<Mini 435> Julius Caesar Mafia, Player Abandoned

[Sarcastro]

Vote: Miztef

Thanks for stealing my reason to vote Eteocles.

[Sarcastro]

Confirm Vote: Miztef

I just noticed that you're from Ontario. Ergo, you're probably a Leafs fan. Die scum die.

[Sarcastro]

Unvote, Vote: Guardian

First of all, why exactly was it necessary to unvote and then revote Miztef for the exact same reason that you voted for him in the first place?

Are you really willing to lynch Miztef purely on the knowledge that he is probably not a townie? "At best he's a power role who stupidly revealed himself"? Power roles are called power roles for a reason, and I'd prefer not to lynch one without a reason. Perhaps if there were a 50-50 chance that Miztef is scum, but I simply don't see that being the case.

Honestly, what Miztef said makes him look pro-town in my mind. Assuming he was sincere, why would he want to reveal his rolename if he's scum? I don't like speculating too much about which roles are scum and which are town, but I think that anybody with a basic knowledge of history knows who would most likely be scum in a game about Caesar's assassination.

Obviously, there's a chance that the scum aren't who we think they are, and it's also possible that Miztef deliberately made that comment in order to make people think he's town. Do you think that one of these possibilities is the case, though, Guardian?

Lawrencelot, I'd be wary of talking too much about roles at this point. Saying that townies don't have role names might not matter in the long run, but I never like giving the scum information by talking about roles and mechanics.

[Sarcastro]

Sarcastro, why are you arguing against Guardian, when you were voting for miztef too?

There is a difference between a random vote (or an arbitrary vote, since it wasn't technically random) and a real vote. My vote on Miztef had nothing to do with actually thinking he was scum - in fact, I thought that he was probably town as soon as I saw his first post. I didn't feel the need to point this out, though, until Lawrencelot and Guardian started talking about it seriously.

You voted him yourself, at this point he needs to convince us

that he is not scum

, and he seems just as good a vote as any; would you rather I

unvote vote: Sarcastro

?

Why does he need to convince us that he isn't scum? Why is he as good a vote as any? I just provided what I think is a good reason that he is more likely to be town than scum. And yet your response is to ignore my arguments and OMGUS me. Excuse me if I don't rush to change my vote.

[Sarcastro]

If you were fairly sure he was town, why would you vote for him in the first place, and then feel the need to confirm your vote?

Eteocles, are you being deliberately obtuse? Do you think I actually wanted to lynch him for

being from Ontario

? I don't have any particular problem with random-voting someone who I think looks pro-town, because I'm obviously going to unvote if I feel that the game is getting serious.

I need to know how

unvote vote: Miztef

mentioning role names is anything but

WIFOM

- I see no reason whatsoever for a town power role to bring up role names, especially since the mod did not list role names in the first post; you confirm a vote on Miztef and really commence a nice tirade onme now, you look suspicious.

What? I don't even understand your train of thought. Miztef thought that

the mod

was going to reveal everyone's rolenames. I can only assume that he's used to mods doing that wherever he's played before. The fact that he expected the mod to do it in this game - where I think the scum would be likely to stand out - demonstrates to me that he is probably pro-town. Of course he could have been insincere or have a scum role that looks pro-town, but you haven't argued for either of these possibilities - you just keep asserting that what he said was scummy for no discernable reason.

I look suspicious for random-voting Miztef and then pointing out that you're behaving in an incredibly scummy fashion? Yeah, somehow I don't think that's true.

[Sarcastro]

VanDamien is perceptive; Sarcastro, I thank you as you have summed up many reasons for

unvote vote: Miztef

quite nicely, but I think your confirming a vote on him

was going beyond random voting

, whatever reasons you attributed to it.

What are you talking about? I've demonstrated exactly why you should

not

vote for Miztef. Your apparent restriction does not relieve you of your responsibility to explain yourself. Please answer my questions and explain why you feel that he's scummy. You can't just assert it over and over again.

I'm just saying that if you thought you could count on miztef not being scum, why would you vote him of all people? It just sounds kinda made up, thats all.

Well, I would like to clarify that I'm certainly not completely sure Miztef isn't scum - I simply think that he looks pro-town and that Guardian's case against him makes no sense.

What sounds made up? My reason for random-voting him? It was made up, obviously - it was an arbitrary vote. I wanted a clever reason to make a random vote, so I was originally going to vote for you, making a comment about how Greeks are enemies of Rome. Miztef beat me to it, so I decided to vote for him instead. I later noticed he was from Ontario, and I regretted missing the opportunity to vote for him based on that. It's all so meaningless, and I don't see why any of it matters. It didn't matter to me that I suspected Miztef to be town, because I never had any intention for my vote on him to be taken seriously.

