Mini 520 - Triumvirate Mafia - ABANDONED

[Phate]

*slides into seat before the bell rings* Here!

[Phate]

Randomvote: somestrangeflea

[Phate]

Unvote

Yes, I think so too.

[Phate]

I agree with SirT. Calling that distancing is a stretch. And since I'm addressing you and questioning your actions (or suspicions, but you catch my drift), by your definition, I'm distancing. So I guess that means I'll see you tonight, scumbuddy?

[Phate]

It's too early to say for sure, but I'd say he's talking crap. I'm waiting to see how he responds to Sir T before placing my vote.

[Phate]

Translation - "I'm going to try to deflect suspicion from myself by pointing at an odd but not visibly scummy event. Furthermore, I'm not going to explain why this event is scummy, only imply that it is. Furthermore, the only reasons I'll give is that I'm lazy and that I'm pouting since SirT doesn't agree with me."

I'm going to have to give that last post a big WtF.

Happy Scumday!

[Phate]

What about my post bugged you? How did you see MoS' reply? Are you aware that MoS personally said that it was close, and corrected only the use of the term 'pouting'?

And as an aside, MoS, am I correct in interpreting your last post to mean you admit to all of it except pouting about SirT?

[Phate]

@Miztef. Shit. If using this tone is a scumtell... I'm going to be lynched every game.
@Faerie. Shit. If making lame jokes is a scumtell... I'm going to be lynched every game.

Also, Faerie, saying something is "bad" and then not backing it up is more or less meaningless, except to get the more initiative players to look it up and the less initiative players to agree without doing so. What about MoS' post do you think was bad, or are you just agreeing with what's already been said? If so, you could have just said something like "I agree with Phate, but Phate, making jokes like the one you made on 62 = bad." Show some originality, please.

@ MoS. Curses.

[Phate]

I've been learning that posts such as your "translation" tend to distract people from what your actually trying to say. Which could be viewed as a tactic to confuse the town.

When I say translation, I think it's fairly apparent that I mean, "The following is my interpretation of the last post." If anyone is distracted or confused by that, they should speak the fuck up and ask me to clarify. I'm really not seeing that as a viable tactic to "confuse the town."

[Phate]

Also, Miztef, I asked you a question, soldier. What is your opinion of MoS' post, if you don't agree with mine? Do you think his theory that random unvoting chains = scummy holds up? If so, why, and can you give a reason why it would be to the scum's benefit? If not, why not, and why did you focus on the tone of my response rather than the faulty reasoning you found in his own post? If you're somewhere in between, state your position and explain your indecisiveness.

[Phate]

However, I really don't like it when people just decide to say "the random stage is over", like it's some sort of boundary that can be defined, and you can just cut off all random voting at a specific point. I much prefer that people *do* something to get out of random voting, rather than just say it's over and do nothing.

Sucks to be you then. =P

[Phate]

Again, I'll use any witty devices I damn well want to, and if someone doesn't understand, they can ask me to clarify. Also,

FoMS: Spider Jerusalem

for being way too agreeable. That always makes me suspicious. Also for his name, which I can't figure out.

[Phate]

FlyingHawk, SJ, not to call the kettle black, but you guys are new here. And thus it might stand to reason that you'll make mistakes, especially in the area of keeping things hidden if you have them to hide. And it strikes me as interesting that while you've been quiet all game, you both fairly well jump to defend MoS. This might (indeed, probably) be nothing, but I think it's worth mentioning.

*stores away the possibility that there might be a link between flyinghawk, MoS, and SJ*

[Phate]

*grins ruefully*

Phate, regardless of saying that you aren't doing it, you are totally calling the kettle black here. Even worse than that, FlyingHawk has been a member of this site since the end of May, and he even played mafia elsewhere before joining. So he is definitely *not* new here. And SJ joined this site before you did, Phate, so you have no business acting like you know what you're talking about when it comes to newbies here. That's just ridiculous.

I may very well be full of shit. That is a theory that has been proposed more than once. I've played Mafia elsewhere (physically) as well - in fact, I didn't even know it existed online until I noticed it on a M:tG forum I frequent. SJ joined a total of one day before I did, and because he is classified as "townsperson" and I as "goon," I can conclude that I have posted more than him - I am involved in multiple other games. So SJ's one day worth of seniority means nothing, IMO.

