Post Restriction Mafia MEGA - It's Over!

[the silent speaker]

Izzatso? Well, in that case, thedocsalive, you're caught in a lie.

Also, you come across VisMaior's smouldering body, apparently struck many times over with lighting bolts. In his hands were a keg of beer and a medical bag. While that may sound like a malpractice suit waiting to happen, he was your Doctor.

Thus the doc is

not

in fact alive, so you must be a ruthless killer.

Vote: riktus

who is self-evidently "thedocsalive"'s scum buddy.

[the silent speaker]

I'd argue that it's more than just a pain, Pink Princess. It's actually a very ruthless thing for a moderator to do. I signed up to play a fun game, not to learn a foreign language. It happens that I don't know Spanish; if I had been assigned that role, the whole game would have been unplayable. I can see no way to make such a restriction fair, and in fact am tempted to vote for Machi Mafi on that basis alone if not for the fact that decisions like that can wait until more contributions have been made.

[the silent speaker]

Just to clarify, my notion was not to vote Machi Mafi on the grounds of the restriction being implausible; I've seen one in Seuss II that was, if anything, even more ruthless. My notion was to vote him, in the absence of any better ideas, to keep his restriction from spoiling the game.

This may only be a marginally better idea, but

unvote: riktus, vote: themanhimself

based on this post:

I seriously question the defendant Machiavellian's supposed post restriction As well as the other defendants,

Tamuz's incorrect spelling seems a bit too obvious

(not to mention the fact that riktus is doing the same), Twomz never being able to focus on anything seems somewhat suspicious, but believable enough, however, as much as I appreciate his translating skills, thedocsalive's stuttering is simply too obvious to be believable.

Tamuz looks like Elmer Fudd to me, not typos. Also, not only do I disagree on the "serious question[ing]" of Machi Mafi's restriction, he seems to be taking a very convenient attitude toward the damn things. The stuttering is "too obvious to be believable"? But Twomz's restriction is somehow less obvious? Stikey's smurfs and draygn_mage's legalese are somehow subtle? Why does a false pairing of typos make your list, but not our two ducks?

[the silent speaker]

...Nightfall, isn't post subject 62 quack-free?

FOS: Nightfall

on suspicion of being a ruthless killer, but one quackless post is not cause for a vote right just now.

[the silent speaker]

Unvote: themanhimself

, not because I buy the claim but because I don't, and I want to be the lynching vote. Ruthless logic dictates that

I copy their restriction, and am put into a mason group with them. I did not post in legalese my first post, because I was waiting to find out my mason brother's restriction.

is impossible; he chooses a mason brother by copying their restriction, so how can he be waiting for his mason brother's restriction to be revealed? He doesn't have a brother until he knows!

I repeat, I have unvoted for one reason and only one:

I want to be the hammer

. My rough count suggests there is one vote needed before I put my vote back on;

Mod: vote count please?

And to all the rest of you, if you see a vote after this post, I beg of you not to vote, so that I can do this.

[the silent speaker]

I'm worried that t s s could be getting us to trigger a power he might have without us realizing it.

Worry no more, because triggering something is exactly what I hope to do. I gain a little something if I am hammering ruthless scum. Do I *need* the hammer vote? Not as such, no; I won't die if someone else beats me to it or anything. (And it only works if I

am

hammering scum; if against all odds tmh is a good guy, I've made myself prominent for no gain at all.) But it would help me, and by extension the town, if I get it. As such I'd appreciate it if someone vote, I hammer, and we can all run home.

An added thought on tmh: good luck copying *my* restriction with only one post to go on. It could be done, but you'd have to be a really good guesser.

[the silent speaker]

And with that,

vote: themanhimself

which should be the final ruthless blow.

[the silent speaker]

Since the scum are, as Glork said, almost certainly faking restrictions, th obvious next step is to see who doesn't seem to have one. Armlx is the obvious one to come to mind -- check his posts and tell me if

you

see evidence of one. ID also has no obvious restriction, but his second overall post reads like it has seen a ruthless copy editor, so I am more willing to believe that there's something there I'm missing.

There is some evidence that Twomz is theman's partner; aside from his premature townie claim yesterday, when tmh compiled his ill-fated list of "suspects," he complained that tda's stuttering was "too obvious to be believable," but Twomz's distractability was "believable enough".
Also consider this exchange (post subjects 54 and 55):
Twomz: When I recieved my PM of my pirate talking restriction on the first game, GL included a link to an online pirate tran...slator. I'm sure it would be even easier to find a spanish one... [restriction snipped]
tmh: Hmmm.. also logical. The prosecution requests a moment to rethink our stand on certain issues.

Not too many people defended tmh after he started to go down. Most significant was this from thedocsalive:

Um...is it r-really a good idea t-to express suspicions this early in t-the g-game based solely on post r-restrictions?

