Mafia 87 - New Age Mafia - Game Over!

[iamausername]

Regarding post 244
No, it wasn't helpful of DH. When you are town, town is the first priority and you have to do whatever you can to achieve our goal. That doesn't mean that you should vote the player with the most votes after you as it's possible that he's a townie as well. And it appeared that that was the case.

Right, and letting yourself get lynched would not be achieving that goal. I'm not saying DH did a good job; clearly if he had, he wouldn't have been lynched. But since it had obviously come down to a choice between himself and Zade, choosing Zade was the best option for him. Yes, it was possible Zade was town as well, but from DH's point of view, it was a choice between a possible townie and a

guaranteed

townie.

Just assume that after DH vote, that everybody would have voted Scheza and he was the lynch instead of DH. Don't you think that day 2 everybody would have jumped back onto DH's wagon?

You mean like how everyone jumped back onto Zade's wagon on D2 when DH got lynched? Oh wait, that never happened. Funny.

He should have posted why Scheza deserved to die, instead of him. That would have been much better than just vote him in order to survive.

Well, yeah, that would have been better. That doesn't make what he did

wrong

, it just makes it sub-optimal.

The only ones who need to survive are scum and ,if we have one, the SK.

Survival perhaps shouldn't be a townie's primary goal, but it certainly should be one of their goals. Or, at least, survival during the day; you could argue that a vanilla townie should be trying to attract the night kill to keep it away from power roles. But they shouldn't be trying to get lynched, that's for sure.

Look, say the votes right now were tied 4-4 between you and, I don't know, ribwich, you were the only one not voting, the deadline is a couple of days off and no one was willing to change their vote. Who would you vote for?

Regarding post 457
I didn't get the impression that everyone was voting him for finding him scummy. Especially Percy's, TM's and IAAU's posts. Including that I think that there are 2 scum factions and a SK/vig, it seems more like following.

Fair enough. It is true that I didn't think Puta was the

most

scummy player at that time, because I was still convinced that al4xz was scum. But he was still very scummy, and I felt that he was a distraction that needed to be dealt with sooner, rather than later. I originally hoped we could delay it until after the al4xz lynch, because if we have a vig, Puta Puta would be the obvious target, and I'd rather have lynched the on I thought was most likely scum. But I guess it worked out pretty well the other way round anyway. (Well, maybe. Frankly, any of last night's kills would make sense as the vig kill, and I'm pretty puzzled as to why scum would off any of them.)

But you may also explain the last sentence of 451 IAAU.

I thought it was fairly obvious; I was referencing the way that al4xz (and Gerrendus) claimed not to realise how many votes Der Hammer had at the time of his lynch. I wanted to make it abundantly clear on Puta Puta so nobody could use the excuse of "accidentally" hammering again.

I am just curious how you see a stronger case head-to-head for DoomCow over Gerrendus.

So my question is: What gives the edge to DoomCow for your vote?

The case against DoomCow certainly looks less substantial when measured side-by-side with the Gerrendus case, but that's mainly because DoomCow's post history is so insubstantial. But if I look at it percentage-wise; what

proportion

of DoomCow's total posted content is suspicious? That, to me, comes out to be larger than the same measure on Gerrendus.

Anyway, my vote is certainly subject to change depending on their responses today; it is still a very slim margin between them, and either one could easily tip the scales the other way.

[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.

[DoomCow]

Well, the reason for what I said in post 377 was because, during mid day 1, Juls did some things that sparkled my attention, mostly the posts that she made before asking for replacement. It was enough to get noticed, but not enough to get a vote, especially since she asked for the replacement.

Could you possibly be a little more specific? What exactly was it about these posts that drew your attention?

Can't put it into words, but doing a quick reread on Juls posts from page 6 untill she asked for a replacement, these posts stood out:
131, 137, 185, 187, 197 and 249.

144 in hindsight is somewhat telling, but I can't believe is overread 227: For someone claiming to have forgotten about the game, she sure knows about the details. Should've caught that I guess...

[Jazzmyn]

I am posting this in all of my games.

