Werewolves of Miller's Hollow | Game Over! Who could have possibly won?!?!???!

[Kirbyoshi]

Note: Above could also be soft rolefishing for Witch, and is duly noted.

Also Duly Noted: Cello is voting for someone she doesn't want to vote for.

 

[Cello_Marl]

Just so you know, Kirbyoshi, both the Witch and the Fortune Teller are both in this game, as a certainty. It's stated in the 2nd post.

Also, you said you were suspicious of Macman and Xonar. What are you thinking about Cacti, Omis, and Today?

 

[Omis]

@Omis I know what you are.

lol wu t

 

[Cello_Marl]

Mostly just being facetious. Partly a way to get my post count up when/if Ghebcus starts playing activity police (with responses like this one).

Actually, I expected them to be the one(s) to mention you and Cacti.

 

[Omis]

So you are both trying to unlegitimize someone's playstyle and rely on said person?

 

[Cello_Marl]

If you are talking about Ghebcus, then not at all, and possibly, respectively.

Not enforcing activity lost L4S. Scum didn't win it; town lost.

If NOAWG wants to activity police this game, then I'm all in support of that. If they dont, then it's their choice; in which case, I'll probably end up picking up the slack.

 

[Omis]

You are saying that you would like it for him to activity police this game but try to make it so you appear more active thus making his method ineffective.

 

[Cello_Marl]

There are other people in this game. Example: Today has managed to say less than any other player, and by some counts, hasn't said anything at all. On that note, Maymay has dropped off the edge of the world.

Moreover, how are you measuring effectiveness? To me, the activity policing is not an effective method of actually finding scum in and of itself; the fact that only active players are left is what's important. And the threat of that, doubly so. Well, three halves so.

Now, what is ineffective is one/two person/people squawking on about it with nothing happening. If we won't lynch an inactive at the end of the day (barring exigent circumstances such an undesired election), then there's no point to wasting time and energy barking at people who aren't playing.

Xonar, you should vote for Cacti with me. Ghebcus, too.

unvote
vote Cacti

Macman, what do you think about Omis? Right now, I'm thinking "not scum". And yes, I am trying to influence your thinking. I'm so glad English second person singular and plural are the same.

I'm a little surprised that Mentos didn't ask nobody asked how/why I know he has two buddies there are three wolves.

 

[Mayling]

i has a tummyache

There are other people in this game. Example: Today has managed to say less than any other player, and by some counts, hasn't said anything at all. On that note, Maymay has dropped off the edge of the world.

It's interesting that KevinM's last post was (exactly) an hour behind mine, yet you don't mention him at all. I agree that inactivity is bad, and I have my johns if you want them, but let's be fair and name everyone who's guilty. Or is there a reason you failed to mention KevinM?

My vote is still currently on Kirbyoshi, but I don't really want it to be there, and Xonar wagon is crap. Anyone else feel like voting NOAWG, Mentos, or Cacti with me? I'd be most interested in lynching Mentos, personally, but any of those three are fine.

unvote
vote Cacti

If you're interested in lynching Mentos the most, why not go for mentos? Instead, you don't mention why you're interested in him, and only vote for Cacti (again no reasoning.) U distancing?

Afterall, if we're metaing and all here.. that's exactly what xiivi did in l4s. (i feel much wiser and more paranoid after that game )

 

[No one agrees with Gheb]

I dont think we should have a sheriff. It just gives power to people and we dont want that. Near the beginning it is way too hard to get a clear read on people and thusly its not smart to award someone power. So ya no sheriff.

My vote is still currently on Kirbyoshi, but I don't really want it to be there, and Xonar wagon is crap. Anyone else feel like voting NOAWG, Mentos, or Cacti with me? I'd be most interested in lynching Mentos, personally, but any of those three are fine.

This looks awfully random and fake. First of all there never was a Xonar wagon so saying that it's "crap" proves that you are either not reading carefully or that you're trying to mislead mislead us. FoS for that.

If you want people to vote me, mentos or cacti it'd be helpful to actually provide a reason - saying you "feel like voting us" doesn't do a lot to convince the others. You can't be talking about pressure voting because all 3 players you mentioned - especially mentos and me - have been fairly vocal and made legitimate attempts to look for scum and to support discussion. So what is it that you want to vote us for moreso than Omis' and Today's parroting? If Pierre didn't specify which roles may or may not be in the game I'd be pretty certain that you're a jester.

