<Mini 435> Julius Caesar Mafia, Player Abandoned

[EmpTyger]

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.

[EmpTyger]

Finally have a chance to read the thread ab initio, but realistically I’m probably not going to get anything posted for probably at least a day. Incidentally, I don’t suppose there’s any great demand for my magna opera to be entirely in Latin? When I first heard about the game I wanted try, but that unfortunately does not seem practical any more. Still, on the chance that there were fellow scholars interested, I thought I might as well inquire, in nomine ludi.

[EmpTyger]

My good reason for not posting were 30 typed pages on Greek funerary epigraphy and the deification of Caligula; some handwritten pages about Cicero’s house, Veiian expansion, and traditional themes of Augustan art and architecture; and if that’s not enough explanation I can direct you to my facebook relationship status. Bona causa, vero?

Nota bene: I’ve done a full readthrough, but not a complete analysis. I will probably find more to supplement this with, but it is a start.

[Et de lingua latine: I considered trying to post entirely in Latin pro ludo et pro flavore. Being a Classics major, I figured I could use the practice, and was wondering if, given the theme, there were any other interested Classics scholars present.]


Phoebus:
I saw only one reason to vote Guardian at the beginning: he immediately wanted to lynch Miztef at the powerrole/antitown dichotomy. I felt your rationales for pressing the case were incredibly bad. And I really don’t like the assumptions he’s making about the game setup. Most suspicious to me.

Vote: Phoebus

. Not really for any reasons that haven’t already been mentioned. I don’t like the lapses in logic you are insisting on.


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].


Eteocles:
You seem to make a slightly huge deal about little things, yet avoid weighing in on larger debates. Not sure what to do with this just yet, but this is want to consider the most on my next readthrough.


Patrick:
I really don’t like how you seemed to be arguing against Phoebus while leaving your vote on Guardian. I could easily see you as Phoebus’s partner. Something I need to look more into on my next readthrough.


Lawrencelot:
You seemed overly eager to establish himself as a vanilla.


Sarcastro:

<snip>As for Phoebus, I find his initial comments about Guardian more scummy than his current admission that he wants to lynch Guardian because of his restriction. I certainly don't think such an opinion is very good play, but I don't honestly find it especially scummy. I still find Guardian and Ryan scummier than Phoebus.

Okay about ryan, but why Guardian?

[EmpTyger]

Patrick:

<snip>It is possible to find multiple people scummy, or disagree with several people over certain things. I have one vote only. Having reread though, Guardian seems to be contributing more helpful content than Phoebus despite the apparent post restriction.

My point was that Phoebus and Guardian were opposing one another. I couldn’t figure out why you were voting one, yet attacking the other. If you thought that Guardian was guilty, why were you attacking Phoebus for saying so? If you thought Phoebus was guilty, why were you agreeing with him in voting Guardian? If you thought that they both were guilty, then for what reason?

Also, a question for you Emptyger, do you believe Lawrencelot made a gambit in claiming very early on that he has no rolename? I mention that because you said he struck you as too eager to establish himself as vanilla.<snip>

This seemed odd:

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. <snip>

He seems extremely eager to show that he wasn’t citing the exempla gratis sample role, but his actual role. I don’t think the initial mention was a gambit, since he had good reason to bring the fact up regarding Miztef. But why when that was over did he feel the need to establish for certain that he himself was vanilla? I mean, all other things being equal, make it harder for the mafia to guess who the powerroles are.


Miztef:
Found erratum in the ultima line of my last to you. It should read: “I also heard once that summarized arguments between 2 other players, like Miztef’s [96],

is a tell

”

What specifically was the rationale that made you feel unneutral about Illumina?


Phoebus:
Voting based on personal aesthetics instead of suspicions doesn’t help the town. And not helping the town is suspicious. Mihi non places.


Lawrencelot:
[263] set off some big red flags. I think I understand why the tell I alluded to with Miztef indicates guilt.

[EmpTyger]

I have a family emergency out of state, and will not have Internet access for at least 2 days, and possibly more nonaccess circa the weekend. At this time I don’t expect to need replacement. Temporary

Unvote: Phoebus

.


ryan:
Other than voting you, what have Miztef and Sarcastro done that is suspicious? Also how is what Simenon did in [278] different from what Nightfall did in [203] or I did in [247]?