[Sarcastro]

I want to hear more from you,

unvote vote: Miztef

, did you not imagine that in a Julius Caesar mafia themed game,

rolenames might reveal something substantial

about the alliance of a player, especially considering that such a mechanic occurs in many of the themed games on this site?

But Guardian, why does that make Miztef look scummy? So he made a mistake - so what? It looks more like a town mistake than a scum mistake, and that's the vital thing. Right now you look like you're simply looking for a reason to vote someone. You saw that Miztef made a mistake, and so you voted for him, not thinking about whether scum or town are actually more likely to make that particular mistake. You look opportunistic and scummy.

[Sarcastro]

It looks like some sort of post restriction.

Wow, I totally missed that -- I assumed the red text was simply for emphasis. You're right, it seems like he has to vote for someone in every single post. The red text appears random, though, just something he has to include.

Yes, and all his posts are exactly one sentence. He obviously has (or is faking, I suppose) a restriction. I don't really think it matters, though, because there's no point in speculating on it right now.

[Sarcastro]

Miztef is absolutely correct - revealing his role name would, in all probability, help the scum far more than it would the town. Guardian, you need to think about what you're saying a little bit more carefully. If Miztef is scum, I very much doubt that he'd reveal his actual rolename. Scum don't generally turn themselves in, and randomly making people claim in case they're scum forced to fakeclaim is generally not an efficient scum-catching technique. The only time it would be beneficial to reveal his role is when he's about to be lynched, and I really don't see that happening anytime soon.

Eteocles, if you want to do your own research I can't stop you, but I'd really urge you not to try to speculate on Guardian's role right now. In my experience, that sort of speculation is more likely to help the scum. If we get to the point where Guardian claims, then we can speculate on whether he's telling the truth, but until then, speculating about Guardian's restriction is probably not going to help us.

[Sarcastro]

By reading Guardian's last post, we can conclude that he is also not a townie. However, I have a theory: why would the mod give guardian a post restriction if he's scum, because this post restriction is attracting votes (there are people who vote guardian ONLY because of the weird posts, not everybody of course). I think this posting restriction and the votehopping is a disadvantage for him, as it attracts votes and makes him look scummy to some people. So: could he have this disadvantage because he also has a really helpful power role? He could be a protecting investigating roleblocking vig who has to look scummy as a disadvantage. (just a theory, and an exaggerating one, but I would like to hear others opinions on this)

It's possible, but I'd be wary of trying to outguess the mod. It's far from impossible for scum to have a post restriction like this, and while it might suggest that he's town, it's ultimately better to evaluate him based on his behaviour. We shouldn't give scummy players passes based on post restrictions. It is something to think about, perhaps, but again, only once we're at the point where we're evaluating Guardian's claim.

FoS: Phoebus

I think Guardian is scummy, too, but you seem more sure than I think the evidence justifies at this point. How do we know that Guardian won't be penalised for not including red text in that post? For all we know, he'll lose some ability. Or perhaps he has to make a certain number of mistakes before he's punished.

Guardian, unless your restriction also states that you must make everything you say as confusing as possible, I don't appreciate how cryptic and unhelpful you're being. I'm sure it's frustrating only being able to write one sentence per post, but you don't have to try to jam a hundred thoughts into each sentence.

[Sarcastro]

Same with Sarcastro's point. We don't know if there is a punishment?
Well...with a blatant restriction/requirement, I would expect a blatant punishment also.
Otherwise the person would be tempted to use this leeway to an advantage not intended by the mod.

I'm sorry, but I just think that you're assuming too much. I can think of multiple scenarios that would not include the mod revealing that Guardian was being punished for failing his restriction. Why does the punishment have to be blatant? Why can't it have to do with some night ability we don't know about? What advantage exactly is Guardian getting? I just don't understand why you're so quick to assume these things, and quite frankly it seems like you're just pursuing Guardian because he's an easy target.

[Sarcastro]

Eteocles makes a couple good points, we have two players with zero posts, which is either a bunch of lurkers OR they aren't playing. I'm gonna hang tight with my random vote till I hear from them

Or maybe you're looking for a reason to avoid weighing in on one of your scumbuddies. You can't simply refuse to contribute until lurkers do; that's totally unproductive. Lurking in plain sight isn't much better than simply lurking.

[Sarcastro]

Nobody said you had to lynch anyone. Nobody's even above three votes. Even if you don't want to change your vote, that's fine, but you can't simply

not contribute

because two people haven't posted yet. In addition, I don't know why you felt the need to announce that to everyone, as if saying that will get Nightfall and Emptyger to post sooner.

