[Silencer]

 Tattersail, on 23 January 2013 - 07:20 AM, said:

Read up. Very strange turn of events. Silencers posts look like desperation. He's been On all that time and didn't refer to my post once. Hinter thinks he found a reveal were he cannot ask questions on, lady bliss is drunk and I missed it, damn we could have gotten frisky

Yes, yes, desperation. (Over one vote, lol) Not tearing Hinter a new one for playing atrociously, like I've been doing to one person or another for the entire game. And Hinter's not just "not asking questions"; he's not posting any detail or responses at all.

And if by your post you mean this:

 Tattersail, on 22 January 2013 - 10:11 PM, said:

Right its not going to work you'll have to wait until tomorrow.

In response to Lady Bliss, it could be Tapper. I think it could also be Silencer. At a stretch Sixty.

I personally think Silencer. His mafia 101 post above about lynching. Then his non vote or choosing to abstain today. There's a post somewhere playing down lynching Blend or should I say there is not much merit in a Blend or Tatts lynch
I'll look for that tomorrow.

Bonecasters post above about his favourite character being Blend doesn't sir right but I'm putting that down to being a newb.

Sixty I'll have to look more at, reading some of his posts above combined with the start of day two irk me somewhat but I cannot put a finger on it.

Some discussion tonight from all you would be good.

I'm not sure what it's supposed to merit in terms of being referred to. There is a fine line between voting night, not lynching when you can, and not slapping down a sloppy vote on no evidence at what is rapidly approaching d-day, my boy. If we had failed to get a lynch you might have a vague point, but there is such a thing as leaving it up to others to vote - especially with ~11 hours on the clock and the possibility that I *might* have been back. "Always lynch" might be mafia 101 but it's not the same thing as "always vote".

Oh, and before you press too heavily on the "Silencer is scum" angle:

 Hinter, on 22 January 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

Just been going through thread from day one to find one of my own quotes and came across the following

 Tattersail, on 16 January 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

Silencer, you've been missed. My play style is loosely based on yours but with less caliber and definitely not as smooth ha.

As it is altless what are we looking out for? How will we have a good indication that we have caught scum?

Obviously Silencer replied with an eight page essay as he always seems to do, and Tatts is far too experienced for such obvious symping, but...

*snip*

 Hinter, on 23 January 2013 - 05:38 AM, said:

 Silencer, on 23 January 2013 - 04:56 AM, said:

There was a time when it was the height of rudeness to accuse someone of lying about RL reasons for being absent. It was similarly frowned upon greatly to actually lie about RL reasons. Why? Because in the event someone does actually have RL reasons it's not fair to them to be unable to play without having a legitimate excuse - and therefore claiming to have RL reasons when you don't is meta-lying, which is not the same thing as playing the game lying. I come from that time. If you are seriously accusing me of lying about RL, I will request a modkill. It is THAT big of a thing for me.

As for anything else to do with Blend, I'm at a loss. You're saying that I'm connected, by virtue of not being connected. That's counter-intuitive and gives rise to a tautology. That's just silly.

East tiger. Show me a post anywhere on this board where I have called someone a liar and I will never darken it's doors again.

If I had RL reasons then it is not an "excuse" for not being on the lynch - it's a reason I *couldn't* be on the lynch. To accuse me of using it as an excuse is basically to accuse me of lying about the existence of said RL - otherwise it's not really relevant at all, my statements tally up perfectly and there's no substance to your point.




I think it's telling that Sixty and I are on the same page here. I'd like to hear Tapper's thoughts (who hasn't been around much, unfortunately; though I note that Hinter only started in on the Bonecaster thing when Tapper had a vote...), and I'd really, REALLY like Hinter to go deeper with his case, if there is deeper.

[Tattersail_]

You've said that a few times now, but it doesn't fly with me, you posted quite a lot yesterday elsewhere on the forum. I was around the forum most of the day, clicking on new content.. (I'm only mentioning this because you are using it as a defense mind) and you posted throughout the day. Fair enough that you had RL issues but you did have time to post on the board and if that is the case you could have done a quick catch up and give us more on your thoughts. In fact, you where here most of the first two days so you would have had an opinion on yesterdays lynch target. The fact that you didn't vote him even though you insisted on us needing to lynch every day is telling. Yes lynch doesn't equal vote but we need votes to lynch no?

[Silencer]

 Hinter, on 23 January 2013 - 12:25 AM, said:

From the first few pages Blend and Boner's connection is close enough for me.

vote Bonecaster


Now to find the fourth member of the gang.

And in case you're wondering, Hinter, this is why I'm curious about who exactly you think is "on my team" - Assuming (from your chain of logic) that Blend = 1, Bonecaster = 2, and I am #3, who was four? the Dude? Whom I practically got lynched? Khell, who was NK'd? Gnaw, who was NK'd? See, you're so dead-set on the four-person-team thing, that you seem to be missing some obvious logic. Now, what this means, is that you're either being a bit silly, not only buying wholesale into the story Blend gave (not exactly smart, if your presumption is that he was scum), or you know something the rest of us don't. Like, alignment of the dead. Or perhaps you're claiming to be another Finder? Or you're scum who happens to know the truth and so therefore can swing shit around with abandon, seeing as it doesn't really matter who you lynch, as long as we miss the obvious.

