Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[militant]

Confirm

[militant]

Vote ting =)

for having a happy name.

[militant]

Yesterday I was at a friend's graduation ceremony which took all day. I shall re read tonight and post my thoughts.

[militant]

Okay, after a few busy days om real life, I'm back and re reading...

To start with I am suspicious of people accusing others or roles that they don't even know exist. It was plain for all to see GIEFF's "obvscum" comment was a joke and not to be taken seriously. This has happened to me before because I choose the name "militant" who are stereotypically regarded as bad guys but something like that is not to be regarded as a serious accusation in my opinion.

unvote. Vote:Panzerjager

For making a big thing out of a small thing.

I didn't like this post because ting is effectively voting Panzejager for creating and stimulating discussion. To start to discussion you have to make a case and it would be hard to start if you only ever focused on the huge mistakes a player might make. By focusing on any possible mistake it gets discussion going and as Panzerjager said he was "propelling us out of random voting" which I see as good in a way. Bad in another way though...

Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

Anyone have a theory discussion to point me to on this? Because my gut feeling is that this is VERY wrong. I'd much rather get rid of an entire killing faction in one lynch than whittle the mafia down one at a time, even given the chance of crosskill. BTW, we don't even know whether we have an SK or not, but if we do, Panzer's my top choice for him.

Unvote: Dour. Vote: Panzer

.

Agreed. Although it is possible that a SK could be a tad helpful and kill a mafiate the chances of a SK killing a town player is much greater and I happen to think that killing a SK is better than gambling on that relatively small change of a SK killing a mafiate.

@Dourgrim: SK has only one piece of info the town doesn't, and that is that SK exist. He has no information on who is scum and who is not. So Mykonian is simply saying, He wants to lynch Mafia, he must be SK lynch him. Everyone should be wanting to lynch Mafia. Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

@Goatrevolt: He is calling GIEFF anti-town, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

damn it, you got me. That thinking does however work when there are two scumgroups, but I made a mistake there

But personally I would lynch the SK, as it gives you more mislynches. If GIEFF would be the SK, then we should go for him.

I tend to explain things to myself: Mykonian accused GIEFF if I remember correctly of being

the

SK when he does not know of one existing. Now in the above quote Panzerjager says that everybody in this game should want to lynch mafia apart from the mafia so Mykonian's accusation of a SK killer was curious because GIEFF's accusation could well have made him town as well as a

possible

SK. The only logical reason I can think of for Mykonian for doing this is if he is the SK and wanted to pin it on someone to make him look like anything but the SK he seems to think exists.

I would also argue that my "obvscum" accusation was the first meaningful thing posted in the game; it allows the town to see how people react to it.

Are you saying you purposely made the "obvscum" comment to gather reactions?

@GIEFF: The game started 36 hours ago, and we're on page 4. Don't you think it's early to use the "active lurker" card? I know that I have more time for Mafia games on the weekend, so that's usually when I make my big posts.

Same. I was busy in the week building snowmen and such in the rare weather Britain has been encountering the last week or so. Mafia has taken the backseat to a temporary source of fun for a while which explains my absence. Also, GIEFF, that's one neat script

Right now I would like to suggest more focused fire, starting now with a djekha wagon for example.

I dislike the way you so openly advocate a bandwagon so early in the day. I'm not defending djekha's actions but merely commenting on SL's actions.

I have read the last pages or so. My comment on them is that I don't particularly like the dynamic of this town, there is plenty of talk and speculation but not enough true aggressiveness IMO.

You don't know who the town are in the group of people playing now unless of course your mafia. A minor slip perhaps.

FoS militant

Start contributing.

I will from now on, now I know where I am and whats going on I think I will do a better job. Your pressure worked.

Also

Unvote

. It was a random vote anyway and now it the time to be serious and think...

[militant]

Also, I tend not to gain much from reading things before my replacement. It helps to have a frame of reference and comparing things in retrospect, rather than being confused and not having anything to base the players on. I need something to add color and dimensionality to the players, because as I'm reading right now, I have nothing to really distinguish one poster from another.

Won't this be gained from reading the thread?

you don't like his attitude: brilliant.

