Mini 380: Artifacts- Game over

[HackerHuck]

Vote: Nightfall

for poor punctuation in his signature line.

[HackerHuck]

Vote:Coron

for above mentioned reasons.

Which ones?

[HackerHuck]

I got all three scum voting me this quick? Man I'm good.

It's great that we know on day 1 exactly how many scum we're up against...

[HackerHuck]

Agree. It looks suspiciously like you're trying to avoid attention like what I got from Zindaras for putting a vote on coron.

What does that mean?

Do you really think that Coron's knowledge of having three scum is worth lynch -2?

Sorry I havn't been posting I've been sick. Random Vote: Green Liquid

When you pair sick and green liquid on the same line, it hardly appears random.

[HackerHuck]

Why is coron at lynch -1? I won't say he's not scum, but I haven't seen anyone make an argument against him. We're still on page two here, so I'm quite concerned about all the haste.

Referring to oneself in the third person almost warrants the final lynch vote though...

Although he is acting a bit sure of himself, that's not a good enough reason to put someone on the brink.

Unvote: Nightfall, Vote: lunalovegood

[HackerHuck]

If I only had two votes. Instead, Im going to put the finger of suspicion on coron and nightfall for blatant misuse of the apostrophe!

[HackerHuck]

Sorry for the neglect. I really lost my train of though in this game when the crash happened.

I had made or was going to make a bit of a post about my feelings on both Nai and Coron. Coron’s playstyle makes me lean toward him being scum, but by no means to the extent that everyone else believes.

Nai’s behaviour at the time of the crash was really concerning to me. He seemed to be grasping at straws and trying to force some weak evidence on Coron. The aggressive push against Coron on seemingly weak evidence does not seem like pro-town play. However, I’ve got a weird “gut” feeling that he’s not scum. Luna has shown some similar behaviour although she was not pushing to the extent that Nai was. Her reluctance to unvote even at lynch -1 makes me still happy with my vote.

[HackerHuck]

@Jules - Since your reasoning has presumably disappeared in the crash, would you be so kind as to explain why you think Nai is scum?

[HackerHuck]

We've had this discussion in the lost days, as far as I can remember. HackerHuck and I voted Jules for casting that vote, and Jules provided a good defense.

Something about that post rubs me the wrong way. It's a little too dismissive and relies on lost discussion.

Let's try and refrain from too much referencing of what we did pre crash, especially now that so much time has passed. I don't seem to recall placing a vote on Jules, but I can't really rule it out.

If this scenario did play out as Zindaras remembers, it would be nice if Jules could "re-explain" his vote.

[HackerHuck]

The votecount has the same problem as the last, which lists Jules again in the no vote cast section.

I like how Jules is starting to play the Coron game a bit and stir the pot. I really don't like how Jules' vote was placed with no additional comment, so I agree with Stewie's vote.

That said, Luna's still scummier in my book and I'd put Nai almost to her level. Even though I don't like his playstyle here, I think the Coron wagon is a little too weak for the amount of pressure he's getting.

[HackerHuck]

I remember being told, several times, that you should never defend someone unless you are absolutely sure of their role. If they're scum, and you're town, you'll be lynched. If you're scum, you know they're town, and you'll probably be lynched. I can't see a reason you would defend him unless you know something we don't.

I don't agree with this at all. It's folly to let poor reasoning by others push a lynch just because you don't

know

that person is town.

If it smells like bs, it probably is.

Nai sure likes to imply that Coron has inside knowledge of some kind.

FoS: Nai

[HackerHuck]

FOS: HackerHuck

for his post right there. FOSing me after I actually give evidence that Coron defended Jules with craplogic? Amazing.

OMGUS!
The only craplogic I've seen recently is this...

I remember being told, several times, that you should never defend someone unless you are absolutely sure of their role. If they're scum, and you're town, you'll be lynched. If you're scum, you know they're town, and you'll probably be lynched. I can't see a reason you would defend him unless you know something we don't.

And this statement ...

FOS Nai - I can't remember the reasons for voting you before and I think it would be unfair to vote without any evidence, but I know you looked suspicious

followed by this...

vote Nai

It appears to me that your strong belief in Coron's scumminess is causing you to "force" things that really aren't there. Coron's defence of Jules was just Coron stating his opinion that it seems to be reasonable behaviour to FOS and then Vote without any new information. I don't agree with that opinion, but it certainly doesn't appear that he's trying to indicate that he's got some kind of inside knowledge.

Coron's behaviour is starting to wear thin. His defence of jules has been noted as has his claim to do a reread of Jules back on post 93.

It also looks more like Stewie is placing something in his rear-end, rather than pulling something out.

[HackerHuck]

Your force and craplogic is the suggestion that Coron might have inside information because:
-He defended Jules
-Your words "...you should never defend someone unless you are absolutely sure of their role."

According to this "logic", I must now have inside information about Coron and Stewie must have inside information about you, but you fail to mention that.

