Mini 49 TRATEOTU GAME OVER (Panic.)

[Dourgrim]

I will be gone from now until Thursday afternoon (read here for slightly more info).

[Dourgrim]

I'm back.

vote: Foolster41

for voting for me when I was away (even though he claims it was random), being deliberately obtuse with regard to mith's (admittedly long but reasonable) posts, and because I'm bandwagonning.

[Dourgrim]

Foolster: If you didn't know I was away, then you obviously aren't reading the thread:

I will be gone from now until Thursday afternoon (read here for slightly more info).

And, if you don't feel like you should have to "defend" your random votes, perhaps you shouldn't be making them. After all, anyone can

say

they're voting randomly, y'know.

You have also failed to address any of mith's points adequately. Vote stays.

[Dourgrim]

And, if you don't feel like you should have to "defend" your random votes, perhaps you shouldn't be making them. After all, anyone can say they're voting randomly, y'know.

What?! Please could you explain what you mean by this? I was saying that random votes are just that, random. You said (paraphrase) "he Claims [the vote] to be random". That sounds like your questioning weither in fact it was random. Since obvously it is unprovible either way, it's stupid to ask me to somehow proove it.

What I mean is this: anyone can vote for someone with little or no reasoning behind it and claim it was random... and anyone has the right to challenge that vote... and it's the voting player's responsibility to either defend that vote or unvote, period.

[Dourgrim]

I'm sticking with Foolster, though. I think he's lying scum.

Um, you're not voting for Foolster, mith. Matter of fact, you're not voting for anyone at the moment. This is possibly just an error on your part, or it could be an attempt to cast suspicion elsewhere without actually voting.

tiny FoS: mith

For what it's worth, I happen to agree with you, though... I think Foolster's scum too. My vote's been sitting on him for quite awhile now... where's yours?

[Dourgrim]

Now that's what I call a caring Mod.

Just reporting in to say that I'm still quite happy with my vote.

[Dourgrim]

I emailed jasonpingpong in an attempt to remind him of my game which is starting, and he failed to respond to the email or confirm in the thread, so I replaced him as well. Replacements suck, but sometimes they're necessary.

I hate saying this, but it's true: I'm very happy with my vote.

[Dourgrim]

I'm more than willing to play "Follow the Cop", since I'm a bit short on ideas myself. However, something doesn't sound right: bane221, how do you know that PolarBoy is Mafia if you're getting role names instead of "innocent" or "guilty"? You say that you know PolarBoy is mafia, and then turn around and say that Kerplunk is Marvin. What gives?

FoS: PolarBoy

because of the Cop accusation (and this will become a vote if Kerplunk can explain himself to my satisfaction).

slightly smaller FoS: bane221

for the inconsistent role claim.

[Dourgrim]

Bah... I meant if

bane221

can explain himself to my satisfaction, not Kerplunk. Sorry.

[Dourgrim]

Hiya.

OK, since I've adopted my new policy of not role-claiming, I can't offer much in the way of "proof", but I can say that lynching me is a really bad idea for the Town, as I have a moderately-useful pro-Town ability. *shrug* I'm one of the good guys, honest.

[Dourgrim]

Sorry for the double-post, but I just realized some things...

Awooogah, awooogah, long post alert, long post alert!

Upon rereading the latest conversation, I think that there's no reason in the world to assume that bane221 is anything but what he claims to be. One of his investigations has been confirmed by another player, which means that his other investigation has quite a bit of merit. His results seem a bit weird, but then again, we're playing in a HHGG game, so weirdness is kinda the order of the day, isn't it? However, I don't completely trust him because of the addition to the investigation results from earlier... so therefore I'm going to withdraw my earlier statement regarding PolarBoy for the moment (because you're right; we can't afford to make a mistake right now)... and instead, I'll throw out a...

vote: mathcam

for steaming, heaping piles of crap logic. Consider the following two quotes:

If there are two mafia left and we lynch wrong, the game is over.

Vote: Dourgrim,

in my opinion, our one remaining mafia. If he's not, then we lynch Bane tomorrow...he's a mafia with some kind of investigative role.

If we're so desperate to make sure we don't screw up today, then how in the world is it suddenly OK to do a "test lynch" on me today and then try to fix it tomorrow by lynching someone with a verified investigation result? Does the word "hypocrisy" mean anything to you?

And regarding your vote on me: I'm the remaining scum because bane could be telling the truth and you have this amazing list of confirmed innocents? You say that PolarBoy is innocent, but a claimed Cop-type says he's guilty... that sounds hardly confirmed to me. Trust me on this one, buddy: you're not in any position to proclaim yourself a confirmed innocent either, nor should you be even attempting to create any kind of list of confirmed innocents until you can prove that you are one also, at least not from my point of view. It seems to me you're trying very very hard to misdirect people, cam, and I admire the effort, but no dice...

