Mini 1138 - Candy Zoo Mafia (Game Over!)

[Hoppster]

VOTE: Nobody Special

He doesn't know why (although he may be able to guess).

[Hoppster]

Vote: Kalofer

Since I'm inevitably going to become his target.

^ Pre-emptive OMGUS ftw!

not sure what I think of switching votes in RVS

Totally scum. Look at him. Sitting on the fence, not calling it outright scummy - and even using the neutral smiley face! (Having said that, it could be inferred that he is disapproving of it, but whatever, this kinda adds to my point. The language seems intentionally neutral.) Plus there's the fact he totally insulted me in his first post. Alarm bells should be ringing, people.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Twistedspoon

I don't play guessing games.

But they're so fun! How about 'guess what Twistedspoon thinks of switching votes in RVS'?

[Hoppster]

if we're going to go into the psycology of smilies then yes, you could say I usually dissaprove of vote switching in RVS . You RVS for pressure - why would you destroy reasonless pressure on one person to push reasonless pressure on another?

anyone want to go RQS?

Assuming that's directed at Nobody Special and not me: why are you telling

me

this? Why did you not bring it up immediately?

Kalofer's already answered your second question.

I got the reaction I wanted

anyways, I thought you had a policy lynch on he hoppyfred?

1. In marathon games, yes. Policy lynch Twistedspoon is Go.

2. Reaction from me = vote? Wait, you want people to vote for you?

(Also, in case you're not joking, the bit about your insult was a joke. It wasn't the basis for my vote.)

I suppose, but while I do hate anime I do like piano, and since from your name I assume that you like piano too I guess it cancels out to give a neutral, for now.

I LIKE THE PIANO TOO. I DEMAND THAT YOU UNVOTE ME. (I do actually play the piano.)

[Hoppster]

Also, where are you from crazy
Twisted and Hopper do you like anime?

Sorttttt of.

well we all just start questioning the players who have overreacted in the Random voting stage *coughhoppstercough*

You're just mad I outed you as scum.

what makes you believe that these ingredients aren't just here for flavour reasons?
What makes you think they are collectable?

and mass claims are hardly ever to the town's advantage
mafia learn who has what and town only get the wrong ideas from mafia claims.

all town need to do is lynch scum

Ingredients will either help scum or distact us from scumhunting.

Vezok, you're digging your own grave here

I like this post of yours. Perhaps I'm wrong with thinking your scum. UNVOTE:

However, Mod's second post says: "You know that there is a candy mechanic in the game. The nature of this shall only be revealed when the game is over."

Vezok seems to know too much for a VT role.
noted.

^ I just unvoted you, please try not to look like you're rolefishing. VOTE: Twistedspoon

I have enough reasons to believe that when town has a special mechanic and they don't use they end up losing.

For example: Mafia on Holy Orders. The town didn't bother too much with the mechanic and they ended up losing the game.

I game I played on another site: There was a mechanic that allowed people to connect to other people. Town was afraid that scum might do stuff to them if they connect and didn't try to connect to much. They ended up losing.

That's why I think mechanics should be exploited because it favors the town more than the scum.

1) Who says town has a special mechanic?

2) Confirmation bias much? TOWN LOSING AND TOWN NOT USING A SPECIAL MECHANIC DON'T NECESSARILY CORRELATE.

Yes. I see where you are going with this.

I don't like where this is going. >.<

Let's stop. Now, please. THIS IS NOT GOING TO WORK.

I am not answering Vezok's question.

Consequences haven't fully been thought out. (Or, rather, it's overlooking some possibilities.) Please, nobody else answer the question, I am telling you it is not going to work.

PREVIEW EDIT: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE NOBODY ELSE ANSWER VEZOK'S QUESTION

[Hoppster]

hoppster is acting all suspiciousy. He's accused me of rolefishing. It's hard to beat Vezok at that though.

anyways, It looks like hoppster might know too much for VT too.

Vezok's open method strikes me as suicide for scum, and I have other reasons that I cannot disclose for the moment. I'm not ruling Vezok out as scum, but it just seems like too much of a gambit (paticularly if, as I have inferred, Vezok has a history of rolefishing like this).

AND YOU'RE STILL LOOKING LIKE YOU'RE ROLEFISHING. More Twistedspoon votes please.


To reiterate my earlier point,

NO FURTHER PEOPLE TO ANSWER VEZOK'S QUESTION PLEASE. THANK YOU.

Preview Edit: It's included at the top away from the more serious stuff. Besides, it's rude to leave a question unanswered.


@ mb53: Like, what? Also, your question is actually related to the problem.

[Hoppster]

and you still look like you're trying too hard to look both town, dictate play and defend vezok

anyways, I'm not interested in tunneling on hoppster as he is on me.

Somebody's so scared of being accused of OMGUS that they aren't willing to attack who they (presumably) find scummy.

(That's you, btw.)

I'm not trying to defending Vezok. Vezok could be town or scum for all I know. I'm insisting that nobody else answer Vezok's questions, regardless of whether Vezok is town or scum.

It's not immediately my first priority atm whether my play is coming across as scummy or towny (although I'd rather it be the latter), just as long as people obey my one request.

I'm happy to dictate play regarding this matter.


@ mb53: I'm not saying answering the question is scummy. >.<

I'm saying it doesn't help town (to my knowledge), but it almost certainly does hurt town.

[Hoppster]

Yes, you should have. >.<

[Hoppster]

Author's note: I got ninja'd several times during the construction of this post.

Vezok's role fishing is harmful but almost certainly not in a way that he intended it (if he is town). If he is scum, then again, it's harmful but possibly not in the way he intended it.

Your is just blunt. It's "OH HAI GUYZ THIS GUY IS EITHER SCUM OR PR". Scum know who is scum, so either you're showing yourself up as having identified them or you're giving them a better NK. Seriously, I'd much prefer you just flat out accuse people of being scum instead of your rolefishing with your "THIS GUY ISN'T VT!!!!111"

I didn't want to have to clarify that but you insist on being so narrow-minded about it. >.<


IT IS NOT GOOD FOR TOWN. SERIOUSLY. JUST

THINK

FOR A BIT ABOUT IT,

PLEASE

.


Also, are you insinuating that Vezok and I are scum buddies? Otherwise that point about me trying to get you to tunnel on me is just flawed. The only people attracted any real attention apart from myself are Vezok and yourself (albeit just from me for the latter).

Your point about CAPS LOCK isn't clever or funny. I am making valid points here and you're laughing it off as "CAPS LAWKE, LOLFAIL", either due to lack of a proper response or scum trying to piss me off.


Preview Edit: Wow, massive ninja. Zyrc, I love you. TS and mb53 - if you're town, please stop being so

incredibly

narrow-minded.

Preview Edit 2: Oh man, this game... mb53, you are going to look really ridiculous when Zyrc flips town (as I'm 90% sure he will).

Preview Edit 3: Okay, I agree with Kalofer. Forget this whole stupid thing. That works.


Twisted, please read Kalofer's post. Kthx.

[Hoppster]

Zyrc, I love you.

wow buddying

this just gets better

VOTE: Hoppster

you wanted it

You do realise that is,

at best

, a null-tell? It's so full of WIFOM that basing a vote on it is just scummy or plain stupid.

If I'm scum, I could be framing a townie. Would scum be so stupid to declare they love their scum-buddies? Or maybe that's what I want you to think, because he actually is my scum-buddy.

(I'm assuming you think I'm scum, because otherwise, why are you voting me?!)

Twisted, please read Kalofer's post. Kthx.

hoppster, It's you, not me, who's tunneling here

I'm waiting for mb53's question to be answered and vezok to be posting to explain.

1) Did you read Kalofer's post?
2) Did I ever accuse you of tunneling?

Failvote, please try again.

Vezok's role fishing is harmful but almost certainly not in a way that he intended it

and you know what vezok intended?


hoppster, the omniscient townie, as ever

I have inferred from other people's reactions. >.<

Seriously, you are being so anti-town right now it's ridiculous.

Use your goddamn fricking imagination. Seriously. You're so off-track it's ridiculous. You were the one insulting me (albeit as a joke) for having no imagination, use yours.


@ mb53: Thank you. Seriously. I am incredibly grateful. Although, I am fairly confident of Zyrc being town based on his reactions.

[Hoppster]

@ mb53: Thank you. Seriously. I am incredibly grateful. Although, I am fairly confident of Zyrc being town based on his reactions.

moar buddying

trying to make allies are we?

anyways, scum will have likely gone unnoticed so far, under the radar as it will

Hoppster is merely trying to make a name for himself as a scumhunter. Apparently the end justifies the means to him, no matter how anti-town they may be. coughsheepingbuddyingstrawmanningdefendingquestiondodgingetc.cough

IF YOU DON'T THINK I'M SCUM, WHY ARE YOU STILL VOTING ME.

This post reads very clearly as scum to me. He was attacking me hugely, and has completely ignored my responses to his recent points (which is just the post above his for crying out loud), and now that his only support in mb53 has gone, he's suddenly decided I'm not scum.

I still want a Twistedspoon lynch. His ISO is full of "HAI VEZOK YOU ROLEFISHER" whilst he rolefishes himself, then it's "Hoppster is totally scum", whilst he holds off on a vote, then when he does vote for me he has no basis whatsoever, then he decides I'm not scum, as scum are probably under the radar, when in reality nothing has changed apart from him losing the support of mb53 in his interrogation of me.

Spoiler: Answer to questions I have 'dodged'

Somebody's so scared of being accused of OMGUS that they aren't willing to attack who they (presumably) find scummy.

(That's you, btw.)

hoppster's trying to bait me :3
Isn't it cute :3

No, I'm picking up on something scummy you did.

@ mb53: I'm not saying answering the question is scummy. >.<

I'm saying it doesn't help town (to my knowledge), but it almost certainly does hurt town.

Vwezok seems to think it helps town, and that's why I want to hear more from him

Okay, this isn't a question for me.

I'm not trying to defending Vezok.

Backpeddling? Lets' see, you accused me of rolefishing over vezok, themaster of the art, and

So I'm scummy because I'm attacking you? Nice.

Vezok's open method strikes me as suicide for scum,

also, how is it role-fishing to say you seem to know more than a VT right after you posted:

I have other reasons that I cannot disclose for the moment.

Why would the circumstances make rolefishing stop being rolefishing?

Does anyone else see the flaws in hoppster's logic?

Methinks, Hoppster is trying to get me to tunnel on him to distract me from a scumbuddy of his.

Dealt with this.

I'm happy to dictate play regarding this matter.

Yeah, that's what scum try and do. Get everyone to blindly follow the scum and you have a town full of sheep.
anyways, posting in caps lock hardly means you can dictate play as town hoppster

So town never do it?

Preview Edit: Twistedspoon, please stop being hypocritical.

@Toasty: glad to see someone isn't basing their reads off of one pretty post. +1 townie point

OMG BUDDYING.

[Hoppster]

1) Twisted, your actions just aren't matching up with what you're saying.

You say you can't scum hunt and defend: you're doing neither adequately. You're not using your vote at all in your random accusations and your 'defence' of yourself consists of 0 valid points.

You call people scummy, and then don't vote for them.

You insist lurkers are probably scum, and then don't vote for them.

Oh, and i've seen a pattern that scum are always going after the most active players in my games.
Curse my high posting rate.

anyways, I expect the real scum to be lurking so far, and will try and comment on this when more people get to posting

2) Uh-huh... so this pattern says scum are going after active players (ie. yourself). Oh, wait, scum are the lurkers (who in their absence aren't at your throat)? Which of the two are scum?

and talk about wagoning.

Is no-one here going to talk about any other suspects, or are we going to let the mafia lurk and walk free?

3) Umm, WHY DON'T

YOU

?

4) If the mafia are lurkers, WHY AREN'T YOU VOTING FOR THEM? YOU SEEM TO BE AN EXPERT ON PRESSURE VOTES, IT'D HELP US POOR MIS-GUIDED TUNNELLERS TO FIND SCUM.

Zyrc, editing quotes or misquoting is really scummy

Also, answering questions directed at other players is scummy too. It was addressed to vezok, not you.

And, I don't think you know enough about me to judge me as a player.

I'm actually with Morthas here.

5) He's not 'misquoting' you. He's making a point (albeit not as clear as he could have) that a lot of your recents posts are just "WAI YOU GUYZ VOTING ME I SO ACTIVE!"

6) Answering questions directed at other players is scummy HOW?


Numbered all my points for you so it's easier for you to respond and for me to point out questions/points unanswered.


Preview Edit:

Twistedspoon is at L-1.

Preview Edit 2: DARN, NINJA'D.

[Hoppster]

Actually, to be fair to Twistedspoon, we do converse over PM and have been for a fair while now (nothing game related of course...).

And we have played together in a couple of marathon games. One he was a jester (and got lynched), the other I totally pwned him in Dethy (as far as is possible).

