Mini #553: Over!

[Khelvaster]

When will this end Vote Count

Votes required:

5 to lynch

massive

-

destructor, Matt_S

Qman

-

massive

Not Voting:

5, Imat, Qman, Mert, Ting =), Khelvaster[

Yeah, from the beginning I've said that Khelvaster's actions didn't make much sense. I think it would be justified if I was suspicious of him, especially considering his lackluster performance so far today. You saying that scum don't have safeclaims shouldn't make him any more protown.

Actually, it does make me more pro-town. If you found out, on d2, that scum had safeclaims after someone pushed hard for killing off everyone who wasn't in the fellowship, then that would be really suspicious, since all non-fellowships would be townies if scum had safeclaimed names in the fellowship.

Hopping on this bandwagon to use safeclaims as an argument DOES NOT WIN YOU POINTS.

I'm warning you now about trying to make a bandwagon against those who said safeclaims were an argument. There is a very low chance all the pro-safeclaimers are scum. They are making a logical mistake, but you can't say they are scum because of speculation. You were nailing destructor and Matt hard on that. Not that they don't deserve nailing, but that's a stupidtell, not a scumtell.

Why do you think I'm voting for you? Do you think I'm trying to get your approval? The fact is, I find your logic about safeclaims to be unsatisfactory. The possibility of safeclaims shouldn't be used as evidence, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend that the mafia doesn't have them when we interpret people's actions.

THIS ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS POINTLESS!

UNDERSTAND?

POINTLESS!


So, here's why it's pointless: Originally, some people thought there was no category of named+unfellowship+town. I made the suggestion and pushed very hard that we should make sure that there was a category of unnamed+unfellowship. Otherwise, we could have broken the game by revealing there were nine named+fellowship+town and three named+unfellowship+scum.

After word gets out that there is, indeed, named+unfellowship+town, the scum get a practically infinite number of safeclaims. I wonder whether you have any idea of how many good characters are in The Lord of the Rings and not in the Felloswhip. Just to start naming,

Erkenbrand
Eomer
Eowyn
Glorfindel
(Tod?) Butterbur
Elrond
Theoden
Gamling
Faramir
Bilbo
Galadriel
Fangorn (Treebeard)
Tom Bombadil
Lady Goldberry
Haldir


15 names, none of which are in the Fellowship, and all of which play respectable roles in The Lord of the Rings (although if you haven't read the book, you might not know a few of these.)

Regardless, mafia have plenty of safeclaims without being assigned safeclaims.

[massive]

Khelvaster

: I'm not bandwagoning anyone because of the safeclaim nonsense. I believe I'm still voting for Qman, who I thought was a killer three weeks ago and haven't had anything change my mind. I'm just trying to make people realize that it's a moot point to debate. We DON'T KNOW if there are safeclaims -- therefore, it's ridiculous to make decisions based on something we DON'T KNOW.

Matt_S

: This:

Why do you think I'm voting for you? Do you think I'm trying to get your approval? The fact is, I find your logic about safeclaims to be unsatisfactory. The possibility of safeclaims shouldn't be used as evidence, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend that the mafia doesn't have them when we interpret people's actions.

is what we call WIFOM. "So-and-so wouldn't do that as Mafia, BUT! He might have a safeclaim! So he WOULD do it! BUT! He might think we'd guess about the safeclaims, so he WOULDN'T do it!" I realize you haven't gotten to the third part yet, but clearly you can see why, EXACTLY, using the supposed possibility of safeclaims in any argument is WIFOM and therefore useless.

My "does not win you points" is trying to get you to play like a townie. No one in this town will lynch you. The least you can do for us in return is NOT play scummy.

[Matt_S]

It sounds a lot like we're all saying the same things over an over again. But I'll say this one last time. Assuming that there are no safeclaims isn't the way to interpret people's actions.

[massive]

Then you and I will agree to differ on this one. The only way you can say that is if you KNOW FOR CERTAIN there are safeclaims ... and in order for you to know that, you had to have one.

[Matt_S]

I'm not saying that you should assume there are safeclaims, just that you have to accept it as a real possibility. I'm continuing to lean towards the scum watching us destroy each other.

Unvote
Mod:

Please prod ting, Imat, and Qman. And how's the search for Mert's replacement?