And rather than stating that I have no business acting like I know what I'm talking about, why not tell me why I'm wrong? Why not address the issue, rather than the ad hominem? Because if I am full of shit on this, which is very likely, I'd like to know, that I might become another player. But if I'm not, than your response, which doesn't actually address the issue, is to be expected. So yeah, if I'm full of shit, tell me why, not just that.

Bullshit.

Bullshit to you too.

Everyone, check out the start of a two-pronged attack from Phate/Miztef.

That's funny, because I've had the impression that he switched from attacking me to going with the flow when I pointed out someone else. He's indecisive. Might be scum.

[Phate]

EBWOP: Oh, btw. "might become another player" = "might become a better player."

94 - What do you mean by rinsing it out?

103 - You could be right; I'm about due for a readthrough... but if so, it escaped my attention.

106 - That is exaggerating my argument. I pointed it out as a possibility. I was careful to point out that I WAS only counting as a possibility. I didn't say "I KNOW you're scum," and my reason wasn't "you're new."

108 - Maybe I'm a jester. *eyebrow waggle* No, seriously, I was out on a limb with post 106. I accepted MoS' ridicule (because I wasn't at all sure my theory was correct), but quibbled a bit on the details. Then I asked WHY the post was so preposterous, which he'd failed to address.

As for the bullshit, quote, you're way over-analysing; I meant no such thing. My only point is that a one-word expletive does not an argument make. It wasn't even a joke, per se, it was basically a "see how unhelpful this is"? If I meant his post was bullshit, trust me, I'd say it. And then I'd explain why.

As for the multiple suspicions, let me tell you how I operate. As far as I'm concerned, everyone starts out scum, and I narrow it down to who's the scummiest. The opposite of innocent 'til proven guilty. And those four people are people that I consider it at least a minor possibility that they're scum. But those are just suspicions. We're too early in the game to have an immovable scumlist, and I wouldn't support anyone's lynch yet.

[Phate]

No, FlyingHawk, you misunderstand. I'm not saying that because you're new, you're scum. I'm saying that because you're new, there is a possibility that you'll let something slip if you are scum, and I'm noting what I find slightly odd behaviour in the attempt to find a connection.

[Phate]

No, Phate, YOU misunderstand. I never implied that I thought you said that newbies are scum.

O RLY?

What I do have a problem is with him considering the status of 'Being a newbie' as a scumtell.

That aside, though, I see your point. Ok, let's drop the newbie angle, then - I thought it lent evidence to my point, but obviously not. The core of what I thought was interesting was that two relatively quiet players suddenly popped back up to defend MoS. Even if that turns out to be nothing, I thought it was worth noting.

[Phate]

Spider Jerusalem... hm, the name makes a bit more sense now.

Ummm... Here I think you're just confused I've not said word one to defend Mastermind of Sin, in fact I actually went more in depth into why I thought his behavior seemed a little scummy than anyone else has. Please point me to any place where I defended him.

You know, when I read this post, I was incredulous. But I went back and read through the last few pages, and you're completely right. I don't know how I thought you did. I apologise, and am eating crow.

However, I stand by my original statement - I find you too agreeable. Your points of dissent are always surrounded by things like "I agree with most of this", "I definitely didn't mean to say", and "I could see how I was a little unclear." Perhaps this is just your playstyle, but I don't trust diplomats.

[Phate]

Clearing this up - there is a difference between agreeing and being agreeable. When I say, "He's being too agreeable," you can substitute agreeable for diplomatic, tactful, etc.

[Phate]

Going to agree with MoS on all counts here, I think. The no lynch wagon is odd at best (at least as bad as anything I've done, says I, but no one's asking). I can't think of any situation in this game where no lynch would be better than lynch.

And objectively, my play looks the scummiest right now. So I can't find too much fault with his vote, either.

Miztef, your logic kinda sucks.

You can apply the "But what if he's trium? Safer to no lynch" to any player at any point in the game. If no lynch, we lose 1 town. If lynch, we lose potentially 2 town, true, BUT we gain valuable information by watching others react to the events leading up to the lynch.

Unless there's multiple, opposing scum (mafia+sk, double mafia, mafia+cult, w/e), the town will always have a higher potential probability to hit town than scum. The only way to circumvent this is by analysing players' behaviour, and one of the best (if not just the best, period) ways to do this is to ride a wagon to the end.