Vote Today

Give us more than just a parrot - that goes for you too, Omis!

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

In response to mentos
Election Unvote: Xonar
't was a typo, will read posts and reply now. would be kinda stupid to do a fake vote when the votecount comes around

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

Eh don't really know what to say, to much inactivity hunting (which I don't mind but kinda can't reply on)

Anyway I'm thinking I'm getting a bit to much attention from this whole self-sherrif-vote before anything was said, I unvoted as soon as I was back online, and it escalated while I was asleep.

@ that post that kevinm found scummy, I didn't know that NOAWG was ghebhydra so I thought Mac asked me why I was so eager to vote.
Ehyeah.


I guess that's pretty much everything. Would like kirbyoshi to go most atm.

 

[Cello_Marl]

It's interesting that KevinM's last post was (exactly) an hour behind mine, yet you don't mention him at all. I agree that inactivity is bad, and I have my johns if you want them, but let's be fair and name everyone who's guilty. Or is there a reason you failed to mention KevinM?

Yes, there is. He announced in the V/LA thread that he's V/LA.

If you're interested in lynching Mentos the most, why not go for mentos? Instead, you don't mention why you're interested in him, and only vote for Cacti (again no reasoning.)

Are you interested in voting Mentos? If so, and you think others are as well, then I'll jump right on that. For now, there's plenty of time for him to slip up enough for the rest of you to see it. But as for why I think he's scummy, it's his "concerted effort to play". Omis's comment about wanting to "seem somehow important" applies to Mentos.

1) His comments on Xonar's Electrion. If he'd been paying attention, he would have seen that Pierre had removed Xonar's sheriff vote. This just seems like an attempt to build anti-Xonar sentiment. Next thing you know, he'll want to have a meeting over someone voting Ghebcus or KevinscuM. (The last sentence was added as an attempt to build anti-Mentos sentiment.)
2) His response to my thoughts on Cupido. Honestly, the whole paragraph felt like it was constructed just to make me seem flighty. Especially when you consider that he hadn't read the information provided by Pierre; if he had, then he would have realized what McFox later brought to his attention. As it was, he didn't even realize what role I was denying, as well as how what I did showed that to be so.

As for "why Cacti", from what I understand, Cacti has a history of inactivity. Like I noticed with Omis, Cacti was visiting Decisive Games on multiple occasions after the creation of this game thread but without posting anything here. Cacti popped up out of nowhere shortly after he gets brought up for the first time. But unlike Omis, he came with a formed opinion that he apparently only felt the need to express at that time. Why not earlier? Also, I know he was not reading the thread at the time of my post, as I am in the habit of checking people's profiles to keep tabs on their actions while I am reading/posting. This seems to me more like he was told in another medium (such as AIM), that he was mentioned in thread.

I threw NOAWG in there because of some residual bad feelings I got over his response to Mentos's "beast" of a post. Not really seeing anything on him directly, so whatev. Though, I see that Circus has learned a bit from Xiivi as well. A funny picture attachment will pretty much guarantee that no one wants to lynch you.

I still have a bad feeling from Kirbyoshi. The only reason I didn't want it on him now is because I'm confident he'll give himself away. Cacti and Mentos, a little less so.

U distancing?

Yes. I have no desire to be associated with scum.

This looks awfully random and fake. First of all there never was a Xonar wagon so saying that it's "crap" proves that you are either not reading carefully or that you're trying to mislead mislead us. FoS for that.

There're 3 votes on Xonar, only one of which is there because the voter wanted to get him to unvote: Kevin, Cacti and Kirbyoshi. That certainly looks like the start of a wagon to me. If this is going to turn into another "that's the terminology I use" or "wagons don't have reasons" argument, then I'll put it this way; He's got the most votes on him, but I don't feel he's scum, so I won't vote for him.

Although thanks for reminding me of something.

I am the village idiot and if I am revealed as the village idiot, I will lose my ability to vote, but become unlynchable. Actuallly, I'm not, but I just referred to the role and power.
If you are NOT the village idiot, then you should repeat what I just said in your next post; if all townies do so, then we'll have soft-claims for VI. If the scum are stupid enough to soft-claim, we'll greatly increase our chances for a D1 scum lynch. And if they don't, then we still have the good fortune of essentially having a mod-confirmed townie. And if there's no village idiot, I really don't see how letting everyone know is detrimental.

