Newbie 853 (Endgame, Mafia win!!)

[DTMaster]

@Vendel

1. You do realize that my vote was used to pressure more information out of brother at the time before his claim. That is the nature of action and reaction response that brother was applying to geek.

I was doing the same thing when I first presented my intial case before I posted a V/LA status. What happened afterwards with the selfvote/hammer occured while I was away and I had no control over it. This is why when I read the night results I face palmed from brother's selfvote as the town cop.

2. You still do not addresssed concern's vote on brother with your analysis. I smell fake scum hunting here if you are addressing people who voted on brother, but failed to provide explain how concerned is cleared in this argument.

Recall your original quote:

[quote"VW"] Now that it has been proven that he was town, I believe it has given us an opportunity for a town win. I am looking at the two persons who started and first bandwagoned this hunt, and those two were cruelty and DTMaster. I believe that we have one or two Mafia there. [/quote]

You only focus on the intial two votes that took before the cop claim. You did not addressed what happened afterwards. You also failed to show how mafia couldn't have joined on the bandwagon afterwards.

[Concerned]

/UNVOTE

My reason for the vote was simple, scum would feel more pressure on L-2 and hence divulge more information, players makes slips when they are nervous and I we are more likely to get a response that tells us something if a player is on L-2 then if they have a single meager vote.

Explaining this at the time would obviously render this moot. I can hardly say "My vote to add pressure in hopes of inducing a slip." it just alerts potential scum to what I am doing.

If you justify the reason for your vote straight away it just loses any potential impact it may have had.

I hardly think putting someone on L-2 is a "rash" move. No pro-village player would ever put him on L-1 after the first day and I don't think scum would make such a risky move as to hammer him either.
As far as I'm concerned it was perfectly safe to place DTM on L-2.

For now:
@DTMaster, you keep saying we lynched the cop who had no counter-claim against him but in this set-up if BN was scum there would only be a 50% chance that a counter-claim would come...

No counter claim simply wouldn't have proven his innocence. That said, I agree with you that the hammer was a bit rash. Although I find it hard to blame VW for this, as at that point in time I was so sure BN was scum I might have hammered him myself.

@Cruelty, I hope my explanation satisfies you for now, I would also like to add that my vote on you and Loli were not entirely unjustified either, the one on you in particular was more to get you to talk than anything else, after you cast suspicion on what I said without reasoning.



A lot has been said recently and I need a little more time to go through everything thoroughly before I contribute anything more meaningful.

[DTMaster]

@Concerned
A scum night kill will. Even scummy cop would get killed by mafia since he is game breaking against scum.

If there was no night kill then on day 2 I would test to see if brother's cop claim is true.

These are the conditions I set for myself in all PR claims. Even scummy ones since I have experience with scummy PRs.

If you go into my wiki and read up Foggy London Mafia, I was townie that replaced into a town that lost all 4 PRs in 1 day because of poor town play. Thus I now adopt the above thought to avoid the disaster that scum killed town in one night.

I wasn't here to post this before the hammer so no one is at fault for the hammer. Brother's self explosion added fuel to the fire and Troll's statement is accurate about this. It muddy's up the vote analysis on the wagon.

[cruelty]

I kept noting many times that the case against brothernature was weak, which was obvious.

No you didn't.

@Cruelty

You hold it against me that I hammered? I was thinking to myself, whoever is scum will probably bring up hammering to cast doubt on me, it is a classic. At the surface it seems like a good standard suspicion: whoever hammers is suspect the next day, and so on. That seems to be an often used argument, when I look at other games here, so it would seem valid to use. However, there was no other thing to do than to see if brothernature was scum or not in the end, to get that whole hunt out of the way. Which is obvious.

That's not what I said.

My vote was valid - others agree. Being first on a wagon isn't scummy, especially when I only posted once more that day against brothernature; I wasn't aggressively pushing a wagon, I made a justified vote and then brothernature played like a fool and got himself lynched.

Hammering a claimed cop on day one with

two weeks to deadline

is absolutely questionable.

I would bring up the detail that I was the ONLY one to oppose lynching brothernature, for days.

That's a lie. Reading through your posts in iso, you don't ONCE say anything to the effect that the brothernature wagon was a bad one. The only thing remotely close to a post declaring your claimed anti-wagon sentiments was a bit of musing on WIFOM.

