Suicide Squad Mafia, Game Over: Number the Dead

[Dark Holy Elf]

This has some questionable content, in that he says Andrew is his third lynch target... But he hasn't really read Andrew's posts since his post before that one.

Okay, I'll forgive you for making the mistake in my meaning there, because Andrew did too. However it's clear you didn't read my response to Andrew, where I believe I clearly stated he was #3 in a list that includes him, Meeple, and Snow. This does not mean he is #3 overall. Had Excal not posted just before I wouldn't even have mentioned Andrew, or at least, no more than I mentioned Ashdla.

The rest of your accusations spanning the next few paragraphs all stem from this misunderstanding and thus, thankfully, I have no need to defend myself from them.

[Bardiche]

I don't see how the misunderstanding about Andrew (I'll cede to that point) has anything to do whatsoever of your summary post painting Meeple as being scummiest, and then later on your supposed unwillingness to lynch Meeple because you "are not comfortable with a Meeple train" and your further lack of content posted.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Rat:

1) Me having a vote is nothing special. Only I should be terribly excited by this. That DHE says it's the best use for a friendly roleblocker is weird, because it's.. not really, the best use for a friendly roleblocker is to pay one mana, tap target scum. At least, not until you think we're hitting LYLO and my vote could indeed spell the difference between life and death. But that's not here and I doubt anyone really thought it could be.

Tapping target scum? For what gain? I can see two reasons to do so.

1. Stop the Nightkill. Awesome. Except, y'know, we just did that last night, it seems, since only we only lost one instead of two. And nobody's jumping on it. Suffice to say, as long as we don't know the nature of the vig/SK/whatever the hell you think is responsible for the second death between Delta and OK, even successfully roleblocking the killer doesn't seem too useful. It does buy us a bit more time, granted.

2. Stop a scum role. Unfortunately scum roles are weaker than town roles, what with them needing information much less badly than town and all. And there are more town, as well. No, if your goal is to stop roles, you're much more likely to hamper town.

I've never been impressed with the town roleblocker in general, though I acknowledge it can win games pretty decisively with a lategame kill-block (i.e. once we can be pretty confident that a roleblock + no kill = yay, scum!). Otherwise, it's very scrubby, and giving it a use in giving you a vote IS handy.

In regards to hitting LYLO... If you're town (since I'm wasting my breath if you're not, obviously) and we mislynch today, and there are 4 scum (not unreasonable? Admitedly arbitrary) tomorrow could easily be LYLO, and if you can't vote we may well have already lost. A lot of ifs in that statement, yes. But you one way or another this situation could be coming pretty soon.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Snow: I did indeed attack Laggy for minor points... which is something I admitted to. Furthermore, I find it hard to call what I'm doing "twisting his words," given I pretty fairly represented his actual posts. They are nitpicky, yes, but that doesn't invalidate them. Furthermore... uh. I... didn't attack Laggy because he wasn't suspicious. I'm also... not really happy with your claim that I'm baiting Laggy, nor am I very happy with that vote of yours.

You are giving to them a meaning that you'd have to finecomb verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry carefully and read under a verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry specific light - more specifically, an accusatory one - to make your case hold water, considering your analysis. The nitpicking is so subtle and directed that I can't help but to think this is trying to put Laggy under the spotlight for a - pardon the metaphor - crime he didn't commit. It's very, very subtle and something I'd have a hard time seeing anyone here doing, let alone Laggy, who is pretty blunt. I still give you the point that it's a good scum tactic, but I'm kneejerking you're looking for it at the wrong place, if you're honestly town, and that kind of nitpicking I don't associate with town, not without a very good backup. Which you failed to provide, since your own content doesn't -have- it. It's too thin an argument for something you finecombed like you did, and it feels too convenient. As such, you may have all the right to not be happy with my statement or my vote, but both stand as they are.

[Bardiche]

Because I'm such a kind soul I'll point out what further accusations I have that you "feel no need to respond to".

Here says he has a couple of people to review himself, but doesn't do any of that. In the next posts, he's been mostly passive. Defending himself, making a few remarks about Andrew off the side, post mainly centered about a defense towards Corwin...

You promised reviewing "a couple of people" but... I'm not seeing it. Unless you mean the post in which you defended yourself from Corwin and wrote a very short piece about Andrew, in which case it feels inadequate.

