Mini 456: Ultimatum Mafia - Game Over!

[The Fonz]

Without the random voting, I really don't know how to start. From the roles posted, it does not seem like the mafia can nightkill, they are the same in all abilities as everyone else? That could make things difficult.

That's the case, the game is nightless. The only kills will be the ones that result from challenges.

[The Fonz]

I think that, whilst avoiding lurking is indeed desirable, if we don't post with the aim of someone eventually deciding to challenge someone else, we're going to end up with posting for posting's sake. We need the threat of a challenge there to ensure that the discussion is

about something

.

So, whilst for individual townies, not challenging, and certainly not until the deadline nears, is quite likely a good policy, handcuffing the town like that is not.

[The Fonz]

No, that's not the case. Town ought to be fairly happy to challenge someone they're confident is scum. VD, what would you propose as an alternative to this pseudo-voting, that would still produce useful information? I really can't think of anything, so am happy with what we're doing right now.

[The Fonz]

(e)

Unless

(c)

applies, the Challenger will challenge the person who has

made the fewest

substantive

contributions

the most nominations (apart from the Challenger).

I assume the logic here is to penalise vote-hopping? I don't see this as being that useful. I'd still rather just let the nominee challenge whoever they like. I think we learn more from who they nominate out of choice than by directing them.

[The Fonz]

*Ah, my bad, I see now 'the player who has the most nominations' means that you're suggesting double-nomination, rather than 'nominate the person who has

made

most nominations' which is how i misread it.

For the record, i still prefer single-nomination.

[The Fonz]

Nominate: DeanWinchester

That whole spiel above basically comes down to 'If we can figure out who is town, we win!' and 'Townies should avoid voting for one another!' which is tautological. So it's an awful lot of words, contributing basically nothing (apart from the suspicion of Stoof).

[The Fonz]

mod: please modkill mneme, he just admitted that he's been conferring with his scumbuddies outside the thread during day

What is this nonsense?

[The Fonz]

I still think we're better off letting the challenger challenge who they like. Both town and scum have an incentive to try to challenge scum, and we'll get a more informative debate between two people who suspect one another than between two who may agree broadly, but both have annoyed enough other people to get nommed.

[The Fonz]

and i love how were STILL DISCUSSING the semantics of stoofers plan rather than finding lurkers and scum which is what i pointed out in my pst lareayd. but of course everyone ignores the convinient part.

This is mildly amusing, considering the thing you're complaining about is ENTIRELY YOUR FAULT.

oh and you guys just proved u are lyncing me based on semantics. that is such a good reason to lynch someone.

just ilke you all bandwagoned deanwinchester for saying hes town. because mafia are clearly more likely to say theyre town than town.

I don't know about anyone else, but I voted him for craplogic, and trying to appear to be contributing without actually saying anything more than truisms.

if yos seriously thinks ive been less helpfil than danmonkey, spinwizard, and dylan combined, he is a huge idiot ecuase thats as plain aslike a two year old.

Their contribution has been essentially minimal. This is bad, but yours has been actively detrimental to the town, which is worse. Plus, you said this:

ow by appointin yourself to catch people who arent really contributing you are doing an easily done task and can skate by not really contributing becuz youre just voting people less active than you

Accusing others of going after inactives/non-contributors, which of course is exactly what you just did.

Frankly, Sparks, I'm quite glad you look scummy. It gets me off the hook of a moral dilemma- you see, your homophobic and personally abusive comments are making this game much less enjoyable for me, but of course if they were combined with a general appearance of townishness, I'd have to weigh the desire to get rid of you with my duty to my town-mates to search out scum. Fortunately, I don't have to.

Now, a note here: Right now I'm not going to remove my Dean nomination, since he made one craptastic post, and has disappeared since, and I don't want to allow this to become an acceptable tactic to avoid getting nommed. I've already expressed my opposition to double-nominations.

However, with the deadline approaching, I'd be entirely comfortable with seeing sparks forced to challenge too. Consider it a second preference, if we're thinking in a single transferrable vote kinda way.

[The Fonz]

Don't be. This is speed mafia, and we have to put someone up to challenge, and SOON. What you're doing looks like trying to avoid having to contribute.

[The Fonz]

I think a good start might be for each 'candidate' to make as in-depth a post as possible, beginning 'I believe [my opponent] is scum because...'

[The Fonz]

Proofread.

[The Fonz]

At present, I'm inclined to back Sparks. His play may have been offensive, but I've found him more logical lately, and if nothing else in his case we have plenty to go on later. Dylan needs to contribute or die.

[The Fonz]

If you do that, Stoof, I'm voting for him. Challenging a lurker first thing is sooo scummy it's untrue. You completely curtail nomination debate, yet you've got a good shot at winning just because he isn't likely to defend himself properly.

[The Fonz]

If you do that, Stoof, I'm voting for him.

Remember, you vote for the one you want to save!

I know. That's why I said, I'm voting for him.

[The Fonz]

Challenging a lurker first thing is sooo scummy it's untrue.

Agreed, but that's not what he said.

Since my vote is irrevocable, I won't lay it down just yet, but I can't see that I'm likely to do anything other than vote to keep dylan. I've made the point about lurkers (active or otherwise) and I'm going to nominate him first thing Day 2 unless there is a significant improvement between now and then.

ah. I thought he said challenge. He said nominate. My bad.

The I don't understand your post. You said:

Challenging a lurker first thing is sooo scummy it's untrue. You completely curtail nomination debate, yet you've got a good shot at winning just because he isn't likely to defend himself properly.

Isn't that what Sparks did?

Nope, unless you think 'with the deadline nearing' is the same as 'first thing.' This doesn't mean I don't find Sparks scummy btw. But his last handful of posts have been a lot better imho.

[The Fonz]

The people who seem pro-town to me are DeanWinchester, Mr. Stoofer, Yosarian2, Stewie, SpinWizard, and mneme.

Explain.

[The Fonz]

The Fonz makes a valid point. Anyone who makes a challenge straight off the bat - in the first two RL days of a day - should be eliminated. From now on, I will always vote to save anyone challenged in the first two RL days of a day.

I'll then be nominating dylan first thing Day 2.

Contradict yourself much?

Beyond that, still waiting to hear more from Dylan - he's been posed several questions, and I'd like to hear the answers.

No, we've been over that misunderstanding- he means he will start pushing for Dylan to be forced into a challenge immediately, not that he will personally challenge Dylan.

[The Fonz]

My net access is going to be unpredictable towards the end of the week, so I'm not going to risk waiting. If I don't here something good from Dylan

soon

, I'm voting Sparks. Dylan, the ball's in your court.

[The Fonz]

I guess it's just a matter of opinion which one you find most scummy. Whomever we lynch,

I don't see the other one surviving past tomorrow.

In those circumstances, I'm going to

Vote: dylan41985

for the reasons given here.

QFT

Vote: dylan41985

I wouldn't be so sure. Your total of six lines and absolutely zero worthwhile content today has earned you a good hard look tomorrow, as well.

[The Fonz]

If I don't here something good from Dylan

soon

, I'm voting Sparks.

My initial nomination and mistakes (regardless of if you think I'm lying or not) are irrelevant at this point because I am the person challenged by Sparks.

But ask yourself this: Was it really fair for Sparks to challenge me this early? What have I done to him? Why was he so eager to challenge me? Isn't that action more suspicious that my behavior?