Patrick:

<snip>I can be suspicious of two players, without actually thinking they're scum together (it doesn't seem too likely that they are scum together to me). I was suspicious of Guardian, for some of the early things he said and did. However I usually like to point out craplogic or votes made on bad reasoning, even if it's on the person I suspect, since obviously I could be wrong or I could be right and that player is being bussed. Do you think it's only really possible to find only one of them scummy?

My opinion is that, yes, it is most likely that at most 1 of {Guardian, Phoebus} is guilty. I could certainly be wrong, I admit. But I wanted clarification, ipso facto I wasn’t sure how you were reaching the conclusion you reached.

Did it bother you that Sarcastro also found both of them scummy?

Ita vero. That’s why I also asked him.


Lawrencelot:
Let me preface this by admitting I am *not* sure at all about the details of this tell; I’ve only witnessed it once, in N326. I believe the tell is trying to rush the portrayal of consensus. You seem very eager to show that either Phoebus or ryan should be lynched. Which feels especially odd considering you don’t appear to have strong feelings regarding ryan.

[EmpTyger]

ryan:
I think Simenon is suspicious ad rem postrestrictionem. But I find you much more suspicious. When I find suspicious activity I want it addressed, not ignored.

Vote: ryan.

Lawrencelot:

<snip>

Lawrencelot:
Let me preface this by admitting I am *not* sure at all about the details of this tell; I’ve only witnessed it once, in N326. I believe the tell is trying to rush the portrayal of consensus. You seem very eager to show that either Phoebus or ryan should be lynched. Which feels especially odd considering you don’t appear to have strong feelings regarding ryan.

I never said ryan should be lynched, if I said it you can quote me. I said phoebus should be lynched, and that I would vote ryan if he would be at lynch-1 or so. Why? Because if ryan would be at lynch -1, that would mean the town wants him dead, even if the mafia voted him, and I would listen to the town, because my thoughts on ryan were neutral.<snip>

To be overly syntactic, I was commenting about “either (phoebus or ryan) should be lynched”, but the subtle distinction is almost not worth making. But, yes, I was referring to what you paraphrased.

Why would you feel the need to spell out that you would be willing to go along with the town? In fact, your “I would IGMEOY on Ryan if he didn't have that many eyes looking at him already” seems the exact opposite. You seem overeager to have the record show both that you find ryan protown and antitown, and that you don’t want to vote him yet leaving the way open for you to vote him later. This kind of hedging is rather suspicious to me. Especially this contradiction:

<snip>We have no deadline, so we don't need to rush the lynch. I would have the least problem if ryan or phoebus are lynched, but I think the votes on ryan appear a bit too much as a bandwagon. As I said before, I'm not voting ryan unless he would be very close to a lynch.<snip>

You seem overly careful to avoid committing on ryan- yet when you finally do, and say that you think he’s being bandwagoned, you then turn around and advocate bandwagoning him yourself? You are right behind ryan in my suspicions.


Simenon:
In maximo periculo, Simene. You may have replaced into an unfortunate situation, but that will not excuse your predecessor’s actions.


Miztef:

<snip>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.

Ave, WIFOM.

[EmpTyger]

Again apologies, but I am without access- indeed, I was very lucky to get online today. Don't have time to do more than a quick readthrough, but I will comment more when I am next online again (which will be Friday at the latest). Temporary

Unvote: ryan

while in absentia.


ryan:
Here's what you hadn't been addressing (although you did finally address the first question in [367])

<snip>
ryan:
Other than voting you, what have Miztef and Sarcastro done that is suspicious? Also how is what Simenon did in [278] different from what Nightfall did in [203] or I did in [247]?<snip>

Phoebus:
I can't argue with the fact that you happened to be right in regards to Guardian/Simenon. But that doesn't mean I like your logic- too much petitio principii for me.
(Et dico latine pro bono publica.)

[EmpTyger]

I have regular access again, for the next few weeks at least. Though people seem to be lying low; when I get the chance I want to check who is contributing less than debet.


ryan:

Vote: ryan

. If you’re trying to convince me that you’re innocent, you’re doing the wrong thing by repeatedly ignoring my questions. I’m not making idle conversation. I’m looking for a simple answer:

<snip>Also how is what Simenon did in [278] different from what Nightfall did in [203] or I did in [247]?

Also, how much experience with mafia do you have? Answer this as specifically as you can, si potes.


VD:
I’m a little interested in your reaction to ryan’s [395].


