926 A Game of Thrones Mafia - Over.

[Seacore]

I think we need something to get this game going a little stronger.

I've tried a "top three" suspects thing before, and while I feel that it has worked in the past, people get a bit funny about how it points out who everybody thinks is obv town, thus providing a good NK.

So I'm okay with avoiding that.

Perhaps though, everybody should be forced to build a case on somebody they want lynched today.
We've got people who have yet to give us their opinions on who should be lynched.

Bogre, who says I'm suspicious, but that I"m probably just crap town.

Buttonmen has been only vague in his suspicions, apparently declaring himself limited cop who didn't get a result, and then pointing that Macavity is not pushing strong cases is enough for him.

Flutter hasn't voted yet at all, but replaced and is V/LA, so I'll forgive him for now,

Kinetic, still waiting his promised post, and I'm also curious what could have informed his unvote that he can't discuss.

Inq, while VLA, also posted nothing for 2 days before that, and his response to me asking him to defend himself against the harder parts of my case was fairly poor.
ie. "Here are my seven points as to why Inq is scum" "But three of those points are weak" "Okay defend against the other four" "Ask me about them specifically or I won't"

I'm happy with everybody else. Not that I'm saying I think everybody else is town, but I think everybody else is posting in a way that is pro-town (ie, furthering discussion)

One extra thing I noticed in my quick ISO skims just then is Miserable, in this first post, voted Bogre for his over defensiveness in RVS stage. Possibly coaching from scum to scum? The wording struck me as a little odd.

[Locke Lamora]

Anywho, sorry if none of that makes sense/some of it was solved already. Other than that,

Vote: Bogre

on the basis that a whole discussion had been taking place, and he barely had anything to add other than a defensive attitude and an overreaction to the situation.

Which bit of that strikes you as odd wording in particular?

[Seacore]

Not that bit, this bit

@Bogre: Your first post, and it really hasn't said anything in terms of the game/gameplay... What are your thoughts on some people thus far? Why was your first post in the game (somewhat) extremely defensive in terms of someone who voted for you? It was the RVS after all.

[Seacore]

And to summarise why it feels oddly worded, it seems a little like *cough*Buddy, you're making a seen*cough*

[Locke Lamora]

I see what you mean there. I'm not really sure I get the (somewhat) extremely defensive. Either it's extremely defensive or not. It does sound a bit like he's trying to point out the flaws but at the same time is a bit reluctant about doing it.

[MacavityLock]

Mac: so you 'see' the Bogre dislike - does that mean you back his wagon, or do you simply understand the position of those on it without actually agreeing with them?

Sorry for being unclear. Yes, I back his wagon, and would join it in a deadline situation. Ideally, I still want to hear more from Inq before I do vote.

[Faraday]

Day 2.7 vote-count. The

Admit it, Imp. Given a choice between fucking Lollys and fighting the Mountain, you'd have your breeches down and your cock up before a man could blink.

'

votecount.

Seacore (1) [The Inquisition]
Bogre (4) [Mina, Raivann, Locke Lamora, Seacore]

Not voting:

(5) [Bogre, TheButtonMen, MacavityLock, Flutter, Kinetic]

No one is due for prodding to my knowledge, feel free to ask if you want someone prodded though.
Deadline: March 20th @ 6pm GMT

Inquistion and Flutter are V/la and I don't believe anyone else needs a prod.

[TheButtonmen]

You back it but would only join it at deadline?

[Seacore]

I didn't see the word 'only' in Mac's post, did you Buttonmen?

He likely doesn't want to put bogre at L-1

Please now go and do something useful.

[MacavityLock]

I didn't see the word 'only' in Mac's post, did you Buttonmen?

I'm glad someone who wasn't me picked up on that.

He likely doesn't want to put bogre at L-1

This is not the only reason that I'm not currently on the Bogre-wagon, but it is certainly one of them.

[Kinetic]

Since I lack a vote right now, until I can get a strong enough read on someone else I'm going to default to my top suspect.

vote:flutter

[Seacore]

Do you mind backing up vote with why he's your top suspect? Why you're not as convinced by the Bogre case as the rest of us?