Everyone else was either on his case or kept silent and let the hunt proceed. I could have jumped on that bandwagon at any time and no one would have thought it anything but natural; in fact, you, Cruelty, suggested that I was suspect for NOT doing so.

Quote me. I never said anything of the sort.


You still haven't answered my question from my previous post. Here:

When I repeatedly questioned DTMaster's weak grounds for lynching Loli, cruelty posted a suspicion that I could be protecting Loli because he was a scum buddy. According to cruelty, defending someone else before he has defended himself is scummy. (Which was exactly what he himself did when defending DTMaster!)

Please quote my defence of DTM.

This is where I vote you. You:

-

Lied

when you claimed to be opposing a brothernature lynch: you never said it was a bad lynch.
- Are trying to push through a suspicion over my initial brothernature vote being scummy when it obviously wasn't, and when I posted only once more against brothernature (ie: I didn't push the wagon at all).
-

Lied

when you said I called you suspicious for not voting brothernature.
- Hammered a claimed cop on day 1 with

two weeks

left in the day.

Vote: VendelWalker

[Zorblag]

@DTMaster, I guess I'll talk about about day one PR claims now as it continues to be an issue. Briefly, if scum know that the town will always wait on killing PRs till after day one you'll guarantee that scum will always claim PRs when they're at L-1. There are always ways to make claims that can't be easily tested the following day (claimed cops can say they were roleblocked or give innocent results; doctors can say they protected someone that didn't die or that they must have been night killed.) The mafia don't have a strong need to kill the cop in the setup we're in now, they just roleblock them. Even if it were a two goon setup with one real claimed PR the scum might leave them alive. Doctors probably won't get their protection right and unless the scum are playing suspiciously they cop is more likely to investigate an innocent than a guilty.

When you get down to it, if someone was scummy enough to claim (and claims should only happen when people are actually ready to lynch, not just when someone hits L-1) they should still be lynched in most cases anyhow. Unless the PR claim explains something new the lynch is actually more likely to hit scum than it is a PR anyhow and the outed PR has lost what benefits they would have provided the town. There should certainly be a discussion after the claim and if the town thinks that the claim really does something to clear the claimant then backing off is fine but that should be the exception rather than the rule.

All of that assumes that the claim comes when it should, when the player is going to be lynched for scummy play prior to the claim. If the claim comes up for some other reason then there should be different considerations. I'm also assuming that there's no counter claim because it's better for potential power roles to stay hidden in a case like that which they can safely do if they know that the town will follow through with a lynch on a scummy player who makes a claim they hope will save them.

All of that, of course, is my opinion on how claims should be handled. I'm not alone in holding it but there are other schools of thought out there. There are going to be some who agree with what you've said but what you're working with here really isn't the only right way to go about it. I can think of more times when I've lynched a claimed power role day one and had them flip scum than having them lynch power roles. The benefit to the town of catching someone scummy the first day is pretty big in this setup. I'd say that it usually outweighs the danger of lynching an outed power role.

@Concerned, I don't have anything against pressure but using a vote without a reason isn't a particularly good form of it so far as I'm concerned. I find it much more effective to press on issues that exist involving the person to see if any slips show up. As for the vote being safe, town players are certainly capable of making mistakes. If brothernature wasn't evidence of that this game I don't know what would be. Assuming that no one would turn an L-2 into a lynch in this situation isn't something that I think is wise; if two people had cast more votes what would you have taken away from that?

@Lizzy Tsoi, did you have anything that you wanted to share about geekalicious's interesting posts or would you like people to try to figure it out themselves?

@Vendelwalker, just some food for thought, the only ones who would have known that brothernature wasn't scum and therefore was worth defending would be the scum themselves. You seem pretty keen on making sure we know that you thought that for most of the day yesterday. Being the only person to have seen something that doesn't seem obvious at all to me in this case doesn't strike me as that much of a point in your favor.

Who other than Cruelty and DTMaster do you find suspicious at this time if anyone? You seem rather focused at the moment.

@Ezekial, you're now the only one who hasn't had anything to say today. It's not a trend that I'm at all comfortable with given your performance day one. I expect to get some input from you. Being new to the game is only an excuse that you can use for so long and I'm calling the time limit for it now. Who do you suspect of being scum at this point and why?

