The Werewolves of Millers Hollow (Game Over)

[MikeSC6]

Vote: Jahudo for Mayor

He's old.

Vote: Zwet

He's not.

[MikeSC6]

Lynch Unvote: zwet

Vote: Xtoxm

Up to five, if I've counted right (which is by no means a sure thing.) Well within a safe distance from lynch, anyway. It was an odd post, although we don't really know what he meant by that and it could just have been joking around. Has anyone played with Xtoxm before, and would have reason to push him into a claim based on his post in conjuction with that meta? Is that kind of play something anyone's seen before in Xtoxm?

[MikeSC6]

... a few posts popped up while typing my last one-

Does this mean that, if we try to lynch Xtoxm it will fail? Or will it fail with consequences? Is it worth trying out?

[MikeSC6]

Unvote: Jahudo for Mayor

Who actually wants to be mayor? I think it would be helpful if we narrow it down to whoever wants the responsibility- having it thrust on someone who doesn't want it, because of a lack of confidence or a sensitive role for instance, would do more harm than good.

I can't get my head around Xtoxm's actions- what has gone on so far would surely be risky for town or scum, or in fact an SK. It looks like he's trying to get us to test his claim. Unless, like people have said, he wants us to think he's a Jester or a Vampire or a similar role, in order to protect himself from a lynch. For all we know he could be nightkkill immune, and using this to discourage us from using the only weapon that would work. Or a special kind of werewolf that needs to be silver-bulleted rather than lynched maybe? A Werewolf Godfather, that would come up innocent on investigation and can't be NKed?

Are we expecting further information from Xtoxm regarding his role? This speculation is leading down many different alleys. If he is pro-town, the information he's given so far would be most helpful for scum.

Unvote: Xtoxm for lynch

If he wants us to lynch him, then I don't think we should. It wouldn't make him a confirmed townie, even if he's telling the truth about being unlynchable. And if he's lying, he must want to be lynched.

[MikeSC6]

Would it be a disaster for the town if Xtoxm has a win condition where he's an independant that needs to be lynched? Would that leave us getting at best a draw, or could we still win? How does it usually go?

[MikeSC6]

Oh God, not jester speculation.

This is something that came up before, i'm just trying to clarify the "what ifs". If he's lying, then it looks like he wants us to lynch. We can't discount a possibility just because it's one we don't want to have to deal with. So what are the consequences for town if it is a Jester? And if he's a Vampire, wouldn't it make him an obvious target when he resurrects?

[MikeSC6]

Cheers!

Before we lynch we have to decide on a mayor anyway- anyone else want to fight for it that hasn't said so yet?

[MikeSC6]

@ MikeSC – That’s a lot of jester talk. A lot of people shun the idea of jesters even in a theme game unless it specifically states that there could be jesters or that it’s bastard modded style. Are you uncomfortable with testing his claim?

I was, but I was unsure of what exactly would happen if he turned out to be a jester. On balance, second place is better than having him lose it for us later on. Based on the few things I'd picked up about jesters from reading the forum, I'd considered it better to be cautious (like the positing restriction, that could certainly be applied to the way Xtoxm might be getting us to lynch him). But if the worst we get for lynching a jester is second place, then I don't mind.

[MikeSC6]

Do you feel that Xtoxm is lying to us?

I do, yes. One of the fishier things I thought was his proposition that we elect him mayor then try to lynch him because that would make him a confirmed townie- which just isn't the case. Although he's not posted much at all, one line posts here and there- so he could, like someone said, be a bored simple villager who just wants to die. At the moment, I think if he's not lying, he's at least misleading us. We need more information from him about his role.

[MikeSC6]

STOP WITHT THE XTOXM WIFOM CRAP! If he's scummy, we lynch him. Simple as pie.

Let's wait to hear what he says- with his recent lack of posts, I'm personally edging towards him being a simple villager who wanted a power-role- and so not not in our best interests to lynch.

[MikeSC6]

Ha, I didn't intend the double negative there. One of the "nots" is a typo, the left one.

[MikeSC6]

So he's experienced at false-claiming? Would a person with such experience really act like he has? I can't see it- there was no subtlety about it right from the first post. And if it's a completely fabricated gambit, why would he choose a role that we can test right away, if we want to?

[MikeSC6]

It's hard to answer Mike's post without getting into a massive pile of WIFOM.

Yeah, I was just musing out loud, really- I didn't expect any affirmative answer from anyone. That first link shows that he's not averse to messing with his side to get out of games he doesn't want to play- so the "innocent" thing could be true, but not the "unlynchable" thing.

On the other hand, the "unlynchable" thing could be true, and the "innocent" thing not- as he tried to get a lynch attempt from us, and falsely claimed that would make him a confirmed innocent when he survives it, which is scummy.

Thanks for searching out those games by the way- actively seeking meta. Juls for major? (I know, it's mayor )

[MikeSC6]

Elect: Juls or the Fonz (Doesn't need to be in bold, while it's not "official"- can't vote for two...)

[MikeSC6]

Unvote. Now.

While I agree that we shouldn't be lynching Xtoxm just yet- what are your reasons for why we shouldn't? Do you have an alternative plan of action?

[MikeSC6]

I would like to hear peoples thoughts on this please. Possible Pros & Cons.

Nah, I don't think it would help, really- we'd end up with some massive WIFOM when it comes to scum electing their successor. It would put pressure on the person, we'd all be monitoring them, sure- but there is the danger of getting too focussed on one person based on day 1 (it's not too bad getting focussed on a person and then lynching them, I don't think- but putting the spotlight on someone and then keeping them in the game could skew it).

We could just resolve to challenge any scummy behaviour from mayor or not, rather than keeping the focus on one.

Anyway, if we're so certain we could decide on two scum- why not lynch one and vig the other, rather than keeping one alive (and not knowing if we're right about them for a day or two)?

I reckon, rather than lynching Xtoxm- we should direct our vig(s) if we have any his way. I don't yet know who my lynch for today would be.

Although if he turns out to be unnightkillable, or doesn't die that night for whatever reason- that could be quite bad for us. We could lynch him, and if that fails have him vigged? Or would that be a waste of a lynch?

[MikeSC6]

@ Battlemage: That jester claim does not look good for you. Especially after multiple people asked for the speculation to stop. Scum often use joking to avoid providing content.

If Battlemage was lurking and had only made a joke post, I'd agree that it would indicate scum. But we've had plenty of activity in addition to this from Battlemage.

@ Firestarter: I share the idea that I would like to see potential scum as major. The major will be held more accountable than other players. Scum mayor will either have to bus their partners for self preservation, or have their voting patterns traced looking for inconsistancies when a mislynch occurs.

Held more accountable? Shouldn't we hold any scummy players accountable? I don't see how this would make much of a difference- except, of course, as an easy way for scum (if we actually do elect scum...) to dodge voting except when absolutely safe. I'd much sooner see it in the hands of a likely-townie confident enough to use their double-vote when they think they should.

In the short term, double-vote is pretty much useless. What we need is to get it into the hands of the town later on- and the best way to do that is to get it into a townie's hands and keep it there, I think. Having a scum-mayor would create problems later on, in my opinion. And like I said- if you're so sure you can elect a scum-mayor, why not elect them for the lynch- rather than force them to lurk (whether actually scum or not) by putting them in the spotlight over a period of days?

[MikeSC6]

The first part of the post sounds like a threat, on the grounds my claim was serious.

Will catch up properly later.

BM

Damn, you're really a Jester? I took it as a joke.

Wait...am I being had?

[MikeSC6]

The way I'd understood it is that the mayor chooses their successor as they die, like in their will or something. If how I'd assumed it is true, it would lead to unnecessary WIFOM. We'd be suspicious if the scum differed from our choice, we'd equally be suspicious if they agreed with our choice.

[MikeSC6]

What exactly have you found to be scummy in Zwet's posts?

I still don't support the "vote scum for mayor" plan-

- It would be leaving our suspicions open for a few days. We'd remain unsure of someone's scumminess for far longer than we need to, we'd have to spend the time assuming scenarios of guilt and innocence at one and the same time. We'd essentially be playing two games at once.

- We'd be committed to lynching the person we elect later on anyway to find out if what we suspected them for is true- and they'd know it. We may as well just lynch them ASAP and get what information we can sooner rather than later.

- When they do die, we'd focus too much on who they elect. It would just be pure WIFOM, whether they agree with the town choice or disagree. It would be easier for scum to implicate townies from this position.

And you voted for Dingo because he annoyed you? What did you mean by "enough info" then? You voted without having any reason to? How is this any different now that your vote's on Zwet?

[MikeSC6]

Well, Xtoxm's active in another game...

Any more information for us, Xtoxm?

[MikeSC6]

Rolefishing, Mike?

I was after anything he had to say- just a comment is nice... I suppose. I don't see what harm a roleclaim could do- considering he's already told us that he's unlynchable. If he really is pro-town, then that's all the scum need to know.

We've had lots of discussion about Xtoxm earlier on- where do you stand on this issue Zwet?

[MikeSC6]

I've said it at least three times already: DON'T LYNCH XTOXM YET

Do you have

any

reasons at all? We can't just take your word for it.

[MikeSC6]

He could be a vamp that chooses when to resurrect. It would be awful to get to lynch or lose and then have him turn up and make us lose it, or something like that. I'm all for directing a vigilante his way tonight.

It's quite plain that Xtoxm isn't trying to survive- he can't be both lynch and nightkill immune, and I still think it's scummy that he tried to trick us into thinking a failed lynch would make him a confirmed townie. Is an unlynchable scum-player just too unlikely?

