Mafia 37: Werewolves - Game over!

[esme]

Arbitrary

vote: PeaceBringer

[esme]

Currently, it seems that people are divided between voting against a no-lyncher and voting against people taking advantage of a no-lyncher.

Now, this seems a bit at odds with the reaction to Pooky. We don't know whether the claim is true, if it is true we don't know if there isn't one scum involved regardless. So, why do you automatically not vote him because of his claim?

[esme]

unvote: PeaceBringer
vote: coolbot

I agree with Stam that it is questionable that the FD vote suddenly just seems to have been a disciplinary measure.

O Phoibe Apollon, shining wise one, share with me your wisdom: What do the o.O's mean and why are they spam?

[esme]

I suggest that the not-voting people start to vote and if not, we go for them.

[esme]

You are right that I might soon have no choice besides no lynch and joining "your" band-wagon. And the reason that there is no choice is that there are five people not voting. Therefore, I encouraged them to do so.
That you don't support me in this and instead attack me, makes me not more eager to follow your advice.

BTW, however suspicious he might be, Dranko *is* voting for someone.

[esme]

This was in response to Phoebus.
brushhopper: This is not the kind of game where it is extremely hard to come up with a role claim.
Bamboomancer: So you suggest, we all just sit there and wait for a good reason to vote? And those of us who voted did so because we are absolutely *sure*?
Not voting because you are unsure leads to no lynch the first day, gives no clues for the next days *and* makes for a boring day.

I swear I'm starting to understand IS.

[esme]

Phoebus 155:

esme - there's already a fair bandwagon on someone who is being non commital at this time. Why would you want to dismantle it and go after someone else? Especially after you seem to have taken a stand against Coolbot for being a disciplinarian.

milkman 161:

i'm kind of voting but here to generate more conversation i will unvote, vote:esme Is that a little better?

PeaceBringer 174 (total post!)

unvote Dranko, vote Esme

Phoebus 175:

esme -
What I posted earlier was out of puzzlement. Not an attack.
However, it is now.
Your logic about non voters was redundant for that time frame. Others unvoted and revoted and he claimed. So your suggestion still smells iffy and seemed aimed at bandwagon deconstuction.
With practically nothing to go on, it's just something I noticed. That you would call it an attack, is interesting.
With even more "practical nothing" to go on for now, I might as well vote for you.
Claim villager or something so we can lynch you without too much ceremony?

I've listed the reasons given for the votes on me above.
Vote 1: Seems to be annoyed by me asking people to vote and
votes me out of spite.
Vote 2: No reason or comment given at all for switching to me
(switching from Dranko is of course understandable after his claim).
Vote 3: Reason given: bandwagon deconstruction by me, see below.


I've copied your first post about me 'dismantling' the bandwagon above. If "non commital" refers to non-voting (as is reasonable to assume since it is an answer to me asking for votes) it is simply wrong. And I said why I wanted to go for someone else.
Your post was an attack because 'dismantling' is a very manipulative way of saying I wanted to go for someone else.

[esme]

Pooky, I think you missed a not in your first sentence.

[esme]

Ok, I suspect that Pooky will stop speaking for the day.
I find it absolutely ridiculous that none of the non-voters have any votes on them while I'm getting voted for pointing them out. I recommend that you read only their posts, it doesn't take long. Maybe you'll agree that while Coron looks very suspicious (not saying anything after his take on mneme didn't find support), The_Machine86 certainly takes the cake for useless posts.

Therefore,

unvote: CoolBot, vote: The_Machine86

. And while you are at it, look at Locus Cosecants posts for future reference (will not take long, either) and note how convenient the cop investigation claim is.

[esme]

I did *not* tell you to vote for dranko. Just because you think you know the reasons for the non-voters doesn't change that I'm getting voted by you exactly for what I said, pointing at non-voters.

Please at least pretend to read my posts and votes, the "just because we're not voting for who you think is scum" is so far off.

[esme]

Ok, if you want to check on Coron first, let's see:

unvote: The_Machine86
vote: Coron

Ironically, while Dranko's claim rightly stopped the bandwagon on him, it started to make me really suspicious of him.

[esme]

Ok, just to give this more context:

Post 151: Phoebus asks people to vote on the Dranko bandwagon.

Dranko can't seem to be arsed to do anything about it.

Maybe some more voting pressure will help. 6/11 may not be enough.

Post 153: I don't see why I should change from the person I find most suspicious while 5 people are not voting which would certainly constitute enough voting pressure.

I suggest that the not-voting people start to vote and if not, we go for them.

Post 155:
Instead of following my lead and looking for his missing pressure votes among the non-voters (who might just as well to follow *my* vote instead of Phoebus'), Phoebus calls this dismantling the bandwagon.

esme - there's already a fair bandwagon on someone who is being non commital at this time. Why would you want to dismantle it and go after someone else?

I'm not sure what to think about Phoebus (or Dranko) after all this.
Interestingly enough, I was voting for CoolBot at the time which I will return to, since no one else is interested in voting for non-voters

unvote: Coron, vote: CoolBot

As to CoolBot's question: I do think it is in the interest of the mafia not to draw attention to themselves. I also think that the activity level of the mafia will be divided. I am not sure about the probabilities to have mafia here or there, but I am sure that an inactive mafia is *much more difficult to catch later*.

[esme]

...and Vote: Esme .. This puts him ...

I wonder if NanookTheWolf put the same amount of thought into the vote as she put in the last sentence.

