888: X-COM TFTD Mafia: Over!

[Tracey Morris]

/confirm

[Tracey Morris]

Vote: Edward Smilie

Because his name is Edward and I am on Team Jacob!

[Tracey Morris]

vote:Jaime Marcelle

For using a dice to determine your RVS vote to avoid responsibility for your actions.

Dice = anti-town

Because basing votes on contrary movie tastes will hold someone accountable for those votes in the future?

[Tracey Morris]

to all : i was in another game and one of the player suggested the other player vote for himself.

in this case, i want the you guys to vote me..

what do you think if i say you guys scum if don't follow my plan?

It's not really a plan, per se; but rather a request (or order). I would ask to hear more of your so-called plan as to why you want everyone to vote for you. I agree, asking people to vote for you is just like self voting.

[Tracey Morris]

I realized I didn't unvote, yet. So...

Unvote: Edward Smilie

vote Emile Buchard

He smells like scum.

I would think that the time for unexplained and baseless voting has passed.

Vote: Stuart Whyte

[Tracey Morris]

I realized I didn't unvote, yet. So...

Unvote: Edward Smilie

vote Emile Buchard

He smells like scum.

I would think that the time for unexplained and

baseless

voting has passed.

Vote: Stuart Whyte

Please prove that my vote is baseless.

Well, in your post you only voted, and gave no justifications. Then, when asked about your vote, you said, "he smells like scum," again, without any justification. So does he literally smell like scum? Or has he been behaving in a scummy way? I have no clue because

you have provided no basis

for your vote.

I comepletely agree with Tracy. I will probably be voting for Stuart pretty soon because of

his random vote

out of the RVS and his horrible horrible reasoning. Stuart- How does he "Smell like scum"? However, before I put a (serious) vote on anyone I want to hear more about Edwards plan.

Please prove that my vote is random/arbitrary.

Bolded emphasis mine.

You once again provided no justification, even when specifically asked. It appears pretty arbitrary to me, and I believe the burden of proof is on you to prove that it wasn't arbitrary.

[Tracey Morris]

A smart scum would never post an empty argumentation such as "he smells like scum". On the other hand, a scum who is overconfident in a new starting wagon *could* make the mistake of a baseless vote.

Sure, but a smart townsperson would never defend a weak vote by asking others to prove it is wrong, especially when the vote is so obviously weak.

[Tracey Morris]

If I was asserting that it wasn't arbitrary the burden of proof would be with me, but all I'm asserting is that you have no way of knowing whether it was arbitrary, baseless, or random. If you said you thought I had no base for my vote and voted me for it I would have taken little issue, mind you I still dislike being voted for bad reasons but, at least you wouldn't have been asserting something as truth that you had no way of knowing one way or another.

Um... okay...

Unvote: Stuart Whyte

Stuart - you appear to be voting with no apparent basis for that vote. As such, I am going to vote for you until you make it apparent that there was a basis for your vote. Additionally, until you fail to prove to me that my new vote is based on bad reasoning, it shall also remain.

And for the record its providing reasoning with votes that is anti-town :teach: Wait, you actually want to refute his point? oh fine:

What? The only reason you would be worried about someone refuting your points is if the person you are voting for is town. And even then, if you are town, wouldn't you want them to enlighten you and refute your accusations so you don't mislynch? Or, if you are mafia, you don't want them to refute you because you know they are town. Either way, you are totally scummy now.

This whole idea is so ludicrous it makes me sick. So you are suggesting that we should all just keep voting for unknown, alleged good reasons, but not back up our claims until we reach a majority? The point of explaining your vote is to also get other people to hear your discussion points, and if it was a valid vote, then others can either agree with you or have that information noted.

So, since I disagree with your outrageous claim that votes should not be justified, I will tell you exactly why I am voting for you. I am voting for you because:

1. You appear to be voting with no apparent basis for that vote;
   
2. You have no concern with providing town information about your thought processes or your feelings for the game (scummy to the n-th degree); and,
   
3. Your opinion on explaining votes is 100% anti-town and is more beneficial to scum.

Vote: Stuart Whyte

Also while we are on it, I directed each of these questions at a different person, in the future please don't answer questions asked of other people before they can.