I agree the reasons supporting the vote are weak. Another player's attitude is surely not indicative of their alignment; it's the way they are unless they are fabricating said attitude. Also what aspects of Goat's attitude to you dislike specifically? (Goat I don't mean to make you feel bad but want to understand if that was a serious concern or just another void and pointless excuse to vote you).

On a grander scale not reading the thread is counter productive and obnoxious. You say Goat is attempting to restrict a source of information but he cannot possibly do that because all the information is in the thread you seemingly don't wish to read.

That is also why I'm voting Goatrevolt, his reaction tells me that he does not own his case. In fact, from what I've seen so far, nobody owns their case, because they refuse to recapitulate it.

This is laughable; from what I understand you are discounting the credibility of all cases formed in this game because no one has the patience to repeat them for your benefit.

[militant]

militant- His first serious post questions Ting’s vote of Panzer, which he suggests is Ting attacking a player for initiating discussion. I can see his logic here, and he also brings a slight question against Cavity’s opinion on the SK vs mafia theory. I however feel that he reads a bit too much into SL’s post because he is kind of picking at words that are perfectly sensible to use. His last post is also generally amiable but more is needed in order to form any more of a solid read on Militant.

I tend to post my thoughts even if they are a little weak or whatever. It's just the way I play I guess.

^ See, wasn't so hard now, was it?

What are you talking? You wanted a summary of past events not Beyond_Birthday's opinion on each player. To me it seems like you are trying to "play down" the suspicions posted against you calling you lazy for not reading the thread by saying it was not a difficult task you required.

No, I'm evaluating the players based on their stances and how likely their positions are actual scumhunting instead of just setting up a fall-guy or trying ot lynch anybody.

Could have fooled me. I though you were not doing a great lot apart from arguing about petty things like not reading the game and asking for a summary which you dislike:

^ See, wasn't so hard now, was it?

Mainly, I've seen way too many arguments in this game based on pretty much nothing at all, and i have to agree with SpringLulliby that there's too much speculation and not enough actual aggressiveness. I don't like how this game is going.

It would be unfair of me to accuse you of being non aggressive but I would say you are arguing over pretty much nothing at all. All you have to do is read the thread. That is it. You have created more useless non game related discussion since replacing because you don't want to read the thread. That is slightly hypocritical.

Since reading post 290 the above quote suggests another link between Zilla and BB. BB supplied a player by player list of opinions so Zilla could say as explained above "See, wasn't so hard now, was it?" to further try and validate her request for a summary. But perhaps I am reading into the game too much again.

You hide behind LAL, while you orchestrate a

mislynch.

You sure about that, champ?

What does LAL mean? I am not a fan of misleading acronyms in the presence of relatively inexperienced players like me.

[militant]

I used the word mislynch, because I think nothing good can come from the cases you push.

And you are pushing weak cases to hard to be really protown. It isn't only about panzer, although that is clearly the one you pushed the hardest.

This isn't about who you attack, this is about how you attack.

I find it hard to believe you can't see the weak points in your case, even after they have been pointed out. You simply refuse to see them.

Ehh, why not, my vote on BB already had its use:

unvote vote GIEFF

I disagree on both he bolded points:

Firstly number one. A mislynch is when you lynch a town member. You don't know who the town are unless your mafia so you have no concrete knowledge that Panzer is town unless you are mafia.

Secondly I disagree. As explained above this is about who you attack because you don't know the alignment of Panzer so you cannot in theory definitively say if his lynch would be a mislynch and this whole argument is about a mislynch:

You hide behind LAL, while you orchestrate a

mislynch.

You sure about that, champ?

LAL means lynch all liars.

Thanks

[militant]

What.
the.
Fuck.

I'm not the one who started this argument over posting summaries. If people had posted summaries to begin with, there would be more game relevant content and not this stupid meta-debate, but instead, people have spent more energy rebuffing my request than it would have taken to fulfill it, and I hate how people don't want to be held accountable!

I could not agree more

What.
the.
Fuck.

Hello, I'm trying to catch up, I've read through the first two pages. Anything I should know to kickstart participation? A concise summary would not only be helpful in introducing me ot the game, it would also help me see where people stand on their cases.