This has some questionable content, ... Of interesting note is the last paragraph, where he's not comfortable with a Meeple lynch. Later on, on this day, he expresses dislike for defending against a dead third party; Consequently, doesn't do so, only pulls Meeple's support of town in question.

I re-read Meeple's post, and there's hardly anything to defend against. Yet you express "Hey, I don't want to defend myself from that!" and instead go on a tangent of "Meeple isn't pro-town anyway! I don't need to defend myself against those accusations because he's dead and ITP!" Well for one, maybe Meeple wasn't even aware of his role, because why not roleclaim in full? Leaving that aside (since we won't know till end game), you exhibit a similar stance in defending against my accusations.

"I don't need to because one of the accusations is derived from a misunderstanding!"

The thing is, you say you "aren't comfortable with a Meeple lynch", keep a vote on him regardless (you're listed first on the votecount, can't be arsed to check back if you were the first to vote on Meeple for now) and then when he flips not-scum you go "oh no, I'm not looking forward to defend myself. You know what, I won't, I'll just attack Meeple's credibility!"

Hm, odd. In this summary post, ... Moreover, Meeple looks the worst so far he says... But later says he isn't too confident in a Meeple lynch. Scum trying to add credibility because he knows it won't be scum we'll lynch?

Actually, re-reading everything again... The entire summary post is basically, "Hey, everyone looks good and has plus points. Well, except Meeple. You're tagged!" and later on "Yeah, I'm not comfortable with Meeple's lynch".

Also has nothing to do with Andrew. There's sufficient material for you to respond to that is unrelated to Andrew.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Bard: Unwillingness to lynch Meeple? What? I don't have a role that disallows unvoting; I deliberately kept my vote on him, therefore I was willing to lynch him (and commented as such!). I was wondering what you were getting at, but I think it's this?

Vote, for now at least, stays on Meeple. I'm not wholly comfortable with lynching him, nor Snow, but I feel a jump to someone else this late in the day would be to grasp at straws.

I said I wasn't wholly comfortable with the lynch, i.e. I had some doubts. Forgive me for not having Corwin's level of confidence, but yeah, I wasn't sure he was scum, and was saying so!

Ninja'd by Bard himself. Sec.

[Dark Holy Elf]

You promised reviewing "a couple of people" but... I'm not seeing it. Unless you mean the post in which you defended yourself from Corwin and wrote a very short piece about Andrew, in which case it feels inadequate.

Unshockingly, one of the people I was referring to was Andrew. don't go for the style of picking apart dozens of posts, and the short summary of my thoughts is what you have to live with. I believe the other was Shale, in which case, yeah, my bad for not really getting around to him. Mea culpa, but it doesn't substantiate your other arguments.


Finally, my annoyance at defending myself from Meeple. You're right, there wasn't too much in there about me. However, look at the posts from early day 3. Laggy was clearly examining Meeple's comments against me as if they could form the basis of some kind of argument. I'd find that annoying even if Meeple were town (Holy Word of Dead Townies fails, see Shale and others). As he was Third Party, that led to some frustration, and the back-and-forth you saw that is my early Day 3 contribution.

[Bardiche]

Still care to explain why you make a summary post with positive stuff about everyone but Meeple (at least, that's what I got out of it), voting on him, keeping your vote on him while professing you aren't "wholly comfortable" with the lynch train that you, in effect, were the first on?

[Dark Holy Elf]

I voted on him because he seemed the most suspicious. I kept my vote on him for the same reason. I said positive things about some other people because I had gone over their posts and felt they were not especially scum-like. I said I wasn't wholly comfortable because while Meeple was the most suspicious, that doesn't mean I was super-confident he was scum. I'm really not sure how I can be more clear about this.

[Bardiche]

I had to wring every last bit of answer out of you that I could possibly get. Those suspicions were profound at the time (at least to me), and I wouldn't feel satisfied unless you'd responded to everything.

Now that you've adequately defended yourself, I still feel strongly about Excal for the reasons I posted earlier.

##UNFoS: Jo'ou, ##FoS: Excal.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Finally, Corwin!

"If scum is talkative, this is bad for town because..."