My theory is that Sparks is scum and anyone voting to save him is

possibly

Spark's secret scum buddy.

Fonz, I really don't know how else to convince you but to say that later in the game you won't regret keeping me here. I can promise you that.

Plus, I'm a vulnerable target for future rounds.

This wasn't it.

Vote: Sparks

[The Fonz]

Man, no sooner do I vote for him, than Sparks returns to his previous scumadelic behaviour. Figures.

[The Fonz]

I feel like the underdog in this vote, but it's really close!

You shouldn't. You only had to not act out-of-this-world scummy and you'd have won this one easily.

[The Fonz]

Unlikely to post, frankly, since he's requested replacement.

[The Fonz]

Dylan still looks incredibly scummy in my eyes. However, I also want to hear much more from DanMonkey and SpinWizard, and to a lesser extent, Dean and VanDamien, today.

[The Fonz]

these are my picks for omafia

liberal: dylan, danmonkey, spinwizard
conservative: stoofy, stewie, yos

I think Sparks' post here will turn out to be helpful to find the last liberal mafia. It's obviously not me because he challenged me and it's very likely not danmonkey or spinwizard because Sparks lied about Carrotcake (and they voted to save me).

We can also eliminate the people who voted to save me (because the other liberal mafia would have voted for Sparks).

Dangerous assumption to make.

That leaves:

DeanWinchester
mneme
The Fonz
VanDamien

One of these is the third liberal mafia.[/quote]

Quite possibly, but it's also entirely plausible to think the causation may run the other way- ie, Sparks accused everyone who voted against him of being scum in an OMGUSpectacular.

[The Fonz]

Maybe it's a dangerous assumption because YOU are the third mafia?

Well, no, because in that case it would have been a safe assumption, wouldn't it? It would be a dangerous assumption for precisely the reason Dean just pointed out:

I'm here, Have not had a chance to go back and look at the thread now that we know those two are mafia.

I think making the assumption that the third member absolutely voted for sparks is dumb. There is a very good chance that the third scum voted to save dylan to distance themselves from sparks.

Precisely. It's worth noting that Carrotcake spent pretty much all of day one distancing from Sparks. Though, of course, it's equally worth noting that he (and I) voted for Dylan, so there's the well-he-would-say-that element. I think the point (we shouldn't be making any WIFOMy assumptions about what scum would and wouldn't do) is strong enough to stand nonetheless.

We probably want to get rid of one of the conservative mafia people today; if we go hunting for last liberal mafia member, it just makes the 3 member conservative mafia stronger and they're the biggest danger to the town right now.

Whilst I agree that the conservatives are the greater threat right now, we should also bear in mind that with two dead liberals, we're not going to get any more 'connection' information than we already have- so it's probably a good idea for everyone who has the time to do a re-read focussed on the two dead scum as well, to see what clues we can pick up from there. I'll be doing my own shortly.

[The Fonz]

EBWODP: Dean and I both voted

for Sparks

and against Dylan.

[The Fonz]

Welcome Battle Mage. If nothing else, I guess we can rely on you not to lurk.

[The Fonz]

Hmm, that was unexpected. I'm thinking at the moment, the best move is to lynch VanDamien the day after we get the first conservative. At the moment, he's a non-conservative body. However, there seems little point in waiting until there's one of each left to lynch VD, unless doing so would put us in LyLo.

Anyone else got a different (read: better) plan?

[The Fonz]

That doesn't entirely make sense. The two scumgroups' winning condition states that the group needs to be alive (ie, at least one surviving member) and equal in number to all others surviving. If we agree to keep him alive until the first Con is found, that gives us three, rather than two, mislynches before we're at LyLo, in the scenario where our first two don't hit scum.

[The Fonz]

Oh, and before I forget, we kill Van immediately after the first con, on the outside chance he's a con trying a gambit- we don't want him alive right at the end.

[The Fonz]

Nope. Because it's going to get him lynched anyway, and sooner rather than later. Why would the last liberal, if not VD, want to out himself to achieve something that's going to happen anyway?

[The Fonz]

Hmmm I hate to admit to this, but although Dan was scummy, I'm getting a town vibe off of BM. (Yes, I know, first time for everything). Seems like he's genuinely trying to figure out what's going on, and what's best for town.

[The Fonz]

Nope. Because it's going to get him lynched anyway, and sooner rather than later. Why would the last liberal, if not VD, want to out himself to achieve something that's going to happen anyway?

true. its this possibility that makes me even more certain that VD is the play. Not only is he CERTAIN scum, but also potentially Conservative, which is even better.

He's

A

Play. I really don't think he's today's, though.

[The Fonz]

I think Dylan's big scumtells were lying about his 'random' vote, and refusing to explain his list of people he thought were townies, personally.

[The Fonz]

Sure. The Conservative scumgroup needs to get to the position where they've got half the remaining players. If we lynch Van now, that leaves them with three of nine, requiring three mislynches in a row to win. If we save him until the first con is caught, that means we'd have to mislynch four times in a row to lose. (Unless he is a con pulling a gambit, but even then, that doesn't change the number of lynches- we'd still need to hit con scum in the next three). It's like leaving an SK alive to prevent mafia gaining the majority in a normal game.

[The Fonz]

EBWODP: If he's conservative, that doesn't change the number of lynches required for town to lose

in comparison with lynching him now and turning up liberal.

Of course, it by definition reduces the chances of us hitting scum.

[The Fonz]

If we lynch Van now, that leaves them with three of nine, requiring three mislynches in a row to win. If we save him until the first con is caught, that means we'd have to mislynch four times in a row to lose.

Alternative possibility. If we let things get too close to the wire, we're opening up the possibility of Van changing his mind.

While I don't think it makes much sense to lynch him today, I think there comes a point when we're better off lynching him than lynching someone less likely to be scum.

Most of this is pie in the sky stuff that evaporates if Dylan's a con, though.

Less likely? As in, not certain!

At this point, killing VD is almost the no-lynch option- if the deadline's nearing and we don't have anything close to a consensus candidate, we can put him up without fear of mislynch.

[The Fonz]

I'm with Stewie on this one.

Whilst I do think Battle Mage's actions were to the town's detriment, I still kinda get the feeling that it may well just have been a case of 'Manny being Manny' with him. I think the correct pro-town course of action here, at the very least, is to interrogate BM as thoroughly as possible, so that we can make the most informed guess about whether or not he is conservative or not.

@ Stoofer: At mimimum, the fact that BM's challenge has made a vote-off

against a guaranteed scum

far from a foregone conclusion should, to my mind, be sufficient deterrent to anyone pulling the same in future. Nonetheless, the warning is out there: I think you can guess what I'll do if anyone tries it.

So to begin with:

However, comments by Yos and The Fonz have confirmed my decision. On the premise that VD is guaranteed scum, and potential Conservative-Scum, im willing to:

Challenge: Van Damien

I think it's rather disengenuous to claim that the fact that I noted there is a small chance of him being con scum, in the middle of a discourse which was solidly in favour of keeping VD alive at least for today, influenced you to challenge him today.

On the other hand, you can kill me, Vanilla Town. Then you will not only have 1 less shot at killing the Conservatives, you will also still have Van Damien to worry about. If you are town and make this choice, we DESERVE to lose.

I don't like this either. It's kinda like a pre-emptive adhom attack on anyone who might vote against you, trying to make out like the decision is obvious. It isn't.

