Mini 1095 - Fast Food Mafia - Game Over

[peanutman]

@ConfidAnon, that is really weak play. Let me explain.
You try to change things up (away from the CooldDog-TSQ affair) by voting for "someone who had been quiet" to see how it would affect the discussion. Fine, if that was your plan. But your follow-up is to say it's odd that I ignored it (though I addressed that specifically in the previous post), even though there wasn't much to acknowledge, and that you don't know what you were looking to happen. Could I give you a better idea as to how to change the course of discussion? CONTRIBUTE! Instead of getting others to get things going, try starting by putting some effort and doing it yourself.
Also, please explain this (especially the bolded) :

Unvote

Honestly, the only things of note were you noticing it (good) and peanutman ignoring it (odd).

He did start posting again, but other than that, nothing.

I'm waiting on answers from Chronopie (my preferred lynch for today), but you're a close second. You would have come off less scummy by just saying your vote was simply to get me to post.

[peanutman]

No! Got ninja'ed.
In response to

#6:

I just don't feel this post. It seems like he's going through the motions but doesn't buy it himself. Also, his suspicion of Coug seems to disagree with the first part of his post.

I don't understand where you're pulling this from. I explained that my suspicion of Coug was from the interactions with cooldog

after

the miller discussion.

The best way I can sum it up, is to refer to whenever I was mafia. I found D1s so long and boring because most townies were trying to build cases out of very little info, while I wanted the day to end, get a NK and build on that for the other days. And that's the impression I get from both Chronopie and ConfidAnon.
ConfidAnon said that he was bored with the game while Chronopie feels apathy and agrees that most of my points in 181 are valid (where I basically say he isn't putting effort and has no desire to scumhunt). That is exactly how I felt when I played scum (though I tried to hide it a bit better).

I'm up for a lynch of either one today.

On a side note, I don't characterize their place as lurking which is a null-tell IMO(i.e. not trying to post too much, stay out of the spotlight), because they are actually coming forward with their apathy.

@ConfidAnon, why haven't you placed a vote? Who's your top suspect?
@Chronopie, do you believe that CoolDog is a PR (as he has claimed)? If so, why would he claim PR as scum (which you seem to believe he also is)?

[Zang]

Votecount-

Chronopie - 1 - (Peanutman) (L-6)
Confidanon - 1 - (InHimshallibe) (L-6)
CooLDoG - 5 - (StrangerCoug, AntB, Chronopie, SnakePlissken, EtherealCookie) (L-2)
AntB - 1 - (ragrhcpfreak) (L-6)
Thestatusquo - 1 - (CooLDoG) (L-6)
StrangerCoug - 1 - (Thestatusquo) (L-6)

Not Voting: Confidanon, ChannelDelibird

7 needed to lynch

Deadline is December 28 at 3:15 pm EST

[AntB]

@ConfidAnon
You voted because you were bored..... wow....

[EtherealCookie]

I don't know if I should still be comfortable where my vote is. On one hand, CoolDoG is doing a horrid job of defending and justifying his actions. On the other hand, he might just be village idiot and a lot of people seem very comfortable with switching their votes to him. (StrangerCoug, for example.) It makes me a bit uneasy; If he's town, we're giving scum an easy opportunity here. It is important to closely watch those who have poor reasons for voting CoolDog.


And, ConfidAnon, lurker, scum, or both?

[rajrhcpfreak]

inhim, you dont get a pick three after last game

[lewarcher82]

Strangercoug 39: right. Claminig miller in closed setups is standard miller strategy. What is possibly wrong with that?

Peanut 44, EtherealCookie 38, 41 and the coaching delirium: what the hell are you guys talking about? It is normal for a miller to claim.

peanut 54: very bad post. This is loosely motivated and therefore borderline backtracking.

TSQ 57: thx, I hate walls.

