Mafia 87 - New Age Mafia - Game Over!

[Gerrendus]

/confirm

[Gerrendus]

There's also the possibility of two mafia factions? which I think could also be plausible. I'd call finding one goon dead at least a partially succesful night though.

[Gerrendus]

Maybe she knew that and that's why she's doing it?

[Gerrendus]

I think that it being Scheh's first time here shouldn't preclude them being scum or rolefishing. He may actually be experienced. For example: I have not played on this site before but I have played online mafia before. Does that instantly mean that "while that may be scummy he's new so it's probably a slip and he's probably innocent" is a valid argument? I think not.

Vote:

Scheherazade

[Gerrendus]

And I'm not sure about the rules on editing here, I know we frown on it at the otehr site I play mafia on, but stating some reasoning (even if the reasoning is pure randomness) is always benefical. If you've picked up on something that other people didn't that might help us to pick out the scum.

[Gerrendus]

Why? His entire case comes down to "All attempts to convince me that it couldn't have been at all about rolefishing have failed - it could have been a very subtle catalyst of a gigantic rolefish. You also know that only scum rolefish, and want all of us to believe it too. Putting that all together is a bad combination for you."

This is true his case may be based upon what he perceives as rolefishing; however, he was not the first one to realize that you were rolefishing. While Caboose may have pardoned you for rolefishing, originally, claiming inexperience as the reason for the pardoning we since learned you aren't inexperienced and thus should know better about discussing the setup.

So he suspects me because:

a) I haven't proved the accusation of role-fishing absolutely wrong beyond the dim light of his suspicion.

Well obviously nothing can be proven for 100%, this is a case of reasonable doubt. It may have been a day since I read it but I don't specifically recall you making much more than a meek "it's not rolefishing" argument.

b) He thinks that "I'm not a complete newb, so don't excuse me on that account" is the same as saying "I'm a mafia guru," and therefore he can't exclude the possibility that I'm really masterminding some massive gambit against you all.

Nothing he wrote looked to me like he was calling a mafia guru. He did bring up the point that you have experience. If you have experience playing the game and a good mind you don't have to be a guru to plan a massive gambit. He suggested the possibility of some subtle embeded rolefishing in there. Experience doesn't suggest guru, it suggests experience which gives you the tools to plan something as more than he would expect from the average newb.

c) He can't see my motive (that's why he keeps having to provide his own fantasies).

Please tell me even one person whose motives you see? That's the point is that you don't know anyone else's motive. And a personal attack is a logical fallacy.

d) I dismiss an early claim of role-fishing by pointing out that I asked about anti-town players.

You asked about other possible killing roles. I'll grant that some of these are anti-town yes, but you did name pro-town roles:

Who could have killed the scum player, out of curiosity? Wracking my brain, a serial killer, an

insane/CPR doctor

, a

vigilante-type

or a different faction of scum come to mind.

(Bolded to pick out pro-town roles). While an insane/CPR doctor may harm the town they could still save a life (granted it is a small chance with the CPR doc) they are still pro-town. And Vigilante's are usually pro-town I believe. Although as previously pointed out the vigilante would have no motives to attack N1. The weak doctor most likely died protecting an anti-town. You your argument that you "asked about anti-town players only" and thus your rolefishing was innocent is flawed.

e) I say that role-fishing's a bad idea.

Obviously you don't agree though, because you persisted in wanting to talk about the setup and while I may be misreading the next part of your post it appears that you still want to be talking about the setup.

Essentially, he hasn't addressed the fact that I wanted to talk about setup,

The part I'm reffering to above which seems you want to still talk about the setup. Although I could be misreading it and it's actually a logical fallacy via the form of a (subtle) personal attack. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though.

he's provided his own shaky motives for me,

While you have provided virtually none in your own defense. And realize here that all motives at this stage are relatively shaky.

he's flat out misread several statements of mine,

You make this claim yet again (you made it immediately following his post). Yet you do not elaborate as to which statements he has misread or try to correct those statements?

and he thinks that it's scummy to say "role-fishing is bad, except when it's scum you're outing."

I think his main argument is that role-fishing in general is bad because while you may start out fishing for the scum: A)No scum worth his salt is going to come out and claim he's scum. B)Role-fishing for scum as it were is very easy for the scum to turn into role-fishing for town. Or at least it's very easy for the scum to pick out the town from the discussion.