@ Twistedspoon:

1) You can vote now. If there are too many lurkers to choose between, why keep bringing them up with "OH I BET THEY'RE SCUM"? (Also, what you call defending yourself =/= defending yourself.)

2) Essentially then, you're saying that everybody is possible scum?

3) This is different to 1. 1 is about voting. This is about talking about other people. I really struggle to believe that you are suggesting we attack other people and then 'forget' to attack them yourself. In this point, you're also not referring to SOLELY lurkers.

4) See 1, but not 3, as they are different.

5) Dodged the brunt of the point here, about your defence being 'I'm so active!'. I see what you mean with the misquote point, but, really, quote tags are just like speech marks. When I go "PLZ STOP ATTACKING ME I'M SO ACTIVE" in reference to you, I don't mean that you said it, but I mean that you're effectively saying it.

6) Not in all cases. If it's a factual thing (as it was in this case), then it's not an opinion you're forcing on people. It's a fact, which would be the answer to the question.

[Hoppster]

I accept no responsibility for being awesome.


1) Kay. This point does not require further answering.

2) You're admitting to making fluff posts then, or posts where you try and look like you're contributing by narrowing down suspects when you're really not. The posts where you accuse people of being scum you've now just admitted are accusing everybody of being scum, so really, you're not scumhunting in the losest definition of the word, you're just going "HE COULD BE SCUM, BUT DON'T FORGET THIS GUY TOO!!!11!"

3)

and talk about wagoning.

Is no-one here going to

talk

about any other suspects, or are we going to let the mafia lurk and walk free?

3) Umm, WHY DON'T

YOU

?

Talking about suspects =/= voting for suspects. You're either trying to get other people to do the work for you or just simply shift people's suspicions of you onto other people. Your defence for not voting people won't cut it for not talking about other people. There are lots of people to talk about, doesn't have to be lurkers (indeed, would make more sense not to be lurkers), and you brought up the point so there's no 'I forgot' excuse.

4) This number has outlived it's usefulness. This point does not need further answering.

5) Your defence is essentially just "I AM SO ACTIVE SO I CAN'T BE SCUM", Y/N?

6) The person who asks the question gets their answer back faster. I really don't see

anything

bad about answer questions that are solely to do with facts rather than interpretation. You're not giving a reason for it being bad, you're just saying "ITZ SCUMMEH".

[Hoppster]

2) Why wasn't this your initial response to my question, "Essentially then, you're saying that everybody is possible scum"? I'll admit my interpretation was possibly incorrect, but if your point was 'lurkers + people attacking me are more likely scum', then my question would make no sense in the context. Essentially, you

weren't

saying everybody is possible scum - that wasn't your point. Logically, when presented with an incorrect interpretation of your point, you don't agree with it (although you may agree with the misinterpreted point), you correct it to what your point actually was (perhaps adding that you believe the misinterpretation to be true as well).

3) Yes, my point is WHY DIDN'T

YOU

START THE TALKING? Paticularly as you believe it to be so good/pro-town.

5) Do you seriously expect people to buy your activity level as an excuse for not being scum? That it is a automatic defence against any mistakes? If that were the case, then everybody would be active, and then nobody would be scum!

6) Scum could give the wrong answer. Town could give the wrong answer. Still don't see why it's scummy.

[Hoppster]

This is like banging my head against a brick wall.

2) In short: you admitted your point was that everybody is possible scum. You then denied it.


3)

1) I've been too busy defending myself to vote. That and I forgot. That and there are too many lurkers too choose between. That and it's only day 2.
4 reasons there

THOSE REASONS DON'T QUITE CUT IT FOR NOT STARTING DISCUSSION.

a) Too busy defending yourself to vote, but not too busy to bring up discussing other people as a self-defence?
b) You didn't forget, you brought it up.
c) It would make logically less sense for discussion to be around lurkers anyway, so that's not an issue.
d) You brought it up, you wanted people to talk about other suspects. Wasn't too early for you to want other people to do it, why is it too early for you? Here's what you said in case you've forgotten:

is no-one here going to talk about any other suspects

5) No it doesn't.

like i say, I don't see the point in defending myself 5 pages in but to keep you guys happy, I'll say that scum would never be as active as me, I wasn't rolefishing, and my pro-townness outweighs my anti-towness

None of those hold any weight whatsoever.


6) You're over-estimating the effect answering a question incorrectly has on town. It's not like "OH WAIT HE SAID 2+2=5 NOW I CAN SELF-HAMMER LALALA". It's simply a matter for one person having to correct another. But, whatever. I'm getting nowhere, so I'll drop this point.


You're either playing dumb or just simply unable to grasp what I'm getting at. Maybe I'm being dumb myself, I'll wait for other people to input.

Also, some people are going to have to catch up on 6+ pages. I don't want them to have to wade through a page of us going in circles. >.<


Preview Edit: TWISTEDSPOON, THAT POST IS EXACTLY WHAT WIFOM IS. Gah.

[Hoppster]

2) That's not my point. You admitted that your point was just 'A: everybody could be scum', then when I pointed out this was fluff, you changed it to 'B: everybody could be scum but some are more likely to be scum'. This was probably due in part to my initially incorrect interpretation (A), but then my point is why didn't you correct it (to B)?


3) FFS THAT'S NOT MY POINT. I'M POINTING OUT THE HYPOCRISY/SCUMMINESS IN YOU WANTING OTHER PEOPLE TO TALK ABOUT OTHER SUSPECTS, WHILE YOU, A SUSPECT, DO NO SUCH THING YOURSELF. This seems totally like scum diverting suspicion from themselves onto other people.


5) I didn't counter it because I thought it was obvious.

[a] WIFOM on whether scum would be active. Not a defence.

You weren't rolefishing? If you genuinely think that's a defence, you need to think about all your attacks and actions. I don't deserve to be voted. I have stated that, and obviously, because I've stated it, it must be true. Please unvote me now, kthx. Also, I am awesome. I've stated it, it must be true. You were rolefishing. OH WAIT PARADOX OH NOES.
[c] Pro-towness outweighing anti-towness? See

.


6) Hah, you're funny. (Notice the sarcasm.) BTW, this =/= my case. This is part of my case. I also find it amusing that you think you've answered all 6 points to a satisfactory degree.

[Hoppster]

shrug

it says my alignment is town, and that's what matters

Huh. I think I've found a tell of yours.

shrug

how can I scumhunt when I'm defending myself.

Anyways, scum would want me to defend myself; it distracts me from scumhunting.

shrug

i don't have to defend myself 5 pages into the game.
I don't see what your point is

A 'shrug' immediately preceeds a post where you are under-pressure, being attacked, and grasping at straws. I would say it sets out a 'panicky' mindset. Largely what follows a 'shrug' post is a load of nonsense.

What's odd is that all that provokes this 'shrug' post is:

That sounds like a scummy role, tbh.

This somehow makes him revert to the 'shrug' mindset - panicking. This only really makes sense if he were scum - and I think it's very possible that he is scum who, upon being requested for a claim, panicked, and claimed his scum role except town-aligned (which is why he panicks yet again when Amrun points out it makes more sense as a scummy role).

I am strongly inclined to believe that the candy 'taking' mechanic, if it exists (which I believe it probably does), will be scum-aligned.

To be specific, there's no doubt in my mind he's telling the truth about his role, his alignment however is still questionable.

Sums up my thoughts perfectly.

She is a zoo visitor and the flavor in the beginning makes it seem like one of the zoo visitors are the murderers.

Just FYI, I disagree with this reasoning. The 13 suspicious characters refers to all of us, regardless of whether we're zoo visitors or candy animals.

I believe twisted's claim. Multiple reasons. One, is I doubt scum would be able to make up such a role. Two, my gut town read. Three, I re-read the thread, and found that zyr's vote on TS is even more bullshit than I thought it was.

I'm not following you here.


1) Scum might not have to make up such a role. It could genuinely be a scum role.


2) This is very, very dodgy. Firstly, I'm pretty sure this is confirmation bias: "I reckon he's town, so his claim must be true." Perhaps if your town-read was supported by evidence and was reasoned, but a gut read? No. It also contradicts your earlier,

non-gut

stances on him:

Dropping my town read down to a could-go-either-way read (null).

Meh. Less than adequate defense. Keeping you at null.

TS is getting scummier by the post >_>

Pretty much the only thing to come up since then has been Twistedspoon's claim. Why has his claim made you revert to your gut read over your reasoned read?


3) This is not even a reason for believing Twistedspoon's claim.


I want to see how the lurkers react to the Twistedspoon case and other stuff, and I think we need to explore the mb53 avenue. I think it will also help to see how Twistedspoon reacts to it.
UNVOTE:
VOTE: mb53


@ Toasty: Did you really intend to hammer before we'd heard back from everybody?

[Hoppster]

Thoughts on mb53, Twistedspoon?


ATTENTION RETURNING LURKERS: Please pay extra care if voting Twistedspoon. I don't want him hammered before we've heard from everybody.

Having said that, I am still all for a Twistedspoon lynch when we've heard from everybody.


Preview Edit: Twisted, you might convince us if you stopped defending yourself with WIFOM.

[Hoppster]

Ever since your claim, something hasn't sat right with me. Why go and add the green for emphasis? Why did it feel so scummy?

Because it is a scum role, that's why.

Glad I wasn't the only one who thought that. I thought I was just being paranoid.

[Hoppster]

@ mb52: Yeah, I missed your earlier post, sorry. But still, what makes you go with your gut in believing his claim over your head?

Preview Edit: YAY! Now I can finally illustrate my WIFOM point.

If I had any link with Amrun, I wouldn't have made that post, because it would be obvious that we had a link.

REFUTE THAT.

[Hoppster]

If I had any link with Amrun, I wouldn't have made that post, because it would be obvious that we had a link.

too late now, you did

anyways, that's WIFOM you're using

So why is your WIFOM acceptable and mine isn't? Because mine is true and the truth is harder to face than a lie?

[Hoppster]

other way round, mine is true

anyways, no WIFOM is acceptable, yours is just worse since your using it after telling me not to

/facepalm

THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF IT.

If you don't think WIFOM is acceptable, WHY DO YOU KEEP USING IT TO DEFEND YOURSELF?!

[Hoppster]

If I was scum I would have claimed candy animal. I know that's a town role, why take a risk with a zoo visitor claim?

WITHIN THE LAST HOUR, TWISTEDSPOON.

SO TEMPTED TO VOTE IF YOU'RE NOT ALREADY HAMMERED. >.<


I don't think it's the hammer vote, I think he's at L-1.

[Hoppster]

Can't be hammer surely if this votecount is accurate.

[Hoppster]

I'm dead then

ah well, I know you can win this one for me town.
I was town aligned, shame you didn't believe me

have fun guys, all the best

what?

I thought I was dead

ah, well you've seen my post-game thoughts, so that makes me a confirmed townie now amiright?

Lol. Heck no.

[Hoppster]

well I thought I was dead, and would have went 'bah, I was mafia' If i was mafia

*sigh*

[Hoppster]

(Will vote after I double check vote count)

^ LOL, exactly what I was thinking.

[Hoppster]

when I signed up for candy zoo I didn't expect it to be so serious. :[
last time I ever post actively. next time I'll take Nobody special's or Hazard's approach; they don't seem to be today's lynch.

after the flip, if I am wrong, I'll be happy to elaborate.

elaborate now, whilst I'm still alive.

Please don't use AtE on top of WIFOM.

Being active is fine if you don't use WIFOM to such an extent and basically ask to be lynched in the process.

Elaborating before the flip is bad. Gives scum more information.


Ohhh, ninja'd.

[Hoppster]

basically if you were in my shoes, you'd have no defence either apart from the truth which just so happens to be WIFOM

what else can I say other than the truth?

Scumhunt?

[Hoppster]

I believe twisted's claim.

My role PM almost flat out states that your role is scum.

Hello, what's this?

[Hoppster]

When he first claimed, I didn't take my own role PM into account. Then I remembered after amrun mentioned it (remember my *gasp* post?)

Eghhhhh. Just saw your 'gasp' post now.

Twistedspoon, opinion please.


PREVIEW EDIT: OMG TWISTEDSPOON, JUST WHY???!!!

Let me check I'm not hammering, then I'll vote.

[Hoppster]

@ Twisted: Yes, depending on whether the people who we haven't heard from at all say. It's possible they pick up on scummy things we miss.

I'm very conflicted, as he's now at L-2 I think. I

really

don't want somebody else to just pop in and nochalantly hammer after agreeing with the case, I can see that happening. >.>

This whole day is going very fast, we still have ages until deadline. I think we can afford to slow down, calm down and wait for input. Although I don't hold out much hope going into a weekend.

I'm guessing the role PM of candy animal says that bad guys will try to steal your goodies?

If so, then I'm an exception

HOW CAN YOU GUESS THAT IF YOU'RE TOWN?

This is not a bastard mod. You know that you're town. Why speculate on PMs saying "bad guys will steal your goodies" if you KNOW that good guys do?

