<Mini 435> Julius Caesar Mafia, Player Abandoned

[Miztef]

First post! (I think)

Are you going to reveal our character names? Or is that for when we die only?

Anyway, random

vote: Lawrencelot

(who, coincendiently, is modding a game I am in)

That is all.

[Miztef]

Vote: Eteocles for having a name that sounds like it belongs in this game.

Lol. It's greek actually.

An ENEMY of the romans, oh my!

unvote vote: Eteocles

[Miztef]

Everyone's already beating on me. This is faster then normal.

(none of which have been truly random )

[Miztef]

Confirm Vote: Miztef

I just noticed that you're from Ontario. Ergo, you're probably a Leafs fan. Die scum die.

oh god no. I hate hockey, and if I liked hockey, I'd hate the maple leafs.

I mentioned the character names earlier because I like mine and wanted to see who everyone else's was, that's all. I didn't think it had much to do with gameplay.

[Miztef]

I agree that Miztef

made a mistake on the

first 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 I

unvote vote: Miztef

.

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.

[Miztef]

VanDamien is perceptive; Sarcastro, I thank you as you have summed up many reasons for

unvote vote: Miztef

quite nicely, but I think your confirming a vote on him

was going beyond random voting

, whatever reasons you attributed to it.

Sarcasto explained reasons why I am

not

mafia, so I don't even know what you are talking about. I have no idea what to think of your unnessary "unvote vote:miztef" you seem to put in every post lately, expect that I find it annoying.

his confirm vote has absolutely no real reasoning behind it, so I have no idea how it "goes beyond random voting". The exact reasoning in his confirm post is "I just noticed you're from Ontario. Ergo, you're probably a Leafs fan. Die scum die."

Your flawed logic seems to me like your just clutching at straws. Why are you even going after Sarcasto when your vote is on me?

Lastly, in light of Lawrencelot's post 19, I must say I made a big mistake.

I do have a pro-town power role

, and due to my ignornace I thought everyone had gotten a character name. I'm sorry I have to claim it so early, but I believe it better to come clean then let the mafia take cheap shots at me about it.

[Miztef]

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 substantial

about the alliance of a player, especially considering that such a mechanic occurs in many of the themed games on this site?

Actually, I made 2 mistakes that made me state the rolename question.

1) I thought the 50% chance power thing meant

all pro-town players

have some sort of power. I did not even notice my mistake until recent events.

2) I assumed all theme games have randomized names to roles, as to not reveal anything about a character. That's how I'm used to playing themed games on a different site I played on. (I haven't even completed 1 game on this site yet)

[Miztef]

To me, Guardian's behavior is the most interesting aspect of the game so far.

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?

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.

Not scummy in itself, but based on post 39 by sarcastro, I do agree that your voting for me based on only a single mistake, which I have explained clearly now, is scummy.

I unvote

vote: Guardian

[Miztef]

Are you going to reveal our character names? Or is that for when we die only?

When you die; such is the norm in

all

incarnations here, save a few.

Thanks. I found that out after I posted the question unfortunately .

[Miztef]

@Lawrencelot: It's not your fault I choose to reveal my power role status. I made the mistake and the scum would have picked up on it sooner or later. Also, Sarcastro did switch his vote to guardian in post 22.

My vote is also on guardian and for good reason. I would really like a better explination of guardian's thoughts. unless someone else becomes really suspicious or guardian explains himself well, I think my vote stays.

[Miztef]

If more people believe it valuble for me to say my role name, I will. For now though, I don't see how it could help the town a heck of a lot if I claim my exact role, but the scum may be able to make a more informed decision to kill me or not. I'd rather keep them guessing.

[Miztef]

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 how

unvote vote: Lawrencelot

claimed not to have one?

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.

(I'm a power role, so I don't know if vanillas got a rolename or not, just to clarify)

[Miztef]

congratz on your scumday patrick.

I agree that it is possible guardian has a good power role. This does not excuse his faulty logic, but that could just be bad play, not nessisarly scummy. More input is needed at this point it seems.