You have made an assumption that because someone gave you advice on how you should play, everyone else is playing that same way. In your words - "craplogic".

[HackerHuck]

I will make my FOS case abundantly clear for you. I think that you're so certain Coron is scum that you are finding "evidence" where none exists. Coron didn't get the quote exactly right, but the meaning was the same. The part of Coron's statement that isn't in quotes is just an opinion, so I don't see how that can be a damning twisting of the words. I also don't see how you can make the leap that Coron must have inside knowledge about Jules based on anything he said.

Someone gave you advice on how you should play telling you
"...you should never defend someone unless you are absolutely sure of their role."

You have taken this advice and turned it into this "craplogic":
If Person A defends person B, then person A must have inside information about person B. That doesn't make sense. All your "advice" was telling you is that defending someone else can put your neck out on the line if you end up being wrong.

I'm perfectly willing to admit to defending Coron on this point, but don't twist things around and say I agree with him when I've explicitly stated that I don't.

Coron's defence of Jules was just Coron stating his opinion that it seems to be reasonable behaviour to FOS and then Vote without any new information. I don't agree with that opinion, but it certainly doesn't appear that he's trying to indicate that he's got some kind of inside knowledge.

I still have doubts that Coron is town and that's why it's just an FOS, not a vote.

This bit about defending or agreement is just semantics as you yourself have shown...

AGREEING with someone isn't defending anyone, or helping save anyone from a lynch, in most cases. Its just admitting someone has a point that makes sense. This is what you have been doing.

Um, it's perfectly reasonable imho.

Coron, it REALLY looks like you are trying to defend Jules right now.

[HackerHuck]

Hacker, he didn't state it as an opinion. That's the problem I have with that statement about Jules' vote. He states it as if its Jules reasoning for the vote, NOT as his own opinion why Jules placed the vote. The fact he got it COMPLETELY wrong from how Jules had ALREADY explained it is very suspicious.

You might be right. My suspicion of Coron might be affecting how I see his game. Then again, he might be scum and I'm the only one seeing it.

Of course it's an opinion. What else does 'imho' mean? No one (scum or town) knows exactly what someone's intent was unless they have some special daytime chat power.

OK, so now you're stating that you're concern with his quote is that he is misrepresenting what Jules said when Jules explained his own actions. That is quite different from stating that he must have some kind of inside information. I can understand the former, but not the latter.

[HackerHuck]

That's all very nice, but can you clear up the point you made earlier about me putting stuff in my ass? Thanks.

There's a flashy thing in your avatar that's giving you a rather odd grin...

[HackerHuck]

I'm here and enjoying the bickering between Nai and Coron.

[HackerHuck]

I'm still happy with my vote on Luna. I don't like how she hopped on that Coron wagon to push him to lynch -1 and kept her vote there. She hasn't posted too much and recently threw out a few FOSes before disappearing again.

I can reiterate my stance that I think the wagon on Coron was way overblown, but I think Nai pushing way to hard to make a case that just isn't there - yet. I also didn't like the OMGUS FOS that Nai put on me for his fabrication of evidence on Coron. That said, his bickering with Coron has me believing he's probably town.

Coron has been pinging my scumdar a bit, but I chalk it up to his annoying playstyle. I'm not going to say I think he's likely town, but I'm not sure he's scum either. There are a couple of things I don't like - his using playstyle as an excuse and his defence of Jules was a bit overboard in my opinion. Since he likes to harp on others for defending someone else,

Without a lot of other discussion, it's hard to have much of an opinion on anyone else.

I've agreed with Zindaras for most of the game, so I don't really suspect him. I did find it odd that he had originally felt Jules was scum - only switching his vote to Luna for being scummier - and then he turned around and said he didn't find Jules particularly scummy. This was right after Jules' strange attack on Nai. I'm also surprised about the unvote. Being replaced doesn't wipe out Luna's actions.

After a reread, Jules seems a little scummy to me. Bandwagon hopping is too extreme of a description for his actions, but I feel like he's been jumping on bandwagons once they get a few others piled on first.

I agree with Nightfall's last post, except I don't really understand why he's targeting Conflux and I'm still bothered by his missing apostrophe.

I don't have much of an opinion on Conflux. He had a reasonable case against Jules, but his questioning of the Nai wagon was a little strange. He just hasn't contributed enough to give me a vibe one way or the other.

Even doing my reread, I kept forgetting that Perfect was in the game. He was a little strange at the beginning of the game, but without posting more it's still nothing to go on.

I have a general pro-town feeling from Stewie, but it's a gut thing rather than a logical thing.

[HackerHuck]

Nai has said on more than one occaision that Coron is implying that Coron has inside information about Nai. I haven't really seen any indication of that, so it does make me a bit suspicious of Nai for that very reason. It seems like Nai is really stretching things to get Coron lynched. I've got unpleasant feelings about both of them, but I will agree with Kelly that I don't think either would be a good lynch today.

