Mini 568 - Nubigena (Game over!)

[Mizzy]

My problem with this is: why would Near, a power-role, expect to be "pretty easily lynched"? This post was made 11 days before the gunsmith claim, and it did make me wonder if these were the words of a scum who hadn't yet thought of a convincing roleclaim. I'd like to get Near's comments on this.

As we have run into in this game, just because someone is or claims to be a power role does not mean they are safe from the lynching noose. Claims can be argued, dismissed, ignored, and any number of unfavorable things, and as I have seen in other games, even someone who really is what they claim to be can be lynched anyway.

One of these situations must, surely, be true:

1. Near is a scum, and there is a real investigator.
2. Near is innocent, and, though inaccurate, the only investigator.
3. Near is innocent, and there is a second, probably also weakened, investigator.

There is also:
4. Near is innocent and he is accurate and the only investigator.

The fact that you left that one out kind of makes me raise an eyebrow because it makes me wonder if you know something the rest of us do not. It's just a feeling, mind you, but it does worry me.

[Mizzy]

I don't like the way Near clamped down on Sammich so long for "dicey" (pun intended) reasons- if he truly was a gunsmith, why wouldn't he have waited to look at him last night rather than push on the way he did, even as most of the town was pointing out his bad logic and unsupported assertions?

Toss in the test/there was no test, the results double-take on Reyo and the guilty/there was no guilty and his claim looks flat out fabricated to me.

No matter what our opinions on his scumminess/towniness is, I don't see a reason to dwell more than necessary on his claim because we have no cop/investigator death and no counterclaim. At the very least, he is not harming us, and we have a chance to scumhunt in more fruitful (less WIFOM) places, which we should take. We can always lynch him later if we find out that he is lying, but once he's dead, there is no getting him back. Better to be safe than sorry.

I'm not saying conversation on his claim should stop, but I think we are dwelling on it too much and not looking at other things enough.

[ooba]

Welcome back Mizzy ..

I'll do a quick re-read and post my thoughts ..

[Ripley]

My problem with this is: why would Near, a power-role, expect to be "pretty easily lynched"? This post was made 11 days before the gunsmith claim, and it did make me wonder if these were the words of a scum who hadn't yet thought of a convincing roleclaim. I'd like to get Near's comments on this.

As we have run into in this game, just because someone is or claims to be a power role does not mean they are safe from the lynching noose. Claims can be argued, dismissed, ignored, and any number of unfavorable things, and as I have seen in other games, even someone who really is what they claim to be can be lynched anyway.

I wish you could have left this for Near to respond to himself.

One of these situations must, surely, be true:

1. Near is a scum, and there is a real investigator.
2. Near is innocent, and, though inaccurate, the only investigator.
3. Near is innocent, and there is a second, probably also weakened, investigator.

There is also:
4. Near is innocent and he is accurate and the only investigator.

The fact that you left that one out kind of makes me raise an eyebrow because it makes me wonder if you know something the rest of us do not. It's just a feeling, mind you, but it does worry me.

It's clearly stated that the vigilante was carrying a gun and therefore there is known to be a case in which a gunsmith would receive a misleading result. This is what I meant by "inaccurate".

[gorckat]

It's clearly stated that the vigilante was carrying a gun and therefore there is known to be a case in which a gunsmith would receive a misleading result. This is what I meant by "inaccurate".

That's pretty hair-splitty (pun

not

intended )- a gunsmith would

accurately

identify a vig as having a gun.

[Ripley]

It's clearly stated that the vigilante was carrying a gun and therefore there is known to be a case in which a gunsmith would receive a misleading result. This is what I meant by "inaccurate".

That's pretty hair-splitty (pun

not

intended )- a gunsmith would

accurately

identify a vig as having a gun.

Indeed he would, but I have explained that it was his accuracy in identifying scum, not in spotting guns, to which I was referring.

[gorckat]

I know you did- I'm just saying it looks revisionist.

[Y]

Ripley: I didn't want the day to end in a no-lynch, but I was unable to be here when the deadline hit, due to it being very early in the morning and I have no time to spare before I go to work. Why didn't I do it right then? Not because I wanted to keep Near close to the noose (It was apparent that people will unvote after the claim), but because I wanted there to be enough time for anybody who might say something important or counter-claim before the day ends.
Why did I do it with such a strict mod? Because you can't know if you don't try.

gorckat: I didn't want to just ignore that case after I pushed it so hard, but I did use the same post to fall back a bit. You would've noticed it if you didn't, "accidentally", forget to quote the second sentence of the same post:

It appears like you're more clueless than scummy at the moment, so I'll leave it as is for one

(Was supposed to be "now")

. It doesn't mean I won't remember it.

[gorckat]

It wasn't an accident.

The point was- you repeated the question. I didn't read the second line as saying 'don't bother answering it now'. Something like 'this is what I had asked, but forget it for now' would've been clear.