 

[McFox]

I figured a gesture like that wasn't necessary so early in the game, especially when, as mentos and Omis pointed out, there's a higher liklihood of Lovers being town-aligned than independant. I'd have no problem voting for everyone, next time I'm on my laptop, although I really don't think we should start looking to out roles in that way this early. If someone really wants me do it I will (since I'd said that I'd already been thinking about doing so), but I would discourage others from doing so.

I'm a little surprised that Mentos didn't ask nobody asked how/why I know he has two buddies there are three wolves.

I had noted it but wasn't going to bring it up yet. But since you have, I'll bite.

@Cello: how do you know there are three werewolves?

Got ninja'd by Cello's last post, so has to switch this up. I think it's unecessary to keep putting your "true intentions" in parenthases after what you're saying, but I thought what you brought up against mentos and Cacti was more compelling than I figured it'd be.

Vote: mentos

 

[McFox]

Hmm... I missed part of your post while writing up my last one.

Unvote

Vote: Cello

Actively rolefishing? I didn't mind you confirming you weren't a lover, especially since I was considering doing the same thing, but telling the idiot to out themselves immediately is REALLY stupid. Mafia thrives on mislynches. They really can't win the game without them. And we (possibly) have a townie who can't be mislynched? This is painting a target on their back on D1 for them to be killed at night, since the town won't lynch them.

NO ONE ELSE SHOULD CLAIM VILLAGE IDIOT.

Cello, do you honestly not see how having a role like that count benefit us in endgame, or are you really being that transparently scummy?

 

[Pierre the Scarecrow]

Votecount:
Xonar (3) Kirbyoshi, KevinM, Cacti
NoDAWG (1) Macman
Cacti (1) Cello_Marl
Today (1) NoDAWG
Cello_Marl (1) McFox

Not voting (6) mentosman8, Omis, Xonar, Today, Mayling, Meta-Kirby

A majority 7 of 13 votes is required to lynch.
The day will end at the latest on Thursday, February 19th, Noon EST.

Event 1: Election!

All unmentioned currently abstain.
Election! will end on 5:15 PM EST tomorrow.

@Cello's inquiries: Dancers will be told that they dance as well as of any detrimental effects.
@No one agrees with Gheb: I hope you enjoy the new name they made for you, because I do.

 

[Mayling]

Yes, there is. He announced in the V/LA thread that he's V/LA.

Oh. Okay. :3

Are you interested in voting Mentos? If so, and you think others are as well, then I'll jump right on that. For now, there's plenty of time for him to slip up enough for the rest of you to see it. But as for why I think he's scummy, it's his "concerted effort to play". Omis's comment about wanting to "seem somehow important" applies to Mentos.

You mean this quote?

*Cracks knuckles* Ok guys, after the horror show that was my performance in L4S, and the results it had late game, I'm going to be making a concerted effort in all my games to start playing like I used to instead of the crap I've put up recently. That said, let's begin. First of all, I like how the election situation has effectively destroyed the RVS.

Yeah, I kinda thought that was fishy too. Especially since people could easily say "a big change in playstyle there, Mentos; prolly means a change in role too." I didn't say anything, tho, because a lot of people were like "I'm pumped for this game, let's go."

As for "why Cacti", from what I understand, Cacti has a history of inactivity. Like I noticed with Omis, Cacti was visiting Decisive Games on multiple occasions after the creation of this game thread but without posting anything here. Cacti popped up out of nowhere shortly after he gets brought up for the first time. But unlike Omis, he came with a formed opinion that he apparently only felt the need to express at that time. Why not earlier? Also, I know he was not reading the thread at the time of my post, as I am in the habit of checking people's profiles to keep tabs on their actions while I am reading/posting. This seems to me more like he was told in another medium (such as AIM), that he was mentioned in thread.

I had that same thought when omis and cacti appeared together quickly. However, I'm not a stalker and didn't see that Cacti was visiting Dgames before that.

