Mini #704: Hunchback of Notre Dame, Game Over

[Mizzy]

Vote: Caboose

for being my favorite character in RvsB ever. It's a love vote. <3

[Mizzy]

...and your answer to the first question is?

Is subjective.

Unvote. Vote: Ramus.

That was not an answer that, in my opinion, is pro-town. Subjective, or not, it was a valid and useful question that deserved a valid and useful answer, which it did not receive. While I don't think self-voting is a scumtell or scummy at all, I do feel that being intentionally vague IS scummy.

[Mizzy]

Oh, and by the way, I took the original question to be "Why did you self-vote?" The answer to that is not "It's subjective." I want an answer to why he decided to self-vote.

[Mizzy]

Oh, and by the way, I took the original question to be "Why did you self-vote?" The answer to that is not "It's subjective." I want an answer to why he decided to self-vote.

Because I felt like doing it.

So why, exactly, couldn't you have just answered that in the first place? Why did you have to be purposely vague and unhelpful?

[Mizzy]

Self-voting in the early stage is definitely not indicative of scum, but allow me to toss out my thoughts on the subject. This is going to serve two purposes, the first being to encourage discussion and the second being to share advice.

Self-voting in the random voting stage is not indicative of role or alignment, however, self-voting in the random stage is also lazy on the part of the voter and also tends to hurt the town later (in my opinion.)

The point of random voting is to give the town links and past connections/trends to look at later when the game is farther along, and also to begin discussion rolling. Now, granted, his self-vote did begin discussion, but I don't feel his vote was cast with that thought in mind, meaning that the discussion that was brought on by it was an unintentional side-effect. The first point of random voting, though, he has completely bypassed by self-voting. We have no connection we can draw on this later, nothing we can glean from it because it is a null-tell. So, whether he meant to or not, his small act (while not scummy in and of itself) has possibly helped scum.

His subsequent lack-of-answer and the dodging of questions was more telling than the self-vote, though, so I am glad he did what he did.

Now, keep in mind that this is opinion of mine, but I am going to keep my vote where I am for two reasons. 1) Because I feel that his question-dodging was scummy and 2) I feel that some pressure here might give us far more information than we could get from his random-vote alone.

[Mizzy]

So why, exactly, couldn't you have just answered that in the first place? Why did you have to be purposely vague and unhelpful?

Also, I am still waiting for an answer to this. Stop dodging and start playing, kthx.

[Mizzy]

Battousai: One should always pretend, in MS, that a question asked is not rhetorical if one wants to live long enough to see night one.

[Mizzy]

Ramus, would you please be so kind as to look under my icon (which is a flamboyantly pink obviously-female furry kitty) and look what sex I am before you post pronouns regarding my gender? Thanks.

[Mizzy]

Ramus: What does colorblindness have to do with telling the difference between the female symbol and the male?

[Mizzy]

Alright, so far I don't see the wagon on Clock, and Ramus' self-important, "Whateva, ah do whu' ah want!" attitude is enough for me to keep my vote on him for the time being. Teamwork is crucial. It also bothers me that he didn't read my post well enough...he asked me to explain something I already had.

[Mizzy]

Ramus: Actually, I'm keeping my vote on you for your lack of answering questions, dodging questions, and a slew of other things, not just your anti-town attitude.

[Mizzy]

Of all the gambits that I know of, the one I HATE, no, LOATH the most is Fong's gambit. It's not catching anyone. It's just bad play. And it also gives a good excuse for scum who do something scummy early on.

Vote for me if you think I'm scummy. The one think I loathe is whiny players who don't do anything.

What was whiny about what I said?

For one, you call my play a bad one, yet you haven't made any real play yourself. Secondly, you call sum while you're at it. VOTE FOR ME IF YOU'RE GOING TO CALL ME SCUMMY.

There might be some people out there (ClockworkRuse for example) that might deserve my vote more than you. I'm still trying to determine that.

There is also a difference between thinking someone is scummy and thinking someone is

scum

.

[Mizzy]

urielzyx:

Please stay away from WIFOM whenever possible; you're not making a whole lot of sense (to me at least) and you are muddying the waters with circular logic. If you think you have a valid point against someone, express it without WIFOM so I (and others) might consider it.

[Mizzy]

I actually agree with a little of Clockwork and a little of ortolan. I feel that while self-voting is a null-tell, we should all still be held accountable for our actions and responses. However, I also feel that defending other players from things that they can defend against themselves should be avoided because it does allow them an easy out.

[Mizzy]

@ battousai: I'd say something in response to that, but that would be defending...

^Copout.

[Mizzy]

Quote wall-o-texts annoy me and aren't the best for reading through. Please try and make your points without them.

[Mizzy]

Mizzy, I don't think your vote on Ramus is doing much. Last I remember, it's on him more for being snide than anything scummy he's done. Your first gripe with him, and it was a good one, was that he was being evasive. He's since answered for his early play so far as I can tell. So, why is your vote still on him?

Because a) it's for him being emotional, unhelpful, and scummy, not just for being snide, and b) no, he never fully answered everything and when he did answer at all it was because of pressure to answer, and c) there's no better place for it in my mind at the moment.

[Mizzy]

destructor:

How is not voting at all productive? I am reading everything that gets posted very carefully and I have no questions to ask anyone at the moment. So it's either vote Ramus for the time being or no one, and having my vote somewhere is better than no where.

I am also working a whole lot of over time right now due to an upcoming release so please be patient; my participation level will rise after things calm down at work. Yes, I am at work right now

[Mizzy]

EVEN APART FROM THIS, there is nothing inherently scummy about an OMGUS vote ANYWAY, so this argument has absolutely no substance.

Actually, I don't agree fully with this sentiment; I feel that an OMGUS vote is scummy because it is an easy vote to make that doesn't take thought, doesn't utilize logic or a case, and in general, is anti-town. Anti-town != scum, but it does = scum

my

.

I also don't like that ort does, indeed, seem to have been waiting around for others to make his cases for him.

Also waiting for an answer to #155.

[Mizzy]

@ mizzy: completely agree with your point about omgus. No, wait, mostly agree, because there are times when one will vote the person that is voting them and this will be reasonable play. I also think it is slightly overrated as a scum tell.

True, and I wasn't speaking about endgame at all where cross-voting is going to happen and it's normal there.

What exactly is this based off of? You are implying that he is being opportunistic.
If this is true, I don't see any reason why he would defend Ramus self-voting (unless maybe if they are scum together, and even then that is not a given) instead of just piling on to that wagon.

No, I am implying that he is lazy. As you point out, he hasn't really been opportunistic.

Strong FoS: Mizzy for this post. To your first point: if you've done debating you'll know about the technique of "even if"- "even if so and so a point of yours is right, then...". Me saying "even apart from this" was an example of this. I firstly denied that my vote on ClockworkRuse amounted to an OMGUS. I then said even if it was, it's not a scumtell. You suggested that OMGUS may in fact be a scumtell, but did not address the fact that I intentionally denied my vote amounted to an OMGUS in the first place. This is not my reason for voting you however- it is your second claim, that I was "waiting around for others to make cases for me". This is just a parrot of the point ClockworkRuse already made and ignores the fact I already thoroughly refuted that this was the case (see my posts 70 and onwards). Either you haven't been reading and took ClockworkRuse's word for gospel or you had been reading and deliberately ignored the fact this point was blatantly untrue. Neither is forgivable at this point in the game.