[Hoppster]

Okay... okay...

I wholeheartedly recommend that everybody who has been swept into this Twistedspoon thing just take a step back. We either wait for other people to input, or explore other avenues. I'm going to at least, because I am actually getting sucked into WIFOM with "Would scum really be dumb enough to do that?" and other crap.


@ Amrun: Do you believe mb53's explanation for his inconsistent view of TS's claim?

@ Toasty: I'm still a bit perplexed by you requesting Twistedspoon to hammer when we still had people with just one vote in place. Did you not think about hearing from them before asking for the claim?

[Hoppster]

mb53 is really confusing me right now.

My role PM almost flat out states that your

(Twistedspoon)

role is scum.

I have my reasons

[for believing Twistedspoon will be a mislynch]

.

Unvote, Vote: Zyrc

I can guess those reasons.

(My) Sequence Of Events/Thoughts

Thought TS was town.
Kept getting scummier, even though I kept a gut town read.
Claimed, believed claim.
Realized that the claim had to be scum.
Trusts hazard, TS must be town.

Your role PM is very strongly suggesting Twistedspoon is scum, yet somebody floats in with "DON'T LYNCH HIM, I HAVE MY REASONS" and suddenly you clock on to his mysterious reasons

despite the fact your Role PM strongly implies he is scum

?

And why have you changed your wording from "I can guess those reasons" to 'trusting' Hazard? 'Guessing' involves at least some logic, but 'trust' is just a hunch thing... and I don't understand why you'd trust somebody on a hunch when it contradicts your Role PM.

[Hoppster]

Goddamnit.

@ Hazard: Do you think it's likely mb53 will have been able to 'guess' what your reasons are, bearing in mind he apparently has a Role PM that makes out Twistedspoon as scum?

@ Amrun: Do you have any idea what Hazard/mb53 are on about?

[Hoppster]

@ Hazard: Okay, fine. However, I can only think of a few things that your reasons could be to

guarantee

Twistedspoon is town, and most of them don't seem very likely. There are some things that may

suggest

Twistedspoon is town, but then are clearly things that suggest he is scum. Don't answer this unless you feel it is necessary to, I just wanted you to know what I'm thinking.

@ Twisted: Any

inkling

of what Hazard's reasons are? Y/N.

is it really that bad to say

why

how your PM says I'm scum?

FTFY. Of course they don't know the reason it says you're scum. But in answer to your question possibly, yes.

Obvious wifom from twisted has already been pointed out as well as some other fallacies. I'm going to have to join the people that say my pm implies twisted is scum.

I don't think TS is scum either.
Going to reread later with my new opinions but I've basically expressed what I feel.

Had an mb53-esque revelation?

[Hoppster]

mb53: in YOUR PM, is it explicitly stated or just (strongly?) implied that TS's role is scum?

[Hoppster]

mb53: in YOUR PM, is it explicitly stated or just (strongly?) implied that TS's role is scum?

I guess strongly implied would fit best.
Also, yes, amrun explaining is good.

Right, okay.

@ Amrun & crazypianist: Same question as well.


@ Amrun specifically: Is there no scenario possible that would have Twistedspoon being town (with your Role PM still being true)? Are you just reading too far into your PM? Taking it just at face value, does it necessarily incriminate him as scum?

[Hoppster]

@ Hazard: Do you have this level of certainty (of Twistedspoon being town) that Amrun has (of Twisted being scum)?

[Hoppster]

@ Stels: I think you are reading too much into the pre-game info.

Ok I guess the role PM does make sense and now I have less of an objection to lynching TS (other than that I still think he's town). Lynch him if you want but I want no part in it. I still think we should go for the mb lynch for his many inconsistencies. Evil people may be italicised to emphasise that it is evil people, and TS may not fall in that category. I'd like to know how day 2 is going to start if TS flips town, another townie is killed and amrun is still alive.

So basically your attitude is "Ok, lynch him. I think he's town but I'm not going to stop you"?

It doesn't say, but they might also be good people!

What do you mean by this? Hasn't your whole point been that you don't think this is the case?

this is why the zoo visitor role shouldn't be auto-scum

It's not the zoo visitor bit, it's the taking goodies bit that concerns me.

[Hoppster]

I forgot the exact wording myself until I double checked. It's a small thing, easy to overlook when caught up in the moment.

My PM says that "evil people" are after my goodies.

"Evil people" is italicized.

You consider 'evil people' in italics to be easy to overlook? That seems like something that would stick in my head.

@ Twisted: I agree with Hazard here... if you were concerned about outing yourself, just don't comment on it. That's really quite obvious, I don't see how you missed that...

[Hoppster]

The fact that TS's role name is the same as one that came from pre-game info can be interpreted that TS probably took his claim from the pre-game info (fake-claim). Since my role pm doesn't say anything about him being scum, he is a null read. Other's say he is scum.
The fact that other people view him as scum even now despite being a PR, probably suggests that he might have taken the claim from the pre-game info.
Doesn't that strike you as weird?

Are you saying Hazard is scum as well, then? Do you think scum would plan to both fake-claim identical claims day one? It would make no sense for Hazard to do it, with Twisted nearing a lynch.

I am going to reiterate my belief that the candy mechanic is, at the very least, a scum role. Could be town as well, but I'm not so sure on that.

UNVOTE:

@ mb & crazypianist: Did you guess Hazard's reasons correctly?

[Hoppster]

@ mb & crazypianist: Did you guess Hazard's reasons correctly?

Yes, I believe I said in my last post that I guessed correctly.

Sorry, my bad if you did.

[Hoppster]

VOTE: Twistedspoon

Let's get this wagon going.

I'm not really keen on a Zyrconium lynch.


@ Kalofer: I don't think a mb53 lynch is going to happen. Out of Zyrc and TS, whom would you rather see lynched?

[Hoppster]

VOTE: Twistedspoon

Let's get this wagon going.

I'm not really keen on a Zyrconium lynch.

and why do you think it stopped in the first place?

because the sensible players realised it was far to risky today, and lynching a claimed PR makes no sense anyways.
srsly, if my candy-taking ability turns out to be really useful, we will have shot ourselves in the foot here

Okay, who do you want to be lynched? I doubt a Toasty lynch will happen, you're not exactly helping yourself.


Preview Edit:

I'm not really keen on a Zyrconium lynch.

why not?

I do have a couple of reservations about him, but his responses to earlier 'stimuli' make me think he's town.

Also, this just reminded me of something.

Firstly, how the hell did you get over your whole 'HOPPSTER IS SCUM THING'?

Also/Secondly, explain this please:

hoppster is acting all suspiciousy. He's accused me of rolefishing. It's hard to beat Vezok at that though.

anyways, It looks like hoppster might know too much for VT too.

Context.

How was I acting suspiciously?

[Hoppster]

Firstly, how the hell did you get over your whole 'HOPPSTER IS SCUM THING'?

Also/Secondly, explain this please:

hoppster is acting all suspiciousy. He's accused me of rolefishing. It's hard to beat Vezok at that though.

anyways, It looks like hoppster might know too much for VT too.

Context.

How was I acting suspiciously?

Ahem.

[Hoppster]

Firstly, how the hell did you get over your whole 'HOPPSTER IS SCUM THING'?

Also/Secondly, explain this please:

hoppster is acting all suspiciousy. He's accused me of rolefishing. It's hard to beat Vezok at that though.

anyways, It looks like hoppster might know too much for VT too.

Context.

How was I acting suspiciously?

Ahem.

AHEM.

GOOD QUESTION, and what will you do if he flips town? What possible information does town get? That an idiot wasn't scum? And then we have the nightkill of someone like amrun who can now be said to be a proven townie for nothing?

What makes Amrun a proven townie? Paticularly following a Twistedspoon lynch (as in your hypothetical scenario).

Hazard, MB, Crazy, Hoppster, Toasty, Nobody

Why only these people and not Mothras, Stels & Vezok? What makes them immune from becoming a potential lurking threat?

[Hoppster]

because at the time you never said why you didn't want vezok's question answering :/

Next, don't lynch TS. Just don't, it WILL be a mislynch.

I have my reasons.

So it's suspicious if I have mysterious reasons, but if Hazard doesn't, it's okay, because he's defending you?
And also, can't you figure out my reasons?


Also:

Firstly, how the hell did you get over your whole 'HOPPSTER IS SCUM THING'?

Ahem.

AHEM.

Answer this please.

Hazard, MB, Crazy, Hoppster, Toasty, Nobody

Why only these people and not Mothras, Stels & Vezok? What makes them immune from becoming a potential lurking threat?

You forgot to mention the other half of the player list.

I didn't mention Zyrc because Zyrc is included in the original post above the bit I quoted, and Kalofer assumes Amrun to be town for some reason. Then it's just Kalofer and TS left.

[Hoppster]

Amrun: town, I don't think scum would start such an original wagon as amrun did after TS claimed town, knowing that (if amrun was scum) TS would flip town.

amrun who can now be said to be a proven townie

@ Kalofer: Is this it?

Your phrasing, 'proven townie', surely suggests something more along the lines of a bona-fide confirmed townie. You're willing to call somebody a

proven townie

based on conjecture?

Anyway, what exactly makes it an 'original wagon', when it went to L-1 with intent to hammer?

Furthermore, you're insinuating that because TS claimed town, scum are less likely to push the wagon. This I find quite frankly ridiculous. Nobody is going to claim scum. So basically, you're generalising to "scum don't push wagons post-claim". Really?

FoS: Kalofer

Far too eager to express Amrun as proven townie.


@ Hazard: Are you voting because Twisted's lie makes you think he's scum or just because he's lying?

because at the time you never said why you didn't want vezok's question answering :/

Next, don't lynch TS. Just don't, it WILL be a mislynch.

I have my reasons.

So it's suspicious if I have mysterious reasons, but if Hazard doesn't, it's okay, because he's defending you?
And also, can't you figure out my reasons?


Also:

Firstly, how the hell did you get over your whole 'HOPPSTER IS SCUM THING'?

Ahem.

AHEM.

Answer this please.

Still this.


@ Zyrc: I'll answer that once I've got back answers from Twisted and Hazard.

[Hoppster]

@ TS: If you cannot guess my reasons, please answer the following FULLY:

Do evil people want to know your goodies?

Add clarification is you feel it is necessary to ensure your answer is TOTALLY unambiguous.

[Hoppster]

Also:

Firstly, how the hell did you get over your whole 'HOPPSTER IS SCUM THING'?

Ahem.

AHEM.

Answer this please.

Still this.

I've dropped this now you've ignored it so many times!

^ loljk. Answer this still please.

@ TS: If you cannot guess my reasons, please answer the following FULLY:

Do evil people want to know your goodies?

Add clarification is you feel it is necessary to ensure your answer is TOTALLY unambiguous.

perhaps, but only if they can get hold of them
townies like me would want to know where they can get goodies too though

DAMNIT THAT'S AMBIGUOUS.

What do you mean by perhaps? Why would they only want them if they can get hold of them?

It's partly my fault I guess. I'll reword the question:

USING ONLY WHAT IS IN YOUR PM

:
a) Do you have goodies to steal? Y/N
b) Do evil people want your goodies? Y/N, then a reason/clarification if necessary. 'Maybe' is not an acceptable Y/N answer.

Awww how cute. Obviously one can't be 100% sure when playing a guessing game but as far as 100% goes in guessing games I'm sure that Amrun is town because IMO scum would definitely not re start a wagon on someone who they know is town only to get pressure on them the next day so they die as well.

Yes, you can be 100% sure at times. Certain situations arise where it is possible for somebody to be confirmed town. Masons are 100% confirmed town to each other, and certain roles such as the Innocent Child can be 100% confirmed town, and it is possible for night actions to clear somebody as confirmed town.

Perhaps you don't understand the weight in calling somebody 'proven town'. That means to me that somebody is town beyond all doubt, which I can't really say about anybody at the moment (apart from myself, obviously).

you self proclaimed townies

Nobody's actively self-proclaiming themselves as town apart from Twistedspoon...

And yes I am saying scum don't push wagons post-claim, why would they, knowing the person who claimed is town (or rather what I meant is while scum may push wagons post-claim, I would find it ard to believe that they actually START a wagon on a townie post-claim).

This is actually getting silly now.

Using the logic of scum not attacking people they know to be town, why would they attack anybody at all, ever, apart from their scumbuddies?

[Hoppster]

LOOK WHAT I FOUND 6 POSTS ABOVE YOURS, TWISTEDSPOON!
I've actually reached the continuous quoting limit I've been quoting my unanswered question so many times.

I can still quote this bit though:

USING ONLY WHAT IS IN YOUR PM

:
a) Do you have goodies to steal? Y/N
b) Do evil people want your goodies? Y/N, then a reason/clarification if necessary. 'Maybe' is not an acceptable Y/N answer.

I think what Kalofer is doing is that he's trying to get himself lynched to protect his scumbuddy Twistedspoon. This goody-taking mechanic must be very important for scum.