I didn't say "talkative". I said "aggressive". Aggressive scum is bad for town because they can end up seizing us by the nose and leading us into mislynches. Additionally, a highly aggressive tone gets people emotional and off-balance, and I don't think that's the mood people hunt scum best in.

The wall-of-text (talkative) part I only find a downside simply because it makes me less likely to actually read every single post closely. Is this a weakness in me as a mafia player? Likely. But it's also a fact. There's only so much time I generally want to spend on mafia per day (let's say around two hours). The best way to play mafia would be to read and memorise everyone's posts and be able to ace the Suicide Squad Mafia 101 final exam the next day, but as I have other demands on my time, you'll have to live with my "lurkerish" playstyle. (Because I am totally the biggest lurker this game.)

I do, ultimately, agree that I haven't posted enough anyway. Obviously these last few posts have been an attempt to remedy this, although I still haven't gotten around to really examining lynch candidates yet.

[QuietRain]

So, I was looking back over stuff to see who's lounging back without making real comments/votes today and was a bit shocked by something.  Strago's at nearly 24 hours since his last post.  I don't have a second vote to lay down on him for lurking horribly, but if I did he'd be wearing it right now.  Are we getting close to a modkill situation, mods?  That's an awfully long time to be gone.

[QuietRain]

Sorry, nearly 48, not 24.

[Ranmilia]

Current votecount:

Bardiche (0): Laggy
Laggy (0): AndrewRogue
Shale (0): Laggy, Jo'ou Ranbu, Carthrat
JR (5): Corwin, Carthrat, QuietRain, Excal, Laggy
Andrew (1): Jo'ou

With twelve alive, it takes seven to lynch.

I am itching to modkill people and only holding off because it's Cid's game.  At the present time it seems like Tai's going to go, and Strago as well if he doesn't show up right quick.  Also, the angry flamewars that have occurred between certain people are unacceptable and make the game unfun for everyone.  Use common sense, any more of that past this point WILL be instant modkill.

[Strago]

So I finally get my act together after a day of job-hunting (a successful one, finally) and I guess I'm about to get modkilled? Apologies, I honestly hadn't realized I'd been away for such a disruptive amount of time. I'm catching up right now.

Before I get a larger post in order, however, I do want to second what Alex has said about the flame wars. Corwin and Carthrat seem to have been particularly bad offenders in this regard; Tai was involved too, but it seemed to me that he was more of a target than an original instigator. I'm not saying all this in order to tattle to the mods, but rather because the blatant and overwhelming incivility shown by some people strikes me as massively anti-town. Yes, being aggressive in our pursuit of scum is a good thing, but to be rude and antagonistic towards other players is divisive in a way that is hardly in the best interest of the town. Cor and Rat had been rubbing me the wrong way, and (role meta-gaming RE: Carthrat's votelessness aside) they both look more scummy to me for it. I'd have mentioned it earlier had I gotten my bidness together to make a post.

Now, catsup.

[Taishyr]

Okay. Final post, no replacement was found.

Be-leaf it or knot, but I was Poison Ivy, Town's Lie Detector. Every night, a roleclaim made in game was chosen and the post it was in, given to Cid. I was then told if it was completely true (the role is precisely as the person stated it), partially true (what was said was true, but there is more) or false (the post was a lie). THIS DOES NOT CATCH ALIGNMENTS. So the two targets could be whatever, it doesn't catch win conditions or alignments, just abilities.

Night 1, Rat's claim. Returned completely true, so if my role is not messed up somehow, he is truely simply voteless (      ).
Night 2, Snow's claim. Returned completely true.

I had hoped to use this again Night 3 on Bardiche or, preferably, someone else's roleclaim, as we've seen enough that I'd get either Partially True or True on his role, I suspect.


Basic breakdown of impressions:

Corwin: On the edge regarding him; as I presented in my case, some of his points against Snow seemed to be pushing it, but I'm not convinced he is scum here. Still high on my list.

Carthrat: No comment.

Elfboy: Has seemed reasonable and logical the entire game; perhaps one of the lower ones on my list.

Laggy: See Elfboy.

Snow: On the other side of Cor, his other points re: Snow's actions are worth noting, and I would not be objecting to a lynch if I were staying in. Since I'm not, well.