I am the village idiot and if I am revealed as the village idiot, I will lose my ability to vote, but become unlynchable. Actuallly, I'm not, but I just referred to the role and power.
If you are NOT the village idiot, then you should repeat what I just said in your next post; if all townies do so, then we'll have soft-claims for VI. If the scum are stupid enough to soft-claim, we'll greatly increase our chances for a D1 scum lynch. And if they don't, then we still have the good fortune of essentially having a mod-confirmed townie. And if there's no village idiot, I really don't see how letting everyone know is detrimental.

By greatly increase chance, you mean we'll have 1 soft confirmed townie, right? So if there are three wolves, a 3/12 chance to hit wolf instead of 3/13?

Also, I'm confused why you want everyone but village idiot to claim. If everyone mentioned village idiot except the village idiot, scum would still know who the village idiot is. But you tell the village idiot not to mention himself, which starts his ability to become unlynchable. Plus, even if there were a mod-confirmed townie, they're not going to last long during nights. So you're asking a potential unlynchable to become n1 fodder.

 

[KevinM]

Agreed with not having potential village idiot claim D1.

Still V/LA and that's just a skim post but I wanted to point that out.

 

[M.K]

Hey guys,
I'm just poppin' in here real quick to ask that, since we have a "KirbYoshi" and a "Meta-Kirby" in this game, if you would reference me (Meta-Kirby) as either "Meta" or "MK". I've gotten a little confused on some statements cuz people say "Kirb". Thanks ! :D

Also, yeah, VI, please don't claim. Cello, you are really trying to role fish, aren't you? Especially for roles that might not necessarily be detrimental to town. I think your efforts would BETTER be suited hunting for Werewolves.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

I actually agree with the backdoor VI claim. It gives us an immediate clear and strengthens the tree stumps power because he wouldn't lose his vote due to actual claiming. I think it's a good idea.

Only problem is that it seems like something Pierre would frown upon. And if we don;t actually have a tree stump, mafia can pick up that fake claim, and we'd be unnecessarily clearing scum.

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

VI claim isn't that bad, but certainly not necessary. We shouldn't take unnecessary risks, especially because we're not sure if the doc is anyone smart, especially because cop is "disguised" as 'witch'

So yeah, no VI claims plz.

 

[mentosman8]

In response to mentos
Election Unvote: Xonar
't was a typo, will read posts and reply now. would be kinda stupid to do a fake vote when the votecount comes around

Hehe that's all I figured it was Xonar I saw that Pierre had counted your unvote, so it was an entirely moot point, but noticed the typo as well. I brought it up hoping that someone would hop all over it to try to push a lynch with it, when, as a couple of the responses said, it was way too far before the deadline to make sense as a ploy. Was reaction testing pretty much, and sadly no one bit hard enough.

Well, it doesn't say that your votes against your partner won't count. It specifically says that you aren't allowed to vote for them. That seems to imply consequences upon doing so.

Hm, I took being not allowed to vote each other the same way as not able to/votes won't count. Can see where you're coming from, but we have no surety that Pierre would hand out infractions over voting/unvoting everyone in the same post

If you people are interested in knowing what Pierre thought about Xonar's unvote, then why don't you just take a look at the vote spread? It's right here. As you can see, Xonar isn't voting for anyone, so it's apparent that Pierre took it to be legit. The far more relevant concern is whether or not Xonar accepts it.

@Mentosman I'd like to think that if I blatantly broke a condition put forth in the role PM itself, I would be reprimanded by Pierre for it. If you are worried that such a thing would be done privately, then I'm more than willing to vote/unvote again. As for why I did it, there was a mini slump, and I was bored. When you said "avoid lynch possibilities", what exactly did you mean? That I was trying to avoid being lynched?

Already explained why I brought up Xonar's typo-vote, but I'm not sure why Pierre taking it as legit would have any impact on the maneuver itself. To the part at me there, I felt that not allowed implied simply that it was an impossibility/votes wouldn't be counted, and not as "if you do it you get infracted." Also, the part you were referring to I meant that if you were a part of a lovers group with someone of a different alignment, trying to make it seem like you weren't to essentially distance yourself from the role later.

I'm a little surprised that Mentos didn't ask nobody asked how/why I know he has two buddies there are three wolves.

Hahaha that was one of the first things I figured out while looking over the possible setups, obvious answer is obviousXD

Are you interested in voting Mentos? If so, and you think others are as well, then I'll jump right on that. For now, there's plenty of time for him to slip up enough for the rest of you to see it. But as for why I think he's scummy, it's his "concerted effort to play". Omis's comment about wanting to "seem somehow important" applies to Mentos.