So, if you expect me to prove beyond a doubt that 100% honest about everything I've posted before you'll consider not voting for me, then I guess I deserve your vote.

I believe everyone here understands that 100% is impossible this early in the game, but I think we do believe you to convincingly prove the point.

So, if you think that I'm truly some amazing mafia player who's secretly trying to deceive all of you, then I guess I deserve your vote.

I addressed this earlier. You may not be amazing but you do have experience which provides you the ability to make a plan.

So, if you think his motives are more likely than the ones I provided, my real motives, then I guess I deserve your vote.

Really this is the only thing that we have to base our votes on right now is whose motives seem more likely. I can't recall a single motive you've provided other than "You're misreading my posts" (With no evidence provided).

So, if you think it's role-fishing to speculate about the setup of the anti-town factions and to point out that there might be an anti-town doctor, then I guess I deserve your vote.

It's been pointed out before that it is rather easy to convert the role-fishing into role-fishing for the scum. Also, the doctor is still pro-town but you are right that provided there is anotehr doctor, he/she does need to consider the possibility that they are insane in some capacity and plan accordingly.

So, if you role-fishing's a good idea for mafia in my circumstances, then I guess I deserve your vote.

I may be mis-interpreting this but role-fishing is usually only beneficial to mafia as no one in the mafia would reveal their affiliation and the town may be tricked into it easier.

If, however, you're more interested in finding mafia than evaluating the semantics of a statement that initially aroused suspicion from only one player,

So we shouldn't analyze the semantics of posts? What do you suggest we base our votes on then? Since we don't have a voting record for this game to go off of yet?

but was correctly identified by other experience players as speculation about the setup, if you honestly think that Percy didn't jump on a bandwagon (he didn't vote until after I had two votes and a "FoS" and when he voted he said that he suspected my initial post after having ignored it for three pages),

I would like to point out that between the beginning of the game and percy's voting for you he made a single post on the second page. (The first page contained his confirmation). So your argument taht he ignored it for three pages really isn't valid.

if you think that Percy has posted more than misreadings and weakly disguised "if I were scum" logic, then maybe you'll quit calling on me to opine on the dead horse that's attracted flies.

I grant taht some things percy posted may have been misreadings, but I can't really judge that for sure unless you point out what these misreadings are. All I hear about are "you're misreading my posts" but you don't enlighten us as to which posts and how we are misreading them, except to make the single claim "I was role-fishing for scum" I stand by my vote for you at present but if you can provide convincing arguments then I may possibly shift my vote to Der, because that last post by him does spark some suspicion on my part. But I simply cannot do it without something to give me more to go on than my hunches.

@rib:
I feel the need to point out that his vanilla townie claim came in defense to strife's declaring him as part of a scumpair with scheh. But you are correct in that it was still unproviked.

[Gerrendus]

I have already voiced my opinions on Scheh (with voting for him).

I have seen what everyone else has been calling "scummy" things that Hammer has done and I agree with him as well, his early declaration when he was under not much suspicion (I believe several people had named him as a number two suspect at the time but he was still somewhere around L-6 or even L-7 if not lower), which makes hammer my number two.


al4xz, I do not think that what he said has been particularly scummy. While I agree that it is odd he would mention the possibility of a GF, that was the only type he mentioned and it wasn't really in a role-fishing or diverting way. It was Vi who thought that it was a conspiracy theory in the first place and is the one that tried to start a discussion about that, which to me is far more scummy than mentioning the possibility of a GF as part of an argument. None of his other posts have seemed particularly scummy to me. He mentions the GF solely as a qualifier to his argument/answer.

I would have to say Vi trying to start a discussion regarding the GF is particularly suspicious however

I already told Scheherazade not to make wild guesses about the setup,... Is there actually a Godfather? Iunno; how do you propose we find out?

Within the same post Vi brings up that she had previously warned someone away from rolefishing and the setup and then asks as to how al4xz proposes we find out if there is a godfather? I think I have to say that Vi is my number 3. Al4xz has not said much scummy other than that one "slip-up" (in quotes because I do not find it particularly scummy), but there is the possibility I am misinterpreting and it actually is scummy but I am witholding judgement on Al4xz for the time being, especially since I am given at least 2 (scheh and der) people who seem fairly scummy and one person that I find possibly scummy (Vi), which will be determined in the next day or two.