Strago: Lurkerish. Does do decent commentary when he is here, but lurkerish.

Excal: Slightly more lurkerish than Strago at this point. These two need cattle prods. >_>

Shale: And add a third. More on the Strago spectrum than the Excal one, but somewhere in between's where he falls.

QR: ...Something's rubbing me as off about QR right now; my inclination is to say that she's missing a fair bit more content than she usually provides? This could just be how life works, but it'd make her worth paying attention to.

Andrew: See what Laggy and Snow have said. I've really nothing to add to this.

Bardiche: I'm... not seeing much of the issue here, on the other hand. Bardiche just seems like the paranoid sort of townie these games engender, and his actions have been reasonable enough.


Now, time to make like a tree and leaf.

Requesting modkill.

[Strago]

Okay, I've said my piece about Carth/Corwin. I honestly wish I had more to add to it, but their content has been very solid for the most part. It's just the way in which they've approached their arguments that looks deucedly bad to me, for reasons I've mentioned.

I generally get a town read from Bardiche. Where others see him as too "worried about his image," I honestly just see helpful -- if overly cautious -- town. Part of my reaction to him is a matter of gut feeling; having just played with him in SSB:B Mafia, something about the way he's acting seems to click with how he played there. That's hardly an airtight defense, obviously, but especially now that he's comported himself pretty well in discussion with Laggy I just don't read scum.

The Snow situation is three-and-a-half-WIFOM-headaches at this point, and I basically have no idea what to do with it anymore. I wish I did. I'd say the thing that makes me suspect him the most right now is indeed the apparent discordance between those he suspected and those he roleblocked, but... hmm. Actually, the more I consider it, the less I grok it. Bears more thought on my part.

Elsewhere, there's Excal. Who reads strongly as scum to me when I look back over the game. Day 1's obviously Day 1, but he had a way of summing up the major arguments in a vaguely florid style that made him seem to be contributing more than he actually was. I also felt hints of the unproductive aggression thing I've seen in other players, specifically against Delta and OK. I don't recall any particularly groundbreaking original contributions from him during Day 2, and now? He's been effectively absent for... mrff, about as long as I have. Here are his Day 3 posts with content:

I would also disagree on calling QR out.  While she was instrumental in culling targets, we've by no means been limited to the folks she has suggested, nor has she just unilaterally decided who it is we should focus on.  In both cases, she came in near the end of the day, said we should start looking at a lynch, and then picked out the two people with the most votes and best cases.  This is highlighting what we've done, not taking charge and deciding for us.

Alright, water heater issue is mostly dealt with now.  Unfortunatly, still don't have time to scour everything to make a deep in-depth post.  I have read everything over, and I agree with Corwin that not only is there something that looks fishy about the early pile on on Shale today, but that of the three who were a part of that, Snow looks the worse.  His reasoning for his use of his power doesn't feel quite right with his choice of roleblock target vs. who he's claimed to be suspicious of also looks fairly bad.

No real time to comment on anyone else as my thoughts on them are less defined, but I will leave you with a vote to cement the one concrete opinion I have at present.

##Vote: Joe Rambo

Maybe just a tinge of irony/meaning in the fact that Excal's defending someone who defends lurkers? Other than that, Snow's just a really easy, inoffensive train to jump upon right now, for obvious reasons. And maybe it's just me, but for all that I'm glad we didn't rush to lynch Shale before he could speak, I don't find the aborted mini-train against him particularly "fishy." Especially after the endlessness of Day 2 I can well understand the impulse to just up and dispose of someone who had been so markedly useless.

Finally? QuietRain. Look, I'm the last person who's going to defend my lurking. I suck, etc. But I'm a bit perplexed, now. You were very strongly against Shale's lynch when LAL was invoked against him. Hell, you had a sizeable post-and-a-half or so yesterday defending that position you took, saying that lurkers weren't the first thing you looked for when hunting scum and talking about how you understood people's RL issues. And now you pop up for the first time today only to ask about a potential modkill for me in a way that struck me as a pretty blatantly leading question. Uh. Interesting one-eighty, QR.

And maybe now my paranoia's working overtime, but suddenly I can't help connecting the two of them. Despite thinking QR does look bad for that, though, I'm going to set my vote on somehow who has generally looked bad to me for longer.