Illumina:
Phoebus versus Simenon: Who to you is more suspicious?

[EmpTyger]

It’s a holiday weekend, but I’m becoming nervous about the lull. ryan and VanDamien are recently active, and Nightfall asked for replacement. Et alii:

Eteocles: Last posted here 4 days ago. Has posted often in other threads.
Illumina: Hasn’t posted in 2 days., here or elsewhere.
Lawrencelot: Last posted here 4 days ago. Has posted occasionally in other threads.
Miztef: Last posted here 4 days ago. Has posted often in other threads.
Patrick: Last posted here 7 days ago, although he seems to have had connection issues for part of that period. Has posted often in the past day, though.
Phoebus: Last posted here 4 days ago. Has barely been online.
Sarcastro: Last posted here 5 days ago. Has posted occasionally in other threads.
Simenon: Last posted here 2 days ago. Has posted occasionally in other threads.

Eteocles and Miztef stand out to me, but everyone in this game could stand to participate more. (And, yes, I realize that that certainly includes me.)


Miztef:
Could you elaborate your feelings about Eteocles? I’m not sure how to resolve your 2 most recent posts.


ryan:

<snip>Seriously you are starting to piss me off. Those threads had nothing in it noteworthy or for me to comment on. Simenon in post 278 recaps the first few pages. EmpTyger in 203 also with an analysis on some of the players. Patrick in 207 asks for more info on Eteocles and VanDamien. What exactly is your question? You want to talk scummy, why ask a question that isn't answerable? What are you angling for?

What am I angling for? The lynch of a suspicious- and suspiciously evasive- player, who is using ad hominem excessively in his defense.

“Nothing noteworthy”? Well, here’s what you earlier had to comment on Simenon’s [278]:

Simenon=lots of notes attempting to incriminate others. Nice way to start a game and begin throwing around suspicious things quite quickly.

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.

So, my question is how do you justify these against Simenon while ignoring 2 other people who did what to me seems to be the essentially the same thing? (id est, what makes Simenon’s analysis recap post different from mine and Nightfall’s?) And now I also want you to explain why you were attacking someone for something that you yourself are calling not noteworthy. And while you’re at it, I’ll repeat my most recently ignored question: What’s your prior mafia experience?

[EmpTyger]

I think it is a big mistake to suspect Phoebus more than Simenon. Not because Phoebus isn’t suspicious. But rereading Guardian’s attacks on Phoebus with the knowledge that Guardian est falsus: why would Guardian argue to lynch someone who accused him of lying, when he in fact was lying? This just doesn’t make strategic sense for a protown player. And that’s on top of the lying bit.

I have a speculative theory about a mafia group (and also a guess on a SK, for that matter) based on some recent posts, but I want to reread ante dico.


ryan:

I have played mafia on other sites for a year now. Simenon went after people early in the game while the other two made some opinions on at least some facts. I haven't ignored your posts but you are angling to target me and seperate me from the group and it's getting annoying. I am as pro town as they come but by taking me out on Day 1 I will be unable to help the rest of the townies for day 2. And speaking of not being active, look in the mirror my friend, I haven't seen anything more than attacks on me for the past 3 pages outta you my friend.

I really feel that you are only reading every other sentence in this thread. You *have* ignored my posts, and others have called you on it. I have been asking questions of multiple people, and certainly within the last 3 pages. VD was attacking those defending you, not you yourself. And I’m not seeing any correlation between his and your posting. And wanting to blend in with the group is what *mafia* try to do. If this is the kind of “help” you provide on D1, I don’t see any reason to keep you around for D2. I really don’t see any reason to unvote you, mi amice.


Illumina:
You seem awfully quick to attribute mistakes to newbieness.


Lawrencelot:

<snip>But there have been two options about Miztef all the time: either he's scum, or he has a powerrole.<snip>

Just pointing out that there’s a third option: both.


Simenon:
I happen to think that Eteocles did indeed take a stance on the ryan issue. Not being certain but leaning towards a conclusion is a defensible position.

[EmpTyger]

Family crisis again. I have good access this time, but I’m a little short on time, so the indepth reread is being postponed.

Unvote: BrazeGoesMoo

, pending his in medias res account.


Patrick:

<snip>As I understand it Phoebus had a bad reason for attacking Guardian. Now, we know what Guardian did makes no strategic sense for a protown player anyway. Faking a post restriction like that can only be called a daft move if he's town. I've seen people do it though. Simenon isn't really playing like scum in my opinion.