Vote: Ezekial

FoS: Vendelwalker

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[Concerned]

@Concerned, I don't have anything against pressure but using a vote without a reason isn't a particularly good form of it so far as I'm concerned. I find it much more effective to press on issues that exist involving the person to see if any slips show up. As for the vote being safe, town players are certainly capable of making mistakes. If brothernature wasn't evidence of that this game I don't know what would be. Assuming that no one would turn an L-2 into a lynch in this situation isn't something that I think is wise; if two people had cast more votes what would you have taken away from that?

Firstly I live the life of a lazy first year university student so in the event that someone did vote, I would have immediately unvoted if I could.
Obviously I'm not on my pc 24/7 (just almost ) and had there been a quick hammer on DTM and he flipped pro-village I would assume there would be at least one (if not two) scum who voted after me and depending on who voted, perhaps one scum before me.

I base this on the fact that, as you said we have a fairly knowledgeable group of players. If you, cruelty or lizzy had got on the wagon it would go against everything you have said and done previously.

Therefore I concluded that the only way DTM would have been lynched is if the wagon included at least some scum (more likely both, unless a pro-village Ezekiel was included, and he made a newb mistake).



To be honest I am a little wary of you Zorblag, I found this in the wiki under "How to be a good IC":

As scum, I think you should be as helpful as possible without compromising your own ability to win the game. Play like you would if you were scum in a regular game, but explain all the things that we assume players in regular games would know and understand. If you're scum, it's very important to sit down after the game and explain anything you omitted during the course of the game.... [Y]ou shouldn't purposefully give bad advice on how to play the game, because that turns people away when they find out you screwed them over like that just to win a newbie game when you're supposed to be helping them. - Mastermind of Sin

If you are scum it seems to me that voting Ezekiel is a good way of voting for a pro-villa player without giving us "purposefully bad advice" on someone innocent.
Not that I am certain Ezekiel is innocent, but considering he has given us virtually nothing to work on it's extremely difficult to say.

[Sironigous]

Vote Count

Ezekial - (1) Zorblag
Lizzy Tsoi
cruelty
Vendelwalker - (1) cruelty
Concerned
DTMaster - (1) Vendelwalker,
Zorblag

Not Voting: Ezekial, Lizzy Tsoi, Concerned, DTMaster

With 7 players alive, it takes 4 to lynch!

Deadline: Thursday October 29, 2009.

[Zorblag]

@Concerned, it's interesting that you knew what to expect from me after a single post in which I said hello and that brothernature's self vote was bad for the town. You're also not addressing the more important issue there which is that a vote with no reason provides much less pressure than a reasoned attack against someone. If you're looking for scum slips from a player on day two I would think that there would be reasons that you'd think they might be scum. Not pressing with any of those makes little sense.

As for my job as IC, I just have to tell the truth about game theory and how we play here at Mafia Scum. I can still make pretty much an attack on the rest of the players that I would in a normal game regardless of my alignment. I can't do things like tell people that the best thing to do in LyLo is to vote right away or that doctors should claim at the start of the game to use two particularly obvious examples. If you think that I'm going after an easy target now and that it's a scum tell I suppose it's up to you but there's nothing about the IC job description that would cause me to do so.

With Ezekial we've got a player who contributed nothing yesterday. I don't have any read on him and he's not showing any signs that he's going to contribute. He's posted enough to avoid getting replaced thus far or I'd just assume that he'd be leaving before too long and I'd be able to take a look at his replacement. As I don't have any reason at all to think that he's town, I know that I don't want him around in LyLo if he's going to be acting like this (which is to say not at all) and I'm not overly sure that anyone else in the game is scum yet he's the one that I want to be voting for now. I'm not going to ignore the rest of the game but if I had pick someone to lynch right this minute he's who it would be.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[Lizzy Tsoi]

Zorblag, if anyone else finds any interesting conclusions from the geekalicious kill, it would be lovely to hear them out. As it is, though, I don't think it's really necessary at the moment to address it. Perhaps a later day. Either way, I pointed it out in case people had overlooked it and, upon looking back, noticed unusual things as well.

I need to re-read carefully but I haven't as much time as I'd like at the moment. I will hopefully make more useful observations once the weekend arrives.

[Zorblag]

@Lizzy Tsoi, I'll take another look at geekalicious then and see if anything strikes my interest. I look forward to hearing more from you when you've got the chance as right now I don't have that much to work with for figuring you out.

Mod: Could you please prod Ezekial?

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[cruelty]

man this died

[Sironigous]

Ezekial has been prodded. This is his last prod.