[Kinetic]

Do you mind backing up vote with why he's your top suspect? Why you're not as convinced by the Bogre case as the rest of us?

Its not that I'm not convinced, its so much that I just haven't really analyzed him and my original gut reactions were pointing more toward townie.

If it becomes a deadline issue I'd vote to secure a lynch, but right now it isn't. I'm letting my feelings be known with my vote who I'd prefer to lynch right now while I work on catching up.

Issue is I'm not sure exactly when that will be, having several projects I am hoping to catch up on/finish tomorrow and if all goes according to plan I'll have some free time after.

[Locke Lamora]

Buttonmen: where is your 'more to come'? As far as I can tell you've only responded to things Mac has said since then, and you STILL haven't responded to my question.

[TheButtonmen]

Im found it odd because it refrenced a post you yourself had asked. Also hard to do more when everyone stops posting.

[Seacore]

Then look at what we've posted so far and make a case.

Yesterday you were pushing a case against me. Do you still believe I'm likely scum? If not, why not? And who now do you believe should die? Your vote isn't on anybody, as the deadline approaches, who do you want to see lynched?

[TheButtonmen]

Yesterday you were pushing a case against me.

I posted the case agianst Macavity not you. What are you referring to?

[Seacore]

This, among a couple of other posts, seemed to have you painting me as scummy when I was putting pressure on you.

@Seacore:

Why did you claim VT during D1? That's scummy as hell.

But okay, so you found Mac scummy yesterday. Do you still find him scummy? If so, why is your vote not on him? If not, why not. And my question of who you find scummy was still not answered.

You can't say "nobody's posting, so I don't know"
Scum aren't going to go "oh gee, Buttonmen is having a tough time finding us, maybe we should post more/differently" So start applying pressure where you think it's deserved.

[Mina]

Posting this in three parts for readability.

I've changed my mind on a Buttonmen counterclaim. I just realized that if someone faked a counterclaim to get Button lynched tomorrow, an SK could just kill the counterclaimant if we were in endgame. So I think investigative roles should wait until Day Three to reveal (although since there hasn't been a reveal, I guess either there's no cop or Button's it).

I'm starting to get very, very frustrated.

You know, I'm suspicious of Bogre and all, but my plan for today wasn't for me to make a case on Bogre, people to follow along, and then for us all to shut up and twiddle our thumbs for the next week-and-a-half waiting for Bogre to show up until we're three hours away from the deadline and we don't have time to lynch anyone else.

I'm starting to think Bogre is stalling on purpose. I say give him until tomorrow morning to come up with a brilliant defence, then someone put him to L-1. Because this is going nowhere fast.

Ugh. I wanted to get shit done on D2. I really wish I had more time to scumhunt before the deadline. I didn't sleep last night, and I have a metric ton of homework due this week.

[Seacore]

The fact that Bogre is stalling gives me hope that we've caught scum

The fact that a bunch of other people are stalling fills me with fear that we haven't.

[Mina]

Well, since the game is in limbo until tomorrow morning, might as well do something productive in the meantime.

Anyway, since Buttonmen has been pestering me to pay him attention, I just iso-read him. (Can you believe I'd never discovered you could set the thread to display only one player's posts until this weekend?)

I meant to bring this up a week ago, but never got around to it. Earlier, I thought Button had never explained his flip-flop on nameclaims. He correctly pointed out that he answered it here.

1 -I was worried about the noise / content ratio. It got to the point where I would have advocated pretty much anything to get people posting.

In the confusion of the end of Day One, I'd skimmed over that post. So sorry, Button.

But aside from the hypocrisy of complaining about the noise/content ratio when he wasn't contributing content himself, I also noticed a contradiction when I took a closer look at his posts.

When Kinetic first proposes the idea of a nameclaim, this is what Buttonmen says:

@Kinectic: It's the very "dynamic" nature of the names/roles that you say will make sure power roles aren't revealed that makes me wonder about the value of a mass claim. I'm not sure we can get enough valuable data out of it to make it worthwhile as it will also create lots of useless noise. I'm not asking you to divulge your information or plans but could you explain the benifits of the mass claim vs the white noise it will create a bit farther?