I don’t disagree that Phoebus reasoning was arguable. But consider the matter from *Guardian’s* perspective. He had an additional and important datum: Guardian *knew* that he himself had been making up the postrestriction! So, temporarily assuming he was innocent, why would he escalate a showdown contra Phoebus? Or, for that matter, why would he defend himself with OMGUS?


Simenon:
I don’t suppose you have any good way of explaining your predecessor’s actions?

[EmpTyger]

Miztef:

<snip>and ryan's actions can be of a newb townie or newb scum.<snip>

Before he was replaced, ryan confirmed that he was not a newbie. Does this affect your reasoning?

<snip>Right now, we are 19 pages in and still have no major bandwagon or even someone who is heavily suspicious.<snip>

This is an interesting point and one of the things I will be looking into in my reread.


Phoebus:
Who besides Simenon do you find suspicious? Either separately or in conjunction with him.


Simenon:
This is not merely lynch-all-liars, though that maxim could certainly be held to be in effect. And you are not currently in an unbiased enough position to argue against it a priori. To me, the case against you is weaker than exempli gratia, that against ryan. But Guardian’s lie was most certainly not “completely harmless”.

(And it’s not just that Guardian lied. I at least also don’t completely feel his behavior fits, for the reason already stated.)


BGM:
There is a deadline. Lege velociter; because if you say nothing I will be basing my vote only on what your predecessor had said.

[EmpTyger]

D2 start with a close look at any players who did not contribute under deadline today. I will probably finish my reread tomorrow, forte tonight.


Lawrencelot:
First of all, Occam’s Razor (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). Why would ryan do something likely to get him modkilled in 2 games instead of just defending himself here? But most importantly, I don’t see any indication that ryan ever considered himself a newbie; rather the opposite- he insisted he had experience. So I don’t believe he could be referring to his own situation in that quote. And if you want to discuss this further I suggest you take up this issue cum moderatoribus of either game. You’re awfully close to a line, considering you yourself are a player in Open 21.


Sarcastro:

<snip>If I hear anything more about a "noob town" vs. "noob scum" debate, I will strangle somebody.<snip>

Speak for yourself. I ask my questions for deliberate reasons, and I do *not* like how you’ve just squelched one. This is *not* only about ryan’s behavior. This is about how *other people* react to ryan’s behavior.

[EmpTyger]

Rereading, my top 3 suspects are {BGM, Eteocles, and Miztef}. (With a worryingly lack of content from HB, I should add.) I’m not sure in what order I would rank them. With the imminent deadline, however, I’m going to defer to logistical convenience; Eteocles has 3 votes, BGM has 2, and Miztef has none. (And I don’t like how I’m echoing Miztef in this regard.)

Vote: Eteocles

. That puts you at 4, which will be a lynch at deadline. I suggest you not wait until the last minute to claim.

(Phoebus/Simenon is a wildcard which I don’t think I want to make a decision on today, because I feel it will give the least information about everyone other than Phoebus and Simenon. There’s someone else incertum who I’d rather speculate on in future days after more alignments are known, than stab at today.)


Eteocles:

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.

I'm not making much sense out of this. The characters would most likely be from the play, and most people know what happens in it. So why would the mod tell us everyone's name? You could probably infer everyone's role from that information.

I don’t like this attempt at fishing. And I am quite familiar with the flavor, yet I can’t even think of a single role I would be able to deduce given just a rolename.

Meh, I've been putting off really reading all the posts I may have missed (What can I say, I'm a procrastinator). But even after I looked closer I still think my two main suspicions would be none other than Sarcastro and Simenon.

I’ve can’t make sense of this. At the time you wrote [402], how much had you read?


BGM:
Do you have any other reasons for voting VD? Who else do you suspect (and why)?


Miztef:

woot simenon! Have fun with the post restriction .

In retrospect, this seems like an attempt to inform a just replaced-in fellow-mafia that he needs to maintain a fake postrestriction. There are a slew of uberwishywashy behavior, and your list in [150] still bothers me.


Phoebus:
You’re lumping Sarcastro and Miztef together. Do you consider them equivalent? (Id est, if one is mafia, the other can’t be town, and vice versa?)