Well, I haven't done debating so your explanation is lost on me. And even though you say your vote was not OMGUS, and it may not have been, we have no way to know that and cannot take your word for it, either. We have to look at how events play out and make our verdicts from that. Simply denying doing or saying something does not change history.

And no, I have been reading, and simply agreed with his point against you. Again, just because you feel like damning me for agreeing with something, doesn't make the thing I agreed with wrong or scummy. It's my opinion, one that happens to be shared. I felt like that before he said it, too.

And what do you mean, at this point in the game? You mean, day 1, barely away from the start of the game? Because it is, and if anything, day 1 is the most forgiving.

And where's the answer to 155?

[Mizzy]

I am beginning to think my vote should be elsewhere now.

Unvote

for the moment while I wait to see responses.

[Mizzy]

How was I to know that a question which seemingly has nothing to do with me was in fact addressed specifically to me?

Because it was addressed to you, and we even reminded you several times after the fact that it was addressed to you.

@ Mizzy: are you aware your strongest argument against me at this point is that my vote against ClockworkRuse *may* have amounted to an OMGUS? I also don't like you "unvoting" in preparation for a new vote without having the guts to follow through.

No, I don't think it is, but I think your response to the whole thing is the most damning bit against you. Look how much you are over-reacting!

And not having the guts to go through with it? Since when is waiting to see someone's responses being a wuss? It's what people SHOULD do before voting, is it not? Your Jedi mind tricks have no effect on me, I will wait until I feel the time is right to vote, give my case, and so be it.

Please be clear, are you suggesting I am "lazy town" or "lazy scum"?

If I knew, I would have said, but I don't have a clear enough read yet.

[Mizzy]

Um, no it wasn't obviously addressed to me, otherwise I would have answered it previously. How the hell am I to know a post about Ramus' play is addressed to me?

Considering that at least two of us had entire posts directed to you that included references to the question, it should have been obvious.

Thank you for answering, though I think the point was to get your opinion on the matter and not accuse you of anything, but that just may be how I read it and I could be wrong.

[Mizzy]

I don't really see any reason not to put your suspicions all in one post, ort, so are you just not doing it to be belligerent to CR or do you have a real reason to refuse?

[Mizzy]

I just got home but there is a huge chance I won't be able to catch up until Monday. I will try for tomorrow but Monday is the more likely choice.

[Mizzy]

Holy crap, there's a lot to catch up on. Caboose, I think my attention span died 3 weeks ago, but I can try.

[Mizzy]

Chipping in with a quick comment: I think the idea of lynching anyone just to find out their alignment is completely horrible. If we have a lynch, it should be someone we think is scum. Period.

[Mizzy]

The problem with that is that it makes deciding NKs for the scum a lot easier if they know who the town thinks is town and who the town is unsure of.

One list by one person isn't telling the scum anything.

And let me get this straight...you don't want ROFL helping the scum inadvertently by telling everyone who he thinks is what, and yet you FoSed him? An FoS tells us you might suspect someone is scum. However, if he is scum, and he posted a list of those he thinks is innocent, there's no real harm done because the scum will find out anyway. So to me, you basically scolded someone as if they were a bad townie and then accused them of being scum. Which is it?

[Mizzy]

Mizzy: You plan on answering any of the questions I asked you in 220?

Yes; the reason I hadn't yet was because it kind of made me mad that your case was so rotten and yet you voted without even waiting for me to respond to the first post. I figured I should wait a bit before I said something rude.

[Mizzy]

I have no idea what he is and I never said he was town. Why are you pretending like I did? At best it's scum WIFOM and my point was that it could just make protown-killing scum's job easier.
MM made a good point about scum NKs not necessarily being that straightforward, though.

I didn't say that you said he was town, what I said what that your beef with what he did is only valid if you feel he's town, because otherwise, what do you care?

[Mizzy]

@ Mizzy, what were your reasons for staying away from the CR wagon? If you think CR is likely town, do you think scum are on his wagon? What are you thinking about Caboose and Battousai? How about rofl and Axel's posts on replacing in?

I don't think he's scum, no, and I do think his wagon has a high amount of scum in it because he's intelligent and very perceptive; a dangerous pro-town player to have. I think people are voting him because they don't agree with him or because he's very vocal in a way they don't personally like and I don't think the "cases" on him are sound.

[Mizzy]

I'm not on a wagon, does that make me scum too?

[Mizzy]

Battousai:

Loaded question

No, it wasn't. Rhetorical, sarcastic, sure. But loaded? No. It could have bee answered just fine.

So you keep your vote on Ramus because he wanted Caboose to form a case instead of just whining? Do you believe he was trying Fong's Gambit? Does it make sense as he had hinted at it and not answering questions is extremely obvious?

Only half way through rereading the day, but I have to go. Right now I'm leaning on Mizzy, CarnCarn, and/or thAdmiral as scum with Ort more likely town. Since I'm not done reading, I will not vote or put a case on any of the three I listed as leaning scum.

No, that is not why I kept my vote on Ramus; I had already explained why I kept my vote on him before. I don't believe he was trying a specific gambit, no, but I believe he was trying to pull

something

. Don't go into WIFOM.

So, you have 2 small entries on me, before you finished re-reading the whole thing, and yet you are learning towards me? That stinks to high hell of you setting me up for suspicion and a later vote in order to make said suspicion and later vote look valid.

That was obviously a joke, yet you take it as him being serious. Trying to make something scummy when it's not.

And you're not doing the exact same thing? It was very much a copout; it was giving as joke in lieu of content.

A) How was Ramus acting scummy and how is being emotional a reason to vote?
B) So you don't believe in his Fong Gambit
C)Why not just unvote? See below quote

I already had answered A before and have answered B above. As to your C, I was on LoA and didn't have time for a whole lot due to work and the holidays. Counterproductive? No, I don't think so.

Seems to me, you're the one waiting around lately. Did you come up with Ort waiting around on the word of CR?

Why did you ask this when it had already been addressed?

Ok, so it's not possible that Ort is the same way here? He couldn't have thought what he was accused of instead of just waiting for someone to make a case?

Doing it here and there is one thing but doing it a whole lot is another thing entirely.

Wrong. CR addressed this to no one in particular (I assumed to Ramus since it was Ramus's gambit) in a seperate post. When you "reminded" him, all you said was "waiting on an answer for 155." That reminder wasn't addressed to anyone so I thought it was addressed with who I thought it was originally addressed to (Ramus). I find it completely plausible Ort was not dodging questions (which you seem to subtly suggest as dodging questions).

It was in an entire post addressed to him specifically without any sort of note that said, "Oh, by the way, this is to everyone." Even if it was to everyone, it was still ALSO addressed to ortolan.

Ok, my opinions after rereading the entire thread is that I believe Mizzy is scum, ThAdmiral could be scum, and CR might be scum. I feel CR really went at Ort prematurely and tunneled in with bad logic, which is scummy (but I can see town doing it as well, so I am hesitant to say with too much certainty of his alignment). A CR lynch today might lead to some interesting information for D2, but I feel a Mizzy lynch would lead to more since I feel she is scum, thus:

Vote: Mizzy

I have to say that this is what really pissed me off. Never once did you actually have any real case point, you asked things that had already been addressed, and in general, defended ort for what I feel is no apparent reason. You had zero case, don't even bother waiting for me to respond to anything or waiting for my responses before voting, and then just go ahead and vote me? Shame on you! You're a better player than that.

[Mizzy]

Well then could you please elaborate on the "Whateva, ah do whu' ah want!" remark? I thought that was in reference to Ramus getting angry at Caboose for whining instead of voting.

Had nothing to do with Caboose, no, it was about Ramus' attitude.