1) His comments on Xonar's Electrion. If he'd been paying attention, he would have seen that Pierre had removed Xonar's sheriff vote. This just seems like an attempt to build anti-Xonar sentiment. Next thing you know, he'll want to have a meeting over someone voting Ghebcus or KevinscuM. (The last sentence was added as an attempt to build anti-Mentos sentiment.)
2) His response to my thoughts on Cupido. Honestly, the whole paragraph felt like it was constructed just to make me seem flighty. Especially when you consider that he hadn't read the information provided by Pierre; if he had, then he would have realized what McFox later brought to his attention. As it was, he didn't even realize what role I was denying, as well as how what I did showed that to be so.

I am the village idiot and if I am revealed as the village idiot, I will lose my ability to vote, but become unlynchable. Actuallly, I'm not, but I just referred to the role and power.
If you are NOT the village idiot, then you should repeat what I just said in your next post; if all townies do so, then we'll have soft-claims for VI. If the scum are stupid enough to soft-claim, we'll greatly increase our chances for a D1 scum lynch. And if they don't, then we still have the good fortune of essentially having a mod-confirmed townie. And if there's no village idiot, I really don't see how letting everyone know is detrimental.

point 1: Don't get reaction testing, do ya? To actually think that typo was a malicious attempt to keep his vote on himself for sheriff would be ridiculous. With how early it was, it was pretty clear he would have been caught if it had been his intention. My goal, as I said earlier in this post, was to get the first several reactions and see if anyone jumped on the bait and tried to use it before they could parrot many people, so I could swing it around.

point 2: Your whole point is pretty much based on... Me not noticing part of the role? Really, my response to what you did makes sense knowing that I didn't realize the lovers could be independent if they had been opposite alignments. Also, I still don't like the idea of people doing it, because should they NOT be independent and are outed by people doing this, it gives the mafia a target to hit not 1, but 2 townies in a single night. The more people proven as not lovers, the more dangerous if they should exist.

VI idea is terrible. Village idiot can be a potential major role, and outing it earlier makes it more likely for them to die at night, removing our potential fully cleared townie from the game way earlier than necessary. Of course this is assuming the role is in the game, but if it is the idea of backdoor claiming is nothing more than showing the mafia someone they should target.

Also, as an aside, my whole making an effort this game comes from being lynched and revenge-shot due to suspicion as town in several recent games, culminating in L4S(others include Monster, Pheonix Wright, Scum Wars). Getting tired of getting mislynched just cuz I'm not putting in the time to make good posts, and after how bad it was in L4S, it was time for me to play like me, instead of like lazy me.

Hey guys,
I'm just poppin' in here real quick to ask that, since we have a "KirbYoshi" and a "Meta-Kirby" in this game, if you would reference me (Meta-Kirby) as either "Meta" or "MK". I've gotten a little confused on some statements cuz people say "Kirb". Thanks ! :D

Also, yeah, VI, please don't claim. Cello, you are really trying to role fish, aren't you? Especially for roles that might not necessarily be detrimental to town. I think your efforts would BETTER be suited hunting for Werewolves.

Good idea Meta, any thoughts that haven't already been said?

I actually agree with the backdoor VI claim. It gives us an immediate clear and strengthens the tree stumps power because he wouldn't lose his vote due to actual claiming. I think it's a good idea.

Only problem is that it seems like something Pierre would frown upon. And if we don;t actually have a tree stump, mafia can pick up that fake claim, and we'd be unnecessarily clearing scum.

Mac, why do you agree with that idea? I can't see any potential benefit to backdoor claiming VI.

VI claim isn't that bad, but certainly not necessary. We shouldn't take unnecessary risks, especially because we're not sure if the doc is anyone smart, especially because cop is "disguised" as 'witch'

So yeah, no VI claims plz.

Xonar, the doc doesn't HAVE to be smart in this game. If you read the role, the doc can protect 1 time all game. It's a perfect protection, guaranteed save when used. Now, this brings me to another point: Anyone considering outing a role, the doc can only save one time. Anything we out is at most only there for one more day, so we have to be careful to not to out anything useful any earlier than we have to.