For this reason, I can't be anything but vaguely pissed at myself for acting scummy if I'm lynched. Personally, though, I suspect that one of the scum is on the nolynch wagon, and assign a slightly higher probability to each generation of nolynch vote. Your last post makes me think it's probably you, Miztef - or at least, I don't have much better to go on right now.

[Phate]

Oh. Which prompts a

Vote: Miztef

.

[Phate]

That's true, Miztef. I hadn't thought of that.

[Phate]

I thought my post was self-explanatory. I know I'm town, and so do the scum. And Miztef's right - why vote no lynch when there's a possible townie lynch? So that makes the no lynch votes look less scummy to me, even if I disagree. On the other hand, it does reflect very poorly on me, so there's WIFOM there.

[Phate]

I disagree, SJ. I think "us" "those of us in the triumvirate" doesn't necessarily "those of | us in the triumvirate." I think it means "those of us | in the triumvirate." Ok, I'm doing not a very good job of explaining. Hmm. Like, for instance, if he said, "those of us who are scum will probably do this," you'd know he wasn't claiming scum, he meant "us" to mean "the players." I think here, when he says "us," he means the town or all the players. And "those of us (the town/all players) in the triumvirate." If I'm right, the "of us" is redundant - could be better read as "those in the triumvirate". And I think the "trium odds of hitting scum" means "the odds of the people who were assigned the triumvirate's powers to hit the scum."

So I said all that to say that I don't think that possible slip was the possible slip you thought it was.

[Phate]

You first, Flyinghawk.

[Phate]

@FlyingHawk - If, in an open game, someone claims a role that's not listed, they're being sarcastic... especially if they claim something anti-town.

For the record, I'm a dayvig, and the next person to vote me dies.

[Phate]

Gah indeed.

Way to post without contributing anything.

[Phate]

*nods affirmatively*

[Phate]

@Elmo - not terribly surprised. He [MoS] hasn't shown himself to be much for logic so far.

I wouldn't be terribly opposed to a Phate-lynch - there are worse people to lynch - as long as the rest of the town examines the wagon afterwards.

For the record, I'm suspicious of (in order of greatest to least) MoS, Miztef, Cephrir (more because of SJ than anything), and FlyingHawk. Further bulletins as events warrant.

[Phate]

A perfunctory

FoMS: spurgistan

, because I was planning to add him to my list of suspects (as third) but had forgotten, and his latest post reminded me why.

[Phate]

I didn't like the way he tried to sugarcoat his statements - tactlessness is a virtue. More importantly, I don't like the way he stayed quiet and then suddenly became active starting with a defense of MoS. Pretty sure I mentioned all this.

[Phate]

What logic, MoS? You've given me none to evaluate.

Chocolate chip?

[Phate]

Oh, and btw: Consider me an official supporter of the MoS wagon (not that two votes are much of a wagon). In fact, just to get it in bold:

Vote: Mastermind of Sin

That said, I think Miztef is almost as scummy, for different reasons, and would be an official supporter of that wagon also.

[Phate]

Let's see here. Dismissive comments, Fallacy of Negative Premises? Yeah, you're really convincing here. Nice try, Shirley. Why don't you go back to school and take an apple with you next time. Here, I'll give it a spit shine for you. I'm sure your teacher will do her job this time.

I'd just like to say that the above quote sets the tone for the rest of your post - you may as well be talking to yourself.

Incidentally, you need to brush up on your formal fallacies. The Fallacy of Negative Premises, more accurately known as an affirmative conclusion from negative premises, is only committed when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion based on only negative premises.

An example of an affirmative conclusion from negative premises is the following:

Code: Select all

No scummers use logic, and no logical people are wrong, therefore all scummers are wrong.

Are you actually suggesting I've made the above error, and if so, would you like to point it out? Or are you simply throwing around philosophical terms to try to sound intelligent?

In your quoted posts, you make assertions, but with precious little to back them up.

Your first quoted post: "It's not a big deal, guys. I didn't say that was some huge scumtell, I just thought it was worth a vote."

Your second quoted post: "Insert profanity with no fucking explanation here. Insert implication of Phate/Miztef scumpair here, just because Miztef agrees that SJ agrees too much. SJ has good logic. I agree. You're stupid, and you have no business posting anything that implicates me."