I found those two entries somewhat scummy. So how could I say I have no read on you when I have two things I found scummy? (rhetorical)

You didn't point them out as scummy is my point. You just mentioned them.

Answer them again please, or give me a post number to where you explain how being emotional is a reason to vote. C) Where did you get counterproductive, I said contradiction. Also you said a vote on someone is better than a vote on no one. But later in the day you unvoted and didn't place another vote.

I can't go back and re-read right now, sorry. You'll have to go look on your own.

I unvoted because Ramus dropped off my scumdar enough that I didn't feel right having a vote on him, but I didn't have time to look at where else to put it, and I was waiting to see some responses anyway before I really had a read on a few conversations going on at the time. So yes, I did unvote, but I was semi-LoA and didn't want to leave my vote somewhere bad in case something happened I wasn't fast enough to respond to.

You just made an accusation, as did CR, and didn't post where he took someone else's opinion and applied it as his own.

My point was that he posted in 138 and then later destructor asked him who else he was suspicious of, which I still can't find an answer to. Then he got into a tussle with CWR and the OMGUS fiasco, and then FoSes me and votes destructor in 163. No case. He just sat around, dodged questions, argued and then made shit votes/FoSes (possibly in an attempt to look productive.)

Then why didn't you answer it?

Because at first I didn't think it was addressed to everyone, and then I had no idea what Whoever-the-hell's Gambit was and I still don't. How can I answer when I don't know what it is and why should I answer when I think it's not relevant and a possible distraction? Plus, I was very strapped for time.

Are you trying to get me to stop voting you by shaming me or something?

Nope, I'm merely stating that, when I have played with you as town in the past, you were a much more thorough and well-thought-out player than you are here. Shame or no, it's my opinion, and it unsettles me that you voted me without getting ANY response from me whatsoever, at a time when you KNEW I was LoA and unable to defend myself. That smacks of scum.

[Mizzy]

I think that scumpairing analysis on day one is completely WIFOM and no case should be using it. I can't take that shit seriously. I mean, what info are we going off of to even say those things? You can draw conclusions til the cows come home and still the only way to verify them is to kill both people in the pairing. Not a great way to play, at least on day 1.

[Mizzy]

Machiavellian-Mafia:

I'm waitching rofl and Axelrod at the moment but I haven't made any concrete determinations, yet...though if I were forced to pick someone, anyone, I'd pick rofl for his #285. I don't like when things are labeled as facts that are strewn with opinion.

[Mizzy]

The reason I asked you to give a post number or explain again because I didn't find anywhere where you gave a reason on why being emotional is reason to vote.

One should never vote or otherwise act on emotion. It clouds one's vision and is generally an anti-town way to do things. This is why OMGUS votes are scummy; because they are based off emotion and not facts or a case.

So you are saying he was lazy because he didn't scumhunt while being attacked. I've been in a game before (you moded) where someone was being attacked, but didn't scumhunt and at the end, were town IIRC. (The game was your Troy meet Helen)

No, that is not what I am saying. I'm saying that he was dodging questions, not defending himself, and made some scummy plays on top of that.

Yet you keep wanting Ort to answer this and you get after Ort for not answering.

Why are you speaking in the present tense for all this? These things are all in the past. And yes, I wanted him to answer it because the way the post was worded, it was directed only towards him, and he was dodging it. By the time I realized it wasn't aimed only at him, things had begun to move on and I don't think that everyone answered it anyway.

[Mizzy]

The case against CWR I disagree with. Not sure why, but I think that there is all 3 scum on this wagon.

Unvote

.

How can you be so sure I'm scum when I am not on his wagon and in fact oppose his wagon?

What the hell is wrong with you?

[Mizzy]

Nat: Why are you willing to lynch Mizzy over just gut feeling and not giving her anything to defend against other than "Your gut's wrong."?

Not sure. Honestly, there's something off about this whole game. As I was reading, everyone seemed a bit..artificial.

So you add to it by being a hypocrite to yourself in the same post multiple times? Good job.

[Mizzy]

@Mizzy: The deadline is about two days away and I still haven't seen you vote since your unvote over 2 weeks ago.

I will vote when I am comfortable with doing so and not a moment before.

I'm currently waiting on something a little more substantial from our star replacement, Natirasha, before voting him for his blatant inconsistencies. You want me to vote sooner then get him to post.

[Mizzy]

This sounds like you are planning to vote him regardless of what he will post. So if this is the case and he has blatant inconsistencies, why not vote now? Plus voting him will probably prompt him to post. Not voting is the worst thing one can do near a deadline.

His next post or posts can stop me from voting him, which is why I am waiting. What he says will directly impact my actions.

And no, it's not the worst thing. Voting for someone who isn't going to get lynched is equal to not voting at all before a deadline; they are equal. Neither action stops a no-lynch.

Your vote isn't doing shit to stop a no-lynch, so leave me alone until that fact changes.

[Mizzy]

What would be the difference between (a) voting him now then unvoting if his next post changes your mind, and (b) waiting for him to post, which he may never do, before deciding what to do? If he never posts, does that mean you won't vote him? If you will, how long do you wait before placing the vote?

You can always remove a vote, so I see no point in waiting to decide when you've already found a reason to vote someone. Yes, this is somewhat consistent with my past experience with you, but I don't see a good reason to hold back on something like this.

I don't like vote hopping without extremely good reason. Not to mention that doing such things is kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't. I would rather be sure of a vote and stick with it than be wishy washy, but you do seem to know that already.

I suppose that my big issue with the way things are at the moment is that I don't think that either Carn or CWR should be lynched. Since I won't vote either one of them, no vote I place is productive. No vote I am okay with making is going to be anything but unhelpful in my eyes.

[Mizzy]

Checking in from work; I don't know how active I will be from now until the deadline so I am going to lodge my vote against Natirasha just in case.

My reasons for voting him have to do with his less-than-stellar replacing in and subsequent disappearance. Without the deadline in place, I would have called for his replacement, but time doesn't allow for that.

Vote: Natirasha

[Mizzy]

What? If I live through this day, you can certainly expect a re-read on you. You are willing to lynch based on one post by a player?

First off, I don't see there being any way Nat gets lynched. Second off, if I have to vote someone (and I do have to vote, whether I want to or not, because if I don't, then I'm just scum trying to stay off wagons, right? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.) then I am going to vote someone that is less helpful and more scummy than the two candidates that are up on the block. If I had to choose between Nat being lynched and either CC or you being lynched, I'd choose Nat, yes.

[Mizzy]

Heyo, Mizzy.

Care to respond and/or comment on the COMPLETELY NEW perspective of the game I just gave, rather than taking a cop out and continuing your petty bickering with clockwork ruse.

Why are you arguing with him, anyway? He's pretty much obv scum.

Actually, I haven't responded to your post because I'm at work and don't have time to read it until tonight or even possibly until tomorrow. Small posts I can do, but not walls-o-text.

He asked me a question, I answered it. Would you prefer that I dodge his question? And maybe he's obvscum to you, but he's not to me.

[Mizzy]

What the hell is with the sudden onslaught of Caboose/Urzassedatives votes? I call shenanigans.

[Mizzy]

Well, I would say the votes on me tended to develop from a "we have to lynch somebody at deadline, lets lynch the lurker" perspective, which is valid in it's own right I guess. However, I'm not here and not a lurker, so that case should disappear.

I have made a case on Clockwork, and I can only surmise that the votes on him have accumulated because of the same things I saw and have pointed out in my previous post. You call shenanigans, I call scummy play and a deadline.

