O.O
Okay. Well. Obviously this is the wrong way to go about finding scum.
TEH mod is not scum, and even if he was, he's unlynchable. Since it basically said "Post two", I went back and just reread tha game. Different conclusions this time.
Looking at Ernie - his biggest splash in this game was with this:
Ernie wrote:Unvote
Vote Nightfall
Let's say I want to find out if someone will hammer...
Ernie wrote:But that's not a majority on him, isn't it? I just skirmed through the thread and I think he's just got 4 votes.
Ernie wrote:I wasn't hammering. He had 2 votes on him and mine was the 3rd, but when people started questioning me and saying I shouldn't have, I thought for a moment that I had made a mistake and hammered (which I hadn't anyway). If somebody had hammered right away it would have been suspicious enough, but nobody did so it doesn't matter anyway.
Ernie" wrote:Guys, take a moment to read the post above. Do you really think I was hammering? No. I was putting him at -1 to see if someone else would have hammered.
And I think this has been brought up but.. the mentality is that he'll put someone at -1 to see if someone will hammer. Later on, he says that nobody hammered so
what does it matter
... If you were really baiting scum, which is really really dangerous when more than half the people in the game have power roles, than the fact that nobody hammered should tell us something about A) nightfall's allignment or B) the alignment of people already voting for nightfall or C) the care that scum is putting into not being caught. Based on what had happened before your third vote ( and in the rest of hte game) I think B is the most likely choice.
That aside, sayign that he is putting him at -1, then claiming not to know how many it takes to lynch, makes it seem like you were only pretendign to 'put him at -1' but actually thought you were lynching. Your later discussion with patrick where you ask someone who was already voting you to go ahead and vote you suggests just aren't paying attention - but at the beginning and end of this confusion you say things that indicate you *are* aware of the situation. Which is it?
(This is actually addressed to Ernie, who is now CDB, who can't really answer it, can they? Shame. If I had been around when eErnie was in the game, this is the post I would have pushed on him, and I still think that the knot of contradictions is worth untangling)
Twito, I'm very surprised with you. The last 7 player game I played with you, you were confident of yourself and set traps to ensnare scum with -and they worked, too, except that the scum outtalked you and got you lynched. This game you seem to be playing a non-offensive goofball. *poke poke poke*
fircoal I am wishy washy on. his posts seem more deliberately non-serious than twito, who seems to be more taking things that people say and running with it - fircoal just seems to be playing follow the leader.
ripley - On one hand you say that Ernie was scum (without voting him) and that you are consider him as scum but at the same time you seem to be saying "Give him another chance" and "I'm not sure this is worth going after" while pushing for twito/fircoal to be lynched. Hum.
patrick - seems sensible, and makes logical moves. Doesn't really offer anything up to be scrutinized but still gets votes against him anyways, probably for being a dry-witted english man. I know he likes chess IRL so that probably plays a part in his decision making process - when Shadowlurker(me) put someone at -1, patrick immediately unvoted to prevent a lynch.
IN conclusion, I think that it is most likely to be Ripley and CDB who are scum.
INASMUCH : Leaving my vote on CDB.
Last note: we know what happens if we lynch the blocker today - but if we don't lynch SOME scum, we are going to be severely handicapped. Scum have as many night actions as town, with the added benefit of knowing they themselves are. Much tighter setup than a newbie.
This puts me at five minis so don't tell anyone shhh