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

wait so because his amount of potions is limited he doesnt have to be smart? by that logic he has to be SMARTER then normal.

 

[Omis]

Oh and another thought on the Cupido buisness.

It doesnt matter

Simple as that.

Odds are that they will be on our side and if they are indy well that is just more scum to search for. Only mafia hunts for indies.

 

[Omis]

Hunts for indies more that scum. Bad wording on my part.

@NOAWG
Its not parroting if literally every single person shares just about the same sentiments.

 

[Omis]

Not enforcing activity lost L4S. Scum didn't win it; town lost.

If NOAWG wants to activity police this game, then I'm all in support of that. If they dont, then it's their choice; in which case, I'll probably end up picking up the slack.

There are other people in this game. Example: Today has managed to say less than any other player, and by some counts, hasn't said anything at all. On that note, Maymay has dropped off the edge of the world.

Moreover, how are you measuring effectiveness? To me, the activity policing is not an effective method of actually finding scum in and of itself; the fact that only active players are left is what's important. And the threat of that, doubly so. Well, three halves so.

Now, what is ineffective is one/two person/people squawking on about it with nothing happening. If we won't lynch an inactive at the end of the day (barring exigent circumstances such an undesired election), then there's no point to wasting time and energy barking at people who aren't playing.

Xonar, you should vote for Cacti with me. Ghebcus, too.

unvote
vote Cacti

Macman, what do you think about Omis? Right now, I'm thinking "not scum". And yes, I am trying to influence your thinking. I'm so glad English second person singular and plural are the same.

I'm a little surprised that Mentos didn't ask nobody asked how/why I know he has two buddies there are three wolves.

Blue is a contradictory statement.

Plum is scared scum wanting me to get off their back because they arent making sense

Yellowgreen is him using superfluous language to annoy and confuse people. Earlier he said in 84 that he was doing the same thing to distract people. Chaos is scum's bff Jill.

Everything else he said in any of his other posts is rolephishing

 

[Cello_Marl]

First of all, I'll temporarily rescind my recommendation for soft claim village idiot, until such time that the town may think it a good idea to pursue it, though I think I should explain my thought processes concerning why I was suggesting it.

This portion should answer May's questions.

If all townies claim (thus proving they are not VI), then that means there are, at absolute max, 5 people that soft-claim VI, the 3 wolves, Ronike the Pied Piper, and the actual village idiot. This is assuming there actually is an idiot and a piper, and that, while nominally a stupid move, that all three wolves soft claim.

If 5 people soft-claim, then we win, flat out. We can have the VI come forward, and all the others are hoist by their own petard.
If 2, 3 or 4 come out then we have the possibility that no VI exists. In such a case, we can still ask the "VI" to come forward; if he/she doesn't, then we can just start lynching at will. Even with just 2 claims, if the VI comes forward, that's a 1 for 1 trade for what is essentially a vanilla. After all, the VI can still be NKed (even after coming forward, the way I'm reading it). This is what I meant by greatly increased chance of hitting scum.
The problem lies with a single claim. Personally, I thought that neither scum nor piper would dare soft-claim given the danger. But, it's possible that a single brazen wolf could try for it; in such case (a single soft-claim), then we can consider the case based on our own perceptions rather than something hard and certain. Just use it as a piece of information, rather than a clear. (Though honestly, I hadn't considered the possibility of single scum soft-claim. Thanks, Macman, for bringing that up.)


@McFox - To address the specific point you brought up, an outed VI (contrast with soft-claim VI) would be just as beneficial to scum as a dead one in that. Given the "scramble to lynch" that's so common here, or even the "we know who we'll lynch, but let's wait 10 ****ing days for some reason", any VI forced to claim would likely result in a RL. Definitely something I'd rather NOT deal with later. Also, there's the chance the VI might get killed randomly anyway. This would be especially problematic if the Witch was the one to do it. Finally, a soft-claim VI essentially acts as another life-potion, in a sense. By attracting the attention of the wolves to someone who is essentially just a vanilla anyway, we protect our PRs.
Also, I'll answer your question about my question later. I want to hear from Mentos about something first.