I only called shenanigans on the votes on you, actually.

[Mizzy]

Ugh, sorry guys, we got called into work for both today and tomorrow, so my posting is going to be limited for a couple days.

[Mizzy]

I also believe CR's claim, but then I didn't think he was scum in the first place.

IGMEOY: ortolan

for his #428 and especially for posting after that and not explaining himself. Holding off on a vote until he speaks up about it.

[Mizzy]

You've got your eye on me for preventing someone who you think is town from being lynched?

As should be obvious, explaining why I don't think CR is scum requires me at least partially roleclaiming. If you want me to, say so rather than subtly rolefishing.

Contrary to what CC thinks, my unvote on CR was a reaction to not thinking he was scum, rather than thinking Natirasha was. I don't believe I ever suggested Natirasha was scum.

And furthermore I believe withdrawing my vote on CR has been somewhat vindicated since, but I will wait for him to reply before saying why exactly.

No, I am IGMEOYing you because of the teensy post with no content and a blatant lack of information. Followed by the ignoring of CC's #431 and destructor's #432. You then attempt to justify that lack of content with a role allusion, and then accuse me of rolefishing when I had no idea that it had to do with your role at all.

What bothers me most is that you posted without addressing either Carn OR destructor and then when you finally address me, you do so in a highly aggressive manner. That is not very pro-town of you.

[Mizzy]

ortolan:

Wait, so you find me scummy for pointing out some weirdness in your play? Yes, that makes a whole lot of sense.

I

never

like it when people go, "Oh, I can't say anything about that because it has to do with my role." No one can question that or prod at it, even if they feel it's a total cop-out, because then we get labeled as "rolefishing." It's basically untouchable.

Post 435 was intended as a reply to them.

That's all you had to say to clear things up, you realize. Instead, your first reply to me was a huge over-defensive thing with an attack on me for what I feel is no reason.

This doesn't even make sense...I alluded to my role as a reason for my unvote so unless you weren't reading:

I actually mis-read it, so I thought you were saying something about someone

else's

role, which is why it pinged my radar.

[Mizzy]

Okay guys, I'm currently re-reading the last few pages and once I finish, I'll post my thoughts and a response to ort.

[Mizzy]

I'm not really feeling or understanding the CarnCarn votes on page 18, and in fact, I'm not pleased with Urza's vote with lack of reasoning in #445.

ThAdmiral's vote on destructor seemed like a huge reach, but then I am not really a fan of voting someone because something they did was "somewhat scummy."

Destructor:

I'm not sold on CC's scumminess. Your case seemed to consist of "CC was voting CR." Why vote one of Urza or CC when they were both doing the same thing and you hadn't yet re-read Urza? Not an attack, that's a real question.

Ort:

Votes Ramus for self-voting. She mainly pursued him day one while also defending CR. This was apparently a "policy" vote, though, as she has not pursued Ramus' successor.

How is this an inconsistency? Or scummy?

Post 73 criticises the wagon on CR without giving reasons.

No, I said, "...so far I don't see the wagon on Clock..." which is not criticism, merely a disagreement.

Post 99 uses CC's Post 95 criticism of urielzyx's Post 94 "WIFOM" again to defend ClockworkRuse.

Again, how is this an inconsistency or scummy?

This is a plain denial of the fact that even if my vote on CR was what is generally considered "OMGUS", i.e. I was voting him after he voted me, it certainly wasn't made with no reasons.

No, it was a partial disagreement with your sentiment. You may have had reasons but in my opinion, they paled in the face of the OMGUS factor.

And you know what, I'm just going to stop answering the load of bull your entire post is. You completely manipulated what I said and instead of asking for reasoning or explanations for my actions, you write them up to suit your own "case." You not only failed to mention or address that I admitted that I had misread your post in which you claimed, but now you are using that against me as if I hadn't misread your post.

Most of the post you made about me simply lists things I did, and then the rest of it misrepresents things I said into things you are trying to say I did and only the end of it really explains why any of it MIGHT be scummy. The only real point you have against me is completely rendered useless due to the fact that my suspicion of you was based on a misread, which I admitted to, and so really, your case is a big fat load of nothing. Good job.

I will consider responding to the rest of that "case" once you re-write and re-think what you have there.

[Mizzy]

Why did you drop off on attacking Axelrod/Ramus when Axelrod replaced in, when he voted CR which should have vindicated your suspicions?

In part because Ramus' playstyle and logic were what I distrusted. I felt that Axel voted CR for reasons that in his mind were sound, and not because he was trying to lynch a townie. In short, I found the replacement less anti-town than Ramus.

Furthermore, why were you so defensive of CR even before there was good reason to believe he was townie?

Because he was (is) an active player with good, sound logic, pro-town actions, and not really much against him. I felt he was townie pretty early, but no one asked.

Finally, why did you lay suspicion on me for causing the person you wanted to be lynched to be lynched, and for saving the person you didn't want to be lynched from being lynched?

I didn't lay suspicion on you, I pointed out something that at the time looked pretty scummy but I didn't ask anyone else to listen or follow along. "Laying suspicion" is something someone does to elicit and attack; I was hoping for responses to what I was saying from you in order to clear things up and if your responses were not sufficient, I would have voted you and not cared whether anyone else agreed with me. This is where I think you are being extremely over-aggressive and -defensive. I also don't credit you alone with saving CR so stop trying to look like a hero.

[Mizzy]

Why have you totally ignored these possibilities?

Why have you ignored everything else I've said and focused instead on making mountains of molehills?

[Mizzy]

I don't see how I have? Your comment about me not having "saved" CR doesn't make any sense to me under either interpretation I've tried to apply to it- it's either simply true (because I saved him by unvoting) or you mean it in the sense that he is "cleared", and I don't know why you would assume that.

You have missed parts and tried to gracefully side-step the entire unjustification of your gripe about my suspicion on you.

I don't like voting for someone for being "anti-town" in the way you've done here. It implies you don't think they are scum but will vote for them anyway. This is what I was getting at- if you thought Ramus was scum, then you should have voted Axelrod. If you didn't think Ramus was scum, but simply a bad townie, you shouldn't have been voting for him to begin with. Townies are still townies nonetheless.

Scum are anti-town, are they not? It implies that all I knew about him for sure was that his play was anti-town. I can't know whether or not the person I suspect is scum, so I go with the basics first. And to me, scum are bad "townies." They try to appear as town but aren't actually pro-town. Your disagreement with my playstyle does not make me scummy.

So your entire case now stands on nothing but your dislike about my playstyle, which isn't actually scummy, you just don't agree with it.

[Mizzy]

You have missed parts and tried to gracefully side-step the entire unjustification of your gripe about my suspicion on you.

Please tell me what I have sidestepped. I found inconsistencies in your play and pointed them out to you.

Why are you asking me to tell you what I already have? See my above quote and read it carefully.

As your your inconsistencies, I have answered your comments on them and shown that most of them are misunderstandings or misrepresentations. And yet you continue to act like your case is still stable and valid. Why?

[Mizzy]

1)

I also don't credit you alone with saving CR so stop trying to look like a hero.

What, exactly, did you mean by this?

Exactly what I said. It feels like you want to put yourself on a pedestal for your actions that prevented one lynch and caused another, and while you may have done a good thing, I really hate it when people have to get all high and mighty about it.

2) Do you believe that on day one, CR was being consistently "intelligent and very perceptive" when he spent most of the day attacking me, and subsequently admitted he had been tunneling?