[Miztef]

So, it seems we have a Guardian vs. Pheobus situation here.

why vote Guardian

- annoying post restriction
- thoughts are rarely helpful to the town
- thoughts are confusing
- blatent vote hopping

why vote Pheobus

- a little too sure that guardian is scum
- less risk of him being a jester
- is adament on getting Guardian lynched

I think I've convered the basics here. I don't see either as being exceptionally scummy, and I think lynching either right now is

not

the best course of action.

I will

unvote

for now.

noted

: In Illumina's post 89 it is pointed out that the mod did use red text right after guardian failed to do so. Intriging to say the least.

[Miztef]

I think I'm gonna push the

vote: phoebus

bandwagon.

After reviewing both guardian's and phoebus's posts, I have to say that phoebus has displayed more scummy behavior then I had orginally thought.

1) in post 94 pheobus seems overdefensive and has not explained his reasoning behind the guardian vote after being asked. He just seems annoyed at guardian.

2) post 83, phoebus blantently disregards the possiblility that a good pro-town power role would have a post restriction like guardian's. I don't see why it is not a possibility at least, and I think any other pro-town role would think the same.

3) It seems his defence for some of his actions is "If I was the mod, iI wouldn't do it that way". This is just being illogical, the mod can make the roles however he wants, and blantant restrictions are completely fine with me. (posts 93, 94)

maybe I'm just clutching straws here, but something is definately fishy with pheobus. I also do not want to risk lynching a jester or very good power role with guardian, at least not day 1.

[Miztef]

I just checked the player list... has nightfall ever posted? Been replaced?

[Miztef]

Phoebus's post does nothing to deter me. I have noted that those 2 are lurking/not contributing but I don't think we should lynch anyone until they have posted some explaination for their non-participation.

@lawrencelot: guardian's vote was vounted in the last vote count, so I am inclined to think it does count, but he did state that it's his FOS's that show who he truly believes is scummy.

Ryan and Sarcastro's little disagreement doesn't seem scummy to me. Just a quirky misunderstanding. Ryan does not want to lynch anyone while people are not participating and sacastro took it as ryan not wanting to contribute.

[Miztef]

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.

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.

[Miztef]

Don't hate me

I don't hate you, I just want to lynch you . Don't take it personally.

[Miztef]

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.

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.

[Miztef]

oh my, we have a situation going on here! exciting.

I'm seeing the light in phoebus's arguement, thanks to his well-written post 144. So, for now I will

unvote

. I'm not sure I agree with the reason to lynch guardian, but I do see why phoebus would choose to.

Here's what I got:

Not good lynches

Lawrencelot
Vandamien
Miztef

-all have claimed and each claim makes sense (maybe it's a bit selfish to put myself in there, but that's where I am so, meh)

Neutral

eteocles
nightfall
emptyger
patrick

-none of these players have been under any serious suspicion

possible lynches

Illumina
Ryan
Sacastro

-Slight accusations have been put on these players, but no one has really started a bandwagon on them or anything.

Likely lynches

Guardian
Phoebus

-both have been under heavy suspicion, and have come close to a possible lynch.


Is that about where we are at? If so, I think some more examination of the "possible lynches" is my next move.

[Miztef]

well, I assumed people would disagree with my list, but I'm surprised that you focused on the people I said were "not good lynches". I would have thought more attention would be payed to the likely to be lynched candidates. I am basically trying to scope out where everyone is at with their analysis. I'd say it's a fairly good estimate.

To clarify, the list is about where I think everyone is about at overall in likelyhood of being lynched.

I agree that vandamien is probably more suited in the neutral category though.

@guardian: You and phoebus are and have been centre's of attention for a while now. So, ya, it makes perfect sense. I don't even understand what you are saying with your defence on emptyger and nightfall, I put them as neutral and your saying that I'm assuming they are gonna get lynched? I just don't get it.

@Illumina: After my claim, most people seemed to agree I was more likely pro-town, and therefore, I don't see myself as being lynched today, unless I royally screw up and make you guys believe I'm scum.