[Gerrendus]

EBWOP
Sorry I messed up the quote tags, that quote is from Vi in post 161

[Gerrendus]

I realize I haven't posted recently but I have been reading everything.

Scheh is really starting to get on my nerves. Every attack is simply a denial of the claims others are making, without any material to back up your claims. BWCS is that we lose a member of the town who is inconsistent on issues and states their claims without any proof. In the later stages of the game we will need people who are going to support their claims and arguments with details and facts and not just lash out in defense with ad hominems that get us nowhere.
I realize this may border on ad hominem here, but I can't think of another way to phrase this that isn't an ad hominem really.

[Gerrendus]

I'm content considering three people as suspicious becaues that's approximately how many mafia there are. I am content with my vote where it is as I have seen nothing but suspicious activity from scheh. He has yet to make any sucpicions of his own but rather seems content to bash all of the people who are claiming him as suspicious.l Now it is a good habit to not vote for people you think are town, but honestly by now there has to be some people whom have triggered your suspicions or you are not playing the game very well and reading everything thoroughly.

[Gerrendus]

It seems like we're most all convinced that Sche and Der are currently the most suspicious. IMO Sche's defensive arguments filled with logical fallacies waste more time than Der's relatively lurky style of play. Honestly, I've started just skimming Sche's posts because its more of the same baseless defensive claims and accusations.
Obviously we can't lynch two people in one day and IMO Sche needs to be the first to go. The "Worst Case Scenario" if we lynch Sche is that sche turns up town, but with the way he's been building his arguments I have to honestly wonder if we might not be better off regardless. I realize that sounds scummy but I'd rather have townies that can at least build logical arguments than townies that are going to waste time and use logical fallacies as their defense. However, Like I said that is the "Worst Case Scenario," but I don't honestly believe that Sche is town.

[Gerrendus]

That is something I had neglected considering. At least we know all of Scheh's posts are filled with logical fallacies, which while a time waster he is trying to help as you said al4xz.

Unvote: Scheh
Vote: Der
EBoS(Entire Body of Suspicion): Scheh

There's always tomorrow.

[Gerrendus]

EBWOP:
Though as I look back al4xz's vote makes nine

[Gerrendus]

I actually did not know how many votes Der-Hammer had on him. "there's always tomorrow" referred to the fact that Der would most likely end up lynched. I realized that the vote was sliding that way, and Der had always been my number 2. I wasn't going to try to push for my number one most suspicious, especially when my number two was very close to number one. The post percy made forced me to realize that hypothetically if both sche and Der were town then of the two, we're better off without Der. At least with Sche we are aware that sche uses logical fallacies and thus we can avoid wasting our time by ignoring/skimming. Der's posts are much shorter and we cannot tell whether or not he is being serious. I honestly thought my vote would put us maybe at L-2, as I did not accurately recall the previous count, I thought the two were switched.

[Gerrendus]

So aside from the excuses and backstory, I just want to get this for the record, Gerrendus - you're satisfied with this outcome?

More or less.

It will suck if Der is town, but at least he is an unhelpful town member, I don't think he's a power-role as when he suspiciously made the vanilla claim earlier he would probably have tried to claim that role and because I think he would have tried to defend himself harder.

If Sche had been lynched today Der would most likely have been my vote tomorrow unless some evidence had come in to exonerate him. Both Sche and Der are suspicious to me and at the VERY LEAST they are unhelpful players. The two are neck and neck for me in terms of suspicion

[Gerrendus]

If I remember my MD threads correctly, they're like Millers for Trackers; if they get tracked, they'll be seen to target whoever dies that night.

Based upon the name that seems to make the most sense to me.

To the people suspicious of Al4xz and/or Gerrendus: I'm assuming this means you are just as much if not more suspicious of Scheh? Their actions making them scum only really makes sense to me under the assumption that Scheh is also scum.

How so?

I too would like to know this. is it because of the inattentiveness/unhelpfulness upon which we have been basing suspicions? My suspicions on scheh were based upon the inconsitensy of his arguments and the obvious lack of content in his posts other than baseless defenses.

I also don't like Gerrendus's "I think Scheh is scummier but I'll vote Hammer because he's more useless" vote.