There's probably more linking tmh to Twomz than to tda, but that doesn't prevent tda from being nonallied scum who also is faking his restriction.

This post from Vaughn... well, see for yourself.

vote: themanhimself Sounds like a good bandwagon.
I haven't read any of the posts, i'll get back to you all later.

Having

not read any posts,

he judges the bandwagon good? To say nothing of the absence of any evident restrictions in the post! This looks seriously like sucm grabbing an opportunity to get a nonally killed.

On to day 2, what there is of it.
[qutoe="Twomz"]Errr I suppose the other Duo Killer is the one who "drew and quartered" Pinky. Although I'd think draw and quartered was a mafia kill, and arson was a SK kill (which is what i'm assuming "duo killer's" are).[/quote]
Considering that tmh had drawing-and-quartering plans in his house, I'd say it's pretty damn obvious the drawing and quartering was done by his scum buddy.

But, I think finding mafia (there's probably just one group, which makes it harder to lynch them) is more important right now... any leads?

Especially in light of the speaker, this sounds like someone desperately trying to shunt attention to the other group and away from his own.

Twomz's next post (post subject 146)... good Lord what a ruthless fish job. Draygn_mage in post subject 152 is pretty wormy, too.

Yosarian:

Why are masons voting stikey?

I think they have to vote together, or chain their votes or something. Something along those lines was mentioned day 1.

Nightfall:

@Silent Speaker, So what did your hammer do if anything?

You're quackcleared, but don't you think it's just a

little

premature to be letting that out in the open?

Vote: Twomz

the duo killer.

FOS: Vaughn, dragn_mage, armlx.

[the silent speaker]

Well, maybe you should recheck that list. You included at least two people with visible if subtle restrictions, possibly three, and you left out at least one without clear evidence of one: Vaughn. (Granted, Der Hammer, armlx, and indjinn need to post more before we can be sure of them, but still.) I wouldn't want to lynch anyone, even armlx, on the grounds of restrictionlessness alone at this point. Such a ruthless reliance on restrictions helps only the scum.

As far as taking me at my word goes... I never said today that my hammering did something, past tense, so there's no word to take. Maybe it did and maybe it didn't, and maybe I know and maybe I don't, but you're essentially pushing me for a claim on day 2 under little pressure, and I can see no way that helps anyone other than the scum. In my own opinion I exposed quite enough of my role yesterday with what I

did

reveal.

[the silent speaker]

*slaps forehead* Riktus, I phrased it as I did, emphasizing the past tense, precisely to point up that I don't want to reveal more than I have to to the ruthless killers among us. Such as what I gained from hammering. That's not inconsistency, that's careful choice of words.

Also, there was another drawing and quartering last night, so tmh must have a scum buddy living.

Vaughn, way to not post content. Are you

trying

to garner votes?

[the silent speaker]

If -- perhaps I should say when -- Twomz turns up a ruthless duo killer, I highly suggest lynching Vaughn next. Now Vaughn's voting Glork the

mason

! And Twomz may have just fed him a role restriction to fake.

[the silent speaker]

Glork:

And Timmy -- for some odd reason -- just claimed that he tracked TSS last night? Yet he joins the Twomzwagon b/c Twomz "looks pretty scummy" to me?

Why does Ubertimmy's claim that he tracked me to nowhere contradict his decision to vote Twomz? The way you phrased this, it sounds like you think he should think worse of me for his (claimed) night action, and I don't get that at all.

Stikey:

FOS: tss for not including himself on the list of people with non-obvious restrictions. That's some serious pot-smurfing-the-kettle-black. Also, I don't smurf the "Twomz is the other Duokiller and Vaughn's his other accomplice" thing. Shouldn't there reasonably only be two Duokillers?

I didn't run down a list and declare everyone without a restriction of ruthless obviousness to be scum. To the contrary -- indjinn's is still a mystery to me, but I'm not horribly suspicious of him. All I did was mention a couple of the outstanding ones who look like they

don't

have nonobvious restrictions. I know perfectly well what

my

restriction is -- it's probably findable by now should anyone care to look -- and you don't truly expect me to find myself suspicious on grounds of "I can't find his restriction," do you?

As for the other thing, I find Vaughn's pattern to be, in and of itself, scummy. Yes, probably there is only one Duo Killer left, judging by the name, but that doesn't change the possibility that a line of Twomz's post looked suspiciously like an opportunity for Vaughn to latch on; or even that Twomz muddied the waters of Vaughn's failure to post with restrictions on purpose, even though they aren't actual allies, to help cover his own tracks. The little that Vaughn has posted has been pretty uniformly scummy. He doesn't

have

to be Twomz and tmh's accomplice to be scum -- and for that matter, I could be wrong about Twomz. I don't think I am, because he has also posted a great deal of scummy and is also linked to known scum, but it

is

possible that Vaughn and not Twomz is a Duo Killer.