[Miztef]

well, on to better things it seems.

about the ryan vs. sacastro argument:
This just seems like bickering between 2 townies. It would be nice if ryan would contribute more, but it isn't really screaming scummy to me, I think it would be better just to back off of him for a while and see what we get from ryan.

About Phoebus: I agree with lawrencelot's opinion about your lynching guardian. It is not very likely that guardian fabricated the restriction to me. The mod has already pointed out that emptyger is not posting for "good reason" (probably another post restriction). [post 118]

However, lawrencelot's last line about the 5 red words has already been solved. The mod stated it had no relevance to the game. [post 100]

[Miztef]

I've searched the net with no success, WHAT the hell does FOS mean?

"Finger of Suspicion", it is a term used to claim that you suspect a player, but are not voting for them. check the wiki for more info.

[Miztef]

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.

I'll comment on this post as no one else has seemed to pick up on it...

Earlier, the mod stated Emptyger has a good reason to be not posting. I assumed that it meant a post restriction. However, with this post, it seems that may not be the case.

hence, this may give pheobus's arguement about guardian's ridiculous restriction more credit. If guardian is the only one with a post restriction, I have to say that there is a possibility it is fake. I still don't like the way phoebus presented his posistion, but this definately lightens my suspicion on him.

[Miztef]

I'd like to clarify that I understand phoebus's reasoning better, however, I do

not

agree with the idea that guardian is faking.

[Miztef]

@PBuG: I unvoted post 150. It was jumbled right in there, so I understand you missing it.

Right now, no one is really pinging my scumdar. So, I'm staying with my vote on no one for now.

[Miztef]

I'm a bit stirred at how eager lawrencelot is to lynch phoebus, however, He is close enough to confirmed vanilla for me that I just can't see him as scum. Why would scum draw that much attention to themselves anyway.

meh, I suspected phoebus in the first place, and I don't have a whole lot of other stuff to go on, so I think I will

vote: Phoebus

. That puts him at L-5 I believe.

[Miztef]

Well, after all that, I honestly didn't see much scummy behavior in any of those posts. I still like my vote on Phoebus and I think we can get back to playing the game now.

[Miztef]

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.

[Miztef]

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

[Miztef]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28internet%29

there you go. defininition of trolling. I thought it was something completely different, so I'm glad I looked it up .

I'm still leaning towards vanDamien being scum over ryan. It's possible they are both scum too.

I'd also like to clear up post 218... what exactly do you mean, ryan? Were you under the impression trolling meant lurking in that post?

[Miztef]

fair enough. I think we've discussed this issue enough though, we should move on be better things (we are already on page 10 and no one is very close to a lynch )

I'm gonna go right out and say who I'm not happy with lynching today:

Myself (duh)
Lawrencelot
Sarcastro
Guardian
Illumina

I have no reason to see any of these players as especially scummy, and many of them have contributed in pro-town ways.

VanDamien's claim is making me nervous about voting him, so I'll just keep a FOS on him.

ryan has some "Trolling" issues and posts with little content.

Eteocles/nightfall/emptyger all haven't posted enough content for my liking and what they have posted is not particularly helpful. (I did like nightfall's list though)

Patrick has posted some useful content and I'm not gonna go after him with a pitchfork, but it's not extrodinarly pro-town to me.

Pheobus has been a hassle for a while now, and although he explained himself well, I've still got my eye on him.

[Miztef]

wording in the above post is a bit wrong. The first small list is people I am unhappy to vote for, and the sentence underneath that list is a comment on it. The rest of the people I am still suspicious of.

[Miztef]

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.

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.

[Miztef]

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.

I'm growing more suspicious of ryan.

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

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.

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.

^Notice, I was suspicious of ryan

I did not find ryan the most scummy at the time, but now I do. So,

Vote: ryan

it is.

@ryan: I did not switch my vote to you, so your last sentence doesn't even make sense to me.

[Miztef]

That is OMGUS in the purest form. Maybe you aren't scum, but that definately wouldn't prove I'm scum by you not being scum. I

just

explained my reasoning for saying you were not scummy! I said "not

very

scummy" and I only meant that as I'm not willing to vote you yet, not "Oh he's really pro-town".