[MikeSC6]

He could be a vamp that chooses when to resurrect. It would be awful to get to lynch or lose and then have him turn up and make us lose it, or something like that. I'm all for directing a vigilante his way tonight.

Can we put the absurd conspiracy theories aside, please? There has never been a role like that in the history of mafia, and no competent mod would ever include one. If he *is* a judas role, then his chances of winning are highest if he delays his first lynch as long as possible.

Someone mentioned that he could be a vampire- not knowing what this is, I checked the wiki. Which says...

"Alternatively the Vampire may have the option of whether or not they are resurrected, and also on which night they are resurrected."

So it can't be that absurd. It's not like I just pulled it out of nowhere.

[MikeSC6]

[quote=Jahudo]How does that stop him from turning into a vamp if that is his power? We don’t know if we have a vig, specifically one that can control their shot, and we shouldn’t be trying to direct him anyway. [/quote]

Oh, good point. Didn't really think it through!

I don't know what to do about Xtoxm- at least if we lynch we'll know either way, and you guys are right that we can't rely on a vig, that could fail and we wouldn't have a clue why. Could be for a number of reasons.

[MikeSC6]

Welcome millar13! Exactly how unlynchable are you?

[MikeSC6]

You think he was wanting to get out of a game that he joined? That makes next to zero sense. If this was post 1000 I could buy it but it was like his first post.

If he got a role he didn't want to play- then he could have. It might sound like something that just wouldn't happen, but reading a couple of pages of those games you listed- Xtoxm looks like he rarely does what you'd think!

And that other comment wasn't rolefishing, I just wanted to know what Zwet's reasons were (where I agreed with him- I just wanted to know why he was so adamant.)

I've not thoroughly read through the last couple of action-packed pages yet- are we sure that a Village Idiot is always the same as a Jester? It could be a townie with a posting restriction or something, which would certainly make sense. If it's well known that Village Idiots always equal Jesters then ignore me- you'll know better than I.[/b]

[MikeSC6]

Yay, I said that Village Idiot could be someting other than a jester Although, I said just about everything at one point or another... We don't know if that's as far as it goes though, there could be more to it than just that.

Mufasa, could you please explain what you meant by post 595? And then you tried to make out that Jahudo was calling for a no-lynch when he blatantly wasn't, without offering any explanation for your previous post. Just odd.

Has ZONEACE even posted yet? Haschel, has ZONEACE PMed you about his absence or anything like that?

[MikeSC6]

MikeSC6, I would like to see you do a little more than just toss ideas out without stating which one you believe most likely. You seem pretty on the fence. I want to hear about what your opinions are and what you believe most likely.

Sure thing- I'll write up what little notes I've been making- hope it's useful, though bear(I still don't know if it's "bear" or "bare" or a different one ) in mind I don't have any set opinions that I'm completely confident of- most of my attention was on Xtoxm/millar last round, the prominence of it kind of pushed everything else into the background, and the way that's resolved it looks like it was all a good opportunity for scum to dip under the radar.

This millar thing is still making me uneasy. On the surface it does just seem resolved- but the way millar is trying to get people to acknowledge his "confirmed townie" status, I find that odd. You're unlynchable right, so why try and convince us (and semi-OMGUS Firestarter in 626 too)? We know that this game has some special mechanics, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see something that might trigger millar off again or something.

The idea that doubting your townie status is scummy as well, millar, doesn't wash- is it likely that scum would challenge you, when they can't lead it to a lynch? I can't see it.

And I'm still waiting for Mufasa to explain exactly what he means by his post, and he's been seeming scummier the more he's posted since. We have him attacking an inactive player (BM) for a reason I don't think anyone understands, and hasn't explained it. I feel the "burst of activity that petered out" reason for suspecting Battle Mage is weak- it seems like he had to scramble for any old reason after getting called out on his earlier comments.

Plus, using an ongoing game to explain something, that he's not allowed to talk about in depth, looks like him trying to lead the topic to a dead end, that we can't pursue. Mufasa has been defensive from the start, I think.

I haven't voted for him yet, though, because we're still waiting for an explanation of that "conveying" post, and also a replacement for ZONEACE if we're getting one. Replacements seem to have a knack for seeing things cleary immediately on entering a game, it might be useful to wait.

I'm finding it hard to get a read on any of the other players just yet- Zwet especially I've been flipflopping between town and scum, but I wouldn't be able to logically defend either opinion.

[MikeSC6]

It's bare, as in carry Very Happy

Thanks, that makes sense

You didn't vote for a mayor, which I find odd. Are you happy with Yosarian2? Why or why not?

Perfectly happy so far, Yosarian has been making townie noises and hasn't been afraid to use his vote. My two choices were Shadow Knight and, if I remember correctly, Battle Mage, if that helps. Never got round to narrowing it down to an official vote- but I've no complaints so far.

Mufasa's still looking the most scummy from here- Mufasa, you've left a fair few points unanswered. ZONEACE I think has passed from "being a lurker" to "not even playing the game", so I don't think his inactivity can be a scum-tell.

[MikeSC6]

Just to clarify my "suspicions" of millar- I agree that he's most likely pro-town, but because we're in a game with special mechanics we can't consider him to be a confirmed townie. Millar might not even be completely sure himself, from the flavour he could be triggered only when there's a full moon or something like that.

Baseless speculation, I know- but millar13's unlynchable, so I guess it's harmless.

I guess activity'll pick up again once Mufasa's back and we get a replacement.

[MikeSC6]

[quote=Jahudo]I think Mufasa is scum. Let's discuss how he should have more votes. I'll go first. I think Mufasa is lurking, selective reading, and wishy-washy on his opinions of people. That is why I think Mufasa is scum. [/quote]

I definately agree- I'm just waiting for him to come back and answer the points people have that are unanswered before voting. If he continues not to acknowledge and explain the points people have made, I think I'll be voting then. Or if the explanations aren't good ones.

[MikeSC6]

Mufasa said he'd be away til Friday- two days later, and it seems like he's avoiding us.

Vote: Mufasa

[MikeSC6]

Well finally I am back, got back from boston friday had a game then was called up to go to a military event training this weekend srry for the inconvenience in which my schedule interferred with getting back here and posting answers to you're questions.

Dr Pepper patience is a virtue and you are really pushing the envelope a little bit hard, almost to the point that you are trying to hard to get an easy lynch in which It makes me think that you may possibly be scum

fos Dr. Pepper

Okay Battle Mage questions I was seriously just throwing out random thoughts at the time that perhaps he could easily be scum as could anyone else, and I had just thought that I jumped on the trio that had Yoz. BM, was afterwards not the smartest move, and with that said I think we jumped a little to quick on choosing a mayor, but time will tell.

Battle Mage to me hasn't posted a post since I had put out an accusation and has really let the rest of you rip into me as to why I had accused him smart move but I find him a wee bit lurkish without saying he would be gone so

fos BM [/]

Any other questions I will gladly answer now im back

Pure OMGUS against Dr. Pepper. Why select Dr. Pepper over the rest of us who suspect you? And why shouldn't he suspect you- considering you still haven't answered the outstanding questions or explained your previous posts?

The backtrack on Battle Mage doesn't explain why you suspected him, or why you've backtracked. Did you really think that BM was scum? If so, why? If not, why call for his lynching?

And this is, what, the third time it's been explained that Battle Mage can't post? And even if s/he could- you haven't made a case against him/her, there's nothing Battle Mage could respond to.

I'm happy with my vote.

[MikeSC6]

Mufasa- how do these posts, and the exchange surrounding them, tie in with you not knowing that Battle Mage can't post in your last post?

my bad didnt realize battle mage was a female character

Yes Yos but battlemage is listed as a female in the character list

From pages 26/27. How can you still have thought he was lurking?

[MikeSC6]

You didn't read his last post, did you? HE JUST GOT BACK FROM A TRIP, AND HE'S MILDLY DISORIENTED. Sheesh, give the guy a break!

He said he'd answer any questions- I had some questions. For him to answer when he can.

You're acting funny here, Zwet. Answering for Mufasa? Refusing to believe that there's anything in his scummy behaviour? It would be okay if you said

why

you thought all of these various scummy posts were merely mistakes. What we have is your opinion, but we don't know the reasoning behind it.

[MikeSC6]

My opinion is the reasoning.

And what is that supposed to mean? Should we discard all of Mufasa's scummy posts based on an unqualified opinion of yours?

[MikeSC6]

@Mufasa: The phrases "most likely person to be lynched" and "needs to be lynched", from post 595, don't back up the idea that it was just throwing any old name out there. I don't believe that at all.

How is it Omgus, my FOS on Dr Pepper? I Seriously feel that Dr. Pepper was being very impatient and pushing the issue and I am busy and he didn't even read that I was gone during about 4 posts all asking a question when I was gone and expecting an answer.

It seemed odd that you'd select Dr. Pepper out of all of your accusers, Dr. Pepper only- who is currently embroiled in a separate discussion and from the looks of things, has a few people who would be willing to vote him should it come to that. Looked kind of opportunistic to me.

I might be wrong about the reasoning behind that FOS, though with or without it I'd still be voting based on everything else.

[MikeSC6]

What prompted the vote on Percy? Your post has you accusing Dr Pepper of misrepresentation- what's changed to make

Percy

your lynch candidate? Percy's last post doesn't even disagree with you- if it's other people misrepresenting things, why vote for Percy over them?

Not that I think Dr. Pepper is particularly scummy myself. The whole thing just looks like a misunderstanding on all sides.

[MikeSC6]

It's time I admitted that I haven't read through the whole of this discussion.

It looks, to me, like it was initiated based on a semi colloquiallism, this "excellent scumhunting" (I can't even remember which one of this quartet said what!) business. It seemed to me that it was just a figure of speech- if it got to a point where whoever it was refused to consider anything else because of the (lack of) actions of a replacements predecessor, then sure we should look into it. But it got pre-empted, and we have no idea whether or not that was the actual intention.