[esme]

Yes, the gender misrepresentation was intentional to make sure my point was clear.

What are we trying to do right now? Vote esme into a claim?

Now, this is interesting. Remember that the reason people started voting on me is that I pointed at the non-voters. brushhopper is *still* non-voting but using "we".

Claim or defense.

Or, really, establish a voting pattern, since that's very useful for making inferences later on.

I would love to defend myself against whatever comes my way but I commented at length on the non-voting thing and other people have given either no reason to vote me or voted me because I have the most votes. I can hardly defend myself against this.

It's nice to see someone else say that establishing a voting pattern is a good thing.

[esme]

Double post removed by Moderator.

[esme]

Sorry for the multiple post, I've connection trouble.

[esme]

I just wanted to know what the town wanted to do with esme. Vote him until he claims, ask him to claim etc. Not just to find out his role or anything, but to maybe stop a townie lynch.

Ok, reason 1 not to lynch me: One day is not enough for people to realize I'm female.
I concede that after reading this post that your question is not unreasonable. But I still think you shouldn't use we, even the people voting for me vote me for various reasons.

I am certainly learning a lesson from this bandwagon and will be less foward about my opinion about non-voters in the future, but I still think it is a very bad reason to vote for me.

[esme]

I totally get what you are saying, but according to my count there are six votes on me, four people are not voting, 11 needed to lynch. I'm voted on because I suggested to pressure the non-voters to vote.
There's no progress because the people on my wagon would have to ask the non-voters to vote which would render their reason to vote for me moot. This is too ironic to claim on just six votes.

[esme]

Double post removed by Moderator.

[esme]

Double post removed by Moderator.

[esme]

Double post removed by Moderator.

[esme]

Double post removed by Moderator.

[esme]

Double post removed by Moderator.

[esme]

Double post removed by Moderator.

[esme]

Bah, should have known better. Dear all-powerful mod, could you remove some of my multiple posts? They were not visible on my computer for several minutes.

[esme]

Obviously, I also have to accept that noone else wants to go after CoolBot. Therefore:

unvote: CoolBot
vote: milkman

As far as my "decision" goes, I refer people to read my last post. I find it strange that afterwards milkman still insists that I have to claim on a third on the votes.

[esme]

Does anyone bother to read Post 151 before quoting Post 153 or shall I be "overdefensive" again and quote it again?

[esme]

Somehow, I am not sure that brushhopper checked that he wasn't already lynching me.

I'm a villager and I will draw your attention once more to the fact that my bandwagon started because I "tried to dismantle a bandwagon of someone with already six votes on him who might need more voting pressure" while I was expected to claim "villager or something so that we can kill you" at six votes.

The recent questions by milkman I have answered before and was labelled overdefensive because of it, just in case you wonder why I didn't answer them again.

[esme]

The vote-count changed from 7/16 to 8/17, so it does take checking to make sure.

[esme]

vote: Dranko20

[esme]

After Dranko's claim:

Also... *sigh* I believe him, but I fear what's going to happen with the doctor IS dead.

You really think the fact that there is an(other) cop coupled with the fact that Dranko didn't die coupled with the fact that Dranko made sure to remind us that there might be a second seer is not suspicious enough to warrant a vote ?

[esme]

Since everyone is happy with Dranko, I will unvote him.
After rereading I've come to the following decision:

unvote: Dranko20, vote: Locus Cosecant

[esme]

Esme voted Dranko for what I believe is no reason.

Maybe I would be more inclined to give an explanation if you first explained to me why my reasons for my previous vote are "no reason".

[esme]

Anyway, since I will have limited access starting in a couple of hours, I will just say that I actually gave the reason. I reread the thread. And if you reread the posts of Locus Cosecant, you will know why I voted. And if you are not going to reread the posts of Locus how would you decide whether I had a good reason, anyway?

[esme]

Three players and noone has bothered to display the posts of Locus and look at them.

[esme]

How often do I have to repeat my defense until it is at least acknowledged?

Time-line
1) Some people hardly post, some don't vote.
2) Phoebus complains about spam. (Two posts of two other people containing ascii art)
3) Phoebus asks for more votes on his band-wagon on Dranko.
4) I'm happy with my own band-wagon, think that complaining about spam and then being surprised that there are not enough votes is contradictory since the non-voters would be enough of a threat because they could lynch Dranko. Therefore, I think if he wants votes he should ask the non-voters. So, I say we should go after the non-voters (instead of asking me to switch vote).
5) This is "dismantling the band-wagon".
6) I strongly reject this and am accused of over-defensiveness and what not.
7) Phoebus says I should claim townie or something so that I can be lynched without ceremony.
8) Being angry about this, I get accused of more over-reaction and stuff.
9) After RL days of accusation and defense, I claim.
10) Not enough people switch on my band-wagon, though.
11) brushhopper votes for himself which is somehow enough reason to lynch him.
12) I vote for Dranko who I've already said I found scummy yesterday. In the meantime, we have a dead cop and he survived. The reasons might not be enough for other people, but they are obvious, so I didn't state them.
13) Since people seem to not vote for a claimed cop on day 2 on principle, I change my vote.
14) Locus has not only said little, he has said nothing of substance and not reacted to accusations.
15) Everything I say about other people is evaluated with the thought of how it could justify a vote on me and not how it could justify a vote on the other player.

*) It is my job to vote for the people I find most suspicious. It's the job of the pro-town people who vote for me to make sure that they have a good reason to vote for me. This might include the odd mouse-click even though it's hard work.