Your third quoted post: "This logic is meaningless. The fact that they defended me is not inherently scummy [editor's note: <-- This is an example (I think the first I've seen from you) of logic. Way to go, MoS! Everybody give MoS a hand!]

Your fourth quoted post: "SJ's not too agreeable, and he has good logic. I said this before, so I'll call it 'presenting an argument,' regardless of my lack of any kind of supporting points for this statement, and say you've ignored it."

No, you're right. I haven't given you any logic in this game. Not at all.

That's about the size of it.

Your last paragraph is empty once you take out the elitism and bravado. So a merry Fuck You to you too, good sir.

[Phate]

@spurgistan.

You were second on the no-lynch wagon, you made a seemingly meaningless post on the 12th about how you can't imagine why any scum would claim vanilla (don't really see how this helps town at all, and at worst, it could be an attempt to preemptively cast suspicion on those who claim trium)

[Phate]

@FaerieLord

I didn't say he was inactive, I said he was quiet. There's a difference between being inactive (ie actively lurking) and making filler posts exactly (count 'em, exactly one post per page except P2) once per page. I'd call that quiet. And his posts begin to get much longer as soon as MoS is suspected. I'd call that getting active.

[Phate]

@MoS

Code: Select all

Premise: MoS has given no logic.
Conclusion: MoS is scum.

I have not made anything like that statement. I think the fact that you're reluctant to use logic makes you scummier, but absolute (justified) certainty is hard to come by in mafia.

I'm not going to bother to quote it, but go back and look at the post where I note that all of his points of dissent are covered in things like "I don't disagree with this," "I can see where I was being unclear," etc. I never said he

just

agreed with people.

@FaerieLord

Fine, you're on my suspicion list.

No, seriously. MoS is right - I think he's scum, and therefore, I'm likely to be suspicious of anyone defending him, especially if it looks like he's being ultratactful in order to stay on the public's good side.

@Cephrir

Nonissue. I was attacking him before he left. Besides, anyone who replaces in as someone under suspicion can use that excuse to try to clear themselves.

[Phate]

Neither.

"MoS is right - I think he's scum" = "MoS is right - I think MoS is scum"

[Phate]

Ok, I think I'm running a perfect nohitter for people understanding my use of pronouns. Let's revise this.

Fine, you're [editor's note: FaerieLord] on my [editor's note: Phate] suspicion list.

No, seriously. MoS [editor's note: MastermindOfSin] is right - I think he's [editor's note: MastermindOfSin] scum, and therefore, I'm [editor's note: Phate] likely to be suspicious of anyone [editor's note: hypothetical scenario pointed at SpiderJerusalem] defending him [editor's note: MastermindOfSin], especially if it looks like he's [editor's note: talking about SpiderJerusalem now] being ultratactful in order to stay on the public's [editor's note: the players in Triumvirate mafia] good side.

Will respond to the rest of your post when I have more time, MoS.

[Phate]

Massclaiming means trading the triumvirate for the possibility of getting all the scum. It's a gamble at best. My first thought is to say no. At the very least, I think we need to think before people start randomly claiming.

[Phate]

Ceph - remember my comment to Spurgistan... hang on, here it is.

you made a seemingly meaningless post on the 12th about how you can't imagine why any scum would claim vanilla (don't really see how this helps town at all, and at worst, it could be an attempt to preemptively cast suspicion on those who claim trium)

Same principle here, if different details. How does your post help town? If you two are both scum (which I think is a possibility), you might as well be saying, "We should claim trium." "No, I disagree, we should claim vanilla." If you're not, what possible benefit does it have to the town to suggest a nolynch (beneficial to scum) if all scum claim vanilla?

[Phate]

*totally misunderstood Ceph's post*

Ok, you should all ignore me.

[Phate]

Since massclaim seems to be the general consensus, I would agree to a massclaim.

[Phate]

Ok, lemme just speak for my fellow townies on this one - don't lie. It hurts town. See http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... _All_Liars.

[Phate]

LAL applies to mafia, too. If you're mafia, claim mafia. Otherwise, we'll lynch you.

*eyebrow waggle*

[Phate]

Incidentally, the link doesn't work because I accidentally added a period to the end.

Corrected link: http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... _All_Liars

[Phate]

Ok, let's assume the scum are at least as smart as we are (anything else could be fatal, obv). An explanation of why you think a massclaim will/won't help town is not unreasonable. At the very least, you'll help to get other players to start thinking on their own. I'm not seeing a reason to be "tightlipped" about it. Face it; someone just suggested that townies should lie, not knowing about LAL. And as MoS will be happy to tell you, I'm too new to know what I'm doing.