##VOTE: Excal

[Strago]

Aaaaaand Ninja'd. Okay, as bed as role-metagaming is, Tai's read of Carthrat's roleclaim does make the latter look pretty clean in my book. Simply because... well, Voteless Scum with... no other role? Then again, El Cid did advertise this game as a head-scratcher. Yar.

[QuietRain]

Strago, I think you're looking at a very different situation here.  My statements at the time (and my feelings right now) where that a lynch is better used on someone you think is scum than for someone that might very well just have had RL issues come up.  There is a big difference between modkill and lynch unless I missed a part where Cid said this game gets a Day End at modkill.  If someone has RL issues come up that drive them off for days at a time, I don't see a problem with modkilling them.  Town still gets our chance to lynch that way.

[Strago]

Yeah. 'Tis indeed a fair enough point, and I suppose that I likely reacted hastily given that it was my own head being submitted for the block. The fact that I recall you brushing over Shale and suggesting neither modkill nor lynch does still ping my radar a bit, but... yes, you're right in isolating the important functional difference to us between a lynch and a modkill.

[Excal]

Strago, I'd like to suggest that it isn't the frequency with which someone posts but rather the content they put into their post that counts.  Shale, while he has been somewhat erratic in his posting, has been consistantly insightful when he does post.  As such, I have few issues with arguing against his lynch.

As for the one post of any content I've made in Day 3, perhaps a bit of context for why it's so poorly worded.  I've basically been running off of 4/5 hours of sleep for the last two nights, and when I made that post I was already half an hour late for work.  Needless to say, it was a teensy bit rushed.

Now, moving on to Bard and his case.  Given the seriousness of his claims, I'll just go ahead and quote it.

So first and foremost, I'm going to start talking about someone who's been mostly ignored this entire game. Lurking at its best, everyone failed to recognize this individual promised content several times without providing any. When he does, the content is... Pretty small.

Eh, except for days where people start calling for my blood on day 1, that's always the way it goes.  But thank you, you've made it so any points I have will matter now!

I'm talking of Excal, of course.
That's the first post on Day 2 that has actual content, though it lacks the promise of "looking back at Day 1" and tunnel visions into Snow. This is the next post containing some content.

I must admit, I am curious about the tunnel visioning.  I'll admit my posting style is fire and forget, but I don't recall overly focusing on Snow much before that point.  Snow actually coming to my attention due to his actions near the end of Day 1.  Also, I switched my vote from Snow to Meeple near the end of Day 2, which doesn't suggest that I've been keeping my eye and attention only on Snow.

Then for a few pages, there's nothing, followed by this beautiful response:

Blargleargleargleargle...

I don't know whether to be more upset by the fact that there's so many posts to wade through, or that with all the time I've been away there's been so few.  Head hurts, somewhat groggy, and trying to get thoughts together, but I will get something substantive for you guys before I go to sleep tonight.

One thing I can comment on right now though is my agreement with QR.  We need to start focussing on lynching soon.  The day feels like it's miring, and focussing on getting a lynch down is just what we need to revitalise the arguments and draw in those people who haven't seen fit to speak.  That said, QR, I'm thinking Andy may be a worthwhile addition to the list of folks to consider.  I'll give more concrete reasoning why in my next post.

Now here's something interesting. Two things, rather.

1) The day feels like it's miring, and focussing on getting a lynch down is just what we need to revitalise the arguments and draw in those people who haven't seen fit to speak.

What an amusing thing to say for someone whose only contributed two posts all day to cases, and then moves on to agree with QR that, "Hey, we should start focusing and draw in the people who haven't yet spoken!" even though he knows damn well he belongs to that category of people.

2) He promises to provide more concrete reasoning in his next post. He does not. Instead, promises us content the next day. Sure fine!

Right, let's kill two birds with one stone here.  If you read what I said in the last post before this long span where nothing happened, I opened by saying I would not be home.  Specifically, between Friday morning and Saturday night, I was home for roughly six hours in a 34 hour span of time.  These six hours were also the time I had to sleep in.  I hope you forgive me for not wanting to give over a third of that time in order to produce a worthwhile response.  As for the failure to provide a post that night?  Honestly, I was tired, and wasn't able to think clearly enough to post anything.

