Mini 1126 - Game over - Was Averagely Suspicious saved?

[Barry Allen]

Hello all.

[Barry Allen]

I like this guy

What guy?

This guy... All this guy right here. *Waves*

Yeah the cup cake guy

Yep, cup cakes works for me...

[Barry Allen]

Pie is OK - but not cake.....the cake is a lie...

[Barry Allen]

I used to play at epic mafia, probably will go back sometime. The group in the round looks like we'll have a lot of fun - at least we won't have to worry about lack of activity.

[Barry Allen]

Russell looks nothing like Snake's guy (which I'm assuming is named Snake)

It's Snake Eyes from 999 on the DS, a pretty good visual novel.

Agreed - 999 is one of the better games I've seen on the DS.


Hope we can get started soon....surely we have enough votes by now.

[Barry Allen]

Somehow I didn't think we could get to L-1 so quickly....XD

Errant - if you weren't at L-1 already I'd vote for you myself. You posted a rather unfortunate message about wanting to delay the game, then post an OMGUS vote and THEN say you had a case? Wow........

[Barry Allen]

Only because I was spectacularly dumb...instead of 7 votes needed to lynch, I had 7 on my mind and thought of 4/7...I feel really stupid right now, and I should...

...and since we do have room...I'll do what I would have done if I had counted properly in the first place (as noted in my earlier post)

VOTE: Errant Apathos

[Barry Allen]

...which now puts us at L-2...please tell me I have THAT right at least...

[Barry Allen]

Some quick notes:

1. I'm not comfortable with the way Bill jumped on wikki. I do think wikki is appealing to emotion, especially with his unvote "if it will make you happy". However, that post from wikki came after Bill jumped on wikki. Something just isn't right here...I'm torn between voting Bill and voting wikki right now.

2. @GreyICE...could you please explain that post in which you voted sub? Zito declares someone "town", and that looks bad to me - I'm not ready to declare that any other player is town, and don't know why Zito would do so. Sub has been all over the place, but calling out Zito for that remark doesn't look like a scumtell to me, so please let us know more about your thoughts here.

3. @Ashblade - I would like more about how I'm "all over the place". I FoS'd someone and didn't vote only because of my massively stupid vote count...and voted as soon as that count was corrected. I haven't sent out other suspicions prior to this post, so I don't get your assessment. If you want all over the place, just read sub's posts.

For now, while I'm not ready to declare anyone town, I no longer think Erratus is the right vote for D1. That "case" in post 102 is not a case Erratus - it's more OMGUS than anything - but your later contributions to the thread have lessened my suspicions enough that I think pulling that vote is appropriate.

VOTE: UNVOTE[/]

tldr - looking at Bill and wikki right now. My inclination would be more voting Bill, but wikki's "if it will make you happy" posts keep nagging at something in the back of my brain...

[Barry Allen]

tag fail.....

VOTE: UNVOTE

[Barry Allen]

Ok, some thoughts here...

First, this from Ashblade responding to my earlier post:

Some quick notes:
3. @Ashblade - I would like more about how I'm "all over the place". I FoS'd someone and didn't vote only because of my massively stupid vote count...and voted as soon as that count was corrected. I haven't sent out other suspicions prior to this post, so I don't get your assessment. If you want all over the place, just read sub's posts.

I feel you will or are in the background, and trust me in that I already see sub.

Huh? Since I'm not "all over the place" in the thread, and you know it, when I call you on that claim you just say I "will be" or "are in the background"? Your explanation makes no sense, and raises my suspicions when it comes to you. Are you claiming to have ESP and somehow just "know" that I'm all over the place, or are you simply just stuck since you made a claim that you couldn't back up?

Now, a word from Papa Zito:

tldr - looking at Bill and wikki right now. My inclination would be more voting Bill, but wikki's "if it will make you happy" posts keep nagging at something in the back of my brain...

Why aren't you voting one of them then.

Here's where I'm stuck - Bill's earlier posts seem contradictory to me, and I had a bad vibe from his initial jumping on wikki. As for wikki - wikki may be new but some of the comments (especially the "if it will please you" with the unvote) just looks like a somewhat scummy attempt to please the town. Given that, I wasn't ready to choose between the two.

I am glad I've waited - Ashblade's reply to me looks rather bizarre and may send me in his direction with a vote instead of Bill or wikki, but I'd like to re-read and hopefully come back later tonight before giving it up for the evening. I've been working out of town the last couple of days (posted earlier today from the hotel) and just got back from a 6 hour drive home - really glad to be home.

[Barry Allen]

3) I have a one-shot power that allows me to choose three players, and one of them will be vigged at random. If I had to submit right now, whose names should I submit (brief explanation would be nice)?

Before I go to bed, I wanted to reply to this. If you really have this power, I don't think you should do this randomly - there should be some strategy that would allow us to learn something.

1. One direction would be to put in names that you are trying to choose between for the "most likely to be scum" award. That way, if one flips either town or scum you may have a better idea about the other (not guaranteed of course, but a better idea nonetheless). For example, if I were choosing I'd probably put Bill and wikki in together as two of the three, simply because at this point I think I might learn something from one of them flipping either town or maf.

2. You could choose another direction and simply pick three of the least actives...my usual worry D1 is that the real scum play lurky-loo while everyone else posts a lot and picks on each other all the way to a ML.

I'm sure there are other strategies to the selection process, but that's the first two that popped into my mind. The main point is that you choose with some plan in mind that gives you (and everyone) better insight than just a random vig shot. I'll give it some more thought after a good night's sleep.

[Barry Allen]

...

Alright, I'll try to explain it slowly.

1. When you began today with the wagon on EA you were acting like he had gotten to L-1.
2. When you see that you can vote you do and then start wondering about even that, asking for 'wait, is that right?' kind of thing. In my eyes I see the beginning of someone who is going to go sort of "hmm, maybe I should vote" or more use words without putting their actions where it is. Maybe "all over the place" isn't quite the right way to describe it but let's say that I can feel in my gut that you will probably act... maybe its hesitant in the future. (which, btw, you are right NOW with your 3 suspects and not a single one of them holding your vote.)

OK, Ashblade, please allow ME to explain this slowly...and please in your future posts don't confuse sarcasm and condescension for actually making a logical argument...

My first post made an argument regarding voting EA, withholding my vote only because of my miscount - I didn't want to put someone at L-1 that early in the round. I don't call that "hesitance" btw - I call that not placing us in the position of a quickhammer from a scum in case we were wrong. As soon as my count was corrected, I put my vote where my mouth was and voted that same suspicion. That is not "all over the place" - it is in fact consistent, and you know it. Further, it is not logical to use posts made well after the fact as "proof" of your earlier claims. The truth is you are making claims you cannot back up. You could have simply said you were wrong - I've certainly done that very thing when it comes to my earlier miscount of the vote. Instead, you keep changing your terms (from "all over the place" to "hesitance") and redefining what you consider "facts" in order to continue a very poor argument.

As for my not voting again yet - I will take care of that later today. Unlike you, my votes are not "fickle day 1" as you said to wikki. I was on the road working yesterday and drove 6 hours to get home - when I get past some home office work today I'll re-read and cast that vote. I don't consider that a bad thing in a round with a PC set for March - and no, I won't wait for March, just until later today.

[Barry Allen]

This has been a very fast paced game so far - I like that but it took about an hour and a half to chart out what everyone has been saying so far and to take a really good look at the thread. Doing that has given me a new outlook - and a vote...and here's why, with a read on some of the players...

Wikki - at this point I'm not as concerned as I was earlier. I would agree for now with Snake Eyes, stating that this looks more newbie/VI than anything else.

Papa Zito - would like to see you post more, as I do have a question. You "support a bw on sub, by the way" in Post 188, but your vote is still on Bill. Why? I don't have a scum read on you right now, but I would like to know a bit more about this seeming contradiction.

Ashblade - I think a vote for you would be more a reaction to the tone of your posts rather than a logical argument. I've gone back and forth with you on your "all over the place" claim, and in truth the person who is "all over the place" is....You. But, you strike me at this point as a very over-aggressive townie. I don't want to waste a ML just because you are annoying me, and it would be highly unusual for a scum to be so silly as to go this over the top on D1.

Bill McQuill - I agree with Zito's point about your post on EA. You appeared to argue against voting EA, then voted him anyway. Your later attempts to explain this didn't make logical sense to me. You are one of my top two, but the other one is no longer wikki....but rather...

subgenius - I am struck by several things in your posts. You kept after Hiraki for a number of posts for his mistaken FoS on me, continuing to press on why there wasn't an explanation posted with the FoS at the time. Then, you backpedal in some of your posts, while stating that Hiraki looks scummy for backpedaling. You accuse Hiraki of "rewriting history", and though I may be missing it, I don't see that point.

To me the top two candidates are now Bill and Sub...and my vote is:

VOTE: subgenius

which should place him at L-2. We still have room for debate, and I do look forward to reading more. Before I stop, though, I do want to call out our lurkers...where are you, Hayker and Mockingjaye? Lurking is not cool...

[Barry Allen]

@ sub - you consider backpedaling as evidence of scumminess when applied to others, yet you don't think so when it is applied to you? I also note you didn't try to explain your "rewriting history" post on Hiraki. btw - you are backpedaling and trying to please the town at the same time with your "I've been humbled enough that I'll moderate my accusations a bit" post. At this point in time, you look scummiest to me based on 1. Your hounding of Hiraki past the point of usefulness on the FoS post, 2. Your going all over the place with your posts (I know you have denied doing so, but the one thing Ashblade and I agree on is this point - you are all over the place), 3. Backpedaling in the same post where you claim this behavior is scummy when applied to another player. For this point in the game, that's enough to merit a vote from me.

As for Papa Zito - my post simply questions why he is voting one way and supporting a BW on someone else. That being said, if I am voting for someone, why would I

not

be in favor of others voting that way?

We do have more time to talk - I've certainly been wrong before, so I'm always willing to listen. But for now, my vote stays.

[Barry Allen]

OK, let's talk "all over the place" and "backpedaling"...

Post 138

Decent Chance and voting. Ehehehemeee. No, this doesn't make any sense.

I already said this, but I think feeling that a person has a "decent chance" of being scum is more than enough reason to cast a vote against them. I don't consider Bill's vote or use of the word "decent" scummy or nonsensical.