[Imat]

Just a few words on Matt_S's early game performance: Does not seem Town to me. On the first page he hints at the secret his role PM contains, saying its why a mass claim wouldn't work. Nobody picks up on the nature of the secret, he hints harder. Then he states "I'll probably be NKed" in the same post as "To all vanillas: be VERY careful about how much you reveal from your pm. We can use this info to prove innocence later on." If you claim Vanilla, why would you be so worried about being NKed? "I don't see a power role voting someone who claims to fear for the power roles' safety." You weren't actually worried about Khel's safety during the Night? Did you know he wouldn't be the target? Then you FoS Ting and GSGold because they "Don't know the same things I (Matt) do." Succeeded by your suspicions of an evil Mod. I find it funny that you argue for Khel being a Power Role but don't even consider anyone else to be. Perhaps Khel is the Townie and Ting and GSGold are the PR's...(Power Roles, not Post Restrictions...). But the worst part of post 28 is your completely noncommital accusations of Coolbot. To me, they looked like preparation for the need to distance in the future. Then theres the business of waiting for another Townie to come forward with the secret. Sounds a lot like you didn't quite know the "secret" that you yourself claimed and wanted someone else to bring it to light for you, to verify you. The minute the flavor is extinguished, however, you state that Vanillas have no names. This does not confirm you in any way, I'm sure the majority of games have nameless Vanillas. Its a filler role.

All that leaves me at a

FoS: Matt_S

pending complete reread of him, not just up to the loss of flavor post. If I had to say from that alone, however, I'd say either Massive or Khel is a possible Buddy, if there are even three Mafia when we had an SK.

Matt, from what I gather from the first few pages, you seem to be against the ideas of a Safeclaim. Why, now, do you seem to support them? Especially since they could blend in with the nameless Townies.

More to come!

[Matt_S]

Then he states "I'll probably be NKed" in the same post as "To all vanillas: be VERY careful about how much you reveal from your pm. We can use this info to prove innocence later on." If you claim Vanilla, why would you be so worried about being NKed?

Because mafia like killing people who others think are town? Granted, people

didn't

think I was town, but that's not how I expected things to go.

"I don't see a power role voting someone who claims to fear for the power roles' safety." You weren't actually worried about Khel's safety during the Night? Did you know he wouldn't be the target?

I can't figure out why you think I didn't expect Khelvaster to be NK'd. Please elaborate.

Then you FoS Ting and GSGold because they "Don't know the same things I (Matt) do." Succeeded by your suspicions of an evil Mod.

I'll say it once more. I thought all vanilla townies knew what I knew, and I thought I made it clear that power roles should be careful about what they say.

I find it funny that you argue for Khel being a Power Role but don't even consider anyone else to be. Perhaps Khel is the Townie and Ting and GSGold are the PR's...

If you knew anything about my early stance, you would know that I thought regular townies wouldn't have names. I didn't think the others were power roles because they didn't act the way I'd expect a power role to act when people are dealing with the issue of a mass nameclaim.

But the worst part of post 28 is your completely noncommital accusations of Coolbot. To me, they looked like preparation for the need to distance in the future.

And if you had read further into the game, I explained why I didn't like the way he worded his post.

This does not confirm you in any way

K. I really don't give a damn

I'm sure the majority of games have nameless Vanillas. Its a filler role.

Funny how you paid no attention to this earlier.

Matt, from what I gather from the first few pages, you seem to be against the ideas of a Safeclaim. Why, now, do you seem to support them? Especially since they could blend in with the nameless Townies.

What does a mass nameclaim have anything to do with safeclaims?

[ting =)]

I'm here, no need to prod. I was pretty busy for a while, but I'm on holiday now, so I'll be posting a bit more. It's 3 am now though, so give me till tomorrow to post.

[Matt_S]

I'd like to hear Imat's followup, as well as ting's thoughts. I'd also like Qman to do something instead of just waiting for Mert's replacement. I don't like the way he was under pressure and then just disappeared when it started letting up.

[ting =)]

Okay, I've just read all the day two posts. I intend to do a full reread, but I'll just post my thoughts on day 2 for now. The major issues brought up seem to be khelvaster-safeclaims and massive-coolbot.

Khelvaster-safeclaims.

If as dectructor suggests, the scum have safeclaims, then I'd consider that maybe destructor is scum. He hopped on the mass-nameclaim suggestion. That shows that he either genuinely had a name, or had a safeclaim. Barring those two possibilities, I can't see any reason for anyone to support a mass nameclaim.