That's all dandy but if you look at the next page following that, he really doesn't provide concrete reasoning, and actually backs off the Andrew case.

Are you saying you want me to fake cases that I don't think are worth making?  Are you saying that if I state that I think someone is suspicious and I'm going to look at why, then I am not allowed to come up with the answer "I was wrong"?

His next post here talks of giving his thoughts into a "hopeful Day 2 end game", even though his presence was negligable during the start and middle of the day.

This is worrying because scum typically like to pad numbers and a sense of being here by posting frequently to start, and then hoping to coast on that.  However, part of that is to avoid having to get involved in exchanges where their faulty logic can be exposed.  In Shale's case, whenever he does post, he usually comes along with some decently detailed thoughts and attempts to be helpful.

I can't help but read IRONY in this because that's exactly what he's been doing. The one time he really arguments for a case, Excal just has to pad on what others have said since he comes late to the entire day.

Bard, this section comes across more as an argument that if you don't happen to have free time when the day starts, then don't even bother trying to participate when it ends.  What am I supposed to do if the night is when I'm free, and the day starts when I'm horribly busy?  Tell my boss that I can't come into work because I'm playing a game?  Tell my friends that I cannot honour my commitments because I'm playing a game?  Hell, you even used the same justification yourself by saying you have interests which preceed Mafia in importance.  So why is it alright for you, but not for others?

The next post he makes is right over here, where he just blends into the conversation. Nothing about the previous day. Nothing about the discussion at hand aside from, "Don't lynch QR, she's been useful to town".

Why be superfluous if you don't have anything more to add?

And now his latest gem of a post is to lynch Jo'ou based on "his usage of power doesn't feel right" with the promise he'll post more concrete thoughts later. Well gee, you promised the same with Andrew. Sure thing, I'll believe you this time.

Except, you know. Not.

##FoS: Excal for this reasoning. Being generally lurkish while pretending to be here, every so often posting some excuse for not delivering while never really delivering information that hasn't been said before. Skillfully remained under everyone's radar.

See my answer to Strago above as to why that post is the way it is.

[Strago]

Okay, Excal's defense is solid enough. Life is busy. That's cool. Of course, life can be just as busy just as easily for scum as for town, and frankly Excal's been pinging for me -- as I've said -- since Day 1, when he was posting fairly frequently. Other peeps, talk about Excal a bit. What are people's thoughts? We all seem to be burnt out on this game for some reason and sick of walls o' text, so I'm just asking straight-up. Is there any agreement to be had on Excal?

If not, I'm getting close to ready to change my vote to Snow; his recent return to fatalist resignation strikes me as disingenuous and manipulative, somehow, and something needs to inject some life into this game once more. Anything, because we all suck.

[Bardiche]

I'm talking of Excal, of course.
That's the first post on Day 2 that has actual content, though it lacks the promise of "looking back at Day 1" and tunnel visions into Snow. This is the next post containing some content.

I must admit, I am curious about the tunnel visioning.  I'll admit my posting style is fire and forget, but I don't recall overly focusing on Snow much before that point.  Snow actually coming to my attention due to his actions near the end of Day 1.  Also, I switched my vote from Snow to Meeple near the end of Day 2, which doesn't suggest that I've been keeping my eye and attention only on Snow.

You know, you're absolutely right. Well, at least the tunnel vision, because at the time I read it, I was all, "Oh man, he's focusing on Snow already..." while it's more, "He's throwing out a suspicion during a discussion with few solid candidates". My apologies.

Then for a few pages, there's nothing, followed by this beautiful response:

Blargleargleargleargle...

I don't know whether to be more upset by the fact that there's so many posts to wade through, or that with all the time I've been away there's been so few.  Head hurts, somewhat groggy, and trying to get thoughts together, but I will get something substantive for you guys before I go to sleep tonight.

One thing I can comment on right now though is my agreement with QR.  We need to start focussing on lynching soon.  The day feels like it's miring, and focussing on getting a lynch down is just what we need to revitalise the arguments and draw in those people who haven't seen fit to speak.  That said, QR, I'm thinking Andy may be a worthwhile addition to the list of folks to consider.  I'll give more concrete reasoning why in my next post.

Now here's something interesting. Two things, rather.

