888: X-COM TFTD Mafia: Over!

[Emile Buchard]

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?

1. I have no idea why he's targeting me.
2. I'd think that we've gotten a big distraction out of our hair. Seriously, even if he is "town", all he can do is serve as a hinderance to the town.

I have no intention of giving reasons for any votes I make in this game.

Why is Stuart still alive?

Gerhard is right though, this wagon is such a plus for scum. Either way they go, and the lynch is still going through. However, not lynching him and living with him (because he's not going to get NKed, ever) is an even worse fate. There's probably town on the wagon, town off the wagon, scum, on the wagon, and scum off the wagon. They're so mixed up, though, that its nearly impossible to tell who's who.

BTW,

vote: reveal

. Sorry, I forgot about it. No reason not to really.

[Jaime Marcelle]

@everyone on my wagon: If I'm lynched and come up town who will you suspect because of it?

I can't really suspect anyone which is I have to admit one of the cons of this lynch. Everyone who WASN'T on the wagon however would gain some townie points with me.

@Everyone: I'd also like to hear from everyone else who they think is scum on my wagon should I be town.

Again, see above. While I can probably look for scum out of the people on the wagon it's going to take some rereading so if you pop town I will reread everyone in iso and look for scummy people. But yes I agree that if you are town there will probably be 1-2 scum on it. I would assume it would be someone that would be like "Eh... I guess I'll vote him but I'd rather stay out of the way for it"

But anyway, I agree. The only way I will unvote Stuart at this point is
a. If someone looks even more scummy 9which seems very close to impossible) or
b.He gives me a VERY VERY good reason for his vote on Emile and why he won't tell us his reasons.

Talking about Stuart has become futile. Lets get up some content about other players, or end the day here, because this case clearly isn't going anywhere.

I agree. I'm going to try and come up with something on other people soon. I'm going to be watching everyone closely until the end of the day to catch anything.

Atm my top scum suspects:

Scum: Gerhard Spencer Emile

I'd like a response from everyone on the matter before my lynch please.

Again, when I hear a reason for it I can talk about it.

[Stuart Whyte]

Atm my top scum suspects:

Scum: Gerhard Spencer Emile

I'd like a response from everyone on the matter before my lynch please.

Again, when I hear a reason for it I can talk about it.

Sorry that I wasn't more clear but I think I was misunderstood here. What I meant was: That list is very temporary and could easily change depending on how people answer my question(about who the scum on my wagon are) Its that question that I want a response on. Not commenets about this scum list.

[Spencer Remmington]

How can we possibly fit in a policy lynch, all of these lurker lynches, and still have enough time for the scum that are actually playing the game?

I again get the impressoin that you know I'm town.

The more I think about the case against you, the more likely I think it is you are town. The case at large is that you're choosing to play a way that is anti-town and will obviously get you lynched easily.

You would probably follow this path as scum as well, but in all honesty, you've already done more in giving your opinion than other people have, which makes you more townie than them. Seriously, I ask one person one simple question and he goes indefinitely V/LA. And that's not even counting the people refusing to look in any direction but yours.

My main suspects based on the wagon are Igor and Gerhard. Igor for trying to push an invalid point and backtracking - obviously trying to push the lynch anyway he can. Gerhard's "Taking my own advice" thing seems a bit forced as well.

[Gerhard Krause]

@Stuart - What do you plan to take from people's answers? I'm sure I could go back and read everyone in iso to find two or three people on the wagon I think are scummier than the rest, then answer your question. Then you will take some kind of info from that answer, and I have no reason to expect you will share any of it.

So no, I'm not going to answer your question purely for your benefit. I have no more interest in trying to reason with you, as I have been trying extremely hard since the first page. There is no reason for any of us to answer your questions, since you clearly have no intention of telling us the intention behind those questions.

I have every intention of looking closely at all the people on and off the wagon, but I do not intend to draw any conclusions until after I see your flip, nor do I want to post vague suspicions now, since that will allow any scum I do happen to touch upon to come up with a defense before a comprehensive case is posted on them.

[Jaime Marcelle]

Sorry that I wasn't more clear but I think I was misunderstood here. What I meant was: That list is very temporary and could easily change depending on how people answer my question(about who the scum on my wagon are) Its that question that I want a response on. Not commenets about this scum list.