I used to think that destructor really had a name, which is why I thought he was sure to be town. Now I'm trying to piece out what I think. If he really is scum with a safeclaim, then why bring up the possibility at all? To make himself look more townish?

He said he's played in an earlier game where scum had safeclaims and a mass nameclaim was suggested. That might explain why he brought it up, but I'm still slightly iffy about it.

----

On Khel, I still don't think he's scum, and if anything, his posts + coolbots posts make me think the scum don't have safeclaims. If coolbot had a safeclaim, and if Khelv is also scum with a safe claim like Matt suggests, then why didn't coolbot jump on the mass nameclaim idea?

The idea of scum having safeclaims and calling for a mass nameclaim to make themselves look like town doesn't make sense. First off, only destructor hopped on board. Coolbot, who we know is scum, never hopped on board. If anything, coolbot was against it.

That makes me think that Khelv was town who genuinely thougth it was a good idea, and since coolbot wasn't keen on the whole nameclaim thing, I'm guessing destructor must be town too.

Destructor, you're attacking khelv on the basis that he might be scum with a safeclaim, which is why he wanted a name claim. You can't do that without attacking yourself too, since you too were for the name claim.

----

Massive-coolbot

My original guess on reading day 2 was that massive is scum. Massive said that coolbot was the first to claim named-fellowship, but that's not true. Massive was the first to claim it, and coolbot hid behind it. That's why I thought Massive was scum, it looked like he was giving his godfather a way out.

Now, assuming that the scum don't have safeclaims, it seems more likely like coolbot was just hopping behind people. In the beginning, he looked a lot like he was claiming the same role as Matt - unnamed-fellowship. I thought so, and Matt thought so. That's why I found it suspicious when he suddenly turned on Matt.

After that, he gets all ambiguous about his role, something he wouldn't do if he had a safeclaim to hide behind. He never reveals if he's named or not, but just allows massive to defend him as named-fellowship, and then he says nothing to confirm or deny it.

[destructor]

Destructor, you're attacking khelv on the basis that he might be scum with a safeclaim, which is why he wanted a name claim. You can't do that without attacking yourself too, since you too were for the name claim.

I attacked Khelvaster? I don't think I did. I was suggesting why massive should be, if he was going to attack me for bringing safe claims up.

And I wasn't "for" a name claim. That's not to say I was entirely against it either, but I was most definitely erring on the cautious side.

[destructor]

This was to massive, earlier.

Does your suspicion of me have anything to do with scum

actually

having safe-claims?

[massive]

I think, in retrospect, that the longer the debate continued about the nameclaim, the more logical and more SAFE that picking a named, NON-Fellowship person to hide behind became. I put too much of my own role into Coolbot's evasion.

destructor

: I'm not sure if you're posting that because I didn't answer, but here goes: the short answer is no. I have no idea if scum have safeclaims or not. I started being suspicious of you because it seemed like idea came out of nowhere, but now, thinking more about it, the last thing scum would want would be to out the fact that they have safeclaims. So my initial suspicion, while valid in my eyes, would also have to be based around an equal belief that you are a bad player who made a huge mistake. I think, had you been scum, that you would have backtracked on that mistake pretty quickly, and since you haven't ... I guess I have gained some perspective.

[ting =)]

I attacked Khelvaster? I don't think I did. I was suggesting why massive should be, if he was going to attack me for bringing safe claims up.

My mistake.

And I wasn't "for" a name claim. That's not to say I was entirely against it either, but I was most definitely erring on the cautious side.

You can phrase it any way you want, but you're still the only player who hopped on the suggestion in any way.

[Imat]

Matt: Almost finished with the second part of my reread of you, then I'll answer your questions and explain what you may think is unclear. Tomorrow, look forward to it.

[Khelvaster]

Khelvaster-safeclaims.

If as dectructor suggests, the scum have safeclaims, then I'd consider that maybe destructor is scum. He hopped on the mass-nameclaim suggestion. That shows that he either genuinely had a name, or had a safeclaim. Barring those two possibilities, I can't see any reason for anyone to support a mass nameclaim.

At the risk of repeating myself, the scum do have safeclaims. They may not be explicit "You can safeclaim Tom Bombadil," but rather are implicit in the fact that there are so many LoTR characters who could be claimed that it would be really unlikely you'd conflict.