Now, I know what you're going to say: one of those NK's could have been an accidental team-kill. That kinda falls through the second you accused me of being Bonecaster's master, though - because if the master knows his symps or underlings, then there could be no accidental team kill. Do the math. The numbers you're playing with don't add up. And that's even *assuming* you're right about Blend - which is not guaranteed, even if he did appear to stick his foot in his mouth at one point there.

Now you can argue "slip of the tongue" in saying I'm the "fourth man" - what you meant was third man of four, implying there are three scum still alive. But that's not what you said. That's not what you've been running with since then. Which means we have a problem. Do you see why I keep asking questions? Your posts don't make SENSE.

[Tattersail_]

 Khellendros, on 19 January 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

 Silencer, on 19 January 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

I don't think anyone is claiming definitive proof - it's just vastly more likely that 1) a scum would take that kind of risk, and 2) they wouldn't be modkilled for it. Of course, my argument is that, actually, the Dude WAS fully cognizant of the rules, and was pushing his luck in order to try and control the thread like a boss. It's a brilliant play by scum. It's a horrific play by Town; and with no way to verify the claim as we normally would be able to, leaving the Dude alive is just begging for the WIFOM to come bite us in the ass later.

Hmm, it's clearly NOT a brilliant play by scum if the Dude is that, as he's all but getting lynched. I would argue that it's a stupid play no matter what role you are - as if the rules had been paid attention to, you would have known that what happened with Bubba coming out was inevitable.

If the Dude is scum, he is far more likely in my opinion to be a symp than a killer. I do think we should take a look and see if anyone stands out as the most likely people he might be protecting/deflecting from.

Quote

Which had to have been me or Blend

 Silencer, on 19 January 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

Yeah, the pileup on this one has been startlingly swift. I guess people are a bit frustrated at the outcome of Day One (what with the board outage and all), but it's still overkill. Though I'm hurt that you'd think I would just *say* something like that to seem more inno. In all seriousness, the pileon is concerning, no doubt.

I haven't looked into the NK too hard - there's WIFOM enough on this thread already. But probing his interactions on day one is probably worthwhile, even if I can't really bring myself to comb back over that madness just yet. XD

Yeah, you're right that part of the pile-on at least could be frustration from day 1. I still think it looks somewhat dodgy though.


Here's a sudden thought which has just occurred to me:

- The Dude is a symp.

- HO is a killer.

The Dude makes a play which he thinks will be identified as most likely symp play, and sacrifices himself to all but CI HiddenOne for the rest of the game. High-risk maybe, but if that really is the strategy, then you could say it's working perfectly right now. Not sure how likely it could be, but I think it is something else to keep in mind.


I will look through the Dude's (and Gnaw's) posts at some point today.

Khell makes a good point above, I have also replied to your underlined with the quote underneath it.

Another thing stuck out to me is that you say it is brilliant play by scum which is like you clapping your hands to The Dude.

 Lizradus, on 19 January 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

11 Players still alive: Blend, Bonecaster, Dude, Hiddenone, Hinter, Khell, Lady Bliss, Silencer, Sixty, Tapper, Tattersail

6 votes to lynch, 6 votes to go to night.

2 Votes for Tattersail ( Sixty, Blend )
1 Vote for Hiddenone ( Dude )
4 Votes for Dude ( Hinter, Bonecaster, Hiddenone, Tapper )

Players not voted: Khell, Lady Bliss, Silencer, Tattersail

It looks as though The Dude's lynch is inevitable so it is safe for you to vote him.

 Silencer, on 20 January 2013 - 12:51 AM, said:

Well if there was one quick-fire way to get me to place my vote back, it was going to be fatalism.

Vote the Dude

Which I believe puts him back at L-1.

[Silencer]

 Tattersail, on 23 January 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

You've said that a few times now, but it doesn't fly with me, you posted quite a lot yesterday elsewhere on the forum. I was around the forum most of the day, clicking on new content.. (I'm only mentioning this because you are using it as a defense mind) and you posted throughout the day. Fair enough that you had RL issues but you did have time to post on the board and if that is the case you could have done a quick catch up and give us more on your thoughts. In fact, you where here most of the first two days so you would have had an opinion on yesterdays lynch target. The fact that you didn't vote him even though you insisted on us needing to lynch every day is telling. Yes lynch doesn't equal vote but we need votes to lynch no?

I'm going to call meta on that one - and moreover you seem to underestimate the amount of time it takes to read up.

Being able to drop a post here or there is not the same as committing to reading up mafia. And I'm pretty sure there was a massive chunk of time you're condensing, 'coz I was hard at my assignment. Which I should in fact still be working on atm. Ugh.

And I gave you my opinion on Blend - either you or he should have been lynched day one. Because we failed at that, and because frankly neither of you are likely to be scum anyway (how often do we hit scum day one?), I personally did not want to get stuck on you both for the rest of the game and waste two days lynching you both - not without a CF. And what, might I ask, did we do in the end? Oh yeah. Got hung up on it. Not to mention you've had a hard-on for Blend since day one in that regard, and have consistently pushed for his lynch despite the fact that it was a waste of time to spend all that effort on the fight you two were having.