Mod: I will have no access from tonight until December 7 or 8.

Players: Due to a sudden death in the family, I have to leave tonight for the west coast and will not return until Sunday, December 7 or Monday, December 8. If you feel that the length of my absence will be unduly detrimental to the game in light of the stage of the game, etc., please do not hesitate to seek my replacement, as you see fit. I do not want my absence to hold things up or kill the momentum of a game, so I will take no offence at all if you think it's best to replace me.

So, I will either see you back here next week or I will see you in another game in the very near future.

Regards,
Jazz

[Vi]

The body count in this game is massive o.0 Sorry for being slow to return; two other games have me... involved, so to speak.

I think between the Puta Puta scumflip and the three Townflips, everyone got proven wrong about someone. The question of the day is thus who got foiled more than embarrassed...

I'll play PbPA.

Vi

~ Miaow~

iamausername

~ If it hasn't yet been made obvious, you are ringing up as Weird to me just as far as your gameplay has gone. You jumped on Der Hammer early and faded out, went for al4xz early on and then made a late jump onto Puta Puta (how about I shorten that to Gimbo from now on) after initially agreeing with him and trying to continue with the al4xz lynch. That last part is what solidifies my suspicion. I like your contribution today though.

Tom Mason

~ Did not vote for either Scheherazade or Der Hammer D1 because he was catching up, which is a positive point IMO. Pushes forward with al4xz for agreeable reasons. The jump to Gimbo was somewhat on the resigned side, but I don't think I could label it scummy. Erratically signs his name to some of his posts, but not all of them (obvscumtell).

DoomCow

~ I'm torn between calling you useless or anti-Town... or both. I notice you were on the two big wagons very late, and while I would be more understanding if you said you were not around for the Gimbo fiasco you've already said that you were there, but didn't want to hammer (or more plainly, you were lurking). I have a meta on you (ongoing game), but it's not helping much. I don't see the hindsight on Juls as incredibly enlightening, personally.

Jazzmyn

~ As far as factuality goes, I think Scheherazade was a bit on the losing end in arguing with you. As far as attitude goes, I think otherwise. You did not wish to vote Gimbo for his meta in another game, it seems... which is almost a null-tell, except--

I realize that it might just be his way of trying to establish a mechanism for avoiding being lynched

when he

[Puta Puta]

is scum in other games

, of course, but for what it's worth, there it is.

THIS needs explaining.
Another quote that jumps out at me--

If I were scum, I would have voted for DerHammer somewhere around the middle of the pack and been quite happy with a town lynch, any town lynch.

There's a glaringly obvious problem with this statement. If you need a hint, look at posts 179 and 183.

ribwich

~ Is immediately barred from suspicion because he has

me

in his sig~
But seriously. At least as of now, I don't think I have anything either way on you. Leaning townside because you seemed rather reasonable about al4xz.

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.

Caboose

~ As I've mentioned before, the timing of your Scheherazade vote strikes me - it seems to come after a weak point. Other than that, the only thing that strikes me is that you don't seem to have said as much as the other players (barring teh cow of doom).

ZazieR

~ Another player where the lengths of time between posts bother me. On the surface, though, I don't see a lot to comment on. I'm willing to believe that you have a meta on Gimbo, but trying to call him

confirmed

makes me wonder.

Top

Gerrendus
iamausername
Jazzmyn

Mid

DoomCow
Caboose
ZazieR

Bottom

ribwich
Tom Mason

I see Gerrendus is quickly gaining a wagon, of which I approve right now. But I'd like to hear him respond to me before I decide whether to join it.

Everyone who has not laid out suspect(s) for today yet should, frankly. Still to go: DoomCow, Cabüse, ribwich, Jazzmyn, Gerrendus (sorta), and ZazieR.

------------

Happy Innovative Interactive Response Time!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

As for me not voting Puta Puta, by the time I read her posts, she was already at L-1.

I wasn't willing to hammer after the claim.