So he

does

bring up white noise...as a reason

not

to do a nameclaim. Because he thought the name claim would distract us from actual scumhunting.

But after the fact, he decided the nameclaim was a good idea

because

it would reduce noise? As we saw, the nameclaim didn't provide much information. Advocating a nameclaim wouldn't encourage more people to post. People were already posting--and posting actual content, to boot. What caused the turnaround?

He also gives possibly the lamest defence of all time when Seacore calls him on his crappy excuse for his flip-flop.

1- The vote was close, particularly at that point, you could have voted Nay and ended the noise just as easily. Yet you completely reversed your opinion without stating why at the time.

1. Not really anything I can add to that.

So in other words...Seacore called him on his bullshit, and he couldn't muster a decent defence.

Let's try this again, Buttonmen. Why did you go from thinking the nameclaim was a distraction to thinking it would get the game moving?

One last point. In my isoread, something stuck out to me as odd. TBH, I'm not sure if it's scummy, townie, or null, but I thought it was worth mentioning. YMMV.

Buttonmen comes across as rather resigned to his lynch throughout the end of D1:

4- Gonna be honesy, A)What Locke case are you even talking about, B)Her points are poop,

C) No point making a case I'm todays lynch there isn't time to lynch anyone else

, (Barring Helio if 2 people switch to him.)

4.75- Yes, one of the few players actually posting is the useless one, amazing logic, I'm not trying to start another wagon as we don't have time and no lynch is unacceptable.

Normally, I would consider these quotes mild towntells for a selfless but lazy VT who doesn't feel like scumhunting but knows that his flip will reveal information. I think scum usually has more of a sense of self-preservation.

But then out of the blue, he claims cop to save his skin. Which is kind of weird. Because a cop would know that he wasn't going to be the lynch that day. Buttonmen wasn't even trying to So I dunno. This is circumstantial evidence, and my gut sucks at this kind of thing, but I feel as though something doesn't fit. It comes across as though he made up his claim on the spot.

I mentioned before that it's strange how Arya-the-cop would have gone along with the nameclaim (and Buttonmen, I'm pretty sure you never answered

this

point of mine), since he'd be afraid of giving away that he had a juicy power role. So this adds to my malaise about Buttonmen.

Of course, that last point is just circumstantial evidence. If there's a reason to suspect Buttonmen, it's his reluctance to vote or scumhunt (although he's improved somewhat in the latter category today).

[Mina]

Mac: so you 'see' the Bogre dislike - does that mean you back his wagon, or do you simply understand the position of those on it without actually agreeing with them?

Sorry for being unclear. Yes, I back his wagon, and would join it in a deadline situation. Ideally, I still want to hear more from Inq before I do vote.

MacavityLock, why are you so afraid to vote?

Aside from the fact that I think taking issue with Buttonmen's "only" was nothing but semantics...if you're reluctant to put Bogre at L-1, then what's wrong with voting for another player? Why don't you vote for The Inquisition or TheButtonmen, if you also suspect them? It's not like they're anywhere close to a lynch.

I want Inq to answer my question before I decide whether or not to vote for him, but if deadline was right now, I'd be voting him.

This is the question you asked Inquisition:

Inq, have you answered why you claimed the exact number of BP shots yet?

I'd already asked him this question (go me for being first! ), and he answered it here:

2. I thought it even money that a vigil was actually shooting at me, and I want to discourage wasting the bullet on me. Furthermore, I generally think full-claiming is preferable to trickle-claiming. I've been in too many games where a player not claiming his full role because he believed there was something about it that was best left undiscovered actually came to bite the town in the posterior.

Decide yourself if you believe this explanation. But I think you have enough information to at least place your vote temporarily on either Inquisition or Buttonmen--and change your mind if you hear new information.

I mean, if you suspect them both, why not vote for one? Apply a miniscule amount of pressure on someone who isn't Bogre, since the votes of all the active people are tied up by the Bogre wagon. I already mentioned that I didn't want Button (or anyone else, for that matter) to feel too comfortable. Give us an alternative if we decide

not

to lynch Bogre. Make sure today isn't a waste of time. There's no good reason for a townie with several suspects to wait all day to vote.

