|
Post by texcat on Jan 22, 2014 19:51:02 GMT -5
In another development - Mahaloth, the Jack of All Trades, is my target. There is one slighly unusual thing which is worth mentioning. The two quoted PMs (fom Silver Jan and Mahaloth) make no reference to the target's alignment. Mine however, says the following: Notice the specific disclaimer about the Jack's alignment (also, the name is Jack of All Trades rather than jack-of-all-trades). There is also the slightly curious thing in that my target is identified by role type rather than character name. Mahaloth has also used his ability in a very non town way - alignment is everything, name is far less important. However, I do have a conflict of interest, as I need Mahaloth dead to win. So I am torn. For the moment, Unvote: MahalothI am surprised that with this (bolding mine) in your PM that you still suggested: A number of players have stated that townie's targets must be town (or benign third party), otherwise the extra condition is redundant. If this is true then we should all reveal our targets. Then scum cannot kill us without confirming a townie. In addition, if any scum have scum as targets, they will be in a bit of a pickle: do they make up a name, or do they potentially expose a fellow scum? So here we are again: is it worth all of us revealing our targets?
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 22, 2014 20:02:10 GMT -5
The overall sequence of events seems to reflect badly on Mahaloth… or on Colby. Colby is blocked, as we would expect, but not killed as we would expect. There are four possible explanations that I can see:
1. The Scum chose to kill someone else, who was either Sister C or someone else but they were blocked or protected. This seems unlikely if Colby is non-Scum.
2. The Scum indeed attacked Colby, but their killer was blocked. Reflects very poorly on Mahaloth.
3. The Scum indeed attacked Colby, but he was protected by another Doctor (or someone with a one-shot protection, or something like that). Neutral.
4. Colby is lying, and is himself Scum. This has been largely ignored as a possibility, but it fits perfectly with what we've seen, especially if Mahaloth turns out to be Town.
Why is the consensus that Colby has been truthful?
More, and a vote, to come.
|
|
|
Post by FruitAndGarbage on Jan 22, 2014 20:07:47 GMT -5
Votes: Mahaloth [3]: texcat (76), Captain Klutz (95), colby11 (101), Paranoia (102) texcat [3]: gnarlycharlie (26), gnarlycharlie (40), Silver Jan (42), dizzymrslizzy (45), Chameleon (-78), patricia (98) gnarlycharlie [2]: Paranoia (24), texcat (37), patricia (48), Chameleon (78) Silver Jan [1]: Pleonast (51), Pleonast (59) Swammerdami [1]: Pleonast (51), Suburban Plankton (52) Suburban Plankton [1]: Swammerdami (58) Paranoia [0]: Swammerdami (16), gnarlycharlie (25) Chameleon [0]: gnarlycharlie (30) Meeko: [0] Pleonast (51) storyteller0910 [-1]: texcat (17), Swammerdami (-35)
Investigations: Meeko [8]: Captain Klutz (9), Meeko (-11), Silver Jan (12), Swammerdami (16), texcat (17), patricia (18), dizzymrslizzy (20), Paranoia (24), Chameleon (29), Mahaloth (33), Swammerdami (-35), storyteller0910 (46), Suburban Plankton (55) Paranoia [2]: gnarlycharlie (25), Swammerdami (35) Captain Klutz [1]: Meeko (11) Silver Jan [0]: Chameleon (13)
With these votes, no player will be lynched and Meeko will be investigated. Day two ends in 3 hours.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jan 22, 2014 20:22:53 GMT -5
Colby has not been counter-claimed. Indeed, no one has questioned him very much at all. I am assuming that town does have a doctor, and that the doc would have been voting him, or counter-claiming him, or at least questioning him.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 22, 2014 20:25:39 GMT -5
OK. First:
If we had multiple votes or if there were a runaway bandwagon such that my vote doesn't matter, I would be voting for Suburban Plankton. Yesterday's lynch was of guiri, an excellent player and just the sort that a Scum group would like to eliminate if he's not on their side. Thus I think it likely that at least one voter responsible for guiri's lynch is Scum. Of the votes, I disliked Plankton's most - guiri was essentially lynched for making a joke vote and for antivoting himself, and never did Plankton explain even in brief why he felt that this was scummy.