This whole thing seems, to me, to have had two consequences-

It's has made it painfully hard to keep up, and I can't blame tubby for not having read up yet- if he's still going to at all.

It's made it easy for Mufasa to avoid answering the questions still outstanding from weeks ago.

Neither of which helps.

[MikeSC6]

Guys, guys- watch this funny pussycat-

http://www.koreus.com/video/chat-1-2-3-soleil.html

Ad hominems are never fun, and while each of you seem to be absolutely certain that the others are intentionally misrepresenting each other, attacks aren't a good way to convince people who aren't already set. The last few posts haven't swayed me either way, at least. I'll read all the ones in between and see what I think on Sunday once I've got enough free time to slog through.

[MikeSC6]

And don't worry, it's a safe link. "Chat" means "cat" in foreign.

[MikeSC6]

MikeSC6 attempts to downplay the situation, admits to not having read it and then tells us to go watch some cats instead. This further compounds my impression that one of the players involved in this debate are scum, and the scum are preparing their exit strategy just in case it goes bad.

I wasn't even in this debate, and I'd have thought it quite clear that the cat thing wasn't a proposition to stop the game- more to calm people down since it had turned into personal attacks. It wasn't "cats instead of the discussion"- it was "cats in augmentation to the discussion" . It was just a way to indicate that, in my view, the debate had quickly turned from logical questioning to emotional attacking, the evidence ran out after the first couple of posts in this discussion, ad hominems have since taken the place where evidence should be.

And I haven't read this particular discussion all the way through yet- though I certainly will when I have time like I said- because it turned into the same thing over and over again in increasingly long winded and nasty ways. I doubt that many of the players who aren't emotionally invested in this particular discussion have read it through completely yet either.

[MikeSC6]

First off, I note that Mufasa still hasn't addressed any of the points made weeks ago. I think he's scum, this eclipse of a discussion must be a godsend.

Anyway-

Percy: Post 612

Key quote:

“ZONEACE promised a post on Wednesday. I am going to Vote: ZONEACE until he comes up with some f*****g excellent scumhunting.”

What I think: I didn’t think anything of this when it first appeared. It just looked like exasperation with a lurker to me, there’s nothing there that supports the idea that Percy would neglect the rest of the game, especially with the bulk of this post being directed elsewhere.

Dingo: Post 617

Key quote:

“In your experience, does this kind of vote actually get lurkers to post? Would you support pushing up the vote count on him and eventually lynching if he doesn't provide "excellent scumhunting"?”

What I think: A completely fair post in my view, and I would agree with it- if a lurker isn’t bothered enough to post for a whole game day, they’re plainly not bothered about playing the game.

Percy: Post 618

Key quote:

“If he doesn't get replaced and starts actively participating, then I won't want him to be lynched. For the moment, I just can't see how anyone would be OK with a player skipping all of the first day and then posting only to defend themselves. Lurkers (especially ones like this) should be lynched as scum.”

What I think: Again, fair enough- voting based on conditions, acknowledging that these conditions are liable to change. Also asks a separate question of Zwet in this post, so he’s clearly not using this as an excuse not to play the game.

Barrylocke: Post 623

Key quote:

“Concerning Lurkers, I think since theirs plenty of time, if he's gone from the whole site, it might be better to see if he gets prodded and replaced. Of course, I know players can let mods know that they're lurking on purpose, so if he is, he probably wont be replaced. But I still feel calls for prods should happen before lynchs.”

What I think: Fair enough, the issue is sorted calmly and rationally....

Dingo: Post 638

Key quote:

“I'm sure that calling out lurkers is a good idea. However, you suggested you would keep your vote on him until he provided "excellent" scum hunting. That seems to me a way to keep a vote out there which won't really do anything. It is an easy way to avoid committing to an actual lynch.”

What I think: Here is where it starts to turn into the monster it is now- though I don’t think this comment is intentionally misleading or anything. I think it’s mistaken- Percy had been participating in all the discussions going between his vote and this comment, but it was certainly something to watch out for. It would have been better if this idea was kept private, and brought out if Percy did end up abstaining from discussion.

Dr Pepper: Post 639

Key quotes:

“Glad to see Percy is flushing out the lurkers while still contributing. He seems townie for the time.”

“dingo, I find that accusation of Percy not contributing to be unfounded. He is clearly performing player analysis, calling out lurkers, and keeping the game moving. He doesnt need to commit to a lynch so early. Maybe he doesnt want the popular lynch to occur. Maybe ZONEACE will be the lynch for the day.”

What I think: I completely agree here- Percy had been spending more time on other discussions than on the whole lurker thing.

Dingo: Post 640

Key quote:

“I just don't like the declaration that his vote will stay on Zoneface until Zoneface starts playing in some "excellent" way. I didn't say that Percy was not contributing.”

What I think: I don’t agree with the first sentence there- but I can see how that interpretation can come from Percy’s post 612. I agree with the second sentence- Dingo didn’t say that, though again I can see how Dr Pepper got that from post 638. And I can also see that battle lines are starting to be drawn in the first sentence there, Dingo seems to be digging in and becoming more sure of his hypothetical situation than before, but only because it’s been challenged, not because of any new evidence that would support it.

Thus far, it seems like a misunderstanding. Dingo was suspicious of Percy because of something Percy might have done in the future, Dr Pepper sees that what Dingo was worried about hadn’t happened yet. It is arguing over a hypothetical, that, even it was going to happen, won’t happen because it’s being argued about.

Dr Pepper: Post 641

Key quote:

“It is fine that you don't like Percy's vote stance, but you have yet to give a valid reason for him to change it.”

What I think: The rest of the post doesn’t need to be quoted I don’t think- it seems to me, apart from this little bit which I have something to say about, that this post is the towniest in the discussion so far. Dr Pepper doesn’t give the same kind of “battles lines drawn” vibe that was hinted at in Dingo’s last post- and while I disagree with the idea that the vote will put pressure on ZONEACE to contribute (on this I agree with Dingo, who has since been proven correct.), I don’t think it’s particularly scummy to take that line.

The bit I did quote demonstrates exactly why it’s fruitless to argue about hypotheticals. We can see that Dingo hasn’t asked Percy to change his vote, only that he should be willing in the future to do so rather than hiding behind that vote. Which is a mistaken opinion in its self, though an understandable one. But having said that, I can see where Dr Pepper’s coming from- if Dingo is unhappy with Percy’s vote, he should give reasons for changing it. But from Dingos posts, we can see that he’s not unhappy with the vote per se, though like myself he questions its usefulness as an anti-lurker/flaker tactic- he’s unhappy with what it could have lead to.

It just seems like a misunderstanding so far. Looking at the last few posts on this page, this where things break down. Should I keep posting in this format? Does anyone else want to take over and give their interpretation? Does anyone think I've misinterpreted their position so far?

[MikeSC6]

Welcome Kaiberan!

Mufasa: I'll sum up what I think has gone either unanswered or that I don't believe on day 2. I still don't get the self-vote on day 1, though. Anyway-

First, this post-

I'm not believing that one haha so reviewing day one the most likely person to lynch is Battle Mage for his contribution is so great that he needs to be lynched on the simple matter that he has a good con voyage.

With con voyage meaning "conveying". People asked for explanations for this post right after it was posted, yet you posted several times before explaining it (unconvincingly, in my view.)

You later said that in this post you meant Battle Mage hadn't been consistent in his activity, and that that this was a scumtell you'd seen in "various games". When asked, you said said that it was only one game and that it was ongoing so we couldn't discuss it or be linked to it, effectively dead-ending this line of discussion. What about the rest of these various games?

Then later you said that you weren't trying to call for his lynch, and that you were just throwing a name out, contradicting the idea that you thought he was scum because of his inconsistent activity. "Most likely person to be lynched" and "needs to be lynched" however, don't support this. Which is true- did you think he was scum, or were you just throwing a name out to discuss?

Also- the mayor thing. You voted him for mayor, and kept that vote on (saying that you didn't need to take your vote away.) You also said that soon after your vote you started to have suspicions and didn't think him a good choice for mayor. However later on day 1 you included him in your "three people you wouln't mind being mayor," describing them as the "three likeliest to be town." If you really started to have honest suspicions about Battle Mage on day 1, why wait until day 2 when he's not there to voice them?

And did he really go from "likeliest to be town" to "needs to be lynched" because he didn't post quite as much later on than at the beginning of the day?

As well, the fact that Battle Mage can't post today. It was explained why early on this day. The next time it came up, you helped to explain it to someone else. Then later you used Battle Mages inactivity on day 2 to back up your opinion of him as scum. I don't buy that it was just confusion, though I guess there's nothing much to ask about that.

While I'm here, it'd be nice to ask a few new questions-

What is your opinion of this other discussion that's going on? Do you have any opinion as to who could be scum? What do you think of Zwets sometimes zealous defense of yourself?

I'm sure I've missed some other issues, but I can't think of what they'd be.

[MikeSC6]

Sup guys. I have a lot to read!

Why even post that. Waste of a post

I see you've flat out refused to answer my questions- why?

I'm happier with my vote than I've ever been.

[MikeSC6]

I don't know how far we can believe this, especially with us having dealt with a similar thing involving millar. Do we want a full claim?

Millar, are you still playing by the way?

[MikeSC6]

Mufasa, would you be willing to self-hammer?

[MikeSC6]

I still think Mufasa's scum, or at least anti-town- and I don't know whether he's telling the truth or not. I've had a look in the wiki, and the only role really that might fit is a bomb- though it could be something not in the wiki.