[Miztef]

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].

First, welcome back, I really like your post and you get some +pro-town points from me.

As to the question: I actually didn't feel too crazy about voting Illumina myself, however, that list was for who I thought is likely to be lynched. I saw phoebus's post 142 and decided it was

possible

he could convince the town to lynch Illumina. I was also a bit iffy on Illumina at the time, as her post count was not as high as I would prefer. When typing the post, she was actually in the neutral section at first, but after re-reading a bunch of posts to help me decide where players should go, I moved her to possible lynches.

I hope that answers it.

[Miztef]

woot simenon! Have fun with the post restriction .

[Miztef]

Phoebus and Ryan are indeed at the top of my lynch list. I am happy with a lynch happening soon and am willing to vote either way. Right now Ryan is the one I'm going with, but if more evidence is shown that condemns phoebus, I'm definately willing to take that into consideration.

[Miztef]

I agree with Sarcastro here, just because simenon is using the same post restriction in no way confirms it is real. I believe it is a real restriction, but your logic is this situation is false and does not confirm it.

[Miztef]

@emptyger:

about my post 96, I'm not sure it is a tell or not, but I felt those were the 2 most likely to be lynched, so I compared the points between the 2 to show my position more clearly.

My unneutrality about Illumina stemmed from Phoebus's suspicion about her. That list reffered to who I thought was most likely to be lynched, and I took any suspicion from anyone into account. Again, I was leaning to put Illumina in neutral, but I decided phoebus may not agree, hence I put her in the possible lynch catergory.

[Miztef]

I'm happy with my vote on Ryan. He has played the most scummish so far, has had poor defence, and hasn't contributed in a very pro-town way. Most of the other players have good reasons not to vote them too:

Sacastro has been playing nicely pro-town, as well as Illumina to some degree.

Lawrencelot is close to cleared

Simenon may have a good power role, so it's unlikely he will be lynched

Patrick has been playing mostly neutrally, so I don't think everyone's gonna jump on him.

Nightfall hasn't posted all that much, but there hasen't been a good case against him.

Emptyger has inputed fair and clear logic, no good case against him.

Eteocles has played a bit off, and hasn't been posting lately, but I find ryan's overall play more scummish.

Phoebus has many players defending his actions now, and explained his actions well.

Vandamien has some suspicion on him, but he claimed a power role and it's unlikely 7 people will be willing to vote someone who claimed power role D1.

[Miztef]

I can say truthfully that I have no role affliation with sacastro in this game, and it just happens we seem to be on the same lines of thinking, which leads me to believe he is pro-town, and that your accusation is a scum defence.

[Miztef]

I liked the restriction. It amused me, too bad it was fake.

Ryan, you are being expectionally scummy, that's why I'm voting you.

[Miztef]

<3 to you too simenon. These latest posts have definately given you some + points for me. I'm glad that post restriction was fake, as that was the only big reason to vote for you. I don't believe it is at all possible that it was real at this point.

@ryan: Maybe sarcastro has been a bit harsh, but he is not my vote today, that evidence is for use later. There are much better suspects to lynch today, namely you. I honestly see no reason for you not to be hammered right now.

[Miztef]

@ Illumina: I'll try to keep this concise, so here is my evidence against ryan -

Broad stuff: Unhelpful to the town, quite undecisive, quick to redirect attention from him.

More Specifics:

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.

This was an OMGUS vote with bad logic. There was good reasoning behind the switch to ryan, and I only said "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. " Notice I didn't find him non-scummy, just not the top of my list. see post 239 for more details.

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?

I've said for awhile now that Miztef and Sarcastro seem like scum to 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

[Miztef]

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).

I believe I did answer the question directly.

Anything

he does could be interpreted as an inexperienced player mistake. Therefore, I take everything at normal scum value. No one else in this game do I find nearly as scummy as ryan.