I vote do it.

[Phate]

Elmo, any thoughts?

[Phate]

On the massclaim, I mean. You're the only one who isn't up for it yet.

[Phate]

I think it's good for town. The first bit is axiomatically correct, but I hadn't thought about the odds for success between powerroles. I think I know what the best claiming pattern for scum is (naturally, I won't mention it until after we claim), but I still think it's good for town. Being able to further narrow down who the scum could be is great.

[Phate]

*fed up* Does anyone else plainly see the problem with FlyingHawk and his objection? Because if I'm the only one, I'll stay quiet about it until/unless we claim, but if everyone else sees it I might as well explain it to him.

[Phate]

FaerieLord, what the hell are you talking about? "The 6 triumvirates are townies" = ???

[Phate]

Miztef - that's a good idea, but one problem - it's likely (or at least possible) scum have thought this out beforehand. Even if they haven't, it's not likely that they'll claim all the same.

[Phate]

There is a reason not to do it. If they don't all claim the same way, like if 2 claim trium and 1 claim vanilla, then we're fucked. They know the identities of the triumvirate, and will kill them off 1 at a time. Meanwhile, we'll be stuck looking for the 1 scum in the pool of 7 vanilla claimers. It's better odds to just search for the 3 scum in the pool of 12 players.

[Phate]

My stand is that an encrypted massclaim is superior in every way to an ordinary massclaim.... BUT, I'm still against the idea of a massclaim (After thinking about the possible splits in mafia claiming, I decided that it would be a nightmare).

[Phate]

Unvote

Vote: FaerieLord

Reasons forthcoming later tonight.

[Phate]

Incidentally, what is V/LA? Vacation/Leave of Absence?

Ok, I've been thinking about the massclaim. Specifically, not about the massclaim in a vacuum, but about the massclaim compared to a delayed claim. This is probably basic Mafia theory for most of you, but it's the first time I've really thought about it. We all agree, I think, that a 5-7 or 4-8 split would be horrendous for town (except FaerieLord). However, know this: whatever the scum have decided on, be it 5-7 or 4-8 or w/e, we're still going to have that. It will just happen as scum come under suspicion and are forced to claim.

The only difference is that if we massclaim, we'll have that plus the scum know who the triums are. So I think massclaiming would be beneficial to scum.

[Phate]

Because if we reveal it all now, the scum will have their next nightkill or two laid out for them.

[Phate]

Ditto Ceph.

If I'm allowed to give a percentage, though, I'd set it at 65%, where 100% equals I'd push the lynch to the exclusion of all others, 0% means I absolutely would do everything I could to derail the wagon, and 50% is unsure.

[Phate]

His last post was one of the things that bumped that percentage from 40 to 65. Making a 180-degree turn not based on any evidence but on the threat of a lynch.

[Phate]

MoS, after thinking about this, what's your opinion of Faerie?

Elmo, what do you think of Faerie's behaviour?

[Phate]

Mod: Votecount please?

[Phate]

Why the new wagon, MoS?

[Phate]

Hmm. Good point.

I like the FL lynch better.

[Phate]

However, I stand by my original statement - I find you too agreeable. Your points of dissent are always surrounded by things like "I agree with most of this", "I definitely didn't mean to say", and "I could see how I was a little unclear." Perhaps this is just your playstyle, but I don't trust diplomats.

[Phate]

That's directed towards Elmo.

[Phate]

Hope you live that long.

[Phate]

I had a nice rant on this on a newbie game I was in. Let me go fetch it.

[Phate]

I'd like to remind you all that we're not here to make friends or hold grudges. We're here to win the game. The Mafia are staging a brutal takeover of the town, systematically butchering its inhabitants. We're a bloodthirsty lynch mob, seeking revenge for the deaths of our neighbors by pre-emptively murdering one among us every day. There's no reason to be an asshole just for the sake of being an asshole (unless you get a perverse glee from it, likely related to repressed feelings of inadequacy, like I do). There is equally no reason to be pleasant just for the sake of being pleasant. Anyone touting a cup of tea and a "Howdy, neighbor!" could just as easily (if not more easily) be scum trying to get you to like them (or worse: connect the two of you in the rest of the town's mind), as opposed to an innocent townie. Don't fall for the trick of letting an older player (even if it's me) pat you on the head and tell you, "Good job." That's what we call appeal to emotion, and should always and immediately be viewed with suspicion. Basically, anytime anyone does anything, think about what their motive is. Personally, I automatically distrust people who post nice things about me without backing up those nice things with evidence and logic.