I still haven't seen anything from anyone that would cause me to change my vote yet.

Obviously I would like to hear from CrashTextDummie and whomever ends up replacing Luna.

[HackerHuck]

HH: Why is your vote on luna?

Jules seems to still have things to clear up from like page 3 or 4 which is unacceptable.


I received a similar read on both sides of the Coron vs. Nai camp, found serious flaws and things that I could not agree with in both of their arguments. However, we can't have all of those people be scum, and I doubt a staged argument could last as long as it has so I am starting to think that both of those are town and am more suspicious of the people who have joined their one of their camps but aren't really taking a hard stance on this.

I found Zindaras' constant pursuance of the person I replaced, lunalovegood, extremely odd throughout the whole game especially with this argument going on. I have some theories but all I will say on this subject right now is:

Zindaras: What is your opinion on the Coron vs. Nai debate?

I voted for Luna because of this post, which put Coron at lynch-1.

Lol. Anyway

unvote, vote Coron

because he seems to be acting a bit scummy and too sure of himself.

The overall case against Coron was

incredibly

weak at that point. She made things worse with her explanation of why - both in post 43 and in post 51. In post 51, she mentions that she didn't know Coron would be at lynch-1 with her vote, but in post 42 (1 hour before her vote in post 43) I asked why Coron was at lynch-2. I felt her reasoning was pretty soft for putting someone one vote from lynch.

In case you were just wondering why my vote was still on her, it's because I haven't felt anyone else to be scummier. See my post 188 for a brief rundown on how I feel about everyone.

Er, almost everyone. I just noticed that I somehow missed GreenLiquid in that post. I know he's contributed, so I'll try and take a look at his posts and see what I come up with.

Why do you find Zindaras' pursuit of Luna stranger than mine? Although we both had the same idea/suspicion, I placed the first vote on Luna, and I did not unvote.

[HackerHuck]

I've somehow been relegated to being Coron's cheerleader

Although there must be others if I'm the scummiest!

Who am I scummier than?

[HackerHuck]

So the cheer squad consists of me, Jules and Zindaras?

ShadowLurker - how do you know that Luna was just inactive and not lurking? The difference is intent and I cannot fathom how you would know Luna's intent.

[HackerHuck]

Yep.

Was this obvious? I find it weird that Coron's response is that I shouldn't restrict myself to his cheerleaders, and nobody wants to argue that HackerHuck isn't a Coron cheerleader.

Jules, no, I am not sold on Coron being scum.

Do you really think I'm his cheerleader or are you provoking debate?

I found that cheerleader comment to be more along the lines of the typical Coron post "Your defence of Coron is noted" i.e. intended to elicit a reaction and not worth responding to.

[HackerHuck]

HackerHuck goes out of his way to bat for Coron, but here and there makes sure we know he thinks Coron is scummy, he disagrees with Coron, he wouldn't say Coron is town. It doesn't look very natural to me.

I didn't like HH's exchange with Nai, where HH seemed to push the idea that Nai implies that Coron has special info. I didn't get that at all; it seemed clear to me that it was a rhetorical possibility: "If you don't know someone's town, don't defend them," not, "If you're defending them then you must know something." I find HH's page 6 posts absurd, the way this is twisted.

I still have doubts that Coron is town and that's why it's just an FOS, not a vote.

Huh? Does the scumminess of whatever Nai says depend on whether you think Coron is town or not?

That was the second time that Nai mentioned Coron would only make certain statements if he knew something the rest of us didn't.

No, Coron's alignment has no impact on the scumminess of what Nai says, but it definitely impacts how I feel about Nai overall. The fact that I have my own doubts about Coron is part of why believe that Nai is more likely to be overeager town than scum just out to get Coron. I was hoping that my response would dissuade Nai from stretching the facts to push for his lynch, since it is scummy.

[HackerHuck]

though, since I'm assuming there's a 3 person mafia (given the game size).

OMFG!!! IT'S A SCUM SLIP LOLZ.

Nai, you set yourself up with that one. I wondered whether Coron would catch it.

Should we be reading around the lines with this comment?

I guess that puts you in the

probably scum

neutral category.

[HackerHuck]

You made this bit up aswell. I've never voted for anyone apart from you and Coron. Worrying how you claim to be townie and yet you use phrases like "if I remember correctly", when if this is the case, you obviously have the memory of a goldfish. Looks more like a contortion of facts however

Scummy, with that last line.

The withdrawal in 292 seems off or premature to me.

Nice contribution to that exchange Coron.

I agree that the withdrawal in 292 seems off. If anything, Nai's posts made Nai look worse.

I also didn't like how Jules had to stir the pot by poking at Nai for not posting. I think the Nai/Coron debate was getting us nowhere and had finally settled down for a bit. Jules managed to bring it back to the forefront which only serves the purpose of avoiding other debate.

I'm still concerned about ShadowLurker, but I want Jules to actually defend himself.