Also, while we are on it, answer questions that are asked of you.

Why do they smell like scum?

And, I realize now that my posts weren't followed by question marks, but I thought it was fairly obvious as to my intentions; but, if it wasn't, here are some questions to you, Stuart Whyte, that I want you to answer.

Why did you vote for Emilie?

Why do you want to talk about semantics and epistemology instead of just explaining your vote? And you can't say that explaining your vote is anti-town, because that is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard.

[Tracey Morris]

Stuart - obviously you want us to believe that your vote has a reason, but you don't want to tell us what that reason is (since that is "anti-town"). So does this mean that you believe Emilie is lynch worthy and you would be satisfied if she were lynched today? If so, how do you suspect for us to do that since you were the first person to vote for Emilie and you have provided no information to us to support your divinely inspired vote and nobody has since voted for her?

[Tracey Morris]

I don't oppose lynching Stuart, but from the look of it I'd say that he is the "easy" target. Meaning that scum are trying to push his lynch.

So what does that say about your half commit, non binding attitude to his lynch? You couldn't be more of a fence sitter. Your not getting in the way of his lynch is duly noted; as is your contradictory suspicion of anyone that is attacking him as an easy target.

IGMEOY: Leon Dreyfus

[Tracey Morris]

I don't oppose lynching Stuart, but from the look of it I'd say that he is the "easy" target. Meaning that scum are trying to push his lynch.

So what does that say about your half commit, non binding attitude to his lynch? You couldn't be more of a fence sitter. Your not getting in the way of his lynch is duly noted; as is your contradictory suspicion of anyone that is attacking him as an easy target.

IGMEOY: Leon Dreyfus

Yeah, I had plans to come back and post more after taking my shower. I'll do so in a bit.

Well that's convenient. I guess I should take your word on that since you neglected to mention that you would expand more later on such a contradictory post? But if my post is "dismissed" I guess I won't worry about it.

[Tracey Morris]

The only reason I could think of that you not telling us the reason for your vote is that you are a secret day cop that got a guilty on emile.

Or explaining votes is anti-town.

I've already explained how this idea is insane; but let me reiterate: not explaining votes is at best anti-town and at worst, and more probable, scummy. You've already said that the reason you don't want to explain your vote is because you don't want it to be refuted.

So, if you are town, you don't care about getting other people on board with your vote, and you don't want the other person to refute your claim and possibly prove his/her innocence (anti-town) and have no concern about a mislynch (anti-town and scummy).

If you are mafia, you don't want him/her to refute you because you already know he/she is town (obvscummy).

If you are some crazy day cop then you played it terribly. I'm still fine with lynching you, and if you do turn out to be a day cop (not likely) then we'll go after Emilie and I'll write your death off as the price of business.

If you would care to enlighten me on why not explaining votes is anti-town (outside of the ridiculous refuting argument) I would be more than happy to listen, or is explaining (in detail) anti-town behavior also anti-town?

And for the record its providing reasoning with votes that is anti-town :teach: Wait, you actually want to refute his point? oh fine:

What? The only reason you would be worried about someone refuting your points is if the person you are voting for is town. And even then, if you are town, wouldn't you want them to enlighten you and refute your accusations so you don't mislynch? Or, if you are mafia, you don't want them to refute you because you know they are town. Either way, you are totally scummy now.

[Tracey Morris]

Just a side note: can we please make sure that quotes are properly attributed to the person who said them. It makes it much easier to follow the conversation, especially when there are multiple discussions going on.

Code: Select all

[quote="NAME"]quote text quote text quote text quote text quote text quote text quote text quote text quote text quote text quote text quote text quote text[/quote]

The ="NAME" being the most important part. Thank you.

[Tracey Morris]

I have responded to his question even if I haven't answered it.

Oh okay. This is a good thing to remember. If someone asks me a question all I have to do is respond and that is sufficient even if I don't answer the question. Note to self: next time I am scum and get questioned, I'll just say "Nice weather today" below the quoted question. /sarcasm.

I want feed back from the previously qouted portion before I go further with it.

I don't even know what you want feedback on since your posts are riddled with incomprehensible nonsense. Who do you want feedback from? What specifically do you want feedback on?