I believe that most of what he said and how he said it was intelligent and perceptive, yes. I didn't say he was perfect, and I didn't always agree with him, but I admire(d) his playstyle and helpful thoughts.

3) Theoretically, if you were a cop, had investigated someone and knew them to be innocent, but found their play extremely unhelpful to town, would you still call for them to be lynched?

It depends on the game. If I didn't know my own sanity, then yes, I might. If there was a traitor and I knew it, then I might. If it were someone who was severely hampering a potential town-win, then yes, I might. There are circumstances in which I would try and get some one lynched in your scenario, but

never

would I lie to make that happen. Does that make sense?

[Mizzy]

But if that's your playstyle I think that makes

you

a "bad townie".
Also you're sort of strawmanning his case against you.

Good thing your opinion means absolutely nothing, huh?

And no, I'm not strawmanning anything. I answered and debunked his points and he refuses to admit it or back down on any of them, even the one where he was glaringly wrong.

[Mizzy]

err wut?

What of my points were wrong?

You may have been successful in reducing some of my points to subjectivity e.g. arguing that it is acceptable to vote a town player who is being unhelpful (although I still disagree, and think this is bad town play in and of itself and/or scummy), but in no way have you demonstrated any of my points were "glaringly wrong" in any way whatsoever.

Except the entire part where you suspected me for what ended up being a misread on my part. Basically, I suspected you for something that really wasn't what I thought it was (I had misread your post) and admitted that. Yet you have still not addressed or explained why that seems to be still a part of your case when it's not even valid.

What other points in your case do you feel are still valid enough to be still voting me?

[Mizzy]

@ mizzy: why so defensive?

That's pretty much how I always am when people interject opinions that I don't care about and that aren't helpful to the game.

[Mizzy]

By the way this is strawmanning.

Is it strawmanning if what I say is true? I keep challenging him to update his case with the new information that he asked for and that I gave, and he hasn't done that. Most of his points "against" me weren't even scummy things or "inconsistencies" at all.

[Mizzy]

And Mizzy, for someone who earlier accused me of being "over-defensive", you seem to be getting very defensive over me placing *one* vote on you, with no-one else suggesting an inclination to join your wagon yet. Why is one vote of such concern to you?

On another point: I don't think you ever gave a good answer as to why you thought CR's question about Ramus' play was addressed specifically to me.

It's not the vote (I could honestly care less who you vote at the moment) but your "case" and the reactions to my debunking of said "case."

Yes, I actually did answer that already, a long time ago.

What I am calling for you to do is go through your case and, point by point, update it with the information you have now. Most of your points you called inconsistencies, which they weren't, and they weren't even scummy actions and those things should be marked accordingly. The couple of potentially questionable things you had listed there I have answered to and explained why you have them incorrect or that things were misrepresented.

Why not just go through and update the case? Do you have a reason why you won't? I don't care if you keep your vote on me or not, but what I am interested in seeing is if you keeping asserting that the case you have is any good and even whether or not you can even acknowledge that one of the points was a direct result of a mistake on my part that I corrected and took responsibility for. It feels like you are voting me on an emotional case when that's not the best thing in the world at all for any one pro-town to do and if you can show me that you have a decent reason to be tunnel-visioned on me, then I will shut up and let it go.

[Mizzy]

This is just rubbish and you tried to claim I did the same thing to CR on day one. Here's what happens:

- I make lengthy post with evidence you're scum (456).

- You refuse to answer most of it (459):

I was wondering if you would latch onto that "stop answering" line to make me look bad, and I was right, you did.

Your case (I just go down the list):

Point 1 of 10 - Responded to in post #459.
Point 2 of 10 - Responded to in post #459.
Point 3 of 10 - Responded to in post #459.
Point 4 of 10 - Responded to in post #459.
Point 5 of 10 - Nothing to respond to; it was my opinion.
Point 6 of 10 - Nothing to respond to; extension of point 5.
Point 7 of 10 - Nothing to respond to; I did already answer and quite fully so.
Point 8 of 10 - Responded to in post #462.
Point 9 of 10 - A whole paragraph of WIFOM. Nothing to respond to that I can find.
Point 10 of 10 - Responded to in post #459 - Based on a misread.

So I didn't directly respond to 3 of 10 points, two of which were basically two ways of saying 1 point (and that point wasn't actually a scummy point, just a hypothesis) and one was a huge plot conspiracy blow-out by you with nothing for me to respond to at all.

Out of your points, only two I can see as valid case points and one of them was based on a misread which I admitted to. The second one is that I stopped attacking a replacement who stopped doing the anti-town things his predecessor did. I fail to see what more can be said about that.

I spend most of my time wringing answers out of you because you've failed to answer the case properly in the first place.

Wait, you are? I think I just showed that I answered 70% of your points from the case, which is actually 75-80% because the two-points-are-the-same thing. Everything that I felt could be responded to has been responded to, yet you keep asking about things that have been answered. Why?

You then claim my case was weak to begin with, because you've forced me to isolate my points, because you refused to answer them when they were presented together. Great tactic! Pity it's blatantly obvious what you're doing.

This is quite false, as shown by my numbers above. There are actually two posts with the answers; they are not isolated.

But for the record, I will revisit it (pretty much all the points still stand to me) just to prove to everyone why you're scum.

Please do and please be quite thorough in your explanation of each point, including an update. I want to know why you think each one is scummy. And please leave the conspiracy theories for a different post; I want to see if you can write a post that contains all fact and no fiction.

If I didn't explain or answer one of the points thoroughly enough for you. let me know. I can try and answer more thoroughly once you flesh-out your updated case.

[Mizzy]

As town you should have had nothing to hide so I don't see why you didn't just answer these questions at the time.
As frustrated as you were you still should have responded to them.

Actually, he didn't ask me any questions that I hadn't answered that I know of. What I didn't respond to were things he didn't ask but his hypothesis and theories.

[Mizzy]

You've claimed this is subjective, the point still stands in my mind.

The moon can be made of green cheese in your mind, but it doesn't mean that reality and the inside of your mind match up.

They're the same thing in mafia. There's no point expressing an attitude without a reason behind it. What was the reason?

No, they most certainly are not the same thing, and in mafia, it's the subtle differences that count. As for my reason, I was not being very active at that point and I wanted to chime in about what was going on. You know, like a player should?

urielzyx in Post 94 presented a perfectly valid theory about how scum might behave, CC dismissed this as WIFOM and you just parroted what he said about it, even though speculating about scum behaviour is reasonable and inevitable, and uriel's comment wasn't particularly WIFOM-laced but more common sense.

That's neither inconsistent or scummy. I can agree with someone's sentiments, regardless of what those sentiments are. And besides, you seem to be forgetting my entire explanation of why I thought the WIFOM you presented at that point was reason for suspicion. I had my own thoughts on the subject and shared them.

This OMGUS accusation is true garbage. Firstly it has never been established that an OMGUS vote is scummy- in the archetypal case of OMGUS I believe the person who committed it wasn't even scum. So I don't know where you get the idea that it's a scumtell from. Here also you exhibit a clear knowledge of the distinction between "anti-town" and "scummy" behaviour, which makes your excuse of your behaviour re: Ramus/Axelrod completely implausible. The second point, which is really why your accusation was so laughable, was that you clearly state

Look at you, going off on a complete tangent again. You have very high entertainment value, you know

Firstly, I explained why OMGUS votes should not be made and why I feel they are scummy. You may disagree with me, and that's fine, but I never said they were a foolproof scumtell, anyway.

Why does it make my behavior implausible? Use real facts, please, not the in-your-mind ones.