1) The day feels like it's miring, and focussing on getting a lynch down is just what we need to revitalise the arguments and draw in those people who haven't seen fit to speak.

What an amusing thing to say for someone whose only contributed two posts all day to cases, and then moves on to agree with QR that, "Hey, we should start focusing and draw in the people who haven't yet spoken!" even though he knows damn well he belongs to that category of people.

2) He promises to provide more concrete reasoning in his next post. He does not. Instead, promises us content the next day. Sure fine!

Right, let's kill two birds with one stone here.  If you read what I said in the last post before this long span where nothing happened, I opened by saying I would not be home.  Specifically, between Friday morning and Saturday night, I was home for roughly six hours in a 34 hour span of time.  These six hours were also the time I had to sleep in.  I hope you forgive me for not wanting to give over a third of that time in order to produce a worthwhile response.  As for the failure to provide a post that night?  Honestly, I was tired, and wasn't able to think clearly enough to post anything.

My point still stands. You're saying we should start focusing, and prod the people who haven't seen fit to talk yet, even though you've hardly talked at all. You're coming in, and talking in a way as if you do not at all belong to that category. During the second day, posts like these made it feel as if you were actually present, and in the heat of the discussion, combined with your attitude, I honestly overlooked that you were lurking. You'll have to forgive me for being paranoid of others.

That's all dandy but if you look at the next page following that, he really doesn't provide concrete reasoning, and actually backs off the Andrew case.

Are you saying you want me to fake cases that I don't think are worth making?  Are you saying that if I state that I think someone is suspicious and I'm going to look at why, then I am not allowed to come up with the answer "I was wrong"?

Well it sounds equally shoddy to me, to first say, "I think this guy should be considered for lynch" and only then start looking for the arguments to justify that. This may simply be a playstyle issue, though, so I'm not willing to pursue it as "scumtell".

His next post here talks of giving his thoughts into a "hopeful Day 2 end game", even though his presence was negligable during the start and middle of the day.

This is worrying because scum typically like to pad numbers and a sense of being here by posting frequently to start, and then hoping to coast on that.  However, part of that is to avoid having to get involved in exchanges where their faulty logic can be exposed.  In Shale's case, whenever he does post, he usually comes along with some decently detailed thoughts and attempts to be helpful.

I can't help but read IRONY in this because that's exactly what he's been doing. The one time he really arguments for a case, Excal just has to pad on what others have said since he comes late to the entire day.

Bard, this section comes across more as an argument that if you don't happen to have free time when the day starts, then don't even bother trying to participate when it ends.  What am I supposed to do if the night is when I'm free, and the day starts when I'm horribly busy?  Tell my boss that I can't come into work because I'm playing a game?  Tell my friends that I cannot honour my commitments because I'm playing a game?  Hell, you even used the same justification yourself by saying you have interests which preceed Mafia in importance.  So why is it alright for you, but not for others?

You're not seeing the point I tried to make. The point I was trying to make is that you aren't really active, but at the same time hold an attitude and compose yourself as though you always have been, related to your "scum will attempt to blend in and hope to give off the vibe of being there. That's what I get from you.

The next post he makes is right over here, where he just blends into the conversation. Nothing about the previous day. Nothing about the discussion at hand aside from, "Don't lynch QR, she's been useful to town".

Why be superfluous if you don't have anything more to add?

Because you haven't really added anything during neither Day 2 nor now Day 3. You weren't there for most of Day 2, and when you posted it was vague and lacking any original content, save for such ample amounts it's negligable, to me. You've been riding on other's trains for that day, and now in day 3, you jump on the Snow train with ample justification, place a vote regardless (trying to get an early hammer on him so you won't need to justify it? idk) and consequently still haven't backed that vote up. The least you could do is at least provide sound reasoning for day 3 cases and start contributing to that day.

Again, this may be playstyle differences, but it comes off as suspicious to me. I don't think it wrong of me to want to ask you for some justification and give you a good look.

And now his latest gem of a post is to lynch Jo'ou based on "his usage of power doesn't feel right" with the promise he'll post more concrete thoughts later. Well gee, you promised the same with Andrew. Sure thing, I'll believe you this time.

Except, you know. Not.

##FoS: Excal for this reasoning. Being generally lurkish while pretending to be here, every so often posting some excuse for not delivering while never really delivering information that hasn't been said before. Skillfully remained under everyone's radar.