I was going to switch my vote now, but Green Liquid appeared and beat me to the punch. I'm willing to drop the hammer, but I want to hear from Jules first.

[HackerHuck]

I've heard enough, but nothing to dissuade me from placing a vote. One nice thing about these last few pages is that we've had much more discussion about things other than the Nai/Coron debate.

I would still like to drop the hammer, but I want to hear from Nightfall before I do. In looking back over his posts, he has been playing it a little too safe. He believes Nai/Coron to be two townies duking it out and has have mentioned a slight suspicion of Jules. Other than that, has just been very solid in his belief that Conflux was scum. Basically a very safe vote due to the inactivity and he has unvoted now that Conflux has been replaced. I'd like to get him to put his thoughts about this lynch on the record before I proceed.


I have a few other questions, but these aren't answers I need to wait on.

It's nice to see Green Liquid participating again, but Jules does have a point about his absence.

Zindaras - You latched onto Perfect for lurking, what do you think about Green Liquid's extended absence?

[HackerHuck]

What happened between these two posts? His claim came before the first one.

I see no reason not to lynch this guy.

Unvote

Have to think his claim over.

I find Stewie's request for additional information to be quite scummy.

Jules, do you have any artifacts? You did not mention that with your claim.

Not any more. I started with one which I used and passed on

Ok... what was it, when did you use it, who did you use it on (if applicable), and to who did you pass it on?

FOS: Stewie

[HackerHuck]

What happened between these two posts? His claim came before the first one.

I see no reason not to lynch this guy.

Unvote

Have to think his claim over.

You need an answer to this question? He claimed an item between those two posts.

FOS: HackerHuck

Can ShadowLurker confirm what the item does? I have some difficulty imagining that scum would start out with an information object. They wouldn't have incentive to pass it around, I don't think.

Wow, he has an item! That made me really believe he might not be scum. Weren't we all given artifacts? I really didn't want to make an assumption about his thought process, so I find it interesting that I get an FOS for asking someone for clarification.

Anyway, from the description, this isn't an information item per se. It allows one to ask a question, but doesn't deliver information to the owner.

Along with Green Liquid, I strongly suggest that if there is a 'mouth' or similar artifact the current owner should keep mum.

[HackerHuck]

Hey guys, finished exams now, but christmas stuff has taken up time too.

I've read what I missed and am ready to post some more.

I DONT think that the person who has the mouth should claim.

I DO however want to bring up an idea.

Some/most/? of us started the night with an artifact. It is my understanding that we were then given a chance to use the artifact and then pass it on. How would people feal about a mass semi claim on the artifacts that we all had at the start. Ie. We would all claim the NAME and ONLY the name of the artifact we had at the start of the previous night, before we had passed it on. That way if anyone does have the mouth, we would at the very least know where it was. Also if any of us end up under the effects of some unknown artifact, we should be able to confirm where it came from. This will also help us to analyze any passing patterns. I played in a game called ROLESWAP mafia were the town did this and it helped considerably. In that game, I was scum and I lost my two partners because someone noticed a trend in our records. One final advantage I can see of this would be that it will let people know where artifacts have been, but wont inform the mafia of where they currently are, so they wont be able to target certain artifacts for nightkills.

Any opinions?

I'm quite disappointed you ignored my request for an opinion on the Jules wagon.

Regarding the mass claim, my biggest concern is that the scum would learn the existence of any particularly powerful artifacts. One other thing to consider is that not everyone may have passed their items, so we could be pointing out who currently has an item and putting any information gathered by them at risk. I have only seen one other game with a mass role claim (it worked then) to know whether the benefits would outweight the risks.

Kelly, you do have a point about the information items going to scum, but since you haven't unvoted should we assume that you don't believe Jules' artifact claim?

[HackerHuck]

You mean the Ear? There's no mention of 'must be passed on' in the general rules.

Shadowlurker received the Ear, so would be in a position to know.

The question is not only whether he would get the artifact if he were scum, it was whether he would pass it on. It sort of WIFOMs but, there is a definate tangible advantage to scum from having this not circulate.

Good point again. I see two ways of it being of value for scum to pass it along. If scum has the mouth (and they don't need to pass it), there's not much harm in passing it to the town. That way they would know the answer and the question and then any information that the town asks would go straight to the scum. That's a bit of a stretch and it seems to really favor the scum. The other option which makes some sense to me, is that scum pass it around to each other to get some answers and then hold on to it. I'm not sure if we're trying to outguess the mod here, but this is making me hold back on lynching Jules.

One last thing to consider - it is entirely possible that there is no mouth of the diviner artifact and there is instead a role called the diviner.

[HackerHuck]

I have also had some doubts about Stewie lately, but I'm still quite suspicious of ShadowLurker. His initial support for the "mouth" claiming was noted.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere with Coron/Nai and I'm not looking forward to rehashing that debate.

Coron - who else do you find scummy? You mentioned that you found "all three" before the first crash. Do you still believe that to be the case?