As it is, Battlemage ended the day after we'd gotten merely three datum:
1. VD is scum. (probably liberal, but concievably con running a gambit)
2. mneme, yos, stoofer, and stewie are probably not scum if dylan are. Probably.
3. mneme is probably not scum if BM or dean are. Probably.

Compare this to the wealth of info we got on day 1, and we see how horrible BM's action was.

This troubles me. Two of the three things we apparently learned today are that you are probably not scum if three different people are. I get the impression that you are not the kind of player who generally likes to analyse potential connections involving himself.

[The Fonz]

Just a bit of ad homeniem, BM? Try responding to my comments rather than just attacking me.

Or, you know, back up anything you've said. Or are you afraid of giving away your scumbuddies by saying too much?

You accused him of not reading. He said you were patronising. I can't see how the former is any more Adhom than the latter.

[The Fonz]

EBWODP: Latter than the former.

[The Fonz]

You accused him of not reading. He said you were patronising. I can't see how the former is any more Adhom than the latter.

Of course I was patronizing him. He made an indefensible statement.

So if you admit you were patronising him, why is him pointing this out an Ad Hom attack?

@BM- Answer my questions, please.

[The Fonz]

The 'Manny being Manny' bit, wasn't a question. Basically, it's a baseball reference- I'm saying there's a distinct possibility that you acted in such a manner not because you're scum, but

because you're Battle Mage

. Hence, I don't think it's a good idea to jump to the conclusion we should lynch you before applying a thorough grilling to best ascertain for ourselves if this is the case or not. (Actually, BM, could you refer me to a completed game of yours as scum, for reference?)

Disengenuous- I'm suggesting that you're not being entirely fair or honest in your suggestion that what I wrote contributed in large part to your decision, as to do that you'd have to cherry pick the one reservation I have, and detach it from the broader sweep of what I was actually saying.

The other question was the 'pre-emptive adhom' bit.

[The Fonz]

yeh sure. check out Yos's MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Mafia. Theres another Newbie Game which i replaced into as scum, which i can refer you to aswell.

I was

in

MAD Mafia. What's the newbie one?

as for the disengenuous thing, i disagree. I mean, its true that you didnt exactly say that you thought VD should be lynched today, but it genuinely was significantly due to your post that i challenged him. I read it, and suddenly realised the logic of what you were saying, and the stupidity of keeping him alive for longer.

No, I didn't

exactly

say I thought VD should be lynched today. In fact I categorically stated that I thought he shouldn't.

[The Fonz]

you can choose to lose this game for the town aswell if you want, but do me a favour and keep your bitching for elsewhere.
i wont even bother to reiterate the hypocrisy of your comments. suffice to say i will be laughing my arse off when you add another defeat to your already sparkling record.

Ah, now you see,

here

we have something that I think constitutes decent evidence of BM's scumminess. This sounds an awful lot like BM

knows

Stoofer is town.

[The Fonz]

Not buying it, I'm afraid.

Vote: VanDamien

I think the best play for tomorrow, is not to put VD up again- if he genuinely desires a town win, he'll fail to vote and get modkilled. If he doesn't go along, then we lynch him the day after.

[The Fonz]

Yes and no. Whilst insults are not the only thing covered by AdHom, they are nonetheless adhom. It seems to me what you're sayin now is your problem is not with him saying you were patronising, since after all this was true, but failing to provide any textual support for the

non

-adhom part of that post, that being 'Your own comments are so dubious.' Hence, I find you slightly hypocritical.

[The Fonz]

I actually think even if VanDamien is conservative scum, if we enforce the 'getting him modkilled' plan, he can't win. If he doesn't go along, he gets lynched. I'd agree with Yos that policy-lynching tends to be a bad idea, but I think we have enough reason to think he's actually scum here.

[The Fonz]

Well, it's a couple of things:

Next time VD is in a challenge, we either have to lynch him, or commit to keeping him alive for a period which is likely to be until we're close to, or at, endgame. If he were to challenge, I don't want him up against anyone remotely scummy, as we'd basically

have

to lynch him there, and I don't want to waste an opportunity to get someone scummy in a real challenge just to kill someone we could get to commit hara-kiri.

If he's facing an ultimatum of 'get modkilled tomorrow or lynched the day after,' where that threat is credible, he can't win. It ensures that, if he is a con trying a gambit, it definitely won't work.

That leaves us free to spend tomorrow on a genuine challenge.

[The Fonz]

Ah, I see your point. The limit is on challenges made, not participated in. So we could demand that VD challenges someone he thinks is protown, to ensure his own death.

[The Fonz]

Nah, the shortest replacement was me, in Bird1111's pie C9. I was lynched after, like, three posts.

[The Fonz]

Now THAT's impressive.

[The Fonz]

Or, come to think of it, that guy in a newbie game whose first move replacing in as scum was to hammer and win the game. That was brilliant.

[The Fonz]

Hmm... Dylan voting to save vandamein has me conviced that Dylan I s scum. I think BM may come up town, but I still agree with his lynch it gives us more info than lynching VD.

Hang on... you're convinced that Dylan is scum because he supported a lynch that not only did all but two other players back, but that YOU YOURSELF thought was a good idea? Why is Dylan's vote there any scummier than Stoofer's, mine, or indeed yours?

[The Fonz]

He's generally avoided giving opinions where possible and just tried to go with the crowd.

i also agree

This was his first contribution to the game.

P.S. I am here, but want to be very cautious before accusing others at this point in the game.

Trying to avoid taking a position.

Pledged to contribute more if he survived the challenge, played the 'newbie card,' posted a list of six different people he thought were pro-town, then neglected to explain the reasoning behind this list despite being repeatedly requested to.

Then, this entire post:

My initial nomination and mistakes (regardless of if you think I'm lying or not) are irrelevant at this point because I am the person challenged by Sparks.

But ask yourself this: Was it really fair for Sparks to challenge me this early? What have I done to him? Why was he so eager to challenge me? Isn't that action more suspicious that my behavior?

My theory is that Sparks is scum and anyone voting to save him is

possibly

Spark's secret scum buddy.

Fonz, I really don't know how else to convince you but to say that later in the game you won't regret keeping me here. I can promise you that.

Plus, I'm a vulnerable target for future rounds.

Is just one scumtell after another. Trying to say that his pre-challenge behaviour is irrelevant to whether or not he should be lynched. Deflection. This, to me, is a virtual admission that it was incredibly scummy.

Then tries to suggest that the person who just about everyone wanted to challenge, challenged him, was in itself scummy.

Then tries to suggest that anyone voting for Sparks was Sparks' scumbuddy. Despite the fact that two of those voting for Sparks were on his 'probably town' list from earlier.

Finishes by promising that I personally won't regret keeping him around. Since if he's a townie, he can't know my alignment, that would be an extraordinarily stupid thing to say. Makes more sense as scum, flailing to try to stay alive.

Then, day two, he nominates VanDamien immediately after the scum claim, then does a complete turnaround when I present a case for keeping VD alive.

Once the challenge happens, he posts these:

ooh yikes. It doesn't make sense to me that Battle Mage would put himself on the chopping block if he was a conservative after many of us agreed to keep Van Damien around.

If Battle Mage is a conservative, I don't think he would put himself out there to potentially be voted out if he knows that we want to get rid of one of the conservatives before the last liberal. It's too risky.