Are you honestly going to tell me that you're more than "decently" sure of Bill's alignment?

Why didn't you write out your reasons out when you first FoS'd Barry?

Then in Post 144

I already said this, but I think feeling that a person has a "decent chance" of being scum is more than enough reason to cast a vote against them. I don't consider Bill's vote or use of the word "decent" scummy or nonsensical.

Doh, I just realized I was misreading Bill's post, and that he was saying there's a decent chance of Erratus being town rather than scum. Oops. Before I get called out on this misreading, I'll go ahead and admit that Hiraki's reasoning makes more sense than I originally thought, but I still find his backpedaling extremely suspicious. Also, I'd still like to know why an explanation wasn't posted with the original FoS.

Then in Post 151

No, that's a misinterpretation. A ballsy player from either alignment might post that they did not vote for the quicker day start.

Cool, then let the record show that I wish to have my earlier apology stricken from the record. I am now back to my original level of finger pointing at Hiraki.

...all over the place, and backpedaling, then backpedaling from backpedaling...further, you are using Bill's explanation of his own post (which frankly looks bad for Bill) as evidence on Hiraki (who actually voted Bill). Either you are reading the thread very poorly and have to go back and restate yourself frequently, or you are going back and forth without good reason. You state that backpedaling is scummy when applied to Hiraki, but fail to recognize it in yourself.

As for your explanation of "rewriting history", I still don't see it. The last comment you quoted from Hiraki appears more LOL/snarky than a rewrite of history. You are talking about what Hiraki's post implies rather than what it actually says, and at this point I disagree with your conclusion regarding those posts. At this point, my vote stays.

[Barry Allen]

@ Papa Zito - yes that was a serious post. You voted for Bill, but later posted that you supported a BW on sub without changing your vote.

I support subgenius wagon btw.

See? Just quoting you from the same post where you originally called out mockingjaye. I didn't get the contradiction - if you were simply kidding, say so. I didn't FoS you - just wanted to understand what looked like a contradiction on the surface.

@ sub - Oh noes, posting a case = "encouraging others to vote"... Seriously, sub, that's WIFOM plain and simple - if you want to make the act of presenting a case look shady, then you could say that about anyone's case at any time. If you disagree with the case, then disagree with the case - but stop with the "poor me" speech after you spent so much time "encouraging others to vote" with your own cases.

[Barry Allen]

Papa - do I need to quote your post again where you explicitly supported a BW on sub?

I support subgenius wagon btw.

My question was more curiosity at first - just asking why you were voting one way while supporting a BW on someone else. Your denial of supporting a sub BW now simply does not correspond to your own earlier post. Vote who you want - but please do not support your present stand by stating something that is clearly not true.

[Barry Allen]

I think I'm just going to have to accept that this is your posting style and that I'm not going to get anything other than a flip response from you. You're not at the top of my list for now, but I will continue to watch your posts - either for evidence of scumminess or for at least the entertainment value...

[Barry Allen]

@ sub - if I didn't believe you were scum I would truly feel sorry for you right now. Imploding the way you are is not the way to get votes off of you. I really don't think I need to say anything about your OMGUS - you've already said it yourself.

[Barry Allen]

OK...
-Rob seems to believe that subs and Hiraki are scum
-Sub believes that Rob and Barry are scum
-Hiraki thinks Bill is scum and doesn't understand why the rest of us don't get it, and seems exasperated by Rob

As for me...my vote is still on Subs though I have also stated my suspicions of Bill (who has been lurky of late but promises a big old post on Pacific Standard Time very soon ). And Subs - you have fixated on the last two folks to vote you (myself and Rob, who btw also seems fixated on Hiraki) while seeming to forget that there are three other votes on you. If you give us a reason to accept you are town instead of telling us what scummy jerks we are for looking at you in the first place, you might actually find someone listening.

One last thing - I am glad to see some additional voices rejoining the thread. Lurking is not cool, and frankly we need some additional points of view, both to shed light on what we have already discussed....and maybe to let us know why we shouldn't suspect lurkers..

[Barry Allen]

OK, sub - let's talk. You don't like the "timing" of my vote - in other words, you don't like being at L-2. That's a bit of a WIFOM argument, as you could say that about any vote (you also seem to not like Rob putting you at L-3, but are okay with L-4 and L-5). However, you also think I'm trying to bring the last votes down on you, and that doing so is terribly scummy. Huh? If I believe you're scum I should try to convince others. That's not scummy, again that's WIFOM. That being said, though, you seriously misinterpret my posts. Let's talk about the posts you have referenced as concerning to you:

1. I posted that question to Papa Zito because I did not get why he was voting one way, then throwing in what seemed to be a bit of a random line that he supported a BW on you. That didn't sound to me like "I am voting player X but am keeping my eye on Player Y as well" - it hit me as odd so I asked for a response. I get why you are looking at this one in a different light, but that was my intent. I will say once again though, even if your opinion had been right on this post I don't believe it is "shady" to try to convince others of your stand on a player. If that's true, then everyone who has posted an opinion so far must be scum.

2. Your post 214 includes a partial quote of me, which you interpret as "subtle prompting to get the last few votes" on you. Let's put that quote in context..."further, you are using Bill's explanation of his own post (which frankly looks bad for Bill) as evidence on Hiraki (who actually voted Bill)." I directed that sentence squarely at you, as evidence that YOU are scummy. Bill's explanation of his prior post didn't hold water to me, and your attempt to use Bill's bad post as evidence of Hiraki being mafia struck me as scummy. If mentioning any other player's name is "subtle prompting", that's in your imagination, not in my case.

tldr - I still think Bill looks shady, but at this point I think the case on sub is stronger. I don't agree with sub's interpretation of my remarks, and my vote stays unless I see something that either convinces me that I'm wrong about sub or shows me that the evidence on someone else is stronger.

[Barry Allen]

*sigh*
OK, Sub, let's address the timing issue. You don't seem to argue with my vote per se, nor do you seem to argue with the evidence I've used to make my case...you just don't like the timing. That's an odd defense, and an odd "case" you are trying to use on me, but I will tell you the reason for the timing just because it seems to matter so much to you. I work on the road, and was gone from home for most of the week - logging in on the company laptop when I could (have to be careful how much I use it for these games). I did log in and posted from time to time to remain active - but I didn't get the chance to truly sit down and analyze the thread the way I wanted to until I got home. Up to that point I was trying to choose between Bill and wikki after removing my EA vote. When I re-read the thread and charted the posts and cases out on my home compy, what pops up on my scumdar but you, sub. You're right, it was some earlier posts of yours that got my attention when I re-read the thread - but you have done nothing since to take my suspicions off of you. You have posted poor defenses, given OMGUS arguments, and even now your big problem is NOT my vote, NOT the evidence, but the timing? Give me a break.

As for the partial quote you wish to continue to argue about, my point was NOT to ask Bill to vote you - I think Bill is a potential scum, so why would I ask for HIS vote for you? I wasn't actually asking for anyone to vote with that post, but rather I was pointing out that it looked shady for you to use Bill's poor defense as a reason to go after Hiraki. Bill's poor defense in that post should be a reason to go after Bill, not someone else.

I expect you to disagree with a case posted against you - I never expect someone to just up and confess. And, in case you haven't noticed, there

hasn't

been a rush to take you to L-1 or lynch since my vote. We are still debating things as we should. If you are truly town, then tell us why the evidence is wrong and why you are town instead of complaining about the timing of my vote or what a jerk I supposedly am for voting you in the first place. You may be surprised to find out that I would actually listen when you aren't OMGUS'ing.

[Barry Allen]

@Barry
Also, I've never called you a jerk, and I don't think you are a jerk, just scum.

You are right, you've never called me a jerk - that was unfair on my part. I may think you're scum, but this is still a game and I don't need to put those words in your mouth.

One other note - I agree we need more of our folks to come forward and post. We started as one of the most active rounds I've ever been in...but we seem to be way too slow right now. I do want to hear from bvoigt, since that's our newest player and some fresh eyes may be what we need - but I think all our inactives/lurkers need to step up and post.

[Barry Allen]

Hiraki - I think we have different definitions of lurker. To me there is a difference between inactive and a lurker - an inactive just doesn't post, but a lurker rarely posts and doesn't really contribute to the round. I'm asking for those less-contributive players to step up and contribute something. I do think that includes more than one person - but it depends on your definition of "lurker" versus how I'm looking at it.

[Barry Allen]

...and to clarify, I'm not looking for votes, I'm looking for someone to contribute to the thread besides the smaller number of us who've been more active. Hiding in the shadows and just posting enough to not be prodded is not the same as contributing.

[Barry Allen]

Bviogot.

Did you forget to comment on the elephant in the room?

You have nothing on Bgg.

That annoys me.

Barry: I want names of people who you believe are lurking.

Well, let's start with Bgg - no wait, that's the player from

another game

you called out bvoigt for not FoSing...

Hiraki, you aren't a full-on lurker to me, but you are playing poorly and not paying attention to this round, and this post proves it...

As for those who were lurking in my way of thinking...

Bill started active, then lurked for quite some time, allowing the heat to die down on himself while the rest of us posted on other cases. When called out on lurking by more than one player, we suddenly have an active Bill voting to take subs to L-1 (whether he is bussing or simply appealing to the town, I don't know, but this is the one thing that I've seen since voting sub that makes me less sure of that vote).

Hayker has made maybe 4 posts (certainly not much more) all game. The posts are mostly very short, too...asking Hiraki for an explanation of the FoS on me, asking Zito for explanation of his suspicion of Rob, one post just to say there will be a bigger post soon...and one post with a little more info and some additional comments. That's not total inactive, but to me that's lurking - just posting enough to appear active and avoid prodding, but not really saying much at all.

Mockingjay was obviously just inactive...and it's a bit early to call bvoight anything in terms of activity (though I will agree that I would have liked hearing how bvoight feels about Bill, since that's one of the two bigger cases to me). However, I am surprised that we only have 2 posts from bvoight so far - hopefully that will change soon.

There are others who seem to fade out but I'm not ready to call lurkers. Ashblade was very active, faded out, and has come back. Zito seems to fade in and out, but not to the point of actual lurkiness.

And Hiraki, one more time in case you are still somewhat paranoid about being called a lurker - I don't think you are a lurker. I do think you need to be sure which game you're posting in, however. That doesn't make you a lurker, and doesn't make you town or scum - just a bit confused.