I'm going to answer these two (well respond is more accurate I suppose) at once. If you saw my post to Vi at the bottom of the last page I said that to me sche seemed

slightly

scummier than Der. Seeing as the town seemed to be going that way I was content to lynch my second most suspicious seeing as the disparity in my suspicions upon the two was not that great and the town seemed to be agreeing with both of my suspicions. at the time I saw no need to wait, and I thought that Der was further away from the lynch than he was. This is a fault on my part and I will be sure to remember this in the future.
If I remember correctly there was a small number of people whom were trying to persuade us to vote for Percy and strife, although I will have to do a re-read to be sure of my memory on that account.

At the risk of speculating about setup I would like to say that with two kills the previous night we should all keep in the back of our minds that there appear to be two killing factions and we should thus exercise care in our lynches or we may be unable to recover.

[Gerrendus]

I already did...

I actually did not know how many votes Der-Hammer had on him. "there's always tomorrow" referred to the fact that Der would most likely end up lynched. I realized that the vote was sliding that way, and Der had always been my number 2. I wasn't going to try to push for my number one most suspicious, especially when my number two was very close to number one. The post percy made forced me to realize that hypothetically if both sche and Der were town then of the two, we're better off without Der. At least with Sche we are aware that sche uses logical fallacies and thus we can avoid wasting our time by ignoring/skimming. Der's posts are much shorter and we cannot tell whether or not he is being serious.

I later had to explain other parts of that post, but those are explained in the thread (just as this one was)

[Gerrendus]

Gerrendus: And how is Scheherazade? You flipped to Der Hammer Der Hammer, but even then you noted that you thought Scheherazade was scummier. IMO, you should always pick the person you find scummier (if you can make the decision) over a policy lynch.

This question was already asked. And I already answered it:

I'm going to answer these two (well respond is more accurate I suppose) at once. If you saw my post to Vi at the bottom of the last page I said that to me sche seemed

slightly

scummier than Der. Seeing as the town seemed to be going that way I was content to lynch my second most suspicious seeing as the disparity in my suspicions upon the two was not that great and the town seemed to be agreeing with both of my suspicions. at the time I saw no need to wait, and I thought that Der was further away from the lynch than he was. This is a fault on my part and I will be sure to remember this in the future.

To restate: The disparity between the two levels of suspicion was of such a low level that I had no qualms switching my lynch.

At the risk of speculating about setup I would like to say that with two kills the previous night we should all keep in the back of our minds that there appear to be two killing factions and we should thus exercise care in our lynches or we may be unable to recover.

As opposed to a game with one killing faction, where you should throw caution to the wind and lynch people at random? What is the point of this comment?

The point of this comment is that in a game with only one killing faction there is more room for screw-ups. I was indicating that the margin of error is much slimmer when we are being picked off two at a time rather than one at a time at night. You should always be careful with who you are voting I was suggesting that

even more

care was necessary in this game with two killing factions.

Gerrendus, Jazzmyn, DoomCow, Caboose. You were all voting Scheherazade for a significant period of D1; what's changed since then to keep you from voting him now?

Refer to my previous comment. I feel that I need to be more sure of my suspicions than simply going off of who is an unhelpful town member, as that was my reasoning for both scheh and der before and Der turned out to be VT. I just want to try to find a little bit more evidence before I make a vote today. For example: I would like to hear a little bit from Scheh

[Gerrendus]

I also have a problem with Gerrendus. He hammers DH at 3.06 am.
He realises this at 3.08 am.

that would be because as soon as the post was made I wanted to know the exact number DH was at, I read back through and found that my vote put him at the lynch mark. As I have previously said I did not realize it at the time, and I am planning on being more careful of such things in the future.