@Omis - The blue is not contradictory. The lack of activity enforcement in L4S created an ideal environment for scum. We literally just had to wait to win. Had we lynched, say, Mediocre and Frozen on Days 2 and 3, both townies, then the more active Ronike and Mayling would have most certainly outed at least me. And that's even assuming that I wasn't the lynchee, especially likely since I was the least active. Given the mechanics of the scenario, that would have given town at least 2 whole extra days, perhaps more based on whether it was D2 or D3.

Still @Omis - Concerning the plum, you suggested that my methods would stifle any activity police efforts by Ghebcus, at least when it concerned me. I pointed out that there are other people, who were inactive. I really don't see how that has anything to do with getting you off my back. If, at any point, you are dissatisfied with my level of activity, please say so.

@Omis's back as he turns to leave - About yellow-green, I'm hurt. Annoying? I'd prefer to think of it as endearing. Moreover, it can't really distract from points against me unless it's the only thing you're paying attention to that I'm posting. In which case, you (plural) are admitting to skimming. Not good if you're trying to levy an argument against someone. Further, it can't really increase my post count if it's part of another post, now can it?

unvote
vote Mentos

The vote is partially just a way to get Mentos's attention and make sure he reads this. It'll go right back to Cacti if he doesn't post more. Or Today, adding my vote to NOAWG's. Post.

@Mentos "It was a ploy" is the easiest way to say, "****, I didn't notice that." However, before I bring up my other point, I want to be sure of something. Why, exactly, was it so obvious that there were 3 wolves? Also, I'd prefer if only Mentos answered this, or at least that he did it first. Of course, I can't stop his scumbuddies from helping him, but whatev.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

It was obvious to me that there were 3 wolves from the get-go as well.

Mentos, why would having an auto clear be a bad thing? He'd get nightkilled? And? But actually now that I think about it. Idiot isn't exactly like a tree stump, if they claim, it seems as if they still count against scum's majority win condition, whereas treestumps do not. I was under the impression that the VI claiming this way would still allow him to be alive, so mafia would want to kill him, which would protect our other power roles. However i realize that this advantage doesn't exist. So I'd prefer if the VI stayed hidden for now. [If this wasn't clear to anyone, I can rephrase it.]

I didn't like how the idea was immediately tossed aside though. Just because it was OMG role-fishing.

VI claiming normally can make certain lylo situations unwinnable. Which is something a possible VI must think about.

 

[mentosman8]

Cello, the PM for the wolves in Pierre's post says "your fellow werewolves are x and y." Obviously if that is sent to one person(z) add x and y to get three. Pretty much the main thing I noticed when I looked at the role post(which I still haven't read in full detail) was guaranteed roles(fortune teller/witch/werewolves), and the likely scum numbers(wolves explained in pm, piper) to work out the numbers game. Best thing about a semi-open setup is you can figure your worst and best case of the game.

 

[Cello_Marl]

@Mentos I noticed that too. Frankly, I find that very convenient that you, you who are trying so hard to put forth a worthy effort, happen to read the bit of information that let's you know how many wolves there are, "obvious answer is obvious" after all, yet manage to miss the information concerning Cupido and Lovers.

Personally, I think you went back to the roles to see what information you could claim, to determine what information town could have with certainty. I'm sure you thought it was better to do that than to appear to be making assumptions. On that note, why aren't you thoroughly familiar with all the roles possibly present so you can make informed opinions on people's actions? Answer: you are, you just didn't want to appear foolish when it came to your "critique" of my actions, so you opted for a "my bad" out.



@Macman Keep in mind that the whole point of the soft-claim VI is that the VI never actually claims or refers to the powers of the VI. By doing this, he/she is still alive, able to vote, and confirmed. The only way this could backfire is if the VI was actually an idiot, and referred to those powers.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

Yes, Cello I know that. I'm saying that even if he claimed, the idiot would not die anyways. That's how he differs from an actual tree stump. He still counts towards a majority. The only difference with claiming this way over normally, would be that he keeps his vote.

 

[Cello_Marl]

So, why is this not a good thing? We get either a confirmed townie, or a night's worth of protection for PRs. Win-win from what I see.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

I think it would be more useful later on. It would act almost like a death but we wouldn't lose the townies. And deaths net us alot of info based on the bandwagon. Whereas right now, we wouldn't get much info just tht cleared townie.

Also, a cleared townie is much easier for scum to deal with now, then it is for them to deal with later.

 

[KevinM]

Thinking we should look more at people that aren't posting.