We believe VD is a liberal.
We think it may be best for the town to keep him around for awhile.
Why would a conservative go up against VD knowing that we'll probably vote to save VD?

Defending Battle Mage. Three posts and little content later, he hammers him.

That's basically the case against Dylan in a nutshell. However, I won't nom him yet, as I get a bad vibe off Dean as well, and want to re-read him as well before i do.

[The Fonz]

I think the solution to that is to give newbish players every opportunity possible to demonstrate a desire to help the town. To that end, I would like to see Dylan present a reasonably thought-out explanation of who he thinks might comprise the Con scum at this point.

My re-read of Dean makes me much happier about him, actually- most of the things i was uncomfortable about, in retrospect, were to do with his behaviour relating to Sparks.

Re: VanDamien, if we believe that him being a gambitting con is a real possibility, we have to lynch him tomorrow at the latest, unless we hit con scum today (in which case, we can probably afford to kill him tomorrow anyway). We shouldn't let him live beyond tomorrow unless we're reasonably sure he's telling the truth about being Liberal.

I'd also like the analysis Albert promised.

[The Fonz]

i also agree

This was before I really got into the game.

Well, duh, it was your first post. But showing up and just blindly agreeing with someone else isn't a good sign.

P.S. I am here, but want to be very cautious before accusing others at this point in the game.

This statement is true. I told you all I go tin trouble for accusing others early in another game.

Well, I haven't seen that game, but what I will say, is that questioning other people is pretty much the only way anyone gets any information on anyone, and information is what the town needs. Acting like you think your own personal survival is more important than finding scum is scummy.

One scumtell after another? No. This was just me struggling to defend myself.

My promise to the Fonz that he won't regret keeping me here shouldn't be overanalyzed in regards to the fact that there are no other roles. I knew that. I was just trying to appeal to his competitive side. I think it's fair to say both mafia and townies would do that...and mafia might even avoid it because it sounds fishy.

But if you're supposedly town, appealing to my competitive side, surely that only works if

I'm

town? And you shouldn't know that.

Fonz, you say that I first defend Battle Mage and then lynch him. What's wrong with that? What is scummy about that? I ultimately made a bad decision, but so did a lot of people - and I was the final vote that counted.

It's not that you defended Battle Mage then voted him. I did that. It's the speed of the turnaround combined with the lack of reasoning presented. Between the third of those quotes I posted above and your hammer, you did not mention Battle Mage once.

[The Fonz]

EBWODP: And how about those suspicions? You said Battle Mage, Albert (then SpinWizard) and possibly Dean yesterday. Who do you think is scummy as of now?

[The Fonz]

I don't understand this. If there's a decent case against mneme, what kind of harm could it possibly do the town to hear it?

[The Fonz]

Dean: I doubt it, since noms aren't an official game mechanic. The way I see it, if either one isn't challenged or replaced, they're gonna be modkilled.

[The Fonz]

The silence from some of the most active posters has me certain Dylan is the lynch for today.

Please explain why you think silence from previously prolific posters = Dylan being scum.

[The Fonz]

Wait a second, didn't VD say he'd sent instructions to the mods to avoid being modkilled?

[The Fonz]

Would I be right in thinking that the deadline for anyone other than Dylan to challenge has gone?

[The Fonz]

At present, this doesn't look too difficult a choice. I think Stewie is probably the one other player I think is least likely to be a con right now.

I still don't have much time to explain, but I am going to

Challenge: Stewie

. I believe he is in the mafia with

Stoofer

.

Stewie and Stoofer have shared a lot of the same moves in this game, which is one reason why I believe they're working together.

It's a possibility that not many people have mentioned. I have been scared to say anything about Stewie or accuse either of them for fear that they would both attack me.

Not wanting to express your suspicions because you think it might get you attacked? Scummy. If you have a rational case against either one, you have nothing to hide.

Town, I am sending you a passionate message to save me this week. I am innocent. I am working with no one. If you think I'm a conservative...I want you to look back and think about who I am working with. There is no one who supports me in this game. AND I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT "partners throwing each other under the bus!"

Well, Albert's a potential partner for one. His impassioned attack on mneme seemed timed to deflect attention from the widespread suspicion of you. I certainly don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that one or more scumbuddies bussed you, either: tying both buddies to such a loose cannon would be suicidal (with the usual caveats of WIFOM possibilities here).

The five people who voted to save me in the first elimination were BattleMage, Stoofer, Albert/Spin Wizard, Stewie, and Yosarian.

It is my strong belief that most mafia alliances vote together in the first round, because it's not suspicious and stinks to be voted out first. If I were a conservative, it would be safe to assume that people in the group above would be part of my team. However, I voted to kill BattleMage and I am challenging Stewie now. Stewie and Yosarian have not been afraid to nominate me, even when it was close. They all hate me and gang up to nominate me and make me look horrible.

What the hell? In case you hadn't noticed, Battle Mage was lynched and came up town. How is your willingness to lynch him evidence of anything? And please, quit with the, oh booo hoo, all the nasty scummy vets are ganging up on me. It's possible one or more were scum, ganging up on you because you are an easy lynch, of course: but that brings up the obvious point that, if that is the case, the only reason you might be an easy lynch in the first place is

because you look scummy as hell.

And of course, because you look scummy as hell is a pretty damn great town reason to vote for you, too.

Heckit's not even beyond the realms of possibility you knew yourself to be doomed, and challenged a scumbuddy to make him look town. Though I don't actually think you're that clever.

think Stewie has played a pretty quiet game...being very careful not to show his alliances with many people.

You started off by saying Stewie was scum with Stoofer, and talking about a potential tie. Now you're saying he hasn't shown ties?

That said, it might not be a bad idea for Stewie to go back and provide a summary of his reasoning behind each nom/vote. We want as much useful info out of this challenge as possible.

Please, please, please vote to save me because I'm a townie!!!!!

What kind of argument is this?

So, yeah, I'm very likely to vote for Stewie, but not right now. If nothing else, there are certain other players I'd like to see commit to an opinion before the result is a foregone conclusion.

[The Fonz]

I was kinda hoping you'd talk us through your thought process, more in general, as the game went on. I will go back and do a focussed re-read. As I said, I really haven't found you scummy at any point. Bah. Perhaps I'm just too fixated on trying to get

something

out of this challenge before it's over, lest Dylan somehow come up town.

[The Fonz]

Nah, I got nuttin'. Pretty much every single post of Stewie's, I agree with, or at least can see the pro-town rationale behind it. He's been generally patient, willing to listen to others, and has made his attacks on things I'm also on record as finding scummy.

The only real thing of note is that Stewie really hasn't said anything about possible linkages between other players, and most of his comments are directed at players who are already dead, or about to be. This isn't scummy in itself, but I'd like to hear his thoughts on something other than the player who is the no1 lynch candidate on a given day.

Stewie, if Dylan is scum, who do you think are likely to be his buddies? Who would you most suspect if he comes up town?

[The Fonz]

Vote: Stewie

No point waiting and having an unexpected loss of connection or something cause modkill. Just VanDamien to come.

[The Fonz]

I find it a little disconcerting that you state your preference for a 'hard' lynch, but don't actually make a case against any of us. The aim, as ever, is to lynch the person most likely to be con scum. If you think one of us you've placed in the 'hard lynch' category fits that bill, by all means, argue for that lynch. If you don't, well, then the whole thing just looks like a blanket 'too townie' argument.