[Tracey Morris]

But this also brings up a major point I've meaning to mention to you all: Do you want your actual accounts revealed? I personally don't think it has any bearing on the game (and don't just reply to this "Oh, well it's important because we can narrow down who's playing each alt", because that's really against the spirit of the game) so I feel I can leave it up to you. Vote Reveal or Vote Not Reveal, and whatever gets a majority vote, will be enforced for the rest of the game...

Do you mean do we want them revealed now? I want to vote reveal on this just because I have already slipped up once and am pretty convinced I will do it again; I have almost done it because I have this thread watched on my real account and I have been so frustrated at times with Stuart that I almost posted on the other account. I debated for a while after my first slip up about replacing out, because I wasn't sure that I wouldn't do it again on accident and didn't want to ruin the spirit of the game.

I like the spirit of the game, so I would probably vote no reveal. If you mean reveal at the end I could really care less.

Mod: Do you mean reveal now or at the end of the game?

At the end of the game.

Not all questions should be answered mindlessly.

Just some, I suppose?

[Tracey Morris]

Stuart - here is a legitimate question for you that you may elect to answer: if for some reason we decide neither you nor Emilie, will you vote for Emilie tomorrow? Do you have any plans to vote for anyone else besides Emilie until she is dead?

[Tracey Morris]

EBWOP: added "actually" and "to lynch" below.

Stuart - here is a legitimate question for you that you may

actually

elect to answer: if for some reason we decide

to lynch

neither you nor Emilie, will you vote for Emilie tomorrow? Do you have any plans to vote for anyone else besides Emilie until she is dead?

[Tracey Morris]

Stuart - here is a legitimate question for you that you may elect to answer: if for some reason we decide neither you nor Emilie, will you vote for Emilie tomorrow? Do you have any plans to vote for anyone else besides Emilie until she is dead?

I am capable of changing my mind. Up to now the games basically been stuff before my vote, and then everyone attacking me. I find it untrustworthy to use attacks against oneself to judge the alignment of players so no new info has really been provided.

Okay then... If everyone wasn't "attacking" you and someone else was obviously mafia (and not in a jester way) would you switch your vote? Or would it stay on Emilie?

[Tracey Morris]

@Tracey: ASKING a tautological question such as "would you vote a confirmed mafia" is not helping anyone.

How does it not help

anyone

? I also didn't say "confirmed" mafia, I said "obviously" mafia, and there is a difference in the hypothetical proposed. I was looking to see if Stuart had some indy role that said his win condition was to kill Emilie. I know nothing about X-COM so I can't say if there is some sort of assassin, but that was where I was going.

Anyway, my FoS's remain for the moment Jamie&Edward OR Stuart.

I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around a logical conditional FoS like this, especially when you've already put a vote on one side of that condition. I'm going to think about this later tonight.

[Tracey Morris]

K, I'm bullet proof.

Good thing our lynch rope is not made of bullets.

[Tracey Morris]

Is Stuart still alive? Are we seriously still having this conversation? There is no point in keeping him alive. He has provided zero information that is worthwhile to the town; he is scummy and anti-town; and we have been pulling teeth from him for the past four or five pages. He is a liability to the town whether he is scum or town. There is no way to move past this. Stuart is anti-town; anti-help; anti-progress; anti-scumhunting; and anti-everything. The simple fact that someone has not hammered him is mind boggling.

Suppose we keep him alive. Do you really want someone to waste an investigation on him? Do we really want to keep him alive to endgame before we tackle the massive WIFOM moment?

I guess the only question is this bullet proofness and the laser whatever. I would assume that bullet proof typically means immune to night kill, so I would think that that would remain the same.

String him up. If I have to read even one more page of this nonsense I am going to scream.

On another note, I am eagerly awaiting Leon's response, too. He must have been excessively dirty for a shower of this duration:

I don't oppose lynching Stuart, but from the look of it I'd say that he is the "easy" target. Meaning that scum are trying to push his lynch.

So what does that say about your half commit, non binding attitude to his lynch? You couldn't be more of a fence sitter. Your not getting in the way of his lynch is duly noted; as is your contradictory suspicion of anyone that is attacking him as an easy target.

IGMEOY: Leon Dreyfus

Yeah, I had plans to come back and post more after taking my shower. I'll do so in a bit.