[Gerrendus]

Sorry all, it's been a busy few days I haven't been able to come around. So doing the read through I can see why some of the suspicion is directed at al4xz, however, I am not sure if I can necesarilly agree. Now, simply because he and I are guilty of the same sin of omission (here meaning our omission as to chekcing the VC, albeit his vote was laready placed) does not mean anything. It is possible taht his motives were scummy, however I am satisfied with the defenses he has given. Although they are the same as mine, I feel taht I cannot fully fault him for that

Finished day 1, some of my main findings:

Scheherezade: I voted him yesterday, and the reread made me happy with that. Especially now that Percy died tonight, who had some strong posts against him (97 and 132 especially)

Now see, this is something that I feel should bear more discussion. By itself it is not much as most smart mafia do not aim for the person they argued with during the day because that line is pretty easy to connect, however combined with the number of fallacies in Sheh's posts yesterday...I'm not sure if that totally clears him. Though I would like to hear some other opinions on this matter as I feel it does bear further investigation. Perhaps we should be asking ourselves: 1)Would Sheh have killed percy due to his disagreement with him during the day, or 2)Is it more likely there is someone who would benefit in having percy killed by using taht as an argument to have sheh lynched?

Both Jazz and Sche need to be more concise...

You both give me a headache. All the words end up blurring.

I agree, that seems to be an MO for Sche, and people end up taking the bait and pointing out his logical fallacies.

[Gerrendus]

@Gerrendus: If not al4xz, then who?

I'm still suspicious of sche. He may claim that what he's doing is proactive but he seems to be responding to what the town wants. Not sure if that's a good or bad thing, it can be argued both ways. I can also see Vi's point about NK being WIFOM, but I think that there is some knowledge that can be gleaned off of it, a smart mafia would try to eliminate people who, if they did not directly threaten them, were in a position to threaten them.
Although, since al4xz has reached L-2 I would like to hear more from him.
[/quote]

[Gerrendus]

Seems to me Sche isn't making good on his succient promise. Especially since to me it all looks like several different refrences to something he admits as a week point? Sche's been told already to stop wasting our time, and yet continues to do so. Any misgivings I might have had at the beginning of the day about voting for him are now gone.

Vote: Sche

[Gerrendus]

what is ur opinion of a al4xz lynch?

I addressed that in post 387 (at the beginning) and again in post 398 in response to Tom Mason's questioning.

Now @ Sche:
Don't accuse me of not reading your posts. I do. The entire length of them. Honestly why I don't post sometimes because I am so tired after reading your "analysis" that I cannot form a coherent argument. You admitted to using a post for a diversionary tactic to prevent the hanging of someone whom we see to be scummy. Now I will grant that these players may provide us with new insight, but someone that is acting scummy shouldn't be allowed to walk free.

I've been suspicious of you from the start, that's one of the reasons why I had my vote on you for so long on day 1. As I explained I found your behavior as scummy as Ders. (Note: Behavior, meaning that while Der Hammer was town he still acted scummy in my opinion), I have already responded to the al4xz lynch claim, as I addressed at the beginning of this post. I do not recall where you addressed al4xz, although it may have been lost in the mountains of posts you have been submitting on Jazz. My misgiving at the start of the day was that if DH was innocent and I was suspicious of you for similar reasons it might be possible that you were also innocent.

And I did not say you were adhering to the town's wishes. I said you

Were not

, which I have said time and time again. All cases have their flaws but you seem to enjoy utilizing long posts to make a single weak case, when you have been asked to keep it succinct.

[Gerrendus]

How do you know my posting habits? I've only done this one game here. The only other reason I don't post is if I have nothing more to contribute to a discussion, rather than waste time. My suspicions of you, stemming largely from day one and your desire to continue to attack individuals and utilize logical fallacies and overall waste time are the same as they have always been, I'd prefer not to waste more time pointing them out when they are readily apparent in your own posts.

Seeing as I believe you to be scum wouldn't it therefore follow that I would disregard anyone you are pushing to be lynched at this point in the game? I think your arguments are mostly weak and possibly borderline OMGUS, although there are a number of targets you could ahve selected, she perhaps presented herself as the easiest target for your tactics.

My apologies, it seemed like taht is what it seemed like you were saying with al4xz.
So day one evidence is good enough for you? You don't have any recent evidence to support your claim?

There is yet another misinterpretation (or perhaps a total disregard and intentionally taken out of context?) My remark on "He seems to be doing what the town wants" was in regards to the fact that at the time I made it, it looked like you were going to follow through with shorter, more succinct posts rather than subject us to logical fallacies, as has been shown. My latter post saying you weren't was in regards to the fact that you did not stick to that resolution.