[The Fonz]

Not for anything he has done, but because I have this strange feeling that dylan might have challenged his scum buddy for distancing purposes...

WTF? Dylan came up town!

[The Fonz]

At Dean: you think Yosarian might be scum because he looks really pro-town?

Stoof: I have a few questions. Firstly:

As presently advised I want the following people dead in the following order:

1. Battle Mage
   - for the 3 reasons given above.
   
2. dylan
   - probably scum; definitely not Liberal.
   
3. VanDamien
   - definitely Scum, not sure of his alignment. Once we have killed the above, it will probably be time for him to die.

Well, your first two died in order. Do you now want VanDamien dead? If not, what is it that has changed your mind?

This is very, very bad play. BM was coming across as Townie to me, which makes me even more annoyed that he has done this.

Stoof thinks BM looks town, yet wants to 'make an example' of him anyway.

It's quite clear that if BM is Town and he stays alive he is a loose cannon who is going to screw this game for the Town.

Battle Mage is a complete idiot, who is bound to distract and hurt the Town regardless of his alignment, and the sooner he is dead the better

Again, it's quite clear that Stoof doesn't

care

whether BM is town or scum.

Stoof, if you genuinely thought Battle Mage was beyond a shadow of a doubt the right lynch at this point, which is what your arguments clearly imply, why did you not put your money where your mouth is and vote him?

you never lynch someone because of "policy", you lynch them if you think they're scum.

Well, I fundamentally disagree with this.

But there were additional considerations that made me suspicious of his motives for challenging VanDamien:

• This was not just a case of not following the system; the specific question whether VanDamien should be lynched was being discussed in the thread and the emerging consensus was that we should leave him for later. So Battle Mage seemed to be deliberately trying to do the opposite of what the Town wanted. This is what I had in mind when I said that he might be Scum trying to mess up the nomination system.
  
• VanDamien is confirmed Scum. An "easy lynch" (although not as it tuirned out). This made me think that Battle Mage might be trying to win "pro-Town" points by killing a Scumbag.
  
• This feeling was strengthened by the way that Battle Mage argued for VanDamien's lynch. Comments like this:

Of course, in my mind, the choice is clear. You can either lynch guaranteed scum, or potential scum. Im not Liberal, nor am i Conservative.

Is it worth wasting a day that we need in order to catch the Conservative scum, or would it be better to get rid of the certain scum, and maybe deal with BM tomorrow.

Kill the confirmed scum first. You might consider my action detrimental to the town, but i think you'll be singing a different tune if he comes up Conservative.

That last one I found particularly scummy. If (as many people suspect) VanDamien is Conservative; then Battle Mage's bizarre action can be explained as a gambit: to take credit for killing his buddy (who is a dead man anyway).

Of course I have other reasons, independent of his challenge of VanDamien, for thinking Battle Mage is scummy (outlined above). Plus I want him dead for policy reasons (a matter which we disagree about but which is now moot).

I'd still like to hear Stoofer explain why he thinks battle mage is scum.

I've done this in my posts today: see 315 (under "Secondly"), 325, 329, 330 (pointing out an untruth). I'd quote them all again if he wasn't already dead. Can't you just go back and read them?

My fundamental point here is: if you wanted Battle Mage dead for policy reasons, and that constituted sufficient grounds for a lynch by itself, why did you feel the need to go to such lengths late in the day, when you find yourself being criticised for advocating a 'policy lynch' to demonstrate that you thought he might also be scum? This to me seems to betray a lack of courage in your convictions, as if you're covering your arse by giving as many reasonable-sounding justifications as possible.

I'd have been considerably less concerned about your conduct had you stuck to 'Battle Mage had to die regardless of alignment.' It's not a position I like: I believe I made clear at the time I am opposed to policy lynches. But I find genuine conviction in a flawed position to be more town than this kind of equivocation.

Also, yesterday, you seemed very in favour of lynching the people who looked scummiest, the 'easy lynches' as it were.

I think I'll be nominating dylan and Dean Winchester as soon as the next day starts.

Now, today, you seem to have been converted to the idea of going after 'hard lynches.' (After going after 'easy' lynches for a couple of days yielded a couple of townie lynches).

This is hard. I can think of 4 people who have been acting very pro-town all game: participating well, making pro-town points etc etc etc.

They are mneme, Yosarian2, Stewie and The Fonz.

When I ask you if you had a particular 'hard lynch in mind, you responded:

As yet (pending re-read) I don't have any evidence against any of the "hard" players.

But oh, look, as soon as Yos expresses suspicion of Stoof, lo and behold:

At the moment, out of that list of hard to lynch players, the one who looks most suspicious to me is you, Stoofer, for reasons I pointed out during and after that Battle Mage lynch.

Yos is top of his list since two days ago.

@ Mneme: I don't think for a second we can rule out Stoof/Yos bussing. My current theory is Albert, Stoof, and one of Yos/Dean.

[The Fonz]

Stoof: I have a few questions. Firstly:

As presently advised I want the following people dead in the following order:

1. Battle Mage
   - for the 3 reasons given above.
   
2. dylan
   - probably scum; definitely not Liberal.
   
3. VanDamien
   - definitely Scum, not sure of his alignment. Once we have killed the above, it will probably be time for him to die.

Well, your first two died in order. Do you now want VanDamien dead? If not, what is it that has changed your mind?

I have changed my mind because:

• Neither Battle Mage nor dylan were Conservative scum. At the time I made that post I had a high degree of confidence that at least one of them was.
  
• My subsequent, growing, gnawing suspicion of Yosarian2.
  
• My recent realisation that we need to look harder at the "hard" players.
  
• My spat with Yosarian2.

Note that I said "As presently advised..." We have a lot of new information since then.

OK, this answers the question fairly well. Thankyou.

My fundamental point here is: if you wanted Battle Mage dead for policy reasons, and that constituted sufficient grounds for a lynch by itself, why did you feel the need to go to such lengths late in the day, when you find yourself being criticised for advocating a 'policy lynch' to demonstrate that you thought he might also be scum? This to me seems to betray a lack of courage in your convictions, as if you're covering your arse by giving as many reasonable-sounding justifications as possible.

I really wanted Battle Mage dead (in real life, not just in the game) as soon as he challenged VanDamien. Of course I didn't vote straight away: knee-jerk reactions are a Bad Thing, and anyway I was so furious I wanted to calm down before I did anything.

That's not an implausible explanation, I suppose. You did, though, make several fairly long posts outlining a case for lynching BM on policy. Were you fuming whilst writing all of them?

Thirdly

: Battle Mage is a complete idiot, who is bound to distract and hurt the Town regardless of his alignment, and the sooner he is dead the better. Further, as long as he is in the game I can't concentrate due to fury.

You wrote this a full day after BM's challenge, and again you're asserting that we absolutely must lynch him. You, presumably, had at least a little time to reflect on it, you still appear convinced that BM needs to die, and yet you don't vote.

In fact, you were so convinced of the need for a BM lynch, that you expressed suspicion of Yos for the very act of defending Battle Mage:

Also, I am suspicious of Yosarian2 for not supporting Battle Mage's death. I would have thought that he would be as keen as anyone to deter unilateral action.

And you

still don't vote!