[HackerHuck]

I have also had some doubts about Stewie lately, but I'm still quite suspicious of ShadowLurker. His initial support for the "mouth" claiming was noted.

May I ask how that's suspicious at all?

Also, you have not expressed ANY suspicion of me, but only of my predecessor and apparently, your reason for her was that she was lurking yet it was not lurking, but inactivity hence her replacement. In multiple posts you have reitereated you are still suspicious of me, yet you have not provided any reasons at all. This is a new reason from you and you have not explained how it's suspicious.

Unvote Vote HH

You're confusing me with Zindaras. I wasn't voting Luna because she lurked. I'm sorry that you may have inherited a scum role, but you cannot get the slate wiped clean and undo Luna's actions.

It's going to take a while to gain my trust and making scummy proposals like you did will make it take even longer.

I find it very suspicious that anyone would specifically want the mouth to claim. Especially after you made sure to clarify that the artifact would be lost if the owner were killed that night.

[HackerHuck]

How did I ignore your post?

I explained that you = luna, so therefore any suspicion on her is also suspicion on you.
I reminded you that I wasn't voting for your predecessor for her lurking.
And I thought I explained how your support of the mouth claim quite clearly. Let's see...

"...the artifact would be lost if the owner were killed that night."

Isn't that kind of like asking the cop to claim so you know where the answers are coming from?

[HackerHuck]

Assume for a moment that the scum have only found out about the possibility of the mouth through what has been posted. Given that they only have speculation about what it does and whether it even exists, does it make sense for scum to assume that the item would more likely benefit town or scum?



It's kind of funny how this post:

After rereading something I am STRONGLY AGAINST A MASSROLECLAIM and against the Mouth of the Diviner or whatever we may believe to exist to claim.

came directly after this one:

If it delivers information to anybody, the scum would not want to use it, pass it around, or even admit it exists. It seems there's some potential to use it for misdirection, but then the town would still expect the item to be passed along.

[HackerHuck]

Wow, someone's a bit defensive.

I prefer to let others come to the same conclusion I did, rather than spoon feed them my ideas. I would think you should appreciate that route since if I took something out of context, others would be able to make that judgement for themselves.

Since you decided to deflect around what caught my eye, I'll trim down the quotes to highlight what gave me a chuckle.

If it delivers information to anybody, the scum would not want to use it, pass it around, or even admit it exists.

After rereading something I am ... against the Mouth of the Diviner or whatever we may believe to exist to claim.

[HackerHuck]

Bingo!

I do want you to be sure and notice I somewhat suspect Coron.

My whole involvement with the Nai/Coron debate is that my "defense" of Coron is not because I think that Coron is town, but because Nai has been using somewhat faulty logic to pursue his case. I have been suspicious of Coron, but I'm not sure how much of that is due to his playstyle. Since I'm having a hard time reading them both, I've basically put these two on the back burner and directing my sights elsewhere.

[HackerHuck]

I like your observations Green Liquid. I find that you explained exactly how I felt about Luna - and why my vote is still there. I don't recall any of the vote-hopping that Zindaras mentions, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I think ShadowLurker keeps trying to downplay the scumminess by oversimplifying my case on him. It's not just because Luna put Coron at lynch-1 on page two.

I can see why you believe Nai is probably scum, but given your conclusion why is he not worthy of a vote? A lot of words, but no action. You asked me about the FOS I placed on Nai. I think my quote summed it up pretty well. His case on Coron was also pretty weak and the continued implication that Coron had inside information just pushed it a little too far in my opinion. I really don't get the mechanics you keep referring to with those two. My take on it is that Coron's playstyle can be quite abrasive and he really enjoyed goading Nai.

After reading GreenLiquids posts and rereading some earlier posts, I still have a scum feel from Jules. I'm a little surprised that the wagon fizzled out so quickly simply because of his artifact.

[HackerHuck]

Attacking someone's attack of someone else could be a defense of the latter. I don't see any way around that. If it can serve to defend somebody then it's a defense, deliberate or not.

Jules does stink. But what I'm thinking is, what if he started with around half of our investigative capabilities? If so, I really don't think he's scum. And whether this is the case, that we have so little investigative power, should become clearer in time.

I feel that Nai's posts are taken very uncharitably.

Whoever told you, Nai, told you wrong. Think about it. That means that the only time townspeople should ever defend someone is if that person is their mason partner. So any defense, even the most basic, is a scumtell. Riiiight.

Not a scum tell, but bad play. Yes, that's a sweeping generalization.

Some of this is damn basic. If X is interrogating Y then let Y answer the questions. Z should not rush to Y's defense just because he thinks he knows the answers.

By this reasoning, if X makes a scummy accusation against Y, then only Y should call X out on it - since attacking X's scummy attack on Y is an indirect defense of Y. If that were the case, these games would die a slow painful death. Scummy behaviour is scummy behaviour regardless of who it happens to. I agree that the interrogation point is valid (e.g. Coron's answering for Jules), but it also makes perfect sense to call someone out on it if their interrogation is scummy.