As for my not voting, what part of "eleven hours on the clock and I don't want to throw down a careless vote on a stupid case when I might or might not be back on before day end" do you not understand? There were plenty of other people to lynch Blend and do you really think I'd abstain from voting if I was partnered with him? Because that would be, as is no doubt apparent, a no-win situation. Whereas if I had dropped a vote on him then left he'd have even odds of not being lynched, and if he was then I wouldn't be facing any scrutiny over it today, would I? THAT would have been distancing, which would have made a hell of a lot more sense than actively posting on thread saying "I'm abstaining from voting on this one guys".

I'm also waiting on YOUR opinion on Hinter's case on Bonecaster (in case you haven't noticed, his "case" on me rests solely on Bonecaster's presumed (symp?) guilt).

[Tattersail_]

 Silencer, on 23 January 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

 Hinter, on 23 January 2013 - 12:25 AM, said:

From the first few pages Blend and Boner's connection is close enough for me.

vote Bonecaster


Now to find the fourth member of the gang.

And in case you're wondering, Hinter, this is why I'm curious about who exactly you think is "on my team" - Assuming (from your chain of logic) that Blend = 1, Bonecaster = 2, and I am #3, who was four? the Dude? Whom I practically got lynched? Khell, who was NK'd? Gnaw, who was NK'd? See, you're so dead-set on the four-person-team thing, that you seem to be missing some obvious logic. Now, what this means, is that you're either being a bit silly, not only buying wholesale into the story Blend gave (not exactly smart, if your presumption is that he was scum), or you know something the rest of us don't. Like, alignment of the dead. Or perhaps you're claiming to be another Finder? Or you're scum who happens to know the truth and so therefore can swing shit around with abandon, seeing as it doesn't really matter who you lynch, as long as we miss the obvious.

Now, I know what you're going to say: one of those NK's could have been an accidental team-kill. That kinda falls through the second you accused me of being Bonecaster's master, though - because if the master knows his symps or underlings, then there could be no accidental team kill. Do the math. The numbers you're playing with don't add up. And that's even *assuming* you're right about Blend - which is not guaranteed, even if he did appear to stick his foot in his mouth at one point there.

Now you can argue "slip of the tongue" in saying I'm the "fourth man" - what you meant was third man of four, implying there are three scum still alive. But that's not what you said. That's not what you've been running with since then. Which means we have a problem. Do you see why I keep asking questions? Your posts don't make SENSE.

I hate to say it but I agree with this post. I think Hinter is going off what Blend said about a four person scum team, or that is what I thought he was going on about but did Blend say everyone is scum? Which is just wrong. If he thought that then maybe PS was slipping him lies in the whispers at the end of the scenes.

[Silencer]

 Tattersail, on 23 January 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

 Khellendros, on 19 January 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

 Silencer, on 19 January 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

I don't think anyone is claiming definitive proof - it's just vastly more likely that 1) a scum would take that kind of risk, and 2) they wouldn't be modkilled for it. Of course, my argument is that, actually, the Dude WAS fully cognizant of the rules, and was pushing his luck in order to try and control the thread like a boss. It's a brilliant play by scum. It's a horrific play by Town; and with no way to verify the claim as we normally would be able to, leaving the Dude alive is just begging for the WIFOM to come bite us in the ass later.

Hmm, it's clearly NOT a brilliant play by scum if the Dude is that, as he's all but getting lynched. I would argue that it's a stupid play no matter what role you are - as if the rules had been paid attention to, you would have known that what happened with Bubba coming out was inevitable.

If the Dude is scum, he is far more likely in my opinion to be a symp than a killer. I do think we should take a look and see if anyone stands out as the most likely people he might be protecting/deflecting from.

Quote

Which had to have been me or Blend

 Silencer, on 19 January 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

Yeah, the pileup on this one has been startlingly swift. I guess people are a bit frustrated at the outcome of Day One (what with the board outage and all), but it's still overkill. Though I'm hurt that you'd think I would just *say* something like that to seem more inno. In all seriousness, the pileon is concerning, no doubt.

I haven't looked into the NK too hard - there's WIFOM enough on this thread already. But probing his interactions on day one is probably worthwhile, even if I can't really bring myself to comb back over that madness just yet. XD

Yeah, you're right that part of the pile-on at least could be frustration from day 1. I still think it looks somewhat dodgy though.


Here's a sudden thought which has just occurred to me:

- The Dude is a symp.

- HO is a killer.

The Dude makes a play which he thinks will be identified as most likely symp play, and sacrifices himself to all but CI HiddenOne for the rest of the game. High-risk maybe, but if that really is the strategy, then you could say it's working perfectly right now. Not sure how likely it could be, but I think it is something else to keep in mind.


I will look through the Dude's (and Gnaw's) posts at some point today.

Khell makes a good point above, I have also replied to your underlined with the quote underneath it.

Which what where? Clarify please. XD Either your quotes are a bit off or I'm missing "my underlined"...

Quote

Another thing stuck out to me is that you say it is brilliant play by scum which is like you clapping your hands to The Dude.

 Lizradus, on 19 January 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

11 Players still alive: Blend, Bonecaster, Dude, Hiddenone, Hinter, Khell, Lady Bliss, Silencer, Sixty, Tapper, Tattersail

6 votes to lynch, 6 votes to go to night.