It still looks like an invitation for a cop to themselves.

[Y]

I might have phrased it in a suboptimal way, but I was going to attack him really hard in that post. I decided to change my angle midway and rephrased most of the post, but didn't rewrite it completely from scratch.

[Y]

By "Accident" (with the quotation marks) I was saying that it was on purpose.

[gorckat]

The quotes implied I had left it out scummily and I wanted to be clear I knew what it was I quoted and didn't.

[Y]

Then why did you omit that part?

[gorckat]

Because my point was that you were still presenting to a player, that 1) you thought was a cop and 2) was under pressure, a question that looks like an invitation to out them.

The rest of the post gave

me

no feeling that you were backing of off it significantly (as in- don't answer the question) so I didn't quote it.

On further review, the latter half looks loaded to

get

him to out himself- 'you're so clueless I don't care how you know MP's role'.

[Mizzy]

Oh, right, this reminds me why I was voting Y before I had to vote someone else at deadline.

Vote: Y

[Lowell]

So, mizzy, what's your take on the Near claim, then?

[ooba]

I'll be away for the weekend - will post after that ..

Please do not lynch anyone by then - i've finished 15 pages of my re read - think i have a whiff of 2 possible scum - will complete and post my findings ..

[Mizzy]

So, mizzy, what's your take on the Near claim, then?

You know, I'm pretty sure I've already said, multiple times.

[gorckat]

Mizzy: Not clearly and not recently, actually.

[destructor]

.::] Vote Count [::.

Near (1)

- gorckat

Mizzy (1)

- Lowell

Lowell (3)

- Incognito, Y, Imat

Y (1)

- Mizzy

Not Voting (3) - Near, Ripley, ooba

Near has been prodded

[Ripley]

Ripley: I didn't want the day to end in a no-lynch, but I was unable to be here when the deadline hit, due to it being very early in the morning and I have no time to spare before I go to work. Why didn't I do it right then? Not because I wanted to keep Near close to the noose (It was apparent that people will unvote after the claim), but because I wanted there to be enough time for anybody who might say something important or counter-claim before the day ends.
Why did I do it with such a strict mod? Because you can't know if you don't try.

Sorry - I just don't understand this. You accepted that Near wasn't going to be lynched, and even so chose to leave your vote there, 5 hours before deadline, rather than take action to avoid a no-lynch?

Please would you give a specific, clear example of a credible last-minute event in those remaining 5 hours that would justify risking a no-lynch that you were in a position to prevent? I would really struggle to accept it as credible that an investigator, having chosen not to counterclaim in the previous 5 days, would do so out of the blue just before deadline.

Also, you know this mod doesn't accept votes without an unvote. Can you seriously have thought he would have accepted a proxy, conditional deadline vote from you when you hadn't even unvoted?

It really sounds as if you were trying to give the impression of wanting to avoid the no-lynch, while failing to do the one thing that would have accomplished that.

[Y]

I never played a game modded by destructor before, so I had no idea how strict he is.
I really think another investigator could claim in that last minute.
About Near, I knew it wasn't probable, but I did hope he'll get lynched (Which would not happen if some one counter-claimed, but my vote wasn't there).
Since Near said he'll self-vote, and I knew other people will be here in time (He was overkilled without the self-vote), I decided to take the chance. You can say whatever you want, but in fact, I was right by assuming a lynch will take place.

gorckat, as I said: I rephrased that post several times while writing it. You can either believe me, or not, but if you want answers, you should ask clear questions.
It seems weird to me that I'm both accused for trying to get Sammich-cop outed, and for defending him at the same time.

[gorckat]

Since Near said he'll self-vote, and I knew other people will be here in time (He was overkilled without the self-vote), I decided to take the chance.

Can you point to the post he said that? It sounds familiar, but I couldn't find it with CTRL-F or skimming his posts the end of Day One.

[Mizzy]

Mizzy: Not clearly and not recently, actually.

Firstly, Near's claim was ages ago. I already voiced my stance on that, loudly and clearly. Secondly, why are you asking me now when you can go read what I already said? Does repeating myself really help anything or as you looking for a distraction?

[Ripley]

Since Near said he'll self-vote, and I knew other people will be here in time (He was overkilled without the self-vote), I decided to take the chance.

Can you point to the post he said that? It sounds familiar, but I couldn't find it with CTRL-F or skimming his posts the end of Day One.

It was Niv, not Near, who said that. I think that's what Y meant to say.

I never played a game modded by destructor before, so I had no idea how strict he is.

I haven't played a game modded by destructor before either, but it was simply not possible to play through Day 1 of this one and not be aware of his strict voting rules. A huge number of votes were ignored for not observing the rule that you must unvote first. You must have known this.

I really think another investigator could claim in that last minute.

Too late to force a lynch but just in time, if genuine, to helpfully let the scum know they were a power role? Really?