But I won't vote for Plankton here, because we are in danger of a no-lynch and that would be a huge mistake.
I am struggling. I am going back and forth here on the subject of Mahaloth. His decision to investigate for role name rather than alignment positively screams that he is non-Town - probably, though not certainly, a third part of some sort. If Mahaloth is a threat to Town, then Klutz is probably lying about Mahaloth being his unique target… but this seems sort of unlikely.
I am going to vote texcat. A main thrust of her analysis has been focusing on lack of participation (mine included) as her form of scum hunting. I simply can't agree that this is a useful approach, and I think it's actually a good strategy for someone trying to look like they're Scum hunting while not having to make a better case. Then, there was this:
Mahaloth has now revealed (nearly) everything, so the first half of this statement is now invalid, and yet texcat's vote remains on Mahaloth. And I don't buy the latter argument - why should a claimed doc receive automatic unvotes with no additional scrutiny? WHy is a doc claim a get-out-of-jail free card? It oughtn't to be.
Meh. I don't love this vote. But it seems very likely to me that Mahaloth is some kind of harmless third party, and given that, texcat is more likely to be Scum.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 22, 2014 20:28:44 GMT -5
Colby has not been counter-claimed. Indeed, no one has questioned him very much at all. I am assuming that town does have a doctor, and that the doc would have been voting him, or counter-claiming him, or at least questioning him. Why would a (theoretical) Town doc counterclaim Colby, or make an obvious show of voting for him, and thereby expose themselves? To what benefit? A Town Doctor would know that his/her eventual death will expose Colby's lie sooner or later - better to stay under the radar and retain freedom of action. I would strongly advise a Town doc against counterclaiming Colby, supposing that he is lying.
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Jan 22, 2014 20:31:38 GMT -5
mod,Paranoia unvoted me.
i'm not sureMahaloth is necessarily scum for not using his power in a way that benefits town. we all want to win but in this game that isn't a guarantee a townie wins even town does.
i'm very curious why Texcatwon't share her role. is she scum? is she town without a person needed to be dead and wary that town will take it against her?
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jan 22, 2014 20:40:33 GMT -5
Well with that vote, it seems I have no choice but to claim. I am a watcher. I watched Colby last Night. He was visited by GnarlyCharlie and 2 others. I think both Gnarly and Mahaloth are scum. Because Colby was still alive this morning, I think somehow they thought their roleblock had failed and that Mahaloth could safely claim that he was roleblocked.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jan 22, 2014 20:43:24 GMT -5
The middle part of my role:
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Jan 22, 2014 20:56:10 GMT -5
both are scum? what a keap of logic. who's the other one you saw? also does making you a watcher nean you're town? where's the rest if your role?
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Jan 22, 2014 21:00:30 GMT -5
I don't agree with the case on Texcat so Antivote: Texcat
The simple fact is we have documented proof of Mahaloth abusing low activity to hide as scum in the past and basing part of your hunting on activity isn't that bad when you realise mahaloth has not actually voted at all today or offered up who he wants lynched.
I feel like y'all are ignoring something legitimately scummy in favor of grasping at straws.
also here's a thought: sharing your role pm pretty blatantly puts a target on your back from other people in the game. Gnarly, with that on the table would you want to put your role pm out there?
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Jan 22, 2014 21:07:18 GMT -5
Like again I really don't feel like letting someone slide on by a role claim when he hasn't provided a defense beyond that or actually done anything when Texcat has her opinion and her logic out there while you all dog pile on that. It'd be no small wonder scum would avoid offering opinions if that is the usual response.