[Zorblag]

Cruelty, I know your take on Vendelwalker but past that is there anyone you think is likely to be scum? What would you like to see people doing that they're not doing that might help you answer that question?

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[cruelty]

I'll answer that once VW responds to me. I want him to address my post directly, without any other speculation to drift off topic with.

Mostly I'd like people to step up the activity.

[Ezekial]

To be honest im gonna try to talk more, but in my opion i think Vendelwalker is scum. From what I read Dtmaster doesnt seem to harmful. I think theres a reason Vendel is voting for him.

But I'm not 100% certain, Just a guess on my behalf.

[Concerned]

@Zorblag, post 182.
I didn't say it was a scum tell I just said I am wary of you. Surely it's an understandable worry that someone with far more experience than me is scum, you're in a position that has a lot of influence with the players and since your over-all goal might not be a town win, I have to be careful of that.

As for the fact that a reasoned vote has greater pressure, if the reason you are voting is "I'm voting to increase the relatively small pressure of a single vote to a L-2 situation." I don't believe it's helpful at all to give my reasons.
By stating that I am voting to add pressure, it takes away the potential threat of the vote, as the player would know I am only voting to add pressure.

@Lizzy, post 183.
I gather that you are alluding to the fact that Geek was suspicious of me, and therefore if I was scum I might try to get rid of him that night. I am tempted to say that scum would never be that stupid but I realize that's a WIFOM situation.
All I can do is urge you not to jump to conclusions based on as little evidence as that.

I would also like to request that you articulate your suspicions and perhaps reveal who you find most suspicious at this point.

@Ezekial, post 189.
This isn't near enough for me.
Please explain:
- Why you think Vendelwalker is scum.
- Why DTMaster doesn't seem harmful.

It is starting to seem like you are only contributing enough to not get replace.
Posts without any meaningful content to not help the village.

@Concerned
A scum night kill will. Even scummy cop would get killed by mafia since he is game breaking against scum.

If there was no night kill then on day 2 I would test to see if brother's cop claim is true. These are the conditions I set for myself in all PR claims. Even scummy ones since I have experience with scummy PRs.

Please explain this to me, not your past experience but what you are talking about when you refer to scummy PR's and scummy cops. Maybe I am missing your point but I want to know what you mean when you refer to scummy PR's?

[Vendelwalker]

I don't know where to begin with cruelty's denial of past events. Luckily they are right here in the thread to quote and prove him false with.

I kept noting many times that the case against brothernature was weak, which was obvious.

No you didn't.

Actually, I did. Many times. First time I say that I don't like the accusations against loli/brothernature:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 53#1910853

Here is my second post where I oppose voting against loli/brothernature:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 41#1912341

Here is my third post defending loli/brothernature:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 42#1914142

Let's quote that one and see:

No, I meant that I didn't think Loli's vote looked very scummy.

Here is my fourth post defending loli/brothernature, this time against geekalicious' post where geek votes for brothernature pointing to WIFOM as an argument, and I question the validity of using WIFOM as proof:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 88#1915188

Here is my fifth post opposing lynching loli/brothernature, where I argue that if the town has to lynch someone on weak grounds before deadline, I would much rather prefer picking someone who is inactive since I consider that scummier:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 59#1915259

cruelty. Your deception has been exposed. You claim I did not oppose the hunt on loli, and yet I did so every time I posted about the accusations against him. What do you have to say for yourself?

I would bring up the detail that I was the ONLY one to oppose lynching brothernature, for days.

That's a lie. Reading through your posts in iso, you don't ONCE say anything to the effect that the brothernature wagon was a bad one. The only thing remotely close to a post declaring your claimed anti-wagon sentiments was a bit of musing on WIFOM.

I am lying now, cruelty? No you are, as I have shown above. That was the easiest thing for me to show in the whole thread so far.

Everyone else was either on his case or kept silent and let the hunt proceed. I could have jumped on that bandwagon at any time and no one would have thought it anything but natural; in fact, you, Cruelty, suggested that I was suspect for NOT doing so.

Quote me. I never said anything of the sort.

This is the second time on day 2 that you deny this. But here is your post from day one for all to see:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 93#1910893

[...]

Secondly, you're defending Loli/brothernature (and pressing the attack on someone else). I tend to think that someone defending another player (before said other player has had a chance to mount their own defence) is more likely to be acting out of self interest, rather than a vested interest in protecting another player.

The self interest, obviously, would be protecting a scumbuddy.