Here (with Twisted at L-4 post-claim) he says he has less of an objection to Twisted's lynch, and he seems more willing to let it happen:

Ok I guess the role PM does make sense and now I have less of an objection to lynching TS (other than that I still think he's town). Lynch him if you want but I want no part in it.

now that I see amrun's (and therefore everyone who supported amrun's case) point of view I guess through your interpretation maybe he does deserve a lynch

However, when the wagon reaches L-2, he becomes much more actively against a TS lynch:

GOOD QUESTION, and what will you do if he flips town? What possible information does town get? That an idiot wasn't scum? And then we have the nightkill of someone like amrun who can now be said to be a proven townie for nothing? And we start from day one with two townies less?
I would feel much better knowing that I eliminated what I see as a potential lurking threat in the form of all those people mentioned above, than feel relieved that an idiot who was puking so much scumminess he totally rocketed off from the scale of scumminess to falling on what I perceive as obvitown so far that I don't believe even WIFOM would excuse him of this (yes for the first time I am dealing with absolutes in a guessing game).

SO ANSWER THIS BEFORE YOU LYNCH:

WHAT WILL YOU DO WHEN/IF HE FLIPS TOWN?

@ Kalofer: I'd like to hear your take on Amrun's Role PM stating TS's role to be scum.

@ Twistedspoon: Opinions on Kalofer (specifically regarding recent posts), kthx.


mb53, some of what you've been saying is just not adding up.

My role PM almost flat out states that your

[Twistedspoon's]

role is scum.

Unvote, Vote: Zyrc

I can guess those reasons

[that Hazard has for saying Twistedspoon is town]

.

I did guess that

[Twistedspoon and Hazard have the same role]

however, which is why I backed off of TS.

I think that both TS and hazard have the same, town-aligned role.

What this essentially condenses down into is that your Role PM strongly implies Twistedspoon's role is scum, but because somebody else is claiming the same role, you're disregarding your PM and saying both are town, even though common sense dictates Twistedspoon would remain scum and Hazard would also become scum?

[Hoppster]

Very interesting theory hoppster, I'm not telling you anything though so yeah whatever.

This sounds like confirmation to me.

LOOK WHAT I FOUND 6 POSTS ABOVE YOURS, TWISTEDSPOON!
I've actually reached the continuous quoting limit I've been quoting my unanswered question so many times.

does it matter why?

A townie wouldn't care as long as they know they wouldn't be myslynched, and I wouldn't want to give scum the satisfaction of saying why so
That, and I honestly don't remember which post of your it was that made me reconsider

No, I just find it scummy that you dropped a very persistent attack on me. I want to know why, as perhaps there is a reasonable explanation for it. From your answer, it would seem not.

Also, why did it take you so long to even acknowledge my point?

It also ASTOUNDS ME how you only answer one of the issues I wanted you to answer in my post though.

USING ONLY WHAT IS IN YOUR PM

:
a) Do you have goodies to steal? Y/N
b) Do evil people want your goodies? Y/N, then a reason/clarification if necessary. 'Maybe' is not an acceptable Y/N answer.

@ Twistedspoon: Opinions on Kalofer (specifically regarding recent posts), kthx.

[Hoppster]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I have a compelling and near-irrefutable case to prove to you that Twistedspoon is scum, or at the very best, a townie lying about his PR.

And I found a way to break the game open.

Do evil people want to know your goodies? Y/N

Just answer and say nothing more. Everyone has to do this.

This is the question that you may remember vezok asking early on. Now, imagine that you have Twistedspoon's Role PM, which he claims to be along the lines of this:

I am a

zoo visitor

I don't have any ingredients
My alignment is town though. My win condition is when all threats to the town are eliminated

Each night I can target another player to visit. If I target a candy animal I can take their goodies.
Apparently If i get enough of the goodies I can make something from them, I don't know what yet.

He then clarifies on this further when I prompt him:

USING ONLY WHAT IS IN YOUR PM

:
a) Do you have goodies to steal? Y/N
b) Do evil people want your goodies? Y/N, then a reason/clarification if necessary. 'Maybe' is not an acceptable Y/N answer.

1)I, myself have no ingredients; I am a zoo visitor
2)I have no goodies. looking back at my role PM though, it does explicitly say that I can make something useful out of goodies

So! Imagine you are a town-aligned PR with the ability to steal goodies - BUT, IMPORTANTLY, NO GOODIES YOURSELF. You see somebody asking: "Do evil people want to know your goodies?" Now, this puts you in a bit of a conundrum. Obviously, you can't answer this. Saying 'Yes' would be lying; 'No' would be

strongly implying

that you have goodies, just that evil people don't want to steal them. Twistedspoon shows awareness of this implication with his recent clarification (Quote 3/4, point b/2) - when asked the same question that vezok asked (with a bit of elaboration from me), he replies that he has no goodies.

So, there can be no doubt that he misunderstood the implication of answering 'No' to vezok's question (Quote 1). So, what are the options when presented with vezok's question?

(A)

You can't say 'Yes' as that is lying; 'No' is also lying in a way as it implies you have goodies; 'I HAVE NO GOODIES' is a flat-out way of identifying yourself as a PR or at least drawing unwarranted attention to yourself. So, what should you do? Then you think: assuming there are other Town PRs, what are they going to do?


This then sparks the basic logic process:

(i)

I am a Town Power Role.

(ii)

I have no goodies to steal.

(iii)

It is likely that all other Town PRs have no goodies to steal. (this excludes the possibility of Candy Animals with powers)

(iv)

Therefore it is a fair presumption that those who answer vezok's question (see Quote 1) are not PRs (having said that, see

iii

for the possible errors in this).

(v)

Regardless of whether

iv

is accurate, it is a logical conclusion that those who DO answer vezok's question are NOT (non-candy animal) PRs, and those who do not answer vezok's question are, probability-wise, more likely to be a town PR (again, see

iii

for possible incorrect assumptions). Of course there could be some cautious town non-PRs who didn't answer the question, and some people may not have had the opportunity to answer it, but the odds of each person who didn't answer it being a PR has improved.

(vi)

It is therefore bad for people to answer vezok's question.


Although it's simple in my head, I'm aware that I've overcomplicated it above in my attempt to explain it. So, a simplification:

(I)

I am a Town Power Role.

(II)

I have no goodies to steal.

(III)

Identifying who has goodies could therefore possibly identify Power Roles.

(IV)

Therefore identifying who has goodies is bad.


My point is this: it would be fairly simple for anybody who was town-aligned with Twisted's role to grasp this logic. And thus, when I asked people not to answer vezok's question, they would not have any protests. However, Twisted's response:

hoppster is acting all suspiciousy.

As somebody who would KNOW that answering vezok's question is bad for themselves (see

A

), and also bad for town (see

I-IV

) this does not make sense. Conclusion: he didn't know answering vezok's question was bad for town, because he doesn't have the Role PM he claims to have, because he's scum.



On other semi-related points:

• You still haven't answered my question about how you dropped that 'HOPPSTER IS SCUM' thing.
  
• You think that Kalofer's recent posts are rational?

[Hoppster]

what'll you say when you find out I'm both town and the role I've claimed?

I'll let you know if it happens.

UNVOTE:

VOTE: Hoppster

Wow, Kalofer, gonna bother to explain? Is that pure OMGUS?

naaaaah I'm doing it for the lulz

Very interesting theory hoppster, I'm not telling you anything though so yeah whatever.

These are all rational according to you, Twistedspoon?

5) to protect my PR status I must act as though I know little of the candy stealing mechanic and act as if those who know more than the sample role PM are suspicious. Thus, I am unlikely to be a PR due to my little knowledge shown of candy mechanics

So you were happy to put other possible PRs under suspicion to save yourself?


@ Toasty: Well, I'm conflicted on vezok. The fact that mb53, Amrun and yourself answered it makes me think there may be some conceivable angle vezok is coming from. I'm not sure how vezok would know to ask a question that at least three other people would answer 'yes' to if he were scum. Having said that, I'm not sure why town would assume such a question would break a game open, so I'm unsure.

[Hoppster]

UNVOTE:

VOTE: Hoppster

Wow, Kalofer, gonna bother to explain? Is that pure OMGUS?

naaaaah I'm doing it for the lulz

Very interesting theory hoppster, I'm not telling you anything though so yeah whatever.

These are all rational according to you, Twistedspoon?

*poke*

So you were happy to put other possible PRs under suspicion to save yourself?

no, the idea was to put mafia under suspicion

BUT YOU HAVE MORE INFORMATION THAN THE SAMPLE PM, YOU KNOW YOU'RE TOWN - YOU KNOW YOU'RE A TOWN PR FURTHER TO THIS.

Why is it then impossible for other people who appear to have more information than the sample PM to then also be town PRs?

[Hoppster]

they could Be PRs, but if they're prepared to say they know more than a candy animal about ingredient taking mechanics, then they've already claimed PR anyways :/

the kalofer part? I can't vouch for him, but this setup is very mysterious and I'm sure he has his reasons. The parts I found rational were elsewhere anyways. Why not ask Kalofer why he voted for you again, like you've done with me

srsly, why are you asking me about kalofer anyways?

OHOHOHOHO.

So when Kalofer and Hazard have mysterious reasons for anything, you're attitude is "THEY HAVE THEIR REASONS." Are you giving them a free pass because they both were defending you (at the time of these mysterious reasons) on your side? Yet when I have mysterious reasons, you're all "SCUMSCUMSCUM"?

You're also very touchy when I'm asking you about Kalofer.


My comprehensive post here shows how it was pro-town, and also LOGICAL, to prevent further speculation. Perhaps outing 1 PR, but saving possibly several.

And what would it matter if they've outed themselves as a PR? You would attack them for that?

[Hoppster]

why would I attack someone I believe to have the same role as me? If I believed them to be mafia, then sure, but otherwise why would I?

CAUGHT YOU CAUGHT YOU CAUGHT YOU SCUM!!!!

@ Twisted: Any

inkling

of what Hazard's reasons are? Y/N.

how can I?
I don't have his Role PM

[Hoppster]

Had to post that quickly. I wanted maximum exposure for the defining moment I caught you as scum.

I'm not giving Kalofer a free pass for the posts you quoted. I'm not giving him one at all

I can't vouch for him, but this setup is very mysterious and I'm sure he has his reasons.

What happened when I made a post with mysterious reasons again? Oh yeah.

hoppster is acting all suspiciousy.

Preview Edit: I'm starting to think Kalofer is a jester. Either that, or he's doing quite a good job of trying to attract a lynch to protect his scumbuddy. Not quite good enough though. Self-voting would be a good start, Kalofer.


Preview Edit 2:

I'm not giving Kalofer a free pass for the posts you quoted. I'm not giving him one at all

I advised you ask him again for your information; I know nothing of it

But i did like some other parts of kalofers posts

why would I attack someone I believe to have the same role as me? If I believed them to be mafia, then sure, but otherwise why would I?

In the first 3 lines, you are defending your response to Kalofer.

However, in the fourth line, you are clearly insinuating that you're not attacking Hazard because you believed him to have the same role as you. Yes, it's worded ambiguously, however, in context of my post, it's quite clear. No other logical interpretation is possible. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I'm quite sure I'm not wrong.

However, you didn't know Hazard's role at the time he had his mysterious reasons. You also showed you had no idea what he was talking about, so your reason for letting Hazard off is BS.

[Hoppster]

why would I attack someone I believe to have the same role as me? If I believed them to be mafia, then sure, but otherwise why would I?

CAUGHT YOU CAUGHT YOU CAUGHT YOU SCUM!!!!

@ Twisted: Any

inkling

of what Hazard's reasons are? Y/N.

how can I?
I don't have his Role PM

2nd quote was made before Hazard claimed.

That's the point!

Or from the reactions of everybody else, maybe I'm going insane.

So when Kalofer and Hazard have mysterious reasons for anything, you're attitude is "THEY HAVE THEIR REASONS." Are you giving them a free pass because they both were defending you (at the time of these mysterious reasons) on your side? Yet when I have mysterious reasons, you're all "SCUMSCUMSCUM"?

I'm not giving Kalofer a free pass for the posts you quoted. I'm not giving him one at all

I advised you ask him again for your information; I know nothing of it

But i did like some other parts of kalofers posts

why would I attack someone I believe to have the same role as me? If I believed them to be mafia, then sure, but otherwise why would I?

In the context of my post, in the last line, is he not saying the reason he wasn't suspicious of Hazard's mysterious reasons is that he believed Hazard to have the same role as him?

But this makes no sense - because, of course, at the time, Hazard had not said he had the same role as Twisted. So Twisted's reason for not finding Hazard's mysterious reasons are suspicious is clearly fabricated.


@ Twisted: You could explain what I've pointed out (above).


@ All those opposed to the TS wagon who aren't on the Hazard wagon (TS, Zyrc, Kalofer): Who do you realistically see being lynched instead of Twistedspoon?