[HackerHuck]

If you don't know why you find someone scummy, then voting for them is pointless. Plus, no, you never actually clarified anything until just now.

Look at Post 101. Still not helpful, but he was open about it at the time. Jules' inability to support his vote is what got Nai worked up and had Coron coming in to his defence.

Speaking of Nai, are we still waiting on him to recover from his move or are there plans to replace him?

[HackerHuck]

Also he posted that he was a plain townie with no powers, he did not say ANYTHING about Artifacts, so he did not actually change his claim, in fact he claimed his role(that's what a roleclaim is right?), just not anything about artifacts. Also, saying after it was after a lot of prodding might be an exageration, it was fairly quickly after his claim that he told us about his artifact.

But this seems like a blantant attempt to get out of claiming any artifact whatsoever. Notice how many details of his claim (including the artifact) were only given after someone else asked specifically for that detail. The first claim was nothing short of misleading.

Assuming you don't doubt he had that artifact, is there a point to this or are you just scolding Jules?

I'm almost positive he had one, but the first post was just plain misleading and makes me think that he wanted as little detail in his claim as possible (something I could easily see newbie scum trying to do).

How would that be advantageous at all to scum?

Again, that takes a bunch of details that he would otherwise have to explain and nullifies them. As newbie scum not yet confident with the ability to make a up a good story, I can absolutely see why this would be helpful. Remember, just because he had an artifact in no way means he's town.

I don't buy any part of this argument. Jules is new, he's played in only one other game (so he says), so I cannot imagine how he would know what to claim. Nai's post leads to this claim:

I think that, at lynch -1, you should probably be claiming right now. So yeah, I'm requesting a claim.

I am a traveler, with no special abilities

I don't see any mention of asking for the artifact until Coron brings it up. I'm a relative newbie and I've never had a need or request to claim yet. If someone had asked me to claim, I would not have thought to also mention which artifact I had/have. I don't see how Jules would have had the expectation that a "role claim" would include items he had, especially if they were not in his possession at the time. Also given the fact that his artifact is what pulled him off the hot seat, it would have been in his best interest to claim.

I agree that Jules is suspicious, but you've really tried to hammer on this point, so it's a prime example of reaching.

[HackerHuck]

Artifacts are a totally separate thing from role, I don't find it misleading. I realized immediately that he had not mentioned artifacts and then asked the question. It wasn't misleading unless you're really dull.

The artifact you started with is not part of your role? Hohoho, what a jest my fine chap.

I'll have to agree with Coron here. They were assigned to us as were our roles, but I'm not sure that I would specifically link them together. Do you mean to say that from now on we should be expected to claim which artifact we were given at the start? I would think it more likely that we should claim whether or not we currently possess an artifact. That would be a bit more relevant to any pending lynch. I find this to be a relatively weak point that you're trying to drive home quite heartily.

[HackerHuck]

In case you haven't noticed from my sig line, I will probably be missing for the next ten days.

GreenLiquid, I thought you were going to take a stand against someone when you finished your reread?

Oh, and I'm still happy with my ShadowLurker vote, but I don't want to risk something screwy happening while I'm gone.

Unvote: ShadowLurker

[HackerHuck]

Hacker and CTD could you two post where you stand right now?

P.S. Jules, OTHER THAN Nai, who do you think is scummy?

Just got back from holiday, so I haven't been intentionally ignoring this question.

I'm still in the hunt for ShadowLurker as my top suspect. I thought I had been pretty clear about that with my last post. I do still find Jules suspicious. I'm not entirely convinced that Kelly's assertion that "scum wouldn't have that artifact" is correct, but it's enough for right now.

Apparently I shouldn't do another scum list since that would just add fuel to the fire for CTD. I noticed that his post references to me in his PBP didn't really support his conclusions. I'll address his accusations a little later when I've had a better chance to reread the last few hundred posts.

[HackerHuck]

Right, so now we have a plan, we lynch Nai, if Nai ends up scum(probable) we take a serious look at both Zindaras
See the arguement he makes claiming that the arguement between Nai and Coron seems like an arguement between 2 townies. I've seen scum use this arguement so many times.
And Nightfall
a lot of the reactions I saw that were suspicious had something to do with nightfall as well.

Zindaras and CTD both look more suspicious to me due to recent posts.

Is the corollary also true? If we lynch you and you turn up scum, does that also mean we should aim our next lynch at Zindaras? The more you two go at it, the more appealing this scenario becomes...

I'm, well, 99% sure about Kelly (perfect), as perfect's tell was pretty huge...

[HackerHuck]

Is the corollary also true? If we lynch you and you turn up scum, does that also mean we should aim our next lynch at Zindaras? The more you two go at it, the more appealing this scenario becomes...

Huh? This doesn't make any sense at all.

Coron understood what I was trying to say. My point was only that the reasoning behind Coron's plan would also support a lynch of Coron.