Your post is dismissed.

[Tracey Morris]

Anyway, my FoS's remain for the moment Jamie&Edward OR Stuart.

I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around a logical conditional FoS like this, especially when you've already put a vote on one side of that condition. I'm going to think about this later tonight.

Claude - looking at your interesting FoS, it appears that you have suspicions about both (Jamie AND Edward) OR (Stuart). From what I can tell, your suspicion about Edward is based on his "plan," and your suspicion about Jamie is because of his "role fishing." How are these related? They seem independent of each other, and I would normally read it as that, except you placed the conditional OR between them and Stuart, meaning that both of them must be suspicious together. What is the connection?

Second, why is it either both of these two people or Stuart? What is the connection between those two and Stuart? Logically speaking, if Stuart gets lynched and flips town then you will be more suspicious of both Edward and Jamie. How will your feelings be about Jamie and Edward change if Stuart flips town? If he flips mafia?

I find it especially intriguing that you also voted (in the same post) for one of your FoS's, giving that side of the conditional more scummy-ness/suspicious-ness.

[Tracey Morris]

I love you. There is no reason on earth for Stuart to be alive right now. If he's lynch-immune that would make him virtually immortal, which I don't think the mod would do.

This post troubles me. A lot.

Emile - do you have any reason to suspect why Stuart is targeting you?

Emile - what will you think if Stuart flips town?

Stuart - assuming for the moment you are town, if Emile is lynched are you actually going to help the town in scumhunting? Is your lack of providing any reasonable case unique to Emile, or is this something we could expect the rest of the game? Granted, I'm not saying your answer is going to change my opinion of you, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around this lunacy.

Stuart - is you keeping your "secret" benefiting the town? If so, how?

[Tracey Morris]

My method of play is not isolated to Emile.

So say we lynch Emilie today. Tomorrow you are going to vote someone else and not explain it or offer any reasoning?

I don't know what 'secret' you mean?

Seriously? Are you being intentionally difficult? Your "secret" of why you are voting for Emilie.

[Tracey Morris]

2) @Tracey: There is no strict relation between Jamie and Edward, but they are both scummy to me and they never attacked each other; on the other hand, none of them seems likely to be scumbud with Stuart. So I thank you for your observation: my FoS is better described by:

Jamie OR Edward OR Jamie&Edward OR Stuart

Okay thanks. Your original FoS makes much more sense about them not being scumbuddies together.

[Tracey Morris]

Lynchproof is both speculation, and confirmed not part of his role. Stop talking about it.

Just a point of order: it isn't confirmed. The confirmation is from an alleged conversation between the mod and Stuart.

Please don`t hammer untill much closer to deadline. There is still information to be had. For example:
@everyone on my wagon: If I'm lynched and come up town who will you suspect because of it?

I think you are qualified to answer this question as well: who do you think is scum on your wagon? And why?

Also:

Vote: Reveal

[Tracey Morris]

I'm starting to think about something.

Unvote: Stuart Whyte

I'll post some reasons and some other stuff in a little bit as I pour through this.

[Tracey Morris]

Okay. So this is what I'm thinking. And before I start, let me first say that I despise the fact that I am not only going to leverage for Stuart to remain alive but I think I might also agree with him (to a degree).

I am willing to let Stuart live tonight. I do consider him a disadvantage to the town, but I am willing to let a vig have a crack at him (if we have one, that is) and we shouldn't waste a lynch. I don't want to get wrapped up in frustration ruling me on this vote.

Consider this: he wants Emile dead. For what reason, we do not know. It can't be something personal since we are all using alts. There must be more in his role that either restricts him or there could be the fact that since we are using alts he could be experimenting. Regardless, and especially after Emile's post (below), I am getting some serious scum vibes from him.

Is Stuart still alive? Are we seriously still having this conversation? There is no point in keeping him alive. He has provided zero information that is worthwhile to the town; he is scummy and anti-town; and we have been pulling teeth from him for the past four or five pages. He is a liability to the town whether he is scum or town. There is no way to move past this. Stuart is anti-town; anti-help; anti-progress; anti-scumhunting; and anti-everything. The simple fact that someone has not hammered him is mind boggling.