Act like the scum have safeclaims, since, in essence, they do.

[ting =)]

Those would be fakeclaims. You're right though, we can't just simply accept any claim from anyone at this point.

[shaka!!]

Nothing on a replacement, still looking though.

[Khelvaster]

Those would be fakeclaims. You're right though, we can't just simply accept any claim from anyone at this point.

Yeah, I didn't realize the distinction.

Mod: Could you release the rolenames of the people who have already died? It would really help us.

[Matt_S]

Mod: Could you release the rolenames of the people who have already died? It would really help us.

To clarify for him, the original names before being unthemed.

Waiting for Imat's finished analysis.

[shaka!!]

Those would be fakeclaims. You're right though, we can't just simply accept any claim from anyone at this point.

Yeah, I didn't realize the distinction.

Mod: Could you release the rolenames of the people who have already died? It would really help us.

As said many times before, I've interfered enough as it is.

[destructor]

And I wasn't "for" a name claim. That's not to say I was entirely against it either, but I was most definitely erring on the cautious side.

You can phrase it any way you want, but you're still the only player who hopped on the suggestion in any way.

I went and had a quick read of my posts earlier in the game. I can't see a point where I was noticeably for it. In fact, almost all of my nameclaim-related posts seemed to be arguing against it more than anything.


massive:

I'm not sure if you're posting that because I didn't answer, but here goes: the short answer is no. I have no idea if scum have safeclaims or not. I started being suspicious of you because it seemed like idea came out of nowhere...

Hmm.
Here's the first post you made when you voted me.

I must say that it is interesting that CoolBot, the Mafia Godfather, started the "named but not Fellowship" train ... which makes me wonder if, in fact, that Mafia DID have safe roleclaims all along. Which makes destructor's initial comments about safeclaims all the more suspicious. Do we still have a destructor?

In that case, I

vote destructor

.

Later elaboration:

Also from the first page, you have consistently indicated that you believe that the Mafia have safeclaims. I still believe that it is VERY unusual to be given a safeclaim. You appear to think otherwise. I think it's because you knew the Mafia had safeclaims -- you had one in your own PM.

Both of these make it clear that me having a safe-claim

is

a significant factor in your suspicious.

... but now, thinking more about it, the last thing scum would want would be to out the fact that they have safeclaims. So my initial suspicion, while valid in my eyes, would also have to be based around an equal belief that you are a bad player who made a huge mistake. I think, had you been scum, that you would have backtracked on that mistake pretty quickly, and since you haven't ... I guess I have gained some perspective.

And a backtrack from you? Also, I may be wrong, but this sounds like the same argument you made again Khelvaster having a safe-claim. I keep noticing inconsistency with your treatment of me and Khelvaster.

[destructor]

Something else that's been bugging me about Matt_S. The mod has made it clear that Matt_S didn't quote his role PM in the post that was edited.

When I last posted, Matt's post wasn't deleted. He paraphrased his role PM, apprently close enough to warrant mod action. So he's confirmed.

I never saw the post. But what does this mean?

Is

Matt_S actually confirmed innocent?

[massive]

destructor

: The factor of time is important. I still think my initial interpretation was correct -- that the idea of safeclaims was unusual, and you mentioning it twice on the first page was more unusual. As time has continued and you have continued to press the issue, it's become less like a "scummy slip" and more like "defending townie." I think that, if you were scum with a safeclaim, you would have just said, "Yup you're right."

I may have been a little over-tenacious with my grip on sticking to my initial interpretation. I'll give you that. But please note that I'm not voting for you any longer, so if you'd like to have a discussion about my voting reasons, maybe we should focus on Qman ...

[massive]

Oh, and about Matt_S (dang meant to add this at the end) -- at the point in time when he was claiming nameless townie, we were all pretty much attacking him because there was the possibility that there was No Such Thing as a nameless townie. He was claiming "bastard modding" in making him the only such nameless townie. I think, as scum in that position, he would have been more apt to try a fake claim from inside the stories -- clearly Coolbot was setting up to go that way. Sticking his neck out to say "nameless townie" in a game where there might not be one was risky. Having a dead nameless townie (eljcko) adds weight to his claim. I thought about the fact that Coolbot was the "only one" who saw Matt_S's claim before it was deleted, but I think it was probably more likely to be Coolbot performing what he saw as "proper townie behavior" more than protecting his fellow scum.