You can't criticise me for not voting earlier (especially since Yosarian2 has criticised me for voting too early!).

Actually, I can. I'm not Yosarian, and I can find different things scummy to him.

As the day wore on I came to think more and more that Battle Mage was actually Scum - so of course I posted my reasons. I especially wanted to convince those such as Yosarian2 who were not willing to take the "policy" into account when choosing who to vote for.

Except that a lot of your attempts to 'convince' Yos came after Battle Mage's lynch was inevitable, and you didn't need his vote.

My point exactly. I was about to make a post just nominating the two easiest lynches, when I suddenly thought: "this is too easy, there must be scum amongst the players whom I have been regarding, up to now, as pro-Town."

Presumably, you thought they were easy lynches because they looked extremely scummy to you, right? And equally obviously, you must have had some reason to think those four town. 'There must be at least one scum amongst these four' is no argument at all, since one in four is a lower proportion than you'd get by picking on someone at random (3/7), if indeed you are town.

So, in short, you're going after a group you admit to be more town-looking than the set of those you've decided to ignore, based on the application of crap maths.

And as you say, going after "easy" lynches for a couple of days had yeilded a couple of townies. That's why I made the post about "hard lynches"

The charitable view is that this statement implies you to have lost any confidence in your own ability to find scum. The negative one is that you have either run out of 'easy lynch' townies, or are afraid what you might look like if you pushed another 'easy lynch.'

Well I didn't have any evidence against Yosarian2. All I said was that he was "most suspicious" out of the "hard players", based on what was a gut feeling about the way he played the Battle Mage lynch.

His posts since then, coupled with further thinking by me, have hardened my view.

I asked you this:

The aim, as ever, is to lynch the person most likely to be con scum. If you think one of us you've placed in the 'hard lynch' category fits that bill, by all means, argue for that lynch. /

And your response conspicuously neglected to mention any particular suspicion of Yos, and instead cast blanket suspicion over four players. Then Yos attacks you, and, whoops, he's at the top of your list. This strikes me as being about as blatant an OMGUS as an experienced player such as yourself would ever dare attempt.

[The Fonz]

You did, though, make several fairly long posts outlining a case for lynching BM on policy. Were you fuming whilst writing all of them?

I certainly was! I still haven't forgiven Battle Mage; and I'll never play another game with him as a result of what he did in this game (click here for example.)

You still appear convinced that BM needs to die, and yet you don't vote.

You wrote this a full day after BM's challenge, and again you're asserting that we absolutely must lynch him. You, presumably, had at least a little time to reflect on it, you still appear convinced that BM needs to die, and yet you don't vote.

Casting my mind back, I believe the reason that I didn't vote at this point was that there was no need -- since unvoting is not allowed, there was every reason to wait and no reason to rush. Then I noticed that we had an even number of players, and the rule that in case of a tie the first to the required number of votes is saved, so I put my vote on.

There's no reason

not

to vote either. If you are genuinely convinced of the utility of a particular lynch, what benefit is there from waiting?

I don't know who the scum is. So when you asked me who out of the four I thought was suspicious, I said that I didn't know. Then Yosarian2 attacked me with points that I think are crap points - CrapLogic if you like. It's not at all surprising that I have responded accordingly. When a superb player like Yosarian2 uses bad reasons, then I start to think that they are Scum.

So your suspicion of Yosarian was brand new then? It's funny, because I could have sworn you said:

Actually, there is another reason why I have been suspicious of Yosarian2: his behaviour on the Battle Mage wagon. Yosarian2 was very pro "the System", and yet he seemed to regard Battle Mage's subversion of it with equanimity. And, when Battle Mage started acting scummy (quite apart from subverting the System), he defended him, going after me instead.

I didn't bother quoting the whole post, but it's more of the same. So you suddenly became suspicious of something Yosarian did two days ago?

[The Fonz]

]

You did, though, make several fairly long posts outlining a case for lynching BM on policy. Were you fuming whilst writing all of them?

I certainly was! I still haven't forgiven Battle Mage; and I'll never play another game with him as a result of what he did in this game (click here for example.)

You still appear convinced that BM needs to die, and yet you don't vote.

You wrote this a full day after BM's challenge, and again you're asserting that we absolutely must lynch him. You, presumably, had at least a little time to reflect on it, you still appear convinced that BM needs to die, and yet you don't vote.

Casting my mind back, I believe the reason that I didn't vote at this point was that there was no need -- since unvoting is not allowed, there was every reason to wait and no reason to rush. Then I noticed that we had an even number of players, and the rule that in case of a tie the first to the required number of votes is saved, so I put my vote on.

There's no reason

not

to vote either. If you are genuinely convinced of the utility of a particular lynch, what benefit is there from waiting?

I don't know who the scum is. So when you asked me who out of the four I thought was suspicious, I said that I didn't know. Then Yosarian2 attacked me with points that I think are crap points - CrapLogic if you like. It's not at all surprising that I have responded accordingly. When a superb player like Yosarian2 uses bad reasons, then I start to think that they are Scum.

So your suspicion of Yosarian was brand new then? It's funny, because I could have sworn you said:

Actually, there is another reason why I have been suspicious of Yosarian2: his behaviour on the Battle Mage wagon. Yosarian2 was very pro "the System", and yet he seemed to regard Battle Mage's subversion of it with equanimity. And, when Battle Mage started acting scummy (quite apart from subverting the System), he defended him, going after me instead.

I didn't bother quoting the whole post, but it's more of the same. So you suddenly became suspicious of something Yosarian did two days ago?

[The Fonz]

If you are genuinely convinced of the utility of a particular lynch, what benefit is there from waiting?

Because something might happen to change my mind. And

I never said I was 100% convinced anyway.

Just because I thought that it was right to lynch Battle Mage, doesn't mean that I didn't have any doubts. That was why I was so furious - I knew that Battle Mage could be Town, but I felt that we ought to lynch him to enforce discipline.

You say 'Battle Mage needs to die ASAP' and you're not convinced yourself?

[*]Further, I had already said way back in post 324 that I thought it suspicious that Yosarian2 didn't support a Battle Mage lynch. So this is not a case of me "

suddenly became suspicious of something Yosarian did two days ago

" (your words)

Yes, you did. But if you were suspicious of Yos all along, why did you say this:

This is hard. I can think of 4 people who have been acting very pro-town all game: participating well, making pro-town points etc etc etc.

They are mneme, Yosarian2, Stewie and The Fonz

Implying that you found Yos no more suspicious than any of the other three in that list at that point? You didn't say 'I have three players I find to be generally pro-town, and Yos, who although he hasn't done anything majorly scummy, I have a bad feeling about.'

Two posts, from,

[Yosarian] has been participating well all game, making pro-town points, etc etc

To

That's a coincidence. Out of the hard players, you are the most suspicious for your baseless accusations against me. I explained the misunderstanding but you have refused to acknowledge my explanation, let alone take it on board.

[The Fonz]

Disagree. That 'four protown looking players' post, to me, implied that those four players looked much of a muchness to you, to the extent that a re-read would be required to find anything especially incriminating.

Also, the vehemence with which you attack Yos' conduct vis-a-vis Battle Mage does not make it look like a minor suspicion to me.

[The Fonz]

I think I'm going to stay away from the heavyweights...

Hmmm.... surely the idea is to challenge the person you find scummiest?