Vote:Coron

for above mentioned reasons.

oops, I read something incorrectly.

unvote

I'm going to hold off my serious vote for now.

First two posts.

First post is 'wagoning onto Coron, supposedly on other people's reasonings. Second post is attempting to get off the wagon without anyone noticing.

Pure, distilled, scumtell.

My question here is not so much that I'm surprised you think Kelly is scum, but that you are so certain. Your response has also left me scratching my head.

No vote has been placed on Perfect/Kelly since you went after Luna. You find Kelly to be 20% more scummy than Luna and the reasons you give are from his first two posts of the game. Has Kelly done anything to sway you either way and why have you not - up to now - pressed for a lynch of Perfect/Kelly if you are so certain?

[HackerHuck]

Are people even looking at what Zindaras is saying? Zindaras believes putting someone at -1 makes them have an 80% chance of being scum. Even the cream of the crop players aren't 80% correct in finding scum. If you actually consider his arguments for a second and his disregarding of any contribution luna's replacement is making makes his case silly.

If he had actually said that then I think people might be reacting to it. You might want to reread Zindaras' post. It wasn't stating that Luna had a 80% chance of being scum, rather that he's 80% certain of Luna's scumminess.

This also sounds like someone trying to sweep their predecessor's scummy behaviour under the rug, flavored with a little OMGUS... You should be happy he's redirecting his energies to someone else.

[HackerHuck]

Well, it seems I'm on the lynching block, and no one is posting. Should I just claim and get it over with?

We're still ten days from the deadline and the latest replacement hasn't even had a chance to chime in yet. I wouldn't be too hasty with a claim. Besides, it now looks like I'm right up there with you on this one.

[HackerHuck]

It's not a 'block everybody'. The pm basically says that it's a role-block that works globally. But it doesn't work on EVERYONE, supposedly. I guess if you have to leave your tent, it works. Otherwise, nada.

It seems to me that it would block the traditional role actions, but not actions performed by artifacts. That also seems to indicate that it can block scum nightkills unless they are performed through some other means.

I don't know that this item really indicates anything of alignment, since I could envision it being useful for either scum or town.

I believe Jules has been replaced by Apeiron, so I don't think we'll be able to get that information.

[HackerHuck]

That sounds like a lame cop-out lie.

I guess this really shouldn't surprise me.

I can understand you not being convinced of his innocence, but why is his claim unbelievable?

[HackerHuck]

I am not too sure whether I trust the not-transferring thing either. Especially if this is some kind of massive roleblock ability, which is pretty powerful.

I don't think that the "not-transferring thing" is that much of a stretch. By not being able to pass the item, it basically becomes more of a "role" than an artifact. It could even be possible that the "roles" in this game have been replaced by artifacts - some passable, some not.

[HackerHuck]

Erm... Guys? All artifacts are one-time use for each person. Post 1 says this.

I also don't see why you'd think a mass-role-block would be passable. If it was, either scum or town could put the other side into a complete standstill over and over, if the passes were done right.

Special rules:

If the description starts with "You may" means each

player

may use that artifact once. If it starts with "Once in the game, you may", that's once for the

artifact

for the entire game; once it's been used, the artifact either becomes useless or disappears.

It appears that there is one killing role that must go outside and kills by stabbing. That makes this artifact it a bit more verifiable without exposing other power roles.

Night 1:

The one they called neongrey is dead. Stabbed in his tent.

[HackerHuck]

I think you're at 2. Apeiron was already on you when he voted, and now he's unvoted.

I am not sure I want Nai to use the item tonight. I am fairly confident he does have it, and even if he does have it, it doesn't comment much on his alignment.

Why would you not want him to use the item tonight? Now that the scum know he has it, he's a target and would lose it upon his death. I say better to use than not.

I wonder if the

mod

can clarify this. Do we need to leave our tents to pass artifacts?

[HackerHuck]

Why would you not want him to use the item tonight? Now that the scum know he has it, he's a target and would lose it upon his death. I say better to use than not.

Hm, I kind of doubt scum will NK Nai over this item. Even if it stops kills, it doesn't incriminate anyone like a normal block would.

That doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't scum want to eliminate an item that would prevent them from killing? I can see scum not wanting to kill on any given night from a strategic perspective, but not when the timing is out of their control.

Anyway, it's Nai's decision when to use it and I don't see it benefitting the town to tell us when he plans to use it.


This gives us another option to verify the use of his item without exposing power roles.

Just over 71 hours to deadline.

I wonder if the

mod

can clarify this. Do we need to leave our tents to pass artifacts?

Yes. (With the standard disclaimers that any private info can override this, and I can't confirm or deny whether leaving tents means anything at all from a game perspective)

[HackerHuck]

Why would you not want him to use the item tonight? Now that the scum know he has it, he's a target and would lose it upon his death. I say better to use than not.

Hm, I kind of doubt scum will NK Nai over this item. Even if it stops kills, it doesn't incriminate anyone like a normal block would.

That doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't scum want to eliminate an item that would prevent them from killing?

All things being equal they would.

Are you implying that all things are not equal in this case?

I can see scum not wanting to kill on any given night from a strategic perspective, but not when the timing is out of their control.

Hm?

This sentence sure didn't come across. All I meant was that scum might choose not to use their night actions as a tactic, but they would not want to have the chance that their night actions won't work.

Anyway, it's Nai's decision when to use it and I don't see it benefitting the town to tell us when he plans to use it.

If he uses it unexpectedly, the town could conceivably waste other one-shots.

Good point, I was going off the assumption that one-shot actions were artifact based and would not be blocked.

[HackerHuck]

Well, I don't see Nai's wagon gaining support nor do I see any other wagon but mine. I guess it's time to claim and see what happens.

I'm just a traveler, with no artifacts in my possession at this time. I was given the

Amulet of Inner Strength

, which is an immunity artifact, and I passed it on. I also have a special bond with the amulet and it will return to me if the one who possesses it is killed.

For obvious reasons, I won't reveal the who I passed it to unless the town requests it or the owner volunteers.

[HackerHuck]

HH Im going to ask this once, and I want you to make sure you answer it exactly how you think it should be.

Under what terms is your starting artifact returned to you?


After this I will likely have a question / request to follow.

A rather strange way to ask this question, so I hope I'm getting it right.

When the holder dies, it is returned to me.


I take this to mean that if someone holding the amulet is killed during the day (it only grants immunity to nightkills) or if they are not wearing it at night and are killed, then it returns to me rather than being lost.

[HackerHuck]

What word does it use to describe the holder's death? (ie. die)

Exactly as I said above:

When the holder dies...

Interesting question

[HackerHuck]

Vote: Hacker Huck

If you die, someone else out there at least still has the imunity item (if you are telling the truth. This could be huge for us if we choose to pass this player items that we want to keep protected.

I want whoever it is that has this item to claim that they have it. If it really does give them immunity at night then they dont need to fear the mafia. If we lynch huck and he comes up town, then he must be telling the truth and you will have no reason to fear being lynched by the rest of us.

P.S. Nate if you dont use your ability tonight, then I am voting you tommorrow. We need proof that you are town / that you at least are being truthful when it comes to your artifact, and we could greatly benefit from another night with our items.

Zind> Lurking as usual? excuse me? I post and comment whenever I can and there is something to be said.

My guess at the scum trio(?) right now, HH/Zind/Coron

I don't like the vote, but you are correct that killing me will not eliminate the item. My death only means that the item will be lost if someone holding the artifact dies.

I would reconsider requesting that both the immunity artifact owner and Nai use their items in the same night. Remember that one must "go outside" to pass the item and Nai indicated that his item keeps people in their tents.

Finally, I'm curious about the nature of your earlier question. Do you know of a difference between being killed and dying? Given the nature of Nai's blocking ability, that might be important to know.

[HackerHuck]

Asking the immunity artifact owner to use their item? Did I say that? Are you know claiming that the item isnt a passive artifact that blocks attacks on its owner?

I take kill to mean loosing a player through something during the nightphase, or by the hand of a day vig. While I consider the word death to be used to describe a player who died through a lynch. If the item was to be returned to you if a player was "killed" overnight, it would be hard to stomach the thought of the item also granting night immunity to the player. If the owner is immune to night kills why would there be a mention of where the item would go if the owner was killed.

Your implication that I'm changing my claim is incorrect. You made the assumption that it was a passive item. Look back at post 686 where I said ... or if they are not wearing it at night.

Looking at post 1, which outlines the game rules: The standard artifact rules indicate that "using" an artifact is a night action that must be chosen. I indicated where the description of my item differs from those standard rules, which is how the amulet is not lost when a player dies (does your interpretation of dies vs. killed apply here?) but returns to me.


The only thing I can be accused of not putting in my claim is that I neglected to say whether it was a one-time per person (which it is) or one-time per game.

[HackerHuck]

Okay then, I still think our best play is to lynch HH. We dont loose his artifact, if he's town we know that one is out there giving someone night immunity, and as long as we dont lynch whoever is carrying it, it should stay around.

HH, from what you got from the items description, could the person that you passed your item to pass it on still in coming nights?

There is nothing in the item's description indicating otherwise. The only thing I was told that was different about this item is that it returns to me when the holder dies.

[HackerHuck]

Good job scum. I was completely fooled by Zindaras, felt vindicated with kelly's death and kept wanting to remind everyone how scummy shadow/luna were.

I was curious to see how my artifact was going to work, especially since I gave it to a mafia who survived to endgame.

I had a talisman that worked like an immunity idol to the wearer, but it also put them under my control to do my night kills. I would bet that Zindy would have kept it, but would he have worn it as scum with an SK floating around?

Great setup Norinel, I was extremely disappointed about my day one lynch.