MKM II GAME OVER

[populartajo]

Also we think that Looker is prob scum. But we dont get support in this game full of useless lurky people. If he claims now and you believe his claim, then you stop wasting time in him. If you dont believe his claim then you confirm your thoughts and start hunting his soul until he dies.

Bonus fact: you get tons of reactions of people regarding the claim.

Mod edit
Visible Votecount

-zwetschenwasser (5): AceMarksman, caf19, Moratorium, populartajo, Gorrad
-populartajo (2): zwetschenwasser, ortolan
-Moratorium (1): Empking
-Looker (1): Kast
-Gorrad (1): WeyounsLastClone

Not voting (6): killa seven, ZEEnon, Riceballtail, Looker, sirdanilot, semioldguy

With 16 alive it takes 9 real votes to lynch.

[semioldguy]

Asking people to prove/explain how they are town is a wasted exercise. Actually though, this raises an interesting point (which seems like a natural follow up to Tajo's plan from yesterday, and I'm surprised nobody raised this).

If we assume that MK cannot buy/acquire BA items, then players who bought BA items last night and did not use them could potentially confirm themselves by trading them now to prove that they did indeed purchase such an item

. This ONLY works if we assume that ONLY BA can buy BA items (and if players who can buy BA items actually *did* buy BA items).

In application, I think there are too many risks to do this as a mass/universal action. However, we could use it as an additional check against mislynching. If Zwet has a BA item, he could trade it to a players who suspects him and use that to prove ability to acquire BA items.

I don't like this for a few reasons.
(1) If any BA players are holding onto items, I don't think it would be wise to alert the Mushroom Kingdom as to where those items are because they may have ways to steal or cancel items as well as just killing the person who has the item. I don't know what happens to items being held by someone who dies, but my guess would be that they disappear and are wasted.
(2) Passing the BA item to someone else could just be giving our item into the hands of Mushroom Kingdom. There are multiple bad things that could come from this and if scum did get one of our items then we could never use items as confirmation again knowing that one of our items is unaccounted for.
(3) I also don't want to risk trading an item as a claim method as we don't know if there are any item stealing roles or not. Last game had both coin and item stealing, but the town was fortunate enough to eliminate those roles early and didn't suffer the consequences from the coin pooling plan.
(4) The fact that the trading is not announced publicly as it was last game leaves the door open for several things to go wrong.

[caf19]

I don't think Looker should claim.

Yesterday I found him very suspicious; today he hasn't really made any meaningful posts. We can get more out of him - there's no need to rush at this stage.

Looker, you need to make an effort to catch up with your reading, or at least tell us who you think is scummy from the recent posts or what you've read so far. It's for your own good, because if you don't then I'll be forced to rely only on my read of you from yesterday; i.e. that you're scummy.

[Empking]

Unvote

Vote: Zwet

The whole role PM from the site isn't very good.

[Moratorium]

Theory time:

I think qwints died because a nightkill attempt was redirected. It's something that caf19 mentioned a while back.

More specifically, I think it's possible that qwints himself put the nightkill order in, and it was reflected back at him by whoever he chose to kill. That would seem to make more sense than a redirection in that qwints wasn't exactly a huge case of suspicion during day 1, so if he wasn't the one that put the kill order in, it's probable that he would have had to have been chosen by the "redirector" as it were, and there wasn't much incentive to pick him that I can see.

[AceMarksman]

Perhaps qwints attacked a character like a spiny buzzy or something.

[Kast]

@Tajo-
-I don't like how instead of arguing/explaining your position, you just play the "we have different play styles" card.

-Your analysis of benefits from pushing a Looker claim COMPLETELY FAILS to account for the most likely scenario of Looker deciding not to claim.

-You continue to use the fallacious claim that any action is pro-town if it generates questions and discussion. A counter-example: if you suddenly decided to push each player to claim whether they are a cop/investigative role. That would definitely generate discussion and questions. The reactions from each person would tell us a lot. However, it would NOT be an overall pro-town move.

-You are incorrect in stating that your decision to press for Zwet's claim is based on a change in opinion from not thinking he is scum to thinking he is scum. You specifically clarified that you were not sure whether he was scum or town when you pushed for his claim. Previously, you did not push for his claim despite warning him that his behavior was unreasonable and going to lead to his lynch.

Also, regarding SK, you did not initially call for his claim, despite suspicion of him.

I don't think either of these necessarily indicate that you are scum. I think they both show that you are being inconsistent in claiming that you can't understand reasons to follow conventions.

-I had a pretty neutral read on Zwet. Based on the large number of people who are jumping over a non-literal and non-intuitive interpretation of his comment, I am leaning towards Zwet=town and scum are trying to take advantage of his normally anti-town play style to achieve a mislynch.

@Semioldguy-
I agree that it is too risky to do any mass/universal trading scheme.

I don't immediately agree with your comments on individual players who are going to be lynched trading items to confirm themselves. I think some of your concerns can probably be handled by the specific implementation. I think some of your concerns are silly.