[The Fonz]

Perhaps I ought to rephrase that. The pro-town thing to do here is to challenge the person you think is most likely to be conservative. If that's VD, sobeit. Challenging someone you think you can beat but who you don't find that scummy is, well, scummy.

[The Fonz]

Those of you wanting a response from mneme are largely whistling in the wind, he's said he's away until tomorrow.

I'm not buying Stoofer's sudden conversion to 'hard lynches.' Nor does Albert's claim that mneme is going after easy lynches hold up -he's not been doing so any more than anyone else. Dylan was lynched unanimously, remember, Albert is trying to make what looks to me like sincere annoyance with Sparks (the 'come get some' comment, an annoyance I- and most of those players who were around D1) to be some kind of scumtactic. It also sits very uneasily with me that Albert was so unwilling to share his case on mneme with us (and still hasn't shared his case on me).

I voted BM, so did Stoof, so did Stewie, and Dylan who we know to have been (albeit really bad) town, why do Mneme's votes stand out? This has been a remarkably consensual town thus far-

most

people thought both Dylan and Sparks were both scum.

It looks a lot like Albert's trying to make mneme out to be really scummy, for finding someone who looked really scummy...scummy. I don't like the way mneme basically ignores Dean in his calculus for today, and use it to come to a false conclusion, but... I still find him much the scummier, and Stoof's 'I think they're probably both town' is just a brilliant way to avoid voting a buddy, whilst simultaneously distancing yourself from the lynch of a townie that goes along with it.

Albert and Stoof. Bookmark it.

vote:mneme

[The Fonz]

You had another four hours, I think.

[The Fonz]

Fonz at this point I can only take your accusations as OMGUS.

Jesus, you're trying the baseless OMGUS argument AGAIN? I'd actually be less suspicious of you

had you set out a case on me

, rather than saying you had one, then sitting on it. I've made quite clear why I think Stoofer is scum, and you're almost certain to be his scumbuddy. If you have a specific objection to any of the points I've made, make it. Just trying to wave your magic 'It's all OMGUS!' wand didn't work the last time, and it won't this.

[The Fonz]

Well, although most of the connections run Stoof-Albert rather than the other way, I think it is pretty notable the manner in which Albert picked up on mneme 'going after easy lynches' whilst ignoring the fact that his arguments coincided with Stoofer's most of the time.

That said, I

am

slightly more sure of Stoofer's scumminess than Albert's. I could see Stoofer-Dean-Yos as an outside possibility, but I can't think of an Albert scumgroup that doesn't also include Stoofer.

Nom: Mr Stoofer

[The Fonz]

I just remembered that Albert challenged yesterday, so he'd be ineligible to do so today anyway. Which makes the Stoofer nomination even more of a slam dunk in my eyes.

[The Fonz]

I was referring to JD Mafia, where you made the exact same kinda 'your accusations must be baseless or OMGUS' argument after I attacked you for railroading a newbish townie.

I have however, gotten very bad anti-town vibes from you, which I've mentioned in my first post;

Oh, the blatant scum has gotten a bad vibe off of me! Lynch me now![/sarcasm]

that's the reason why I think your just going after me because I went after you.

Except you didn't go after me. At all. You said you were going to, but you never actually did. What you did do is go after a townsperson, mneme, with rubbish arguments, and somehow and I still can't for the life of me figure out how, managed to win the challenge.

Also, please explain why you think Yos and Dean are scum. It might be useful in working out which one is the third con.

[The Fonz]

Nevermind that last part. I thought stoofer was the one that said what the fonz did.

I said Albert should challenge scum rather than someone he thought he could beat, so did Yos, so did you, and Stoofer QFTed it.

[The Fonz]

Challenge: Stoofer

I don't want him modkilled. That just gives everyone else the opportunity to lurk until it happens. We get far more information from challenging and forcing people (particularly Yos/Dean) to take a position.

[The Fonz]

Well, you never actually nommed him, and you provided the clinching vote in killing a townie and saving the guy most likely to be his scumbuddy. You've distanced from him, sure, but you've not yet done anything I'd see as opposed to Stoof-scum's interests.

Most of my case against Stoof is in my 539 and 543. The short version:

He's been on every lynch so far. None have been conservative.

The fact that he made such a song and dance about how Battle Mage had to die for policy reasons, and then decided that he might well be scum when the idea of policy-lynching came under attack.

I'll pull the following extract out, as it seems particularly pertinent:

As the day wore on I came to think more and more that Battle Mage was actually Scum - so of course I posted my reasons. I especially wanted to convince those such as Yosarian2 who were not willing to take the "policy" into account when choosing who to vote for.

Except that a lot of your attempts to 'convince' Yos came after Battle Mage's lynch was inevitable, and you didn't need his vote.

Looks like ass-covering to me.

The 'hard lynch' thing. As I said before, it seems like a rationalisation for saving scummy people over townish ones. His conversion also occurred just in time to save Albert and kill off a townie. I don't think this is a coincidence. This bit sums up my thoughts:

My point exactly. I was about to make a post just nominating the two easiest lynches, when I suddenly thought: "this is too easy, there must be scum amongst the players whom I have been regarding, up to now, as pro-Town."

Presumably, you thought they were easy lynches because they looked extremely scummy to you, right? And equally obviously, you must have had some reason to think those four town. 'There must be at least one scum amongst these four' is no argument at all, since one in four is a lower proportion than you'd get by picking on someone at random (3/7), if indeed you are town.

The speed with which he turns on Yos after Yos suggests that Stoof looks scummy, having up to that point found him town. See my 550. I don't know whether it was OMGUS or staged distancing, but either way it looks scummy to me.

The way in which he apparently found Yos' defence of BM scummy, but made no comment at all about Albert doing the same.

I think that's the gist of it.

[The Fonz]

What a surprise...

[The Fonz]

Oh, and we're still waiting for you to tell us (ie- pull out of your ass) the reasons why you think Stoof had the upper hand in the argument with Yos.

[The Fonz]

Most of my case against Stoof is in my 539 and 543. The short version:

He's been on every lynch so far. None have been conservative.

You cannot blame Stoofer for a group mistake. If those players died, its because the majority of the town believed they were conservative.

Stoofer is the only one who's been on every one. That's a noteworthy voting pattern. Is any one lynch his fault exclusively? Of course not. The mneme vote was particularly scummy. Without Stoof's vote, the townish player would not have been lynched, and the scummy one saved, so I damn well can blame him, and everyone else who voted to save you there.

The fact that he made such a song and dance about how Battle Mage had to die for policy reasons, and then decided that he might well be scum when the idea of policy-lynching came under attack.

Once again, a majority of players wanted to lynch BM for policy reasons, including mneme:

Including mneme? Mneme was

the only

player other than Stoof in favour of a policy lynch. So the claim that a majority thought that way is simply untrue. Stewie, Dylan and myself voted for him because he looked scummy.

I think that we should only lynch BM if we really think he's scum. The only reason to keep VD around is numbers, but getting rid of a townie will also reduce out numbers. Right now, the only reason I have to think BM is scum is that challenge he just made.

I believe Spin Wizard, Battlemage and one other person (maybe DeanWinchester) comprise the conservative mafia.

I think the correct pro-town course of action here, at the very least, is to interrogate BM as thoroughly as possible, so that we can make the most informed guess about whether or not he is conservative or not.

