<Mini 435> Julius Caesar Mafia, Player Abandoned

[TBuG]

noted

: In Illumina's post 89 it is pointed out that the mod did use red text right after guardian failed to do so. Intriging to say the least.

Note that the action mentioned was not intended to actually be relevant in any way.

[Illumina]

...Or is it? =P

*Mod slaps Illumina* =P

All it ever was was a possibility. Trying to outguess the mod = bad. Moving onward.

Also, being inclined to vote for Guardian just because his restriction is annoying is also bad play.

That's all for now, busy with finals.

[Patrick]

Guardian, I'm not voting you for anything to do with your post restriction. I'm a little suspicious of Phoebus because he seems to have no good reason for voting Guardian. He just claims to be annoyed with the post restriction.

[Miztef]

I think I'm gonna push the

vote: phoebus

bandwagon.

After reviewing both guardian's and phoebus's posts, I have to say that phoebus has displayed more scummy behavior then I had orginally thought.

1) in post 94 pheobus seems overdefensive and has not explained his reasoning behind the guardian vote after being asked. He just seems annoyed at guardian.

2) post 83, phoebus blantently disregards the possiblility that a good pro-town power role would have a post restriction like guardian's. I don't see why it is not a possibility at least, and I think any other pro-town role would think the same.

3) It seems his defence for some of his actions is "If I was the mod, iI wouldn't do it that way". This is just being illogical, the mod can make the roles however he wants, and blantant restrictions are completely fine with me. (posts 93, 94)

maybe I'm just clutching straws here, but something is definately fishy with pheobus. I also do not want to risk lynching a jester or very good power role with guardian, at least not day 1.

[Phoebus]

good. go on pushing that.


my stand is crystal clear I believe.


1] Don't like the restriction.
2] Could do without Guardian

3] Have no concrete information about Guardian being scum (refer to points 1 and 2]
4] Have retracted certain statements and assumptions made earlier, mentioning them having their Genesis in previously indicated annoyance with restriction.

5] Don't have anyone else to go on at the moment. I am not someone who votes for themselves.

Do no twist my words beyond this.

[Miztef]

I just checked the player list... has nightfall ever posted? Been replaced?

[Eteocles]

Hmm... I thought he had... I guess not...

Mod

: Please Prod Nightfall

[Eteocles]

Also EmpTyger has not posted

[Illumina]

2] Could do without Guardian
3] Have no concrete information about Guardian being scum

So what you're saying is, you have nothing to suggest he's scum but we ought to kill someone and it may as well be him because his restriction is annoying?

[Eteocles]

Phoebus wrote:
2] Could do without Guardian
3] Have no concrete information about Guardian being scum

So what you're saying is, you have nothing to suggest he's scum but we ought to kill someone and it may as well be him because his restriction is annoying?

I agree, I don't see how an annoying post restiction (although I do agree that I don't like it) Is good enough reason to lynch someone... Especially when that post restriction may indicate a power-role...

[ryan]

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

[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.

[ryan]

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.

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

[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.

[Guardian]

unvote vote: Phoebus

; I don't really

have much to go on

at this point in terms of accusations and that frustrates me.

[Lawrencelot]

Yeah Nightfall and Emptyger have to post. Something else: I don't know who said it (Phoebus I thought), but someone asked Guardian if his votes don't count at all. Is this true Guardian? From what I understood, Guardian's vote do count but they don't reflect who Guardian thinks is scum, only his FOSes say who guardian thinks is scum.

Oh and confirm vote: Phoebus. His latest posts are clear as he said himself, but they're scummy too. Your reasons to vote guardian won't do it for me. This has nothing to do with the above btw.

It seems that sarcastro is attacking ryan a bit. Here's what I think of it: sarcastro accused ryan of planning not to contribute to the game until the lurkers post. Ryan never said from what I can understand, he will just hang with his random vote until then. That's not bad, but I agree with sarcastro that ryan should contribute, although ryan never said he wouldn't do that.

[Miztef]

Phoebus's post does nothing to deter me. I have noted that those 2 are lurking/not contributing but I don't think we should lynch anyone until they have posted some explaination for their non-participation.

@lawrencelot: guardian's vote was vounted in the last vote count, so I am inclined to think it does count, but he did state that it's his FOS's that show who he truly believes is scummy.

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.

[Lawrencelot]

Yeah that's what I thought about guardian's votes too. About ryan and sarcastro: I didn't think it was scummy, I just thought I should give my opinion, to contribute to the discussion.

Mod: please prod nightfall and EmpTyger.

What about VanDamien, he also didn't post for some time now.

[TBuG]

OMGYAUS VOTING

Guardian

[3] Patrick - Sarcastro - Phoebus

Phoebus

[3] lawrencelot - Guardian - Miztef

Eteocles

[1] VanDamien

Sarcastro

[1] Eteocles

Patrick

[1] ryan

7 to... die.

Nightfall and VanDamien will be prodded. EmpTyger has a good reason to not be posting, so no action will be taken unless his absence is prolonged much further.

[VanDamien]

That's because I've been debating posting something which may or may not be a good idea, in regards to the rolename discussion. Here goes.

Two things continue to bother me about the no role name for vanilla claim. And yes, I'm not vanilla either. The number of non-vanilla is growing rapidly.

1) There are sooooo many names to choose from, and this is a relatively small game, why not give the vanillas a name? From the themed games I've read in the past, they are more often than not.

2)With our roles at 50% until "THE EVENT" duh-duh-duhhh, I consider it possible that there are NO vanilla townies in this set-up, without it necessarily overpowering.

At this point, I'd prefer discussion to be limited on those points, and not for another vanilla to claim, if they exsist.

[Miztef]

That's because I've been debating posting something which may or may not be a good idea, in regards to the rolename discussion. Here goes.

Two things continue to bother me about the no role name for vanilla claim. And yes, I'm not vanilla either. The number of non-vanilla is growing rapidly.

1) There are sooooo many names to choose from, and this is a relatively small game, why not give the vanillas a name? From the themed games I've read in the past, they are more often than not.

2)With our roles at 50% until "THE EVENT" duh-duh-duhhh,

I consider it possible that there are NO vanilla townies in this set-up, without it necessarily overpowering.

At this point, I'd prefer discussion to be limited on those points, and not for another vanilla to claim, if they exsist.

You bring a surprising point. We have no confirmed cases or even claims by vanilla's other then lawrenelot. However, if he was scum, I really believe he would not risk stating that he is a unnamed, as he would probably believe there is 1 vanilla willing to counter him if this is wrong.

[Phoebus]

So what you're saying is, you have nothing to suggest he's scum but we ought to kill someone and it may as well be him because his restriction is annoying?

Essentially, yes.
And making no bones about it.

[Illumina]

How does that help the town? We're not going to lynch someone because you find it annoying to read his posts.

Vote: Phoebus

.

[Patrick]

I'm unsure whether to switch my vote to Phoebus right now. I don't know how likely he'd be as scum to draw this much attention to himself by pushing through such a blatantly crap agenda as lynching someone for having a post restriction. It worries me.

[Phoebus]

How does that help the town? We're not going to lynch someone because you find it annoying to read his posts.

Vote: Phoebus

.

Right. But you go ahead and vote for someone who is doing something

you

don't like. And this behaviour doesn't even come with a hidden agenda.