I'm going to go reread the entire thread again to see if I can find one shred of evidence that screams out "mathcam's innocent", and if I can't find it, I think we might've found our scum.

[Dourgrim]

I don't like role-claiming, period. Whether or not I'm telling the truth, if I make a role-claim that is even remotely difficult to believe, I'm going to get crucified because of it (and, considering this is an HHGG-themed game, unbelievable is definitely a possibility with roles). If I make a role-claim that's too generic (i.e. too believable), then I get accused of making a claim that's too easy and therefore being scum. Note that both of the above possibilities are assuming that I'm telling the truth about my role (which I am, by the way). I will, however, break this policy of mine if the Town demands it... but I won't be happy about it, and if I get lynched because of it I'm going to be very upset with a couple of people.

[Dourgrim]

As I see it, it's now a question of whether lynch Dourgrim or PolarBoy. It would be very handy if you'd roleclaim Dourgrim. You say that if you roleclaim, you'd make yourself suspicious. But if you don't, you are also suspicious, I think. With a cop out, I don't think it would hurt the town very much if you'd be willing to come forward.

Precisely why am I suspicious, Kerplunk? What about my play or posting has struck you as suspicious? Oh, wait, that'd be

nothing

, and you're only trying to decide between me and PolarBoy because those are the only two "possibilities" you've been given. Bah.

I am the Great Prophet Zarquon. Now go away.

[Dourgrim]

unvote: mathcam

FoS: mathcam

for the above-mentioned reasons.

I'll be voting for PolarBoy as soon as he posts again... assuming he doesn't come up with some amazingly convincing alibi that makes him super-innocent.

[Dourgrim]

Wait a second... you were so incredibly suspicious of me yesterday and now you're saying you investigated

bane

last Night?! And to think I protected

you

last Night, cam... bah.

[Dourgrim]

I want to hear the specifics of what Leonidas claims his role can do. As far as I know, there is no Zarquar in the books anywhere, and I'm Zarquon.

vote: Leonidas

[Dourgrim]

Y'know, it could be the beer talking (I had a few tonight), but if all of this confusion is caused by my role-claim, then lynch me... if I'm who I claim to be, then you know to go after Leo tomorrow. *shrug* Just a thought...

[Dourgrim]

The essence of my role is that I'm a two-shot Doc... I can protect someone once with each of my holy hands. I have only used my ability once this game (on mathcam last Night). The only other stuff in my PM is flavor text relating to my Great Prophet-ness (we all know how fond of flavor text Our Benevolent Mod is ). In answer to Leo's question, I have no restrictions on role-claiming or anything else that I'm aware of... I assume that question was in regards to my earlier refusal to role-claim. It's not a role thing; it's a Dourgrim thing.

[Dourgrim]

Point blank: Leo's lying through his teeth. He screwed up the name of my role, and didn't come out to get me lynched when I role-claimed because, at the time, he didn't need to. Now suddenly he's trying to do all of this backpedalling to cover his butt... I'm not buying it at all.

confirm vote: Leonidas

[Dourgrim]

This is absolutely unbelievable.

Leonidas does his "good game" speech in an effort to paint me as a baddie and you guys fall for it. I claim a role

against my wishes

because the Town demands it, no one contests it, but now suddenly I'm Suspect #1 because Leonidas says so? Let's look at this in more detail:

1. Leonidas claims a role that

does not exist as a significant character in the book

. I specifically PM'd Werebear asking for another copy of my role PM because I had lost it and wanted to make sure I got the name right when I claimed... why is his role-claim more believable exactly?

2. Do any of you remember the mini gslamm modded, "Misery, MO"? Remember how I avoided being lynched even after being fingered by a Cop? I made up a role-claim so unbelievable that everyone thought "God, that's so strange it must be true, because who would make up something like that?" Doesn't it seem a bit funny that Leo makes this outrageous claim and suddenly no one doubts him? Think about it... he claims that his role can

end the game

if he role-claims while being voted for (which is pretty much the only time anyone ever has a real reason to role-claim, and I dispute even that). Do you people honestly believe that?

3. What if (and I don't believe this at all, but I'll play Devil's Advocate here) Leo

is

telling the truth about his role's restriction on role-claiming? That would mean this is our last and only chance to win the game. It seems to me that lynching Leo is probably the only hope of averting said disaster (after all, there has to be a way to avert the end-of-game condition, or else it'd be a bit unbalancing).