[Hoppster]

VOTE: vezok

ISO vezok. Posts #15 onwards is just incredi-flip-flopping on Twistedspoon.

Here's a selection of quotes (all in chronological order):

We really need to lynch TS today.

I still think TS is town.

unvote
vote TS

Wagons on townies don't stall like that.

[Hoppster]

Hazard: Do you know whether the person you visited had goodies to steal or not? Or is even that not confirmed?

[Hoppster]

What does scum gain if said secret is revealed. Hardly anything useful to them since TS already claimed where he details his PM completely
What does town gain if ''said secret'' is revealed? The ''secret'' is WHO Hazard targeted during the night right? Well then, he tells us, and we ask the person who he claims he stole candy from and they tell us if they indeed lost their candy.

There are 2 possibilities: Hazard is town and Hazard is scum right?

Hazard as town: Tells us and we cross-check it with the person he claims
Hazard as scum: Says the name of a scumbuddy who may or may not want to protect Hazard
Responses and Actions with concequences:

1) Positively: If we lynch hazard and he is scum, that means he is his scumbuddy
2)Negatively: We 100% lynch Hazard and we get a free scum kill.

Ah, nearly forgot about TT, use your brain a lil, maybe then you'll look as if your scumhunting
Sorry for lurking, it's just that the amount of stupidity going on makes me hesitant to post

Not quite.

This could confirm a person as a Candy Animal, and from Amrun's PM we know evil people (ie. scum) want goodies.

Even then, Hazard could have the same role as TS but still be scum, so then assuming anybody who confirms his target is scumbuddies with Hazard if he flips scum is also wrong.

[Hoppster]

This could confirm a person as a Candy Animal

No it couldn't.
I.... ragequit. until you all start listening to what I'm saying all I'm gonna do is requote the bits you're ignoring OK?

Feel free to. I have no idea what you're talking about.

If Hazard goes "I targeted X and stole Y," and X replies "Yes, Hazard did target me and he did steal Y," how does this have no possibility of confirming somebody as a Candy Animal? It may not to us, but if Hazard is town it will confirm a Candy Animal to scum (and should Hazard be lynched/NK'd then it will confirm it to us).

[Hoppster]

What's the case/suspicions on NS? ISOing him it just seems like he tunelled TS late D1 (which I did early D1, so if you're attacking him for that you should probably be attacking me as well), and his reasoning of Lynch All Liars, while not something I agree can be applied to every situation, I don't see why it's not a valid reason any less than Amrun's Role PM.

Hazard: if it's one word, use a synonym or something.

Going to re-read tomorrow and post some thoughts. I've been at a bit of a loss recently.

[Hoppster]

ISOing him it just seems like he tunelled TS late D1 (which I did early D1, so if you're attacking him for that you should probably be attacking me as well), and his reasoning of Lynch All Liars, while not something I agree can be applied to every situation, I don't see why it's not a valid reason any less than Amrun's Role PM.

He actually dug up the LAL himself, which is a sign of scumhunting. Lurking is null.

Still not convinced.

[Hoppster]

I am not told what candy I get, and I'm not even sure if I'm told if I got candy or not. The candy animal might be told either.

Ah.
I don't want to reveal it

[results PM]

at this time.

[Hoppster]

I can confirm what Kalofer is saying is quite likely to be true.

Although I don't like Kalofer's reasoning for being suspicious of me (having said that, I am taking it as a compliment), he is very likely to be telling the truth about his results.

I was humming and hawing for a bit over whether to do this, but I can't really think of any reason not to. If I have overlooked something (although I don't think I have), I apologise.

This is not a full claim, but it is a part-claim.


I am a Cowardly _______.

[Taken out for purposes of part-claim, obviously.]

I have two actions, of which I can perform one each night.

One of these is hiding myself. This makes me immune to all Night actions.


I hid myself last night, so any Night actions carried out on me will have failed. I clarified with the mod pre-game - this includes any night kill attempts. I strongly suspect that I drew the scum night-kill last night due to the lack of a night-kill. I don't know for sure of course, but I was trying to make it clear that I was a Power Role of sorts during the day in an attempt to draw the night-kill (which I would of course then foil!).

This also makes for some beautiful WIFOM for scum.

[Hoppster]

No, it's not a typical Hider role. I just 'hide'. It involves nobody other than myself.

[Hoppster]

Hoppster's claim is null: Hider's are typically a great scum claim, because they are hard to prove/disprove. The fact that he doesn't have to hide behind anyone makes this even moreso. Hoppster, what happens if more than one person targets you? Is there a limit to you hiding or do you have the power throughout the game?

I'm

not

a Hider. I've double-checked in the wiki, and my role

is

different.

How does the presence/absence of somebody to hide behind make any difference?

All night actions that target me will fail.

I have the option of carrying out this action each night.

Oh, and fair warning to the game, I'm ill and just started some strange concoction the doctors gave me that is making me loopy as fuck. I may not be able to evaluate my own incoherency for the next couple of days; feel free to point out if I say something completely out there as I might actually be in space at the time.

That's probably helpful for this game, tbh!

Sorry/ I was busy today.

I'll make the case and give some thoughts tomorrow.

Are we getting this?

[Toasty is]

Trying to appear more and more useful while being more and more useless

BUT I HAVE A LITTLE PLAN.

Good description is good.

With all due respect, Toasty, that's already been partially-implemented.

But anyway, I think the Zoo Visitors should target somebody they find scummy tonight. I highly doubt they'd get back 'Action failed', or whatever Kalofer had, so I might be able to be confirmed further, if there's more people like TT with doubts. It'd also help us to understand this wacky game a bit more I think.

How has your scum-list shifted, Toasty?

[Hoppster]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Stels

Yeah, Stels is probably scum.

Seems to be intent on misrepping Zyrc, and yet is keeping a vote on Hazard which was only on Hazard in the first place due to Morthas' logic, which was to get Hazard to reveal his Night Actions/info. This makes it completely redundant now.


@ Nobody Special: No opinions on the Hazard reveal?

[Hoppster]

@Hoppster: Misrepping? Really now? Oh, I'm sorry, it's not my fault that his vote is actually being useless, with it being on Nobody Special who hasn't moved from L-4. My bad. And since he can't do anything but keep his vote on him, why not bother to pursue other targets? Did you ever think of that? Opportunistic scum is opportunistic, thanks Hoppster, you scum you.

Yet you don't vote me; oh the shame.

(SEE WHAT I DID THERE?)

Ho~ Votes for me, thinking that I'm an easy lynch. Go ahead make a case. Oh what's that? No case? Amazing.

You want a case?

Semi-wall incoming

.

For those who don't get why Stels is scum - at the beginning of the day, he hopped on the NS wagon for this reason:

I understand perfectly that role!=alignment.

But TS still needs to hang.

Wanted TS to hang despite knowing he was a PR...
>_>
<_<
VOTE: NS

The day before, he posts this:

I think you guys may not understand that TS and Hazard may have the same role, but they could generally be of different alignments... WIFOM, but w/e.

He also changed from the NS wagon to the Hazard wagon for this:

UNVOTE: NS
VOTE: Hazard with a Glove
Morthas logic wins >_>

Translation:

Post #19: I am fully aware that TS and Hazard are claiming PRs, and I am also fully aware that this does not guarantee that their alignment is the same.

Post #23: I find it scummy that NS thought Twistedspoon was scum despite being a PR,

even though I have previously shown full awareness that Twistedspoon being a PR did not mean he was town

[see #19]

.

Post #24: I think Hazard is scum,

even though he has claimed a PR

[see #19]

,

and despite the fact I found it scummy that on D1 Nobody Special thought Twistedspoon was scum despite NS knowing Twistedspoon was claiming a PR

[see #23]

.


#23 contradicts his stance in #19, #24 contradicts his stance in #23. He's just making up stances to suit him at the time so that he can hop on a forming wagon.

tl;dr

- Stels is opportunistic scum.

[Hoppster]

ohhhhhhh I see what you did there

IKNORITE?!

[Hoppster]

Toasty, I even did all the 'hard work' for you. Surely my totally awesome case should be incriminating enough.

[Hoppster]

I don't sheep

>>

It's not sheeping to be convinced by a logical argument imo...

Do you disagree with my case?

[Hoppster]

Gah, I forgot about this game yesterday, and just replaced into a different game, so I doubt I'll be abl to post tonight either. I

will

post tomorrow,

I promise

...

If I did literal /facepalms, this is when I would do one. >>

All you have to do is what vezok did, on his birthday no less. HAPPY BIRTHDAY VEZOK!

L-2

by my counting.

[Hoppster]

Anyone else feeling like this wagon went too smoothly?

I have no complaints. Nothing gets a game moving like a good wagon. With the exception of Kalofer (and the overburdened mb53), everybody posting since my awesome case has joined the wagon. This makes me happy.

Should help us to find his scumbuddies as well.

[Hoppster]

Meh.

Site meta dictates waiting for a claim. -.-

[Hoppster]

Jumping the gun a bit guys...

I'm all for a Stels lynch, but it's not unreasonable to give him at least 24 hours to claim.

[Hoppster]

How long are we going to wait around for a claim that doesn't seem to be coming?

So how can you make a judgement on whether it's coming yet or not?

The deadline of 48 hours is something I'm cool with.

[Hoppster]

EBWOP: Actually, no. We need to hear from Hazard and Nobody Special. >>

[Hoppster]

Also, Toast is, well, toast. (Read: scum, with Stels.)

ICWHUTUDIDTHAR.

Wordplay is fun.


But seriously:

@ Nobody Special: No opinions on the Hazard reveal?

Less applicable now your vote is no longer on him, but eh. You still up for LAL?

[Hoppster]

Stels seems to have been gone sitewide for at least 36 hours...

Hazard - whut? What's wrong with my case?

Any insight as to who the scum are on the wagon?

[Hoppster]

DON'T YOU DARE SAY THE WORD [REDACTED] WHEN PLAYING THIS GAME EVER!!!!!!!!

FTFY.


Morthas raises a good point - a claim would help us get more of an insight into the game/roles.


Stels hasn't posted sitewide in near 48 hours.

[Hoppster]

Am I honestly the only person conflicted about the lack of goodies from Stels?

>>

It's not following the Sample Vanilla Role PM in the second post, and, eh...


Stels - despite having no goodies, are you still described as being a Candy Animal?

NO HAMMER UNTIL I'VE SEEN THIS OUT PLZKTHX.

[Hoppster]

EBWODP: Oops, forgot to answer Morthas.

It's to create WIFOM for the scum.

There are two options:

1) It's a powerful ability.
2) It's a weak ability


Scum have to WIFOM over whether I'm going to use it or not, whether it's worth trying to kill me to prevent me from using it, but then I might not have been intending to use it in the first place and they're just wasting their NK, or maybe it's weak so it doesn't matter if I use it or not, but then is it worth risking that it's weak when it could be powerful, but if I have a powerful ability aren't I going to just hide each night to protect it, etc.


I also have the outline of a plan occurring.


Kalofer - don't lynch me in lylo, that's just stupid. I'd rather not be lynched before lylo either, however, and I have a plan that may remove any doubts about my hiding ability, which is optional (that is to say I don't need to use it). A lot of suspicion seems to be revolving around the fact that I could be scum hiding behind the claim, from what I can tell, so all you have to do is target me every single night. You're bound to target me at some point on a night where I don't hide, and thus you'll get a different response to "Action failed", and thus it can be confirmed that I do indeed have this ability which I can use at will.

There's also something I want to discuss with you. I suspect we'll get a QT if you target me and I don't hide.

[Hoppster]

I'm thinking it might actually be best to spare Stels today, and have ALL Zoo Visitors target him tonight.

The benefits of this are two-fold:

1. If he's scum, we find out what happens when a Zoo Visitor visits scum (that aren't also Zoo Visitors), so they effectively become cops to an extent
   
2. If he's town... I dunno. I get the feeling something interesting will happen. They won't get a QT, as he's not a Zoo Visitor, and he doesn't have any goodies to steal, yet he's a monkey who plays music?!

[Hoppster]

Exactly, I agree that Stels is in all likelihood scum.

So, if the Zoo Visitors target Stels, then we learn what happens when scum (who aren't Zoo Visitors) are investigated by Zoo Visitors.

Then, if a Zoo Visitor targets somebody and gets back the same results from targeting Stels, they have found more scum!


The reason it needs all Zoo Visitors to do this is because potentially, not all zoo visitors are town. Some may be scumbuddies with Stels, so it needs verification from all zoo visitors.


We can lynch Stels tomorrow, but I think it'd help to get this information.

[Hoppster]

>>

Only issues is with 5 days I don't know if we have time to build up another wagon, wait for claim, and hammer.

With recent wagons, it'd have to be NS or Hazard, as I think it'd take too long building a wagon from scratch.

[Hoppster]

Mehhhh...

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Hazard with a Glove

Hazard wagon GOGOGO.


