Open 156 - Friends and Enemies - Game Over before 816

[Alduskkel]

Vote Count #15

"I am a bee," said muzzz. "You can tell because my name sounds like the sound a bee makes."

Pictured: muzzz.

itacv2 (3) - ekiM, ZazieR, Santos
Exalt (2) - Sho Minamimoto, Debonair Danny DiPietro
ZazieR (2) - itacv2, Raivann
Toro (1) - muzzz
Santos (1) - Toro

[Exalt]

Thanks Mr. Mod. I think others should join me in voting for Exalt until he actually contributes.

Oh fuck you too


You haven't contributed either


And I have had to defend myself in 3 other games so far nonstop, which this game I have not... so admittedly I have not focused on this game much. I should probably stop making excuses and just do what I said I would huh? hahaha fine. I'll go back to page 1 and start rereading. Expect my post sometime soon.

[ZazieR]

Will be leaving shortly. But I want

Santos

to explain his change of behaviour in Mini 790 and here.

[itacv2]

Welcome, ConfidAnon.

@ everyone: Just wondering... but most of you have been leaving me alone lately regarding the lurking. I have been lurking quite a bit yet no one seems to have taken much notice. Can I ask why?

You keep promising you're back and ready to participate. Maybe we are giving you the benefit of the doubt too much. I've basically been waiting for you and Kise to get back so the game can continue. There's just under a week until deadline now so it'd be really good if you did get that analysis done.

I'm going to do analysis post soon. Can everyone please explain their current suspicions of players so far in the game? I want to know where everyone stands before I make a huge post that could influence anything, just in case people decide to backpeddle and state they never had any type of suspicions on certain players.

itacv2 is my prime suspect. His suggestion to lynch Raivann was by far the scummiest thing I've seen this game, and his attempt to backtrack and lie about having said that made things worse. I think he should be our lynch for today. I'm a bit bemused by how little attention this is getting.

I've had a bad feeling about Santos. He hasn't made a real vote all game as far as I can see. He followed DDD onto Raivann, said he liked the logic, then did a 180. Later he voted Kise for inactiveness and later unvoted. Why no real votes? What are his real suspicions?

I wasn't happy with Exalt's and Kise's inactivity. Not sure that it's scummy though. I found myself agreeing with a lot of what Confide has been saying in his catch-up analysis.

I believe that i have addressed so far evry question you have dared to ask, is there anyone else who like to make a question, or should we proceed to Zazier in the matter of him making all the questions and nobody questioning him.

I have one you never answered.

itacv2, why do you ignore post 201? Look:

I still think That DDD has a chance to be a big shot scum, lol, but he makes a point.

I think we might want to test the case.

Why? If Raivann is lynched and he is town we might be short of one people but a nontalkative one, since he is counterproductive is not a big deal

and might then watch the patterns of behavior , the bandwagoners and reactions to the lynch.

But u saying that I WANTED RAIVANN dead, that i cant permit, because

i never said i wanted him dead, nor i made a move against him

. I just explained my point of view in the current situation.

How do you explain this contradiction?

You did say you wanted Raivann dead, didn't you? That we should "test the case"? Even as you hedged your bets and said he might well be a townie, but lynching him anyway wouldn't be a disaster. Then you lied about it, and said you never moved against him. Then you ignored me when I pointed out the lie.

As you have that bolded now i have not to, thats clear, i didnt say lets lynch him, i say that IF. If, IF. IF, it was done THEN, THEN, THEN it was most likely to see a pattern.

And if you want to keep saying that i wanted Raivan dead, be so.

[itacv2]

I might as well be dead today, instead of tomorrow, because in either case that another person is found suspicioous they will keep pressuring with the same arguments which were misunderstood.

Ifg you like to proceed, i claim to be mason, and even when this might end up in scums wanting me dead, i would like to point out that when i suggested that there were no powerroles id did it knowing that i had the only power role available.