In this post from day 1, you accuse me of protecting a scumbuddy when I defend brothernature.

Yet above here you say,

"Quote me. I never said anything of the sort."

False.

You still haven't answered my question from my previous post. Here:

When I repeatedly questioned DTMaster's weak grounds for lynching Loli, cruelty posted a suspicion that I could be protecting Loli because he was a scum buddy. According to cruelty, defending someone else before he has defended himself is scummy. (Which was exactly what he himself did when defending DTMaster!)

Please quote my defence of DTM.

I am happy to. Same post as I quote right above here, but now let's look at it in full:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 93#1910893

One thing I note is this:

DTMaster

, you were on my side there pretty solidly. A little too much, perhaps. And now in post 67 you put a Finger of Suspicion (why don't we write out these things to make it easier for those who haven't read every page in the wiki?) on Loli. Loli was an easy target there, for his general behavior.

But his L-2 against geekalicious actually had no chance of succeeding, which he obviously must have known.

And you knew that too.

That's interesting.

There's two things I can infer from this.

Firstly, the implication I'm getting from the italicized part is that it's ok to do scummy things as long as they're unlikely to succeed. Sort of a weird position to take.

Secondly, you're defending Loli/brothernature (and pressing the attack on someone else). I tend to think that someone defending another player (before said other player has had a chance to mount their own defence) is more likely to be acting out of self interest, rather than a vested interest in protecting another player. The self interest, obviously, would be protecting a scumbuddy.

I very clearly voiced suspicions against DTMaster for pushing so hard against first concerned and then Loli/brothernature. You then say that doubting DTMaster makes me suspect, and my self-interest would be "protecting a scumbuddy" (brothernature).

This is where I vote you. You:

-

Lied

when you claimed to be opposing a brothernature lynch: you never said it was a bad lynch.

False, but nice try. I opposed the hunt on brothernature five times, every time I commented on it. And a sixth time when I pointed back to one of the earlier posts on the matter.

- Hammered a claimed cop on day 1 with

two weeks

left in the day.

Right. What happened that last evening is plain for all to see. He was giving off several scumtells which I have already listed and which you conveniently ignore. I have also said that he needed to go because we would otherwise never get away from that point, the discussion of brothernature would keep dominating (especially after he self-destructed) and I wanted the truth to come out, so that the hunt against him could be analyzed with that proof in mind.

Now you are trying to prevent me from drawing the conclusions from your behavior. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

[Vendelwalker]

To recap: cruelty makes the most astonishing (and stupid) claim so far in this thread, saying I never opposed the accusations against Brothernature, and now trying to get me lynched for hammering Brothernature when he went chaotic, even though the reasons for that are pretty obvious. I have shown several posts where I questioned the hunt against Brothernature - cruelty must

surely

be aware of this, since he even said on day one that I was looking suspicious for defending Brother.

cruelty has now claimed TWICE that he never said I was suspect for defending Brothernature and raising a suspicion against DTMaster over this matter - but he either has a very bad memory or he is lying, because that is exactly what he did on day one.

Guys, it is pretty obvious cruelty is lying through his teeth here. He got what he wanted after the hunt (which he was in on from the beginning) against Concerned fizzled - he got a hunt going against Brothernature, who was driven to stop caring for the game and self-destructing. Now cruelty wants to go after me. I sure hope this town won't make the same mistake again.

[cruelty]

@VW, why didn't you vote for me?

I'll go through your posts (they're in the same order as they were in yours).

Post 1:

viewtopic.php?p=1910853#1910853

On a re-read, this post is less a defence of Loli and more an excuse to attack DTM. That's fine, and I retract my pre-emptive defence accusation on you, but this says nothing about Loli being a bad lynch. In fact;

Loli was an easy target there, for his general behavior

You note his behaviour is questionable. Not really trying to stop a lynch.

Post 2:

viewtopic.php?p=1912341#1912341

This is your poem. Again, no defence of Loli, just accusing Lizzy of following DTM.

Post 3:

viewtopic.php?p=1914142#1914142

Your response is you don't think Loli's vote was scummy, but then you say this:

So it is not so much defending Loli as suspecting DTMaster.

This post doesn't actually constitute any opposition to the brothernature wagon, just a desire to push the DTM one.

Post 4:

viewtopic.php?p=1915188#1915188

Bunch of speculation regarding WIFOM. Again, you don't say you're against the brothernature lynch.