Lynch the non participant who's acting scummy regardless of role or if they're someone else's target.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jan 22, 2014 21:15:56 GMT -5
both are scum? what a keap of logic. who's the other one you saw? also does making you a watcher nean you're town? where's the rest if your role? I see that you don't deny visiting Colby last Night. Conferring with your team on what to do? I suspect that you were the foiled killer. Is there a reason you're not confirming my role? The first part of my PM tells my name and nationality that I am not willing to give up. The second part of my PM tells my additional conditions for winning. I'm not willing to let that go yet either.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jan 22, 2014 21:37:19 GMT -5
Anti-vote: texcat
|
|
|
Post by Captain Klutz on Jan 22, 2014 21:48:46 GMT -5
Well with that vote, it seems I have no choice but to claim. I am a watcher. I watched Colby last Night. He was visited by GnarlyCharlie and 2 others. I think both Gnarly and Mahaloth are scum. Because Colby was still alive this morning, I think somehow they thought their roleblock had failed and that Mahaloth could safely claim that he was roleblocked. You say he was visited by GnarlyCharlie and 2 others. Did you actually get 2 other names? If you also saw Mahaloth then he lied about investigating me last Night.
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Jan 22, 2014 21:55:47 GMT -5
both are scum? what a keap of logic. who's the other one you saw? also does making you a watcher nean you're town? where's the rest if your role? I see that you don't deny visiting Colby last Night. Conferring with your team on what to do? I suspect that you were the foiled killer. Is there a reason you're not confirming my role? The first part of my PM tells my name and nationality that I am not willing to give up. The second part of my PM tells my additional conditions for winning. I'm not willing to let that go yet either. you're reaching. a lot of players don't post at this time.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 22, 2014 21:59:17 GMT -5
OK. First: If we had multiple votes or if there were a runaway bandwagon such that my vote doesn't matter, I would be voting for Suburban Plankton. Yesterday's lynch was of guiri, an excellent player and just the sort that a Scum group would like to eliminate if he's not on their side. Thus I think it likely that at least one voter responsible for guiri's lynch is Scum. Of the votes, I disliked Plankton's most - guiri was essentially lynched for making a joke vote and for antivoting himself, and never did Plankton explain even in brief why he felt that this was scummy. But I won't vote for Plankton here, because we are in danger of a no-lynch and that would be a huge mistake. I think a bigger problem with the voting yesterDay is that the Day ended with more non-voters (4) than votes on the lynch (3). Instead of looking at the people who actually cast votes, I'd be looking at the people who decided not to take part in the decision at all. Mahaloth and Captain Klutz pose an interesting dilemma. Logically, they must both be 'threats to Town', or they must both be 'non-threats to Town'. I doubt that they are both Scum; it's just not a likely ploy for Scum to make. It's possible that they could both be PFKs, but I think it's likely that they are both 'non-threats'. Which means that at some point, one of them is likely going to need to choose between personal and Town loyalties. Add to that the other 7 people (if my count is correct) with similar win conditions, and the end-game could be very interesting here. For the moment, I'm content to let them both be. I still don't much care for the early votes on texcat, that were based on her 'overreactions' to earlier incidents. But I like less her 'half claim'. If you're possibly up for a lynch, why give out one bit of information, but withhold two others? If there was more time in the Day, I might give her more time to explain things. But since we're coming up on the deadline, and a tie is not an option unvote swammerdamivote texcat
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 22, 2014 22:03:18 GMT -5
I see I missed texcat's self-anti-vote, and have actually created a tie.
I need to think on this for a bit...
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Jan 22, 2014 22:12:11 GMT -5
i was considering anti voting Mahaloth but it would have created a tie. i'm reconsidering now that you have voted.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 22, 2014 22:16:54 GMT -5
unvote texcat vote Mahaloth
On review, I see that Mahaloth hasn't made a vote at all Today. And yesterDay, his only vote happened to be the very last vote of the Day, on the claimed Doc. I'm on complete agreement that just because someone has claimed Doc doesn't mean they should get a free pass, but at that point it did mean that there was no way he was going to be lynched, making Mahaloth's vote a throwaway.