2 Votes for Tattersail ( Sixty, Blend )
1 Vote for Hiddenone ( Dude )
4 Votes for Dude ( Hinter, Bonecaster, Hiddenone, Tapper )

Players not voted: Khell, Lady Bliss, Silencer, Tattersail

It looks as though The Dude's lynch is inevitable so it is safe for you to vote him.

 Silencer, on 20 January 2013 - 12:51 AM, said:

Well if there was one quick-fire way to get me to place my vote back, it was going to be fatalism.

Vote the Dude

Which I believe puts him back at L-1.

Hmm, yeah, except I was the one who started the Dude's train. Pressed him like fuck. Removed vote because people were being silly given the amount of time we had left, then when the Dude was clearly not going to give us much of a response put him back at L-1. That's hardly "safe" play.
As for it being brilliant scum play - it was, assuming he was scum. Which we did. Of course, we, and oh wait, that was me again, pointed out the fucking upsides to his plans. So ya'll should have been well aware of who to look out for based on his play - I do note that HiddenOne has been really, really quiet, and that he hasn't had much heat. That's not good.

Now, I know I'm good. But if you honestly think I managed to orchestrate and/or play off a symp's reveal in order to CI another scum, including pointing out the reveal and pressing the lynch and listing the ways in which it was a good move, all while being scum myself, then I am apparently a mafia God who not only never plays anything less than a "perfect" game with no scum indications but is also a Chessmaster of magnificent proportions, hiding in plain sight the entire time.

I appreciate the compliment, I really do, but c'mon, man....XD

[Tapper]

 Lady Bliss, on 22 January 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

In light of the fact that it looks like we hit scum with the Blend lynch, I'm revisiting my Day 1 signalling case to try and find his partner:

Lady Bliss said:

1358370513[/url]' post='1024593']
Ok, I had to boot up myt laptop so I could actually do a proper read through and post. Trying to quote from a phone or Ipad sucks.
I have to agree with almost everyone that Tatts acted pretty spastic after just a couple of joke votes. That looks like something to watch. But I have to wonder about all of this 'dirty' talk.

Blend does it first:

Blend said:

1358278521[/url]' post='1024137']

Khellendros said:

1358278435[/url]' post='1024136']
Blend, Bliss, Bonecaster, Brujah - too many B names. I propose we get rid of one to make life simpler. Mafia thrives on simplicity.

Yet another reason to lynch that dirty newbie.

As an aside, isn't Bliss's username Ornery Owl now?

Then Khell:

Khellendros said:

1358278640[/url]' post='1024139']

Blend said:

1358278521[/url]' post='1024137']

Khellendros said:

1358278435[/url]' post='1024136']
Blend, Bliss, Bonecaster, Brujah - too many B names. I propose we get rid of one to make life simpler. Mafia thrives on simplicity.

Yet another reason to lynch that dirty newbie.

As an aside, isn't Bliss's username Ornery Owl now?

Isn't that KL?


Dirty newbie or Brujah...so many temptations. And then I look over across at the rest of the names and my god, but I would love to see them all lynched

Then Tapper:

Tapper said:

1358325762[/url]' post='1024370']
Also, Hinter, I would be interested in the recipe for the caramalized sauce you served with the duck... Also, is that proper 'dirty' stilton not in order with EU regulations, or the easy cop-out that's now no longer allowed?
With respect to the duck bones - aren't they like all poultry hollow, therefore easy to break into sharp shards, and likely to hurt/maim/kill whichever animal chews them?

And then we have Blend going on and on about 'filthy' newbies and feeling 'unclean'.

Blend said:

1358346492[/url]' post='1024435']

Lady Bliss said:

1358298338[/url]' post='1024308']
1) Tatts talk about pushing lunches

He always did make me hungry, that one.......

I know this was meant to say lynches, but seriously, I wish people would push lunches more often.

To be serious though, though Tatts may have just been screwing with the filthy newbie, I *DO* think we should keep an eye on him. He could just as easily be trying to manipulate the filthy newbie into trying to vote a certain way, which is a pretty scummy thing to do.

Blend said:

1358355834[/url]' post='1024526']

Tattersail said:

1358353980[/url]' post='1024511']
Two pronged scum attack? wow.

fair enough

control the thread how? Do you know what that means? How am I doing that? No one has followed any of my votes. I was trying to manipulate the newbie into voting night, that's right, i'm not denying it. How does that make me scum?

Okay, after careful inspection of the thread, I may have been mistaken on the 'controlling the thread' thing. But as you say above, you tried to get the filthy newbie to vote night, and that right there is a scum move. It's a 'let's give up the right to use town's only power, the lynch, to allow the killers to use their powers' thing. How does that NOT make you scum?

And don't think that I didn't see your partner, Tapper, try to get him to do the same thing. Shame on you both for trying to confuse the poor filthy newbie.

Blend said:

1358357481[/url]' post='1024543']

Khellendros said:

1358357095[/url]' post='1024538']
I didn't even realise that we were agreeing till you and Tats pointed it out. Now you got me paranoid that you're trying to fake-symp me.

Hey, how do you think I feel? I hate having to agree with you. It makes me feel unclean, no matter how many times I shower. But when I think you're right, I can't just disagree cause YOU are making the accusations, no matter how much I want to.

I can, however, wait to see what others are thinking, just in case you're wrong, which would mean that at least then I wouldn't be the only one to blame for agreeing with you!