Armlx's "triggered post restriction" sounds fake to me. Interesting that Der Hamer's last post doesn't seem to adhere to his restriction, either.

Vaughn, correct me if my impression of your last post is wrong, but the restriction you claim is ten words per post, once per RL day, with votes not counting toward the ten?

[the silent speaker]

In the most ruthless of summaries, Twomz had some bizarre interaction with themanhimself, and tma labeled his restriction "believable enough" when others (notably tda) didn't pass muster for no evidnet reason; additionally, he showed a suspect level of cluelessness regarding the layout of today's kills, and tried to shift eyes away from the duo killers in general. Overall I strongly suspect him of being the last Duo Killer and think we should lynch him.

Armlx bears watching, since "Triggered restriction" smacks of scumspeak for "I goofed and forgot to make one, so I'll put you off with promises of one to come in the convenient future." My guess as to Der Hammer's restriction was wrong, but he's confirmed town (I figure if someone were going to counterclaim they'd have already done) so my inability to make heads or tails of his restriction is of no account.

[the silent speaker]

Vaughn, answer with ruthless honesty, yes or no: is my summation of your post restiction (post subject 212) accurate and complete? (Once again, it was that you may make only one post in a realtime day, and that one is limited to ten words or fewer, not counting votes and unvotes.)

Twomz: 1. spiel. 2.

Again, if I am mafia and try it, i'll get lynched in all the other games that I'm doing it in. It makes no sense for me to claim vanilla townie at the beginning of Day one if I'm mafia anyway.

WIFOM, which is frankly more suspicious to me than the unsupported fact that you did the thing in the first place.

[the silent speaker]

Both, really, Nightfall. I think he was caught out without a restriction in his post, and rather than admit that he is a ruthless killer, he pled that one would be forthcoming in time. That said, it's really too early still for lack of restriction *alone* to warrant more than an FOS. I think the case against Twomz is built on more than mere restriction issues -- though in conjunction with other suspiciousness, restriction issues are a legitimate supporting cast -- and so will

unvote: Twomz

preparatory to being the hammer again.

[the silent speaker]

If my

restriction

were triggered, it wouldn't be detectable in the posts I've already made, and as I said once before, a ruthless analysis could detect it. It's more likely to stand out in shorter posts, simply because it's less buried there. My

role

is another matter, of course.

[the silent speaker]

I don't follow, Bertrand. If you will make the assertion that he hasn't been getting distracted, what do you call these?

ARRRGGG! I was just 3 points away from CLEPing out of Pol. Sci . Stupid Roe vs. Wade... and other landmark court cases (and the US political party system).

Great, I can't freaken find it. I'm going off to UMARMY tomorrow, and I can't find my stupid red plastic toolbox w/ my hammer, paintscraper, and goggles in it , this sucks.

For everyone who doesn't want Twomz lynched: please outline who you think is better, and what they've done. Be ruthless. Just saying, "Well, I don't think Twomz is scum," doesn't count; we know that, else you'd be voting for him.

[the silent speaker]

One more vote and then I can drop a ruthless hammer blow.

There's no reason I shouldn't announce my restriction, but equally I don't see any moving reason why I

should

. Does it make a difference one way or the other? If I needed to claim, then sure, but otherwise why bother?

[the silent speaker]

Innocent victim? I doubt that. For one thing, I had some issues with Vaughn besides the restriction thing that has just cropped up. For another, that was a really staggering WIFOM to be presented, as you did, as an inexorable case for innocence. Presening it as a WIFOM is one thing, but that isn't what you did.

Lastly, the restriction he claimed is not one a pro-town player would fake. Ruthless adherence to a ten-word restriction essentially takes him out of any discussions pre-emptively, which no pro-town player should want to do. Townies want to be heard. Only scum need to skate by without giving opinions. This is another hammer I would be happy to drop.

[the silent speaker]

Who's going to claim the honor?

Ooh ooh let me let me!
DG is clearly exactly what she's claimed, a blocker/rolefinder/mason recruiter who is unightkillable, needs doc protection, and gets to perform her night actions a night in advance, PLUS ALSO she self-evidently gets a vig kill for every fake claim she makes. Or else not, and she's a ruthless scum who intends to make her going down as much fun as she possibly can.

Vote: DrippingGoofball

, but we shouldn't lynch her -- that's far too prosaic. We should be much more elaborate; at the very minimum crucifixion should be involved.

[the silent speaker]

I really hope DG is lying. If our ruthless mod gave me a role which is heavily pressured to hammer and also put in a role which punishes the hammerer for hammering, there will be Words.

[the silent speaker]

I'm just annoyed that that furshlugginer Goofball kamikaze role wrecked a perfectly good plan to claim Hank Aaron ("Hammerin' Hank") with a post restriction of the word "ruthless" in every post.