One throwaway vote, and one non-vote, adds up to someone who isn't terribly interested in who lives and who dies, which generally means PFK.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 22, 2014 22:18:12 GMT -5
i was considering anti voting Mahaloth but it would have created a tie. i'm reconsidering now that you have voted. I didn't see this until after my post went through. I guess we're seeing things completely differently...
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Jan 22, 2014 22:20:37 GMT -5
but you're not saying he's a serial killer, right? he did get an investigation result.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 22, 2014 22:21:57 GMT -5
We have a vote leader with 4 votes.
We have 4 players not voting.
This is not good, especially after the the way things went yesterDay.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jan 22, 2014 22:22:33 GMT -5
I think a bigger problem with the voting yesterDay is that the Day ended with more non-voters (4) than votes on the lynch (3). Instead of looking at the people who actually cast votes, I'd be looking at the people who decided not to take part in the decision at all. And yet you seem willing to ignore Mahaloth's lack of vote and participation Today?
The visitors to Colby arrived in a specific order and Gnarly was last. After some not so illuminating discussion with the mod, I am assuming that the order of visitors corresponds with the order in which actions are resolved. Therefore, I think that the roleblocker and the death foiler were the first two visitors and that Gnarly was the scum killer. I am certainly willing to switch to a Gnarly lynch. That's where I started Today. But Colby's uncontested claim of doc and being roleblocked, combined with Mahaloth's claim of being roleblocked, makes me think that he is scum also.
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Jan 22, 2014 22:23:35 GMT -5
do you find Texcat scummy? if so scum is better than PFK.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 22, 2014 22:24:15 GMT -5
but you're not saying he's a serial killer, right? he did get an investigation result. He's claiming Jack of all Trades. I have no problem believing that's what he is. I just feel like he's not Town (or non-threatening Third Party). And his reveal ought to tell us something about Captain Klutz as well.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jan 22, 2014 22:24:56 GMT -5
I type too slow. Gnarly, why haven't you admitted what you were doing visiting Colby last Night, if in fact you had a legitimate reason for being there?
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Jan 22, 2014 22:27:06 GMT -5
I think a bigger problem with the voting yesterDay is that the Day ended with more non-voters (4) than votes on the lynch (3). Instead of looking at the people who actually cast votes, I'd be looking at the people who decided not to take part in the decision at all. And yet you seem willing to ignore Mahaloth's lack of vote and participation Today?
The visitors to Colby arrived in a specific order and Gnarly was last. After some not so illuminating discussion with the mod, I am assuming that the order of visitors corresponds with the order in which actions are resolved. Therefore, I think that the roleblocker and the death foiler were the first two visitors and that Gnarly was the scum killer. I am certainly willing to switch to a Gnarly lynch. That's where I started Today. But Colby's uncontested claim of doc and being roleblocked, combined with Mahaloth's claim of being roleblocked, makes me think that he is scum also. still won't share who else visited Colby? how can we discuss who might be a killer or blocker if you don't divulge the information. still won't share the complete PM. that's major points against you.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jan 22, 2014 22:29:21 GMT -5
And yet you are sharing nothing?
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 22, 2014 22:30:23 GMT -5
do you find Texcat scummy? if so scum is better than PFK. I don't know about texcat. I didn't have any particularly Scummy vibes from her before her claim. When I thought we were in a tie situation, I figured I needed to take a stand, either her or Mahaloth. At that point, I was thinking that the most likely scenario for Mahaloth/Captain Klutz was that they were both Town, so I voted texcat based on her claim. When I found that I had actually created a tie, I went back and reviewed things, and noticed Mahaloth's voting pattern. That turned the tables for me.
|
|