Oh, alright. Then my answer is still the same. I will look into that if you flip town. However, seriously though, do you mind telling us why you can't explain your votes. If you die and flip town we lose all that knoledge. If you were onto something good we will lose that knowledge forever.

So no, I'm not going to answer your question purely for your benefit. I have no more interest in trying to reason with you, as I have been trying extremely hard since the first page. There is no reason for any of us to answer your questions, since you clearly have no intention of telling us the intention behind those questions

You're not going to answer him because he won't answer you? Isn't that kind of hypocritical? Really, you should have a good reason for choosing not to answer other then "Well he won't tell me why he's asking me so i'm not going to answer him!"

[Gerhard Krause]

@Jaime - You misunderstood me. I chose not to answer him because I would rather reserve the information I find until after his flip, and I am not incentivized to answer him on the assumption that he will present information based on my answer.

You see what I mean?

[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.

[Stuart Whyte]

Oh, alright. Then my answer is still the same. I will look into that if you flip town. However, seriously though, do you mind telling us why you can't explain your votes. If you die and flip town we lose all that knoledge. If you were onto something good we will lose that knowledge forever.

My reasons aren't game specific. Discussing this belongs in MD. Even if I could convince everyone in here that I am right given infinite time I seriously doubt I could do so before the deadline, and doubt even more my ability to do so and find a suitable lynch. Because of this any discussion of the validity of the points I raise really is anti-town. It's quite obvious everyone is pressuring for my reasons only to discuss their validity, as such I have no intention of revealing them until more people agree not to do so.

[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

[Gerhard Krause]

@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.

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.

Now this is the first bit of significant info we've had from Stuart all day. Reasons not being game specific can only mean his reasons do not come from this game. That means that he has some kind of interaction with Emile outside this thread, which means they either have some means of communicating (i.e. Town/mafia aligned lovers, masons, a scum team (unlikely), or some flavor based roles which they are forbidden to claim) or Stuart knows Emile's alternate acount, or has some other kind of info which he is prohibited from having, or his reasons are bullshit and he's leading us on. None of these options lead me to not want to lynch him, except maybe the first, but that is essentially a shot in the dark, so there is no reason to place any store in it.

Tracey, I see your reasoning, but it is not enough for me to take my vote off of Stuart.

[Stuart Whyte]

@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.

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.

Now this is the first bit of significant info we've had from Stuart all day. Reasons not being game specific can only mean his reasons do not come from this game. That means that he has some kind of interaction with Emile outside this thread, which means they either have some means of communicating (i.e. Town/mafia aligned lovers, masons, a scum team (unlikely), or some flavor based roles which they are forbidden to claim) or Stuart knows Emile's alternate acount, or has some other kind of info which he is prohibited from having, or his reasons are bullshit and he's leading us on. None of these options lead me to not want to lynch him, except maybe the first, but that is essentially a shot in the dark, so there is no reason to place any store in it.

Tracey, I see your reasoning, but it is not enough for me to take my vote off of Stuart.

I kind of understand the misunderstanding that happened here, my fuck up. But given the rest of the content of that paragraph I don't know how you didn't realize I fucked up. The reason there is "reasons for not explaining votes", not "reason for voting Emile", which is obviously game specific. I don't know how a serious vote could ever be game independent.

[Gerhard Krause]

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. Will anyone else consider pressuring Orski until we get some content from him?

Orski is being replaced, if you didn't notice...

@Stuart - Well if it is just theory, which is the only non game specific reason I can think of, then what is the point of concealing it?

[Stuart Whyte]

@Stuart - Well if it is just theory, which is the only non game specific reason I can think of, then what is the point of concealing it?

I've said this many times. I'm pretty sure people aren't reading, or at least understand, what I'm writing. I\m not intending to put all the blame on you guys, maybe I'm just not being articulate enough, but it is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Debating theory that isn't game specific isn't at all useful. If I present my points they will be debated. I don't see side tracking the thread into theory talk for the rest of the day only to be deadline lynched as being more useful than what I'm presently doing.