[Sarcastro]

Ryan and Sarcastro's little disagreement doesn't seem scummy to me. Just a quirky misunderstanding. Ryan does not want to lynch anyone while people are not participating and sacastro took it as ryan not wanting to contribute.

No, it wasn't a misunderstanding. I know exactly what Ryan said, but I believe that his refusal to "lynch" (which is ridiculous, because nobody's even close to a lynch) is really just an excuse for not contributing. In particular, it looks like he's attempting to avoid commenting on Guardian and Phoebus. His wishy-washy comments ("Now did he make a mistake? That is the question") serve to reinforce this.

As for Phoebus, I find his initial comments about Guardian more scummy than his current admission that he wants to lynch Guardian because of his restriction. I certainly don't think such an opinion is very good play, but I don't honestly find it especially scummy. I still find Guardian and Ryan scummier than Phoebus.

[Sarcastro]

I must admit I'm a little confused about Miztef's list. Why are Illumina and I in the "possible lynches" category? I don't remember any accusations against either of us, at least not since Guardian attacked me near the beginning for calling him out on his vote for Miztef.

In any case, I don't really think a list of "most likely lynches" is all that helpful, Miztef. No offense, but as Illumina said, a list of who you think should or shouldn't be lynched would probably be more helpful.

No, it wasn't a misunderstanding. I know exactly what Ryan said, but I believe that his

refusal to "lynch"

(which is ridiculous, because nobody's even close to a lynch) is really just an excuse for not contributing.

That is completely out of context and you know it. I never refused to lynch anyone and I'm not making an excuse, I agree that there are motives for a few people but nothing that has jumped out at me and said "vote them" give me a reason to vote for somebody and I'll take it under consideration.

Or I don't want to lynch somebody with two people not even voting.

What’s out of context? Your justification for “hang[ing] tight with [your] random vote” was that you didn’t want to lynch anybody. Nobody ever asked you to lynch anybody. The fact that two people are lurking is not a good justification for not contributing, and I don’t understand why you think that simply insisting that it is proves the conclusions I drew from it incorrect.

You used a weak reason to justify not contributing. That, to me, looks an awful lot like scum not wanting to make a decision about what to say about his buddy, or perhaps about which pro-town player would be easier to lynch. Wishy-washiness is a scumtell, and you’re extremely guilty of it. You can complain all you want that I’m taking what you said out of context, but that doesn’t change the fact that you used a weak reason to justify not contributing. Why don't you actually commit to a decision? There are seven pages worth of reasons, and yet you can't find a single convincing reason to vote for anyone? Excuse me if I'm a little incredulous.

[Sarcastro]

What do you mean? You can simply look at the votecount. As far as I can tell only, you, Eteocles and VanDamien all still have your random votes. While I would encourage all three of you to move on to voting for people who you actually find scummy (or justifying your existing votes), I don't see how this is relevant. Don't try to turn my argument into "Ryan is scummy because he won't change his vote", because that's not what it is at all. It's about what you said and how you said it. Neither Eteocles nor VanDamien felt the need to say that they weren't prepared to lynch someone while two people were lurking, and neither did they use this as justification for non-contribution.

[Sarcastro]

I'm not going to continue arguing in this post, simply put I'm not gonna switch my vote when there are two people lurking and not posting, I find it interesting that I make a statement that you jump down my throat about, yet two people haven't said a dang thing and you seem to be silent. Why vote and start a potential lynch with two people not saying a dang thing? You want to call that scummy, do what ya gotta do but I'm calling it "waiting till all the evidence is in".

Ryan, for the last time, the fact that other people are contributing is not a good reason not to contribute yourself. It's pretty difficult to find a game where, on day one, not a single person was lurking at all. In fact, this game has extremely good participation compared to some other games on the site. All we can do is let the mod do his job. Nightfall and EmpTyger (or their replacements) will post when they post, and we'll just have to wait.

I realise that you're still posting and commenting. That's good, and it does make you less scummy in my eyes. However, my suspicion stems simply from what you said in those two posts - that you didn't want to change your vote or lynch someone while two people were lurking so heavily. It is simply the fact that it looked (and still looks, despite your continued activity) like you were just using the fact that we have two lurkers to avoid committing to Guardian, Phoebus, or someone else. It's generally a lot easier for scum to make more peripheral contributions (asking questions, pointing out minor scumtells, etc) than it is for them to actually commit to thinking that one person is scummy enough to be lynched.

I don't expect to actually convince

you

of your scuminess, and I don't blame you if you don't want to argue about this anymore. I'm just trying to let you understand exactly what I have a problem with and why I think you're scummy. You don't have to agree.