Why? Masons aren't that big a deal tbqh, and if it were true the other Mason would have had good reason to claim ASAP - if they were even confirmed at all. If they weren't confirmed, then the claim is essentially worthless.

Why aren't you in more of my games, Vi?

You should probably be glad for it; a bunch of my games have wound up being modless train wrecks. (Praise be to Incog-Co-Mod!)
But hay, after this game we can IC together or something.

And after Night Two, coincidentally two people he put in his targets were eliminated.

Again, NK WIFOM. I wouldn't accept this as an argument against Gerrendus.

[Vi]

Also @Jazzmyn: I don't know what exactly I can do over the Internet other than offer my best wishes, but consider them yours.

[Tom Mason]

Tom Mason

~ Erratically signs his name to some of his posts, but not all of them (obvscumtell).

Heh. Can you tell I write e-mails and memos all day long at work?

[Vi]

Tom Mason

~ Erratically signs his name to some of his posts, but not all of them (obvscumtell).

Heh. Can you tell I write e-mails and memos all day long at work?

You don't use a signature (that is, a text block like what we have here) with your e-mails? It just seems easier.
Also, what do you do for a living? Out of curiosity.

[Tom Mason]

Tom Mason

~ Erratically signs his name to some of his posts, but not all of them (obvscumtell).

Heh. Can you tell I write e-mails and memos all day long at work?

You don't use a signature (that is, a text block like what we have here) with your e-mails? It just seems easier.
Also, what do you do for a living? Out of curiosity.

I have an e-mail signature, but for inter-departmental things, I tend to finish with a quick informal close. I work for a university on-campus student housing department. I am finishing my Business Degree, so I will be doing something else come the end of the summer.

Which reminds me... I will be away from the game Thursday and Friday. I have to fly for an interview with Toys R' Us Corporate.

[Vi]

I work for a university on-campus student housing department.

Oh, I can only imagine the hate mail that must come in~
*has never been very friendly with Housing/Residence Life*

Good luck with your interview in advance!

[OhGodMyLife]

First Vote Count of Day 3

DoomCow (1) -- iamausername
Gerrendus (1) -- Tom Mason

Not Voting (7) -- Vi, DoomCow, Jazzmyn, ribwich, Gerrendus, Caboose, ZazieR

With 9 alive, it takes 5 votes to lynch!

Jazzmyn and Tom Mason will not be replaced during their respective V/LAs. Thanks for the warning guys, my condolences to Jazzmyn.

[iamausername]

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

OK, sorry, here it is in context:

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.

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?

---

But seriously, you seem to be missing the point here; it's not that you didn't address the matter of "al4xz is at L-1" that makes me suspicious, it's that you didn't address the matter of "Puta Puta votes someone not because he finds them suspicious, but because 'claims are fun and exciting'."

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 is really fence-sitting bullshit. Allow me to direct your attention to this quote:

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

If you were "satisfied with the defenses he had given", what more, exactly, were you hoping to hear from him?

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?

Why are you saying 'we', as if you were in any way part of the group that found reason to put al4xz at L-1?

---

iamausername

~ If it hasn't yet been made obvious, you are ringing up as Weird to me just as far as your gameplay has gone. You jumped on Der Hammer early and faded out, went for al4xz early on and then made a late jump onto Puta Puta (how about I shorten that to Gimbo from now on) after initially agreeing with him and trying to continue with the al4xz lynch. That last part is what solidifies my suspicion. I like your contribution today though.

Perfectly understandable. I don't really have anything more to say in my defense than what I've already said; I really, really thought that al4xz was scum.

You did not wish to vote Gimbo for his meta in another game, it seems... which is almost a null-tell, except--

I realize that it might just be his way of trying to establish a mechanism for avoiding being lynched

when he

[Puta Puta]

is scum in other games

, of course, but for what it's worth, there it is.

THIS needs explaining.

I'm confused as to what you find so problematic in this quote, Vi.

Why aren't you in more of my games, Vi?

You should probably be glad for it; a bunch of my games have wound up being modless train wrecks. (Praise be to Incog-Co-Mod!)