[Gerrendus]

Now My question is this: Could he not just be crying mason to explain away his working in collusion with someone else in a scummy factor? Even when thus pressured he still doesn't seem to be taking it seriously. I'm moderately annoyed that we only have until tomorrow to decide when al4xz only got replaced today seeing as he was primarily the chief target of suspicion.

I do not feel that the switched bandwagon to puta puta was the result of a scum partner protection, people were alarmed at the way PP phrased things. Is it possible however that PP did this becuase he is a symp?

[Gerrendus]

Is it possible however that PP did this becuase he is a symp?

Could you explain this? I don't understand what you mean.

If PP is not mafia outright there is the possibility he is a sympathetic. I'm not sure if OGML (or this site) uses them, but essentially a symp is a non-power role that does anything they can to ensure that the mafia doesn't get lynched. They usually know who the mafia is, but the mafia doesn't always know who they are. PP's behavior made me believe he is more likely a symp than a mafia because he seems to have self hammered with that post.
(Simplification: Symp=Anti-Town role taht is not mafia, but protects them).

@username: But we aren't even sure how close the numbers ARE, too many "all we're losing is numbers" and we're screwed.

@Mod Any possibility of a deadline extension, given that for the past week we were deprived of the person who WAS the chief target? (al4xz)

[Gerrendus]

I find his total lack of reaction to Puta Puta's reasonless L-1 vote on al4xz very fishy, especially given that he'd spoken out as being against an al lynch. It isn't until Puta Puta is at L-1 that Gerrendus even acknowledges the wagon.

I didn't post AT ALL between Puta Puta being L-4 and when Puta Puta was at L-1. Your argument would be stronger if I had posted between the two time periods. With only 3 votes it is not a wagon, and I didn't need to address it at the time. Thus your claim that I didn't acknowledge the wagon is void because while PP was at L-4, the last time I posted before his being at L-1) Al4xz was at L-1. Al4xz had a large wagon compared to PP whom I didn't feel had a wagon just yet. (I consider it a wagon when there is a bit over half, at least with larger numbers)


I didn't address Puta Puta's L-1 Vote (Here I mean his placing al4xz at L-1) because it didn't seem necessary. Everyone was aware that al4xz was at L-1, and no one was willing to vote for him until we could hear from him. I had said before of al4xz that I wanted to hear from him. Seeing as no one was going to hammer him, because we know what happened with the previous hammer, then I felt I was okay in leaving it at my desire to hear more from him.

Also worth noting; in his final post of D2 (#481), he objects to my suggestion that a Puta Puta lynch wouldn't be too bad even if he was town, because "too many "all we're losing is numbers" and we're screwed." even though Gerrendus himself made essentially the same argument about the Der Hammer lynch on D1.

I made that claim before we lost 3 more town. We had lost 2 town and 1 mafia when I made my statement. When you made your statement we had lost 5 town to 1 mafia, which is a pretty sizeable gap. I had come to realize that if PP had been town we were probably going to lose at least 2 people during the night which would put us at 8 town dead to 1 mafia dead. As it stands our numbers are 8 town dead to 2 mafia dead. About the same ratio as at the beginning of Day 1. I made the statement merely that we had needed to be careful. Although I doubted it, I was willing to give his mason claim the benefit of the doubt and not hammer until his alleged mason partner had time to claim as such. Had I pushed further for a lynch (which at the point he was: L-1, all I could do was vote and then hammer) I would have been denying that benefit of the doubt.


Jazz was on the defensive from sche all yesterday, and had pushed for his death the previous two days. Granted I also did but she was his main target. It's possible she felt threatened, though as has been previously stated analysis based on night actions quickly and easily falls into the realm of WIFOM.

[Gerrendus]

I didn't address Puta Puta's L-1 Vote (Here I mean his placing al4xz at L-1) because it didn't seem necessary.

So, someone puts an L-1 vote on a player that you have explicitly stated that you are opposed to lynching, and freely admits that this vote is not because they find that player suspicious, but simply because "claims are fun and exciting", and you don't feel that that is worthy of mention?

Really?

Thank you for taking it out of context. I realize that that statement OUT OF CONTEXT seems scummy, however I further went on to explain why I didn't feel the need to comment upon it. I was still undecided about the al4xz matter, I believed that it was possible for al4xz to be scum, and I wanted to hear further from him. This addresses Tom Mason's concern as well as to why I requested the extension. I was truthfully a bit concerned about the quick change of the wagon to Puta puta, yes granted his attitude was VERY anti-town but at one point we found enough reason for al4xz to be at L-1, we had not heard from him in over a week, while he was at L-1, and you don't want a little extra time to consider the possibilities there against the possibilities of PP?