[Barry Allen]

It's not good play because those tells have been obsolete for years. However, it shows a town motivation because he's taking the time to read an article on how to find the scum.

True, I really can't think of a scum motivation for reading an article on scumtells and memorizing it.

Wait...

LOL

That being said, it could explain a lot about sub...JEEP's list also says that the 3rd and 4th votes in a wagon are maf (so subs, I was the 5th vote, that makes me clear by your list, right? Guess not in your estimation ). Seriously, I think subs is actually playing by this list, which explains why he was OK about the early votes on him but thought the later votes were scummy by their very existence. That list is very obsolete - in fact ANY list of "scumtells" is obsolete as soon as people read said list and adjust their play.

This has been an interesting exchange by folks who haven't been on thread a lot (bvoigt due to being new, GreyICE due to...I dunno). bvoigt points out sub's post with that link (wish I'd followed that link earlier, as it was a real eye opener). And, GreyICE does have a point that we can't infer intent from subs using the list. Bottom line is this was a most interesting moment for me to see possibly the basis of sub's issues with Zito (rule 5) and Rob and me (rule 3 and 4, though once again I will point out that JEEP's list says absolutely nothing about the 5th vote XD).

wow...

[Barry Allen]

There are actually two things that make me worry about my vote for sub.

1. Finding out that sub is actually playing with a "list-o-scumtells" that can actually explain his behavior, even though those scumtells are outdated. GreyICE could be right that using the list isn't a guarantee of affiliation, but it does at least explain a lot about how sub is playing.

2. Bill's vote - and here's why. Other players already noted Bill fading from the thread for quite a period of time as the heat ramped up on sub. When called out on his absence, Bill comes back with a wall-o-text, and immediately votes the only other player with more votes than himself, taking said player (sub) to L-1. This could be a townie trying to appeal to the town with action after being called for inactivity - or it could be maf trying to move us to a quicker lynch in order to keep the heat off himself. @ Bill - if that sounds "negative", sorry but I don't know how to put this more positively...no, wait, how about this...I am "positive" that this looks a bit scummy.

Sub - your own posts haven't helped you. You've mostly lashed out at me and a couple of other folks, with some strained logic and implied motivations - but again if you are using JEEP's list for scumtells it is possible that you are inexperienced enough that this is just how you post (you've been on the site for a long time but IIRC haven't played much lately - someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this). But, with EA taking his vote off you we are back to L-2, meaning we do have time to talk more. Bill's vote isn't enough to take my own vote off you, but it is enough that I want to hear more before we do a quickhammer here.

[Barry Allen]

@ bvoigt - if you disagree with SE on wikki, why is your vote still on wikki? I don't get that. As for your view of my post regarding my vote on sub and my view of Bill - there is absolutely nothing new there, other than me beginning to wonder whether I'm as certain as I once was about sub. I've posted several times that I also suspect Bill, and at different points in time (if you'll review my posts) you will find I was choosing between voting Bill and wikki, or Bill and sub. If you don't like that, fair enough - but don't act like I'm introducing new topics here.

@ sub - I am still thinking about my case on you...I believe I can accept your inexperience, and appreciate that you are willing to admit you may have gone to far on Hiraki earlier on. And, I am bothered by Bill coming out of the woodwork to take you to L-1, given my view of him. That has me wondering...and I will come back later tonight after I give this more thought.

[Barry Allen]

@ bvoigt - that's what I get for not going back and re-reading the prior post before asking my question. At least I do have an answer to the question. Thanks!

[Barry Allen]

EBWOP

I will also be interested to see whether and how Hayker responds...not really fond of lurky-loos either...

[Barry Allen]

A lot has happened since I was last on thread...let me do this first, as I already promised to do some serious thinking about my sub case...

VOTE: UNVOTE

Subs - you didn't convince me with the "No YOU are" posts...but again two things nagged at me. First was knowing you were using that old guide, which really explained your posts and made it plausible that you were playing with less actual playing experience than would seem likely given when you joined the site. The second is now even more apparent to me...the only other vote for you is from Bill, and I've been looking very dimly at Bill for some time (first trying to choose between Bill and wikki, and later Bill and you).

As to where to put my vote...

Bill - for some time I've said that if I didn't have my vote on Subs I would be looking at you...unless the Rob case takes over in my thoughts, I will stay with this...

VOTE: VOTE Bill

Rob - Your explanations regarding lurking and how you separate "active" lurking from "clueless" lurking, and "town" lurking from "scum" lurking just keeps getting more and more convoluted. For someone who is so certain about lurking being a scumtell that it's in your sig, you suddenly seem to be giving a lot of elbow room to some lurkers over others...and it doesn't seem to make sense. For now my vote is on Bill - but I'm also catching up on 3-4 pages of thread and as I re-read it we'll see if it stays there or shifts your way.

[Barry Allen]

I agree that not all lurkers are scum and not all scum are lurkers. But, you started out very certain that lurking was a scum tell, period...then started adding conditions to that, and not all of your explanation made sense - at least on my first read-through. That's why I plan to go back and re-read when I'm a bit less sleepy (near 11 p.m where I live and I've been on the road a lot today).

[Barry Allen]

Well Zito, it looks like we finally have a counterwagon – but instead it’s a counterwagon to Rob…let’s look…first of all my presence on the first two BWs…

First, I didn’t BW or sheep, I did post a case on EA. I didn’t think I would have to address my own massive miscount again, but at the time of my first FoS post I had 7 on the brain (the number required to lynch) and somehow thought 4/7 votes needed instead of 7 total votes needed. Yes, it was stupid…and I’ve already said that in thread. But, whether you like it or accept it or not, it’s what happened. I noted that EA had posted a rather unfortunate message about delaying the game, then posted an OMGUS vote and then claimed he has already posted a case…and when I reviewed the post referred to as the “case” it didn’t look like a case at all. When my vote count was corrected, I put my money (or vote) where my mouth was and voted. That’s not bandwagoning , that’s posting a case. It’s also not “cautious” – that vote and post bought me a LOT of attention, unfortunately well deserved attention due to my stupidity, but I don’t call that cautious at all.

I posted a case on subs after getting back from a trip out of town and doing a rather extensive review of the posts up to that point. As noted when I voted, that review said to me that subs looked most scummy out of the group, pulling me away from my quandary between Bill and wiki. When I posted my case (I hope I don’t need to repost the 5,432,653 posts between subs and myself here) it was my case, not a sheep, not a BW. What took me off Subs was two things as noted in my later post. First was what I considered proof that he was truly a newbie (using the JEEP’s list to scumhunt). That list explained a lot of his behavior in a different light – a newbie town light rather than a scum light. Second was seeing Bill continue to be the only other vote on him…and Bill is someone I’ve posted about several times through this round – and he continues to have my vote.

When I came back home more recently to find a big old Robwagon, I skimmed it while preparing to post my unvote on Subs. I hadn’t read it fully, so I noted the one post that stuck out on first read (the separation of all those kinds of lurking) and simply noted I was catching up on the thread and would see if I changed my mind afterward. Let’s talk about that, since Ashblade and Rob see that as overly cautious…

I don’t view this as cautious – I always try to keep an open mind to other cases, in case I’m wrong about my own scumhunting. Only a scum can be truly certain who is scum and town – and being stubborn about one case to me is a potential scumtell. I was willing in the end to remove my vote on Subs because I was willing to look at evidence and arguments that made me believe I was wrong about my original case on him. You can call that whatever you want – but again, only scum are totally certain about who is scum and who is town.

Since the initial vote and case on me, I’ve seen Rob jump in with a quick support post or three, and Penpen jump in with a vote that is first totally unexplained, then “explained” with an LOL.

I read Barry, reading bill now. Ill say that so far ash is spot on about Barry

Vote:Barry Allen

Pie is OK - but not cake.....the cake is a lie...

I think the Pie is a lie also. Which means he is misrepresenting the pie.
And I think that is scummy.

This and Rob’s later post are awfully convenient. If we are looking for a counterwagon, I believe we’ve found it. If you wish to follow it, remember who took you there.

[Barry Allen]

Rob, I don't think I want to save that "awfully convenient" comment - I think it fits. You are glad to have some heat off you, and you jump on a quick vote for me to help that heat stay off you. It may be "convenient" - or it may be that counterwagon I mentioned in my last post...

[Barry Allen]

btw - you think me being scum takes heat off Bill, though the problem with that is you note that hurts your hiraki case a bit, yet your vote is still on hiraki because you think he is scum, which ought to take you back to Bill being scum (that's where my vote is) and then me not being scum...except that your vote IS on hiraki and you at the same time think the case on me is....wow, that makes my head hurt....and yes, I do think you're posts are awfully convenient

[Barry Allen]

EBWOP
I was trying to post my last note while you were posting your question about voting - and no I did not mean that you voted me...you just gave a big old endorsement to voting me as it took the heat off you while saying that me being scum meant that bill might not be and that this hurts your hiraki case but you are still voting hiraki while saying I'm scum and it keeps going around and around and around in circles.

[Barry Allen]

Lots of threats there Rob - I have no idea whether you are town, scum, role, or not. I agree that we shouldn't lynch a role claim this early in the game, no matter how annoying your posts may be right now. But, please stop with the threats - they don't add to the thread and only serve to make you look bad.

[Barry Allen]

So, if you're the counter-wagon to Rob, you're saying Rob is scum along with one of or both of penpen and Ashblade, but you're still voting Bill. This makes no sense at all.

Please note my earlier post for that explanation:

Lots of threats there Rob - I have no idea whether you are town, scum, role, or not. I agree that we shouldn't lynch a role claim this early in the game, no matter how annoying your posts may be right now. But, please stop with the threats - they don't add to the thread and only serve to make you look bad.

I left my vote on Bill for two reasons...1. I've said several times in this thread that I believe Bill is scum. 2. I'm not voting for a role claim on D1, even if it is from someone who is annoying the crap out of me and who is also making threats about lynching himself and/or leaving the site entirely.

[Barry Allen]

As for not voting Ashblade or PenPen - I also do not believe in OMGUS votes. If you will note my original vote on EA was based in part on the OMGUS, and in part on claiming there was a case posted when in fact that wasn't a real case (at least not from my read). So to summarize: Yes I think this looks like a counterwagon, and no I'm not OMGUS'ing or voting a role claim even though that would be easy to do. I'm leaving my vote on someone I've suspected of being scum for quite some time, and I am comfortable with leaving my vote there.