SC 60: some good points here. so far I have a feeling Ethereal is a little scummy. Peanut 44 was either scummy or noobish; his 54 is - as I told - definitely scummy. Could one perhaps envision a possible scenario, with both eth and peanut being scumbuddies, who accidentally interacted and, riskying to appear to close to each other, suddenly start a soft-bus (^54)?

CooLDoG 61: yeah, we got that.

AnTB 64: no one was going for blood about nothing. Ignoring a miller claim... I guess you mean you will not let it influence your vote. This is correct. Actually, this is evident. But a claim has other consequences, such as discussions, which you cannot ignore.

Ethereal 70: for Christ's sake, put the names in the quotes, you lazy smiley-face!

CooLDoG 75: and I see the catastrophe approaching.

76: closer

77: CLOSER

ethereal 83: eteheral gets town points for this. His defense is convincing, and AntB did say some shitty stuff... and AntB 84 fails to explain the reference to "reasonings" for a vote on ethereal that were never explicitated!

peanut 92: let it go, damnit, why rub in it? You criticise Cool for asking TSQ to claim and then you soft-ask him to claim himself???? I so don't like you, dude...

chrono 98: sooooo, first really "biting" post... did you wait for someone to appear weak enough?

cooldog 103: huh, dude... you are aware that YOUR flavour-claim would be a problem to you, so why are you doubting that TSQ's flavour-claim would be a problem to him????

confid 123: yeah, I agree on the double-stance case on AntB, who already looked scummy for his 84.

AnTB 127: why not? [meaning you are just dodging the question here]

AntB 128: yeah, well good question. And good way to avert attention from what people is posting about you.

CoolDog 142: and here we go. The flavour claim...

I haven't the slightest idea what145, 146 and 147 are about:

where is it that CD stated his power requires him to know the fast food name? I missed it, just gimme a link, please.

ethereal 153: delirium.

CoolDog 183: attacking miller??? why?

CoolDog 200: yeah, good question... wonder if ethereal knows anything we don't.

voting in the next post.

[lewarcher82]

just like in every theme game I have seen, people are confused. Which is fine, we are trying to figure out the rules, while scum knows a little more about the game than town does...

as a consequence of my previous post, I believe:
1) that peanut is scummy
2) that CoolDog is not scum (definite townread)
3) that miller is likely miller
4) that AntB is a backtracking guy who votes for the easy target and even refers to non-existing content.
5) that ethereal is a little scummy, number 3 in my list after AntB (1) and peanut (2).

therefore I will

unvote

;

vote: AntB

get off the fried chicken guy. It is stupid to think he would have claimed, and ethereal should please answer my question about the power he referred to.

I ask again: where is it that CD stated his power requires him to know the fast food name?

[AntB]

#64 I stated I would not ignore the discussion later

#84 You say this post is scummy yet missed it from your break down, what exactly is scummy about it? Fence sitting isn't the best thing but in that situation I felt it better not to vote. I also explained StrangerCoug seemed to have made a better case IMO and he was voting and acting on his suspicions.

#127 Must've missed the question, unless your referring to me asking him specifically to provide an overview on specific players and him wondering why. Then if you look closer and not skim, you shall find the answer.

#128 A Rhetorical question is a good way to divert attention. Noted.

I like to see where you believe I have referred to non-existent content.

[lewarcher82]

didn't miss it, it is dealt with in the same paragraph as 83.

127 yes you did. People asked you what were the good reasons for the vote.

128 in some cases it is, in some cases it isn't.

in post 80. SC had provided no reasons at all for his vote on ethereal, as far as I see. If I missed them, please show them to me.

[CooLDoG]

@lewar, you are correct that I have never said that my role has anything to do with knowing other peoples flavor. I also think your posts will generated new information for the town.

@AntB, Why did you ask me to claim my flavor? Was it to get information?

-No more posts will talk about TSQ out-right refusal to give information to the town-

[inHimshallibe]

inhim, you dont get a pick three after last game

[AntB]

@lewarcher
In post 60 strangercoug justifies his vote and following his logic I can see where he would find reason to vote.