Also, about the other questions:

Elaborating on everyone seems a bit redundant at this point, my opinions of others seem to be along the same lines as most others, and are expressed in a easy manner in post 389.

Right now, not even looking at my old opinions of you, I'm finding you mostly neutral. I'd like if you'd be a bit less vague about your suspicions and express them more often instead of just asking questions, but that is a playstyle issue, not scummy in itself.

Lastly, I'm an inpatient person at heart. I try not to let it leak out so much in mafia, but it's an ingrained part of my personality. You may read other game's posts by me and find that I am impatient in most of them. I still would be happy with a lynch happening right now. 14 pages is good enough for me, and if we go on too much longer, unnessasary claiming could happen.

[Miztef]

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

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.

[Miztef]

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.

[Miztef]

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.

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 should

never

lie, 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 absolutely

terrible

play 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.

ryan's gonna butcher me for this one, but I was thinking along thesame lines as sacastro here.

I'm well aware of lynch all liars, but to me, guardian seems the type to put in a restriction for fun, it did not seem like a player as new as him would fake that eleborate of a restriction and be scum. Guardian's play overall was quite terrible imo. So this follows that pattern exactly. The way simenon revealed it adds to my belief that is was a fun faked restriction.

[Miztef]

I am becoming a bit more persuaded that ryan may just be inexperienced and not scum.

I don't really see simenon as scum, maybe it's fair to lynch him based on LAL, but I don't feel inclined to do so, even though this is a perfect example of when to.

I will still keep my vote on ryan for now though, since I don't see a clearly better vote at this time.

[Miztef]

I feel it is unnessasary to state my role as it will let the scum come to a more conclusive decision on whether to kill me or not. At this time knowing my role will not help the town, so I don't see a reason to give the scum more information, and I certainly won't reveal it based on your request.

The rest of your agruement is weak imo.

Q:"Wouldn't a pro-town player try to find scum without commitment?"
A: ummmm... no. Votes are a powerful tool in influencing reactions, I'm not going to sit back and not vote just because I have a power role, I'm going to use everything I have at my disposal.

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.

[Miztef]

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

.

Your PM wasn't working?

oh, no, by mistake I meant that he didn't reveal the rolenames, which is what I thought would happen.

[Miztef]

I think I may need to re-evaluate my vote on ryan. For the most part, he has not been showing signs of scumminess lately and the evidence against him does fall under the unexperienced town classification in pheobus's statement. I just recently had a case similar to this, and it ended up in lynching town.

So, since this day has been going on very long, I think I will

unvote, vote: eteocles

. Sure he's posting now, but his actions in this game have been unhelpful, and by proccess of elimination, he's one of the only players I don't have some reason not to vote for.

[Miztef]

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.

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?

Unvote, Vote: Simenon

I don't like your sarcasim, and I don't like being called weak.

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'll

FoS:Eteocles

for now.

[Miztef]

My last 2 posts were a bit of a mix up. I am happy with my vote on eteocles right now. I mostly choose to vote him by proccess of elimination, him being the least pro-town on the list.

Simenon's actions seem perfectly indictive of his situation and there is no solid evidence of scuminess to him imo.

I agree with Illumina and others who stated that Phoebus's logic was flawed, but there is no denying he was correct about guardian/simenon in the end.

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.

[Miztef]

I'll be away the rest of the weekend, but I kind of agree with sacastro that ryan may is basically a worse version of eteocles. Right now I am still happy with eteocles... I don't remember the exact reason why I find him more scummy, but I don't have the time to find that right now.

[Miztef]

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 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.

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.

[Miztef]

Note: these quotes are from Miztef

Simenon'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.

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.

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 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.

Right now, we are 19 pages in and still have no major bandwagon or even someone who is heavily suspicious. Ryan, Eteocles, Phoebus and Simenon and I believe myself are under some suspicion, but the arguments against all of these lynch candidates are not very strong. Therefore, I'm going to

unvote vote: Simenon

based primarily on LAL and see what happens.