Clearly my attack on CR didn't even fall under _your_ definition of an OMGUS vote anyway, let alone mine, because you say it is a vote which "doesn't utilize logic or a case", whereas my vote on CR was blatantly supported by both. You didn't really think through that attempt to attack me there, did you?

Considering that I am not you, I have no way of knowing whether or not your OMGUS vote was anything more than OMGUS. I have to make my decisions based on what I read and how I feel about what I read. And from what I saw, and see now, your play is very emotion-based and not so heavy on the logic. I still feel that CR attack was more OMGUS than anything else.

You never gave an explanation for why you made this blatantly untrue statement. How had I not justified my attack on CR in its own light?

Actually, I had already discussed it, and obviously, I didn't (and don't) think your CR was justified enough.

You've never answered why you wanted me to address CR's open question.

Yes, I did.

You've claimed re: not continuing your vote onto Axelrod from Ramus that apparently you vote based on "anti-town" play rather than scummy (and don't pretend you don't distinguish the two, as I showed above). I think this is a terrible approach to playing as town and hard to excuse, and points to you being scum.

You do realize that something that goes against your opinion isn't inherently scummy, right? The play mentioned above is one that I have done before as town in other games. It's how I play. You can think that points to me being scum all you want, but really, you don't care as long as you get to be "right".

Honestly, this whole thing is laughable, and as much as I want to feel otherwise, I can only see you as useless-town.

[Mizzy]

Mizzy: If you are going to use your past games as a defense on anything, you should give links to and instances of in that game.

Honestly, just before my long hiatus (I was off the site for a couple months) I stopped keeping track of my games. I will need to go look.

[Mizzy]

I'll be mostly away from the computer for until Monday, but I will try and post before then

[Mizzy]

Well, of course the method isn't foolproof, but what method is?

[Mizzy]

Well what method are you actually suggesting we should use then? Just find the scummiest of those four and lynch them?

Either that or just find the scummiest and lynch them.

[Mizzy]

So basically you're saying (like I did) that the vote analysis has no real effect

Nothing has an effect if no one lets it have an effect. The best laid out case in the world can do nothing if it falls on deaf ears and even a cop can claim and point to a guilty verdict and have it be ignored. Nothing has any real effect unless we make it have effect.

That said, it's one of the best leads we have that's based on prior actions, IMO.

[Mizzy]

Does no-one else find Mizzy scummy? Surely there's a good chance that one of us is scum, considering how at-each-other's-throats we've been all game?

In my experience, townies can go at each others' throats as often (if not more often) than a scum and a town would.

[Mizzy]

I've been mulling over the options lately and with the deadline coming closer, I feel it's time to air out my opinions and make a vote.

I really took a closer look at destructor for a few reasons; firstly, he has been extremely quiet as of late and my impression has been that he's been more and more quiet since d1 ended. I know there were holidays involved, but it seems that there is a slow-down before the holidays and after them in terms of his involvement. Also, I'm not convinced of his version of the CC case and it feels like he's stopped scumhunting now that his vote is where it is.

I re-read destructor starting at the end of d1 and here are my thoughts:

desctructor Post #426:

Votes Nat and says "Because I don't know what else to do with my vote." That struck me as odd then and it strikes me as odd now, because it seems very listless and even potentially lazy and I don't really see those as destructor traits.

desctructor Post #432:

Asks what's wrong with the Nat vote when it's kind of obvious. No real content, just seems to be a chiming in. The mention of daytime abilities here kind of pings as something wary to me but I think it's my imagination.

desctructor Post #441:

Makes some assertions about CR's alignment based on D1's happenings and then votes CC without explaining why in the post.

desctructor Post #449:

He seems to be saying he's okay with a Nat mislynch because he was a) the least pro-town and b) could have been the traitor. I can understand a) but b) bothers me.

desctructor Post #450:

It could be me, but I'm reading a little aggressiveness in the two questions at the bottom of his post here. I just wanted to note them.

desctructor Post #455:

This post gives me a feeling of wishy-washiness. He's saying a lot of things like "I tend to agree" and a lot of "I don't know" and "we won't knows." It just feels very weak. Not bad per-say, but not as assertive as I am expecting from him.

desctructor Post #505:

More wishy-washiness and not a lot of real content here. A couple questions, one good point, but the rest is all very unsolid.

desctructor Post #519:

Finally, what looks like a meaty post. I actually I see I missed answering a question, so I will do that now:

desctructor

: I think the CC case has some merit but it took other people talking about CC in order for me to feel that way. I mostly have a gut feeling forming (which is new, by the way, as of re-reading to do this post) but that's not enough for me to act on.

And then there's nothing else from destructor that I saw (please tell me if I missed anything.)

It really feels to me like destructor either lost interest in things or just quit trying (a whole lot of lay-low vibes.) That bothers/worries me and those feelings are stronger than any feelings/vibes I have from anyone else. What I mean, is that CC I think may be a possibility but I really think the wagon there (with the exception of Bat) is a lazyish one. Possibly with some distancing going on.

I'm going to

vote destructor

because of the above items, even though I know it's not as solid of a case as I usually like. However, with the deadline coming in, I'd rather my vote be somewhere potentially helpful thank nowhere at all. I know the deadline is 3 days away but my posting/reading ability is sporadic at the moment with the weather and work and I'd rather not miss it.

[Mizzy]

Oh hey, the site is back I'll catch up tomorrow; tonight my son is acting like he's been possessed by a screaming demon soul and I can't even think straight.

[Mizzy]

Wait, I'm a scumbuddy because I didn't see your case on CC? I didn't see YOUR case on CC because of how you posted it. And this whole suspicion on me because I couldn't agree with your case reinforces how I feel about your posting as of late; it's half-cocked and silly.

[Mizzy]

I need to be on LoA until Sunday due to work (all-day release tomorrow, fun fun fun! You guys can check monster.com to see what I been killing myself on the new site goes up tomorrow.)

[Mizzy]

There was nothing to be gained in keeping my vote on CC. I wasn't going to vote CR, and neither did I want him lynched. I was okay with a Nat lynch. So I voted Nat.

And yet you're bitching about my vote on you when I have basically the same reasons? I don't think there's any place my vote would be more helpful than on you. I'm okay with seeing you lynched, so that's where my vote is. What I didn't like is that you didn't explain this when you voted. You just tossed the vote out there with no reasoning worth a damn.

The Traitor comment was in response to MM's question to me.

That doesn't negate my point, really.

I said a number of things in this post. What did you find wishy-washy? What was the good point?

Bolded parts are wishy-washy:

Urza seemd townish mostly because he was contributing and active.

Or maybe

his activity made me think he was less likely to be scum,

or something

.

The only good point you had was about the FoS in relation to helping scum pick nightkills.

Is that good gut or bad gut? Leaning town/scum? On CC?

The gut feeling about CC is that CC is reeling, and seems unsure of how to play. There feels like a lot of floundering going on which makes me wonder if CC doesn't quite know how to play his role.

As for being unsure how to respond, just ask me things. Ask me for clarification, ask me for explanations.

[Mizzy]

Oh and Mod: My vote is on destructor

.

Mod Edit: My apologies -- my vote counts have been extremely poor this game. Fixed.

[Mizzy]

Destructor:

The reason I've been ambiguous is because I don't want to get into role speculation. To answer you, I suspect CC may be the traitor but obviously, I can't be sure and I'm not sure enough for a vote yet. I won't say more than that about roles.

