Are you going to reveal our character names? Or is that for when we die only?
Anyway, random
(who, coincendiently, is modding a game I am in)
That is all.
Sarcastro wrote:Confirm Vote: Miztef
I just noticed that you're from Ontario. Ergo, you're probably a Leafs fan. Die scum die.
Actually, I just assumed that in all themed games, the character names are revealed. Our mod did not reveal them this game, and I was wondering if he made a mistake. I don't think that wanting to know everyone's character name is imcriminating in itself.Guardian wrote:I agree that Miztefmade a mistake on thefirst post of the game, but I believe that mistake is incriminating and that at best he is a power role who stupidly revealed himself, so Iunvote vote: Miztef.
Sarcasto explained reasons why I amGuardian wrote:VanDamien is perceptive; Sarcastro, I thank you as you have summed up many reasons forunvote vote: Miztefquite nicely, but I think your confirming a vote on himwas going beyond random voting, whatever reasons you attributed to it.
Actually, I made 2 mistakes that made me state the rolename question.Guardian wrote:I want to hear more from you,unvote vote: Miztef, did you not imagine that in a Julius Caesar mafia themed game,rolenames might reveal something substantialabout the alliance of a player, especially considering that such a mechanic occurs in many of the themed games on this site?
A post restriction makes alot of sense. The weird way of confirm voting and the red text are very odd, and a post restriction would definately clear up the reason why guardian does so.Eteocles wrote:It looks like some sort of post restriction. Red text and all the voting, unvoting... Guardian are you allowed to tell us anything about this?Illumina wrote:To me, Guardian's behavior is the most interesting aspect of the game so far.
So, your now voting Lawrencelot because he claimed not to have a rolename (implying that he is a vanilla townie). It would be risky for a mafia to state this claim, as the mafia would not know if vanilla's had rolenames or not. To me, this is very pro-town of Lawrencelot, not scummish. If vanillas do have rolenames, I'm pretty sure they would have voted Lawrencelot a while back.Guardian wrote:Eteocles, I like red text as it often brings other things into focus; Sarcastro, you may indeed be right about Miztef revealing his role name, did you notice howunvote vote: Lawrencelotclaimed not to have one?
You bring a surprising point. We have no confirmed cases or even claims by vanilla's other then lawrenelot. However, if he was scum, I really believe he would not risk stating that he is a unnamed, as he would probably believe there is 1 vanilla willing to counter him if this is wrong.VanDamien wrote:That's because I've been debating posting something which may or may not be a good idea, in regards to the rolename discussion. Here goes.
Two things continue to bother me about the no role name for vanilla claim. And yes, I'm not vanilla either. The number of non-vanilla is growing rapidly.
1) There are sooooo many names to choose from, and this is a relatively small game, why not give the vanillas a name? From the themed games I've read in the past, they are more often than not.
2)With our roles at 50% until "THE EVENT" duh-duh-duhhh,I consider it possible that there are NO vanilla townies in this set-up, without it necessarily overpowering.
At this point, I'd prefer discussion to be limited on those points, and not for another vanilla to claim, if they exsist.
it seems that part of guardian's restriction is that whenever he wishes to state a name, he must vote it, or something similar. He did FOS phoebus though, which means his genuine vote is for phoebus atm.Lawrencelot wrote:????Patrick wrote:I would also like to add that we do have vanilla townies in this game, since we have a sample of the townie PM written by the mod. I have this feeling it wasn't there before... anyone else remember whether it was or not? If it wasn't, I'd say Lawrencealot is probably legit.
Where did you see this pm-example? I can't find it.
Ah, I found it, under the last rule. I don't know if it was already there or not, it might be. I thought after the 50% powerrole thing, the post was over, but I'm not sure. But if I made it up, how would I know that the XXXX wasn't the role name? Let's keep this aside though, not for my protection but I think finding information about townies would help neither mafia nor town.
Guardian, why are you not keeping your vote on phoebus, or are you not allowed to unvote and vote for the same player, which you did in the beginning of the game.
I'll comment on this post as no one else has seemed to pick up on it...EmpTyger wrote:Salvete omnes, et mea culpa for the absence- real life has been uglybusy this past week. The worst of it is over, and I’ll be completely unconstrained by Thursday, although I still don’t really have time to even begin to analyze VII pages. Apologies again.
