, without an 'if'. I have some problems with this.

I guess it's pretty much decided that we will lynch either DerHammer or Scheh, right? So I guess we might as well do a reread, then decide between the two, unless some magical fairy pops up and saves their ass.

Gut feeling is telling me to remind this one.

Now that I have expressed this view, I actually think... we should lynch him. Unvote, Vote: Scheh

Allow me to explain. First, Scheh goes off and creates the big argument with you, wasting a lot of the town's time. When I asked him why he didn't just say, "oh, sorry, you guys were right, it was rolefishing", he said instead that he didn't say that because he refused to lie. He believed that it wasn't rolefishing and that therefore, saying said excuse would be a lie. I believed that what he said there was the truth, and if he's actually a Townie, I'm impressed that he stood by that choice despite the trouble it has caused him.

Hmm...yes, I agree with you about Derhammer, Percy. I'd rather have Scheh (who may or may not be useful) than Derhammer, the village idiot. Scheh at least strikes me as someone who tries to help. Derhammer just keeps joking around, so we can't trust him to sit still for a minute, let alone help us.

Vote: Der Hammer

I don't like the sudden switch in your vote. I don't like the reason to switch. You're just agreeing with Percy (why and about what exactly?) and you're just saying that DH is gonna be a liability to the town. I'm having some problems with that.

Are you serious? Shit! Town, sorry! I never realized how close we were! Fuck!

Did you, or did you not read every post?

Actually, never mind, I had already voted for DH earlier and Percy had confused me into thinking I was voting for Scheh. =.= However, DH is still hammered; Gerrendus placed the final.

You voted DH, you unvoted and you had put DH at L-1. So I don't see what you're saying in this post.

I thought I still had my vote on Scheh. I voted him because I thought it would put him in L-1, L-2, etc. not because I wanted to lynch him straight off the bat. Not letting someone give their final words before they get lynched is anti-town, reckless play, etc.

So why aren't you voting Gerrendus?

I want to know how in 24 HOURS he could forget that he already voted for Der Hammer... especially when an updated vote count was posted between both his voting posts.

Tells me someone is: (a) not paying attention, or (b) reaching for excuses.

- Tom Mason

Have it your way. Think what you want. Not everyone can remember everything. Have you ever heard the expression, "people don't notice what's right underneath their noses?"

I'm having a problem that you're dodging the question.

That's bullshit. The scum always think about their vote before they make it so that they can't be pushed around about it. The town should always think about their vote before they make it, but sometimes they don't think too closely enough

I'm having a problem with this defend attempt.


I also have a problem with Gerrendus. He hammers DH at 3.06 am.
He realises this at 3.08 am.

[OhGodMyLife]

Seeking a replacement for TAX.

[ribwich]

Well, since my entire argument against TAX is that he was a useless player, since he's getting replaced anyway I'm going to go ahead and

unvote

Personally speaking, this will provide us more information, and we don't need a village idiot dragging us down later on in the game (wasting a lynch now to gain some info is alright, wasting a lynch later can be disastorous). Hey, I just realzied something:

Village idiot: Abbreviation: Vi! o.O

You know what I just realized, there's no 'if' in that quote. You refer to DH as village idiot, without an 'if', and you're talking about wasting a lynch, without an 'if'. I have some problems with this.

I knew there was something I never liked about that post, but somehow I kept missing that. I think I was just mentally putting in the "if DH is town" part. Because really, it was a completely valid argument if that was included. But the way he wrote that, it looks like he already knew DH was going to be town.

[Caboose]

Sorry guys, I'm really not doing this game justice. I'm going to make an effort to be more active today.

Anyway,

Gerrendus, Jazzmyn, DoomCow, Caboose. You were all voting Scheherazade for a significant period of D1; what's changed since then to keep you from voting him now?

The only thing really keeping me from voting Sche is how yesterday's lynch went down and the last few posts of D1. Zazie's points on al4xz's points are valid.

[quote="Vi]Caboose: Why did it take you so long to vote Scheherazade yesterday?[/quote]
I don't get your question or why you're asking it. I usually like to see people's responses to my points on them before I vote them.

[Vi]

I might not have been posting a lot, but I was following closely enough to move my vote if I felt there was a need. Since I didn't move my vote, clearly I didn't have a problem with the wagon.

So you were lurking...?

I don't get your question or why you're asking it. I usually like to see people's responses to my points on them before I vote them.

I think you "got" my question since you gave an okay answer to it, and you were asked it because you were in the list of people from a few posts ago - plus I don't have a read on you. It seemed odd that you voted Scheherazade in the midst of a prolonged dialogue, since I didn't clarify.
Better question: What's your opinion of the DH wagon?