[Mizzy]

What's there to respond to, exactly? I'm not scum, and I think ort's a fool for outing himself like he did. A pro-town fool, but a fool none-the-less.

I'm replacing my vote from yesterday:

Vote: Destructor

Ask me anything you like.

[Mizzy]

The thing is, I didn't do anything to be blocked, so what's there to say? I already said I'm not scum. Counter claiming would be retarded. Ort can't prove he's telling the truth, either. This whole thing is here-say and hurt the town a great deal.

[Mizzy]

Guys, this is really simple.

We lynch mizzy and then tomorrow if she's town we lynch orto.

come the fuck on.

Do that and you lose a whole lot.

[Mizzy]

Sorry for the triple post, but actually, if you do what Urza suggests, we'll lose. If you lynch me, there's lylo, and if ort is telling the truth and you lynch him, which I think he is, town dies. Your choice, gang.

[Mizzy]

then perhaps it's time for a mass claim to determine if there's any other explanation for what happened?

I don't like that because then the scum would know exactly who to kill. If we do mass claim, we should do it with role and not-role, but never with role names. My 2-cents.

[Mizzy]

destructor, I gave a case on you that is, in my opinion, far more solid than the OMGUS "case" you have on me. I responded to what I saw, and if I missed something, you are more than welcome to point it out and I will respond to it. I have already given reason upon reason for voting you. You can "not like it" all you want, but your quick vote was far, far scummier than anything I have done. Don't screw the game over for the rest of the town by focusing on someone who you simply "don't like."

Since there's a chance I won't be around tomorrow, I'm going to claim now. I'm claiming not only because I might be away tomorrow but also because we probably have a doc and I would much rather die myself than have a doc killed.

I'm a

pro-town power role

but I am NOT going to say what role I am, so don't bother asking. I did not attempt to use my power last night.

[Mizzy]

Urza, you sound more and more like excited scum and less and less like scared town to me.

Remember that in this game, we can have 1, 2 or 3 of any power role listed on the front page, in ANY combination. We could have 1, 2 or 3 docs, 1, 2 or 3 roleblockers, or whatever. Do the math.

[Mizzy]

Also, I think it's kind of silly that Mizzy came up with a roundabout way of role-claiming, and then did it in her next post without anyone really agreeing to it. The idea of claiming role vs nonrole without claiming the role itself seems weird to me, too. If the player is scum, (s)he gets to have the cake and eat it too: the town doesn't want to lynch because it's a claimed power role, but the night actions can be made up after the fact because the town has no idea what they should be. If the player is town, the town will have no idea what the actions were in the first two nights if the player dies, which is especially a concern in Mizzy's case, where she is the only claimed power role.

I want the scum to have to think on this NK coming up. Do they kill power role A or power role B? If they kill A, then it makes B look like scum, but B could be more dangerous left alive. Ahh, decisions for them, no?

I am also not the only claimed power role, and I took no actions on any night as of yet. Better?

[Mizzy]

ortolan has no power, so he doesn't make much of a night target. If there were any other claims, I missed them.

Did he use both? I missed that part if he said he used both blocks.

[Mizzy]

What, and letting myself get lynched is pro-town? Damn, you guys are dumb. Scum are completely going to win this one. We might as well throw in the towel at this point.

[Mizzy]

Also, is no one going to list the most pro-town player? This is so the potential doc can claim who they protected last night.

That would be you, Batt. I would bet money that you're the most pro-town in a lot of people's eyes.

[Mizzy]

@Everyone: I think we at the very least need to push for a mizzy claim. Thoughts on this?

I already claimed as much as I am going to claim. Stop role-fishing. Stop being obvscum, while you are at it.

[Mizzy]

I'm still not claiming anymore than I already have. And post on the right account, damnnit.

[Mizzy]

So you admit you were strawmanning to make me look bad?

Also, why does it matter which account I post under? Seems like you're choosing some very unimportant things to talk about because you know I'm destroying you on the important issues.

You already made yourself look worse than Tammy Faye Baker. And no, I feel that you were rolefishing (trying to get a specific role from me when I have already refused.) You can disagree, but that's how I see it.

It matters because it makes it hard to check for posts on search and whatnot. My annoyance at your double-account posting has nothing to do with the game itself.

[Mizzy]

Like I said, I'd rather be lynched than have the doc or whoever killed, so go ahead. But unless the doc is successful again, we will be in lylo tomorrow. I HIGHLY suggest you guys think (you know, with your brains?) before you act tomorrow.

[Mizzy]

I just stabbed a teddy bear.

Hi, urza.

[Mizzy]

It would probably be a really good idea to discuss what will get done tomorrow. I have accepted that I'm the lynch, and I'm okay with that. Mostly. However, a lot of you are banking on me flipping scum, which I won't, and there should be a back-up plan. (You can blah blah argue about that all you want, but that's what's going to happen. I'm not saying that to prevent my lynch, I'm saying it because it's damned true.) Who will you look at? What actions will take place?

[Mizzy]

Who do you want us to look at, Mizzy? If you flip town, we will know that we can trust what you said and use against the mafia.

Unless you're the traitor, I guess. Still, FWIW.

I would highly suggest looking at the following people:
Urzassedatives
ThAdmiral
Machiavellian-Mafia

In that order.

[Mizzy]

How about reasons? Other than "Those are the three people that most want me lynched right now."

If you're going to have more than one account and use them, the least you could do is be less lazy and post in the right one.

Urza should be a no-brainer. Everything he suggested and posted about the ort claim and what should be done to me has screamed scum. I would feel that way no matter who the target was.

TheAd and MM are more subtle. I find that neither one has done or said very much of late, and I feel very little commitment in their posts. At this stage of the game, flying under the radar is anti-town. In fact, the read I have on both of them is so completely the same, I have trouble not seeing them as scumbuddies.

[Mizzy]

Could you be more specific regarding Urza? "Screaming scum" is a little too vague for me to work with. Even if you think it's obvious, I feel like it would help to have it on record so your unspoken opinion doesn't get second-guessed and therefore possibly manipulated by the mafia. Also, does anyone other than Battousai have your blessing?

Batt, no offense, but I'm gonna lol pretty hard if you die tonight, after saying that.

These are just from today:

Guys, this is really simple.

We lynch mizzy and then tomorrow if she's town we lynch orto.

come the fuck on.

Said without the thought of consequences. It's not hard to guess, looking at the numbers and lynch history, that we are pretty close to lylo. Suggesting something like this is anti-town at best. He's not a noob, so he ought to know better than suggesting that we do something like that at this stage in the game. Only scum would benefit from this.

then perhaps it's time for a mass claim to determine if there's any other explanation for what happened?

Only scum would benefit from a mass claim. (ThAdmiral was up for the mass claim, too, scumpoints for him.)

Guys, if we mass claim we will figure out if mizzy is scum or if there is another plausible explanation for last night, and thats ridiculously important because we need to lynch right today or tomorrow.

Now he's trying fear tactics to get the town to do what he wants, and this is after he suggested that we lynch poorly twice in a row and got smacked for it.

GUYS STOP FLINGING YOUR VOTES AROUND AND THINK.

We have a RBed player on a night where there was no kill, and generally that should dictate that she or Orto are scum.

The only reason this could be not true is if there are confounding factors caused by other power roles.

I think from my position it's pretty clear that I didn't mess with the kill in any way last night.

Let us mass claim and lynch intelligently, not do this "LOL URZA THINKS MIZZY IS SCUM VOTE: URZA"

Which pretty much seems to me to be what the case is. Erm... Excuse me, it was "scummy as hell"

hard to defend against, that. But I think I've very clearly laid out my position here, and I would be hard pressed to find a reason it's scummy.