[Claude Lefevre]

I see that some interesting stuff is going on. First of all, Tracey's post about Emile.

on Stuart, Tracey, Emile

I agree that there is an exceedingly emotional approach in the post Tracey's quote, but this doesn't seem a good enough reason for voting. Actually, I think that a scum would be totally idiot if he posted something like that. 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.

On the other hand, Tracey is absolutely right when she sez that Emile did not work much to get information from Stuart. But then again, neither did Jamie, nor former Edward...

Regarding Stuart, the following post is beyond the edge of absurdity:

Atm my top scum suspects:

Scum: Gerhard Spencer Emile

I suppose it would be futile to ask why?

completely.

What the hell is your problem? Why won't you talk to us? This is a team game!

on Jamie

Generally speaking, and in consideration of his attitude towards Stuart, Jamie seems truly convinced that Stuart is Mafia... I do not completely like the way he is ignoring my vote on him, especially now that I answered his question. In the remote possibility that Stuart is not scum, I will surely keep my eye on Jamie, but then again, there is so much going on that ignoring a vote when u r at L-6 is not necessarily scummy.

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.

[Claude Lefevre]

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

[Andrew Lemarchand]

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. Will anyone else consider pressuring Orski until we get some content from him?

I would, as I'd still like some sort of explanation for Edward's plan, but we're still waiting on Orski to be replaced.

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.

Is this the only thing that bothers you about Tracey? If so, are you equally bothered by Spencer unvoting after Stuart reached L-1 the first time?

[Claude Lefevre]

@Andrew: Yes, it's the only thing, and yes, the same is valid for Spencer: in fact I didn't stress the fact that it is Tracey who now unvoted. i still have to think about it, but I put my vote on Stuart for two reasons:
1) I am convinced that he is scum (he was my FoS since long ago and I explained why I now prefer to vote him rather than Jamie);
2) I want to see what happens now that he is at L-1 for the third time.

@Andrew(2): A hypothesis: scum-Orski saw how poorly scum-Edward had played in his few posts and decides that it isn't even worth trying... plausible?

[Igor Schultz]

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

I get your point. Very good point too. But inorder for you to think that then you must also think that what he is saying is true. I was going to get around to this about the claim so listen now.

Stuart is apparently voting emy for a reason which we do not know. He can't be voting on meta, or any sort of personal stuff. Thus he must be voting on his role or a very strong read. If it was a read a normal person would have droped his vote right off a just told everyone that it was so. Instead he doesn't which leads me to think that it is part of his role. Thus we must take that as truth and all lynch emmy. If we take that as truth the stu has lyed to us many times. If your good point is true then stu must be lying about his claim. And many things along those lines. If that were above true then stu would have to be truthfal beyond a shadow of a dought. In order to vote for someone I prefer to have a read myself other then to follow a blind vote. So stu is not only an anti-town player he is also a lying anti-town player. 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.

@stu If I were to pick some people on the wagon right now that I think are scum they are.
gerard, and Leon...

[Igor Schultz]

ebwop: sorry on above it should not be leon (my bad....) it should be Claude.

[Stuart Whyte]

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)

[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.

[Claude Lefevre]

@Igor: I do not see any reason to think Gerard is scummy, so I would like to know why I and Gerard would be the scummiest on the wagon. In my case, is it because I voted so late? If so, I expected something like that, but I had to follow my way and to investigate my FoS's. I am on the wagon now and my future behavior depends mainly on Stuart's, Emile's, Tracey's and Jamie's next posts.

@Tracey: it bothers me because it may be a "hey, perhaps our scum-buddy won't die after all: let's jump off before it is too late". But it is just a feeling. I am glad that Stuart wasn't lynched too soon, but I am not convinced that your observation is strong enough an argument to dismiss the wagon.

@Stuart: we can of course assume that your claim is a fake and that you have a role-based reason to think that Emile is scum (again I don't think so. I think that you are scum). If so, you would be a power role. I am saying it out loud, but everyone has already thought it (I hope: the first was Jamie). In this case, why on earth didn't you just invent a reason for calling Emile scum? A vote with hidden reasons and the refusal to explain is always dangerous to the voter and to his team.

[malthusis]

Since SOME people weren't reading the thread closely enough, I'll reiterate it: Orski said he was to busy in RL, and had to be relpaced....