4. Suppose the scum have the ability to save up kills or make multiple kills on a specific Night (both have precedents). What happens if either one of those possibilities is true and we decide not to lynch today? WE LOSE. And you're willing to risk that just to play it safe?

5. Who in their right mind gives the "good game" speech before the game is ended unless they're trying to pin blame on someone via misdirection? If Leo had genuinely believed I was scum, don't you think he would've voted for me earlier? Instead, he says this:

There are two reasons why I'm not voting for you right now, Dourgrim.

1) Zarquon is indeed the most frequent name of the prophet that comes to the Restaurant shortly before the universe collapses.

2) There is a striking similarity between the two claims. You did not write: 'I'm Zarquon the prophet' or 'I'm Zarquon'. We both claimed exactly the same way. And you claimed before you saw my own claim.

(Just as I claimed without seeing your claim - otherwise I would probably have tried to get you lynched by the town).

He

knew

he couldn't dispute the role-claim, so instead he casts doubt on it by making a similar claim and "theorizing" that one of us must be scum, and it

certainly

isn't him.

6. The underlined portion of the above quote is ridiculous. Is Leonidas telling us he's not reading the thread? I did not exactly hide my role-claim in a gigantic post so as to make it difficult to find. Of

course

he saw it, people... only a complete idiot would've missed it, and we all know from past experience that Leonidas is not a complete idiot.

That's enough for now... but let's

not

end the day with a no-lynch until we've seriously hashed this out, folks.

[Dourgrim]

5. Who in their right mind gives the "good game" speech before the game is ended unless they're trying to pin blame on someone via misdirection?

People who are innocent and can't find the argument to convince the town of this fact so give up in frustration.

... or scum trying desperately to frame someone else in an endgame situation to pull out a win.

That's

what he's really doing.

Also, in response to the rest of point 5, I think Leo was actually arguing that might might be possible that you were both great prophets. And yes, Leo conceded he was not reading the thread. Your argument is that he saw you claim it and then claimed the exact same role but misspelled

intentionally

? I find that hard to believe.

Yes, you do... which is precisely why it's working. The more unbelievable the role-claim, the easier it is to believe it... that's what I was trying to say.

Why not just pick some unrepresented character. We had all claimed roles by this point, he had tons of choices left.

Because

anyone

can do that and he knows it. This way he can use the "I can't help it the Mod gave me such a bizarre role to claim" line (I've used it

as scum

in the above-referenced "Misery, MO" game and, more recently and successfully, in "Princess Bride"). Don't you get it? He's using reverse psychology on you: "That's so unbelievable that it must be true, because who would be dumb enough to make something up like that?"

I have a very strong feeling that this is the endgame, people. I don't think we're going to get another Day to dink around with this, and I really don't want to see us lose at this point because we were too timid to lynch when the chips were down.

[Dourgrim]

I don't know if I'm "making the Town believe" anything; I'm just playing a hunch. I do owe Leonidas an apology, though... I apparently missed his recant of triggering the end-of-game condition. Sorry... so ignore my previous point about averting the end of the game.

I have absolutely no objection to being investigated; frankly, I'm kinda surprised no one has yet. If Kerplunk is telling the truth about his "investigative" results, then I don't know what you're possibly going to learn about me by waiting, especially since it seems clear (to me, at least) that our last baddie is in plain sight. I'm not changing my vote unless you two (mathcam and Kerplunk) can offer me a really strong reason to no-lynch.

[Dourgrim]

Fine, you want to go another day, so be it... I hope you two know what you're doing. Although I will say this: we don't necessarily know anything depending on who dies tonight. I mean, if Leo is scum (like I still think he is) then why on Earth would he attack you, mathcam,

knowing

I'm going to protect you? And why would I if I were scum? Either way Kerplunk dies... but I guess the investigation is worth it. So be it.

unvote: Leonidas

vote: no lynch

[Dourgrim]

... and I of course agree to the plan: I protect Kerplunk tonight, correct?

[Dourgrim]

Bah... double-posting to raise the question of: what happens if I die? Will the rest of you know who the baddie is? I certainly hope so... because that's what I'd do if I were Leo the Scum. Then he can point the finger at someone else... just a random (and probably not entirely lucid) thought.

[Dourgrim]

Finally, someone listens to me. However, I don't want to slap the final vote on Leo without hearing his last words, etc.

[Dourgrim]

Yup, I'll do the honors.

vote: Leonidas

[Dourgrim]

You're welcome. If it makes you feel any better at all, you did a helluva job painting me scum, Leo. Hell, I would've doubted me... if I weren't me, of course. You know what I mean...

[Dourgrim]

ROFL! I know how that goes... that's how it was with my LGHS claim, actually.

[Dourgrim]

Woo! Yay us!