[Barry Allen]

Nope - although I will point out ICE that your "lecture" is coming from the person who brags about having let the first three BWs of this round. Is that really something you're proud of?

[Barry Allen]

EBWOP - I mean you LED the first three BWs and seem to brag about it.......I don't think that's something to be proud of, ICE

[Barry Allen]

GreyICE, The reason I asked Hiraki Who do you think are town is because I was suspicious of him.

And then you used a post regarding PIE as your reason for voting? You really make my head hurt, too...

[Barry Allen]

I"m going to bed - it's well past midnight where I live. I will try to answer your questions tomorrow evening when I get back from work, as long as I'm still alive at that point.

[Barry Allen]

Glad I checked in before hitting the road for the day. Just some observations here...

Anyone notice how Bill has gone back into lurker mode - promising posts but backing away? He has already done this once when the heat was on Subs. He has a much better case against him from more people than me, but he is relying on hiding to allow the heat to go on others as it has already seemed to work once.

Man, every time 24 hours pass... threadsplosion.

Reading now. Also making dinner. I'll be back.

...and his big post was?????

Reading now. Also making dinner. I'll be back.

Tomorrow, it turns out. Grading papers intervened. Apologies.

Once again....
1. My vote is on Bill - I've suspected him for a long time and believe that is the right place for today's vote. While I do not like the mini-BW here, I'm not OMGUSing with my vote. I want to lynch Bill, who is now hiding from us, then we can sort out the little bandwagoners here.

2. I am not OMGUS voting - I made part of my case on EA due to OMGUS voting - WHY would I turn around and OMGUS vote here? If I believe I am voting for scum (and I do) then my vote should be based on the case rather than my being annoyed by someone else.


Let's hit this case again against me...
1. I'm "cautious"
2. I've voted either as a BW or sheeping.
3. I've left room to suspect others and switch my vote if I want to...If I think they have a better case against them.

Once again - stubbornly refusing to listen to any other argument is not pro-town. In fact I would wonder about such a person's affiliation, as the only people who can be absolutely positive about who is maf and who is town would be the mafia itself. Secondly, I have never sheeped - I have always made my own case and posted said case. If you don't like my votes, fair enough - but if you have read my posts you know I haven't simply BW'd or sheeped, I've been willing to state the reasons and the case behind my votes. I do not think choosing against a simple OMGUS vote is anti-town - I have actively scumhunted here and now face a BW started by Ashblade, who disappears from the thread for long stretches at a time, by Rob, who simply wants to keep the heat off himself so he doesn't have to threaten leaving the site again, and by PenPen, whose posts make absolutely no sense.

[Barry Allen]

The one point on which Ashblade and I can agree is that I would also like to see Bill show back up. It seems he disappeared when the Subwagon started and only showed up again when called out. As the heat on him subsided while we looked at Rob and later me he retreated again. Then he promises more post and doesn't follow through. Maybe this is like Peter Pan - clap if you believe Bill is scum and maybe he'll show up to defend himself.

[Barry Allen]

Grey, I really don't get your approach to Rob's accusation that you lied about starting three BWs. At this point it does appear that you didn't start all three BWs. There are several ways you could handle this....

You could say:
1. I forgot
2. I really thought I did start it but I'm wrong
3. I looked back at the wrong vote count and thought I was the starter
4. The sun was in my eyes

In other words, almost anything would help you other than calling it stupid and refusing to respond. This wouldn't be such a big deal except for two things. First, you made a big deal out of claiming credit for starting 3 BWs, and did it more than once. Second, you wouldn't answer a simple question when it was first asked. Anyone can make a mistake, as has been shown by more than one player in this round (including me). But, calling the question stupid and dodging doesn't make sense. Care to try one more time to actually respond to the question?

[Barry Allen]

At this point, Bill has stayed off thread enough that he is being prodded - and it looks as though we aren't getting a response from him since he went off to grade papers some time back (I really feel sorry for those students if it is taking THAT long to correct mistakes XD). I still think Bill is a scum who disappears from thread when the heat is on. If he comes back I will continue to press him - if he is replaced I will have a lot of questions for whoever replaces him. That being said, there isn't a movement from the town that looks like we will have a lynch on Bill today - and if he is replaced I don't see us going immediately to vote on a replacement without giving him or her a chance to make a defense.

tldr: Bill is still scum, but given that he is completely absent and may be replaced I'm looking for the next best place to put my vote.

Given that, I have to agree that ICE looks terrible. I've posted on this subject earlier (Post 657) thinking there would be SOME response, and just as with every other poster who has questioned ICE, there has been no response other than ignoring questions, throwing insults and refusing to comment. This boggles my mind a bit - I've seen people put up a poor defense before, but refusing to answer what was initially a very simple question makes no sense - and it brings any reasonable person to the conclusion that there may be more that's hidden here...like affiliation. I can see someone making a mistake and owning up to it, but purposely avoiding the subject when there are legitimate questions, then just throwing insults in return doesn't look right.

VOTE: UNVOTE
Vote: GreyICE

NOTE: I believe this brings GreyICE to L-2

[Barry Allen]

I think so too - we'll see what the morning brings. 'night all.

[Barry Allen]

I'm checking in on my work laptop from a meeting in Orlando Florida (sounds great? Well, I'm in a hotel on the Disney property but won't visit one single attraction because I'm in meetings all the way through to getting on the flight back tomorrow night................but that's life). If I'm fortunate I will have one chance to check in tomorrow from the airport...otherwise I will be back on sometime Thursday evening Eastern Time USA. Just a couple of notes for right now...

@ bvoigt - Unfortunately, there were several players including myself on several BWs D1 - all I can tell you is that I made a case on each vote that I cast. I didn't sheep, and I didn't throw a vote out for no reason (see Penpen). I still DO worry about Bill, but before getting to a vote for anyone in this day phase I do want to get back home and look at my notes from D1 (and obviously catch up on any discussion that takes place between now and then). That being said, one of the places where we both have concern is related to Penpen...

@ Penpen...you really need to add some content. The voting all over the place does look random, and frankly it looks either VI or scum...the question is simply which one. Your vote post:

UNVOTE VOTE:GREYICE

does that make you happy papa zito?

Looks more like an appeal to please the town than actually a serious vote...and that was the hammer. And yes, a lot of the votes we're talking about were D1 - but considering how many different people you've voted for this is a legitimate issue to discuss. I hate to call anyone VI - but you're either that or scum. Please post something more so we can figure out which is which....or if there is really some method to your madness here.

I will be back home around midnight Wednesday my time - again, if I can post from the airport before leaving I will, but otherwise I will be back on late Thursday after work.

[Barry Allen]

I’m taking a quick read of the thread before going to work. Just some quick thoughts here…

@ Rob – didn’t really care for your attempt to use my V/LA to make me look like a lurker. Other than my V/LA I believe I've posted every day, sometimes after driving 6 hours home from work on the road - and not just posting “oh hai” either, so I didn’t get this post…

Barry always has some excuse which may be real but if it was and he was town he should just replace out. Bill has no real excuse and pen is the VI ATM

Of course, one hour and six minutes later you DID note my V/LA when talking about Bill’s absence (though in the case of Bill’s absence we completely agree)…I’ve FoS’d Bill for a good part of this round already, so I have no problem with you being on the Bill train here, but I truly don’t understand this "based on a theory I have" statement with your vote. You have been concerned regarding whether others are BWing or sheeping, so this statement with your vote is at least inconsistent with your own stands earlier this round.

In the end though, while I may not like some of your posts, especially where it concerns me, I don’t have a scum read on you at this time. I definitely DO have concerns about Bill, and this post didn’t help one bit…

Oh, hello there thread.

I understand that my posting Day 1 did not inspire much confidence, and that my busy-ness was poorly timed, and at the risk of adding to that ire: I cannot post tonight. I have a very major deadline that hits tomorrow. If I do not have time to make a post by early in the day on Friday, I will ask to be replaced. After this it really should be smooth sailing for my free time, so if you all can hold off until then I would be appreciative, because I am fully caught up and ready to inspire the confidence that my Day 1 posting did not if you'll give me a chance to get my shit together.

Bill, you’ve had more than enough chance to “get your shit together”. Bill’s managed to lurk his way out of votes at least twice already this round, staying off thread for long periods of time while the heat went elsewhere, and showing up only when called out by enough players to realize he was in real trouble. I think the real thing that needs to happen is replacement…but I also think the behavior is scummy enough to once again…

VOTE: VOTE: Bill

As for Penpen, I still can't get a read between scum and VI - but I agree Penpen can be dealt with later if this continues without further content. @ Penpen - "content" doesn't mean you put quotes up and go "see?" It means you actually provide analysis and context to make those quotes have meaning to us, so we can see your thought process and decide if we agree or not.

[Barry Allen]

I find it suspicious that he takes so much time to cast his vote each day, yet reliably ends up on the biggest wagons after waiting for others to cast their votes. 5th vote on EA, 4th vote on me, 5th vote on GreyICE, and now 5th vote on Bill. The only exception I'm seeing is when he sat on Bill for awhile after my wagon dissolved. Yeah, he's given reasons for each vote, but it's easy to manufacture reasons, especially on a wagon that's already started.

You are being a little contradictory here...you note my vote D1 on Bill as being late to the BW, then note I stayed on Bill when the wagon on you dissolved, then try to place me as late to the party today when I'm

still on Bill

. As for why I wasn't earlier with my vote...maybe it had to do the

fact that I was V/LA

.

This and Rob’s later post are awfully convenient. If we are looking for a counterwagon, I believe we’ve found it. If you wish to follow it, remember who took you there.

When asked to stand behind these accusations, he refused, claiming that any such accusations would be OMGUS. In my book, it's not OMGUS if you think you've caught some scum. Also, his refusal to make accusations out of fear of committing an OMGUS scum-tell is pretty suspicious. A townie would happily build a case against someone who is voting against him if he sincerely thought he had hooked a scum.