[Miztef]

At this point, I'm going to have to go with

unvote vote: Eteocles

. Lawrencelot has clearly layed out the options imo, and I do agree with them. Simenon may derserve to be lynched based on LAL, but it's not the right play for today. The evidence of him being actual scum is quite low, and so I think it is best to keep him around. I was being too rash with my vote on him before.

Braze is my second choice, after seeing ryan's playstyle in other games, his posts this game seem less scummy to me, which is why he is not first pick.

[Miztef]

@emptyger:

In regards to my "woot simenon" post. I happen to be in other games with simenon and was just throwing a joke at him because I knew the post restriction would be annoying.

Ok, it's true I'm really wishywashy, but that's only cause I'm new and am trying to be as invovled as possible in the game. Staying in 1 posistion doesn't make much of anything happen, unless you find more evidence to back it up. I like taking a more adaptive approach and letting my opinions change with what's happening in the game.

well, I liked the list, and I thought it would be helpful to get a overall view of who are the major suspects. I guess too many people disagreed though.

[Miztef]

*sigh* Well, here I go again getting myslef into a rut again.

Right now, I think all I want to tell is my role name. I'm Mark Antony.

Based on that rolename, I will

unvote vote:BrazeGoesMoo

. It seems too big a name drop to use if it's not his real rolename, and Mark was a supporter of Rome. I suppose that concludes he is a power role though, if not scum. If someone counterclaims, we are in big trouble, trying to figure out the real one in 2 days.

I'm switching my vote to brazegoesmoo in light of the impending deadline, reasons are stated before.

[Miztef]

@emptyger: My role has a connection to mark that leads me to believe eteocle's innocence, plus his claiming to be a power role (by having a name) makes me even less happy to vote for him. That's why I choose to switch. I don't see why you find my switch so scummy, considering he just claimed power role with no counterclaim.

I do feel it is bad that simenon has not placed a new vote considering the impending deadline, in addition to giving to explaination.

[Miztef]

I definately thought the brazegoesmoo wagon would be the major contender here, but it seems its not.

@emptyger: Well, That was then, when I was under the impression we were all going to know eachothers rolenames, or if it was after I learned rolenames appeear only after death, then I was under the impression rolenames have little signifigance when dealing with alignment. However, in this case, my rolename has a connection to mark (historically, not game wise) which I think is signifigant enough to sway me from voting him, even more compelling is he has to be a power role if he is not scum, there is just not enough evidence against him for me to lynch a potential power role.

I will wait to see how the situation with voting simenon goes a little longer before I decide if I will switch to him. Right now I still favor a BrazeGoesMoo lynch, but it looks like that's not going to happen.

[Miztef]

Just wondering... what happens if both Braze and Simenon (or someone else) have equal votes = to or greater then 4 at deadline?

[Miztef]

I don't understand how my behaving better as scum makes you more tempted to vote me illumina... couldn't I just play worse or more wishywashy as a pro-town player? Wouldn't I look more scummy if I played more closely to how I played as scum?

I feel more comfortable as scum and therefore am less panicky and wishywashy when playing scum. I think it's just something about letting less people down if I lose as scum vs. losing as town. I feel more pressure when playing pro-town.

[Miztef]

I suspect right now that I'll be the next nightkill, as I was already roleblocked last night. No, I will not say what.

Are you sure you were roleblocked? You do realize your power only has a 50/50 chance of success. I don't mean to attack you, it's just to make sure you know your power only had a 50/50 chance.

I noticed that we have 3 claimed power roles (myself, VD, and Eteocles) and 1 confirmed (Emptyger). 4 Power roles is alot, which leads me to believe one of VD or Eteocles is lying, or we have alot of scum, or we have scum with power roles (possibly one roleblocking VD last night).

I am willing to massrole claim, and am completely fine with emptyger's order, he was obviously doing his best to look out for the town, and so I trust his opinion.

[Miztef]

I am willing to massrole claim, and am completely fine with emptyger's order, he was obviously doing his best to look out for the town, and so I trust his opinion.

The thing is, although we know he had no ulterior motives, that doesn't mean his judgement was necessarily right.