I love you. There is no reason on earth for Stuart to be alive right now. If he's lynch-immune that would make him virtually immortal, which I don't think the mod would do.

What really strikes me the wrong way is the emotion in this post, especially when there had been absolutely no frustration in previous posts. Additionally, when I first commented on this, Emile said nothing about the post troubling me, asking why it troubled me, but skipping right over that to answer my questions. Everyone else who has appeared outraged has been consistently so, while Emile has not.

Finally, Emile has not tried to get any information out of Stuart whereas others have been literally gnashing to get even a shred of information. I wonder if this could be because Stuart is right?

To sum up, Emile has remained calm about the vote against him then expresses extreme gratitude for the first outburst against Stuart that even alludes to not caring about town/scum alignment, neglects to respond to concern about that post (doesn't want to draw attention to it?), and makes no attempts to try and fish information from Stuart.

At this point, and as much as I feel I might be making my own bed here, I'm willing to side with Stuart for this vote. There are potentially other ways to deal with him. I also feel the information gained could be exponentially greater lynching his target, Emile.

Vote: Emile Buchard

[Tracey Morris]

@Tracey - What makes this a better lynch than Stuart? There is no guarantee we have a vig, or even a cop for that matter, and it would literally sicken me to see Stuart get away with this strategy.

You're right. We don't know anything about the game setup or potential roles, but his behavior today is not going to change overnight and I doubt anyone will forget it (despite someone, can't remember who now, I'll find in a minute, said they wished everyone would forget it). Killing Stuart is going to give us no information tomorrow since at least a couple of people have already said that this bandwagon is so easy that scum could get by without getting on the wagon. There is a connection between Emile and Stuart, it is just they we don't know what it is. Lynching Emile will give us more information about Stuart; but let me say that I don't really think that it is good practice to lynch others to get information about someone else; but at this point, with everything else Emile has said/done, I'm comfortable for the time being with this option. I'm never thought I would inspire a massive bandwagon switch, but I hope that some additional conversation will be sparked and maybe some actual scum hunting will occur.

Let's say that these lynches are of equal value, and we find each just as scummy. Emile doesn't have any ties to any other player, and his flip really won't give us any information about Stuart. However, if Stuart flips scum, it is unlikely that Emile is scum also, and I he flips town it gives his stubborn tunneling slightly more credit. I'd feel more comfortable with lynching Stuart than Emile.

My reasons aren't game specific.

I missed this post by Stuart when I was posting, so my point about it being role related could be moot; however, again, the source is unreliable.

Orski has only posted twice. This is an issue. This must change. Edward only posted three times before him. I didn't catch this before, but it is seriously bothering me.

Good call. I agree, lurkers are bad all around. When things like Stuart's play are so front and center I sometimes miss who is lurking. Why don't you want to put pressure on them? Do you want to keep the pressure on Stuart at the same time?

Also, it might be a linguistic problem, but I was getting the impression that you too are not bothered by the eventuality that Stuart may turn out to be town (which seems very unlikely to me, tbh)... you generally look pro-town to me, Tracey, but it is a fact that

Stuart got at L-1 twice, and both times someone stepped back pretty quickly

... this bothers me.

I wasn't bothered at all for a while; but I stepped back from my absolute frustration. I'll comment more on this, but I want to run it by the mod first. I'll post once more on this later today once I send my question and get a response.

but it is a fact that

Stuart got at L-1 twice, and both times someone stepped back pretty quickly

... this bothers me.

Why does this bother you? I'm actually somewhat relieved that the lynch didn't go through yet because of the other conversations going on. However, it depends on the people who backed off the lynch, and their alignment. Since you appear to believe that Stuart is scum, do you think the people who stepped off are scum not wanting to get a lynch on their partner? Or do you think they are town being wishy washy? (Not accusatory)

In conclusion: Stuart reiterated refusal to discuss his FoS's with us bothers me way too much, as it bothers me the fact that two players stepped back whenever he got at L-1. Quoting Tracey, "I may be making my own bed", too, but I

Unvote; Vote: Stuart

. I am really curious to see what happens now.

2) I want to see what happens now that he is at L-1 for the third time.

If we were at a standstill at L-1 once twice now, what do you think will change now that he is at L-3 for the third time?