My take on all of this is that Blend and Khell are both killers and were trying to sniff out their symp (Tapper). I could vote for either of them personally, but since Blend started it...

vote Blend

The signalling here looks apparent. I googled "dirty" Stilton, and did not see a reference to that on the interwebs as a description for Stilton, AND Tapper never voted Blend.
Vote Tapper

It's not a term per sé and I already explained why I named it dirty. If you need google to tell you so, well, I'll make a wiki page for something I refer to first that hasn't one already just to satisfy your 'fact checking'. I am sure that if you were to read the stilton entry, you'd say it wasn't pasteurized before. But whatever, I already explained that.

Lazy play there, Bliss, and scummy to extreme, because you forgo any and all that has happened since, where, in favor of reaching to off hand comments on day 1, you completely forgo the fact that Khell has been hunting both Tatts and Blend throughout the entire game - which is not typical killer behavior once initial distancing has happened.

[Tattersail_]

 Silencer, on 23 January 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

 Tattersail, on 23 January 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

You've said that a few times now, but it doesn't fly with me, you posted quite a lot yesterday elsewhere on the forum. I was around the forum most of the day, clicking on new content.. (I'm only mentioning this because you are using it as a defense mind) and you posted throughout the day. Fair enough that you had RL issues but you did have time to post on the board and if that is the case you could have done a quick catch up and give us more on your thoughts. In fact, you where here most of the first two days so you would have had an opinion on yesterdays lynch target. The fact that you didn't vote him even though you insisted on us needing to lynch every day is telling. Yes lynch doesn't equal vote but we need votes to lynch no?

I'm going to call meta on that one - and moreover you seem to underestimate the amount of time it takes to read up.

Being able to drop a post here or there is not the same as committing to reading up mafia. And I'm pretty sure there was a massive chunk of time you're condensing, 'coz I was hard at my assignment. Which I should in fact still be working on atm. Ugh.

And I gave you my opinion on Blend - either you or he should have been lynched day one. Because we failed at that, and because frankly neither of you are likely to be scum anyway (how often do we hit scum day one?), I personally did not want to get stuck on you both for the rest of the game and waste two days lynching you both - not without a CF. And what, might I ask, did we do in the end? Oh yeah. Got hung up on it. Not to mention you've had a hard-on for Blend since day one in that regard, and have consistently pushed for his lynch despite the fact that it was a waste of time to spend all that effort on the fight you two were having.

As for my not voting, what part of "eleven hours on the clock and I don't want to throw down a careless vote on a stupid case when I might or might not be back on before day end" do you not understand? There were plenty of other people to lynch Blend and do you really think I'd abstain from voting if I was partnered with him? Because that would be, as is no doubt apparent, a no-win situation. Whereas if I had dropped a vote on him then left he'd have even odds of not being lynched, and if he was then I wouldn't be facing any scrutiny over it today, would I? THAT would have been distancing, which would have made a hell of a lot more sense than actively posting on thread saying "I'm abstaining from voting on this one guys".

I'm also waiting on YOUR opinion on Hinter's case on Bonecaster (in case you haven't noticed, his "case" on me rests solely on Bonecaster's presumed (symp?) guilt).

It wasn't a careless case. It was well thought out and it looks like we caught scum. See these are the things that make me distrust what you are saying.

[Tattersail_]

 Silencer, on 23 January 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

 Tattersail, on 23 January 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

 Khellendros, on 19 January 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

 Silencer, on 19 January 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

I don't think anyone is claiming definitive proof - it's just vastly more likely that 1) a scum would take that kind of risk, and 2) they wouldn't be modkilled for it. Of course, my argument is that, actually, the Dude WAS fully cognizant of the rules, and was pushing his luck in order to try and control the thread like a boss. It's a brilliant play by scum. It's a horrific play by Town; and with no way to verify the claim as we normally would be able to, leaving the Dude alive is just begging for the WIFOM to come bite us in the ass later.

Hmm, it's clearly NOT a brilliant play by scum if the Dude is that, as he's all but getting lynched. I would argue that it's a stupid play no matter what role you are - as if the rules had been paid attention to, you would have known that what happened with Bubba coming out was inevitable.

If the Dude is scum, he is far more likely in my opinion to be a symp than a killer. I do think we should take a look and see if anyone stands out as the most likely people he might be protecting/deflecting from.

Quote

Which had to have been me or Blend

 Silencer, on 19 January 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

Yeah, the pileup on this one has been startlingly swift. I guess people are a bit frustrated at the outcome of Day One (what with the board outage and all), but it's still overkill. Though I'm hurt that you'd think I would just *say* something like that to seem more inno. In all seriousness, the pileon is concerning, no doubt.

I haven't looked into the NK too hard - there's WIFOM enough on this thread already. But probing his interactions on day one is probably worthwhile, even if I can't really bring myself to comb back over that madness just yet. XD

Yeah, you're right that part of the pile-on at least could be frustration from day 1. I still think it looks somewhat dodgy though.


Here's a sudden thought which has just occurred to me:

- The Dude is a symp.

- HO is a killer.

The Dude makes a play which he thinks will be identified as most likely symp play, and sacrifices himself to all but CI HiddenOne for the rest of the game. High-risk maybe, but if that really is the strategy, then you could say it's working perfectly right now. Not sure how likely it could be, but I think it is something else to keep in mind.