Post 5:

viewtopic.php?p=1915259#1915259

Saying you'd prefer to lynch someone else isn't something scum would do?
This entire post again is not actually you opposing a brothernature lynch, it's you musing that you'd rather lynch a lurker (and again, babbling on about WIFOM).


You

never

said that you were opposed to a brothernature lynch. You agreed early on that his actions were questionable, and as the wagon built up steam you waffled on about WIFOM and then said you wanted to lynch a lurker instead. That does not constitute the self-portrait of vehement disagreement that you're trying to paint.

[cruelty]

Continuing:

[quote="VW"
Everyone else was either on his case or kept silent and let the hunt proceed. I could have jumped on that bandwagon at any time and no one would have thought it anything but natural; in fact, you, Cruelty, suggested that I was suspect for NOT doing so.

Quote me. I never said anything of the sort.

This is the second time on day 2 that you deny this. But here is your post from day one for all to see:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 93#1910893[/quote]

Secondly, you're defending Loli/brothernature (and pressing the attack on someone else). I tend to think that someone defending another player (before said other player has had a chance to mount their own defence) is more likely to be acting out of self interest, rather than a vested interest in protecting another player. The self interest, obviously, would be protecting a scumbuddy.

In this post from day 1, you accuse me of protecting a scumbuddy when I defend brothernature.

Yet above here you say, "Quote me. I never said anything of the sort." False.

Not

once

in this post do I suggest you're suspicious for not being on the brothernature wagon. You've quoted me saying that I'm a little curious about your defence of Loli (defending him before he defended himself); that's not anything like being suspicious that you're not on his wagon.


Then, further in your (recent) post, you quote the same post when you accuse me of pre-emptively defending DTM. Again, this simply isn't true. My post has nothing to do with DTM, I could care less about your suspicions of him - there's no defence there, the post is solely directed at you.


Then you're excusing hammering a claimed cop. Fine, probably the weakest of my points given that I started the wagon and absolutely agreed with the hammer, but there were two weeks left in the day. Two weeks, that's a longass time for new information to come to light. I wouldn't vote you solely based on the hammer, but it's just a cog in a bigger machine.

[cruelty]

Sorry for the 3 posts, I find big posts harder to read, so I'm breaking it down into 3.

To recap: cruelty makes the most astonishing (and stupid) claim so far in this thread, saying I never opposed the accusations against Brothernature, and now trying to get me lynched for hammering Brothernature when he went chaotic, even though the reasons for that are pretty obvious. I have shown several posts where I questioned the hunt against Brothernature - cruelty must

surely

be aware of this, since he even said on day one that I was looking suspicious for defending Brother.

a) Not trying to get you lynched for hammering brothernature. Way to misrepresent my case.
b) Your posts 'questioning the lynch' aren't anything of the sort.
c) I said that I find pre-emptive defences questionable. I've also (admittedly recently) retracted that, I think that your post was more an attack on DTM than a defence of brothernature.

cruelty has now claimed TWICE that he never said I was suspect for defending Brothernature and raising a suspicion against DTMaster over this matter - but he either has a very bad memory or he is lying, because that is exactly what he did on day one.

Addressed in the previous post, and proven to be false.

Guys, it is pretty obvious cruelty is lying through his teeth here. He got what he wanted after the hunt (which he was in on from the beginning) against Concerned fizzled - he got a hunt going against Brothernature, who was driven to stop caring for the game and self-destructing. Now cruelty wants to go after me. I sure hope this town won't make the same mistake again.

Haha. I never voted for Concerned, not sure what that's about. I never pushed the brothernature wagon (Only made two posts against him, neither of which were in the last 2 days leading up to the lynched) and I can hardly be held accountable for brothernature's tragic cry-fest.



Anyway @everyone else, make up your own minds.

[Ezekial]

Vote: Vendelwaker
I think Im goona vote for Vendelwalker. He seems the most suspicious to me.

[Zorblag]

It looks as though DTMaster has posted about the wrong game here. It's my hope that he'll have something to say about this game shortly though.

@Concerned, being wary of players is a good move in general and there's no reason that I should be exempt from that but when you say something like:

If you are scum it seems to me that voting Ezekiel is a good way of voting for a pro-villa player without giving us "purposefully bad advice" on someone innocent.
Not that I am certain Ezekiel is innocent, but considering he has given us virtually nothing to work on it's extremely difficult to say.