If it's an anti-town power, which I think it is- Mufasa's posts have been screaming scum- then why would it be better for him to wait until tomorrow? Maybe he's a bomb that kills a percentage of people rather than just the one, so that the more people there are the better for him?

It might be something to do with Battle Mage?

If he's truly pro-town and we wait til tomorrow, he could be killed in the night and (I gather) we'd lose whatever pro-town trigger he's got. If he's anti-town (which I think he is) then not going along with his plan could at least minimise the damage.

But that's all just speculation. It's hard to form any concrete ideas when he could be a role we've never heard of before. So I really don't know what the best thing to do would be- it's a gamble. I think he's scum, but I don't know whether we should be lynching him.

[MikeSC6]

Vote: catherina, obvscum.

Anyway, what sets Dr Pepper apart from the rest in that discussion? I didn't notice him being particularly scummy.

[MikeSC6]

Also, who do you refer to as "rest" besides the discussee?

By "the rest" I meant Dingo and Percy- well just Dingo really. There were times when he misunderstood Percy's position, just like Dr Pepper did of him. It's certainly possible that either one intentionally did so- I don't know how you guys have decided that Dr Peppers was intentional, and Dingos an honest mistake.

[MikeSC6]

Speaking of Pepper, he hasn't posted in a while.

Posting has dried up- millar, are you still playing? I'd love to hear what you think.

[MikeSC6]

I wonder what this wait is doing to the people who can't post. I'm thinking of voting Dr Pepper, the posts Kaiveran posted do seem quite scummy.

If we don't get a satisfactory answer for the question you still have outstanding (I think it's the one near the bottom of page 33? That was a while ago...) I think I'll be voting. I hadn't had him pegged as scum previously, though- I can't really say why but I'd got the impression he was quite levelheaded and townie.

Unvote

[MikeSC6]

I guess we could let Mufasa live until tomorrow and see if we should lynch him then. I don't know- under normal circumstances I'd be after a lynch today, but when it's a new role- I dunno.

Still waiting for Dr Pepper, has it been long enough for a prod?

[MikeSC6]

Dr Pepper's at L-1 right now- should we wait, see if he's still playing, and if not quiz his replacement? Though I'm not sure how a replacement could defend things that have been said by a predecessor.

I'm tempted to put my vote back on Mufasa, and not bother with the "lynch him tomorrow" plan. We should only go along with the plans of townies, and I really don't think Mufasa's a townie. But then would he give an honest plan if he was scum, and knew we were on to him? Ah, WIFOM.

[MikeSC6]

If we're gonna lynch Mufasa today, should we be asking for a full claim? I think he's scum, and that any ability he has would hurt rather than help. Maybe this whole soft-claim thing was just a stalling tactic to get him through yesterday, or maybe it's an ability that will do more damage the more people there are or something like that?

For why I think he's scum, and a bit of recap rolled in for people who couldn't post-

First, this post-

I'm not believing that one haha so reviewing day one the most likely person to lynch is Battle Mage for his contribution is so great that he needs to be lynched on the simple matter that he has a good con voyage.

With con voyage meaning "conveying". People asked for explanations for this post right after it was posted, yet you posted several times before explaining it (unconvincingly, in my view.)

You later said that in this post you meant Battle Mage hadn't been consistent in his activity, and that that this was a scumtell you'd seen in "various games". When asked, you said said that it was only one game and that it was ongoing so we couldn't discuss it or be linked to it, effectively dead-ending this line of discussion. What about the rest of these various games?

Then later you said that you weren't trying to call for his lynch, and that you were just throwing a name out, contradicting the idea that you thought he was scum because of his inconsistent activity. "Most likely person to be lynched" and "needs to be lynched" however, don't support this. Which is true- did you think he was scum, or were you just throwing a name out to discuss?

Also- the mayor thing. You voted him for mayor, and kept that vote on (saying that you didn't need to take your vote away.) You also said that soon after your vote you started to have suspicions and didn't think him a good choice for mayor. However later on day 1 you included him in your "three people you wouln't mind being mayor," describing them as the "three likeliest to be town." If you really started to have honest suspicions about Battle Mage on day 1, why wait until day 2 when he's not there to voice them?

And did he really go from "likeliest to be town" to "needs to be lynched" because he didn't post quite as much later on than at the beginning of the day?

As well, the fact that Battle Mage can't post today. It was explained why early on this day. The next time it came up, you helped to explain it to someone else. Then later you used Battle Mages inactivity on day 2 to back up your opinion of him as scum. I don't buy that it was just confusion, though I guess there's nothing much to ask about that.

While I'm here, it'd be nice to ask a few new questions-

What is your opinion of this other discussion that's going on? Do you have any opinion as to who could be scum? What do you think of Zwets sometimes zealous defense of yourself?

He then made his softclaim that he has some kind of power and would like to be lynched on day 3 rather than day 2. And he helped to lynch Dr Pepper with a one line post, without having even mentioned Dr Pepper at all previously as far as I can remember.

So I think he's scum. I don't know whether we should be lynching him and hoping that this power claim was just a stalling tactic, or looking to see him killed through some other avenue (that we must have, looking at last night.)

Although the self-vote on day 1 could have been him trying to get himself lynched while everyone was here?

[MikeSC6]

Welcome dramonic!

In people's experience, are scumtells generally accurate? Dr Pepper was lynched partly on the back of a "scumtell" that he referred to himself in the third person I think it was.

[MikeSC6]

What particular scumtells are you talking about? Do YOU think they are good indicators of scum behavior?

What do you mean, "Dr. Pepper referred to himself in the third person"?

The "congratulating the town" one, really. I ask because, in this game yesterday, Zwet I think it was brought up that referring to yourself in the third person is a scumtell, and voted Dr Pepper for it. So far that's 0 out of 1 for scumtell effectiveness. I can see how it might be a scummy move if it's in conjunction with scummy behaviour, but on it's own, I don't think so. It seems like it's just too easy to go "this is a textbook scumtell", rather than build an argument. I don't think we should lynch solely on scumtells, because in the event of a misslynch it doesn't give us any more information about the players who voted, as they were doing it by the textbook- no more, no less.

Vote: Mufasa

The only reason we didn't lynch him yesterday was that he said it would be better for town if he was today's lynch. It looks like he was just buying time- I'm asking for a full claim. We've had nothing but scummy behaviour out of Mufasa.

[MikeSC6]

By the rules, it doesn't look like it would- those letters could mean anything. It's a massive stretch- why would you bring it to the mods attention?

Oh-

@Haschel: If people lose their votes, will the lynch threshhold lessen?

The way it's worded, "there are 16 votes [/i]in play[/i], so it takes 9 to lynch" seems to indicate that it does- but it's nice to be sure.

[MikeSC6]

Anyway, the whole thing with Mufasa seems to have slipped by the wayside here. Yesterday, he said it would be good for the town if he was lynched today, because of some trigger-when-he-gets-lynched ability he was claiming; today, he's saying it wouldn't be good for him to get lynched. Mufasa, why did you change your mind?

I agree, Mufasa's been far scummier than Yos. We've had a self-vote, a period of lurking on day 1, no consistency in his suspicions, unanswered questions, a very convenient softclaim. On day 2 I only unvoted him based on the condition that he be lynched today and then we'd find out for sure, which now he's against.

As far as I can see, there are three options-

1. We think that Mufasa's a townie with a pro-town power like he says. Then we lynch him- if he's really pro-town, Mafia would nightkill him eventually to prevent this power from being used. Better to have a partial benefit now than try and hold it off until it's at it's most potent, but end up losing it all together.

2. He's anti-town with an anti-town power, and wants to be lynched to use it. Should we attempt to get him nightkilled, and then lynch if he survives the night (we don't want this power to be used, but we'll want to get it out of the way before endgame)?

3. He's anti-town with no power, and we should lynch.

What does everyone think? I'm hovering between two and three. His posts haven't been pro-town, and with regard to his role he's given out enough information that the mafia would know to nightkill him if he was telling the truth, but kept to himself information vital to the town- like the nature of this power.

It does seem slightly suspect that Battle Mage is trying to lose people their votes- makes me quite uneasy. Zwet's "fakevote" I think is a good idea, for people who lose their votes. Removing votes is removing one of the ways to read people.

[MikeSC6]

strange vibe from him. Post 97. Is he posting just to post?

Post 943 feels sorta the same. The "maybe this", "maybe that" is troublesome. It's like planting seeds without really taking charge of his own opinions. I dunno. FoS: MikeSC6...can't really put my finger on it but maybe someone else can help me with that.

MikeSC6 965: again...what are we gaining from this post? Feels like posting to be posting.

@Juls: Awesome that you read through day 2, I struggled myself what with the Dingo vs Pepper saga, and I was there! Any replacements are gonna have a hard time of things.

I disagree though, I haven't ever been posting just to post- the posts you've mentioned have been part of wider discussions, or sparks to wider discussions. I'm concerned both with stating where I stand on issues, but also trying to prompt opinions from others.

And I admit in places I have made liberal use of "maybes" and "ifs"- but I think that's the nature of this game more than anything, what with the early uncertainty over Xtoxm and so on. Who could have deduced that Xtoxm was really a Village Idiot? How can we deduce what Mufasa is? I think I've stated my solid opinions openly- that I think Mufasa is scummy, that I thought the Percy/Dingo/Dr.Pepper thing was a misunderstanding, and so on- but the opinions I have that are based on mechanics that we haven't yet uncovered, like what would be the best way to deal with unknown roles like Xtoxm and Mufasa, that's where I've been cautious.