[Phate]

I agree. I saw this when he pointed out the post to you and I went back and reread it.

What I find also notable is that he says he's fine with going after me if there's a backing for the motion, rather than actually arguing for my lynch and presenting the cases that will make the backing for the motion. Of course, he might have just been subtly hinting for his scumbuddies to vote for me, but that's less likely, I think.

[Phate]

Mod: request a votecount

[Phate]

Unfortunately, I don't think the FL lynch is going to happen today. So in light of that, and in light of reanalysing that post, and in light of not caring enough to do a decent reread, I officially

Unvote

Vote: Miztef

[Phate]

A nolynch is strictly better than the lynch of a townie.
Asking for a vanilla to claim (especially after someone already has claimed vanilla) is more likely to produce vanillas claiming vanillas than it is to produce scum claiming vanilla.
Lynching randomly is probably better than lynching someone who claims vanilla and volunteers themselves as the lynch.
Lynching based on suspicions is better than lynching someone who claims vanilla and volunteers themselves as the lynch.

Vote: MoS

because after a reread, I think I was correct in my initial suspicion of him, and if he turns out to be a townie after all, he will be decreasingly active in his games. I don't really want to be part of an endgame with a lurker.

Ceph, remind me why you're voting skitzer.

[Phate]

It is hypocritical, Ceph, and your "I realise this, but he's worse" doesn't change that.

[Phate]

Also, Miztef, I don't really like your idea. Maybe once deadline approaches, but as it is I think at the very least we can talk it out some more, and very probably we can agree on someone we think is scum.

[Phate]

Miztef>Mastermind of Sin>Cephrir>Thin_Man>Spurgistan>Rishi>SSF=skitzer=Sir Tornado>Mizzy>Elmo>Phate

[Phate]

My vote stands on Miztef. I'm getting a very strong town read from TrustGossip.

[Phate]

This is me posting.


I'm finding it difficult to care about this game, actually. This is way too long of a D1. Someone needs to die. I'd prefer Miztef, but at this point I'd be willing to accept MoS or Thin_man if I can't get Miztef.

[Phate]

I'm suspicious of the way Elmo keeps asking Mizzy to analyze posts for him. He implies that there is something to be found in a post and then sends someone off to find out what it is, without having to do any of the work himself.

It's a good way to send people on a wild goose chase without having to be responsible for the results.

Bullshit.

Asking someone what's up with someone else's post is at least as good as pointing it out yourself. If there's nothing to be found in a post, they'll tell you so - it won't send them on a "wild goose chase". Besides, looking at past posts is scumhunting.

You know this. Why am I having to tell you this?

[Phate]

When logical players use crap logic, it's notable enough for me to post for. Also, the likelihood of my posting increases as we near the weekend. Also, I don't like him.

[Phate]

For what, exactly?

[Phate]

Unvote
Vote: Miztef

I had thought I'd done that a long time ago.

[Phate]

For what, exactly?

Actually, after having done a quick re-read, I find most of the posts you've made since way back to when the FL wagon was ending have been empty...what little there is in them feels scummy but there's so damned little that I don't want to vote just yet.

Most notably, I find these scummy:

Unfortunately, I don't think the FL lynch is going to happen today. So in light of that, and in light of reanalysing that post, and in light of not caring enough to do a decent reread, I officially

Unvote
Vote: Miztef

Hanging onto what I consider a BS wagon and finally letting go begrudgingly.

I was hanging onto a wagon that I considered to be viable. It's a Day 1 lynch, we don't have much to go on, and I was sick of Day 1 even then.

Vote: MoS because after a reread, I think I was correct in my initial suspicion of him, and if he turns out to be a townie after all, he will be decreasingly active in his games. I don't really want to be part of an endgame with a lurker.

Scum love lynching lurkers, yes they do! Easy kills.