Let's get this straight. You did not ask me to "stand behind my accusation" - your REAL challenge to me was why I didn't change my vote to one of the folks who started the BW on me. I didn't and don't think OMGUS votes help the town...it just turns into "No YOU are scum" and "No YOU are scummier". If you have a problem with that, fair enough - but I am not going to OMGUS just for you and your outdated guide list for scumhunting.

TL;DR
1. Pandering for town credit.
2. OMGUS defense with a refusal to follow up, which shows he probably lied about thinking his case was a counter-wagon
3. Refused to build cases because he didn't want to commit a scum-tell.
4. Consistently on the tail end of BW's.

1. Not true - I've seen penpen try it, and others try it, but you have not given a single example of me "pandering". You may not like my votes, but this is simply not true.
2. I did not OMGUS defense, instead I defended NOT using an OMGUS vote - please keep that straight.
3. This is out and out false - I have stated my case on each and every person for whom I have voted, usually in the same post as my vote.
4. This is a modified JEEP's guide argument again, and it is as outdated now as it was before. If I were hammering for no reason (like our VI/Scum penpen) or if I threw in votes for no stated reason, I would get your point...but again I have stated my reasons for every vote and don't agree with your analysis. But, simply stating what number vote I was doesn't make me town or scum. Again, I've not sheeped and I have stated my reasons prior to voting each time I have voted this round.

As for my vote on Bill, it stays. It is not simply his absence - an inactive hunt is rarely helpful. It is the timing of his unresponsiveness - fading away when the heat goes up, showing back up only when called out for absence - that adds to what we have already discussed about him D1 (and of course, this on again/off again behavior also occurred D1).

[Barry Allen]

Well alright how about bvoigt, he seems to be doing the whole active lurking thing too. And I think his case on me and Barry are complete bullshit.

Hold on there, penpen - don't try to buddy up to me here. I still think you are either VI or scum.

btw Sub - THIS is pandering on penpen's part...trying to bring me into his argument like I'm going to back him up now...

[Barry Allen]

I'd like to hear your current read on Rob and penpen. Do you still think those votes against you were a counter-wagon?

In retrospect, no, I don't believe it was. I was very annoyed by the BW at the time, and the timing of the BW and the non-vote post that supported it looked suspect to me at the time. But, no, I no longer believe it was a counter-wagon. As for Rob, his posts have read more town...the only questions being that he is still alive after claiming tracker, and that while his claim to have tracked Ash may be true, it could also be convenient. Again, though, his posts otherwise seem to lean more town. As for penpen, I've already stated several times that he is either VI or Scum and I'm still trying to sort out which it is.


Now, let's get to the rest of subs post, which seems to bring to a head a trend I've noted in subs' posts against me...that of trying out a point, then redefining terms or twisting reality in order to make a wrong point "fit" his case...some examples here...

You could have voted in your first D2 post, you know, before your V/LA.

Now that you have to recognize that my V/LA makes your point less valid about why I voted "late" in the tally, you now want to redefine the terms of your complaint as state that I should have simply posted an immediate vote D2.

Clearly, you didn't want to do it (OMGUS) because you thought it would look scummy, not because you feel it's unhelpful to town.

This is another example of you redefining things...you call me out for not OMGUS'ing, I point out I've been consistent in my stand whether you like it or not, so you simply redefine things to imply a motivation for which you have no evidence...because you are making it up. To reiterate, I think OMGUS voting does not help the town, I thought it was bad enough that it was actually a part of my case on EA, and I still refuse to OMGUS vote. If you think that you should vote for me because I don't like OMGUS voting, that's your right...but don't try to twist this into something else while you're at it.

I think your refusal to engage your accusers out of fear of OMGUS is scummy.

What part of my posts this round looks like I'm "refusing to engage my accusers"? There are a lot of things you can say about me, but "refusing to engage my accusers" doesn't seem to fit here....and once again you are trying to redefine things when you are failing to make a point.

1. I did give an example of your pandering:

This and Rob’s later post are awfully convenient. If we are looking for a counterwagon, I believe we’ve found it.

If you wish to follow it, remember who took you there.

THIS is your idea of "pandering"? Really? My simply stating that if someone BW'd me out of the round that you should remember who did it? Wait, I thought I was "afraid to engage my accusers", but HERE I'm "pandering" when telling the town to remember them when I flip town. You are not making a simple, straightforward case, but rather a series of unconnected and even contradictory arguments.

If you want to say it wasn't OMGUS, because you didn't vote, fine. We can make up a new name for accusing your wagoners without voting.

I'm sure you CAN make up a new name - you've been redefining things all through your case.

3. It's easy to make a case and hop aboard. Just writing up a case doesn't mean you aren't sheeping.

Once again redefining terms. Before you accused me of NOT making cases...now you have to admit I AM making cases, but you still want to call it the same thing you did before so now it's "making cases-style sheeping".

Sub - you still could be an overzealous townie who can't see past the flaws in your own points. What you definitely are doing is making points that don't hold up, then you are either redefining the terms, implying motivations to my statements that aren't there, or are making contradictory points in an attempt to shore up the original flawed argument.

1. I have consistently made a case with each vote, either in the post of the vote or before. You may not like my cases - in fact you may completely disagree with them. But that doesn't take away from the fact that I AM making cases when I vote.
2. I have a consistent dislike for OMGUS, using it as part of a case, and refusing to OMGUS vote even under high pressure from you to OMGUS. If you disagree that OMGUS'ing is bad, that's your opinion. What I cannot understand is how you can equate refusing to OMGUS with scum. That's your point to make - but I don't believe it is a point that holds up to scrutiny.
3. If you want to hold me up to scrutiny, fair enough. If you want to vote me, that is your right in this game. If you want to keep redefining reality to make a point, I reserve the right to call you on it. Again, at this point I think you could be an overzealous townie - what I know you are is wrong when it comes to your accusations.

[Barry Allen]

I'm not 100% sure, but like I said earlier, he assumed that the scum killed Snake Eyes when they actually killed Ashblade.

I'm having trouble following this...the flavor of the PC did note Ashblade's death prior to Snake Eyes, but other than that why do you assume the scum killed Ashblade and why do you assume they did not kill Snake Eyes? You seem rather sure of yourself...and I'd like to know why you are so confident of this.

[Barry Allen]

Actually, I just re-read the flavor from D1 and D2, and there is some info to be found:

There was a note found next to the nameless murder victim of N0 which read, "You're next." There was an identical note found next to Ashblade. There was no note found with Snake Eyes.

This would lead me to believe that Ashblade was the mafia NK and Snake Eyes was hit by either a vig, a serial killer, or a non-note leaving second scum faction. I'm guessing SK.

I understand this a bit better with your explanation. My main concern was whether there could be a reasonable explanation in making such a statement without it being a scumslip. While I'm not sure I buy the theory 100% (it is making a guess based on flavor text), at least there is some explanation for a townie to make such a statement.

I am glad Bill is replacing out. My vote against Bill was based on more than just not being around, but certainly his failure to post did have my suspicions increasing. I want to hear from whoever replaces Bill...and from whoever replaces penpen. I'm hoping we'll at least get some posts that we can try to analyze for content.

Since I doubt we will be ready to auto lynch someone who replaces in, I will

VOTE: UNVOTE

But again I still will want to see some real explanations from Bill's replacement...and some content from penpen's replacement.

[Barry Allen]

Earlier in the round, I frankly took a lot of the Rob v. Hiraki back and forth and a lot of noise that signified...well very little D1. The fact that this continued D2 was a bit annoying...except that I'm becoming more and more annoyed with Hiraki in this regard. If you call this a "defense" Hiraki, I certainly do not. If you would like to take a breath, calm down and actually defend yourself instead of throwing insults you might find us willing to listen. If you can't do that, I'll be more than happy to add my vote...

[Barry Allen]

Bump for Votecount.

scum. this is fluff.

Pods, I hope you included this as an LOL...you DO realize Dekes is our GM, right? XD

[Barry Allen]

and your point about me self hammering as a town tracker, I will do it if I get to L-1, you don't believe my claim than get people to vote me but I fill fuck over town so bad and walk away without a fucking care in the world.

I have self voted and self hammered as town, i don't consider it scummy OR bad play as town unlike people on this site who are brainwashed into a vanilla way of playing mafia.

Rob, this kind of posting is insulting to every other player on the thread. If you really care so little for actually playing the game, and if you have that much contempt for the rest of the players in this game, then please replace out.

[Barry Allen]

Pods, I hope you included this as an LOL...you DO realize Dekes is our GM, right? XD

Shouldn't you have some questions for Pod?

Subs, shouldn't you also have questions for Pod? Actually, I do...

First, I'd like to bring up one of Bill's old posts...Pods, since you took over Bill's spot, what are your thoughts on this list...particularly given your own lists? There are some similarities, but I'd mainly like to hear about where you differ, and why...

My top 3 after all of that:
1. subgenius - Has spent a lot of time under pressure, has done almost nothing constructive during that time except lash out at the people voting for him, is extremely fidgety about phrasing and post frequency, both of which look like desperate attempts to build mountains out of molehills and survive.
2. mockingjaye/bvoight - We've come a pretty long way to have contributed nothing whatsoever of any substance, and I really don't like ending days with a complete null-read on somebody.
3. wikkiden. His most recent post was better, but since then it's been radio silence, which is what I'd expect from a player who's trying to distance himself from a massive emotional apology earlier in the game. There's also the contradiction that EA pointed out.

Pod's first list of potential scum...

everything worth commenting on up to the end of page 8. as it stands,
scum:
subgenius
Barry Allen
Hayker
wikkiden
robcapone

^this is awful by the way. town has some bad players on their side if i can name half of the living playerlist as potential scum by page 8.

town:
zito
dead vts
nobody else

Pod's first list leaves bvoigt completely out...but it was an incomplete review of the thread. Next is where Pods picks back up...

That being said, if I am voting for someone, why would I not be in favor of others voting that way?

Because one more vote puts me at L-1, which could very easily end the day a week and a half ahead of time.

overly paranoid scum. l-2 isn't anything to be worried about, especially in the chaos of day 1.

Subs, THIS is where I'm wondering if you have additional questions for Pods, rather than asking me if

I

have questions for Pods...now back to Pods...

erratus is definitely town. he makes more logical points than anyone else even with a relatively low posting rate.
mockingjaye backing out after being called out for lurking reeks.
....................................
smear campaign. if barry's scum, sub isn't, and sub nailed at least one, if not two, scum prior to to this post.
....................................
rob is scum if penpen is scum, but the inverse isn't true. also, penpen is town if rob is town. i don't see newbscum so eagerly defending a townie, but they'd do it for a scumbuddy.