Mayling is also a good place to look.

 

[Mayling]

I wanna lynch Today or Mentos. Today over Mentos. Despite several calls to her presence, she has continue to not answer people's questions, kept silent, and a quiet Today is a scummy one. I have a book, and it's called... Okay, no, seriously. I'm pretty sure she's scum. If you look at her posts, they're highly parrotish, and despite wanting to drop sheriff, she continues to mention it, like a futile attempt to have ideas.

Vote Today

Also, bring on the questions. I'm more than willing to answer any, KevinM

 

[No one agrees with Gheb]

I actually agree with the backdoor VI claim. It gives us an immediate clear and strengthens the tree stumps power because he wouldn't lose his vote due to actual claiming. I think it's a good idea.

I don't think it's a good idea at all. It's not the manner in which the VI - assuming there is one - reveals himself but the timing that is important. I agree that having an additional vote by "backdoor claiming" is a good thing but that doesn't mean he should do it right now.
In the best case the VI claims in a lylo situation, where a confirmed unlynchable townie can tip the game greatly into town's favour. At the moment it seems pretty worthless for the VI to claim.

Only problem is that it seems like something Pierre would frown upon. And if we don;t actually have a tree stump, mafia can pick up that fake claim, and we'd be unnecessarily clearing scum.

I think in case of doubt we should ask him to openly reveal himself. He will lose his vote in the process but at least he will be confirmed. Werewolves can't do that which is also why I believe that they probably won't fakeclaim VI.

wait so because his amount of potions is limited he doesnt have to be smart? by that logic he has to be SMARTER then normal.

Have you even read the description of the roles? The witch knows who will be the nightkill before he gets to choose whether he wants to safe the targeted player or not - which he can do only once in the entire game. He doesn't have to make any smarter decisions than a normal Doc.

So, why is this not a good thing? We get either a confirmed townie, or a night's worth of protection for PRs. Win-win from what I see.

There's one thing people don't seem to understand about the Witch, that is clearly specified in the description: The Witch knows the nightkill target - if he chooses to safe a player that player is confirmed not-mafia to the witch.

With that in mind: If you could confirm KevinM or Mentosman as townie would you still choose to safe the VI instead? I think it's bad to assume we should auto-safe the VI because the players are still more important than their role - and being safed by the witch confirms them as not-mafia regardless.

 

[No one agrees with Gheb]

Also, at this point I'm 100% against lynching Mentos. If there's one thing I learned from Left4Scum it's to never lynch any of the more vocal players when there are people stalling by simply not posting. Cello did it as scum in that game and inactivity on the town-side pretty much forced the game to stand still. This should never ever happen again.

Can somebody explain to me where the suspicions against mentos are coming from in the first place? People are openly talking about "lynching mentos". For what reason exactly?

 

[Pierre the Scarecrow]

Votecount:
Xonar (3) Kirbyoshi, KevinM, Cacti
Today (2) NoDAWG, Mayling
NoDAWG (1) Macman
Cello_Marl (1) McFox
mentosman8 (1) Cello_Marl

Not voting (5) mentosman8, Omis, Xonar, Today, Meta-Kirby

A majority 7 of 13 votes is required to lynch.
The day will end at the latest on Thursday, February 19th, Noon EST.

Event 1: Election!

All unmentioned currently abstain.
Election! will end in 20.5 hours.

ATTENTION ALL PLAYERS: Who dat say dey gonna beat dem Saints? Who dat? Who dat?

 

[Mayling]

i's guna get u... i's guna get u :@

Today and Cacti have only posted twice in the thread (and failed to contribute much, as in not a big post). We definitely need to learn from our mistakes in l4s and force them to talk. More Today or Cacti votes pls. (However, I feel confident Today is scum, and from what I've seen Cacti is just not very active it seems. Correct me if wrong, pls)

Also, why are you 100% against lynching mentos? that's a high percent (the highest!) you see nothing in cello's argument that makes a lick of sense? I thought the whole "only looking at roles that pertain to you" made sense. but I guess there's no real way to prove this was the case. I'm sure everyone had different methods of how they took in all the roles. Like, i'm sure no one else went hardcore ruleslawyer like Cello did in an attempt to break the game.

cello, what's your % on thinking mentos is scum

 

[KevinM]

Unvote
Vote MetaKirby