(1) Agreed and is a point against mass trading. Does not apply to individuals who are about to be lynched.

(2) We don't have to complete trades. A trade can be offered and rejected, but the offer to trade will still confirm that the player has the item.

If a player goes ahead and accepts the item trade instead of rejecting the offer, then we pretty much just confirmed one of the two players involved as scum. I think that is definitely worth letting scum get ahold of a single BA item. It also doesn't mean we cannot use the method in future; it just means we cannot use that method with that specific item.

(3) Not sure how exactly the item stealing worked for MKMI, but maybe someone can clarify (also I sent a PM to mod about that). If the stealing only worked on actual trades (ie. possible and accepted), then offering a trade and then rejecting it would clear that problem.

(4) I don't see this as a very big problem. We have a potential resource to avoid a mislynch. If the townie facing the lynch gets screwed by scum lying about the trade, then we lynch and immediately find out that it was indeed a townie telling the truth.

@Mora-
Possible. This speculation is a bit dangerous as it can help scum determine if different players have such a role abilities based on their reactions.

[Moratorium]

A trade can be offered and rejected, but the offer to trade will still confirm that the player has the item.

22) It is also possible to give coins or items to someone else. This can be done at any time by sending me a pm saying what item or how many coins you want to give, to which player, and whether you want to remain anonymous or not. You will get a pm back from me, saying whether the transaction was successful or not, and the other will receive the item/coins right away. The transaction might fail, for example, if you want to give an item to someone who is already holding an item. If the transaction fails, the player who was about to receive an item doesn’t get a pm about the transaction.

Nothing in the ruleset indicates the option for the receiving player to reject receipt of an item.

[Gorrad]

Theory time:

I think qwints died because a nightkill attempt was redirected. It's something that caf19 mentioned a while back.

More specifically, I think it's possible that qwints himself put the nightkill order in, and it was reflected back at him by whoever he chose to kill. That would seem to make more sense than a redirection in that qwints wasn't exactly a huge case of suspicion during day 1, so if he wasn't the one that put the kill order in, it's probable that he would have had to have been chosen by the "redirector" as it were, and there wasn't much incentive to pick him that I can see.

1) How is this relevant to what we're talking about?

2) How does it help town?

3) Do you realize that if this IS the case, you've just stopped scum from ever targetting that person again?

[Gorrad]

EBWOP: Also, I'm going to restate (or clarify, if I haven't said it yet) that while I cannot buy or use items, I can both give and recieve them.

[WeyounsLastClone]

I find the idea a bit strange that lots of people would have bought an item already, considering the amount I started with.
@ Gorrad, you probably can't explain, but why would you be able to have items when you can't use them? To me it seems a bit of an excuse by you on the 'having hands and should actually be able to hold items' thing.
I agree with Gorrad though that what Mora brings up on qwints again isn't really helpful at this point. Even it's the truth (but it seems a bit farfetched) it doesn't help too much.

[AceMarksman]

I can vouch for gorrad that his PM matches mine. The hold and pass items thing is probably so we can get letters.

[Gorrad]

Dude, I got no clue. I'm guessing it's a mechanics thing: If I couldn't, then someone could send me something and confirm part of my role by either getting a message saying I'm unable to get it or (if it was just auto-deleted) if there's an ability that lets you see someone's items it could be confirmed that way.

[Gorrad]

Simulposted. Yeah, maybe letters too. I'm guessing that's a night-talk thing.

Actually, since they're all-allignment, can someone tell me exactly what the letter and 10-coin block do/how much they cost? Just so I stay somewhat in the loop.

[populartajo]

-I don't like how instead of arguing/explaining your position, you just play the "we have different play styles" card.

But we do.

-Your analysis of benefits from pushing a Looker claim COMPLETELY FAILS to account for the most likely scenario of Looker deciding not to claim.

Why dont we let him decide?

You continue to use the fallacious claim that any action is pro-town if it generates questions and discussion.

When did I say ANY action is protown if it generates questions and discussion?

-You are incorrect in stating that your decision to press for Zwet's claim is based on a change in opinion from not thinking he is scum to thinking he is scum.

I asked Zwet to claim for the same reason Im asking Looker to claim. They are both useless and I want them either dead or confirmed so a)scum can nk them or b)we dont waste time suspecting them.

Also, regarding SK, you did not initially call for his claim, despite suspicion of him.

Do your homework, Kast.

Also, SK you might consider claiming since we dont know how many votes you REALLY have and you could be close to a lynch.

[zwetschenwasser]

Unvote

Vote: Zwet

The whole role PM from the site isn't very good.

I still don't even know what site you're referring to. Isn't it possible that the mod might just have copied it?

[Kast]

@Mora-
Yeah, I fail at reading.

Also, after re-reading the rules on items, this came up:

The information of the items you can buy will appear in your role pm.

This implies to me that Qwints having information on the BA items may mean that Qwints (and/or any player on the MK team who had this information) could buy the items which he had information for.