I will look through the Dude's (and Gnaw's) posts at some point today.

Khell makes a good point above, I have also replied to your underlined with the quote underneath it.

Which what where? Clarify please. XD Either your quotes are a bit off or I'm missing "my underlined"...

Quote

Another thing stuck out to me is that you say it is brilliant play by scum which is like you clapping your hands to The Dude.

 Lizradus, on 19 January 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

11 Players still alive: Blend, Bonecaster, Dude, Hiddenone, Hinter, Khell, Lady Bliss, Silencer, Sixty, Tapper, Tattersail

6 votes to lynch, 6 votes to go to night.

2 Votes for Tattersail ( Sixty, Blend )
1 Vote for Hiddenone ( Dude )
4 Votes for Dude ( Hinter, Bonecaster, Hiddenone, Tapper )

Players not voted: Khell, Lady Bliss, Silencer, Tattersail

It looks as though The Dude's lynch is inevitable so it is safe for you to vote him.

 Silencer, on 20 January 2013 - 12:51 AM, said:

Well if there was one quick-fire way to get me to place my vote back, it was going to be fatalism.

Vote the Dude

Which I believe puts him back at L-1.

Hmm, yeah, except I was the one who started the Dude's train. Pressed him like fuck. Removed vote because people were being silly given the amount of time we had left, then when the Dude was clearly not going to give us much of a response put him back at L-1. That's hardly "safe" play.
As for it being brilliant scum play - it was, assuming he was scum. Which we did. Of course, we, and oh wait, that was me again, pointed out the fucking upsides to his plans. So ya'll should have been well aware of who to look out for based on his play - I do note that HiddenOne has been really, really quiet, and that he hasn't had much heat. That's not good.

Now, I know I'm good. But if you honestly think I managed to orchestrate and/or play off a symp's reveal in order to CI another scum, including pointing out the reveal and pressing the lynch and listing the ways in which it was a good move, all while being scum myself, then I am apparently a mafia God who not only never plays anything less than a "perfect" game with no scum indications but is also a Chessmaster of magnificent proportions, hiding in plain sight the entire time.

I appreciate the compliment, I really do, but c'mon, man....XD

Ha ha ha, that is EXACTLY what I think.

[Silencer]

 Tattersail, on 23 January 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

 Silencer, on 23 January 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

 Tattersail, on 23 January 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

You've said that a few times now, but it doesn't fly with me, you posted quite a lot yesterday elsewhere on the forum. I was around the forum most of the day, clicking on new content.. (I'm only mentioning this because you are using it as a defense mind) and you posted throughout the day. Fair enough that you had RL issues but you did have time to post on the board and if that is the case you could have done a quick catch up and give us more on your thoughts. In fact, you where here most of the first two days so you would have had an opinion on yesterdays lynch target. The fact that you didn't vote him even though you insisted on us needing to lynch every day is telling. Yes lynch doesn't equal vote but we need votes to lynch no?

I'm going to call meta on that one - and moreover you seem to underestimate the amount of time it takes to read up.

Being able to drop a post here or there is not the same as committing to reading up mafia. And I'm pretty sure there was a massive chunk of time you're condensing, 'coz I was hard at my assignment. Which I should in fact still be working on atm. Ugh.

And I gave you my opinion on Blend - either you or he should have been lynched day one. Because we failed at that, and because frankly neither of you are likely to be scum anyway (how often do we hit scum day one?), I personally did not want to get stuck on you both for the rest of the game and waste two days lynching you both - not without a CF. And what, might I ask, did we do in the end? Oh yeah. Got hung up on it. Not to mention you've had a hard-on for Blend since day one in that regard, and have consistently pushed for his lynch despite the fact that it was a waste of time to spend all that effort on the fight you two were having.

As for my not voting, what part of "eleven hours on the clock and I don't want to throw down a careless vote on a stupid case when I might or might not be back on before day end" do you not understand? There were plenty of other people to lynch Blend and do you really think I'd abstain from voting if I was partnered with him? Because that would be, as is no doubt apparent, a no-win situation. Whereas if I had dropped a vote on him then left he'd have even odds of not being lynched, and if he was then I wouldn't be facing any scrutiny over it today, would I? THAT would have been distancing, which would have made a hell of a lot more sense than actively posting on thread saying "I'm abstaining from voting on this one guys".

I'm also waiting on YOUR opinion on Hinter's case on Bonecaster (in case you haven't noticed, his "case" on me rests solely on Bonecaster's presumed (symp?) guilt).

It wasn't a careless case. It was well thought out and it looks like we caught scum. See these are the things that make me distrust what you are saying.

Our opinions on your case will have to differ, then. For what it's worth I gave you and Blend +2 point to the "Town" likelihood ever since you were both prime targets on day one, and have been operating on that scale ever since, with very little to shift it away from that (other than "bad play" with the whole, do-with-a-bone routine...).

[Silencer]

 Tattersail, on 23 January 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

 Silencer, on 23 January 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

Hmm, yeah, except I was the one who started the Dude's train. Pressed him like fuck. Removed vote because people were being silly given the amount of time we had left, then when the Dude was clearly not going to give us much of a response put him back at L-1. That's hardly "safe" play.
As for it being brilliant scum play - it was, assuming he was scum. Which we did. Of course, we, and oh wait, that was me again, pointed out the fucking upsides to his plans. So ya'll should have been well aware of who to look out for based on his play - I do note that HiddenOne has been really, really quiet, and that he hasn't had much heat. That's not good.