Also, the "posting just to post" accusation, I think there are plenty of people who could be accused of that with more subtance, but haven't (like around that bit with the spambot)- but I also don't think it's useful to pick out individual posts as being "posting just to post", when the person has been contributing and playing the game in the vast majority of their posts.

Fonz pointed out that MikeSC voted with long explanation which seems scummy.

I still don't really understand why long explanations are scummy in themselves- if the posts were filled with falsities and fallacies, then sure, but if the only complaint is that the post was too long, I don't know what I can say. I suppose I'll have to start keeping opinions back so I can sprinkle them over several posts, thus avoiding both problems of having posts with no new firm opinions and too long explanations.

-Another strange vibe from him regarding Xtoxm. Says "so he likes to false claim, why?)

I can't remember what this one's in reference to- could I have a post number or just a quick summary of the issue?

-611 defending jahudo, called V.I.

I thought that the accusation against Jahudo wasn't supported by what Jahudo had wrote. I don't know what you mean by "called Village Idiot", or why it would be scummy though?

[MikeSC6]

Fair enough!

I'm mostly sitting here waiting for a claim from Mufasa. It may seem like I'm hounding you, Mufasa, but I think we need a claim before we can judge what to do.

Millar, are you still playing? Any opinion of what's been going on? Nothing has materialised that would support my "Village Idiot may be more than it seems" idea, it'd be nice to get an opinion from I guess a close-to confirmed townie.

[MikeSC6]

That seems a little too odd to be made up, and it ties in with wanting a day's grace, and then changing your mind. It fits everything too well to have been made up due to pressure.

Unvote

I was certain you were scummy, damn.

[MikeSC6]

1) It could be- werewolves are shapeshifters, these mechanics would fit with some kind of shapeshifter role I guess.

2) No, I don't think so- Jailkeep and doctor would be of little use to a third-party, I shouldn't think.

3) We certainly could wait and identify, if we waited for his vigilante day. If he's town, we'll get power roles. If he's town and dies during the night, we'll avoid a random death and will have avoided a miss-lynch. If his role is true (or semi-true, if he is a power role), but his alignment isn't- that could pose a problem. If he's scum, but lying about being a powerrole, then we could put him off for lynching until we've had an opportunity to test his claim without too much damage being done.

I'm no longer so certain that Mufasa's scum, I found the claim believable. This is something we can test so yeah, I think we should do that.

[MikeSC6]

I'm no longer so certain that Mufasa's scum, I found the claim believable.

Which part of it? The part that he's claiming to be another hunter, even though 2 hunters seems kind of crazy? The part that someone else randomally dies when he does? The part where he has a whole series of roles he gets that somehow gets interfered with by random game actions? The part where he's claiming to have the exact same role as the guy we lynched yesterday except with a lot more bells and whistles added on randomally? The part where the flavor of his role dosn't seem to make sense? Or the part where his claim today seems to be mostly incompatable with his semi-claims from previous days?

Mostly because it's a claim we can test. It may buy him some time, but if he's lying it's a matter of a couple of days before we can get a pretty good idea either way, if we direct him to vig someone in particular. Although, thinking it through, scum could easily ruin that for us with tactical nightkills/no-kills.

If he's lying, I would have expected him to add some kind of cop power among his myriad powers to explain away one of the biggest suspicions on him (saying Battle Mage "needs to be lynched" without evidence). That's what I was expecting anyway.

Although I still don't fully understand why one of your powers was skipped, Mufasa?

[MikeSC6]

Disregard my earlier wish to test him on his vigilante day- scum wouldn't just be able to interfere with it, they'd be able to completely ruin it (either way). If he's telling the truth, they could no-kill. If he's lying they could kill the target. Either one would appear to be the same, and so wouldn't help us at all.

Is there any way we could test his jailkeeper claim? By the looks of things, that's tonight. Does "dancing" count as a night action that can be jailkeep'd?

[MikeSC6]

Ah, no- I thought his "saving Jahudo" thing was in reference to him being a doctor yesterday, rather than a jailkeeper.

[MikeSC6]

That's six, by my count.

If we want to direct Mufasa's kill in case he's town, who does everyone think? Battle Mage seemed quite anxious to lynch Yos- one of those two could be a good bet- I'm leaning towards Battle Mage, for trying to lose people their votes, and the wish to lynch Yos based on what I think is weak evidence. I haven't been detecting scummy vibes from Yos, and killing our mayor now would just lead to WIFOMy situations and an unknown quantity really becoming mayor.

Something I do agree with is not letting Yos survive til the endgame though. I think we should lynch Yos sooner or later before the endgame, and keep lynching until we have a townie mayor that gives the mayorship to millar. A scummy mayor would do far more damage than a townie mayor would help, in my opinion.

[MikeSC6]

Since we're lynching Mufasa, we don't expect him to be telling the truth- and I can't see any better candidates for that "just in case" scenario. And while I think you're town now, I also don't want to get to the point where if you do start looking scummy we wouldn't have time to neutralise the extra vote.

And it would only have been more than one lynch if you're scum, because if you're not scum theoretically you'd go along with the town plan. And if you are scum and give someone else the mayorship, we'd either lynch them and get more scum or we'd get rid of the extra vote before endgame.

I'm in no hurry to lynch you, let's be clear, this is in anticipation of the endgame. The last thing we want is to get to a point where if we lynch you and you're scum, we'd end up with the mayor you pick at endgame. If we can't give Millar the mayorship then I wouldn't want you lynched just for surviving, because whatever happens the second vote would be with an unknown.

[MikeSC6]

No, I wouldn't want to pursue that tactic without being able to give millar the mayorship. The idea behind it was that it would be disasterous to have two votes in the hands of scum at endgame, far more than it would be beneficial to have it in the hands of a townie.

And that with Yos, there would have been a point where if he's scum, we wouldn't have time to get rid of the second vote before endgame and the WIFOMy situation of trying to decide whether Yos would have given it to a townie or a scum player could have messed things up at the last minute.

But it seems like the second vote will definately be present at endgame since we can't give it to millar, so it wouldn't work.

[MikeSC6]

I agree with Jahudo- sorting this veng-kill out, it's like an insurance policy. It's something we can quite easily do, we've got time left, and I don't see how having this discussion among us all would hurt.

[MikeSC6]

Unvote; Vote: Mufasa

HAMMA!

Oh. I thought Zwet had his vote on Mufasa, and unvoted/voted as a joke hammer. Looks like we won't be having any discussion at all.

[MikeSC6]

Is anyone else worried that Mufasa might be a vampire? How would we kill him if he was? I haven't read a game with one in it but I think we'd try to lynch him again.

That's all we could do, really. I don't think there's anything we can do about it until he comes back even if he is a vampire. I guess the claim was just to survive another day more than anything, looking back.

The rolefishing does seem suspicious, but I don't trust the "early day dissapointment" scumtell at all, especially after yesterday's lynch. To answer your question without speculating, Dramonic, we have a Piper and I think we have a Cupid (though we think that because it's in the boardgame, there's no guarantee that everything in the board-game correlates with this game.)

The number of people the Piper can make dance has gone up- it could go up again. Maybe when a dancer gets killed, or after a certain number of days, we don't know.

Haschel: Does millar13 count as someone who needs to be made to dance?

[MikeSC6]

It's possible that Mufasa was hoping that the scum would believe his claim on day 2 (he made a comment early on day 3 about expecting to be night-killed) and night kill him. If that had happened it would have been good town play, we wouldn't have had to lynch a townie and the scum would have used a nightkill on a vanilla townie. A more believable claim would certainly have helped, though.

It was myself who wanted to get Yos killed (though I only wanted him killed on the condition that we could then get rid of the extra vote by giving it to miller before end-game, which we can't so I don't stand by that plan.)

[MikeSC6]

I will then publicly post the vote count and lynch whoever has the most votes.

The votecount for this second lynch would be public, if we wanted we could easily enforce a second lynch on whoever we want, with any deviation from the town's choice leading to a lynch the next day.

But I don't think we should all decide on a lynch- we should let people vote for who they want to vote for, because they'd have to justify it the next day. We should be making it so that scum can't predict how the town will act, should this second lynch happen.

[MikeSC6]

Not to mention that Mufasa decided to claim on day 2 to avoid answering a lot of questions- or it seemed like it at least. We had what I thought was a pretty good case, and Mufasa claimed rather than fully address that case. The full claim yesterday made me unvote because I wanted to see if he keep jailkeep a dancer- which the other dancing players would have been able to see and report, or if he could vig someone or some way to test his claim.


@Zwet: I'm just wondering, what made you change your mind about Mufasa? You were keen to defend him yesterday I seem to remember, while the case was building up and Mufasa was dodging questions- around the time I was most keen to lynch him.


@The Replacement: It's true I haven't had a vote placed at the end yet- but there are reasons for why that is. I would have been prepared to hammer yesterday once we'd decided who Mufasa's kill would be if he happened to tell the truth. On day 2 Dr Pepper hammered himself all of a sudden while I felt there was still discussion to be had over whether we should go along with Mufasa's plan for a day 3 lynch or lynch him then and there.

[MikeSC6]

"I wanted to see if he could jailkeep a dancer", that should be.

[MikeSC6]

This is the whole post 888, of which you chose to quote one paragraph-

I wonder what this wait is doing to the people who can't post. I'm thinking of voting Dr Pepper, the posts Kaiveran posted do seem quite scummy.

If we don't get a satisfactory answer for the question you still have outstanding (I think it's the one near the bottom of page 33? That was a while ago...) I think I'll be voting. I hadn't had him pegged as scum previously, though- I can't really say why but I'd got the impression he was quite levelheaded and townie.

Unvote

You can see that my concern was that he wasn't answering the questions put to him- this post came after a few days where we had only a handful of posts, with none from Dr Pepper. Lurking when there are questions outstanding can put a player in a different light.