The Mafia gods are punishing you joining the wrong games (the right games are the games that I am in. Obviously.) I just looked at your records, and I am astonished by how many abandoned games you've managed to be in, I really didn't think they were very common at all on this site.

But hay, after this game we can IC together or something.

Hell yes. Let's teach some noobs to throw their vote around with reckless abandon and never, ever FoS.

Everyone who has not laid out suspect(s) for today yet should, frankly. Still to go: DoomCow, Cabüse, ribwich, Jazzmyn, Gerrendus (sorta), and ZazieR.

Hearty seconds for this. Especially DoomCow.

[Caboose]

Hmmm... Seems like I have a few postzillas to read.
Will post in a bit.

[Vi]

I'm confused as to what you find so problematic in this quote, Vi.

:v

I realize that it might just be his way of trying to establish a mechanism for avoiding being lynched

when he [Puta Puta] is scum in other games

, of course, but for what it's worth, there it is.

The reference to other games looks like a slip saying either:
*It doesn't apply to this game (paraphrase: for it to work when Gimbo is scum, he has to do it in games when he's Townie like this one)
*It does apply to this game, but obviously isn't working as a defense job this time.
Either way, it seems to hint at foreknowledge of Puta Puta's alignment. Jazzmyn has some explaining to do when she gets back.

-----

The Mafia gods are punishing you joining the wrong games (the right games are the games that I am in. Obviously.) I just looked at your records, and I am astonished by how many abandoned games you've managed to be in, I really didn't think they were very common at all on this site.

Two Newbies and a Mini Normal; I guess if any games are going to crash it would be those. @mod: Is this accurate?

Hell yes. Let's teach some noobs to throw their vote around with reckless abandon and never, ever FoS.

Should we request a mod?

-----

Hmmm... Seems like I have a few postzillas to read.

Up from the depths/Thirty stories high
Breathing fire/Its head in the sky
Postzilla!
Postzilla!
Postzilla!
And Postzoooookiiiiiiiiie!

IMO you're one of the dark horses in this game (with ZazieR), so I'm looking forward to seeing your stances.

Also, ribwich is wanted.

[OhGodMyLife]

The Mafia gods are punishing you joining the wrong games (the right games are the games that I am in. Obviously.) I just looked at your records, and I am astonished by how many abandoned games you've managed to be in, I really didn't think they were very common at all on this site.

Two Newbies and a Mini Normal; I guess if any games are going to crash it would be those. @mod: Is this accurate?

Newbie games really shouldn't be crashing ever, so to have been in two that did so is really bad luck. Mini normals on the other hand, it happens all too often, thats the nature of the beast. Rest assured this game won't crash.

[Caboose]

:v

What's this mean?

Can't put it into words, but doing a quick reread on Juls posts from page 6 untill she asked for a replacement, these posts stood out:
131, 137, 185, 187, 197 and 249.

When I'm on MS, I get lazy and I don't want to go back to those post #s. Please summarize what made you think Juls was obvscum back on D1 and please be concise.

Players: Due to a sudden death in the family, I have to leave tonight for the west coast and will not return until Sunday, December 7 or Monday, December 8. If you feel that the length of my absence will be unduly detrimental to the game in light of the stage of the game, etc., please do not hesitate to seek my replacement, as you see fit. I do not want my absence to hold things up or kill the momentum of a game, so I will take no offence at all if you think it's best to replace me.

Sad to hear that. I don't want you replaced though (but I hope you have an attention span longer than mine in order to read these walls of text.

The body count in this game is massive o.0

And the point of this sentence was...

I think between the Puta Puta scumflip and the three Townflips, everyone got proven wrong about someone.

Besides the terrible grammar , this sentence doesn't really have an obvious point to me, either. Please enlighten me, Vi.

I'm tired and need to go to bed and my short attention span is running out and my sentences are running together and joined by the conjunction "and" and more on suspects tomorrow.

[Caboose]

Oh, and one more thing.

Vi, I think your avatar is the strangest thing I've ever seen.