That even when i pointed that the approach to Raivann could be useful, i never voted for him, nor intended to create a bandwagon, even when it looked that way, I did tried to suggest that if it was taken into consideration what could have been an outcome, but i could have been misunderstood like other things they have trued to put on me.

[Santos]

What is my change of behavior?

[Santos]

As for 790, Zazie, why are you using a broken game to analyze my behavior here?

[Sho Minamimoto]

I see little issue with Santos at the moment. However, I am tired. I need sleep (it's late).

Talk to you zetta awesome guys later. *Falls out of chair.*

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Ifg you like to proceed, i claim to be mason, and even when this might end up in scums wanting me dead, i would like to point out that when i suggested that there were no powerroles id did it knowing that i had the only power role available.

If this is an outrageous scum gambit we need a mason counterclaim ASAP.

Furthermore, if he's un-counterclaimed is there any reason for his partner not to claim? The big use of the masons in this setup is basically having them as two confirmed pro-town players. If his partner isn't revealed, itacv2 is the obvious NK and we lose the other masons confirm-ability.

[Alduskkel]

Toro is V/LA until the 14th.

[Exalt]

Ifg you like to proceed, i claim to be mason, and even when this might end up in scums wanting me dead, i would like to point out that when i suggested that there were no powerroles id did it knowing that i had the only power role available.

If this is an outrageous scum gambit we need a mason counterclaim ASAP.

Furthermore, if he's un-counterclaimed is there any reason for his partner not to claim? The big use of the masons in this setup is basically having them as two confirmed pro-town players. If his partner isn't revealed, itacv2 is the obvious NK and we lose the other masons confirm-ability.

I agree. Masons don't start out alone..... He has a parter.....


So unless a partner claims... it proves itacv2 is lying and we lynch itacv2....


so it would be very advisable for his town to claim at this point

[ekiM]

If itacv2 is lying then a real mason should counter claim. Lying would be suicidal though, so I seriously doubt it.

Assuming he's legit, I think his partner probably should claim. I'm not firm on the theory here but I think DDD is right that masons do better to reveal themselves when they can confirm one another, then scum can't afford to fake counter.

By the way itacv2, for future reference, you weren't really that close to being lynched so you would've done better to hold back the claim. It's done now and you're essentially confirmed town (and probably dying tonight), so you can now scumhunt without people questioning your motivations. Please try to make the most of it.

Masons don't start out alone..... He has a parter.....

So unless a partner claims... it proves itacv2 is lying and we lynch itacv2....

so it would be very advisable for his town to claim at this point

Firstly, this is an OPEN SETUP. Go read it.

Secondly, you have this back-asswards. If he is lying scum then he will be counter claimed. If nobody else claims that means he's town but his partner has decided not to claim (or is V/LA). I think they probably should claim, but they might disagree. Suggesting we lynch itacv2 if his partner doesn't claim is wrong.

It's getting ridiculous how long you've promised an analysis and not delivered.

Unvote; Vote: Exalt

.

[Exalt]

It's getting ridiculous how long you've promised an analysis and not delivered.

Unvote; Vote: Exalt

.

Yeah probably... except Meta game me and find out if its a true scum tell. I promised the analysis in 3 seperate games. I got the little "vote exalt because he didn't follow through right away" thing as well from them.


One game I was a townie, the other game I was a cop. Go ahead and meta.

If you don't meta, I would assume you are too lazy to even try or care, OR you are scum for voting me based on an analysis post that I didn't bring up yet. That isn't a scum tell, sorry.

But keep "pressure" voting me if you like, because frankly I don't give a shit right now. I'll do things on my own time when I feel like doing them. If you don't agree go ahead and lynch me, but if you are town I would say its the wrong thing to do.

[itacv2]

I just gave mafia an easy target for tonights lynch, so i suggest that my partner shut the hell up, He can claim if he like but that way things look i might end up dead and he will end up regular townie anyways since he would have noone to talk at night.

For me, i wont reveal my partners identity, until he tell me to, or become absolutle necesary.