Now, I know I'm good. But if you honestly think I managed to orchestrate and/or play off a symp's reveal in order to CI another scum, including pointing out the reveal and pressing the lynch and listing the ways in which it was a good move, all while being scum myself, then I am apparently a mafia God who not only never plays anything less than a "perfect" game with no scum indications but is also a Chessmaster of magnificent proportions, hiding in plain sight the entire time.

I appreciate the compliment, I really do, but c'mon, man....XD

Ha ha ha, that is EXACTLY what I think.

OK, well, there frankly isn't a lot I can do to defend against that*. It's based on a LOT of presumptions and especially ones about my capabilities which are neither here nor there with regards to the game at hand. In RL this would be called "circumstantial evidence", I guess? >.<

*except for pointing out how absurdly awesome it makes me sound.

[Silencer]

 Tapper, on 23 January 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

 Lady Bliss, on 22 January 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

In light of the fact that it looks like we hit scum with the Blend lynch, I'm revisiting my Day 1 signalling case to try and find his partner:

Lady Bliss said:

1358370513[/url]' post='1024593']
Ok, I had to boot up myt laptop so I could actually do a proper read through and post. Trying to quote from a phone or Ipad sucks.
I have to agree with almost everyone that Tatts acted pretty spastic after just a couple of joke votes. That looks like something to watch. But I have to wonder about all of this 'dirty' talk.

Blend does it first:

Blend said:

1358278521[/url]' post='1024137']

Khellendros said:

1358278435[/url]' post='1024136']
Blend, Bliss, Bonecaster, Brujah - too many B names. I propose we get rid of one to make life simpler. Mafia thrives on simplicity.

Yet another reason to lynch that dirty newbie.

As an aside, isn't Bliss's username Ornery Owl now?

Then Khell:

Khellendros said:

1358278640[/url]' post='1024139']

Blend said:

1358278521[/url]' post='1024137']

Khellendros said:

1358278435[/url]' post='1024136']
Blend, Bliss, Bonecaster, Brujah - too many B names. I propose we get rid of one to make life simpler. Mafia thrives on simplicity.

Yet another reason to lynch that dirty newbie.

As an aside, isn't Bliss's username Ornery Owl now?

Isn't that KL?


Dirty newbie or Brujah...so many temptations. And then I look over across at the rest of the names and my god, but I would love to see them all lynched

Then Tapper:

Tapper said:

1358325762[/url]' post='1024370']
Also, Hinter, I would be interested in the recipe for the caramalized sauce you served with the duck... Also, is that proper 'dirty' stilton not in order with EU regulations, or the easy cop-out that's now no longer allowed?
With respect to the duck bones - aren't they like all poultry hollow, therefore easy to break into sharp shards, and likely to hurt/maim/kill whichever animal chews them?

And then we have Blend going on and on about 'filthy' newbies and feeling 'unclean'.

Blend said:

1358346492[/url]' post='1024435']

Lady Bliss said:

1358298338[/url]' post='1024308']
1) Tatts talk about pushing lunches

He always did make me hungry, that one.......

I know this was meant to say lynches, but seriously, I wish people would push lunches more often.

To be serious though, though Tatts may have just been screwing with the filthy newbie, I *DO* think we should keep an eye on him. He could just as easily be trying to manipulate the filthy newbie into trying to vote a certain way, which is a pretty scummy thing to do.

Blend said:

1358355834[/url]' post='1024526']

Tattersail said:

1358353980[/url]' post='1024511']
Two pronged scum attack? wow.

fair enough

control the thread how? Do you know what that means? How am I doing that? No one has followed any of my votes. I was trying to manipulate the newbie into voting night, that's right, i'm not denying it. How does that make me scum?

Okay, after careful inspection of the thread, I may have been mistaken on the 'controlling the thread' thing. But as you say above, you tried to get the filthy newbie to vote night, and that right there is a scum move. It's a 'let's give up the right to use town's only power, the lynch, to allow the killers to use their powers' thing. How does that NOT make you scum?

And don't think that I didn't see your partner, Tapper, try to get him to do the same thing. Shame on you both for trying to confuse the poor filthy newbie.

Blend said:

1358357481[/url]' post='1024543']

Khellendros said:

1358357095[/url]' post='1024538']
I didn't even realise that we were agreeing till you and Tats pointed it out. Now you got me paranoid that you're trying to fake-symp me.

Hey, how do you think I feel? I hate having to agree with you. It makes me feel unclean, no matter how many times I shower. But when I think you're right, I can't just disagree cause YOU are making the accusations, no matter how much I want to.

I can, however, wait to see what others are thinking, just in case you're wrong, which would mean that at least then I wouldn't be the only one to blame for agreeing with you!

My take on all of this is that Blend and Khell are both killers and were trying to sniff out their symp (Tapper). I could vote for either of them personally, but since Blend started it...

vote Blend

The signalling here looks apparent. I googled "dirty" Stilton, and did not see a reference to that on the interwebs as a description for Stilton, AND Tapper never voted Blend.
Vote Tapper

It's not a term per sé and I already explained why I named it dirty. If you need google to tell you so, well, I'll make a wiki page for something I refer to first that hasn't one already just to satisfy your 'fact checking'. I am sure that if you were to read the stilton entry, you'd say it wasn't pasteurized before. But whatever, I already explained that.