And mneme, unlike Stoofer, had the courage of his convictions- as soon as he declared himself strongly in favour of a BM lynch, he voted BM. Whereas Stoof, it was like he was saying 'we must lynch BM for sure' early on, to encourage others to vote him, whilst waiting until he had as many excuses as possible lined up before voting him himself.

If we let BM get away with this insanely anti-town move, we're encouraging people to practice day killing (which is what an early challenge amounts to if it has any chance of working -- doubly so, since it's both killing the day and killing -during- the day). Only scum have an incentive to challenge early, especially in a way that contradicts the town debate. Therefore, anyone who's acted this way has more or less announced scummishness.

vote: VanDamien

I may want to add that I wasn't in on that, and would have had VanDamien killed. And honestly, VanDamien has been more reliable than BM so far, and I would think the mafia wouldn't care whoever is lynched - if VD truly is liberal.

Not true. The main way in which VD has influenced play since then was by voting to save you. Which, as I think is obvious, I believe to have been strongly to the town's detriment. And like it or not, a townie has more reason to try to actively help the town than a Liberal does.



[

quote="The Fonz"]
The 'hard lynch' thing. As I said before, it seems like a rationalisation for saving scummy people over townish ones. His conversion also occurred just in time to save Albert and kill off a townie. I don't think this is a coincidence. This bit sums up my thoughts:

My point exactly. I was about to make a post just nominating the two easiest lynches, when I suddenly thought: "this is too easy, there must be scum amongst the players whom I have been regarding, up to now, as pro-Town."

Presumably, you thought they were easy lynches because they looked extremely scummy to you, right? And equally obviously, you must have had some reason to think those four town. 'There must be at least one scum amongst these four' is no argument at all, since one in four is a lower proportion than you'd get by picking on someone at random (3/7), if indeed you are town.

The speed with which he turns on Yos after Yos suggests that Stoof looks scummy, having up to that point found him town. See my 550. I don't know whether it was OMGUS or staged distancing, but either way it looks scummy to me.

I found the hard lynch thing was very logical - not being at LyLo yet, it wouldn't be a bad move to lynch someone who's death would yield a lot of information. We would have an easier time analyzing and making connections to make the right choices when we are actually in Ly-Lo.[/quote]

That doesn't make any sense. mneme was one of the least informative lynches possible. The only potential tie was to Dean. Not that I believe lynching 'for information' is ever a good thing anyway, but you would have been a more informative lynch, as well as being much scummier.

The way in which he apparently found Yos' defence of BM scummy, but made no comment at all about Albert doing the same.

I think that's the gist of it.

Because at the time I mostly relied on Yosarian to base my defense of BM on, Stoofer naturally refuted Yosarian's arguments, since I didn't have much to say that Yos didn't already put on the table.

Stoofer didn't refute Yos' arguments. He didn't even come close. Again, please explain why you felt Stoofer 'had the upper hand,' in that argument, since I strongly feel that Yos did.

[The Fonz]

God I am good at formulating weak arguments - and for once, I am proud of doing it purposely.

Vote: The Fonz

Let's wrap this baby up nice and tight

You played your allotted role brilliantly, I must say.

Now, how about this massive tax cut?

(Yes, I know, technically the third scumbuddy has to avoid the modkill, but with three days left I'd say that's a formality).

I was slightly worried Stewie would twig why you hadn't yet voted for Stoof, but seems like we got away with it.

[The Fonz]

Not really. I think the mneme lynch was the crucial one, and that was the one that had least to do with me.

[The Fonz]

So what's your 'lesson learned' from this one going to be?

(Btw- love having 'Don't get lynched D1' as a lesson).

[The Fonz]

Damn straight.

[The Fonz]

We'd have won had I not challenged him, and Stoof's absense led to modkill anyway. I just thought that would be a bit boring and anticlimatic.

[The Fonz]

Oooh, interesting. I think Yos would have won that one, but it's a hypothetical anyway.

[The Fonz]

VanDamien's vote for Albert was a Godsend, from a scum perspective. There was no way I could have voted ABR without giving us away.

[The Fonz]

Not that it matters, but could you bold that?

[The Fonz]

Heh...it's funny, BM, but I would say my actions on the day you were lynched were just about exactally what they would have been in I was town. There were some points of the game where I did act scummy, but I don't think that was one of them.

Likewise, I think. I was waiting for the kind of act from BM that would normally convince me of scummitude had I been town.

[The Fonz]

That's an overly simplistic analysis though. I attacked Albert whilst actually voting for Albert, at a point where he was still in danger of lynch (I began writing my

vote:mneme

post before Yosarian voted Albert- the only time ANYONE voted against a conservative who was actually in any danger). The fact that I subsequently attacked him whilst primarily attacking Stoofer isn't that relevant, since the Stoofer lynch won us the game.

Yes, Stoofer coming up town would have looked bad- but it wasn't an issue. Had we lynched Albert, the Stoofer lynch would have pushed itself.

[The Fonz]

I disagree that I would have been remotely the obvious lynch had you prevailed over Albert. Had Stoofer not gone for the

actually very scummy

tactic of switching to 'Hard Lynches' then Albert would have been the one player I'd gone after hardest in the game. And it wouldn't have been a 'late bus' either.

[The Fonz]

I really think you're overstating the scum-friendliness of this game, mneme. After all, the only person ever forced to challenge was scum. And we did, as a group, lynch five non-cons in a row. You may have a point about the deadlines, but I can't see how the challenge system in itself favoured scum- it really wasn't that big a modification anyway. Most towns find themselves deciding between a very limited number of candidates as the days go on anyway. Also, having multiple scumgroups ought to help the town- as, in fact, it did here, in buying the town an extra day to find con scum.

In any case, everyone knew this was to be speed mafia when they signed up. It's rather churlish to complain about the fact.

[The Fonz]

Fonz: There were two players forced to challenge -- Albert and Sparks -- both scum. If the town had taken a "if you're forced to challenge, we'll lynch you", we'd have done better.

Sparks wasn't forced to challenge. He challenged before the deadline because it was obvious the town wanted him to. If town operated a policy of lynching anyone forced to challenge, that would have led to people rushing to avoid being the least recent poster, rather thsn

Having multiple scum groups still makes the town less likely to win -- we'd have had better odds with a single four person scum group. (and worse with a 6 person scum group, but hey. ) It also makes any given scumgroup less likely to win, but not as much as it hurts the town.

Well, if you mean compared to a single four person scumgroup, of course it does. But a single four-player scumgroup, with no nightkills, that game would be unbalanced in the town's favour.

Would he have helped save me instead of kill me in absentia?

I think so, actually. It's at least possible. I really can't understand why VD voted Albert at all.

[The Fonz]

I do actually think that saving BM would have been in the town's interest. Yet, that's in retrospect, knowing that he was town. I think there was plenty of reason for pro-town players to think that Battle Mage was scum. It wasn't coincidence that ALL the pro-towners voted to kill BM.

[The Fonz]

Yes. In part because one of its players did something extremely rash, anti-town, and scummy-looking, which handed the scum a mislynch without even having to try.

Just for the record though Stoof- I'd still have found your actions in relation to BM scummy if I were town. It was fortunate that I was not.

[The Fonz]

It's far too strong to blame the entire loss on you, BM, since three mislynches occurred after your death. But I don't think you've got anyone else to blame for your own lynch.

It's incredibly frustrating the way that you attack anyone who tries to give you advice.