Personally, I think this is an easy lynch from the standpoint of what I have seen happen in the last two days.

Why? Let me explain my stance.

Gerrendus hammered Der Hammer claiming he never noticed he was the hammering vote. This is all following a plea not to hammer DH until people had the opportunity for more discussion and response from DH. It also comes after Gerrendus spent the better part of the day advocating a lynch of Zade. Both of them turned up town. And after Night Two, coincidentally two people he put in his targets were eliminated.

I would be lying if I didn't say I was influenced by Percy's analysis of DH at the end of D1, DH had been sitting up there for a while now (as I see in hindsight) yet he hadn't reacted to it. Percy's observations were enough that I believed they merited a vote for DH. That they were unfounded suspicions does not deny that they were reasonable at the time.
Which two? I know Zade, but as I previously stated I only wanted more time to consider al4xz, I wasn't entirely sure he was scum at the time though I thought the possibility existed.

This brings us to Day Two's lynch, where he continued to pressure Zade despite the vast majority being focused on al4xz as the day progressed. Okay, fine. He did not agree with a lynch of al4xz, that can be respected. And he certainly did not want to make the same mistake two days in a row by hammering a town member -- right?

Many other people spent the first day advocating Sche's lynch as well because we believed him to be an unhelpful player. I saw that arise again in Day 2 and I felt the need to address it again.

But the tables turned against Puta Puta, who was being a very unhelpful player and being a hazard to the town's play. It took me the better part of the day to get behind the idea of lynching Puta Puta, but his play was just poor and, as I said, a hazard to the town -- even if he was town. He offered no help or real explanations to the game. And we see in the end, he flipped scum...

You yourself had a hard time getting behind it despite using that as one of your cornerstone arguments it seems. At least with a person we know to be an unhelpful town (as in we are certain of the fact that they are town), we can simply ignore them and use them to bolster our numbers rather than sacrifice our numbers which as I have pointed out, have a tendency to dwindle rather quickly in the night. I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a mason claim if his partner was willing to claim as well. As it turns out the mason claim was false, but had it been true we would have lost 4 town (most likely) over the course of the day and Night 2.

Where was Gerrendus while this went down? Distancing himself. He started with straying from the al4xz wagon and continued with it through the Puta Puta lynch. However, I see it not as distancing -- I see it as a scum-filled cry to play devil's advocate.

How pray tell was I distancing myself and playing devil's advocate?

Post 434 - Puta re-questioned Gerrendus for his thoughts on al4xz, when I had only shortly before done it myself. Gerrendus repeated his words. In hindsight, this looks like an attempt to show distance between each other to give Gerrendus room to work.

You yourself had questioned it, and I repeated my post because I had already answered the question. I was more than happy to redirect anyone who had missed it to there but I was not about to waste the time of someone who had already read it. Time wasting was one of the things I jumped on Sche about, along with many other members of the town.

- Gerrendus went on hiatus for four days, not posting during a voting cycle that put Puta Puta at L-1. We have established that. We cannot refute if he was intentionally not posting, truly busy, etc. There is no reason to, because upon his return Puta Puta was still alive -- and I believe that is the clincher.

Oh yes, forgive me for spending the holidays with my family and forgetting about an online game! How selfish of me. </sarcasm>
How is that "the clincher?"

Sure, it turns out to be completely true he was in collusion with scum -- and the above are your words, not mine. He obviously was working with someone else. And everything you posted were reasons to lynch Puta Puta and hold off on a decision against al4xz's replacement. He was hand-feeding the situation to us when he backed himself against the wall with contradiction.

I must admit I am a little confused as to what point you are attempting to make here. Also: what I meant by my comment was taht yes it was possibly scummy behavior but I did not imagine a full scum-partner would kill themselves for their scum-partner when they weren't under suspicion themselves, it seemed more likely that Puta was a symp than a full partner, still a necesary lynch but an observation to be made. I also wasn't about to make the same mistake and be hammered for being the person to hammer twice in a row, I had checked vote counts etc this time in reaction to my mistake the previous day.