@CooLDoG
I said if you are going to push so hard then reveal yours and he may do the same. I did not apply any pressure, I didn't say "do or die". You revealed it of your own will. Besides, why would you reveal so much with so little/no pressure?

[lewarcher82]

what I read in post 60 is a deconstruction of a previous case made by ethereal, which I also consider weak. Is a weak case scummy? If your answer is yes, I disagree, but fair enough..

another thing. Your post 147 can be paraphrased as follows: CoolDog claimed scum. Why would he???
I'd like ethereal to answer this as well, since he is the one who posted that weird 145?

Also, doesn't CoolDog realize he'll be killed for claiming a power role, which he has basically done by saying his role is connected to knowing what establishment the other person is?

seriously, what does this mean???

[AntB]

another thing. Your post 147 can be paraphrased as follows: CoolDog claimed scum. Why would he???

If you were to paraphrase I would say "CooLDoG claimed without provocation, bad scum."

I don't see anything which would imply a "why would he?"

[StrangerCoug]

Strangercoug 39: right. Claminig miller in closed setups is standard miller strategy. What is possibly wrong with that?

I've also seen scum fakeclaim miller on Day 1 (I'd have to check if it was his first post—it's a completed game, fortunately).

[EtherealCookie]

Uhh. You're not flying by with just "Hey you're scummy" and a few posts extracted with questions about them that've probably been answered or you've just pulled out of your ass because you can't be bothered to read.

that ethereal is a little scummy, number 3 in my list after AntB (1) and peanut (2).

Cases on everyone you think is scummy. Paragraphs. Logic. Please? Thanks.

Stop agreeing with people. Actually come up with your own theories. All I'm seeing from you is, "Yeah dude, good job, I totally agree, yeah, he's totally scummy, nice question." Seems like you're scum trying to slide past as "pro-town" because you just regurgitate what everyone else has already said, and you don't seem to be doing a good job at reading either.

2) that CoolDog is not scum (definite townread)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA! Town my ass. Third party, scum, very slim chance of VI.

Also, doesn't CoolDog realize he'll be killed for claiming a power role, which he has basically done by saying his role is connected to knowing what establishment the other person is?

How does this not make sense?
CoolDog has claimed a power role. Here's a quote for you, in case you missed it while you were speed reading:

EC, if you want to know why I'm saying this you had better be ready for another claim.

Put simply my role is tied very closely to my joint. And I mean very closely, the joints aren't assigned at random, they actually corrispond to a role. For my role the joint I have fits perfectly with the actual role itself. In TSQ case his joint (if I'm correct, which I am sure that I am. <slight ego) should seem scummy, but in reality not. I'm willing to bet that his joint is just scummy, which would correspond to scum. As we all know a tell on food-chain alone isn't enough to base a case on, but it seems like his deliberate and un-explained reasons for not telling us such a basic aspect of his role screams scum.

Bolded for your convenience. The implication, I am getting here, from this bold part, is that he is a power role. Furthermore, it seemss that he can use TSQ's role to determine whether or not he is bluffing. Otherwise, there is NO reason he should want TSQ's role. Simply because his establishment and his role are tied doesn't necessarily mean TSQ's establishment and role are tied. If he is really relying on ONE PERSONAL EXAMPLE as a golden rule for all role-establishment relations, he is stupid. For him to be certain about this, his ability must be related to some establishment-role relation discerning ability. Or at least, if he was TOWN, it would be this case. But if he was, why would he even claim? That'd be a horrible idea for town and if he died that wouldn't benefit us at all. And given he's claimed power role, if he was Town, he should die tomorrow. Of course, now he's built up a doctor excuse to lean back on. Bullshit. Don't buy it. Scum/3rd party.

[lewarcher82]

@ethereal(1): how about you explain why you stated that CoolDog said "his role is connected to knowing what establishment the other person is"?