There are still several leads out, and I'm still not sure which one to follow with a vote (thought al4xz is about to be the subject of a reread). Not helping things is the silence from Scheherazade's corner.

@mod: Prod Scheherazade if permitted

[al4xz]

To me, if you don't give the guy-who-everyone-wants-to-lynch (DH) a final chance to defend himself/herself, then you deny the town possible information, more or less depending on what role they were.

I agree with this.

I was aware of this, but I didn't take it too seriously as it had been claimed early. If I was a doctor, then I would claim VT at first, and then if I got L-1ed then I'd claim Doctor.

DON'T! I can't give the example, but this happened once in a game. The player who did this was lynched for lying.

I'd debate with you on this, but it wouldn't be very helpful for the town. Remind me when I need a topic in the Mafia Discussion forum.

Also

Vote al4xz

Here are some quotes from him at the end of day 1 and day 2:

Don't give bullshit. Even though this is internet, I can obviously discern the disgust in Juls tone of voice of said quote. If you can't, I don't trust a single action you make any more, unless it's something you can't screw up.

Vote: Derhammer

This is the third time he talked about DH. The first time is when DH asked why the insane doc is mentioned. The second time is when Ribwich says he's still waiting to hear from DH. This is al4xz responce:

Yeah, we hear only bits from him, but everything he says seems to be scummy.

The third time he votes, with in my opinion a bad reason.

Personally speaking, this will provide us more information, and we don't need a village idiot dragging us down later on in the game (wasting a lynch now to gain some info is alright, wasting a lynch later can be disastorous). Hey, I just realzied something:

Village idiot: Abbreviation: Vi! o.O

You know what I just realized, there's no 'if' in that quote. You refer to DH as village idiot, without an 'if', and you're talking about wasting a lynch, without an 'if'. I have some problems with this.

To me, a Village Idiot is basically anyone who plays like an utter fool, whether they are town or not. And I'm unsure how not having a 'if' on the wasting lynch part is bad.

I guess it's pretty much decided that we will lynch either DerHammer or Scheh, right? So I guess we might as well do a reread, then decide between the two, unless some magical fairy pops up and saves their ass.

Gut feeling is telling me to remind this one.

Now that I have expressed this view, I actually think... we should lynch him. Unvote, Vote: Scheh

Allow me to explain. First, Scheh goes off and creates the big argument with you, wasting a lot of the town's time. When I asked him why he didn't just say, "oh, sorry, you guys were right, it was rolefishing", he said instead that he didn't say that because he refused to lie. He believed that it wasn't rolefishing and that therefore, saying said excuse would be a lie. I believed that what he said there was the truth, and if he's actually a Townie, I'm impressed that he stood by that choice despite the trouble it has caused him.

Hmm...yes, I agree with you about Derhammer, Percy. I'd rather have Scheh (who may or may not be useful) than Derhammer, the village idiot. Scheh at least strikes me as someone who tries to help. Derhammer just keeps joking around, so we can't trust him to sit still for a minute, let alone help us.

Vote: Der Hammer

I don't like the sudden switch in your vote. I don't like the reason to switch. You're just agreeing with Percy (why and about what exactly?) and you're just saying that DH is gonna be a liability to the town. I'm having some problems with that.

I agree with Percy on his view on who we should lynch. The below quote is Percy's post. If 'liability" is someone who could be Mafia, but we can't read him at all, is unhelpful, distracting, and confusing, then yes, DH is a liability. The main reason why I wanted to lynch DH is because the possibility exists that DH is Mafia, and we can't judge him on regular standards, nor can we get a read on his actions to figure out whether he is Mafia or not.

Der Hammer: Erratic and confusing strategies that are bad for the town. He even described the attempts to put pressure on him as 'clear scumtells'. Doesn't read sarcasm in others' posts, but has used the 'I was only kidding' defense himself. Relevant game quotes:

"That's the sort of reaction I was probing for" never actually had meaning at all

I reacted badly to your initial misjudging of my statement and acted childishly. It end of esuclated from there really, and its interesting to see who has jumped on my bandwagon..

He's OMGUS'd, claimed when he was nowhere near being lynched, and told us that we should look elsewhere rather than try to find something out of his posts.

Now he's asking us to lynch Scheherazade and give him a free pass, just because he says he's a townie (!).

Whilst Scheherazade has been extremely unhelpful, I think Der Hammer is a greater liability and has made more mistakes, and most importantly, is more difficult to read and keep tabs on: he's tried to make some of his posts 'real posts' and others 'not count' due to "hidden" humour or sarcasm.

It's very, very close, but I think it's marginally more likely that Scheherazade is just an unhelpful townie than Der Hammer. I'm therefore going to

Unvote

Vote: Der Hammer

Entire body of susipicion: Scheherazade

Are you serious? Shit! Town, sorry! I never realized how close we were! Fuck!

Did you, or did you not read every post?

I read every post, maybe not every detail all the time, but I do try.

Actually, never mind, I had already voted for DH earlier and Percy had confused me into thinking I was voting for Scheh. =.= However, DH is still hammered; Gerrendus placed the final.

You voted DH, you unvoted and you had put DH at L-1. So I don't see what you're saying in this post.

If my memory serves me right, I voted DH, then a page or two later I voted him again. That's what I mean by, "actually, never mind." What I was trying to say in that post was that "whew, I didn't just do something terrible to the town."

I thought I still had my vote on Scheh. I voted him because I thought it would put him in L-1, L-2, etc. not because I wanted to lynch him straight off the bat. Not letting someone give their final words before they get lynched is anti-town, reckless play, etc.

So why aren't you voting Gerrendus?

Perhaps I don't find him as suspicious.

I want to know how in 24 HOURS he could forget that he already voted for Der Hammer... especially when an updated vote count was posted between both his voting posts.

Tells me someone is: (a) not paying attention, or (b) reaching for excuses.

- Tom Mason

Have it your way. Think what you want. Not everyone can remember everything. Have you ever heard the expression, "people don't notice what's right underneath their noses?"

I'm having a problem that you're dodging the question.

If you havn't noticed, there is no specific question there. Tom wonders how the hell I could have forgotten, puts out the point that I had switched my vote only a day ago and that an updated vote count was posted between the 24hr span. I then proceeded to tell him, "I forgot. Everyone forgets sometime," indirectly, in my post.

That's bullshit. The scum always think about their vote before they make it so that they can't be pushed around about it. The town should always think about their vote before they make it, but sometimes they don't think too closely enough

I'm having a problem with this defend attempt.

Can I ask what you mean by having a problem? If I'm not mistaken, I tihnk you mean there's something remotely scummy about it, but you can't point it out directly like yo ucan point out oranges. Am I correct?

[/i]

[Scheherazade]

No, in #273, I specifically answered your question about what I thought of his reaction to Juls' post, as noted above. The latter part of my post in which I said I had filed away

ribwich's

response for future reference was about ribwich, not DerHammer. It was in direct response to your question asking whether my suspicion of ribwich had changed. You can tell this because I quoted your question and responded directly to it.

So, again, I do not understand your confusion.

Regards,
Jazz

@Jazzmyn: You're right, I mistakenly applied the phrase "filing away" to the impression I was getting of your read of Der Hammer, not ribwich.

I was taking issue with the statement that you "have already expressed how his recent actions have impacted on [your] view of him." That view was that he was "useless" because of his reaction to Juls and "not suspicious" though his vote was "dubious"?

What I wanted was more of an explanation. If he wasn't suspicious to you, you were still willing to let him get lynched because he was "useless"? You suspected me, so why didn't you fight to get people to vote for the suspicious and useless person rather than just the useless person?

Besides that, you suspected me and all you did to convince others of my scumminess was to incorrectly identify one of my statements as ad hominem after another player already mentioned it and note that you didn't like my attitude?

If we're adding attitude into the mix, I'm going to go ahead and

Vote: Jazzmyn

for the following reasons:

1) Active lurking in the form of repeating popular views rather than generating insightful content.
2) Her suspect statement regarding Percy in her post 7.
3) Wilful dodging of questions, i.e. trying to ignore an explicit question by arguing that it's an argument, not a question.

On a related note, Jazzmyn, you dropped my concerns about your remark regarding Percy.

[Gerrendus]

I also have a problem with Gerrendus. He hammers DH at 3.06 am.
He realises this at 3.08 am.

that would be because as soon as the post was made I wanted to know the exact number DH was at, I read back through and found that my vote put him at the lynch mark. As I have previously said I did not realize it at the time, and I am planning on being more careful of such things in the future.

[Tom Mason]

I think ZazieR echoes a little of what I have said. I have nothing new to really add right now. If al4xz would have had the voting issue happen over a span of time substantially longer than 24 hours, I would buy the whole "I forgot" spiel.

And Gerrendus, I do not think you are helping yourself either in this situation. You and al4xz are essentially fighting the same battle. My vote only goes to him because having already voted, I would expect him to be more aware of the entire situation than someone just placing a vote. This is not to say I think you both should have been paying attention.

[Jazzmyn]

Hello, all.

I'm just checking in to say that I am a bit swamped (in real life) but I will try to catch up tonight and post more soon.


Regards,
Jazz