[Sarcastro]

About Ryan: maybe he said he didn't want to contribut (although I don't even think he said that), he is contributing so just leave that case alone.

I really don't want to have to keep talking about this, because there's not much more to say, but you obviously haven't been reading my posts if that's what you think it's about. Whether or not he's actually contributing is a secondary issue. What matters is

what he said

. It was a very scummy thing to say, because it looked like an excuse for not contributing - in particular, not committing to anything. It doesn't make a huge difference that he's continued to contribute, especially because he still hasn't made that commitment he was trying to avoid in the original post.

LISTEN. I asked why are you trolling and not helping us find the mafia? It was a simple question that could have been answered "I am helping you find the mafia" but obviously that was too difficult to understand?

You don't need to be a jerk, Ryan. It's not his fault you didn't understand his rhetorical question. It was perfectly clear to me what he was saying.

[Sarcastro]

As for you Sarcastro, you are nothing more than a punk. You've had a problem with me the entire game so do the rest of us a favor and get over yourself. It would be helpful to the ones of us trying to have some fun and play the G A M E (thought I should spell that slowly for ya)

Ryan, there's no need for ad hominem attacks. I haven't had a problem with you the entire game; I simply pointed out one scummy thing you did. You insulted Guardian's intelligence simply because

you

didn't understand his rhetorical question, so I called you on it. I don't know why you've taken it so personally, but I assure you that none of your accusations are true.

[Sarcastro]

I'm doing my best to avoid one.

[Sarcastro]

Unvote, Vote: ryan

After a bit of a re-read, I've decided that I'd rather not lynch Guardian. The only really scummy thing he did was near the beginning (the whole Miztef issue). Since then, he's looked much more pro-town.

Ryan, on the other hand, just keeps getting scummier. I've already illustrated my main issue with him several times, and his recent posts don't do anything to change my mind. Broad insinuations that people who suspect you are scummy aren't helpful to the town. In addition, he

still

hasn't posted anything that makes me think he's actually looking for scum. Ryan,

who do you think are scum

?

He's still got his random vote for Patrick on. He never actually says anything about who he's suspicious of in his posts. Almost all of his posts include questions, which are not inherently scummy, but they're a good way to look like you're contributing without actually giving an opinion.

Also,

FoS: Eteocles

for some of the same things. On the whole, he feels a lot more honest than Ryan, so I'm more inclined to think he's town, but he really needs to stop lurking and contribute more.

[Sarcastro]

And as I was re-reading the thread Miztef comes after me right after Sarcastro throws a bandwagon vote my way, proving that both of these two are definetly in together looking to lynch the townies and keep their mafia ways going

Ryan, do you even believe what you're saying? First of all, my vote was very clearly not a bandwagon vote - it was the second vote, as far as I can tell, and I've been calling you scummy for quite some time. Second, why are you jumping to bizarre conclusions? Miztef and I voted you, so we're scum? If you're going to OMGUS vote us, at least try to

pretend

you have a good reason.

I'm entirely satisfied with my vote.

[Sarcastro]

Sarcastro:

<snip>As for Phoebus, I find his initial comments about Guardian more scummy than his current admission that he wants to lynch Guardian because of his restriction. I certainly don't think such an opinion is very good play, but I don't honestly find it especially scummy. I still find Guardian and Ryan scummier than Phoebus.

Okay about ryan, but why Guardian?

Well, it's only just recently that I've taken my vote off of Guardian. If you re-read the first few pages, I think I make my problem with Guardian pretty clear.

[Sarcastro]

Well Phoebus, what do you say about this ^. I was convinced for a long time that the post restriction was real, now you should be convinced too. Although it's still possible that Simenon uses the same fake restriction as Guardian, I find that chance about 0.01%.

I'm not sure you're looking at this the right way. If the restriction is fake, why would Simenon suddenly stop using it? That would be an extremely stupid move on his part. It's not as if he has no idea what Guardian's been doing this whole time. For the record, I think that the restriction is real as well, but Simenon continuing to use it proves absolutely nothing.

[Sarcastro]

I read your notes Simenon and all I saw was you throwing about accusations at people and taking suspicion off of you, nice ploy actually.

What? Seriously, you think that Simenon listing his suspicions is scummy? Would you prefer it if he played like you and only ever called people scummy as an OMGUS reaction?

[Sarcastro]

Ryan, I'm not trying to persecute you, no matter what you think. Your claim that Simenon was using a "ploy" to distract suspicion away from himself looks ridiculous to me, and I'm simply stating that. You don't have to take everything personally. Believe it or not, I'm trying to be nice, here, despite the fact that I think you're scum.