The difference to me in inexperienced scum v. inexperience townie is in reactions.

inexperienced townies are more likely to get hostile and belligerent, as a function of irritation at themselves for acting like idiots and exasperation at being persecuted, while really wanting to play the game.

inexperienced scum, more often than not, drop out when under pressure and they may begin to retract statements, try and clarify what they said, switch tracks, agree with others etc.


these are my observations stemming from my experience.<snip>

Has this evaluation changed at all? Why or why not?

[EmpTyger]

Eteocles:

<snip>The characters would most likely be from the play, and most people know what happens in it. So why would the mod tell us everyone's name? You could probably infer everyone's role from that information.

I don't think Miztef should give up his role name. If Miztef is a power role, I think that could only help the scum.<snip>

I don’t see any way to reconcile that with your now saying that your nomen alone is enough to establish your innocence. And also, if you do believe that a rolename alone clears you, why wouldn’t you at least suggest a massnameclaim?

I fail to see any significant to your being Marcus Antonius. I *do* see significance in your minimal contribution under deadline. You’re not even trying to find an alternative suspect to yourself. You’re stalling out your own defense, meaning that even if hypothetically you somehow were exonerated, there would be less time to find another suspect.


Miztef:
I so want to vote you, that I’m almost willing to ignore how stultus it’d be to try to start a bandwagon from scratch at zero hour with this much nonparticipation. At least I can feel better about my voting Eteocles by your unvoting him.


HB:
You’ve posted elsewhere a couple times since deadline was announced. You have indicated limited access until Monday, but that’s only part of the time.


Patrick:
You have *no excuse* for lurking under a deadline. You have posted frequently onsite since it was announced.


Simenon:
Speaking of unacceptable deadline behavior: Wow. You *remove* a vote without replacing it under deadline, without stating a cause, and you haven’t even been trying to find someone to lynch. I almost don’t know what to say.

[EmpTyger]

Patrick:

<snip>I feel the odds are poor with an Eteocles lynch now, since for him to be scum, that requires Miztef to be scum with him or Miztef to be making a pretty serious mistake.<snip>

Ita vero. Eteocles should not be tested before Miztef is ascertained.

Unvote: Eteocles

.


Simenon:

Vote: Simenon

. Your lynch will be enlightening after all. And more importantly, rid the town of a liar.

<snip>1. Hmm, tricky. In this situation, how about saying something along the lines of "shit, he claimed Mark Antony welp better take me vote off".
2. You're accusation that I'm not trying to find scum is a bit much, thanks.
3. Again, it doesn't take a Roman historian to discover that I was obviously unvoting because of the claim.

1) Why is Marc Antony obviously and definitely innocent? I see *no* reason why he must be.
2) All I’ve seen you do since your initial summary posts have been defend yourself and attack Eteocles- and then you unvoted Eteocles in [479]. So, when you show me where you were trying to find mafia, I’ll admit that my accusation was “a bit much”. Until then, if anything it wasn’t enough.
3) You had earlier given other conditions in [416]. I wanted to know precisely your reasoning for the unvote. It was not obvious.


Miztef:

<snip>I don't see why you find my switch so scummy, considering he just claimed power role with no counterclaim.<snip>

Barely an hour had gone by. Only 1 other person had posted between Eteocles’s claim and your unvote. How did you know he wouldn’t be counterclaimed?

And, there is no basis for you to interpret a nameclaim as guaranteeing innocence. On the contrary, here’s what you said earlier:

<snip>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.

<snip>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)

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.

And you’ve admitted and invoked your past mafia experience, contradicting the tabula rasa you repeatedly fall back upon to excuse your guilty behavior. I will restrain myself from wasting a vote on you even though you have become my clear top suspect, solely because I will not risk a no-lynch. However…


All:
…I want it known that

I will be checking in at least once before the deadline, and I will switch my vote to Miztef if 3 or more people vote him

. But I’ll settle for Simenon if I have to.


I believe this puts the current votecount sic:
BrazeGoesMoo [3] VanDamien - Sarcastro - Miztef
Simenon [3] Phoebus - Eteocles - EmpTyger
VanDamien [1] BrazeGoesMoo
Sarcastro [1] Simenon
Not Voting: Haut Boy, Illumina, Lawrencelot, Patrick

[EmpTyger]

Simenon/BGM:
I suggest you consider claiming sooner rather than later, so that SPQR have optimum opportunity to evaluate.


Lawrencelot:

<snip>

Mod, can you prod Haut Boy after the deadline?