Exalt i would like to think good about your threats.

Zazier, i really think you need to be questioned but since so far i couldnt do it i invite another player to do it

[ZazieR]

What is my change of behavior?

Your reaction towards me.
Now explain.

As for 790, Zazie, why are you using a broken game to analyze my behavior here?

Even if it was broken, it doesn't mean that it had an influence on your behaviour. You acted like that due to your thoughts and your role.

Also, why didn't you give your thoughts about the claim?

[Exalt]

I just gave mafia an easy target for tonights lynch, so i suggest that my partner shut the hell up, He can claim if he like but that way things look i might end up dead and he will end up regular townie anyways since he would have noone to talk at night.

For me, i wont reveal my partners identity, until he tell me to, or become absolutle necesary.

Considering masons are basically useless roles that are only good for knowing each other is town... I would say it is in both of your best interests to claim.

You are going to be lynched without it, and then your partner will not be able to be cleared either.

Listen to this Itav:

If you and your partner claim, and one of you were to be NK'd, the other person is considered a cleared townie 100%. If you both don't claim, then you will end up being lynched, and then your partner would never be able to clear himself.

Thinking logically, it is towns best interest and your own to both claim at this point.

[ZazieR]

I don't get you

Unvote; Vote: Exalt

Till we get the promised analysis.

I'll accept that.

Against ekiM, you present meta. Against DDD, you 'accept' his vote.
Why the difference?

[Exalt]

I don't get you

I'll accept a single vote or two, but a bandwagon based on me not having my analysis case yet due to time constraints and overall me being lazy is kind of ridiculous.

If they are pressure votes, then let them be pressure votes... but a bandwagon of "pressure votes" defeats the purpose. If I got lynched because everyone wanted to "pressure" me then it is kind of scummy don't you think?

[ZazieR]

Itacv2

, claim your partner for obv reasons.

Unvote Vote Raivann

[ZazieR]

If you and your partner claim, and one of you were to be NK'd, the other person is considered a cleared townie 100%. If you both don't claim, then you will end up being lynched, and then your partner would never be able to clear himself.

Not entirely true.

[Exalt]

If you and your partner claim, and one of you were to be NK'd, the other person is considered a cleared townie 100%. If you both don't claim, then you will end up being lynched, and then your partner would never be able to clear himself.

Not entirely true.

I believe it would be smarter for the two masons to claim rather than hide and let one of their fellow masons possibly get lynched as a fake claim. I do believe in that.

You said he should claim as well... so I'm wondering why you disagree?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

If you and your partner claim, and one of you were to be NK'd, the other person is considered a cleared townie 100%. If you both don't claim, then you will end up being lynched, and then your partner would never be able to clear himself.

Not entirely true.

I believe it would be smarter for the two masons to claim rather than hide and let one of their fellow masons possibly get lynched as a fake claim. I do believe in that.

You said he should claim as well... so I'm wondering why you disagree?

We are not going to lynch itacv2 unless someone counterclaims, period. To suggest otherwise represents a huge disconnect from reality.

[Exalt]

Also:

Whens the deadline on this game? I looked back on page 1 and noticed quite a few players are V/LA til like the 14th. Someone said we had a week deadline.. but I never found the mod post that said that...

If we only had a week to go, then people will be V/LA past the deadline... that is pretty stupid to not have a deadline extension if people are going to be away for it.

[ZazieR]

If you and your partner claim, and one of you were to be NK'd, the other person is considered a cleared townie 100%. If you both don't claim, then you will end up being lynched, and then your partner would never be able to clear himself.

Not entirely true.

I believe it would be smarter for the two masons to claim rather than hide and let one of their fellow masons possibly get lynched as a fake claim. I do believe in that.

You said he should claim as well... so I'm wondering why you disagree?

Don't want to comment until itacv2 has claimed. But he's not the lynch for today.

[ZazieR]

Oh, and I almost forgot. Deadline is August 13th.