Yeah, they do like lynching lurkers. That's not actually what I was proposing, though. Read what you're quoting and see what I wrote: 1) I think he's scum and my initial suspicions were correct, and 2) as an afterthought, his potential for being an endgame lurker is icing on his lynch's cake.

My vote stands on Miztef. I'm getting a very strong town read from TrustGossip.

You never actually voted Miztef. Your vote was on MoS.

Fixed that.

Asking someone what's up with someone else's post is at least as good as pointing it out yourself. If there's nothing to be found in a post, they'll tell you so - it won't send them on a "wild goose chase".

No, having someone else do your scumhunting for you is not really part of the game. It is a good way, as it was already said, of getting the info out there without catching blame yourself.

Pointing out someone's post and asking someone else what's up with it != having someone else do your scumhunting for you. I honestly can't see that as a viable scumtactic

at all

.

Incidently, that one one of the meatiest posts you've written in ages. You have "I'm active-lurking!" written all kindsa over you.

Do a recent meta of me. Watch my post count drop sharply in the last few months, then gradually begin to recuperate, with my 'meaty' post located almost exclusively on or near weekends. Things are going on in my life that takes precedence over mafia, but they're coming to an end, and I will have more time soon.

[Phate]

Mizzy, I would not inflict this game on either the mod or the replacement unless I really, really hated them. In fact, the only players I hate so much that I'd inflict this game on them wouldn't be valid choices anyway because I wouldn't inflict them on you guys.

I am okay with Elmo's method. I can't fathom what you mean by "more than okay".

[Phate]

@mizzy: flak from me? Where?

[Phate]

I don't believe you.

[Phate]

I don't believe him because every single aspect of his play so far has been indicative of scum hunting the triums rather than triums trying to blend in with the townies.

Why the

HELL

would a Trium member advocate a massclaim? Come on, people. I would have believed a vanilla claim out of Miztef much faster than a trium claim. Not too long ago he was talking about how claims are irrelevant - that was because he found it more likely that he was going to get a trium lynched than to be close to lynch himself. Now, naturally, he's changed his mind.

Nothing in Miztef's prior play has suggested trium at all. No breadcrumbs, nothing.

Someone has already mentioned that we can't just go "oh, ok" and meekly unvote every time anyone claims triumvirate. Because, you know, scum lie sometimes.

[Phate]

I'm disappointed that the Mizteflynch looks like it's not going to work out. I'm near-positive he's scum. His claim feels so fake that it's unbelievable any of you are falling for it.

I would much rather a Mizteflynch than a Cephlynch. If it has to be between me and Ceph, though...

Unvote
Vote: Cephrir

[Phate]

Elmo: Read Miztef's claim again, in context. Compare it with his earlier play. It feels egregiously fake to me. Honestly, I can't see how you all don't see it. Although he claims otherwise, none of his play so far has struck me as trium at all; instead, it has struck me as trying to

find

the trium.

Those voting me: Why?

I agree with CES (mostly) and I am deeply in favour of a Mizteflynch. I would gladly hammer.

[Phate]

For the second time,

Miztef has yet to give a good reason to have advocated a massclaim

. "I was skeert, guys!" is not adequate explanation.

The triumvirate would not want a massclaim. After a massclaim, the triumvirate would all die by either nightkilling or possibly lynching. Why would Miztef advocate this as a triumvirate member?

[Phate]

That doesn't add up with what he said earlier, though. He said his motivation was fear/stress. That was in the post or two after he claimed; go read it. That's not "What's best for town?"

[Phate]

I claim townie.

[Phate]

Think that's a lynch. I'm kind of pissed, but I'm more relieved that I'm out of this game; it's been an endeavour.

I officially recommend that you lynch Miztef tomorrow.

[Phate]

What exactly would you like me to respond to?

[Phate]

*shrug* You haven't given me anything to defend against. There's no compelling reason why I shouldn't be lynched by deadline majority, but the same could be said of any townie.

[Phate]

I agree totally with that, TrustGossip. I can't think of any reason why Mizteftown would play like Miztef has, and nor can I think of any reason why Miztefscum would make that post without going into wifom territory. I'm conflicted.

[Phate]

Oh. I get it. Miztef isn't looking for a townielynch; he's looking for a triumlynch. THAT explains the 180.

[Phate]

Miztef, the only way you'll be confirmed trium tomorrow is if you're dead tomorrow.

What else would explain your complete 180 from "Phate is scum" to "Nah, prolly not"?