Rai keeps doing little things that I find strange. For example,

I am thinking a Bogre, Kinetic scumteam.

Why Kinetic?

Why do you find it weird that Raivann suspects Kinetic? Do you think that Raivann's overall gameplay fits that of an evil player? Because I thought Raivann's implication from that quote was pretty clear. Do you disagree that the quote he mentioned (coupled with Kinetic placing a random vote on Bogre but being reluctant to vote Bogre today, as well as the Bogre-Buttonmen and Kinetic-Buttonmen links I've seen) could be proof of a partnership? Then say so, or make a case showing that Raivann's behaviour is scummy. But this was just a really random point to bring up. Particularly when you don't explain just why you find it weird.

-------

Seacore, I couldn't agree more with this:

But okay, so you found Mac scummy yesterday. Do you still find him scummy? If so, why is your vote not on him? If not, why not. And my question of who you find scummy was still not answered.

You can't say "nobody's posting, so I don't know"
Scum aren't going to go "oh gee, Buttonmen is having a tough time finding us, maybe we should post more/differently" So start applying pressure where you think it's deserved.

Buttonmen, please cast your damn vote for someone. (The same goes for Flutter and Bogre whenever they decide to grace us with their presence again.) Who do you suspect most? Seacore? MacavityLock? Locke Lamora? Well,

vote

for that person.

But Seacore, why did you have a problem with TheButtonmen for not having cast a vote, but go out of your way to defend MacavityLock for doing the same thing?

Why not let MacavityLock defend himself? I'm sure he's a big boy who can come up with his own arguments against Buttonmen (who, let's be frank, isn't a master of rhetoric). There was no reason for you to dilute what little pressure there was on ML like that.

(I have more thoughts, but I'm screwed for my assignment tomorrow. I'll save them for when Bogre either sways me with his golden words or Bogre gets run up to L-1--whichever comes first. This better not last until Saturday.)

[TheButtonmen]

Vote: MacavityLock

@Mina:

Did you have time to ISO Mac yet?

[Mina]

EBWOP: My post didn't make it clear that Seacore was the one who brought up the "only" argument, although MacavityLock agreed with it.

[Mina]

Why am I still online? If I fail all my courses this semester, I'm blaming this game.

Buttonmen: I iso-skimmed him while writing that massive post above.

Thanks for finally casting your vote (even though Seacore and I had to pressure you to do so). But could you respond to any of my points against you? Particularly your contradiction on nameclaiming?

General impressions: MacavityLock fits the same general profile as Locke Lamora (narrow focus, reasonable points about the set-up, logical, avoiding a leadership role, narrow in focus). I find Locke will occasionally surprise me with an insightful question or original thought, though. And my only real problem with him is that he doesn't provide enough content. MacavityLock, on the other hand, comes across as oilier, more conventional, and much safer. His double flip on Inquisition was what really set off alarm bells. Sure...it's plausible he completely misread Inquisition's post

twice

, even after I'd pressured him on it a few times. But something about that entire exchange felt very off. I'm having trouble verbalizing why, but maybe I'll take a closer look at it afterwards.

When I was rereading him, I see a trend. Raivann votes me-->ML votes me (with lots of qualifying language), a bunch of people vote Buttonmen-->MacavityLock votes Buttonmen, lots of people are skeptical of Inquisition's claim and vote him-->MacavityLock is also skeptical of Inquisition's claim (although he doesn't vote him). I think his only original thought (I don't give him credit for the FOS point, since I and several players had already taken issue with Button's FOS) was asking Raivann why he thought each faction had multiple kill flavours. Let's face it, that's not exactly hard contribution for scum to fake.

And I think it's very,

very

easy for a relatively experienced, intelligent player to play scum the way he has all game--sheep other people's cases, comment on the set-up and on roles rather than on behaviour, make reasonable-sounding comments that don't often stray beyond the obvious. Particularly if the killers know it's a multifaction game and have an incentive not to attract a nightkill.

So yeah. I hate to say it, but I actually think your points on MacLock are fairly accurate...

OH MY GOD I'M AGREEING WITH THEBUTTONMEN!!!!!!!

HELP ME THE WORLD IS ENDING!