[DoomCow]

Can't put it into words, but doing a quick reread on Juls posts from page 6 untill she asked for a replacement, these posts stood out:
131, 137, 185, 187, 197 and 249.

When I'm on MS, I get lazy and I don't want to go back to those post #s. Please summarize what made you think Juls was obvscum back on D1 and please be concise.
[/quote]
those post numbers are toether on 6 pages at most, and they aren't long. As I said, I can't put it to words to why, just some feeling I had back then. Also, it wasn't obvscum, just some things that caught my attention.

[Vi]

Oh, and one more thing.

Vi, I think your avatar is the strangest thing I've ever seen.

Have some context.

What's this mean?

:v is an all-purpose emote.
It means what you think it means.

And the point of this sentence was...

This is my first Large game, and certainly the first one where multiple people die each night. I was surprised to see that we were down to less than half our original cast on D3 after starting with 19 people.

Besides the terrible grammar , this sentence doesn't really have an obvious point to me, either. Please enlighten me, Vi.

Terrible grammar? It's not that bad. Also, it's against my interpretation of Buddhism for me to be able to grant you Nirvana.
However, here's an explanation. Each of the people who died flipped something counter to what at least one of the living players expected (barring Percy II, who had armlx going against him for what it's worth). Thus, if there's any time to snag scum red-handed, it's now.

'Still waiting for the rest of what you have to say, although I hope it's more substantial than what I answered here.

----

@DoomCow: Who is scum?

[ribwich]

I am posting this in all of my games. Due to upcoming finals I will be unable to be as active as I normally am. I will try to respond to any direct questions somebody has for me, but that will be about all I can do for about a week.

[Caboose]

'Still waiting for the rest of what you have to say, although I hope it's more substantial than what I answered here.

You don't have to browbeat me, Vi.

Just something that I saw right now.

iamausername ~ If it hasn't yet been made obvious, you are ringing up as Weird to me just as far as your gameplay has gone. You jumped on Der Hammer early and faded out, went for al4xz early on and then made a late jump onto Puta Puta (how about I shorten that to Gimbo from now on) after initially agreeing with him and trying to continue with the al4xz lynch. That last part is what solidifies my suspicion. I like your contribution today though.

IAWTP.

Unvote, Vote: Puta Puta

Claim, contribute or die.

This was right before the PP lynch. This was in response to something that TM said. I don't know what IAWTP stands for, but this lack of explanation

may

point to bussing. Plus, the fact that it came late doesn't assuage my concerns.
What does IAWTP stand for?

[iamausername]

First of all, I want to direct everyone's attention to this:

This game will have set deadlines. Days one and two will have three week deadlines,

all subsequent days will have two week deadlines.

We don't have a lot of time today.

What does IAWTP stand for?

It stands for "I am with this post". I was saying my reasoning for the vote hop was much the same as Tom's.

I'm thinking about the numbers (6:2:1 definitely seems most likely) and wondering if today is the day for massclaim. If it's not, I think tomorrow certainly will be. What does everyone else think?

[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

[Tom Mason]

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.

Zade and Der Hammer. You did vote for DH, remember that.

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?

You distanced yourself for everything I explained in my post. You tried to make time for al4xz to catch up in votes while . The second you saw al4xz was replaced, you started trying to turn the tables and suggest we possibly might be making a bad decision in lynching Puta Puta. You had every opportunity to drop a final vote against him, but never did.

When al4xz had all the attention, you were focused on Zade. But once the attention went to Puta Puta, you started to focus on al4xz.

- 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?"

Refer to the above. You were not against al4xz much at all, barely mentioning him as a suspect... until there was a heavy following against Puta Puta. You gave reasons we should lynch Puta Puta, saying he was possibly working with the mafia as a sympathetic -- but would not vote for him? You listed the perfect reason to drop the hammer vote -- but could not follow through. Instead, you wanted more time to look at al4xz's replacement, after not being a follower against him before.

What you did in your free time away from here, I do not care. All that matters to me is how you acted when you got back against al4xz and Puta Puta.