This makes me think at least one of two things is true:
1) Mike still isn’t reading the debate by Post 888 after he claimed to catchup in Post 802.
2) Mike waited for the most viable lynch wagon to appear and he threw momentum to it.

It is neither- you're acting as if the case against Dr Pepper remained static. I did think it was a misunderstanding, but Dr Peppers avoidance of questions through lurking, and just general avoidance when he did post, was what made me change my mind. Like I said in the post that you cut in half.

The next thing Mike said about Pepper was this:

The thing is, this wasn't the next thing. Why did you chop off the end of my post where I gave my reasons for seeing Dr Pepper in a different light, namely the lurking and the avoidance of questions?

Which sounds like he believes Pepper has to defend some scummy tells against him; it sounds like Mike is in favor of the wagon. It was a large turnaround from thinking Dingo and Pepper were a misunderstanding to finding him scummy, and Mike didn’t have to question Pepper at all or explain what he found scummy.

I believed he had questions to answer- things that, since they revolve around what Dr Pepper had said, a replacement wouldn't be able to address. And I did explain what I found scummy, the way he avoided questions.

All of your points are answered by a post of mine that you yourself quoted- although you missed out the pertinent paragraph and then, by saying "the next thing" about my next post, you seem to have tried to erase that paragraph. That smacks of deliberate misrepresentation.

[MikeSC6]

This second paragraph does not refer to anything in particular. What is the question on page 33? That could mean alot of things but you didn't elaborate beyond that, so I still don't know why you had a turnaround to find Pepper suspicious.

It was a while ago, I can't remember exactly which questions in particular I was referring to, but we know there were questions that had built up over the argument between dingo and Dr Pepper. By "page 33" I think I was referring to dingo's post about Dr Pepper not answering his questions (which I've quoted below).

Nothing there tells me why you thought he was lurking scum and not flaking misunderstood town. When you start the turnaround you try to defend your fence-sitting with this baseless explanation, which I don't like:

I can't really say why but I'd got the impression he was quite levelheaded and townie.

And how does being levelheaded fit in with being misunderstood, something you thought he kept doing for several posts. It didn't bother you that he didn't try to see things from your perspective, but he and dingo kept getting more sure the other was scum?

Like I said, in the post you quoted, I was concerned that he wasn't answering questions, I voiced this concern after a long period of lurking when he could reasonably have been expected to have answered those questions. And I had thought him level-headed and townie, notice the past tense "I'd", before the discussion between Dingo and Dr Pepper turned to ad hominems. By saying I had an opinion of someone in the past tense indicates that the opinion has changed.

I am not ready to believe this. You did not ask him questions yourself, but just pointed to a page where he might have avoided a question.

Well yes, if someone hasn't posted in two weeks or whatever it was, why pile up questions for the sake of it? I might have had new questions for him when he answered whatever hadn't been addressed, who knows? It all depends on what his answers might have been.

Where is the general avoidance when he posted? From what I can tell, during the time he was lurking he didn't post at all. Post 811 was the last post where he answered people's questions and that was a wall of text of answers. Then he disappears for about two weeks and doesn't post once, so I don't see how you thought he was avoiding when he posted.

Again, it was far too long ago for me to remember the specifics, it's just an impression I still have from day 2. It's an impression that seems to have been shared by dingo, in the post after the one you linked-

I thought better of it and decided there was no way you had any intention of answering my questions. I mean, you read me mocking you after I ask you questions because I predict you won't answer them. And you don't. But then you ask me to post them again? If you had any intention of answering them, why don't you just answer them? Do you not know how to go back to posts you have read before? And if you can't remember what happened in previous posts, how can you possibly scum hunt?

After which Dr Pepper didn't post for a long time, prompting my post asking for him to answer these questions, whichever ones they were.

I'm not against the stances you took, first thinking they were both town, then finding Pepper scum; but I am questioning the way you switched because it looks under-researched, under-explained and opportunistic.

Two weeks inactivity after having been challenged to answer questions outstanding is enough to make a person switch their opinion. If you'll notice, in the rest of the day I don't push for Dr Pepper's lynch, I'm still talking about getting Mufasa lynched, I wasn't certain about getting Mufasa lynched because of the nature of his softclaim, but I was actively trying to get that discussion on the agenda-

If he's truly pro-town and we wait til tomorrow, he could be killed in the night and (I gather) we'd lose whatever pro-town trigger he's got. If he's anti-town (which I think he is) then not going along with his plan could at least minimise the damage.

If I was opportunistically jumping on a wagon to lynch Dr Pepper while it was popular, why didn't I do that? Why did I with-hold my vote to give him the chance to answer these questions while discussing an alternative?

When you find the question(s) you thought Pepper was avoiding, we can go back and find every question posed to him when he was lurking and see how much was new stuff and how much he had already answered. There's probably a bit of both.

I imagine I was referring to the questions that dingo was referring to in his post on page 33. But it was a while ago.

This

was

a while ago- why have you waited until now to voice these suspicions? Why couldn't you have mentioned them at the time, or yesterday?

And again, why did you miss out the part of my post that shows why my opinion had changed- the open questions after a long period of lurking- and then act as if my next post was the next thing I said on the subject rather than that, if not to misrepresent my position to fit your argument that I gave no justification?

Vote: Jahudo

I feel that the part of my post about Dr Pepper not answering questions adequately addresses your original points- and that to quote from the first half, you would have had to have read it and then you chose to remove it from the post while quoting it (and subsequently deleting it from your timeline by saying my next post was the next thing I'd said). Also, the fact that you've waited, for two game-days and more than a real-time month, before posting your suspicions- only to post them right after The Replacement has voted for me.

That

seems opportunistic.

[MikeSC6]

That is part of the reason why I don’t like it. You changed your mind about him without showing the process of you changing your mind. I think that was necessary because it involved debates you initially ignored. By not giving an initial response you were active lurking until you could come up on the side that had already won.

This post precedes post 888 by two days-

By "the rest" I meant Dingo and Percy- well just Dingo really. There were times when he misunderstood Percy's position, just like Dr Pepper did of him. It's certainly possible that either one intentionally did so- I don't know how you guys have decided that Dr Peppers was intentional, and Dingos an honest mistake.

It's not explicit, and I wasn't at the point of deciding that Dr Pepper was in the wrong and dingo in the right, but you can see here that I was entertaining the idea that one or the other was intentionally misrepresenting the other. Two further days without a post from Dr Pepper, his lurking made more obvious by the lack of posts from the rest of us during that time period, and I was willing to concede that Dr Pepper was the more scummy in that situation, though tentatively because I wanted him to answer the questions more than wanting to lynch him for not answering questions.

Particularly dingo's post 886 made me re-evaluate the situation-

True. But it had not dried up when Pepper vanished ten days ago. We were in the middle of a discussion. He asked me for questions I felt he had not answered. I gave him one. He disappeared.

Couched in those terms, I felt it made sense that Dr Pepper's dissapearance served a scummy purpose, but still I'd much rather have had him answer these questions before we lynched so I didn't vote.

But they weren’t questions that had been left unanswered for 2 weeks. It was more like 3 weeks and in that time you never gave a heads up that Pepper was holding out until the group had already decided to lynch him over it.

They had slipped my mind, three weeks is a long time to remember specific questions asked by other people, until dingo's post bringing them up just previously to mine.

It doesn’t matter whether you voted or not because I’m looking for momentum on the wagon and you clearly added to it without providing anything new or establishing what in particular you liked about the old reasons. That is opportunistic IMO.

I added pressure to a lurker, without bumping up the number of votes to a dangerous level where he may not have been able to get a post in. He lurked for weeks, and I commented on that- it's easy with hindsight to see that as adding to a townie-wagon, at the time I saw it as commenting on scummy behaviour without particular thought to how it would make me look if Dr Pepper did end up town.

In posts 872 and 878 you still maintained that pepper and dingo looked like misunderstanding townies. At those times had you read posts 782, 787, and/or 813?

I didn’t get the feeling that you had caught up to post 813 until you posted 888. Is this true? If so, why didn’t you say your read was incomplete in posts 872 and 878?

I think I found the post you were talking about Mike. Did you want an answer to all parts of it? Why did you think these were important questions that required a satisfactory answer from Pepper to keep your vote off him?

Why didn’t you initially understand that post 813 wasn’t about questions Pepper was going to answer, but questions he should have answered earlier? Why didn’t you say anything in your first post after 813?

I had read it all the way through, but I had no reason to suspect that Dr Pepper would go on an extended lurk at that time, and no reason to suspect that he was avoiding questions because he hadn't answered them immediately. After dingo's first request for him to address the questions he had missed I didn't comment immediately because there was no reason to think it would turn into a big thing, I expected he'd post in a day or two answering what he'd missed and an extra prompt wouldn't be necessary- individual questions in such long, heated discussions can be easy to oversee. When it became clear that these questions weren't going to get answered, that's when it became an issue for me.

And it's true, you did say yesterday you were suspicious- I thought those posts were from Juls in the last post. I can't defend the idea that you've only brought this up because of The Replacement's suspicions, so

Unvote

.

[MikeSC6]

Did you consider that Pepper's ad hom attacks (post 787) and defense that dingo was being hostile (post 811) could have at least partially explained why he wasn't posting?

He hadn't been posting in any other games, which make it harder to conclude that he was intentionally lurking. The mod wasn't around to give a prod until it was too late, which also makes it harder to think he was consciously avoiding the game when he might have posted if he had been prodded. So what in particular made it seem that he was avoiding the game to avoid the questions?