There are a lot if "if this, then that" statements here. However, I don't see convincing arguments as to why those statements would be true. It sounds like analysis, but boils down more to simply statements of opinion stated as if they were facts. I don't know that they are helpful posts...but they may fit a different category. Back to the post, though...

scumlist, ranked:
robcapone
hayker
subgenius
barry

townlist, not ranked:
zito
erratus

the rest can sit at null. penpen doesn't get a town spot because, while i feel there's a high chance he's town, there's also a possibility of him being scum, and wikkiden's play was quite scummy (it'd rank right above barry on this list.)

i am still going to withhold my vote, because 19 pages is plenty for some shocking developments to come into play. but if i had to vote right now, it would be on rob.

In this list, wikki drops out of the list, though he is considered "scummy" - ranking above me on his list in terms of supposedly "scummy" posts...so why did he drop off Pod's scumlist?

Basically, we have the opposite approach to how Bill handled things. We've gone from a player who hides when the heat is on to a wall-o-post player who is trying to state his opinions as fact. However, there do seem to be some discrepancies...they could simply be learning curve on this particular round...but I'd still like to hear about the differences between Bill's suspicions and Pod's suspicions, and how wikki can be "scummier" than people on his suspect list yet still drop completely off Pod's "scumlist".

Now, @ subs - do YOU have any questions for Pods?

[Barry Allen]

OK, let's try this again.

1. While pods is entitled to his own reads, he IS taking over Bill's old place. My first question was simply to discuss WHY he feels differently at this point about certain players. That is not a question Pods should be ducking...and not a question subs should be so concerned about.....
2. @ Pods...you maintain that "wikki was scummy" and in your earlier post noted that his posts seemed "scummier than Barry" yet you dropped him completely from your scumlist in your second post. If wikki STILL looks scummy, why is he no longer on your suspect list?

I believe those to be legitimate questions, and I do not understand subs' reaction and Pods' refusal to address these questions in a direct manner.

[Barry Allen]

I don't understand what you don't understand.

OK subs - here's what I don't understand...when pods started his latest wall-o-text, he led off with you, and then put you on his scumlist...

That being said, if I am voting for someone, why would I not be in favor of others voting that way?

Because one more vote puts me at L-1, which could very easily end the day a week and a half ahead of time.

overly paranoid scum. l-2 isn't anything to be worried about, especially in the chaos of day 1.

scumlist, ranked:
robcapone
hayker
subgenius
barry

Yet your response was to ask ME if I had a question for Pods?...

Pods, I hope you included this as an LOL...you DO realize Dekes is our GM, right? XD

Shouldn't you have some questions for Pod?

Even after I call Subs out for this odd post, and actually DO respond to Bill, I get this "meh" response toward bill from subs:

Now, @ subs - do YOU have any questions for Pods?

I'm reading his catchup with interest,

but I don't have any questions at the moment

. Of course, I haven't spent the last day and a half talking about how suspicious Bill was.

Subs, THIS is where I'm wondering if you have additional questions for Pods

He's entitled to his read. I'll admit that I probably overreacted to that wagon, but I'm learning a lot this game, and I most likely wouldn't be as afraid of a hammer out of nowhere if I was at L-2 or L-1 today.

So, Subs, THIS is what I don't understand:

1. Bill calls you out at the top of his post, then lists you as scum...ranked as higher scum than even me when I've been FoSing Bill for a very long time, as you have noted.
2. You have absolutely no response for Bill, instead asking me if

I

have any questions for him.
3. When I respond and then ask for your response to Bill, you basically blow off the post as if you had not been called out and called scum.

This hit me as very odd, and I didn't (and don't) understand it.

[Barry Allen]

I honestly couldn't care less whether this is Bill's alt or simply a "pod person". No matter what, it doesn't change the role of the person in that slot. If they were scum before, they are scum now, and whoever is doing the replacing is irrelevant in the end. That being said, pods couldn't do a better job of imitating old Bill than the following two posts...

i think everyone in the game should google my username.

another content post coming soon, though i probably won't have time to finish the entire thread tonight.

erratus: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pod+person&l=1

i apologize but something came up and i no longer have time to post tonight. i most definitely will post something tomorrow.

wow...

Now let's look at this post...

Pods' refusal to address these questions in a direct manner.

i did not refuse to answer any questions. i do like how you're misrepping, though.

you still havent answered the question as to why your location is the same as bill mcquills

because it is irrelevant.

hey guys. GUESS WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE

EA, I'll tell what I think is wrong with this picture. It's Pods McQuill evading questions. While I obviously don't care whether Pods is Bill or not, these aren't answers, they're dodges. We are seeing wall-o-posts from Pods, but we're not seeing a lot of truly useful info, and when questioned Pods is blowing the questions off.

Pods - I look forward to your promised post...since Bill didn't do much to defend himself, let's see you have a reasonable defense. You've seen the case against Bill/you in the earlier posts, and what the discussion has been since your arrival. What say you?

[Barry Allen]

@ Pods - I can see why you may not like how Rob is posting, but given that you replaced Bill I'm not ready to blindly follow your lead. I still haven't shaken the idea that you could be scum, giving us wall-o-post versus the wall-o-missing that Bill gave us previously.

@ Rob - please relax, chill out, calm down...you are hurting yourself with your defensiveness. My personal inclination is to let you go another day to see if you really CAN contribute something from a claimed power role (though I won't be so inclined if you claim to have tracked whoever is hit at night when we go to D3). Not that I agree with everything Subs says, but he is right here - your insistence on defending yourself makes you look foolish at best and scummy at worst. I can lean toward foolishness for today...but your overly defensive, and at times downright insulting manner of posts won't help you as we move into the next day.

[Barry Allen]

@Barry: Were you writing #981 when sub posted #980?

Since we're talking about not answering questions, when were you planning on getting to this?

Hey Barry, I think you missed this.

I did miss that question - but the question makes no sense, considering I

quoted sub's post 980 in my post 981

, and my post was made nearly an hour later. I would have posted my questions for Pods anyway...and the fact that subs

didn't

have questions struck me as odd.

I did think making fun of pods "suspicion" of our GM was a good first take to point out why I don't take Pods very seriously - after all Pods took the spot of someone I've suspected of being scum for some time.

@ subs - You're right, I'm not voting yet. I am deciding between placing my vote back on Pods McQuill or to put that vote elsewhere. My strong lean is to vote Pods McQuill - I've FoS'd that spot on the roster for some time now. But, I'm not going to let your dim view of me change how I post or vote. You DO annoy me - but that does not equate to your being scum. My strongest suspicion right now is still Bill...I mean Pods.

[Barry Allen]

Rob - if you would quit throwing insults and threats around, you might actually be able to convince me that you know what you're talking about. I don't have a town vibe from Hiraki - but your own behavior keeps moving me away from the case, as I can't get past the really, really, bad posting you're doing.

You also misread me - I've been trying to decide between Hiraki and Pods, not as a "compromise" but as which case I believe most strongly in. I've given

you

the opportunity to convince me that your case is stronger...and while I don't have a great feeling about Hiraki, I more strongly believe that Pods has done nothing to allay my suspicion of Bill...and therefore himself (Pods).

Now, I don't believe in Pod's vote for you - I think Pods is scum. But, I also don't believe in following what amounts to a very emotional and at times highly personal case such as you are presenting now. I may vote Hiraki tomorrow, but for today I will...

VOTE: Pods McQuill

@ bvoigt - I already replied to you in post 1073, where I stated:
"I did think making fun of pods "suspicion" of our GM was a good first take to point out why I don't take Pods very seriously - after all Pods took the spot of someone I've suspected of being scum for some time."

I was going to ask the questions of Pods no matter what - but that "suspicion" of our GM was either so LOL or so dumb that it needed to be pointed out. I don't think making fun of someone's really dumb post is "appeasing them", especially since I have consistently FoS'd Bill/Pods for quite some time now.

[Barry Allen]

Interesting, coming from Pods McQuill...

Hiraki had FoS'd Bill/Pods and is now gone...Rob was certain Hiraki was full of it and was scum...turns out both Hiraki and Rob were town.

Pods - the day has barely started and you have already voted twice...probably because you think there is a greater chance of a BW on me.

If you can't even go 15 minutes (you actually went 14 minutes) at the start of the day without flip-flopping, I think you are showing yourself...

NOTE: As I have noted before, I don't like OMGUS votes...and I STILL don't like OMGUS votes. But, this is not a new vote...it is a continuation of my long-standing FoS of the scummiest person I see still on the thread...

VOTE: Pods McQuill

Let's talk a bit here...if I was mafia it would have been far too easy to jump on the Hiraki scumwagon yesterday. I could have sped it much faster to it's very poor conclusion. Instead, I have stayed on the consistent stand I have taken all along...Pods is scum. Sub - where was YOUR vote? Oh, that's right...you voted for Hiraki, didn't you? Where was Pods' vote? On the tracker. My vote was on Pods, along with Hiraki and EA. My vote is STILL on Pods, and will remain there.

[Barry Allen]

Now, I have NEVER called you bill mcfail......just Pods McQuill...and you didn't read before you voted the first time, but 14 minutes later you now know everything? I stand by my long-standing vote...should I just call you PM for short? XD

[Barry Allen]

Pods you are being VERY overly sensitive to this question. I couldn't care less whether you are Bill or not - that's not the point to me at all. I suspected Bill while he played...and I haven't seen anything from you that would change my mind. I've continued calling you Pods McQuill because...it points out that I have FoS'd this particular player slot since it belonged to your predecessor, and I continue to believe you are scum.

I do not buy your excuse...you had the opportunity to read anything you needed to read prior to your first vote...but 14 minutes later you suddenly come to a new vote? Nope, you just decided you could BW me more easily than Agar. You're scum, and my vote stays.

[Barry Allen]

@ EA - My last post was simply pointing out that while Subs and others have moved around from voting one townie to another by mistake, I've FoS'd Bill and later Pods for quite sometime and believe this is a good vote. I posted more than once in this round that Rob looked overzealous townie, so while I was more than a bit annoyed by his play - and while I was truly offended by his use of insults rather than logic - he was not the highest on my list. I did suspect Hiraki at one time, though not nearly as much as I have suspected Bill/Pods. Where I will agree with Subs is that I'm assuming as well that we have 2 maf and 1 SK. If that is accurate, I could go with the idea that Agar could also be maf - I just happen to believe the stronger case at this point in time is Pods McQuill.