You asked for a summary thus initiating the debate about said summary. What more is there to understand. I would have no problem being held accountable for something I had done if I were in fact responsible for that something but I didn't start the debate which is what we are arguing over now. You are quite plainly the one who started the summary debate. We are not on the other hand arguing over who continued the debate because that is obviously a different matter for which I obviously would be held accountable for but I have never stated that meta discussion was bad; that was you. As you acknowledged it got (your summary request) rebuffed so why did you not just read the thread if you were not going to receive a summary? Instead you continued the meta discussion after that acknowledgment. That is why I believe your behaviour to be hypocritical.

I agree with you though that this sort of discussion is not the most appropriate use of our time and counter productive to our efforts to catch scum. They want us preoccupied arguing "pretty much nothing" so they can do scummy stuff and try and fool the town. I suggest we cease the argument now and forget about it. It's not of great importance anyway. I don't think what you did was especially indicative of anti town allegiancces.

[militant]

From what I've picked up:

GIEFF, in pregame, accuses SL, myk and DG of being scum. This should have obviously been a joke and dropped, but wasn't.

Not Quite Zilla:

/confirm

springlullaby, militant, and Dourgrim are all obvscum by this point

[militant]

Why the hell are we still talking about this? Since Gieff is NOT in that list, then there is no role third party, town, or scum that can no all 3 people on the scum team. (Assuming 1/4th rule.) The only reason I attack this militant is because you use it in response to Zilla in fashion that appears to be you saying, "You're wrong it wasn't a joke." If you meant it some other way, please explain and otherwise ignore this comment.

I only mentioned it because Zilla mistakingly said it was SL,

myk

and DG who GIEFF made the comment about and it was actually SL, myself and DG.

From what I've picked up:

GIEFF, in pregame, accuses SL, myk and DG of being scum. This should have obviously been a joke and dropped, but wasn't.

Nothing big, I just wanted to clarify that for Zilla so she didn't make the mistake again. I don't think I was picking on you although I apoligise if my tone lead you to beleive that.

[militant]

I am going to re read and carefully consider all arguments put forward (I appreciate your efforts to get simplified versions Dour) and choose where to place my vote. I have been said to be avoiding a firm stance on the game and it's main arguments and being an active lurker. I am activley trying to correct this perception to by adopting a stance. I shall be back tommorow...

[militant]

At this point I'm seriously considering a "lynch all lurkers" strategy in this game. There are WAY too many people who aren't contributing to this game, instead watching from the sidelines while big conversations go on and attract all the attention. From this point forward, every time someone gets prodded on a Tuesday through Friday (because I don't expect anyone to post much on weekends), I'm giving them a . Every time I see a "oops, sorry I'm not being helpful" or "sorry, I'm here, I'll contribute some other time" post like the ones above, they get a . When someone compiles enough 's, I'm going to vote for them. A player may cancel a with a when they contribute to the game at large with three posts without a . It may sound simplistic, but I'm really getting irritated with this crap, and this way everyone can see exactly how mad I'm getting.

Post coming later tonight.

Hypocritical much? I admit I have not been contributing as much as I should and will alter that from this day forth. I have a week of from school due to half time. I totally agree with the accusation that I'm sitting by and allowing for the big discussions to go on so I am going to get into a big discussion. My lurkiness disappears when I have something or someone to sink my teeth into so here goes...

Goat Revolt, mykonian, Beyond_Birthday, Panzer, subgenius, militant, and myself have all said we don't like you asking for summaries before reading the thread.

Here is your vote history:

Zilla

FoS: Dourgrim

(Posted as dejkha)

Post 46
Vote: Goatrevolt Post 259
unvote: goatrevolt, Vote: Mykonian Post 297
FOS: Goatrevolt Post 421
unvote: Mykonian Vote: Goatrevolt Post 486

Just to confirm and eradicate any doubts about my stance I do think asking for a summary is a little bit scummy but the hypersensitive reaction that followed was what made me and is making me follow Zilla's actions closely.