Dr Pepper did say when he got back that he had quit the game, I imagine because he was just fed up with it, but still- he didn't say anything like that until the very end of the day when he hammered himself. It was a complete disappearance after heavy activity with no heads-up, he could have left the game after being unable to justify his posts.

Whatever the reason was, leaving without warning in the middle of a huge discussion isn't a pro-town way to play. I would have been happier if he'd have come back and continued the discussion until it was sorted, I was happy taking the stance that his disappearance was suspicious because I also wanted to give him the chance to post and refute it before him getting lynched.

[MikeSC6]

It is true that I skipped over the most heated bit of the argument with my posts- but that was because the battle lines had been clearly drawn very early in that discussion. Nothing new of substance came up, I mean posting styles changed to be more aggressive on both sides, sure, but there's not much to be said about that. There would have been no use in continuing to do a post by post that would consist of nothing more than "aggression and the same argument we heard earlier..."

And yes, while the discussion was ongoing I didn't post as much as I could have- but wouldn't it have been better to wait for the discussion to wind down by it's self and then comment on it once it's been as finished as it's going to get? When you have two people going at each other, accusing each other to be scum, I think it's better to let them duke it out in a bubble of their own and evaluate it afterwards, rather than jumping in to support one person mid-discussion or inverfering by providing them with prompts they can use.

But we never got to the point where the discussion was over and we could look at it objectively while those who participated were alive due to Dr Peppers self-lynch.

[MikeSC6]

Why is this game stalling...

Because the scum don't want to bus their buddy MikeSC6, probably.

How can that comment have helped anyone? If you honestly think I'm scum, why would you want to make a comment that dissuades people from voting for me by pre-emptively branding them scum?

If anyone has any new questions, questions I've missed or questions that you don't feel I've answered as I should, feel free to post them up- if only to get the game moving again. I'll just add that Mufasa coming up town has completely thrown it for me, if Mufasa had have come up scum my day 2 actions wouldn't seem scummy- but he was town and what I thought at the time was good town play doesn't seem so now. Did we decide how to manage this second vote?

[MikeSC6]

No, actually, I said the scum aren't bussing you, wich is the opposite of saying that people who vote you are scum.

The comment helped by hopefully making whatever scumbuddies you have that aren't currently voting you a little more nervous and twitchy.

That's awful logic on a number of counts-

It's trying to, in effect, blackmail people into voting for me rather than arguing the point, or explaining why. I got into trouble primarily for not giving enough explanation in my comments about Dr Pepper- and here you're giving no explanation whatsoever.

The idea that the game isn't moving along because scum don't want to vote for me is a silly one- the majority of people aren't voting for me, if scum had a majority the game would be over.

If someone comes and votes for me now, your post seems to indicate that you'd then suspect them for not voting sooner. If people do just vote for me now, based on no new information other than that you consider them scum for not doing so- that doesn't look very townie, does it? That looks like scum trying to minimise the damage, so naturally people wouldn't do it. If everyone else who isn't voting actually did think I was scum, why would you want to make voting for me more difficult for them?

Do you think it's a townie action to vote for someone because of an open threat of being considered scummy if they didn't? Do you think it's townie to say "anyone who doesn't vote this way is scum" in order to push a lynch, rather than argue the point?

[MikeSC6]

If I had said that, then no, but that's not what I said. I simply made an observation. There's probably a significant warewolf faction left, and it dosn't feel like there is a group of scum pushing for your lynch right now.

Anyway, I really am basically voting you on gut right now. For much of this game, I've had a scummy vibe from your posting, although I was never really able to articulate why. Sorry if you don't like that as a reason, but it's the truth.

Fair enough, there's nothing I can really argue against there. I'll have to find out what it is that's making my posts seem scummy and excise it for the future, though- I've heard that quite a few times!

If there are any questions about my posts or anything like that, I'm still open- if you do have any it might be a good idea to get them answered while I'm still alive.

[MikeSC6]

MikeSC6, who is your top suspect at the moment and why are you not voting?

I do have a suspect, though it's mostly a gut based thing- the case I have is so slight, though, that I'm hesitant to post it up in case it makes that person change their behaviour or avoid making any scummy moves that they might. It's not enough to warrant a vote, I don't think, but if I had to choose right now I would lynch this person. I have expressed some suspicion about this person in the past.

If people want a name and identification of what I feel might be scummy behaviour, I'll post it up, though I'd rather wait and see for a while. And I wouldn't want to divert attention from the discussion about me not justifying my change of opinion about Dr Pepper- i want to get that over with, if there are any questions I'm still open.

[MikeSC6]

@Mike: I think day 4 is enough time for people to notice if someone changes their behavior if they think they're being suspected, and by day 4 you could probably look at them now vs. before and see if any moves don't follow from day to day. Unless I guess they just recently replaced in and haven't posted much, but those people should be under pressure to keep active anyway.

True enough, I guess there's only so long you can wait- it's Battle Mage I've been a bit suspicious of. Mufasa said something on day 2 about Battle Mage changing his behaviour at the end of day 1- at the time I thought it was too early to be able to say that, and definately too early to want to lynch him for it.

But by now, looking back, it's true. Battle Mage secured a townie first impression on day 1 (a day where we ended up lynching a townie, in effect) and has since changed posting style considerably, resting on that first impression. Or that's the impression I get anyway.

And he hasn't posted in over a week. It's bad that replacements haven't been posting, and it's bad that Ztife hasn't done much posting since the very beginning, but this is out of character with Battle Mage. And I can understand replacements not posting in a 50-page game, but not so much someone who has been here from the start. Ztife, I have no idea whether he's townie or not- he seems to post a line or two without saying much relating to the game when prodded but never otherwise.

Vote: Battle Mage

[MikeSC6]

Zwet is the play?

You may have asked to be replaced a while ago, but you then continued to post. I'd imagined that whatever the reason for your requesting replacement wasn't a problem any longer, because you continued to play the game. And the change in posting style comes before your requesting to be replaced.

Those last two posts, for example, are very different to your posting style early on. That leads me to believe that your townie-first-impression posting style early on was an act.

[MikeSC6]

@Mike: How could possibly been afraid that BM would "change his behavior" following your accusing him if that behavior was pure inactivity.

It wasn't the inactivity, it was the change of behaviour (of which the inactivity was a symptom). It was that he seemed pro-town early on (and with Xtoxm/millar seeming scummy on day 1 rather than a mafiosa, it would have been an act that had no down-side) and the change of tone later on makes it seem like that earlier pro-town-seeming behaviour was a conscious effort that has since lapsed.

But change of behaviour isn't something solid, and I can't really expect other people to agree with what my gut instinct is, I guess I should have waited to see if anything solid would come up.

@Battle Mage: I suppose it could be linked, if your dissatisfaction started a while before your request for a replacement. It could go either way, but my gut says you're scum.

[MikeSC6]

@Yos: During the first half of day 1, Battle Mage was very active, very keen, he gave off distinctly townie-vibes. At some point, it's impossible to pinpoint exactly where, this changed into a less townie posting style, notably pushing for a lynch against Yos based on very flimsy evidence (it may seem odd, after I suggested that we lynch Yos eventually as part of a plan to get rid of the extra vote, that I'd say this- but at the time I did say that I thought the evidence didn't hold up to scrutiny).

This makes me think that the early townie posting style was dishonest, that it was an act that lapsed once Battle Mage had secured a townie first-impression, an act that started to dissolve from he requested for a replacement and before he wasn't able to post on day 2. It's such a gradual thing, I didn't give it much thought on day 2 when Mufasa brought it up, I didn't think it would have been possible to analyze consistency of posting style after just a day, so I focussed on Mufasa rather than Battle Mage, but we now know that this was something Mufasa must have noticed honestly, since he flipped townie.

I realise this is all subjective, and too slight to trigger a lynch. It's like when you're reading someone elses game and you can sort of pick out who you think is scum without knowing how to defend that choice, the things they say just jars with you. And this is hardly something where you can pick out posts to demonstrate it, it's a long term change.

@Nabakov: I wanted to wait, reasoning that if he's scum, and didn't come under too much scrutiny, then he might take do something overtly scummy thinking that no one had their eye on him- though I was quick enough to post what I thought afterwards, wrongly thinking that if I'd convinced myself then there was enough evidence already.

[MikeSC6]

*"take the opportunity to" it should be on the first line of the last paragraph.

[MikeSC6]

Zwet has been consistent though- quick-hammers aren't cool, but I understand that Zwet likes to quick-hammer whether he's scum or not.

[MikeSC6]

Zwet has been consistent though- quick-hammers aren't cool, but I understand that Zwet likes to quick-hammer whether he's scum or not.

But does he only try to be the hammer like he is in this game? I don't have that answer at hand but I'm sure in other games he votes different people throughout the day before trying to be the hammer. I do think he likes to be the hammer though.

I don't know, I'm just going off what I've heard. I guess Zwet has a reputation that can make any odd behaviour explicable- that's a good meta to have if you're scum, but for it to work he has to be that way as scum and town, so I don't know what we can do with this information.

[MikeSC6]

What does EBWOP mean?

Do you agree with Ztife's scumhunting effort on the 4th of June, do you believe that he was actually going to hammer until he noticed what he noticed?

[MikeSC6]

Zwet is a constant scummy vibe. No matter what. My policy towards him is simple:
If he dies and is scum: Yay! Dead scum.
If he dies and is town: Yay! Dead zwet.

Zwet, so you know, I hold you as a person with the utmost respect. It's you as a player I want to kill.

considering you'd want Zwet to die wether town or scum, you could consider lynching him.

That way, if he's scum he's dead. If he's not you can kill me due to dissatisfaction clause.

Now this is scummy.