True, but I gotta say, he played alot better then most of us. I feel comfortable claiming my role, unless someone has information that gives great reason to lynch someone.

Many claims to power roles (at least 3) have already been stated, so I think clearing these up will be valuble. Also, claiming sooner gives the scum less time to formulate a plan in the mass claim, and more time for the town to dicuss the roles.

[Miztef]

Great to have you Abalidoth! I believe your avatar is from "The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya", which I LOVE <3.

It's ok VD, happens to the best of us. (at least you didn't make a mistake 1st post, like somebody *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*:oops:)

[Miztef]

Great to have you Abalidoth! I believe your avatar is from "The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya", which I LOVE <3.

Indeed. And your avatar is from the most amusing and awesome Magic card there is. (your sig is great too.)

In more serious news, I recently managaed to carve out a little time to figure out what's been going on. Guardian, it seems, was just a bored townie who did something stupid... I'm going to focus my investigation on earlier posts of the game, to see who jumped on Guardian/Simenon immediately.
Seems a little obvious once I've said it "out loud," but meh. I'm still a newbie.

Your the first person to know what my sig is about, have you deciphered it?

@Phoebus: Whoa, what's with the lawrence vote? I definately don't think that's the correct vote at this time.

Ok, maybe a massclaim is for later. Any more opinions on the massclaim?

[Miztef]

Even if that is a scumtell, lawrencelot still has the "I have no rolename" post, which makes him the person hardest for me to be convinced is scum.

I don't like your vote phoebus, I think you are the one being too jumpy, not lawrencelot.

[Miztef]

@Eteocles: To me, lawrencelot's action in that post was the most risky of all actions taken in the game. If he had been wrong, the other vanilla's could have easily pointed out this mistake and lynched him. No other player in this game is as much confirmed pro-town to me as Lawrencelot. I'm not saying he's acting the most pro-town, but it will take a massive scum-tell or a investigation on him to convince me to vote him.

[Miztef]

@eteocles/phoebus: Lawrencelot said that he dropped the hammer because "I did not want to take the risk of a nolynch. And I thought Simenon was the best option for a lynch." Where as you both were attacking simenon long before it was down to the wire.
I do agree with him that your long term wanting to lynch simenon is evidence agaisnt you.

[Miztef]

Well then it's just bad play to lynch someone based on irritation.

All your latest posts have only made you more and more suspicious in my books. So much so, that I'm going to

unvote vote:Phoebus

right now.

Guardian did play badly, sure. However, I think Brazegoesmoo was the correct choice yesterday, and your vote was one of the reasons simenon got lynched instead. Your insistance on lynching him for a such a long period of time, basically refusing to try to find other scum is much worse then lawrencelot's vote on him, which was a vote made to ensure a lynch vs. impending no lynch.

[Miztef]

Are you kidding me?!?!?!

You swtiched your vote to me because of me voting you, then you say

my

vote is OMGUS?!

Your play has been absolutely horrendous lately:

Firstly, Lawrencelot's agruement is completely valid agaisnt you, then you admitted to lynching guardian/simenon based on irritation instead of thinking he's scum. Not to even mention the original reason of my susipicion against you, which was voting Lawrencelot (the most cleared player in my books) for a "minor scumtell". After which you ask lawrencelot "Why are you being so jumpy" when he reserved his vote on you, and you voted him!

That's why I voted you. Not OMGUS.

[Miztef]

So, you voting me, with admitted OMGUS is supposed to be helpful to the town? My lord your worse then Twito.

Somehow, all this stuff makes you less suspicious of you, because it just seems so wrong. I would guess your some sort of Jester role at this point, which would make most of your actions understandable, but I think it's more of a playstyle issue.

and btw your exact wording was:

unvote: Lawrence ; vote: Miztef

OMGUS. Very definitely and very "basically" used in its definition.
Go cry to someone who cares about that.

This was right after ranting how bad I am. I'm supposed to interpret this as you admitting to OMGUS? It can easily be interpreted either way.