Lazy play there, Bliss, and scummy to extreme, because you forgo any and all that has happened since, where, in favor of reaching to off hand comments on day 1, you completely forgo the fact that Khell has been hunting both Tatts and Blend throughout the entire game - which is not typical killer behavior once initial distancing has happened.

Haha, see, now, if it were *me* doing the killing, and Khell had been hounding me, I'd be smirking right about now - because I tend to kill folk who chase me hard. *WIFOM alert*

[Tattersail_]

So you are going to kill me tonight Silencer?

[Silencer]

 Tattersail, on 23 January 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

So you are going to kill me tonight Silencer?

Hey, wouldn't that be revea-*gurgles and croaks from modkill*

[Tattersail_]

 Silencer, on 23 January 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

 Tattersail, on 23 January 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

So you are going to kill me tonight Silencer?

Hey, wouldn't that be revea-*gurgles and croaks from modkill*

This whole day seems very sticky. There are a few things to look at and no one is standing out for the lynch. At least three of you look scummy. WCS scenario says this is D day.

So if I look outside the box for a second and assume that we have 3 scum still left then we are going to need all 5 of town to vote together. There has not been a mafia game I have played whereby we have caught scum this easily and early.

let's assume The Dude was a real finder. He fingers HO as scum, we leave HO alone. We lynch Blend because of this connection but WCS dictates that The Dude could have been right and HO is scum.

Thoughts?

[Silencer]

 Tattersail, on 23 January 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

 Silencer, on 23 January 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

 Tattersail, on 23 January 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

So you are going to kill me tonight Silencer?

Hey, wouldn't that be revea-*gurgles and croaks from modkill*

This whole day seems very sticky. There are a few things to look at and no one is standing out for the lynch. At least three of you look scummy. WCS scenario says this is D day.

So if I look outside the box for a second and assume that we have 3 scum still left then we are going to need all 5 of town to vote together. There has not been a mafia game I have played whereby we have caught scum this easily and early.

let's assume The Dude was a real finder. He fingers HO as scum, we leave HO alone. We lynch Blend because of this connection but WCS dictates that The Dude could have been right and HO is scum.

Thoughts?

Hmpf. This is why I don't like no-CF games. You could argue that in a CF-game we still might have thought the Dude a symp even if he CF'd inno; but the simple fact of the matter is that we wouldn't have lynched him first in a CF game; tempting fate with the reveal rules or no. The problem is that we don't have anything to go on except "what if the Dude wasn't lying" - and it's exactly that kind of lynch-to-test-the-WIFOM crap that we wanted to avoid when we lynched the Dude.

That being said, HO was always potentially scum and (as noted in that quote from Khell upthread), getting HO what is practically a free ride was one potential outcome of the Dude's play. He hasn't had much pressure yet, and that irks me. I would have voted for him earlier 'cept you will all of course jump on that and say that I'm "desperately" looking for someone to deflect onto. However in the interests of avoiding a scenario I predicted:

Vote HiddenOne

What do you have to say for yourself, hmm? You've been coasting at best, and aside from the inevitable discussion around you from the Dude's reveal, there has not been a lot of attention your way at all. :asuspicious:



'Course, I still think Hinter has been playing a horrendous (and recently very scummy) game today, but that can happen to anyone. I also note Tapper is cruising without really participating much (fair call if RL is still busy for him, but annoying nonetheless), and Lady Bliss is not much more active (post-count wise, at least - not that I remember much content from her either) than HO. Disinterested RIs? We'll need them to participate today if a lynch is to go through...

[Tattersail_]

I hate to agree with you but \i do. There is a big chance that HO is scum and the Dude revealed as town thinking getting one scum outweighs being killed off himself.

Vote HO

[Tattersail_]

By the way I mean "big chance" when we go down WCS. BCS says Blend was the killer and Dude the symp. We have to be careful here.

[Silencer]

 Tattersail, on 23 January 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

I hate to agree with you but \i do. There is a big chance that HO is scum and the Dude revealed as town thinking getting one scum outweighs being killed off himself.

Vote HO

The trouble comes when one considers that the Dude wasn't just risking his life if he was legitimately a Finder - that sort of "take the modkill for the team" kind of stuff is also the "call the game because some jackass broke it" stuff. I mean, if it was a false practically-a-reveal then no harm, no foul. But if it was a real practically-a-reveal then that's breaking the rules for the sake of a tiny advantage, something deliberate enough that I think, were I modding, I would end the game over if it had any actual impact. Taking that kind of gamble as town? Iunno.

That and the fact that you cannot make a play like that blind; you either are fully cognizant of the implications (in which case you don't do it - the above mentioned, and also the can of supersized WIFOM it entails opening are just too massive to ignore) or...I don't even know what the "or" here is. And that's why I can't see a legit Finder pulling that kind of stunt. *sigh*

You're right though that WCS would mean the Dude was right. No, wait, WCS would mean that the Dude was wrong but also not scum. But that's a pointless scenario to entertain, lol. So that aside, yeah. I just don't like the implications for the conduct of the Dude if that is the case.


How many hours on the clock? We need five votes to lynch, and I for one don't want to rush this.