If your good point is true then stu must be lying about his claim.

It could be possible that he isn't revealing everything about his role, too.

Thats why I can't follow him because I can't trust someone who has lied. Your point would have been valid if he had not claimed. If he had yet to claim I would think about hopping off his ass. But as of now I don't forsee a vote change.

That's fine. I appreciate your input and perspective. It is a difficult situation for sure. Let me make sure I am reading your POV: if Stuart had not claimed you would be more inclined to think he is town?

[Tracey Morris]

EBWOP:

Why do you expect that I would have unvoted Emile if my vote was based on a medium strength read?(which is the case btw pretty sure I've made that clear in thread)

Because we have no damn clue what you are doing or why you are doing it.

Stuart - how would you feel and how would you proceed if I was playing like you and you were in my, or any of our shoes?

ebwop: the layout of my precedent post was meant to be clear and schematic. it isnt, sorry bout that.

I thought it was fine. Even if it wasn't, the fact that you used the word "schematic" excuses it.

[Tracey Morris]

Also, it might be a linguistic problem, but I was getting the impression that you too are not bothered by the eventuality that Stuart may turn out to be town (which seems very unlikely to me, tbh)... you generally look pro-town to me, Tracey, but it is a fact that

Stuart got at L-1 twice, and both times someone stepped back pretty quickly

... this bothers me.

I wasn't bothered at all for a while; but I stepped back from my absolute frustration. I'll comment more on this, but I want to run it by the mod first. I'll post once more on this later today once I send my question and get a response.

In a game I've played before the town has gone after a lynch of someone so anti-town and it ended up being the downfall of the town. That is why I am hesitant to do so again since it is just now apparent how detrimental it was at the time.

Follow up, see addition above (in italics).

[Tracey Morris]

I know I'm too scummy to be NKed tonight, so I'm just gonna go ahead and do this.

We already killed one good PR, I'd love to see if this happens to me...

I'm Lieutenant Otto Ulbreicht. I was part of an experimental training regiment program. As a result, I have special training against aliens, and its now coming in handy, as i know there are aliens on board. Because of special training, I am NK immune.

Discuss

WTF. Your logic makes zero sense. If you are too scummy to be NK why would you need to claim? Maybe because you wanted to get everyone to back off of you because of your hammer, so you preempted with a power role claim. And, the same power role as Stuart. Talk about fishy. If you are what you say you are, you should have been behaving as total town and avoided any obvious suspicion to try and draw the NK to you, to help the town. You blew it. I don't buy this claim at all.

Right now, I'm tempted to believe Otto's claim, as there's really nothing for him to loose. Why is it that all of our NK immune players are so scummy! Ah!

There was nothing to gain either, except to get everyone off his back. And then, he could claim later if the wagon started getting speed on him.

I am claiming now because it seems like a good time. We already lynched one PR, I'd hate to see me get lynched too.

Again, WTF. Please explain to us how it is a good time to claim. You'd hate to see another PR lynched? We haven't even started voting yet. This claim is so ludicrous.

Otto just claimed the exact same thing as stu. Did any of you note that? bullet proof roles are always tricky to predict. because a scum can claim that and he will never be nked (or a town can and never be nked).

I noticed. Two bulletproof town power roles. It's almost too much to swallow.

I do however think that otto might be correct in his claim. because if indeed only the yous and Is were added and taken away there should be no spelling or gram mistakes. This is ture. I looked and re-looked at the claim and it had 0 spelling (except for an added I) errors. and no grammer errors. I even checked it in MS Word and nothing came up. This is not like otto to make 0 grammer mistakes (or me for that matter). So I am torn because it is almost the same claim as stu, yet there are no mistakes. I might have to go re-read otto.

You are basing your feeling of a claim off of grammar and spelling?

Something fishy is going on between Otto, Emile, and Igor.

FoS: Otto, Emile, Igor

[Tracey Morris]

Right now, I'm tempted to believe Otto's claim, as there's really nothing for him to loose.

Emile - the question is, what did he have to gain by claiming?

[Tracey Morris]

Are the aliens a third party? Was Gehrad an alien recruiter? M.C. Controller makes me think that might be the case. If the mafia killed him, that would be the explanation.