@Sarcastro: I agree that braze should be looked into, I'm a bit rusty on what his scummy behavior was, exactly what are the main reasons you want him lynched? (again, I agree it's a good choice, I would just like to see if I'm missing some of the reasons and your interpretation of them)

[Miztef]

Anyone feel like making a clear accusation post for Braze? (reasons why he's scum, evidence, etc.)

I think Braze is likely scum. I want to see how he defends himself though, and other people's thoughts on him at this time.

[Miztef]

Miztef, I think I made it quite clear yesterday why I wanted to lynch Ryan. You even agreed with me, as I recall. Why are you suddenly so unsure about lynching Braze?

Braze doesn't need to defend himself against my specific points, because they're almost all aimed against Ryan. I recognise that it's hard for him to defend another player's actions (especially a person as scummy as Ryan), but right now he's not even trying. He's just lurking.

Sorry, I didn't clearly explain. Ryan/Braze is still one of my top suspects. Phoebus's recent actions really drove him up my scumlist though, and that's why I'm not really attacking braze.

I just kinda forget alot of the evidence against braze. I'll have to go find your post from yesterday.

[Miztef]

Also,

@Phoebus: You do realize Emptyger (our cop) felt strongly that a massclaim would benefit the town day 2. I think it's innapropriate to call VD dense because of this.

VD has also claimed powerrole, as I have. That is why a massclaim may be beneficial to himself at least, to clear his name more strongly (if he is telling the truth). To me, this is a pro-town action if anything.

[Miztef]

At this point. I say we just lynch Phoebus. I certainly have enough evidence against him to be happy with such an action.

[Miztef]

The quick summary can be seen in post 549. It's a bit of an emotional post though, so I'll repost my thoughts here:

-Phoebus was adament all D1 to lynch Simenon. This action partially led the town to lynch Simenon and created frustration because other cases were for the most part disregarded by Phoebus.

-Today, Phoebus voted Lawrencelot for a minor scumtell alone. This is upsurd to me, seeing as lawrencelot's actions in D1 almost confirmed him as being townie. I sincerely doubt any scum would have taken that risk. Then, he has the nerve to tell lawrencelot he is being too jumpy for FOSing him.

- Phoebus decides to OMGUS vote me, with complete admission of it himself. I have no clue at all how this could be a pro-town action, expect to get upsurd reations out of others.

- Lawrencelot's argument that Phoebus's long-term suspicion of simenon is more scummy then his own short term suspicion makes sense. Phoebus however, believes that is completely invalid.

[Miztef]

Interestingly, Braze has not persuded the phoebus bandwagon. Maybe it's because he is pure lurking though.

For now, I'm done with the Phoebus bandwagon. Unvote

Sarcastro is correct in saying that much of the evidence myself and others provided is flawed and unconvincing. I had noticed during my pursuit of evidence against phoebus that his case is based on playstyle issues, and not true scumminess. This is not to say I have no suspicion of Phoebus, only that I feel pushing his lynch at this time is not getting much of anywhere.

I believe it is time to go after Braze. His behaviour today is quite unacceptable, and yesterday's actions is quite scummy as well. Vote: Braze

(I know everyone will scream and shout that I'm teaming up with Sarcastro again, but again, my explaination is that we think along the same patterns at times. I was suspicious of Braze long before Sarcastro's post.)

[Miztef]

As sarcastro said, most of my arguements are playstyle issues with phoebus, not directly scummy. Just because a player is a bad pro-town player, doesn't make him scum. Phoebus's actions made me agitated and so I just went a little crazy and attacked him. After I made that summarized case against him, I felt that my evidence was not nearly as strong as I had thought, and considered going back to my original suspicion of Braze. After Sacastro's post, I decided that it was in my best interest to go after who I think is more scummy, rather then attacking someone for mostly playstyle issues.

Braze's latest act of lurking has really put me over the edge with him, and I hadn't really noticed it until now. It is possible that alot of ryan's actions are also playstyle issues, but becoming a lurker after being under heavy scutiny the day before, that is a definate no-no for me.

[Miztef]

This game needs a deadline or something. We are getting no where.