(don't think he can do something helpful before it)

Why? And how did you reach this conclusion? Why would you think HB would be more helpful *after* deadline than before? I mean, you *know* HB can vote (which he isn’t) and contribute (which he hasn’t, really). But you shouldn’t have any idea whether he can do anything overnight.


Patrick:

I'm going to add a

Vote: BrazeGoesMoo

here. Not wild about a braze or simenon lynch, as I don't strongly suspect either, but being realistic it has to be one of them today.

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about Miztef? What are your feelings about him?

I've been thinking alot about Lights Our Mafia 2, the huge game. I was in a difficult endgame situation. I've spent the last few hours wallowing in self pity having screwed up that endgame, and I don't feel particularly great. Not a good excuse, but that's what I've been doing and this game took a back seat.

But you’ve been posting significantly in every other mafia game: Mafia LX, Mini CDXXXIV, Mini CDXLIII, and Newbie CCCXIII- none of which were deadlined. But not here. I don’t buy this explanation.

[EmpTyger]

Illumina:
Nullum tempus est: I retract my offer to switch my vote to Miztef. Et tempus fugit; the deadline’s in 20 minutes, not 2 hours! I am in the middle of composing a final post for the day- I’ll incorporate a non sequitor response to your question in [500] about Miztef into it.

While I believe Simenon to be the best lynch in this situation, I urge you to cast your vote *now*, not at the last second. I’ll explain why also in my next post.

[EmpTyger]

This game is becoming frustrating to me because the number of people who I want dead is higher than possible antitowns. Well, too late now. Iacta alia est.

To whoever of you are protown: Stop playing badly. Stop encouraging others to play badly. Stop using inexperience as an excuse for playing badly. You are distracting the town by drawing attention to yourselves. You are allowing antitowns to get away with stuff they really shouldn’t dream of.

Honestly, the only players I don’t want to drop dead right now are VD, Sarcastro, and Phoebus- and not because I think them innocent, but because they haven’t been committing blatantly antitown behavior.

D2 I suggest a massnameclaim. Not to make assumptions about a character’s alignment or power based on the name, but to show that those who are doing so are misleading the town. I suggest the following order:
Miztef
Haut Boy
Patrick
Illumina
Sarcastro
VanDamien
Phoebus
Simenon
(I’ll go first or whenever the town collectively wants me to, if I’m still alive. Which I currently doubt.)

Today’s lynch will provide a goodly number of leads tomorrow. (I would advise against considering any nightkills with the same level of scrutiny.) In particular, if a protown gets lynched today by someone’s lastsecond vote chicanery, I suggest that D2 you examine that lastsecond voter. No one (with the possible exception of recently absent Illumina- though *not* HB, who has had posted onsite lately, but not inthread) has any good reason to try to affect the lynch in that way. In fact, if such a lastsecond vote manipulator is even alive in the morning, it can be assumed that either we have no vigilante, or they missed their 50% chance.


Patrick:
You are lurking. You are lurking under a deadline. You are lurking while posting extensively in 5 other games. You place what could very well be a deciding vote without any reasoning.

I don't think you should be referring to ongoing games and using it as evidence. We don't know his alignment and motivations in that game. I agree that the case against him isn't strong though. But I'd avoid pointing to ongoing games.

<snip>Miztef is a player who you can be forgiven for finding pretty uberscummy for the way he plays. As noted before, he's like a yoyo, seeming to generally follow wherever the momentum is taking suspicions, which is often the hallmark of scum. I've played with him once previously, in a mini. The game is ongoing so I can't say too much, but suffice it to say I actually think this is just the way he plays.<snip>

Illumina:
Aside from not contributing, placing a vote last minute is atrocious, because you’re wasting it. Both BGM and Simenon are currently not voting for each other. But they are each at 4 votes. Either one of them can break the tie by voting the other. The fact that neither is doing this is particularly odd- I suspect that they are trying to preempt the town having an opportunity to counteract. If you felt one or the other is guiltier, then you should cast your vote immediately- otherwise you are risking that your vote becomes meaningless.

And as for your little deadline time mix-up: someone check on Illumina’s story tomorrow. It’s too convenient that you’ve given yourself an, “Oh, I was meant to vote for X, but I had the wrong time!” alibi after a mislynch.

As for Miztef: he’s justifications for his actions make absolutely no sense, and I don’t have time to point out instances, but reread the thread. I’m out of time. Ave, moderator, morituri te salutamus. :evi: