Mini 684: Quacks and Masons Mafia- Game Over

[clammy]

I see i am bold, therefore i am confirmed....

[clammy]

Okay, i think we can break this set-up by forcing an early mass-claim.

D1, 6 docs claims.
D2, 3 masons claim.

At one of those two points our scum have to make decisions, we'd likely wind up with 9 claimed docs, confirming three townies, distracting the scum, and then, if we played our nights well, leading to the uncovering of scum-lies.

I also have a plan for nights, but that is revealed further down the track...

[clammy]

We want to be able to confirm those masons early, but only on D2, if any scum wants to fake-claim mason they can go for it as they'll quickly be shot down by 2-3 Masons confirming each other.

[clammy]

As i've already said i have plans for the docs/quacks that i'm not going into, and the scum can be adequately distracted killing off our confirmed masons while we figure out their lies.

[clammy]

roflcopter, the problem with your plan is that you're asking the masons to become a liability by lying and confusing the docs, with the masons known D2 the town has three figures it knows it can trust, which has more benefits than meet the eye at first glance.

[clammy]

i'm not asking for an infinite hold lullaby, but aspects of what i have as a plan could be used in reverse if not made in conjunction with the mass-claim so i have no interest in revealing that until it's clear which way we're going with the claim.

Otherwise i'll leave the plan under wraps until D2 and push for the claim again then.

[clammy]

The plan fails anyway, 4 docs and 2 quacks, 1 mafia kill, whoever the collective target, regardless of alignment or who the mafia target, would be guaranteed to live.

Even if the collective target a doc and reduce the odds that way then it's still 3 kills and 3 saving actions.

The only thing this does for the town is make nights worthless and futile.

The dynamics will change over time, as players die, but at this stage this completely fails a simple logic check.

[clammy]

Right, ignor my previous post, when i PM'd the mod prior to the game starting i misread his reply.

[clammy]

Yes, so you say, but you fail to see how important the setup is for us here in this game and that we need to collaborate on our strategy so as not to ruin us entirely.

[clammy]

right.. i sidestepped a very clearly articulated and fully developed outline of how scummy i am...

[clammy]

I'm not asking for any reasons, frankly i don't care that you're voting me.
But if you're wanting anything but "deflection" you'd better start coming up with an accusation.
Otherwise, if you're okay with being irrelevant, then continue along this line of posting.

[clammy]

Yes.
I didn't miss that at all, you seem to think yourself and that post so important that i should quake at your presence rather than objectively assess your intent.
I choose sense, i still think your post is irrelevant.

[clammy]

I see i've got some misnomers to dispell.

did you miss the part where you proposed a plan that would out the masons to the scum on day one and then i voted you for trying to enact a plan that is so blatantly pro scum?

Yes.
I didn't miss that at all, you seem to think yourself and that post so important that i should quake at your presence rather than objectively assess your intent.
I choose sense, i still think your post is irrelevant.

You think it's irrelevant that you suggested such a bad plan? To me, that's actually pretty damn relevant.

FOS: Clammy

You've changed what i've said. Not that roflcoptor's opinion is irrelevant, nor that the impact of my stated plan here is irrelevant, but that roflcoptor's vote is irrelevant when he demands i respond to him in a particular way when i have no intention to take him seriously.

Vote roflcopter

, I don't the way you are pushing your case on clammy.

Fos clammy

, your plan indeed sucks, and unless you can explain clearly what was your bright idea for night action, I'm calling it bluff, and my vote is switching onto you.

A bet each way is not scum hunting, nor powerful play, but if it makes you look good and feel big about yourself it's probably all okay.

I also want to point his use of the word "frankly". It is used quite often by scum. Since scum spend most of the game in a lie, when they tell the truth, they often end up pointing it out.

Lying is poor play from scum, scum should tell the truth as often and as vigorously as possible, telling the truth is how scum get townies mis-lynched for "being caught in a lie".

Or maybe that's too logical.

Or maybe you're not very good at playing scum when you get that role.

Clammy's posts 80 and 82 come with the implication that roflcopter never came up with the any reasons for voting Clammy (bolded), but when rofl pointed out his reason again, Clammy said that "he didn't miss it [the original point] at all" and then dismisses the post as irrelevant without reason.

I can see how you're reading in there that there was no attached acknowledgment of his original post, but as i've already pointed out in this post it's his vote that i find irrelevant and you're also changing what i said.

[clammy]

Will all the tea-totlers who are calling for

(and i summarise and create and combine in this statement what i think sums up all of the people who've made similar statements to it)

"clammy to reveal to us his top-secret, amazing, flawless plan or tell us why he shouldn't yet" please realise i've already done this and you're only showing yourself as to want to appear pro-town by pressuring someone under pressure while keeping a foot in someone else's door too.

I quote for you now where i have done this and you can all realise that only Datte has presented anything resembling an outstanding case against me.

i'm not asking for an infinite hold lullaby, but aspects of what i have as a plan could be used in reverse if not made in conjunction with the mass-claim so i have no interest in revealing that until it's clear which way we're going with the claim.

Otherwise i'll leave the plan under wraps until D2 and push for the claim again then.

"Foot in someone else's door":
[Rofl attacks Spring
Spring attacks Rofl
Spring attacks Dattebayo
Datte supports Spring's attack of Rofl]
Rofl amongst others has successfully pointed out at #95 that this is an attempt to have your cake and eat it too, of course.

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

1. That's a good counterargument, I'll drop that point.
2. Your backpedaling. You specifically said before that it was his post not his vote that was irrelevant.

I'm tempted to quote this back and simply ask if you're backpedaling or if the definition of the word is different where you live but i acknowledge that won't suffice for you.

I referenced post, probably because i went back and read and acknowledged his post which i was then accused of not acknowledging, nonetheless i assure you it is his vote i find irrelevant as i have already gone through why he'll be waiting for "scummy clammy" to reveal his night-action plan.

[clammy]

1. That is blatant misrepresentation. Spring never attacked rofl or me and I never attacked rofl.
2. Please post your reference. For I have already posted where you

directly

stated that his "post" was irrelevant.

Unvote, Vote: Clammy

. Clammy's scumminess just eclipsed Net's.

1.

[Rofl attacks Spring
Spring attacks Rofl
Spring attacks Dattebayo

***

Datte supports Spring's attack of Rofl]

Rofl attacks Spring

holy crap springlullaby thank you for making it so obvious you are clammy's scumpartner.

fos: springlullaby

Spring attacks Rofl

wait WAIT I HAVE AN IDEA:

I don't know if docs and/or quacks can target themselves, but if they can, they might then target themselves:
Docs will not die.
Quacks will instantly die; we get rid of them.
There is a 2/3 probability of scum targetting doc or quack (no effects) and 1/3 of scum targetting mason (unlucky).
I hope this works. It's just an idea, and might not work, and it might not be possible, but if it is, then we have a great advantage with two less town-killers. Thoughts?

Mod, can docs target themselves?

Now, quack dying for the purpose of dying is out of the question.

FOS Pacman.

Vote roflcopter

, I don't the way you are pushing your case on clammy.

Fos clammy

, your plan indeed sucks, and unless you can explain clearly what was your bright idea for night action, I'm calling it bluff, and my vote is switching onto you.

And again

Btw, I don't like roflcopter's reaction to my vote.

Datte attacks Spring
***Please note my original typo, it was Datte who attacked Spring.

I see bad plans as faults in logic rather than scum tells.

Anyway, my scumlist at this point is Netlava, Clammy, and Springlullaby.

Vote roflcopter, I don't the way you are pushing your case on clammy.

Fos clammy, your plan indeed sucks, and unless you can explain clearly what was your bright idea for night action, I'm calling it bluff, and my vote is switching onto you.

You drop suspicon on Clammy for his bad plan (the same reason as rofl) but also vote rofl for the "way" that he pushes the case. That is somewhat contradictory and your keeping your foot in all doors.

...

FoS: springlullaby

Datte supports Spring's attack of Rofl

You drop suspicon on Clammy for his bad plan (the same reason as rofl) but also vote rofl for the "way" that he pushes the case. That is somewhat contradictory and your keeping your foot in all doors.

Nothing contradictory in it, roflcopter is pushing a case on the sole basis that clammy's plan is antitown, I do not agree with this.

However clammy's idea as he presented it - that is, partially and hinting at an undisclosed miracle course of action for night, is indeed antitown, and I cannot reconstruct the townie POV/reasoning which led him to it. As such, I'm urging him to disclose what the mysterious part of his plan is to be able to form an opinion on whether he is a misguided/brilliant townie, or scum bluffing in hope that town would fall for it. His continued refusal to disclose his plan merit a FOS from me as it make the later hypothesis more probable.

I looked back, and earlier posts confirm your explanation; yours and rofl's attacks were fundamentally different.

So, I second this post by spring:

Roflcopter, have you read my 104? Does it make any sense to you? If it doesn't please point out why.

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

2.

You missed it again mate.

"I referenced post"

(- clammy, #113).
Would you like me to make it simpler for you?
"I said post, not vote".
"clammy finds the vote irrelevant, but wrote post, oops!"

This was clarified and has been time and time again, is now old, and is a huge stretch considering your initial argument "clammy said 'post', scumzors!". I have acknowledged i said "post", not "vote", yet have clearly shown how and why i meant "vote" and now your "case" still boils down to "clammy said 'post', scumzors!" but in that time, miraculously, "clammy's scumminess [has] eclipsed Net's."
It's not logical.
Again.

[clammy]

It's not inaccurate or a misrepresentation of posts and views that have been made, it is not meant to be the current state of events or a representation of how things stand right now, and indeed it is not. Remember it was only posted to expand on a single comment i made that Datte said wasn't true and now disputes but still seems to have missed that i only ever said he supported your attack of Rofl.

Re breakable plans etc, i've clearly said i'm prepared to either go into it or not, but i'm not going to bust the town by revealing my thoughts on night actions anytime soon unless we've decided to knock over the hurdles to getting there. Surely you'd have noticed i'm a little blase about when we give the green light to this, remember how my plan was for masons to claim D2? Maybe you don't.

Re bluffing, whatever mate, that's the weakest argument i've ever, ever, ever heard for pressure; if a town-aligned player isn't allowed to have conviction and courage when playing with you then doom to any town you ever play in.

[clammy]

So what have i been accused of in the last two days?
I make it "clammy is stupid", and "clammy is refusing to be a gutless little prick and reveal something's he's said right from the start he won't"
Can i make this clear, i don't play to please anyone, all this "pressure" to get me to reveal what i've said i won't hasn't changed and won't change my stance of the matter from when i first said it with no votes on me.

Also, since i'm almost certain this will be one of my last posts,

claim: doc

, and given the opportunity i will be hoping i'm a quack and using my save on roflcoptor.

[clammy]

This does not change my stance on rofl.

[clammy]

Clearly i was hiding the order of the posts and intentionally misleading you all by posting the post numbers in the quotes and the expanded order certainly had nothing to do with supplying the expansion to my post when requested in the same order i originally posted it.

[clammy]

See, i'd consider telling you you were right except you're very wrong.

The post mentioned people who had attacked me and kept their attacking options wide open, especially keeping a foot in two doors of the same argument.

If the post had even been an attempt to look at your voting patterns then i could pretend to see how you say it's a misrepresentation, but it's not!

And no-one but you has found it to be a misrepresentation which makes me wonder if you have more to hide than i pick you as having because at this stage i still have you as shockingly mis-guided townie and rofl as scum.

[clammy]

How do you all intend to proceed when i suddenly become relevant again because i am a doc?

[clammy]

Ya, since your case against SL is based on him bussing me, and i'm not scum, i'm foreseeing issues for you folk without a "shit! - clammy was just a townie with conviction!" plan...