Unvote

,

Vote: dramonic

You want to lynch Zwet because someone else wants to and you want them to vote for someone else, not because you think it would be pro-town to lynch Zwet?

And promising yourself for a lynch if Zwet isn't scum? Do you actually think Zwet's scum or are you latching onto what you think is an easy target in order to survive for one more day?

[MikeSC6]

Care to not attempt a quiclynch on me Mike? I have stated CLEARLY why I want Zwet lynched and you know it, you were the FIRST to respond to my accusations -_-

I responded saying that they represent a normal Zwet- I don't mean to give Zwet a free pass to do whatever he likes, but his behaviour is normal for him. There's no reason to believe he's scum because of behaviour he displays in every game.

[MikeSC6]

So based on the fact his meta is to act like scum, you won't vote him because he IS scummy?

I'm saying that in the context of what we know about Zwet, there's no way of knowing if it's indicative of scumminess or not.

If we had a scenario where we could point out scummy behaviour, and show how this behaviour is beneficial for scum, then that would be a different story. But I don't see it with Zwet.

[MikeSC6]

I still like my case on MikeSC. Other players are sticking to their same very old cases, despite plenty of new things directly related to their case happening since then and their neglect to comment on it and also their ignoring of new things in the game that have happened since their cases that the town could benefit from their comments on.

I think Mike's vote on Dramonic was pretty horrible, like he was looking for a reason to vote rather than paying attention to a larger span of game content.

I voted Dramonic because of his wheedling, his trying to get Zwet lynched rather than himself on

very

flimsy evidence. Trying to influence a lynch for the reason of self-preservation is scummy, and that's what it looks like to me.

[MikeSC6]

Give me an intelligent reason to lynch me, Mike.

What's not intelligent about what I've already said?

[MikeSC6]

considering you'd want Zwet to die wether town or scum, you could consider lynching him.

That way, if he's scum he's dead. If he's not you can kill me due to dissatisfaction clause.

"you could consider lynching him"- that sounds to me like wheedling.

Gorrad talking about wanting Zwet to die whether scum or town is pretty odd, but trying to reinforce that is even more so.

And you can't be sure that Zwet's scum, I don't particularly think he is. So why would a townie say something like "if he's not you can kill me..."? If Zwet's town, and you're town, we would be down two townies. That is not town play.

@Gorrad: If you're honest about wanting Zwet dead whether town or scum, why not mention this earlier and why Zwet in particular?

[MikeSC6]

Also Mike, you know basically you want to lynch me because I want to lynch Zwet... how does that work?

It's not wanting to lynch Zwet, it's all the other things that went alongside it- things I've already adequately explained.

[MikeSC6]

If you can't do it because of rulebreaking- couldn't you explain what it is you were trying to do?

[MikeSC6]

I actually think Dramonic has a point here- but as long as we take the possibility of Lovers into consideration as we play, we should be able to work around it without going the whole hog and possibly killing two townies.

[MikeSC6]

I'll be V/LA (does that mean Vacation/Limited Activity?) from this Saturday, for one week.

[MikeSC6]

I'm actually still here! The day had ended when I got back.

I agree with having millar13 as executioner if we can- it's the only way we can be sure we'd get full and accurate information.

Vote for Executioner: millar13

[MikeSC6]

Well, i got prodded by some night action overnight, and told that im still in the game until a replacement gets sorted. So i guess i'm still around. I'll once again say that, if made executioner, i will retract my replacement request. I wont reread, but i'll be around to tell you the results (which is effectively what the executioner is for). I've said i'm happy to be modkilled in the meantime, so you can regard me as confirmed town, and i'm not leaving the site any time soon.

How exactly does that mean we can regard you as confirmed town?

[MikeSC6]

@Battle Mage: It seems to me like you'd want to cause some shenanigans with the role, whether town or not. If you're willing to be replaced out, yet still remain active on the site, there must be something in it for you in the Executioner role for it to make you stay active.

If you plan on telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I don't see what you'd get out of it.

I don't want to see you replaced, but if we elect you Executioner that means we won't know your role until the end of the game, as you'd be told your role on the lynch and nobody else.

[MikeSC6]

Shall we wait and see if millar gets replaced, or comes back posting? If he gets replaced, then it should certainly be millar. If he comes back- can we trust that he'd stay committed?

[MikeSC6]

Just in case my millar vote didn't pass over-

Unvote: millar

Vote: Zwet

[MikeSC6]

Oops, I meant for Executioner-

Unvote

Vote for Executioner: Zwet

[MikeSC6]

Good call on Battle Mage, he's claimed vanilla townie and tried to get the high profile Executioner role, which I don't think a pro-town power role would risk.

And there are definately more anti-town roles, as someone died during the night. I can't imagine we'd have two Witches/vigilantes. It's possible that the Piper targeted The Replacement- and he didn't get added to the list because he was dead, but hasn't the Piper been adding two to the list each night? Although it could be that having a new dancer killed in the night disrupts the whole process.

Anyway, I agree with Battle Mage, I really don't think he's town (let alone "confirmed town").

Vote: Battle Mage

[MikeSC6]

The Replacement died last night, it was posted a few pages ago (He was a town power role). If he was dancing previously to that, then that means the Piper couldn't have targeted him last night- which means the Piper must have skipped last night's action, rather than, as I thought possible, targeting The Replacement who then died.

[MikeSC6]

Unvote

- Battle Mage can't be the Piper then (I'd still consider lynching you as scum though).

Do we want to lynch someone who we think is scum who is dancing (and so put off the Piper for a day or so), or lynch someone who isn't dancing to try and get the Piper for good?

If the first, I'd lynch Battle Mage. If the second, I really don't know. Looking for the Piper, the only thing I can think of is if someone illogically defended a dancer from being lynched, but I don't remember anything like that happening and anyway, as long as the Piper stays safe from both the lynch and the nightkill they wouldn't need to do anything like that.

[MikeSC6]

I don't think it would be helpful to town to lie about the result of a lynch at all (that goes without saying). I don't see how Battle Mage's posts would fit into a town play at all- especially this "I'm confirmed town because I've asked for a replacement" while still posting.

But we can be sure he's not the Piper. With six left not dancing, it's possible that tomorrow could be our last chance to lynch the Piper (taking deaths into account). Although by adding dancers the Piper's narrowing it down for us.

[MikeSC6]

Offering to be modkilled wouldn't help anyone from any side. I can't imagine there ever being a role in any game where the win condition was to be modkilled. It's definately not particularly pro-town.

And the Piper is the thing that we think is making people dance, because this game is based on a card game that has a Piper that does that.

[MikeSC6]

Does anyone have access to the original game? If age and gender had something to do with picking the roles, maybe there's a way we could work it out? I can't find anything on Google that suggests age dictated role in the original game, though.

Jahudo's age stands out, but I can't remember considering Jahudo to be acting scummy.

[MikeSC6]

I agree that BM is scummy, but it would be better to target someone who's scummy and could possibly be the Piper, in my opinion.

6 left not dancing. One of them we think is the Piper.

So the worst case scenario is- we lynch someone who isn't dancing but isn't the Piper. That's 4 left. Nightkill another non-dancer, that's 3 left. 2 new dancers, 1 left. We'd have a 50/50 chance of hitting the Piper tomorrow (as a worst case scenario).

If we lynch a dancer to try and thin the numbers, it's possible that could help the Piper- as they could be left tomorrow with two non-dancers other than the Piper. Worse odds when it comes to lynching the Piper.

[MikeSC6]

Gorrad hasn't seemed scummy- but I don't suppose a Piper would. And thinking about it, why hasn't the Piper had Gorrad dancing? He's never been close to a lynch, and hasn't lurked to a degree that it would make him particularly lynchable as scum.

About his defence of BM though, if we think he's the Piper why would this matter? I can't imagine there being a two-man Piper team. I don't see how that fits in at all?

Vote: Gorrad

- I think the Piper would have had you dancing by now if it was someone else.

[MikeSC6]

Why do you think we should be looking at Yos? It's possible that Yos could be either the Piper (which would explain him not wanting the mayor role at the beginning... though that could easily just be personal taste not wanting such a high profile position) or scum that has had to play town-like because of the mayor position- but I don't know. I just don't get that vibe.

[MikeSC6]

@Mod: How are replacements going?

It looks like Battle Mage isn't coming back this time. I hope he does, it's much harder to get a read on replacements, and the consistency-over-time tell is thrown out the window. Are there any other past players who are still active on the site, does anyone know?

[MikeSC6]

I'm dancing now- Zwet, what's the situation?

[MikeSC6]

Can we be certain that nightkills would happen before the Piper acts? This could be as much of a gamble as lynching Jahudo would be.

We'd have to trust that the mafia kill before the Piper can act. We'd have to trust that the mafia's win condition is opposed to the Piper's. We'd have to trust that Jahudo isn't just a townie fakeclaiming in order to get Starbuck lynched (though that's a bit farfetched...)

On the plus side- if the gamble pays off and the mafia do lose if the Piper wins, and Jahudo is either a werewolf or the Piper, they'd have no choice but to kill off the Piper, and we'd have a free track to use as we wish.

There could easily be a tracking-misdirector, I suppose, so we can't say for certain that it's Jahudo.

Can anyone tell me whether Cult Leaders and other similar roles win if they get nightkilled on the same night that they recruit enough to win? Does the kill happen before or after their action?

[MikeSC6]

Vote: No Lynch

I guess this is the safest way- though I really don't like Jahudo trying to convince us that kills come first. I don't think a Piper would know if kills came first or not though- so this could just be WIFOM- trying to dissuade us from doing it by the back door.

[MikeSC6]

Yeah, I was scum- you got me spot on with the day 2 jumping on the bandwagon.

Thanks for modding, guys!