I just got really, really bad vibes from his distancing of the Stels wagon. It was just 'STELS WAGON IS BAD' without acknowledging my case at all. He then makes a generalisation of "there's scum on his wagon" without mentioning any names at all, as to create the effect that he's actually doing something rather than making a sweeping comment applicable to several people.


I'll switch back to Stels if this fails.

[Hoppster]

We aren't lynching the scum today because we want to let him to live another and let kalofer test him and today we want to kill our other claimed PR?

No, not so Kalofer can test him, but so Kalofer knows what to expect if he visits scum in future.

If Kalofer visited somebody and recieved a result of 'Cows go moo', it's inconclusive.

If, however, we know that Kalofer visited scum previously and similarly recieved a result of 'Cows go moo', then we know that the person Kalofer visited this time is also scum.

We need all the information we can get.

Just to reiterate, if there are other Zoo Visitors, they should all also visit Stels.

[Hoppster]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Stels

[Hoppster]

GET READY FOR AWESOMENESS NOW AMRUN

[Hoppster]

Last note before the lynch scene and the thread locking: Hoppster is obvscum. His role is too convenient for town, I've seen uses of it frequently by scum and not town. Basing things on that, relying on other people, etc. He's scum.

FFFS.

Kalofer/All other Zoo Visitors, it might be a good idea to target me every single night from now on. I probably won't be hiding every single night, so at one point there will be a different result to 'Action Failed', or whatever Kalofer had. Then people will stop going "OMG HE'S SCUM BECAUSE IT'S CONVENIENT THAT WE CAN'T TARGET HIM ETC".

It's really pissing me off how people are saying I'm scum on the basis of part of my role THAT IS OPTIONAL, AS IN I DON'T HAVE TO USE IT.

[Hoppster]

Hazard, did you visit me?

[Hoppster]

• Day one
  - Twistedspoon spams scummy posts and defends himself with WIFOM.
  
• He claims, turns out Hazard also apparently has the same role, but at the same time Amrun's PM says TS's role is scum.
  
• We lynch Twistedspoon... he's not scum.
  
• Day two
  - Nobody died overnight.
  
• Hazard reveals he visited Kalofer and this gave them a QT, and Kalofer had the same role as Hazard.
  
• Kalofer visited me and got 'Action failed', I part-claim.
  
• Stels claims to be a Candy Animal - with no goodies.
  
• I propose a plan, gets little support, we lynch Stels... he's not scum.

Hazard, did you visit me?

Just quoting to make sure you don't miss this.

[Hoppster]

@ Morthas: Hazard could have, and SHOULD HAVE, still visited me. That's why I'm eager to hear back from him.

[Hoppster]

I'm still at a loss why no one visited me n1. Seems like a no-brainer... I don't think anyone did.

We have nothing to suggest that you'd know if people visited you yet, but that's a good point...

I targeted kalofer.

Ummm, why?


Amrun, you should have brought this up before/shoved it in our faces more explicitly if you did and we ignored you. >>

[Hoppster]

WTF HAZARD

I SPECIFICALLY ASKED YOU TO TARGET ME

EGEJGOIRJGO

I DIDN'T HIDE MYSELF LAST NIGHT AND YOU PROBABLY COULD HAVE CONFIRMED ME AS TOWN

AND NOW I'LL PROBABLY HAVE TO EACH NIGHT NOW PREVENT THE SCUM KILLING ME

AND YOU'RE LIKE "LOL YOU WERE TRYING TO TRICK ME"

SERIOUSLY, WTF?! >>

I would have tried to wagon him before Stels died, but you all had to go kill him before I got on.

No, Hoppster I did not target you. Hoppster is obviously trying to get all of the Zoo Visitors to use their ability on one person. And if he does the ability he says he does, then it would be a waste anyway/ Just think about it. He wants all the possible town PRs to use their PR in a hope that they'll get something, but most likely not. It'd be stupid to do that for 2 or 3 nights straight and even not getting anything. And he can just say, "Oh well I wasn't ready to not use the ability."

I visited Zyrconium. And I did get soemthing.

Aaaand this is all BS. As I've said, I didn't hide last night, and the plan was that you'd only need to do it for the one night if you did what I said, the stuff about every night was to throw the scum off-scent. But no, you decided that you were just going to go with random.org or whatever.

And what makes you think Zoo Visitors are all the possible Town PRs? The reason I wanted ALL ZOO VISITORS to target me was because it was painfully obvious to me that as soon as I suggested the plan, if they weren't going to kill me (and I didn't think they were going to kill me) that they would be killing a Zoo Visitor.


And trying to wagon me? What's this?

Sorry, pretty busy irl, with Track in full swing and lots of projects in school etc. I'm just checking up really.
But I', apposed to a Stels lynch, I'm really not convinced and nothing he's done seems damning. IMO, I'm thinking scum is on this wagon, cause I really haven't seen much reason at all for this.

Uh-huh, here was your vague post opposing the Stels wagon without addressing my case AT ALL, and then your vague non-specific attack followed by NO VOTE which now lets you say "WELL I MEANT HOPPSTER". No, that's not going to work, sorry.


Your reason provided for targetting Kalofer is also a steaming heap of BS.

Because I didn't understand how he knew TS was town and I figured it give me information.

WAIT THAT SEEMS AWFULLY FAMILIAR

Next, don't lynch TS. Just don't, it WILL be a mislynch.

MMHHM, THOUGHT SO.

So how come you had mysterious reasons for thinking Twistedspoon was town, yet Kalofer does as well and it doesn't occur to you that you have the same mysterious reasons?

VOTE: Hazard

@Hazard: If Hoppster wants all Zoo Visitors to target someone, then why does he want himself targeted? May just be a phrasing issue

waiting for some more input from people

Okay, my thinking was admittedly quite selfish, but when it turned out we were lynching Stels and thus couldn't use the 'Zoo Visitor-Cop target Stels' plan, my plan was to confirm myself as town. There have been suspicions about my role as a scum fake-claim or whatever, and I wanted to prove my hiding was OPTIONAL - and I thus had a role that would be extremely improbable to be in the hands of scum imo.

The reason all Zoo Visitors were needed to target me was because it was very likely imo that one (and it was probably going to be Kalofer) would be killed, and then I'd be held responsible. This problem would not occur if ALL ZOO VISITORS targeted me.


@ Amrun: I'm waiting for follow-up posts and discounting that first post by Vas as null.

[Hoppster]

@ Morthas: Still for a Vas/Replacement Vas/NS's previous slot lynch?

I'm going to go and colour the vote counts in pretty colours and see what happens.

@ Vas/Whoever replaces Vas

A lot of Day 1 is actually just Twistedspoon spamming WIFOM-loaded posts and it would be a waste of time and effort reading it. You probably need to skim posts around these two points though imo:

• Twistedspoon claims
  
• Hazard claims same role

That's all I can remember of importance from the top of my head that don't revolve around Twistedspoon and his WIFOM.

[Hoppster]

Spoiler: VCs + GREEN COLOURING WOO

Late RVS

Twistedspoon

(3) - Hoppster, Zyrconium, Hazard with a Glove
Zyrconium (3) -

Stels

, ToastyToast, mb53

Kalofer

(2) - Morthas, crazypianist1116
Amrun (2) - Nobody Special, vezokpiraka

~

After TS Defends

Twistedspoon

(6) - Hoppster, Zyrconium, Hazard with a Glove, Morthas, vezokpiraka,

Kalofer

Zyrconium (3) -

Stels

, ToastyToast, mb53

~

After TS claims

Zyrconium (4) -

Stels

, ToastyToast, mb53,

Twistedspoon

Twistedspoon

(2) - Hoppster, Hazard with a Glove

~

I believe this was the first count after Amrun claimed "bad people want our goodies"

Twistedspoon

(5) - Amrun, Nobody Special, Hazard with a Glove, Hoppster, vezokpiraka
Zyrconium (3) -

Stels

, mb53, ToastyToast
Hazard with a Glove (2) - crazypianist1116, Morthas

~

And 4 days later:

Twistedspoon

(7) - Amrun, Nobody Special, Hazard with a Glove, Hoppster, vezokpiraka, ToastyToast,

Kalofer

Hazard with a Glove (3) - crazypianist1116, Morthas,

Stels

~

Vote Count 16

Hazard With a Glove (3) - Morthas, crazypianist1116,

Stels

Nobody Special (2) - mb53,

Kalofer

Morthas (2) - vezokpiraka, Hazard With a Glove

~

Vote Count 17

Hazard With a Glove (4) - Morthas, crazypianist1116,

Stels

, Nobody Special
Nobody Special (3) - mb53, Zyrconium,

Kalofer

Morthas (2) - vezokpiraka, Hazard With a Glove
Zyrconium (2) - ToastyToast, Amrun

~

Vote Count 22

Stels

(7) - crazypianist1116, ToastyToast, vezokpiraka, Zyrconium, Amrun, Hoppster,

Kalofer

Hazard With a Glove (2) - Morthas, Nobody Special
...
crazypianist1116 (1) -

Stels

NB: I have corrected the last votecount because it's actually incorrect in terms of the order which the final lynch was reached, as Amrun and I both unvoted and then revoted, but remained at our initial ordering in the final vote count.

@ Mod: fix this please? =]

So, umm. I suck at VCA, so I have no idea what that means.

It is interesting how Morthas has been the only person on both of the two counter-wagons for the final lynch, though. Somebody experienced with VCA can tell me if this means Morthas is scum plz?

I'll have a gander at Mastin's MD thread.

[Hoppster]

I know this will be turned around on me, but we have no way of knowing that is true. The fact is, I had no way of knowing you would use the protect or not. I'm not going to waste my PR just because you say so.

Okay, let me get this straight.

1. Do you think I'm town or scum?
   
2. Do you believe my role part-claim?
   
3. Why didn't you target me last night?

You may have answered these separately, but I want them all together in this context.

What? Is all this directed at the one quote? I was stating how I felt about the wagon quickly. It had no vote because it wasn't meant to have a vote. And "I MEANT HOPPSTER" makes no sense.

Aaaand here's what you said earlier:

Vote: Hoppster

I would have tried to wagon him before Stels died, but you all had to go kill him before I got on.

Aaaand here's what you said before that:

But I', apposed to a Stels lynch, I'm really not convinced and nothing he's done seems damning. IMO, I'm thinking scum is on this wagon, cause I really haven't seen much reason at all for this.

You wanted to wagon me, there was your opportunity. Instead you chose to make a vague non-specific attack which is then your reference point in the future for saying "LOOK I TOLD YOU I WAS SUSPICIOUS OF THIS GUY YESTERDAY!!1!"

That's the only quote you have from yesterday that could be construed into you being suspicious of me. And yet, it came with no vote.

Stels (7) - crazypianist1116, ToastyToast, vezokpiraka, Zyrconium, Amrun, Hoppster, Kalofer

Please tell me who the scum are on this wagon and how you can distinguish from the non-scum who also voted, even though, as you say yourself, there's not "much reason at all" for it.

That doesn't apply. I was able to try and find out why he thought that, so I did. I never said he couldn't have his reasons. You are putting words in my mouth now.

No, I'm quoting what has been said, and then filling in the gaps in a logical manner.

It does apply, for the reasons I have said: you had mysterious reasons, you thought he had mysterious reasons... You can't refute it just by saying "OH IT DOESN'T APPLY". The fact is you, of all people, should have been able to quite easily guess Kalofer's reasons if you thought he had some role-related reason for thinking TS was town. And how would targeting Kalofer explain his thought process? If you're town and you've been honest, you should have had no reason to believe that targetting Kalofer would reveal any insight. All we knew was that Zoo Visitors that target Candy Animals get goodies.


You still haven't justified your stance on Stels from yesterday. Please do.

Amrun: Null/Town.
He hasn't done anything very scummy at all, but his posts seem like fluff most of the time to me, usually consisting of simple one line questions that sometimes don't need to be asked anyway.

CP: null
He hasn't done anything scummy, but he hasn't done anything at all. He's lurking far to much, but I don't really believe in Lynch all Lurkers.

Why is Amrun Null/Town but CP just null?

Mb53: Null/town: He seems pretty town ish to me. Is he on V/la or something?

Morthas: Null. I don't know what to think about him at this point. He seemed pretty town during D1, and still now I guess.

Why is Mb53 Null/Town but Morthas just null?

Vezok: Town. From what everyone else has said, he must be incompetent.

Sheeping people's reads?

Zyrconium: scum/null.

Justify this kthx.

For now I will vote the lurker until VV/the replacement makes a post about the game.

Glass houses. Stones.

A horribly weak reason for jumping on a wagon, and he's also giving himself an escape route.

Hoppster's case is good. Granted, he's doing that "Hey everyone look, there's obvscum here" thing, but I'm buying it.

So why no vote?


@ Amrun: Why do you want CP lynched? Is it just that you're convinced by Zyrc's VCA? Why CP over Hazard?