[Sarcastro]

Because I'm trying to defend being a pro town player? Look back at the posts Miztef and even you'll see (somebody who think's I'm guilty and scummy) that one person has led an onslaught on any point I've tried to make or any question I've tried to ask, Sarcastro has led the one man mob and without saying "I am scum" I've done nothing backhanded or remotely scummy to lynch any other member in this game. I've stated opinions and made observations and I'll continue to do it for as long as I'm permitted

Ryan, stop it. I'm honestly starting to think that you're delusional. I have been trying to be nice about it, but your claims are ridiculous. I am not out to get you. I have no idea why you think I am. I've made my case for why I think you're scum. You keep pretending that it doesn't exist and that I'm just picking on you for no reason, but it does exist, and acting like it doesn't won't make it go away. Either defend yourself against things that I've actually said (nobody said you did anything "backhanded" to try to lynch anyone) or don't say anything, because your whining about conspiracies that only exist in your head is really getting on my nerves.

On another note, I'm surprised at the lack of backlash Simenon's admission that the restriction was fake has generated. There is no real reason for a pro-town player to fake a restriction. However, given that Simenon looks fairly pro-town to me and he admitted the restriction was fake soon after replacing in (as well as the obvious fact that if it is true, it's unfair to punish him for Guardian's bad play), I'd rather not lynch him.

When did Eteocles last post? I think a prod might be in order.

[Sarcastro]

my reasoning is a bit WIFOM, I admit, but faking a restriction in itself is not scummy imo.

Let's say any random player faked a restriction. If that player is scum, why bother, it just adds more work, and if your caught faking it more people would suspect you. If your pro-town, then maybe you just wanted to make your role more interesting, and decided to fake a restriction for fun. I believe that's what guardian did. A scum could too, of course, but I just don't see it as likely.

Sorry, Miztef, but I don't buy that at all. Have you heard of the "Lynch All Liars" rule? It's part-meta, part-theory that pro-town players should never lie. While not everybody would agree that pro-town players should

never

lie, most would agree that lying about your role is not something pro-town players normally have any good reason for doing.

There are plenty of reasons for scum to fake a restriction. The most obvious one is to make themselves look more pro-town. While scum can have restrictions as well, they are far more common among pro-town roles. In addition, a restriction can often add credence to a roleclaim in some situations.

Pro-town players, on the other hand, have no good reason to fake a restrictions. It is simply bad play, and it impairs the town in so many ways. If what Simenon says is true and Guardian was indeed a pro-town player faking a restriction, it was absolutely

terrible

play on Guardian's part.

I don't want to lynch Simenon, however, because as stupid as it would be on Guardian's part, I actually buy that he would do that just for fun. But yes, faking a restriction is most definitely scummy. It just so happens that in this situation I'm inclined to believe that the person is still pro-town.

[Sarcastro]

Other people on my radar as of now are Sarcastro and Miztef.

There seems to be just too much tandem tag team stuff going on between the two.
However, if I were to pick someone to vote other than Simenon, I'd chose Sarcastro.
He seems more the instigator and Miztef a hanger-on.
Something makes me feel that he is a misled hanger on or rather, a hanger on with misplaced trust/beliefs.
However, Miztef's posts from 293 onwards have eroded some of my beliefs about him.

I'm not sure I understand. I'm on your radar because Miztef keeps agreeing with me? If Miztef is a misled hanger-on, how does that tell you anything about my alignment?

[Sarcastro]

FoS: Anybody who would rather vote lurkers than scummy players

I firmly believe that it is the mod's responsibility to deal with long-term lurkers, not the players'. If Eteocles were suspicious because he mysteriously lurked at significant times, I would consider voting for him. As of right now, he's simply not posting at all, which says very little about his alignment. I agree that his behaviour before was marginally scummy, and he's still near the top of my list, but trying to lynch lurkers on day one is, quite frankly, a stupid strategy.

Ryan supports the lurker bandwagon. What a coincidence. I can't remember whether I addressed all the people saying "maybe Ryan is just inexperienced rather than scum". The two are not mutually exclusive. Inexperienced townies act differently from inexperienced scum. Ryan, in my opinion, is the latter. The fact that he's constantly lurking in plain sight and refusing to commit to anything but his OMGUS accusations is pretty good evidence to this effect, and once again I'm suspicious of people who are trying to avoid the issue by saying "maybe he's just inexperienced".

[Sarcastro]

Once again, Ryan, please stop with the ad hominem attacks.

You've always have a vote on people you thought were scum? That's simply not true. You kept a random vote on Patrick long after you admitted that you didn't find him scummy, simply because you didn't want to actually commit to voting someone for real. You only voted Miztef as an OMGUS reaction, and have still not even

tried

to give evidence of his scumminess. Despite all your ranting and raging against me,

you have never voted for me

.