I don't have any reason not to think that you might be taking my vote for Ezekial to be a scum tell because I'm an IC and it was an easy vote to cast or some such thing. My point is mostly that my being an IC isn't going to have any affect on who I choose to attack.

As for the fact that a reasoned vote has greater pressure, if the reason you are voting is "I'm voting to increase the relatively small pressure of a single vote to a L-2 situation." I don't believe it's helpful at all to give my reasons.
By stating that I am voting to add pressure, it takes away the potential threat of the vote, as the player would know I am only voting to add pressure.

And here you're missing the point that on day two you should be able to come up with some reason other than just wanting to apply pressure to vote for just about anyone. Saying that you're casting a vote just for pressure isn't helpful, you're right. At this stage in the game voting for no given reason isn't helpful either as it's going to make you look fishy. The reasons don't have to be overly profound but you should be able to give something. To adapt something you said to Ezekial, voting without meaningful reasons isn't helpful to the town.

@cruelty, now that Vendelwalker has responded to you and you've had an exchange are you ready to say whether there's anyone else you think is scum?

@Vendelwalker, you really look like you're trying to have things both ways at once on the topic of whether or not you were defending brothernature. You were primarily attacking his attackers (which would be a classic chainsaw defense) during day one and in fact explicitly said:

Not so much defending brothernature as pointing out how it could be a pattern for DTMaster: Concerned looked like the best target at first, with many doubting his motives and DTMaster has kept pressing him for that episode. Then it looks like it could be somewhat easy to get a lynch of Loli also, and DTMaster suspected him as well.

So it is not so much defending Loli as suspecting DTMaster. Of course, I have no certain proof, but it is possible that there is a pattern.

In one of the posts that you're now trying to site as a place where you were defending brothernature.

I think that to some degree both you and cruelty are spinning somewhat ambiguous statements from each other and yourselves in the way that you find helpful but I think that your stance here is the less reasonable/defensible one. You're building a case on the idea that scum are going to be the driving force behind lynches when, in fact, town really do have reasons to push bandwagons to see what the reactions are early in the game. I also don't understand why your vote is still on DTMaster for what seems to be a subset of the reasons that you're now saying cruelty is suspicious looking.

I don't think that you mounted the serious defense of brothernature day one that you're trying to say you did now. You pointed out voting behavior from others that could be seen as scummy and at one point you said that you didn't find one of brothernature's votes suspicious but there is nothing there that's a solid defense. I don't think that cruelty is voting for you for having been the hammer yesterday. It looks to me like he's objecting to what appears to be a misrepresentation of the events that transpired yesterday. I really don't think that your current line of attack has much merit at all and I think that you're trying to rewrite the first day in a way that lets you make the attacks you want.

@Ezekial, it's good to see that you're posting and giving opinions but I'm inclined to agree with Concerned's take on you here. We need to see why you think Vendelwalker is the most suspicious seeming to you and why you think that DTMaster hasn't been harmful. I'm going to be moving my vote because you have given us something but right now you're going with what look like easy to hold stances without even giving the reasons you hold them.

On an IC note, for your vote to count you'll need to bold it. The code for that would be:

Code: Select all

[b]Vote:  Suspicous Person X[/b]

I look forward to hearing from DTMaster and Lizzy Tsoi soon.

Unvote. Vote: Vendelwalker

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[cruelty]

@cruelty, now that Vendelwalker has responded to you and you've had an exchange are you ready to say whether there's anyone else you think is scum?

Yeah, sorry, forgot about this.

I'm not going to even attempt to build a case right now (too hungover), but I have a couple issues with Concerned (strange voting mainly) which I don't feel are 100% resolved. I don't really want to get into a battle on two fronts, and we have a lot of time for me to investigate this a little later, so I'm leaving it for now.

[Sironigous]

Vote Count

Ezekial
Lizzy Tsoi
cruelty
Vendelwalker - (2) cruelty, Zorblag
Concerned
DTMaster - (1) Vendelwalker
Zorblag

Not Voting: Ezekial, Lizzy Tsoi, Concerned, DTMaster

Note:

This has NOT been counted

Vote: Vendelwaker
I think Im goona vote for Vendelwalker. He seems the most suspicious to me.

Please bold you vote in a new post using the tags

Code: Select all

 
[b]Vote: ______[/b]

so that it turns into

Vote: Vendelwaker

.


With 7 players alive, it takes 4 to lynch!

Deadline: Monday, November 9, 2009.