@Gorrad&Ace-
To clarify:
Gorrad: Role PM states that he cannot buy OR use items. It also states that he can trade and receive items. He has hands.
Ace: Role PM states that he cannot buy items. It also states that he can trade and receive items. He has no hands and the inability to buy items is a result of not having hands. Further clarification from the mod states that he also cannot use items.

@Tajo-
-That is irrelevant to my point. However, I wasn't completely fair since you provided some explanations. Please provide explanation for the parts that you did not do so.
-He is welcome to decide whether to claim or not. Your implication that Looker claiming will prove that your call for his claim is pro-town is a fallacy that affirms the consequent. Whether it is pro-town or not pro-town to force him to claim is independent of whether he actually chooses to claim or not.
By your same implication, you could argue that it is a great idea to buy a lottery ticket

if

you win.
-You have twice asserted that simply generating questions and discussion is sufficient criteria to determine that an action is pro-town, despite the problems raised against those actions. This is equivalent, but you hide the craplogic by keeping it implicit.
-So if they are town, then instead of wasting

time

suspecting them, we waste our

lynch

mislynching them?

And to clarify, you admit that you are not actually calling for a claim because you think they are scum. You are asking for a claim because you think they are clearly anti-town regardless of affiliation.

Does this mean you feel it is better to spend the time on pressuring a claim from Zwet/Looker rather than spending time scumhunting among other players?

If Looker presents a believable claim, but maintains his anti-town behavior, will you stop wasting anymore time on him?

-I did, I didn't post because it was extremely obvious and clear that your behavior was different. You voted for SK and called him your most suspicious player but did NOT call for a claim. You continued arguing with SK for your next several posts.

You then voted Ort without asking for a claim. You repeatedly call Ortolan scummy without once asking for a claim.

You return to calling SK scum without asking for a claim.

You only asked for a claim much later after there was more support for his lynch and a possibility that he might be close to lynch.

So, guess you didn't do your homework?

Also, the whole point for mentioning SK is because it is an example showing that you do not act in a manner consistent with your claimed belief that it is pro-town to immediately force scummy players to claim.

[populartajo]

Kast, the great question you should answer is this:

How do we know that zwet and Looker are town if they continue to be anti-town?

[populartajo]

If Looker presents a believable claim, but maintains his anti-town behavior, will you stop wasting anymore time on him?

Sure that is the whole idea of asking him to claim.

Also you cant compare ort-SK with zwet and Looker. Ort and SK werent useless people.

[populartajo]

Also, the whole point for mentioning SK is because it is an example showing that you do not act in a manner consistent with your claimed belief that it is pro-town to immediately force scummy players to claim.

I dont think so but why are we wasting time debating in a silly argument? I dont intend to convince you. You are not going to convince me.

Who do you think is scum?

[populartajo]

Mod, please prod the following players.

-killa seven
-Riceballtail
-Surye ZEEnon
-ortolan
-sirdanilot

Ok, we are in a very shitty situation. We do have a leading suspect (zwet) but we dont have something concrete to work with.

Some remarkable events.

Zwet : his claim is meh. Not too belieavable but not too scummy. Really dont know what to make of it since you know Im not the specialist in analysing claims. Antitown all the way, makes no sense. Should we lynch him or should he be kept alive?

Looker : antitown all the way. Playing the retarded card. Scummy vote in his first serious post of the game without having reread the thread. I think he should claim.

Ort : softclaims that he knows zwet is town or likely town. I think he should clarify. Rolefishing my ass.

My plan : worked in catching a scum. Didnt work in confirming townies since qwints and some other scum apparently knew what the items did. Still big prob of having third parties in the group of people not having item descriptions. Should we pressure that people?

This is my scumlist

Prob town

Mora
Kast
oldguy
caf19
gorrad
ace
WLC

Neutral but should be lynched if they dont start making sense. In fact, I bet there is at least one scum in this group of people not contributing.

k7
zeenon
emp
zwet
sirdan

Scum

ort
looker
rice

Unvote Vote : Looker.

[Empking]

Unvote

Vote: Zwet

The whole role PM from the site isn't very good.

I still don't even know what site you're referring to. Isn't it possible that the mod might just have copied it?

Its not very likely.

[populartajo]

Unvote

Vote: Zwet

The whole role PM from the site isn't very good.

I still don't even know what site you're referring to. Isn't it possible that the mod might just have copied it?

Its not very likely.

Empking who is scum?

[Empking]

Unvote

Vote: Zwet

The whole role PM from the site isn't very good.

I still don't even know what site you're referring to. Isn't it possible that the mod might just have copied it?

Its not very likely.

Empking who is scum?

I think its Zwet, Mora and some more people.

[sirdanilot]

I'm at like 41 or 42 now. I have to reread those since I didn't participate in a lot of the talking since I was reading the game.......

Sorry for taking well over a week but up until today I didn't have my own computer, the game is pretty damn long, and real life can get in the way too.