Try writing a nice long post explaining your suspicions and giving at least a little evidence. While you're at it, try to make a post that doesn't fling around ridiculous accusations about how Miztef and I are secretly conspiring against you.

Sorry, Simenon, that post was directed more towards Lawrencelot than you.

[Sarcastro]

I still think Miztef is scum and you are as well. I find both of you guilty and have no problem keeping my vote on Miztef. Why are you so worried about my votes anyway Sarcastro? I've played pro-town the entire time while you have been worried about every single post/vote I've done, quit scting scummy and be apart of the solution NOT the problem!

I'm really getting sick of this, Ryan. You can't just assert that you've been pro-town while Miztef and I have been scummy/anti-town. Give me some evidence! Assertions don't help at all. And second, stop responding selectively to me. I commented on both your vote on Patrick and your vote on Miztef, and yet you only responded to my comments on the latter. You're not going to convince me that you're town by yelling at me and refusing to answer me.

[Sarcastro]

First of all, Ryan, thank you for finally making a complete argument. That said, a lot of it doesn't really make sense to me.

Unvote, Vote: Guardian

I don't like speculating too much about which roles are scum and which are town, but I think that anybody with a basic knowledge of history knows who would most likely be scum in a game about Caesar's assassination.

You seem to have no problem speculating later on everyone including yours truly.

I'm not sure you understand what I meant by "roles". I mean the actual roles, not people. For example, pretend there was a prominent Roman around Caesar's time named "Rolius Namus". Speculating on whether Rolius Namus would be a pro-town or scum role in this game is something that I do not agree with. I do not know, however, what your role is, Ryan. I'm basing my accusations of you on your scummy play. That has nothing to do with speculating on roles.

The fact that you actually think I meant that I don't like to speculate on which

players

are pro-town and which are scum is a little bit weird and disturbing.

I do have a pro-town power role

, and due to my ignornace I thought everyone had gotten a character name.

Says he has a pro town power role yet has been jumping around quite a bit with votes. Wouldn’t a pro town player try and find a scum without committing to anyone? Miztef spends the first 3 to 4 pages trying to explain his blatant mistake of asking about character names instead of just saying “I made a mistake”

Your idea of how a power role should behave is strange. First of all, power roles in general should not act differently because they're power roles. I'm not entirely sure if you're saying that, however, or if you're saying that

all

pro-town players should behave the way you're suggesting, in which case that's unrelated to Miztef claiming he has a power role.

Secondly, no matter what you're saying, not committing to anyone is pretty much the most blatant scum tactic in the book. In fact, it's one of the ones you've been using.

In addition, the fact that you're once again trying to use Miztef's early mistake to label him scum is rather suspicious. It is pretty clear to me (and the rest of the town, as far as I can tell) that he is a power role who made a mistake. There is no logical reason for scum to want to reveal their own rolenames in a game like this, unless my understanding of the theme of this game is totally out of whack.

[Sarcastro]

I have some problems with Phoebus, but they're more along the lines of "he's not being very helpful" than "he's scummy". As much as I disapprove of his original attitude toward Guardian, it didn't seem scummy to me. I obviously think he's going totally in the wrong direction by not finding Ryan suspicious and finding me suspicious for a reason that doesn't really make sense to me, but once again, I don't find it particularly scummy. Ryan's unhelpfulness, on the other hand, I find extremely scummy.

In response to Simenon's post - Simenon, I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with your contention that it is "unsatisfying" to look at specific newbie scumtells. There are plenty of differences between newbie town and newbie scum, and in most cases I would say that it's far easier to read a newbie than it is to read an experienced player. From a few pages into the game, Ryan struck me as textbook newbie scum. Miztef, on the other hand, struck me as newbie town (though he might not be as much of a newbie as Ryan is, I don't really know). In any case, if you don't want to vote for Ryan because you think he might just be inexperienced town, fine. But I urge you not to give him a free pass. Newbie scumtells do exist.

Oh, and I agree with you on Eteocles. Seriously, Eteocles, you're starting to act like Ryan, which is definitely not a good thing in my books.

[Sarcastro]

Sorry about the absence, everybody. I assure you that I had good outside-world reasons.

In any case, I'm a bit surprised at the number of people who've commented on my doggedness in going after Ryan. As Patrick said, I often do this as scum, but I would say that I do it even more as town (as in this case). 8-Bit Theater Mafia is the most recent example (I was right about AndrewS, too). It's part of my playstyle. I assure you, however, that I will not simply stay on the same person if I find someone scummier. I think I demonstrated that in 8-Bit as well.