What part of Vas' wall/setup speculation addresses lylo? I've skimmed it a few times, Ctrl + F'd 'lylo', and neither have had any luck.

[Hoppster]

Warning: the following wall-post contains several points where I graphically pwn Hazard-scum's logic. Viewer caution advised.

There is a tl;dr at the foot of the post.

Quotes shrunk in font size due to lessen quote wall effect (but they are necessary for context).

A

1. Do you think I'm town or scum?
   
2. Do you believe my role part-claim?
   
3. Why didn't you target me last night?

Scum
Yes
Because it was a trap to waste my PR

Excellent, just as I thought. Some follow up questions:

4. Why do you think I'm scum?
5. Why do you think I was trying to trap you?

=================================================

B

Aaaand here's what you said earlier:

Vote: Hoppster

I would have tried to wagon him before Stels died, but you all had to go kill him before I got on.

Aaaand here's what you said before that:

But I', apposed to a Stels lynch, I'm really not convinced and nothing he's done seems damning. IMO, I'm thinking scum is on this wagon, cause I really haven't seen much reason at all for this.

You wanted to wagon me, there was your opportunity. Instead you chose to make a vague non-specific attack which is then your reference point in the future for saying "LOOK I TOLD YOU I WAS SUSPICIOUS OF THIS GUY YESTERDAY!!1!"

That's the only quote you have from yesterday that could be construed into you being suspicious of me. And yet, it came with no vote.

Ok, first off, my post yesterday WAS NOT DIRECTLY POINTING AT YOU. I was quickly stating what I thought of the Stels wagon before I had to go. I did not directly think you were scum before that post. If you actually were to read my posts, I have not ounce said anything along the lines of "I TOLD YOU SO, SCUM WAS ON THE STELS WAGON." It's you making that BS up. It came with not Vote, BECAUSE I WASN'T SUSPICIOUS OF YOU YET.

So you say your quote from yesterday disagreeing with the Stels wagon isn't attacking me. Uh-huh. Who is it attacking then? Are you being deliberately vague? Why didn't you specify?

And it came with no vote because you weren't suspicious of me? Oh, then who were you suspicious of and why didn't you vote for them?

=================================================

C

Stels (7) - crazypianist1116, ToastyToast, vezokpiraka, Zyrconium, Amrun, Hoppster, Kalofer

Please tell me who the scum are on this wagon and how you can distinguish from the non-scum who also voted, even though, as you say yourself, there's not "much reason at all" for it.

I can tell you're scum because you wanted to waste PRs and now making idiotic case on me, just like scum would make.
"even though, as you say yourself, there's not "much reason at all" for it." What?

Idiotic cases... People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, just FYI.

And wow, you've forgotten what you said already? Here it is again.

But I', apposed to a Stels lynch, I'm really not convinced and nothing he's done seems damning. IMO, I'm thinking scum is on this wagon, cause I really haven't seen much reason at all for this.

It's related to

B

. You are saying there is scum on the wagon. In

B

, you said at this point you didn't think I was scum. Using the knowledge you had at the time of the quote, please tell me how you can tell who is scum and who is town on the wagon. Unless, of course, you were being deliberately vague and attacking nobody in paticular, in which case now's the time to

subtly link to

out your scumbuddies kthx.

Also, nicely dodged with me asking you who you thought was scum yet you giving an invalid answer (which only has one person, anyway). Ohwait, I noticed it, no, sorry, that was a terrible dodge.

=================================================

D

The fact is you, of all people, should have been able to quite easily guess Kalofer's reasons if you thought he had some role-related reason for thinking TS was town. And how would targeting Kalofer explain his thought process? If you're town and you've been honest, you should have had no reason to believe that targetting Kalofer would reveal any insight. All we knew was that Zoo Visitors that target Candy Animals get goodies.

Just because I had mysterious reasons doesn't mean I'm not allowed to use the PR. We all have the right to hide things, and we all have the right to request them to answer or vote them if they don't. And, if you notived I revealed my mysterious reasons. I did not think he had role related reasoning. At the time, I didn't think there'd be more than 2 of the PR. How would targeting him explain his thought process? I got a QT with him where he explained it.
REALLY? NO INSIGHT? We got PLENTY of information from that.

Teehee.

• You targeted Kalofer to learn his reasons for thinking Twistedspoon was town, yet...
  
• You did not think his reasons were role related!
• My question: "And how would targeting Kalofer explain his thought process?"
  
• Your answer: "I got a QT with him where he explained it."

Oops, you really gotta stop contradicting yourself, Hazard. Let's connect the dots for the less observant viewers at home.

• For the first two bullet points - why exactly did you think targeting him would let you magically come across the reasons for him thinking Twistedspoon was town,
  paticularly if you didn't think his reasons were role related?
  OHWAIT, unless you
  knew
  that you'd get a QT with him, BECAUSE YOU'RE SCUM.

• For the second two bullet points - I asked how you knew N1 that targeting Kalofer would explain his thought process, because, after all, that's the reason you targeted him. You answered that he explained it in the QT. OHWAIT BUT HOW DID YOU KNOW YOU WOULD GET A QUICKTOPIC WITH KALOFER N1 WHEN YOU ONLY RECIEVED IT D2?! THAT'S RIGHT, YOU
  KNEW
  YOU'D GET A QT WITH HIM,
  BECAUSE YOU'RE SCUM
  .

We did indeed get a lot of information in hindsight, such as you being scum. Thanks for reminding me, I almost forgot that.

=================================================

E

You still haven't justified your stance on Stels from yesterday. Please do.

As I have mentioned in the post you have quoted dozens of times, I disagreed with your reasoning.

Bzzzzzt. Try again, scum. "LOLNO YOUR REASONING IS WRONG" is not a justification of a stance. Here's my case, tell me why it didn't convince you.

=================================================

F

Amrun: Null/Town.
He hasn't done anything very scummy at all, but his posts seem like fluff most of the time to me, usually consisting of simple one line questions that sometimes don't need to be asked anyway.

CP: null
He hasn't done anything scummy, but he hasn't done anything at all. He's lurking far to much, but I don't really believe in Lynch all Lurkers.

Why is Amrun Null/Town but CP just null?

This is just fliff. I stated why I think they are scum/town/null. Try reading you quotes.

Okay, I'll try reading my quotes.

Huh, I just read it, and yep, it's scummy. You're using the same reasoning - absence of anything scummy - to give two different reads. Your refusal to elaborate on this confirms that you're just making up your reads and are scummy scum scum.

Mb53: Null/town: He seems pretty town ish to me. Is he on V/la or something?

Morthas: Null. I don't know what to think about him at this point. He seemed pretty town during D1, and still now I guess.

Why is Mb53 Null/Town but Morthas just null?

...

Yep, this is also scummy. Using the same reason - seeming pretty town - to give two different reads. Your refusal to elaborate on this confirms that you're just making up your reads and are scummy scum scum.

Vezok: Town. From what everyone else has said, he must be incompetent.

Sheeping people's reads?

No. How is that sheeping?

"From what everyone else has said". <--- Sheeping.

If you're not sheeping, give a reason that doesn't involve what other people think.

(Also, see what I said earlier about people in glass houses throwing stones.)

tl;dr

A: Work in progress
B: Hazard doesn't vote for people he is suspicious of.
C: Hazard says there is scum on a wagon despite not thinking there is scum on the wagon.
D: Hazard-scum knew he would get a QT with Kalofer.
E: Hazard had no reason for saying Stels was town.
F: Hazard recycles reasoning for multiple reads but forgets to then provide the same read. Oops.

[Hoppster]

A is awesome, C is probably mostly right, D is wrong(there's enough evidence of Hazard's thought patterns to more or less disprove it, and no scum motivation for his actions if true).

the rest should probably be covered by Hazard alone.

Care to explain D to me then? He said he didn't think Kalofer's reasons were role-related, so I have no idea wtf he thought he was doing if he's town.

[Hoppster]

Zyrconium scuming it up with him makes the probability of hazard scum higher.

What do you mean by this, Amrun? Zyrc's scum with Hazard?

I'm pretty damn sure Zyrc is town now. He's definitely read my wall and understood where it was going (with A), which I don't think scum would.

4. because you wanted me to waste my PR
5. Because you are scum who would benefit one way or another from me not using it.

Zyrc has already stolen my thunder here. But I made a picture to explain it as well.

Spoiler: PRETTY PICTURE

This is your logic for me being scum. Here's a lovely Wikipedia article if you don't understand how it's inherently wrong.

I didn't agree with the stels wagon because I believe and thought stels just got mixed up and accidentally contradicted himself, even thought he was town. The fact is, even if you are scum, you don't try to contradict yourself. It's a mistake. If scum can make mistakes, so can town.

Yes, that's true, nobody tries to contradict themselves. Scum are far more likely to contradict themselves though because alll that they say is made-up BS.

It isn't attacking anyone, and yes I was deliberately vague because I had to walk out the door in five seconds after the post. I don't really understand what your getting at with your second bullet in D, but it sounds like it's the samething as in the first one. FYI, D2 comes immediately after N1, if you hadn't noticed.

D₁: Any results from targeting Kalofer N1 would be role-related, unless you knew you would get a QT.
D₂: Even if they weren't role related, the results still wouldn't explain his reasoning, unless you knew you would get a QT.

The difference is quite subtle, so you can basically assume them to be the same point.

But not attacking anybody? Whaaaaat?

But I', apposed to a Stels lynch, I'm really not convinced and nothing he's done seems damning.

IMO, I'm thinking scum is on this wagon

, cause I really haven't seen much reason at all for this.

What was the point of that post if not to attack people?

No, I wasn't very suspicious of anyone.

Uhhh. Let me re-quote what you said again, except in a larger font.

But I', apposed to a Stels lynch, I'm really not convinced and nothing he's done seems damning.

IMO, I'm thinking scum is on this wagon

, cause I really haven't seen much reason at all for this.

You're telling me you saw a wagon at L-1, you thought there was no reason for the wagon, you said you thought there was scum on the wagon for said reason, yet you weren't suspicious of anybody?! How is jumping on a wagon for no reason not suspicious?!

How would I know that I would get a QT with him? I Figured if I visited him I'd at least know he had candy if nothing else.

I did not think he had role related reasoning.

My feeble mind cannot understand how knowing whether he had candy or not is not role-related. Explain this to me please.

first of all, Amrun and CP are quite different in my mind. CP hasn't been here for most of the entire game, where as Amrun has plenty of posts. CP is flat null because there isn't thing to analyze, amrun is the exact opposite.
Morthas and Mb53 were almost entirely gut things. They haven't done anything scummy, but like I said before with Cp and Amrun, Morthas has been more active recently than Mb.
"I'm just making up reads" That's what were supposed to do, otherwise it'd be sheeping.
Oh, and on Vezok. Without the fact that everyone else has said he's essentially incompetent, he would be the most scummiest scum that had ever been scum. And it's pretty obvious, so why the hell aren't you tunneling him then?

You said Amrun's posts were largely fluff, which means you can ignore them, so actual content-wise they should still have similar number of posts, no?

Morthas and mb: Morthas hasn't posted for 4 days now. Still more town than mb?

You're not meant to

make up

reads... you're meant to base them on your gut at the very least (which is itself based on their posts), or through reasoning (which is also based on their posts).

If you want to deflect onto other people, try being less obvious in future.

And I refuse to vote Hazard today for reason that he could be the last Zoo Visitor

He could also be scum... (could be both, in fact)

If Hazard doesn't get lynched today, what about tomorrow? What about the day after that? Etc.

@ Mod: Could you prod Morthas please?

[Hoppster]

For reference again, here were my questions:

4. Why do you think I'm scum?
5. Why do you think I was trying to trap you?

Your answers:

This is what I said.
4. because you wanted me to waste my PR
5.

Because you are scum

who would benefit one way or another

from me not using it

.

You are reading as I if I said
4. because you wanted me to waste my PR
5. Because you are scum

Bolded emphasis added is mine. It's still circular reasoning. You're using me being scum to justify my supposed benefit from you not using/wasting it (which is the reason I'm scum in the first place). Corrected for circular reasoning, it becomes:

5. Because you would benefit one way or another from it.

Which is true, and not incriminating at all (and not a great reason for thinking it's a trap).

Why do I think he's scum, because he did something scummy (tried to waste a PR). Why did he do something scummy (try to waste a PR)? Because he's scum (and would benefit from it one way or another)

Uhuh, thanks for more classic example of circular reasoning.

Why am I scum? Because I'm doing scummy stuff.
Why am I doing scummy stuff? Because I'm scum.

Gut, AKA making up.

Uh, no. Gut reads are not making up, as I just explained. Gut reads are based on something - usually something you can't quite figure out - or, at least, they should be. If you're town, making up gut reads is

doing it wrong

.

"Morthas and mb: Morthas hasn't posted for 4 days now. Still more town than mb?"
Well, this is kind of invalid now.

... wut.

Let me quote Morthas' ONLY post between my quote and your response that my question was invalid.