[Gerrendus]

Gerrendus

~ I think you already have some idea of what I've to say here. You hammered Der Hammer as a policy lynch while constantly saying you believed Scheherazade was scum. You voted Scheherazade 429 on grounds of not being succinct (?!), and in 434 seem to insinuate that the thrust of your argument is the succinctness point (!?!); while in that same post hitting Scheherazade about diverting from the lynch of someone he implies deserves a lynch. This in itself is odd, because you said that you couldn't find where Scheherazade expressed suspicion of al4xz "in the mountains of posts", but we had to ask you where you ever mentioned al4xz; and reading them you don't express any strong suspicion of him at all. And at the end, you seem to argue against (or at least excuse) the Gimbo lynch. Yep, #1 suspect.

Please, show me where I argued against the PP lynch, as I have previously stated I was willing to allow time for the possibility of him turning up innocent. I wasn't about to hammer, particularly as I had been hammered before for not allowing time for proper evidence to turn up. Had PP turned up innocent and as a Mason I would undoubtedly be facing the same charge for "hammering without allowing them to comment" as I have been facing for my screw up on day one.

I was not overly suspcious of al4xz as I have said before. However, he had gained enough support to be at L-1, (all but 1 well reasoned votes), and so I was prepared to admit that I had overlooked something and I wanted to hear from him.

I didn't address Puta Puta's L-1 Vote (Here I mean his placing al4xz at L-1) because it didn't seem necessary. Everyone was aware that al4xz was at L-1, and no one was willing to vote for him until we could hear from him.

Do you... even care why people vote for others?
I see your defense of this later, but I don't buy it. Only paying attention to large wagons seems like a scum mindset.

Yes I do care why people vote for others. I consider the arguments made by everyone, rather than simply parroting the questions others have already parroted (honestly by now I feel like I'm answering the same questions 5 times). I am aware of the smaller wagons but I only feel the need to comment on the larger wagons.

I made the statement merely that we had needed to be careful. Although I doubted it, I was willing to give his mason claim the benefit of the doubt and not hammer until his alleged mason partner had time to claim as such. Had I pushed further for a lynch (which at the point he was: L-1, all I could do was vote and then hammer) I would have been denying that benefit of the doubt.

I thought you said that Gimbo could have been a sympathetic? Doesn't that counter the Mason claim? See also DoomCow's question.

I said it was a possibility, by no means concrete, and read my earlier defense (within this post) regarding the mason claim.
I do not see DoomCow as posing a question between your post and my own, could you clarifiy this?

Jazz was on the defensive from sche all yesterday, and had pushed for his death the previous two days. Granted I also did but she was his main target. It's possible she felt threatened, though as has been previously stated analysis based on night actions quickly and easily falls into the realm of WIFOM.

It's absolutely WIFOM. Do you have any other suspects?

I will need to do a reread when I have time, as it is most of my time has been consumed by defending myself from the same accusation put forth in a number of different ways.

In the immortal words of JDodge--WIMP
You just said that Gimbo was a necessary lynch. Your reason for not hammering sounds like self-preservation; I at least would have been much more understanding if you had clarified that you were NOT accidentally hammering and thought you had hit scum/a necessary lynch this time (both of these would be improvements over D1).

I said a symp would be a necesarry lynch and it was possible PP was a symp, as I have previously stated I was willing to allow for a Mason claim.


I will respond to IAUN's questions when I have more time. Tom Mason, I have several questions I asked in my previous post I would like answered.

[Gerrendus]

EBWOP: Sorry about the quote tags, all that need be done is put Vi in quotes, I thought I hit preview, apparently I hit submit

[Gerrendus]

It seems to me that all of the issues with me are that I essentially did not look at Puta Puta and I was in favor of considering the options. I had no more foreknowledge of PPs identity than anyone else (with the exception of his scumpartners). So by all means if you wish to lynch YET ANOTHER townie who simply made a mistake on Day 1 and wished to consider the options as long as possible on Day 2, then proceed with the line of reasoning on myself. If you actually wish to lynch a scum, then i would suggest highly looking elsewhere. Doom Cow seems to be the popular choice, but I have not had time to read over all of the arguments except to defend myself. Which I see now are the same argument in about 50 different disguises.

I will also be out of town Friday/saturday