Amid the discussion I have been reading a theory from GIEFF that Zilla is scum but has big connections with BB. I agree with this thery as stated in post 308.

I am going to

Vote Zilla

[militant]

You have been excessively lurky, your predecessor dropped off the map after being accused of being scummy, and now you are defending a Zilla wagon for reasons that would have applied equally well to the B_B wagon, onto which you QUICKLY hopped without writing a single word about him prior to that point.

Hello, scum. Meet my vote.

unvote

vote qwints

Zilla, I would very much like to hear what you think about my above post.

You are sure that Zilla is scum so why do you unvote her and vote someone else who you are also sure is scum but is much less likely to be lynched?

I'm a believer that a day can be TOO long. It can steer away from the scum and can confuse the town and convolute good conversation and lead to a mislynch.

I agree with this also.

I think Panzer has a decent shot of being a scumbuddy to Zilla, based on my read of her playstyle.

I don't think he's a better lynch, though.

At this point I can agree with that.

vote: Zilla

This puts her at L-2, just so you're all aware.

Perhaps that is Zilla's cue to claim. How about it?

[militant]

Ok, I've skipped over every post by Gieff and Dourgrim, This arguement is totally unnecessary and superfluous. It looks like two pro-town players having a pissing contest. Now, can we LYNCH B-B or Zilla. I'm seriously done with it being Day 1. We need some damn info. Shit, if you guys really want to LYNCH me but I don't see the sense in you guys argueing about what essential ammounts to nothing.

I agree. I think it would be beneficial for the day to end soon. As Panzer pointed it would give us more information and hopefully greater clarification. I have to admit I have not read the "GIEFF vs. Dour" argument but if it is two players who are likely to be town arguing over not a great deal then it causes further confusion and that is what scum want. To repeat a apt metaphor posted by Goat further discussion would be "muddying the waters".

about springlullaby: could she be replaced?

I don't think we can replace SL, as she continues to pick up her prods.

She may be active on the site but that is irrelevant is she continues not to post in this game in particular.

about SL: annoying. Very much. Can I propose a policy lynch? There are worse times to do it then day 1.

I am strongly against a policy lynch on the basis that she is chronic lurking. I don't know but if SL's lurking is being caused by business in real life that has no influence upon her alignment.

Your quick off the mark GIEFF. When I clicked "Post Reply" Goat's was the last post I had to read and then you go and make more work that is keeping me from my bed...

For those on the Zilla wagon now; how much more do you support a Zilla lynch than you would a B_B lynch? I think they are similarly scummy, yet the Zilla lynch has some issues that the B_B lynch does not.

That's me so I shall review the case on B_B tomorrow because it just passed midnight here in Britain (you can sock another sad face at me but it would be awfully contradictory of you Dourgrim so I would advise against it) but as you still seem wide awake GIEFF could you post your thoughts on the view that perhaps this day has dragged on a bit too long and it would be better to choose a lynch candidate and get some more information to try and make a more informed lynch tomorrow.

As Panzer said:

the game dying: getting more inactive, less new thoughts, slowing play and tunnelvision. I feel it is starting. 20+ pages is too long for some people. add to this the chronic inactives and it becomes a problem.

I have noticed this problem with a few heavyweights frequenting the thread more often than I regard as healthy doing

most

of the discussion and most others wavering in their activity levels or posting a little bit at a time (a prime example being Panzer himself). So what do you think; I ask you in particular because your one of the heavyweights I described and seem persistent in continuing discussion especially when your so confident of either B_B or Zilla being scum, surely with your confidence you could try one today and if unsuccessful reevaluate or lynch the other tomorrow.

I'm calling for a Cease Fire, until Zilla claims. I refuse to read anypost in between Now and Zilla's claim(or refusal to do so)

No. Emphatically no. Scummy, scummy, scummy. Once there is a claim, it is difficult to turn back. Making two people claim is worse for the town than just making one person claim.

You don't care who we choose to lynch between Zilla or B_B, right Panzer?

I agree with the first of your points GIEFF. It is scummy and your example gives more information to mafia. I dislike the use of the leading question though. You seem to be trying to pressure or manipulate what Panzer feels he needs to write before he has written it although I am not defending him.