True, but I'm not condemning you or anything, I'd just be willing to lynch you if it comes to that. I'm not going to vote you right now, but you are definately not safe for me.ryan wrote:Interesting post there because as of post #219 you had no problems with my posts or content (in fact you said that votes on me were puzzling to you) but now all of a sudden I'm being put into question? Explain your reasoning there.
I'm growing more suspicious of ryan.ryan wrote:I would tend to say the same about you now as well. I find it very suspicious how 14 posts later you can call me "not safe" but earlier have no problem with me. Sounds like maybe your cohorts got to ya and told you to switch a vote.
In my post that stated I did not like the votes on ryan and I was confused about the reasoning behind voting him. I have never had him out of suspicion in the game though.Miztef wrote:After re-examining my thoughts on phoebus, I think it would be wrong to lynch him today. The only real motive to lynch him is his bad reason to lynch guardian, and that in itself is not very scummy. His latest posts have been clear and precise, the opposite of what I'd expect from a scum defence. I may not like his way of playing, but I think I was premature to want to lynch him.Unvote
I don't really like the votes on Ryan.I don't understand the arguement against him and I haven't picked up anything very scummy from him.
I did notice, however, that VanDamien was the first player to solidly place his vote on ryan, after the suspicions were brought up. I don't like VanDamien's reasoning behind his Ryan vote and feel that it is opprotunistic.
FoS: VanDamien
^Notice, I was suspicious of ryanMiztef wrote:Yay, people don't want to hang me. *parties*
I agree with almost all of nightfall's opinions.Ryan and eteocles aren't really on my "Hang as quickly as possible" list, but if I listed everyone in order of most to least scummy, they would be in the top 5.
I am very happy with the idea that lawrencelot is town, I also like Illumina and sacastro as pro-town. Guardian I'm really uncertain about, but he is not my lynch vote for today.
First, welcome back, I really like your post and you get some +pro-town points from me.EmpTyger wrote:
Miztef:
Illumina seemed most rational on the first readthrough. To the point where I’m *really* curious why you put Illumina in the “possible lynches” in [150]. I also heard once that summarized arguments between 2 other players, like Miztef’s [96].
This was an OMGUS vote with bad logic. There was good reasoning behind the switch to ryan, and I only said "I don'tryan wrote:Unvote/Vote Miztef
Just found it too suspicious that in one post (#219) he called me non scummy and than 10 posts later he says I'm most likely scum. Since I know I'm not scum, I find that to be posted because somebody on his mafia team thought it would be a good idea to get rid of me.
So ryan believes me and sarcastro are scum. So far, there has been very little evidence against sacastro yet ryan finds him scummy. It just so happens me and sacastro were the only 2 voting ryan at the time. Coincidence? I think not.ryan wrote:I've said for awhile now that Miztef and Sarcastro seem like scum to me.Nightfall wrote:Ryan > Can you tell us who you find scummy? More than one person?
Eteocles > Do you feel that Ryan is deserving of the votes he is getting?
throws a 4th accusation out there, with phoebus being the 3rd just a few posts behind this one. why? This seems just like guessing/checking and hoping someone will agree with him.ryan wrote:I read your notes Simenon and all I saw was you throwing about accusations at people and taking suspicion off of you, nice ploy actually.
I can't see this post as pro-town. He doesn't constatly defend himself, and we have a problem with him because we believe he is scum! This is just a poor defence, and a scummish one imo.ryan wrote:I'm not gonna sit here and constantly defend the fact that I am pro town and have been since the start of this game. There are three people who seem to have a problem with me and how I play and therefore instead of going after the scum in this game they are wasting their time on a townie.
I believe I did answer the question directly.Illumina wrote:Unfortunately you're not directly addressing my question, Miztef. None of what you cited suggests that he's scum rather than an inexperienced or defensive townie. (I'd also like answers to the other questions I posed, when you have time.)