So, challenge to the people who are voting me: what about my position is scummy. That is, what is the significant anti town motivation for what I have just laid out. It must be a doozy to be "Scummy as hell"

Then he comes out with this piece of work. He knows he did something scummy and going on the aggressive about it. He even adds in the (bolded) softclaim which even if he's scum wouldn't be a lie.

2) It's true, however, considering mizzy already claimed "pro town power role" (lol, scum claim if I've ever seen one) the damage is miniscule, and I've already explained that since we NEED to lynch right today or tomorrow, the benefits of knowing for sure that mizzy is scum or if there's another possibility is drastically important to us, and outweighs outing power roles, because at this point we don't need pro town power roles, we need dead scum. it's as simple as that.

Let me translate:

"I'm going to dismiss her role claim as obvscum so that when we lynch her and she was telling the truth, I can just point back to this and say, "Hey, I thought her claim was false for sure!" I mean, hell, the town's fucked up this much so far, maybe they'll just be blind as bats and let us do this if I make it sound like they'd be retarded to do otherwise."

Only a dipshit would not realize that protective power roles can lengthen the game by days. By carelessly tossing aside power roles at this stage, and gladly sacrificing one, he's not only weakening the town but helping them get one kill closer to winning.

[Mizzy]

Mizzy: if you have accepted your lynch, and you are, in fact, a "pro-town power role" then ought you not be telling us what role you are and what you have done with it this game? Wouldn't that be the townie thing to do?

I am not going to tell what role I am because when I die, I will only come up as my alignment. I don't want the scum knowing any more about the set-up than they already do. And I already said what I did with my role.

[Mizzy]

Pretty sure I was definitely thinking of the consequences. As I've already explained the point of this is not to set up a 1-2 lynch (which is only a point against me if mizzy comes up town) but mainly to get the town to lynch mizzy who I was pretty sure was scum. Also, as has already been stated by me, the math that supports them both telling the truth is miniscule. I grant that its a possibility, but not a large one, and mafia is probabilistic. The probability tells us that one of orto or mizzy is scum.

Did you also consider the possibility that ort is not a pro-town power role? Or that if you are wrong then town loses?

Please tell us why "Only scum would benefit from a mass claim." Warrant your assertions, please.

How can a mass claim help town? By "validating" role claims? A mass-claim can't do that. All it can do is out who the remaining power role is, who I feel we need

alive

in order to win.

Actually, that post is providing the reasoning for why "mass claim benefits the town" If the consequences ARE what I am stating them as, then it's not fear tactics to state them. Do you think I'm missrepresenting the consequences? If so, how?

I think you are scum who wants the town to listen to you so that you win faster, because that's exactly what your "plans" will cause.

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT.

Now you're claiming a protective power role? You claimed not to have used your power last night, so I'm pretty sure thats a complete and utter lie.

I did no such thing. You said "we don't need pro town power roles" and clearly we have a protective role out there who has already spared one live.

[Mizzy]

What? ...

I don't see how your role could have any effect on the setup whatsoever. As far as I can tell - assuming you die today - the only motivation to find out your role, and conversely, for you to hide your role, are, respectively, curiosity and spite.

If you guys can explain to me why knowing my role could help town and not help scum, I will tell my specific role, keeping in mind that if I am lynched, it doesn't matter what my role was to begin with.

[Mizzy]

Mizzy has apparently resigned to the fact that she's the lynch and named Urza as a top suspect, which caught my attention since she's voting me but didn't even name me in her top three.

I meant looking at those folks on top of you. I felt it was common sense to look at the person I want lynched right now, but apparently, there's no such thing as common sense.

[Mizzy]

WIFOM is circular logic of any kind.

And Urza, I fully expect you to take responsibility for pushing my lynch and throwing the town into lylo. You seem to take responsibility for making me the play for today now, so I want to see that when I check back in to see what happens next.

[Mizzy]

I was under the impression that if a town "Power Role" died, it would be revealed, i.e. Cop, RBer, etc. Looking at the rules, it only says that players will be revealed as "Town" or "Mafia."

Are we not finding out when "power roles" are eliminated? If not, then this sucks almost as bad as the fact that there's a scum who's showing as "Town" already.

No, we are not. This is why I don't want to reveal my role.

[Mizzy]

No, you can't assert something THROUGH my logic, mizzy. I made an argument as to why wifom does not apply in certain situations. If you want to claim that it applies in all situations, then please defeat my logic as to why it isn't. Mafia is a game of arguments. You can't just make assertions PAST the arguments of other players.

You can't arbitrarily change the definition of a word to suit your needs. You can say that it doesn't apply to a situation, but you can't just say, "Wifom has a very specific meaning. It means that each action is around equally likely." because that's not true.

[Mizzy]

Yes, the whole thing was an elaborate ruse to out the rb/doc even though I am the roleblocker and I claimed at the start of day two (although apparently neither you nor Mizzy noticed this???)

I didn't notice it, no, but I thought you were town from way back before when you were attacking me yesterday so I didn't really care what your role was.

Um...since the other two roles are out, should I out mine or keep it a secret?

[Mizzy]

Oh, and, sorry for the double-post, but if I do keep mine a secret, the scum will need to choose between two active power roles, a confirmed townie, and a powerless power role to kill tonight. Unless they have a vig then they can only get one of us.

[Mizzy]

Ugh, alright. I'll claim. I'm a 1-shot night Vig. I didn't use my power yet because I have never played a vig before and have been stressing left and right about using my power and hitting a pro-towner by accident. I didn't want scum to know because if they didn't NK me tonight then maybe I could take one of them out since I have a solid notion of who not to target, now.

[Mizzy]

There is literally no reason why a one shot vig would not claim right away when pressured. Literally zip. Fear of being outed doesn't play into the decision at all, because the scum wont waste a kill on you because you are likely to just use your one shot that night.

This claim smells absolutely terrible.

Good idea, just ignore the entire reason I gave. You don't have to agree with my reason, but I have one. So shut up.

[Mizzy]

Oh, and, quick question. Why would I claim something dangerous like 1-shot vig when I could have claimed something safe like a second doctor or roleblocker?

[Mizzy]

Because that's your actual role?

Yes, correct. Note that I am not a scum 1-shot vig, I am a townie one-shot vig. If I had been a scum vig, I'd have wasted no time and killed someone immediately, leaving a night with 2 kills. Which hasn't happened.

[Mizzy]

I don't like suggesting this but we could just tell mizzy to kill someone of our choosing tonight instead of lynching her.
would you agree to that mizzy?

I would, yes, but there is the chance that the scum have a roleblocker or doctor which would nullify my vig kill.

[Mizzy]

How ironic that the person I most suspect as scum should claim cop and say he investigated CC, who I said I felt was the traitor.

I don't believe destructor for a second.

What a desperate bid to get me lynched. And you know why? Because with my help, town could win in ONE NIGHT.

[Mizzy]

Oh, and by the way, since this basically ensures I get lynched and town goes into lylo:

Scumteam = destructor, Urzassedatives and ThAdmiral.

I expect a whole lot of apologies when I die and come up town. My email is mizziness@gmail.com and my AIM is Tiasale. I seriously better see some fucking I'm-sorries.

[Mizzy]

What a desperate bid to get me lynched. And you know why? Because with my help, town could win in ONE NIGHT.

What? How?

I think destructor is lying. That's why I think desperate. And ort is right, I had already softclaimed Vig a long, long time ago. This should not have been a new concept.