Aaaaaah, i need to stop procrastinating. I'll post a bit later

You're joking, right?

====================================

I'm pretty damn sure Zyrc is town now. He's definitely read my wall and understood where it was going (with A), which I don't think scum would.

Why would scum not see where that was going? I thought anyone could (apparently not hazard though).

Oh, never mind. Maybe I'm wrong, I can't quite explain it well, it's more of a gut thing (something which is definitely NOT made-up) which I can't quite explain apparently.

====================================

OK~~~ I'm even though i started to doubt whenever Hazard is actually scum im going to vote for him
VOTE: Hazard

Hoppsters case on Hazard is very convincing although to most of his accusations if not all you could also apply ''he may be just a bad town player'' and since Hoppster already pushed the lynch for 2 ''bad town players'' i will be voting him if Hazard flips town~. <-- Even though you might think this sounds very stupid because i am taking part of the wagon, what changes Hazard from the other people who i had doubts and not voted is that i had a scumread on him for a while now

Morthas, which of the two attitudes below would you say

best

reflects the overall tone of what you're saying here?

1. Distancing from the Hazard wagon, not willing to be culpable if Hazard flips town
   
2. Pushing for a Hazard lynch, wanting town-cred if Hazard flips scum

Two huge extremes, I appreciate that. It's just that your whole post is very... iffy.

====================================

I've just read Hazard's last post and honestly I don't think he's scum.

Why not?

[Hoppster]

Deadline is on Monday, 9th March at 0430 hours (GMT-5)

@ Mod: Do you mean May?

I don't want any lynch before we hear back from a Vas/NS replacement.

[Hoppster]

@ Hazard: How about you make a case not revolving around circular reasoning and/or answer my points? More outstanding points here (re: the Stels wagon, role-related reasoning of Kalofer)

Gonna give it 24-48 hours for a Vas replacement, then I'll reconsider the cp wagon (of course, I'd be much happier if people decided to join my awesome Hazard-wagon). It'd be good if we heard back before a lynch, but with a stalling game I suppose a replacement could catch up overnight.

[Hoppster]

Screw it, a Vas replacement can catch up overnight. >>

UNVOTE:
VOTE: crazypianist

L-1, CLAIM PLEASE, I'm sure there will be somebdy willing to hammer. No need to drag this out any longer than necessary.

[Hoppster]

No, I've always had this monocle.

Would you be willing to hammer, TT?

[Hoppster]

OHAI PINE.

UNVOTE:

I'll vote again when Pine has caught up/posted something/decided to catch up overnight instead. Until then, don't want any hammers.

[Hoppster]

Pine, if you're not caught up, we may as well lynch cp and you can catch up overnight. I'm not seeing any other feasible lynches at this point.

[Hoppster]

We need 2 of {Hoppster, Pine, ToastyToast, Morthas, crazypianist} to hammer.

Cp probably isn't going to self-hammer(?), so that means two of {Hoppster, Pine, ToastyToast, Morthas}.

I'm willing to vote (only holding off to allow Pine to catch up), and ToastyToast is willing to hammer at deadline.

No idea about Morthas.

Monday's not that far away, Pine. If you haven't already read/trudged through Twistedspoon's posts,

I'd recommend skipping them

, or at the very least skimming them (not a lot of content but a heck of a lot of quantity). Anything significant he said I've probably got quoted somewhere in my posts.

I'm going to throw my vote back on Saturday/Sunday, just so you know roughly how much time you've got. TT and Morthas both have exams I think, so I'm not sure they'll be on around deadline.

[Hoppster]

Toast, there isn't going to be any lynch other than cp today, you have to be realistic.

Holding off for now to give Pine a chance to get content in, but I will vote cp at the end of the day.

[Hoppster]

VOTE: crazypianist

WOO MY FIRST NON-LYLO HAMMER IIRC

[Hoppster]

Wuut?

I have no idea wth you're talking about. It's just that this is the first time I've ever hammered outside of lylo, and I thought it fit to mark the occasion. (Incidentally, they were all Newbie Games, and I was scum those times. So it's a triple occasion!)

I'm talking about X-Box/PSN style achievements, that sort of thing.

P-Edit: Ninja'd.

[Hoppster]

Pine, are you fully caught up? Any thoughts for us?

Intent to hammer.

Probably will hammer after we hear back from Pine. From crazypianist's flip it would appear that Mafia either have goodies or can steal goodies, so I don't see the point in waiting for a claim of goodies from mb.

[Hoppster]

Lack of "ZOMG THOSE WERE MY LIMES" would suggest nobody had limes.

So scum do probably have their own goodies.

[Hoppster]

Well, in the very unlikely death that mb's claim is not complete bullcrap and he didn't kill Amrun, we could have a Mafia Ninja. I very much doubt Zyrconium is lying, as I've had a fairly solid town read on him all game.

I want to hear from hoppster and morthas first, at the least. Day hasn't been opened long.

Anything specific, or were you just waiting for my input on the claim?

I

do

wish Hazard to elaborate on his "I BELIEVE DAT CLAIM" post before hammer now in addition to Pine's catch-up post.

[Hoppster]

I'm starting to lean toward an mb lynch. The flavor of his fake claim seemed real to me, but for the most part Mb hasn't even been contributing.

Hazard, did you mean this in general or just recently?

[Hoppster]

Eugh.

Hazard is probably town.

Only have time for a quick post right now, but expect a post with details later.

[Hoppster]

Umm.

Upon re-thinking, I'm going to withhold my reasoning for Hazard-town atm.

And, accordingly, I'd rather not have a mass-claim today.

I believe it would hurt our chances of finding scum. I'm not sure what benefits we get from it, and we know that scum can be candy animals and have goodies.

I also have some role-related reasoning, but you don't need to know it right now. So let's stop talking about a mass-claim.

And instead...

VOTE: Pine

There was no pro-town motivation to claim Even-Night Commuter instead of trying to draw the NK. And your play just stinks of setting up mislynches (which, assuming one-scum left [by the usual 3:10 setup of 13p games], scum would certainly need to do).

First you set up 3 lynches in myself, TT and morthas.

Then, today, you suggest lynching the targets of any Town Roleblockers/Jailkeepers, when really the lack of a NK in no way means that their target was scum. Paticularly with Jailkeepers.


Your case on me is also weak. Amrun had me as a town read. Kalofer's suspicion of me was over my role, just like TT (who is still alive today). Other than that, your case is essentially just meta, which is incorrect/bad, anyway. (Link to my ISO for the game Pine is talking about.) How is my play similar? You say that you say you read me as 'town' on first-read. Oh, so I'm scum for reading as town?

The two points about me wanting townie points are just absurd. Firstly, mb claimed 3rd party, but besides that, I actually unvoted so that you and Hazard could post something. That's not overeagerness. Also, you think that my hammer of cp was designed to get townie points? Just because I went "WOO HAMMER"?

You're putting me ahead in the lynch order over TT and morthas, who you've actually got decent points on, and just on (faulty!) meta? That just reeks of scum trying to get rid of a PR.

[Hoppster]

The above post reeks of deflection, OMGUS, and worry. My case on Hoppster is pretty solid, and I can back it all up. I'm at work right now, so I can't pull it together at the moment.

Lacking any roleblocker claims, I'm going to assume it was a protective role that got lucky.

Also, lynching a jailkeeper's target in this scenario has roughly a 50% chance of being scum, and a roleblocker's target approaches 100% scum.

Hoppster is scrambling in the face of an impending loss.

VOTE: Hoppster

If a Roleblocker or Jailkeeper steps forward with a result, I'll go with that.

Nice dodging, Pine.

You're also completely ignoring situations where a Roleblocker or Jailkeeper's targets somebody who, say, isn't the NK target or the person making the NK. Correlation /= Causation. You're willing to lynch based on a claimed roleblock/jailkeep?

vote hoppster

You're the other commuter right? And the scum tried to kill you? A probable myslinch?

Are you kidding me?

Um what.

[Hoppster]

Dodging? I'm at work, asshat.

And yes. Excluding weird interactions, a no-kill means that either a roleblock/jailkeep went into effect, a Doc got lucky, or the scum smoked the good weed and hit my commute.

So yes. A roleblocker's target is VERY likely scum.

Not talking about your case. If you have time to accuse me of OMGUS you have time to say why you claimed so prematurely and unnecessarily.

You have listed two possibilities, roleblocker blocking correctly or Doc protecting correctly. Why is it more likely that a Roleblocker has roleblocked correctly than a Doctor protecting correctly (and thus Roleblocker's target is very likely scum)?

[Hoppster]

>>

UNVOTE:

I need to re-read.

[Hoppster]

Pine, actually, you'll be telling us sooner than that, it's 3rd on my list of things to have explained(it was second until Hoppster got all uppity).

#1 is the lack of death last night.
#2 is Hoppster claiming(like, all the way).

we can skip to #2 if Pine and Hoppster state that they have nothing to do with #1

(you crazy impatient tards are ruining my subtlety here btw)

#1: nothing to do with me.

Claim: Cowardly and Weak Zoo Security Guard

I am a Cowardly and Weak Zoo Security Guard.

I've heard that there are suspicious people about and I am the zoo's hired protection. Unfortunately, I'm also a bit of a wimp.

I have two actions, of which I can perform one each night.

One of these is hiding myself. This makes me immune to all Night actions.

The other is protecting a player. If the player I target is not a Candy Animal, this makes them immune to a night-kill attempt for that night. However, if the player I target is Mafia-aligned, I will die of fright.


Target Hazard last night. Doubted scum would NK me, and thought it worth the risk. Figured that if I died, town would put 2+2 together and lynch Hazard based on my suspicions of him.

[Hoppster]

I may have been roleblocked/jailkeeped. Unlikely, though.

[Hoppster]

N1 - Hid
N2 - No Action
N3 - Hid
N4 - Protected Hazard

[Hoppster]

Convenient that he didn't use his protect/investigate power until just last night. Especially given that two of our first deaths were non-Candy Animal Town, which means that the protective aspect is far less valuable now.

Nah.

Fakeclaim.

VOTE: Hoppster

*sigh*

I don't understand what you expect me to do about this. I thought my Night actions were perfectly logical (and stand by that). Perhaps you would have played my role differently, but why is this lynch-worthy?

@Hoppster: With regards to your claim, does it say that your protection is guaranteed? Given the whole weak and coward thing, it sounds is if you are more of a weak doc that dies if scum is targeted. Which makes you a type of advanced hider.

Umm, what do you mean by guaranteed?

I assume that if I am roleblocked the protection will fail. Just like any other protection. It's also implied that it only protects 'once' - ie, if there were two people trying to kill the same person and I protected them, the number of kills would override my (one) protect.

[Hoppster]

I didn't stutter. The case has been presented, and you're dragging your feet instead of either making a decision or providing a counter-case.

No, it hasn't, that's the whole freaking point. You were at work, remember? >>

The claim isn't lynch-worthy, everything else is. You chose to hide or do nothing three out of four nights, those nights when getting innocent results and maybe protecting a night kill were important. The Town reaction to that role would be to protect/investigate as much as you could in the early game, and now in the late game (with most or all non-candy animal Town dead) to hide and hope for a misfire to get a no-kill night.

Actually, no, my reaction to the role was to try and draw a NK off the bat (and I probably succeeded in that N1).

If I was scum just trying to confirm as few town as possible,

why for the love of all that is holy would I not claim to have confirmed Zyrconium as town, who is practically confirmed-town anyway?!

It literally makes NO sense for scum. Either I claim to have confirmed 2 innocents (in Zyrc and Hazard) or claim to have confirmed just the 1 innocent (Zyrc) and continue to push a Hazard lynch.

@ Mod: Semi-V/LA until Friday (inclusive)

VOTE: vezokpiraka

Look at his freaking posts he's made today.

[Hoppster]

Oh, man, absolutely gutted to lose this. I had felt I was in control earlier in the game.

It makes me marginally less gutted to know Zyrc would have caught me NK'ing Pine N4 anyway had I remembered to submit the kill.

[Hoppster]

Yes, but you had no logical basis for it. >>

[Hoppster]

My tunelling was at least partially justified by your helpfully scummy play.

And your role was not a town one, I was a scum version of it.

[Hoppster]

Lol

there goes Hoppster's perfect scum record

I call that a success

Already wasn't perfect. Lost 3 scum games in a row now IIRC.

You played well d1 especially, Hoppster. D5 was brutal, though.

I had fun and really enjoyed the set up. Any game about cute animals I gravitate to.

GG

Thanks.

Yeah, GG everybody. Mad about how Pine replaced in and then totally nailed me as scum. >>

Loved the setup and the whole concept of it. Candy and animals = auto-win.


P-Edit: Morthas, I actually stole your lolipops.

[Hoppster]

Zyrc was actually being discussed as a NK by mb and cp IIRC, and then I butt in and said "OH NO DON'T KILL ZYRC YADDA YADDA". >>