See my answer to Strago above as to why that post is the way it is.

Yes, but you'll have to forgive me for my cynicism, because so far it holds true.

[Bardiche]

Agh, damnit. Without thinking I hit the edit button when I saw that the BB coding was wrong. I'll fully admit to this. I only placed an extra [/quote], but uh, yeah. I don't have an excuse.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Another post before bed, this one looking at Bardiche, since the two of us have had enough back-and-forth that he's been in my thoughts regardless, not to mention the fact that he started Day 2 as one of the more concerning players.

Bardiche:

Okay. Day 1, two things he does that stand out to me. One, and admittedly this probably only stands out to me because it was in conversation with me, but he apparently misses where Rat says he can't vote, since he suggests maybe Rat can only vote to hammer. Secondly, speaking of hammers, he hurls one down "accidentally", possibly to ensure he can buff his vote total.

Day 2, his defence of his claim and explanation is in fact pretty reasonable. So is his vote on Meeple and the reasoning behind it. He doesn't really start raising my eyebrows at all until the bottom of page 12. In particular, when he implicates QuietRain as paranoia-inciting and narrowing lynch candidates... and throws in Corwin for good measure. There's never a reason given for this besides

I grouped the two of them together because QR said, explicitly, that we should narrow down the list of suspects and... IDK, but to me, Corwin really seems to be sniping people and being generally rather aggressive in play.

Which is fair enough, but it still didn't change the fact that the previous post felt like an attempt to heap suspicion. And in general, I don't like the fact that he uses the words of a Dead Townie to lend weight to this sudden tactic.

Day 3... better. Laggy calls him out, he defends himself. He makes cases. So let's look at those.

His case on Excal basically boils down to Excal being a lurker. I'm not going to pick it apart because it's certainly not my place to do so; I'm as curious as Excal's ongoing defence as anyone. The one thing I take exception to is that he harps too much on irony, as if Excal's thoughts on how issues like lurking are lessened because he himself has been doing it. Personally I think it looks much scummier if a lurker just tries to brush the whole issue under the rug.

His case on me is largely based around a misconception, which... well, isn't great, since it is the second time he has conveniently missed something like that. The other concerns are valid enough, for all that it feels like he picked me because I'd annoyed him previously. Which... I should really take some of the blame for. The ;_; was probably uncalled for, and as I've chastised Corwin already for getting people off-balance, I should apologise for possibly doing the same myself.

Overall? Yeah, there's a few unsettling things about him to me. But this review of his posts has convinced me there is not enough for him to earn my vote.


Very brief summary of others, since I won't be doing more tonight.

Snow: Do I need to explain why he's a big lynch candidate? Probably not. That said, I badly want to go over his posts myself before throwing a vote on him, especially as near to hammer as we are. Told the truth about his role, but there's nothing especially town-like about a roleblocker, so what good does that do? Slight credit for the 50% failure thing being truth; if it had been partial truth there would be a vote in this space for sure.

Shale, Strago, and Excal are all guilty of not posting enough. Yeah, I know they all have reasons (and believe every one of 'em). None have been... horrid about content when they have posted, is my general feeling, but all deserve looks for how much they've posted. General feeling is that Shale's posts have had the most solid content of the three, so despite those early votes he accrued he feels the most town-like. Strago has skirted modkill the entire game, Excal's somewhere in the middle.

Corwin certainly doesn't have that problem. He's posted a lot (after a slow start). He does however feel very aggressive, and has been unsettling me the entire game because of it. Honest playstyle difference? Good chance! But it could also be masking a scum taking control of townie discussion and making sure the targets we lynch are scum-approved.

Andrew's clearly above the lurker level, and has generally done well enough in his own defence. Hasn't made much of an impression on me in Day 3, though.

Tai: Bye, dude. Thanks for the info. Still, bleh. The loss erodes the little ground we made by preventing (however it happened...) a kill last night.

Rat generally pings to me as town, as the arguments he has made have been solid enough. He HAS, however, been fading a bit in my impression of him recently... despite today being voting day for him. Told the truth about his role (probably) but could easily have done that as town or scum.

If Laggy and/or QR are scum, they are damn good at it.