@ethereal(2): third party for cooldog is a possibility I hadn't considered. I will think about it. Third parties are often free to act very pro-town. But look at it this way: why attract attention to himself? After this claim, if he is a third party, and he is not nk immune, scum will assume he is a town power role and kill him. If he survives, any hypothetical investigative role will sooner or later be on him. And third parties (excluding jesters) cannot sacrifice themselves to help their team...

@ethereal(3): I'd need a complete case if I wanted to vote someone or start a bw. I don't need a complete case to say that your post 153 or your weird statement about cooldog's power sound scummy. As for peanut, I quoted two posts I didn't like. Regarding AntB, I said what I think and I am answering his questions. What is the matter? Is voting you so outrageous?

[lewarcher82]

another thing. Your post 147 can be paraphrased as follows: CoolDog claimed scum. Why would he???

If you were to paraphrase I would say "CooLDoG claimed without provocation, bad scum."

I don't see anything which would imply a "why would he?"

No. Your entire case is based on the assumption that the flavour he provided without provocation is highly likely a scum-revealing flavour. This means - if he is scum - that he decided to provide information that would very likely reveal his alignment and get him lynched with no apparent reason. This is not a bad scum. A bad scum is a mafia doc who claims doc on day 1. This is more like a mafia goon who claims mafia goon on day 1. And sounds very unconvincing to me. See my point?

[EtherealCookie]

@ethereal(1): how about you explain why you stated that CoolDog said "his role is connected to knowing what establishment the other person is"?

I JUST explained this.

[quote="EtherealCookie]For him to be certain about this, his ability must be related to some establishment-role relation discerning ability. Or at least, if he was TOWN, it would be this case.[/quote]
His statement leaked that A) He's stupid and thinks because the role and establishment matched for him, TSQ's must... or B) See quoted.

[AntB]

you mis-interpd my bad scum, bad as in evil, not bad as in you suck

I based my case off CooLDoGs push for TSQ to reveal his establishment and the resulting reveal of his PR with no pressure, and since then he seems to be attempting to shift attention back at me by saying I backtracked and more recently implying I forced him to reveal his role. Of which I did no such thing.

[lewarcher82]

@eth: The implication is that flavour is related to roles, and that he knows that because of his role and his flavour, not that his role has something to do with knowing the flavours of other people. I still don't see the connection, but I am ready to accept that we see two different meanings while reading the same sentence.ù

@AntB: ok. Still, he came out with a flavour that puts him in a very bad position. Why would he do it, being scum? Are you suggesting a double wifom ("they will think I cannot be scum cuz if I were scum I wouldn't take such a risk like the risk I am taking")?

[EtherealCookie]

I see where you're coming from lewarcher, but that seems sketchy. CoolDog shouldn't base off role-flavor connection simply because his relate. If we knew more roles & flavors, and we noticed a repeating pattern, then it'd be okay, but one person's role-flavor connection is not a good basis for a rule.

[lewarcher82]

I agree he shouldn't but, but I think it is what he did.

where the hell is the miller who complained about lurkers??? Come on, comment, play, say something.

[CooLDoG]

@EC, Again, I never said my role has anything to do with anybody's flavor. Simply, I noted that my role is tied closely to my flavor. I think something can be determined about TSQ if we (not plural) know his flavor. We could run a goggle/Wikipedia search and see what comes up. That's all that there is to the whole flavor deal. You are trying to make to many small connections that don't exist. Plus I've got 5 votes on me, I'm the VI, I'm a power role, and one helluva easy lynch target. It makes perfect sence for you wanting to completely misrepresent me, you being scum and all...

@AntB, It seems to me like you put more pressure on me then you say, however, it could just be my perception of your post.

TSQ needs to post.

SC needs to post content.

I need some body to get a case written up so i can answer to everything. I'm at l-2, and that shocks me. (not having a formal case, that is)