[militant]

Post 305-

GIEFF's case on Beyond_Birthday

Just to clarify, you asked me to evaluate the Beyond_Birthday case so I have used the gadget at the bottom of the thread to select just your posts and I find the above post. I was wondering if there are additional posts you want me to consider because I can. From a quick look through the six pages of huge posts you have produced this seems to be the main "jist" of your case.

Right then...

Regarding the very first sentences, I happen to think his conduct there was more scummy than the quotes that you outlined below the first sentence.

Meh...
I don't like some of the points being made against Panzer in this last post. Half of your argument seems to be reduced to a "random vote" that was claimed to have been, at the time of its posting, "not random" (by implication).

Unvote

This quote screams apathy and a player trying desperately to find at least one valid criticism of the post by the player he was obviously following. What makes it worse is that because Beyond_Birthday didn't like points made by GIEFF about Panzer he unvotes Panzer. I just don't get it. Why if you believe GIEFF is making exaggerations do you not vote him. Another thing that strikes me as fishy is that because GIEFF made a case against Panzer but Beyond_Birthday unvoted and apparently did not suspect Panzer any longer because in his next post he starts ripping into the then new replacee Zilla. The post after that he even goes as far as to say he thinks Panzer is town:

Panzerjager -

For the most part, I don’t agree with a good deal of Pan’s assessments, but I know that Pan looks more like a victim for a majority of this game than an actual contender. (And by victim, I mean that the case on her looks like it was derived from a really crappy foundation and though the bandwagon should have had the purpose of forcing discussion, it kind of backfired and stalled. Maybe no one joined it scummily enough for it to be useful, but I think it should have served that function. Pan’s attacks on Spring though seem like legitimate attempts at scum hunting, so I feel a slight town vibe from Panzer. Her thought that my unvote was scummy struck me as odd, but I don’t really care if I look scummy.

Your main argument after that consisted of a contradiction posted by Beyond_Birthday about his motivations to join the wagon. He first said he agreed with GIEFF when he pointed out Panzer must have taken mykonian's vote seriously to use it to accuse mykonian of being mafia. Beyond_Birthday then later disagrees by saying:

it is just a petty argument over, apparently, a random vote.

He says it is a random vote which contradicts with his earlier agreement with GIEFF when he said it was not because Panzer used it to accuse and vote mykonian.

You don't have to read that guys-

I was mainly explaining what was going on to myself as I do. To summarize Beyond_Birthday has being bandwagoning and changing what he thinks to facilitate this bandwagoning as GIEFF picked up. This is scummy, I cannot really deny that but I would only lynch Beyond_Birthday if we had no other option. I am sure there are posts I have missed so if you could kindly like to point them out to me I would appreciate it and I shall get evaluating them too. Since I have evaluated the case against Beyond_Birthday I shall look over my current vote and the reasons I am voting Zilla and compare them to see which case (Beyond_Birthday or Zilla) warrants my vote more. Thus:

Unvote

Where was the other claim? i haven't seen any claims.

Also dour..I'm not reading any more wall-o-texts. it's annoying.

Would some explain this "wall-o-text" thing to me please. I don't know what it means

[militant]

I believe that with Militant's willingness to vote Zilla (or myself, admittedly) that make the seven votes necessary for lynch. (L-2+militant+Gieff)

I demand a claim from Zilla.

What? Do we have a skimmer in our midst?

I asked for a Zilla claim back on page 26; post 648. I still support the call for a Zilla claim.

[militant]

Where IS militant?

Sorry. I have not been well for the past two days and have been up to my eyeballs with coursework. I am free today so shall recap. I apologize for my absence but there wasn't a great deal I could do about it.

[militant]

Militant

: Out of Zilla/BB/Panzer, are you willing to lynch any of those 3? If so, who are you willing to lynch and in what order would you prefer to lynch them?

I would be willing to lynch all three of them because I am fairly certain one of them if not two are scum. In order, I would probably want to see Zilla be lynched first; after that I don't have a preferece in order between BB and Panzer.

We are arguing ourselves in circles. We need to lynch somebody already. 35 pages in a mini is not good for town. It's not. There is nothing good about this.