Eteocles is basically acting like a less rude and more logical version of Ryan at this point. The wishy-washiness they've both displayed is exactly why I prefer to play the way I do - not committing to anything is the easiest trap for scum to fall into, and the easiest way for pro-town players to become useless.

While Ryan is still my first choice, I certainly would not be opposed to an Eteocles lynch. I can't remember which people were on the "maybe Ryan is just a newbie" fallacy-wagon, but I'd be interested to know if any of them are on the Eteocles-wagon, and, if so, what they think the difference is.

[Sarcastro]

Although he knows I'm in that game too, I don't think that's the reason he said it. I think this is a strong argument for ryan's innocense, and makes me suspicious of the people who made a case against him in this game.

(Unvote) Vote: Sarcastro

Please explain your logic. Ryan said that he doesn't like bandwagons against townies, so I'm scum?

First of all, I don't think you should be using evidence from outside this game, besides already-completed games. Second, that quote does not say anything about Ryan's alignment. I know it's tempting to think that he's hinting at his role in this game (which is very much against the rules, by the way), but there's simply no reason to believe that his comments mean he wasn't scum in this game.

Finally, even if he

was

town, which is obviously a possibility, how does that make

me

scum?

If I hear anything more about a "noob town" vs. "noob scum" debate, I will strangle somebody. Experience and role are entirely unrelated, okay? Being a noob does not make you more likely to be town. Furthermore, Ryan claimed not to be a noob.

Furthermore

, he acted like noob scum, in any case.

There's a deadline soon, which means it's time for me to wait until everyone realises at the last moment that I was right all along. Braze is today's lynch. Eteocles is acceptable, too.

[Sarcastro]

Yeah, Lawrencelot, the part about "noob scum" was directed to everyone.

I see where you're coming from with the arguments, but even if you really do think Ryan was implying that he was town in this game, I don't understand why you thought that makes more likely to be scum. If he were scum it certainly makes me less likely to be scum, but there's no particular reason to believe that someone going after a townie is significantly more likely to be scum that town. It depends far more on the circumstances, which don't change based on whether or not Ryan is town. Perhaps if you thought it was obvious that Ryan was town I was going after him anyway I'd understand, but you based this off of new information. I just wanted to point out that it looked like a rather weak piece of reasoning (my least favourite kind, especially when I'm a victim of it ).

Also, for the record, I personally don't approve of quoting outside sources at all, besides metagame information based on previous games. If someone told you their role via PM, you wouldn't consider that valid evidence, right? You'd probably ask to be replaced if you're a responsible and honourable player. This case is different, because in my opinion it says very little about Ryan's alignment, but in the future, I would suggest trying simply to ignore something like that if you think it has a bearing on another game.

[Sarcastro]

I must say I'm a little surprised at the bandwagon that's sprung up on Simenon, although I'm not a fan of his response to Eteocles' claim. I really don't like Lawrencelot's vote, though. It seems far too much like he's just following EmpTyger.

None of this really matters much to me right now, though, because I still see no reason not to lynch Braze. The fact that's he's lurked pretty consistently since replacing in doesn't help his case.

Eteocles, is your rolename Marcus Antonius or Mark Antony? It's probably unimportant, but I'd like to know. Also, I hope that you don't think claiming is an excuse to continue chronically lurking.

[Sarcastro]

Yeah, I see no particular reason not to do what we should have done yesterday and lynch Braze.

[Sarcastro]

Oops, I just realised I haven't actually

voted

for Braze yet. This must be rectified.

Vote: BrazeGoesMoo

[Sarcastro]

Well, his lurking and weak attack on VD don't help much, but yes, for the most part I want to lynch Braze for Ryan's behaviour. Do you not think I should advocate his lynch because of the actions of his predecessor?

[Sarcastro]

Miztef, I think I made it quite clear yesterday why I wanted to lynch Ryan. You even agreed with me, as I recall. Why are you suddenly so unsure about lynching Braze?

Braze doesn't need to defend himself against my specific points, because they're almost all aimed against Ryan. I recognise that it's hard for him to defend another player's actions (especially a person as scummy as Ryan), but right now he's not even trying. He's just lurking.

[Sarcastro]

Yeah, there are several things wrong with that idea.

1. How do you know the scum killed EmpTyger because he wanted a massclaim? He is a good player who was leading the town and looking very pro-town doing it. I have trouble believing you've somehow isolated the one reason the scum would want to kill him.

2. Why does killing the guy who wanted a massclaim mean that the scum don't want a massclaim? For all we know, they could all have safeclaims. It would be awfully convenient for you to kill EmpTyger and then use his death to advocate a massclaim, using your safeclaims and giving yourself the ability to pick off the powerroles.