Ryan: It might be better to stop acting defensively and provide more input on who might be scum and why (including players other than Miztef and Sarcastro, as well).
well, to be honest, why would scum fake a restriction? If a scum did fake a restriction, they wouldn't reveal it imo. This revealing actually makes me believe he is much more pro-town rather then more scummy.ryan wrote:I'm still confused on who a player can admit a "post restriction" and not have any fingers pointing his way. I still consider that a mistake that it was admitted but apparently I am in the minority on that. I've at least been consistent with my claims for Miztef and Sarcastro to be scum and given my reasons for both, which you can agree or disagree with but those are what I've seen
ryan's gonna butcher me for this one, but I was thinking along thesame lines as sacastro here.Sarcastro wrote:Sorry, Miztef, but I don't buy that at all. Have you heard of the "Lynch All Liars" rule? It's part-meta, part-theory that pro-town players should never lie. While not everybody would agree that pro-town players shouldMiztef wrote:my reasoning is a bit WIFOM, I admit, but faking a restriction in itself is not scummy imo.
Let's say any random player faked a restriction. If that player is scum, why bother, it just adds more work, and if your caught faking it more people would suspect you. If your pro-town, then maybe you just wanted to make your role more interesting, and decided to fake a restriction for fun. I believe that's what guardian did. A scum could too, of course, but I just don't see it as likely.neverlie, most would agree that lying about your role is not something pro-town players normally have any good reason for doing.
There are plenty of reasons for scum to fake a restriction. The most obvious one is to make themselves look more pro-town. While scum can have restrictions as well, they are far more common among pro-town roles. In addition, a restriction can often add credence to a roleclaim in some situations.
Pro-town players, on the other hand, have no good reason to fake a restrictions. It is simply bad play, and it impairs the town in so many ways. If what Simenon says is true and Guardian was indeed a pro-town player faking a restriction, it was absolutelyterribleplay on Guardian's part.
I don't want to lynch Simenon, however, because as stupid as it would be on Guardian's part, I actually buy that he would do that just for fun. But yes, faking a restriction is most definitely scummy. It just so happens that in this situation I'm inclined to believe that the person is still pro-town.
oh, no, by mistake I meant that he didn't reveal the rolenames, which is what I thought would happen.ryan wrote:Your PM wasn't working?Miztef wrote:
Q: Asking about character names already? In the 6th post???
A: As you've stated already, I made a mistake there. This is my first theme game on this site, intially, I assumed we got to know everyone's rolename to add to the flavor of the game. I did not know they were revealed after death.I posted that because I thought the mod made a mistake.
This is very OMGUS of eteocles to me. His play overall in this game has been unhelpful as eteocles said, and his reaction to simenon's post here is a bit over the top here. Taking into consideration his amount of experience though, I'm not sure this is indictive of him being scum. I'llEteocles wrote:Yes Sim, read my last posts, I have taken sides. I took sides on the ryan debate. I don't know how someone can be "deliberately useless". My vote on Sarcastro is no longer random. I think It's between you and Sarcastro. Do you want me to make it official?Eteocles- I'm voting you because you not only seem useless, but deliberately useless. You don't take a side in things. You haven't made a vote yet that wasn't random. You say things like "I'm not sure who to vote for yet". That looks weak to me.Unvote, Vote: SimenonI don't like your sarcasim, and I don't like being called weak.
I think I'm going to agree with this... I for one have not picked out anyone as ultra suspicious at this time. My vote on eteocles, admittly, has only a small reason, and ryan's actions can be of a newb townie or newb scum.Phoebus wrote:i am still harping on the fact that guardian was lying about his restriction.
the cons of faking a restriction as town have already been listed by me.
i think we should lynch all liars regardless.
and given my comments on a faked townie restriction, i think simenon should be lynched.
I find simenon pretty much neutral. I understand the arguement against him, with the ridiculous post restriction and the disposal of said restriction. I also disliked some of what guardian posted in the first place. Simenon has posted some good content, but its not enough as to say he's likely pro-town.Lawrencelot wrote:Note: these quotes are from MiztefSimenon's actions seem perfectly indictive of his situation and there is no solid evidence of scuminess to him imo.Sacastro's logic has been quite in line with mine, and therefore, I can't really find him scummy without being hypocritical at this time.Well, what is it? Please answer these 2 questions for me. Do you think Simenon is scum or town considering his behaviour? Do you think Simenon is scum or town considering the things he and Guardian did?I don't find simenon's play particularly scummy or horrible, but that post restriction was a horrible addition to the gameplay, and players shouldn't be allowed to get away with things like that scott free.