I figure this is a good time for me to claim. My role is "3-year-old." I am afraid of the dark, so I must prolong the day as long as possible; my win condition is to get the thread to 50 pages before a day 1 lynch.

Are you serious?

What alignment is your role?
Somehow, I cannot see it being town, maybe third party but I would be surprised if you were town based solely on your role claim GIEFF.

^ OMG YOU TOO?! That's MY role!

I'm guessing BB is the boogeyman, and he's going to get us! XD

I'm guessing this is a joke? I ask because you can't be too sure when people are joking anymore.

[militant]

I suspect that the entire "role claim" was a joke, militant.

Yeah, I'm sorry for the confusion militant, it was a complete joke.

They don't call me gullible Mike for nothing

[militant]

Zilla: Why are you not voting if you have three clear suspects in your head?

Before you ask, I have not voted yet because unlike you, I don't have any clear suspects in my head. I think this day has dragged on way too long and it would be better if we got some information and evaluated our new position tommorow. Not only would we get information due to the alignment of whoever gets lynched today but we would also learn who died during the night; that would be useful information because with so many theories on who is scum, a lot could be gained from quesioning scum's motivations in relation to whoever died if that makes sense.

[militant]

Before you ask, I have not voted yet because unlike you, I don't have any clear suspects in my head. I think this day has dragged on way too long and it would be better if we got some information and evaluated our new position tommorow. Not only would we get information due to the alignment of whoever gets lynched today but we would also learn who died during the night; that would be useful information because with so many theories on who is scum, a lot could be gained from quesioning scum's motivations in relation to whoever died if that makes sense.

This means you have no suspicions at all after 37 pages? Does that mean you want a no lynch? You want to end the day, but you have no idea who to lynch. Would you like a random lynch then?

No. Notice the use of the word

clear

. None of my suspicions are clear because I am confused after 37 pages.

Did you actually read my post?

How would we get information on today's lynch target if we had a no lynch? I'm not stupid. I don't want a random lynch because they are pointless and help scum. With more town than scum, the chances of hitting town are greater so it is not advantageous to randomly lynch. I wish to end the day because all the confusion and indecisiveness that thirty seven pages of one day has created are playing to the advantages of scum, myself a case in point. That also explains why I don't know exactly who to lynch.

[militant]

I read your post, I think you didn't completely understand the motivation behind the one where I asked for three people. I want to see if we can force this day to an end by just looking who the most people think suspicious, and that way find a lynch most of us can agree on. Even if your suspicions are not that clear, would you name them?

I guess, well it would be Zilla, B_B and Panzerjager.

Dourgrim: Since you wished to end the day pages and pages ago by voting Zilla I presume you still favour the day ending soon. Why are you still voting for Zilla, who is less likely to get lynched now rather than Panzerjager who is more likely to be lynched?

[militant]

Dourgrim: Since you wished to end the day pages and pages ago by voting Zilla I presume you still favour the day ending soon. Why are you still voting for Zilla, who is less likely to get lynched now rather than Panzerjager who is more likely to be lynched?

Dour, an answer perhaps?

Mod, can we get prods on militant and subgenius?

I'm here now, no need to prod me Kloud.

I'm going to put Panzer at L-2 and therefore throwing my support at a lynch. I thought this day had gone on way too long twenty pages back. A lynch would be beneficial in my opinion. To end this day and get loads of information from the night would be better than a ever growing, more confusing day. The identity of whoever dies will be crucial in finding scum because with fourty pages of discussion there is no doubt going to be links between players.

Vote Panzer

[militant]

Goat, SL, mykonian, ting, militant, Sens, and Dourgrim; are you all OK with Panzer as the lynch-choice? If there is no opposition in the next 8 hours or so, I think Panzer should claim.

I'm fine with it.

[militant]

I have just been prodded. I am lost again. I would prefer to be replaced. I am dragging you guys down because this game is going to quick, especially for the schedule I have. I apologize to all the players and the mod especially.

[militant]

Before you get replaced, can you tell us if you counter Panzer's cop claim?

I can tell you. I do not counter his claim.