...and the only place where I will agree with Pods is that we need everyone to show up and post.

[Barry Allen]

@ bvoigt - again, simply pointing out that I've been consistently on Pods for some time. You may not like my posting style - but we've seen in this round that such a view has nothing to do with affiliation. No one was more rude, personal or insulting than Rob, who really was what he said he was (tracker).

I believe prior to Pods taking over, Bill McQuill successfully hid from the thread at just the right times to let the heat go elsewhere. I also believe the wall-o-texts posted by Pods since he took over have not been truly helpful and are only another way of "hiding in plain sight". While I have no problem with an Agar lynch (by any reasonable count we have so far there is more than 1 scum left) - but I do believe my vote on Pods is correct.

As to massclaiming - given that there are likely 2 maf left, claiming anything other than vanilla townie would mean a hit from the maf tonight. I don't believe that is your intent - but if there are other reasons that this would be a good idea please let me know.

[Barry Allen]

IMO - I've just been voted on by the two players who are likely the remaining mafia scum. My vote is still on Pods McQuill - but if these are the top two votes on me I will wear them like a badge of honor. @ AGar - you are saying "nothing of value" from THAT position in the roster? From the "penpen" spot on the roster? Really? wow...

[Barry Allen]

Sub, I'm afraid that you are over-analyzing and then getting things wrong - don't know if you're the "king" of that or not, but you are certainly in line for the throne. I'm not implying anything about whether being on a wagon or not is a town tell - that's you over-analyzing me. I AM saying we haven't tested my FoS on Pods McQuill - the vote for Hiraki (which did include you) was obviously wrong...our other lynches has also been wrong so far, and part of that is due to Bill having "hidden" off thread at critical times for his own protection prior to Pods taking over. Since that time, Pods has done nothing to remove my suspicion of that spot in the roster, and I think it's time to test out what I believe to be a reasonable suspicion of Pods. I don't have a problem with Agar being a lynch, as there should be more than one maf and I can certainly see reason to suspect AGar. But, I also believe Pods is scum - and my vote stays.

[Barry Allen]

Speaking of impossible, Subs...

There IS a difference between my arguing for my stand and trying to make it a general town tell. I am pointing out that I believe in this vote and that I stayed with it rather than go for the easy BW, and that since the easy BW on Hiraki was wrong, can we consider a case that has been before us (Bill and now Pods) for quite some time? At this point in time I frankly couldn't care less what you personally think of me. What I AM trying to say is that I'm frustrated that we haven't gone after someone who I believe is obv scum. Let's hit the real points I'm trying to say here...

1. Bill ran off and hid every time the heat rose, waiting until the players moved their attention elsewhere to rejoin us. When the heat got too high, he simply disappeared entirely.
2. Pods has done nothing to remove the suspicion, substituting wall-o-text that wasn't (and isn't) helpful in order to "hide in plain sight".
3. I've been consistently FoSing Bill for quite some time, refusing to join the easy Hiraki BW

because I believe Pods is scum

.

CLEARLY STATED (

not implied

) CONCLUSION: PODS McQUILL IS SCUM AND SHOULD RECEIVE OUR VOTES.

Now, Subs, I'm not trying to convince you of

my

status - I'm trying to point out what I believe to be

Pods'

status. If you wish to vote AGar, fine - there is more than one scum left. But, when all is said and done, I'm hoping you will at least take a look at the long-standing behavior of Pods and his predecessor Bill.

[Barry Allen]

@AGar: Why the unvote, and why the vote for PZ?

@Mod:

I think pod person is still voting Barry.

bvoigt - take a look at the full thread. AGar voted me and I simply pointed out that the two players I considered the scummiest on the thread had both voted for me...suddenly with no explanation AGar drops his vote and switches away. I find it interesting (and a little disturbing) that just when Subs is coming around to recognizing I might actually be town, and just when AGar switches votes without explanation when he is called out as a scum, that you decide to vote me...

Here's my thought...I'd still like to lynch Pods McQuill today. However, I can live with an AGar lynch...his own behavior when called out - switching votes without any explanation - should be enough...and no, bvoigt, I don't trust your judgment as to who is town (apparently, I'm not alone in that idea)...

[Barry Allen]

Also is it just me or was that Barry vs. pods bit at the beginning entirely fabricated?

It's just you Zito...glad to see you are back, but I'm disappointed that your first post back at a rather important time in the game was simply to offer to sheep. As I've said, I have no problem with an AGar lynch, but I hope you have more reason to vote than simply sheeping at this point.

[Barry Allen]

Also is it just me or was that Barry vs. pods bit at the beginning entirely fabricated?

Why do you say this?

I asked the same question...

Also is it just me or was that Barry vs. pods bit at the beginning entirely fabricated?

It's just you Zito...glad to see you are back, but I'm disappointed that your first post back at a rather important time in the game was simply to offer to sheep. As I've said, I have no problem with an AGar lynch, but I hope you have more reason to vote than simply sheeping at this point.

It's due to lack of time more than lack of interest. When I get some more time I'll look through more thoroughly but I have to catch up elsewhere as well.

I told ya'll from the beginning that EA is extremely likely town and nothing has changed that. His Hiraki read yesterday tells me he's reading the game better than I am. So.

My question was for Zito, but it appears to have been answered, at least for now. My question for bvoigt is...since it WAS asked and answered already, why ask again?

[Barry Allen]

Well, let's hear from PZ to confirm then...I did wonder why someone who was off the thread long enough to be prodded would have as his first post back something where he highlights a group of posts where two players basically FoS'd and voted each other, but then offers to sheep on someone entirely different. His response regarding "lack of time more than lack of interest" indicated to me that he hadn't been paying attention for whatever reason. If you want to know more, only PZ can answer it...so...Zito?

[Barry Allen]

I'm asking why he thinks your argument with pod person was fabricated.

1. It started right off the bat.
2. It was over something retarded.
3. Neither one has pushed on the other since.

Papa Zito, you right about point one...it did start right away. I'll disagree with you on point 2 completely. As for point three, you are only right about Pods McQuill...as for whether I've pushed on Pods since...let's look at...

Post 1134

@ EA - My last post was simply pointing out that while Subs and others have moved around from voting one townie to another by mistake,

I've FoS'd Bill and later Pods for quite sometime and believe this is a good vote

.

Post 1137

I believe prior to Pods taking over, Bill McQuill successfully hid from the thread at just the right times to let the heat go elsewhere. I also believe the wall-o-texts posted by Pods since he took over have not been truly helpful and are only another way of "hiding in plain sight". While I have no problem with an Agar lynch (by any reasonable count we have so far there is more than 1 scum left) - but

I do believe my vote on Pods is correct

.

Post 1140

IMO - I've just been voted on by the two players who are likely the remaining mafia scum.

My vote is still on Pods McQuill

- but if these are the top two votes on me I will wear them like a badge of honor. @ AGar - you are saying "nothing of value" from THAT position in the roster? From the "penpen" spot on the roster? Really? wow...

Post 1143

I AM saying we haven't tested my FoS on Pods McQuill - the vote for Hiraki (which did include you) was obviously wrong...our other lynches has also been wrong so far, and part of that is due to Bill having "hidden" off thread at critical times for his own protection prior to Pods taking over. Since that time, Pods has done nothing to remove my suspicion of that spot in the roster, and I think it's time to test out what I believe to be a reasonable suspicion of Pods. I don't have a problem with Agar being a lynch, as there should be more than one maf and I can certainly see reason to suspect AGar. But,

I also believe Pods is scum

- and my vote stays.

Post 1146

CLEARLY STATED (

not implied

)

CONCLUSION: PODS McQUILL IS SCUM AND SHOULD RECEIVE OUR VOTES

.

Post 1154

Here's my thought...

I'd still like to lynch Pods McQuill today

. However, I can live with an AGar lynch...his own behavior when called out - switching votes without any explanation - should be enough...

This takes us all the way up to when Papa Zito rejoined the thread, and FAR beyond any exchanges with Pods McQuill. Pods may not have continued to push me, but I have certainly continued to push for a Pods lynch. Unfortunately, I am pushing all alone for that Pods lynch and do not seem to be convincing anyone to join me.

I STILL believe that Pods is the best lynch vote for today

, but I cannot get more votes on him than my own. Given that I do not believe a Pods lynch is possible today (and I cannot believe he is escaping yet another day), I can at least live with the idea that an AGar lynch is a good one. As you will note from some of the above posts, I have stated that I can live with an AGar lynch...so...

UNVOTE

VOTE: AGar

and yes, I believe this is the hammer. I believe we have voted well, and I also believe a Pods lynch is our best option for tomorrow.

[Barry Allen]

Folks, I'm taking a look at this...tried to work the math over and over, and I've come to a conclusion...

We can't win...

Seriously, the town is screwed. We have a serial killer round with a mafioso also still living. If we lynch a mafioso today, the serial killer will kill off one of the remaining townies that night, there is a tie vote the next day, and the next night gg SK. However, if we lynch the SK today, the maf does the same scenario and wins.

In other words, a successful lynch means we lose either way. Please feel free to run the numbers yourself. There is only one very far-fetched scenario that works...we lynch a townie on purpose, then the SK and mafia are stupid enough to hit each other tonight. I don't see that happening, and in any other scenario we are done for. This means we have one thing left we CAN do...decide who wins, the SK or the Maf. So, I'm asking for something unusual...

Will the mafia and SK please stand up and claim? It is time for you to stand up and let the town decide which of you has played the better game. We'll see what our next move is after everyone speaks up.

[Barry Allen]

EBWOP - here are the scenarios if we no lynch...and go into the night the same way we are today...

1. SK and Maf hit each other - not likely or that would have already happened.
2. One townie dies along with either SK or maf - draw tomorrow and gg to the remaining bad guy the next night
3. Both townies die - I don't know if that means a draw for the bad guys or if they continue to play and try to hit each other, but the town is still done for.

So...again, let's see those claims...

[Barry Allen]

EBWOP again...