3. Why would the scum think the idea of a massclaim would die with EmpTyger? He'd already given his opinion, so at least one person in the town was bound to pick up the torch, as was the case.

I always hesitate to draw too many conclusions from nightkills, simply because it's almost always completely WiFoM, but this is a case of particularly bad speculation. There's really no good reason for your conclusions, VD - you're trying to fit the facts to your opinion.

In case it's not obvious, I'm opposed to a massclaim. I really don't know why EmpTyger even suggested it, and I see no convincing reason for us to tell the scum our roles on Day Two.

[Sarcastro]

Ugh, this Phoebus-wagon reeks of scumminess.

None of Miztef's arguments - in fact, none of the arguments any of you have used - are even remotely persuasive. I really don't feel like going in depth, because I don't feel that it's necessary, but I will if any more foolish/opportunistic people actually buy into this ridiculous wagon.

Hey, guess what? Braze is still lurking, because he's still scum. How about we lynch him? Since, you know, there's an actual case against him with arguments and evidence and everything. Not just three people who don't like Phoebus's playstyle trying to get him lynched for no reason.

[Sarcastro]

Patrick, my post wasn't directed at you. In fact, I had forgotten that you were voting for Phoebus when I wrote it. The three people I was referring to are Miztef, VanDamien and Lawrencelot. While I don't agree with your arguments against Phoebus, I don't have the same problem with them as I do with the arguments of the other three, particularly Miztef (before he made his latest about-face).

I am a bit curious about your claim that I have been "at least as opportunistic as [you] this game, if not more". I don't recall you being particularly opportunistic, but I'm wondering exactly what I've done that you'd consider opportunistic.

[Sarcastro]

And you sir, are not bothering to be any more persuasive than them, are you?
Do you think that just by calling people unpersuasive and omitting the same yourself gets you any brownie points?

I'm not after brownie points and I wasn't even trying to be persuasive. I was merely stating my opinion. As I said, I didn't feel the need to actually argue against the points. Apparently merely pointing out how ridiculous they are was good enough to make at least Miztef reconsider.

To Lawrencelot and anyone else who thinks that Miztef's erratic behaviour is a scumtell on

me

- I didn't ask Miztef to follow me around, and I wonder why you have such a low opinion of me that you think I would encourage a scumbuddy to give himself away. I don't know why Miztef is doing this, but it's as confusing to me as it is to you.

For the record, Patrick, I'm not

that

strongly anti-LAL. I did disagree with Simenon's lynch, though, and I think I made that clear. And yes, Ryan/Braze is a fairly easy target. In this case, however, the easy target happens to be the scummiest player in the game. And while Phoebus is an experienced player very capable of defending himself, he becomes an easier target with every vote and FoS. You're not opportunistic in going after him, but I think some of the later people are.

Guess who needs to post? BrazeScum. Abalidoth and Eteocles, too.

[Sarcastro]

You know what would get us somewhere? Lynching BrazeScum.

[Sarcastro]

Yes, Braze. Obviously everyone on your bandwagon is scum, because you are just so obviously town. I think the fact that even you consider yourself "the easy kill" says something about how you and Ryan played in this game.

[Sarcastro]

Julius Caesar... Serial Killer? This is unacceptable. Absolutely unacceptable. PBuG will rot in hell for this.

In other news, I can't remember anything about this game. Time for a re-read.

It's an interesting coincidence that the serial killer pretending to be Julius Caesar just happened to die on the Ides of March. To be honest, I wasn't expecting Caesar to actually be a role. It does make me wonder what the possibly significance of the dates is, if they don't indicate when Caesar dies.

[Sarcastro]

Why? Because I was wrong about Ryan? There's so much wrong with that I don't know where to start.

[Sarcastro]

Why? Because I was wrong about Ryan? There's so much wrong with that I don't know where to start.

That too, but mainly to generate discussion. You being wrong about ryan is worth a FOS, but now I voted because there wasn't much else to do. Who do you suspect?

Why is it worth an FoS? Explain your logic.

I honestly can't remember much about this game, and I really need to get that re-read done. I'm not a huge fan of your "Sarcastro is scum because he didn't know Ryan was town" logic, though.

I, too, will be away for a week starting tomorrow.

[Sarcastro]

I'm still alive.

I need to re-read, but I've got a lot on my plate right now. From what's happened so far today, I don't really like Lawrencelot, but I remember thinking that he was probably town before.

[Sarcastro]

Is this game player-abandoned?

[Sarcastro]

Oh come on. You guys suck. How many replacements would we need, PJ?

[Sarcastro]

Hm, so a role-claim of Cicero might have worked. I was sure it'd have been a role.

We so would have won this game, by the way.