[Tracey Morris]

Or we have a bus driver and the aliens killed one of their own on accident. But, I find this whole game setup conversation uninteresting and a diversion from actual scumhunting.

[Tracey Morris]

on Otto's claim:

(a) it is a good idea because:

if he is NK immune, we lose the option of tricking scum into trying to kill him (possibly even several times), but assuming that we trust him, we gain an allegedly clear PR, which could be a good starting point.

How is losing the option of tricking scum to kill him a good thing?

I explained my role as close as I could without actually quoting the mod. I replaced all you's with I's.

That's all you did? You didn't change all the "were" to "was"? This claim is utter bullshit. He realized he blew it with his hammer and is trying to get everyone off of him before it starts.

Vote: Otto Ulbreicht

[Tracey Morris]

I will explain now why I am leaning towards believing Otto's claim. Assume that he is a NK-immune PR. He suddenly sees that a very scummy player claims to be a 1-shot BG. He thinks "yeah. yeah. and how many nk immunes are there in this game?". He assumes tha Stuart is scum and he hammers. This looks like a conceivable scenario to me. It is not a conclusive argumentation, tho.

I had not thought of that. That is a valid point, but my vote will remain until Otto chimes back in.

[Tracey Morris]

Emile's reaction to Stuart's vote is definitely not town knowing that Stuart was town. Vote: Emile Buchard

You had said that you were going to vote Otto today. What exactly about Emile's p.305 made you change your mind?

Other than Emile's post being very non-committal? I think his reasoning is pretty clear for his vote in the quote you provided.

[Tracey Morris]

Now I briefly discuss Jamie's post 303. Proposing that some powers of Stuart, and namely a power allowing him to "know for a fact" that Emile is scum, were kept hidden after his death seems very unlikely to me. Also, it sounds like an argumentation that was constructed "ad hoc" to support an Emile lynch. This is potentially extremely scummy.

Is it possible he had a list of the scum but was unable to say he had a list or explain why he was voting for anyone on the list? That does seem a little far-fetched so I doubt that is true...

[Tracey Morris]

Why keep someone around that you know that at one point was super scummy...it will just mess with you at lylo.

Funny, that's exactly how I feel about you right now and keeping you around.

You need me at least for a little while longer, if for the very least to help lower your scumpool until lylo. Then at lylo you can decide whether or not to lynch me.

Yeah, so at LYLO we have this debacle called an unnecessary role claim staring at us with no way to prove it either way, unless a vig does try and kill you. Deciding whether to lynch you is not something I want to be doing late game.

As NK immune, I have no worries about sharing info.

Or as scum claiming a virtually unprovable duplicated power role you don't have to worry about sharing info?

The kicker also was I couldn't see there being more than one NK-immune PR, but once I saw he was telling the truth after the flip, I felt it was necessary to reveal who I was.

So you can understand our concern now that you are claiming nearly the exact same power role? The biggest concern is you claim to be a Lieutenant, whereas the other NK immune PR was a Captain? It seems the higher ranking would have a better ability. Also, why was it necessary to reveal who you supposedly are? Why didn't you just say you thought he was scum just like everyone else did (which you did say in this post)?

But now onto the news. I believe I am the reason Gerhard died. I recieved a message saying that somebody tried to use psionic powers on me, only to fail. Either that or vig shot him down before he could be successful.

Does your "role" say anything about whoever targets you will get killed instead?

I don't oppose lynching Stuart, but from the look of it I'd say that he is the "easy" target. Meaning that scum are trying to push his lynch.

So what does that say about your half commit, non binding attitude to his lynch? You couldn't be more of a fence sitter. Your not getting in the way of his lynch is duly noted; as is your contradictory suspicion of anyone that is attacking him as an easy target.

IGMEOY: Leon Dreyfus

Yeah, I had plans to come back and post more after taking my shower. I'll do so in a bit.

Your post is dismissed.

Still waiting...

[Tracey Morris]

Oh! So now you have the ability to probe minds? So you are a NK immune mind probing investigator (or whatever mind probing does)? Talk about a powerful Lieutenant!

[Tracey Morris]

This is getting more ridiculous and more ridiculous by the post. Why are more people not voting Otto?

[Tracey Morris]

Unbelievable...