If I had to venture a guess, I would bet that Papa Zito is also a mason, since he declared EA town so easily a long time ago. That may have been a "mason slip". So, bvoigt and Pods, either of you care to speak up? Or Zito, if I'm wrong now's the time to say so.

[Barry Allen]

Figured as much. Well, we are at least narrowing things down...

[Barry Allen]

actually pods....YOU NEED TO CLAIM...and further...

Your scenario won't work. If we lynch a townie and both the maf and SK shoot the remaining townie at night, the TOWN LOSES in that scenario. I don't know if ANYONE wins...but I know the town loses. Your vote is a fail - are you actually voting for a town loss solution? Can you at least have the guts to claim?

[Barry Allen]

@Pod - you stated that the cross-shooting scenario would not likely work and that we would then see the bad guys likely shoot the town. That was my reference when saying you were for the town losing.

I would like to hear bvoigt post - and for both of you to claim. We can then move forward.

[Barry Allen]

there is.

no way

. that any sane person can think bvoigt is mafia after this votecount. why do i even have to spell it out?
hello barry quickhammering his buddy. most obvious bus i've ever seen.

Pods, you are missing the point big time...
There is one mafia and one serial killer still in this round. Mathematically your view cannot hold water. You are saying
1. Papa Zito is town
2. Pods is town
3. No way is bvoigt scum

.....and we only have 4 players.

You are also accusing me of being scum and hammering a scumbuddy in a SK round where I would then be risking the entire game on the luck of the draw, hoping the SK didn't get me that night. That's not bussing, that's attempted suicide.

Bascially, either you or bvoigt IS scum. I'm waiting for bvoigt to post, then I will have more to say. But, I can tell you without a doubt that one of you is the maf.

[Barry Allen]

Actually, PZ, I was just writing that...here it is...


I'm the

Serial Killer

. I'm amazed and honored to have made it this far.

I have actually helped the town at more than one point in time, though obviously my goal has been to make it through to a win for myself, as any player in this position should do. Here's my hits:

1. Night one - Hitting Snake Eyes was a truly randomized hit. Sorry SE.
2. Night two - I'm proud of this one. I purposely went for a mafioso and hit Mozamis. Looking back at the thread for D2, Mozamis looked the most scummy, and I did not want to see a clean sweep for the maf so I sent in the hit request and crossed my fingers.
3. Day three - again, I wanted to bring this down to one maf left - and I didn't want to be lynched myself. I was at L-2 at one point, remember. Still, I suspected strongly that the town was right about AGar and when I saw the vote at L-1 I hammered. Again, very proud to have hit that mafioso, bringing it down to one last bad guy for me to compete against (at least I hope it's just one).
4. Night three - I didn't want this to be just townies and me so I did purposely hit Subs for two reasons...First, to bring us to where we are today, and second...because I didn't suspect him of being maf. Not a nice thing, I realize, but at least I'm telling you exactly what happened.

As for my suspicions - I didn't have Zito high on my list, so if he turns up maf I'll feel really stupid. I do think his "clearing" of EA makes much more sense in light of the mason flip for EA. That leaves Pods and bvoigt.

Now, Pods - I have had fun going back and forth with you in this round. I don't know for sure your affiliation (though your last post makes me lean town read on you more than I ever have) - but going back and forth with you seemed to give me something to appear active about while keeping myself alive.

That would leave us with bvoigt as our likely mafioso...so let me clear my throat and do something that is just as unusual as claiming my role...I will ask the town to support the Serial Killer over the mafia.

If I am lynched today, you guarantee a mafioso victory. The maf will hit one of the remaining townies, there will be a tie tomorrow, and the maf wins the next night. Guaranteed. If you lynch a townie, I am much better off hitting a townie and taking the draw or "no result" or whatever it would be with the mafia - so I would not be inclined to hit a suspected mafioso. I would venture a guess that the last remaining maf would feel the same way - since our hitting each other would automatically mean we both lose. This means that my original statement is correct - right now there is no way for a town win to happen, though you are in the position to decide who does win.

I may be the SK - but I have killed two mafioso (one by night hit and one by day hammer) and hope you remember that kindly as you decide how to vote. I'm asking you to lynch the last mafioso. If that last maf isn't you, Pods, then it is likely bvoigt...and I will:

VOTE: bvoigt

bvoigt - if you are maf please post your case as to why you should be allowed to win. If you are not, then let's put the pressure on Pods to give his own case.

[Barry Allen]

Well, looks like it is down to me and the last maf as far as a choice for lynch. I'd like bvoigt to post here before I look at my vote again. But, in the end it really belongs to You, Papa Zito, and the last townie. If the two of you agree on a vote, I'm sure either I'll join you in voting off the last mafioso, or the last mafioso will join you in voting me out.

[Barry Allen]

Pods - thank you for finally coming out to claim...at least we can now have an honest vote here.

As for me...I have actually hit one scum and hammered another. In that respect I have actually done quite a bit for the town even while trying to fulfill my own win conditions. I have stayed with this round from the beginning, and while I do appreciate Pods coming in on the round I certainly hope my own record will allow me the consideration of the town.

UNVOTE
VOTE: Podperson

[Barry Allen]

Basically, we need for you and Zito to choose who wins. There are two town left (you and Zito), one SK (me) and one maf (Pods). All have claimed.

With that count, there is no way for the town to win (see my earlier posts for this - basically either I win as SK or Pods wins as mafioso). But, you do decide who wins between mafia and SK. Lynch me and the mafia wins...lynch Pods and the SK (me) will win. I hope you will vote to lynch Pods, who is our last mafioso. I did hit Mozamis Night two, and I did hammer AGar, meaning that even while trying to meet my own win conditions I've done quite a bit of successful scum hunting. I hope you will take that into account when choosing your vote. However, that vote is right now up to you and to Zito. Pods and I have voted, and I believe Papa Zito is waiting for you to join us prior to hit vote being placed.

[Barry Allen]

EBWOP - Papa Zito is waiting for you to join us prior to

his

vote being placed.

[Barry Allen]

No immunity for me from night hits, and now that we know who everyone is, no real chance of a cross-hit (in that case both the maf and I would lose, so it would be a poor move at this point).

[Barry Allen]

OK, Zito - here's how this works...at least as confirmed to me prior to my posting today from the GM:

If the round ends with just the maf and I, there is a draw. The incentive for the maf and I tonight would be to hit you and bvoigt and claim the tie. I hate ties...but if necessary I'll take it.

If you lynch me, it's endgame time for the maf to win. It's up to the GM if he wants to play this out to the end at that point, which would go as follows:
1. You lynch me and go to tonight with 2 town and one maf
2. Maf hits one of you tonight
3. Start tomorrow with one maf and one town, who tie into a no lynch
4. Maf hits last townie next night and wins

Same goes for my win if you lynch the maf.

The only other choices are to lynch a townie or to go no lynch. The only confusion with a no lynch would be if both the maf and I hit the same townie. In that case we go to 1 maf, 1 SK and 1 town into tomorrow - and again the last townie is the kingmaker.

In other words, Papa Zito, there truly is no way for you to win. The only way for you to win is for Pods and I to be stupid enough to hit each other. Otherwise, if one of us hits town and the other is hit by the other, then you go to the next day with 1 maf (or 1 sk) and 1 town...again it plays out to a town loss.

I don't know how to put this more clearly - the town has no chance. I'll take a tie if I have to...even if that risks a maf victory by getting hit tonight.

So...Papa Zito, good luck - if you're still alive tomorrow you will be in the same place you are today, only with more time on your hands before the resolution. Please reconsider your vote. Thanks!

[Barry Allen]

OK pods - I hit zito tonight - you hit bvoigt and we can at least tie....or do what you want

[Barry Allen]

Actually, no...tomorrow will depend on what Pods does. If he hits you and I hit Zito the game is over. You can call that what you want. My only disappointment in this is that we are having to settle it this way. I honestly could have accepted you lynching me and giving the win to Pods, even though I obviously preferred to win. This is just a sad way to end it.

[Barry Allen]

You know what? I'll go with that...I realize you could hit me, but then YOU would be lynched tomorrow. So, I'll go with your idea. We really have two courses.
1. Each shoot a townie and take the tie...but you don't see to want that, so ok.
2. No-kill tonight and go right back to where we were.

I'll no-kill...I'm not THAT compulsive...and I know that if you double-crossed me you'd be giving up the game anyway. Works for me.

[Barry Allen]

Yep, here we go again.

VOTE: pod person

At least we found out that both Pods and Barry are good for their word not to hit.

OK, bvoigt and Papa Zito...what say you? As for me, I hope you will kindly remember that I did hit Mozamis and hammered AGar while also FoS'ing pods for a loooonnnnggg time...in other words, I did a lot of scumhunting while trying to fulfill my own win conditions. I also would love to see that rare SK win, especially being that SK. But, it is really in your hands. If you agree to lynch one of us, the other wins. If not we're sort of stuck here, but that decision is truly yours to make.

[Barry Allen]

*sigh*

[Barry Allen]

I don't think you're right about that bvoigt - but let's hear from Zito before we do anything else.

[Barry Allen]

GG, Pods - you lasted a lot longer than I thought you would. You took over an impossible spot and played it well. As for me, I'm glad to have at least a tie as a SK.

One other note: I actually was originally planning to no-kill last night. The reason I changed my mind was a PM from the GM that confirmed if we went through 3 day/night cycles of no-lynch, no-hit we would have a 3-way tie. After I heard that, I changed my request to hit Zito. Wish now I had left that alone, as I was certain Pods will no-kill again and we would have put bvoigt in the position voting or accepting the result we eventually got here. But still, glad to have made it to at least a tie from a SK role.

[Barry Allen]

@ Dekes - you did a GREAT job with the round. Thanks!

@ Subs - you were definitely a worthy opponent. I was worried more than once that you would take me down. Thanks for the compliments, but I hope we're on the same side next time as I do feel very fortunate to have lasted through the game.

[Barry Allen]

Dekes, if you hadn't said this was your first round for modding I would never have believed it. I don't have a problem with the round design. I'd gladly play again as a member of any faction. We all made mistakes at different times in the round (certainly including me). If the town had managed to get past some of the noise and had lynched a scum by D2 this could well have been a very different game...but again, that's why you play the game in the first place.

I would also gladly play in any round modded by Dekes. You handled this very well - thanks!