FFVII Mafia: Over

[kloud1516]

owing common sense.

I, for one (which probably needs to be emphasized, as everyone will quickly attack this) can see the possibility of Turks being other specific roles besides scum, which could be backed by logic without evidence to support it. Do I assume that this is

I don't wseee this as a probabale scearo for the think if the mafia on the manta on the mana points on HPeeds to be on tmore of a g spot. If clud eeds a sephiroth to to be on barrets team it's not much fun that tifa is aeris friend, knwo=

Um, what?

[Yosarian2]

His statement of wanting to "test the cop who claims first" makes absolutely no sense. There is no reason why the order that Xtoxm and ABR claimed in should have made a difference. If he'd said he didn't believe ABR's claim, that would be different, but he never gave any indication that he didn't believe the claim, just that he wanted to ignore it until Xtoxm's claim was tested.

This isn't a terrible observation.. Liam, why did you want to test xtoxm instead of ABR?

This is a good question; I want to hear the answer as well.

[Yosarian2]

In case you didn't notice, my argument wasn't specifically negating the idea that the good guys within the game would definitely not be pro-town. My case was that I felt there possibility of main players being a mixture of town and scum as well. Based off of the information we had there was no way to prove or disprove that all the "good guys" would be town, and because of this I felt that it would be unwise to take everything at face value.

This whole section gives me the willies. Please, no one tell Kloud anything about their role flvor, ok?

[MrBuddyLee]

kloud, what do you think of the following proposal:

I propose that every player who is pro-town but has been assigned a "villain" character from FFVII should nameclaim immediately.

[Empking]

it would be the equivalent of making Rand al'Thor the bad guy in a Wheel of Time game or Luke Skywalker the bad guy in a Star Wars game. Ain't gonna happen.
.

Or Harry Potter in a Harry Potter game?

I hope your last post was a joke.

[kloud1516]

In case you didn't notice, my argument wasn't specifically negating the idea that the good guys within the game would definitely not be pro-town. My case was that I felt there possibility of main players being a mixture of town and scum as well. Based off of the information we had there was no way to prove or disprove that all the "good guys" would be town, and because of this I felt that it would be unwise to take everything at face value.

This whole section gives me the willies. Please, no one tell Kloud anything about their role flvor, ok?

<3 <3

kloud, what do you think of the following proposal:

I propose that every player who is pro-town but has been assigned a "villain" character from FFVII should nameclaim immediately.

I think that, at this point, the possibly pro-town villains should NOT nameclaim until we have more information.

Evidence I was referring to that would help to negate or support the second theory would be further results from night actions, as the "trend" (which I use loosely so early) that has already been established would either be proved fallible or valid.

My proposal would be to place the set-up theories aside until we have more information, as it will push the doors wide open for WIFOM, and me arguing with everyone that we should look at all possibilities is like talking to a wall right now. When we have more evidence and facts, we will most likely be able to discard the idea, but until then I will stubbornly continue to see it as a possibility.

Until that time comes I suggest, as I have said before, that:

No, I feel that instead of focusing on this trend, we should be apply scrutiny to the player/claim in question and the events leading up to the claim in addition to analyzing the said player’s actions, gauging whether or not they acted scummy or not. If said player claims a main character, I do not feel that they should be let off the hook just because of their character, nor do I feel that characters which are in the game should be immediately condemned. I think we should apply focus to the actions and the player, not just their character.

[armlx]

2) I voted for ABR just to see if the wagon would gain momentum.

Don't buy this.

The massive speculation is slightly scummy too, but not really that damning.

I agree with MBL though.

[CallMeLiam]

Why did I want to test xtoxm before ABR? Well testing Xtoxm's claim didn't involve lynching a claimed cop. If Armlx was indeed town then we could have piled on X afterwards but as I said at the time I wanted no part in lynching a claimed cop.

Why did I want a claim from ABR? Because his play on day one was highly anti-town and to be honest I wouldn't be too upset lynching a vanilla townie if they're going to play in such a harmful way.

Why was I wanting to vote Zac rather than one of the three people in the cop clusterfuck? Because if a genuine guilty had been recorded, then it was likely the scum would have gone after the cop and if not then we'd have someone caught in a lie. Also Zac was acting scummy.

[kloud1516]

2) I voted for ABR just to see if the wagon would gain momentum.

Don't buy this.

The massive speculation is slightly scummy too, but not really that damning.

I agree with MBL though.

What don't you buy?

[Zakeri]

Why did I want to test xtoxm before ABR? Well testing Xtoxm's claim didn't involve lynching a claimed cop. If Armlx was indeed town then we could have piled on X afterwards but as I said at the time I wanted no part in lynching a claimed cop.

Why didn't you want to Lynch a Claimed cop? Especially one that has performed several scummy actions before his sudden claim? It is very beneficial for Scum to claim cop, after all, and it's not like the Cop would come forward just to object to one person's claims like that.

Why did I want a claim from ABR? Because his play on day one was highly anti-town and to be honest I wouldn't be too upset lynching a vanilla townie if they're going to play in such a harmful way.

What would you have said/done if he had Claimed another power role?

Why was I wanting to vote Zac rather than one of the three people in the cop clusterfuck? Because if a genuine guilty had been recorded, then it was likely the scum would have gone after the cop and if not then we'd have someone caught in a lie.

What exactly is wrong with catching people in a lie?

[iamausername]

Why was I wanting to vote Zac rather than one of the three people in the cop clusterfuck? Because if a genuine guilty had been recorded, then it was likely the scum would have gone after the cop and if not then we'd have someone caught in a lie. Also Zac was acting scummy.

So, wait, you're saying that, if Xtoxm had genuinely been a cop with a guilty on armlx, and we lynched Zac, armlx and his buddies would have opted to kill Xtoxm N1, thus guaranteeing an armlx lynch D2, rather than leaving Xtoxm alive and having a good chance to get him mislynched D2? Yes, that makes sense.

And "if not then we'd have someone caught in a lie"? We ALREADY had someone caught in a lie!

[armlx]

What don't you buy?

That your ABR vote was just testing the waters. You fought pretty hard for it.

[kloud1516]

What don't you buy?

That your ABR vote was just testing the waters. You fought pretty hard for it.

Okay, so at least someone sees this besides me.

[Albert B. Rampage]

You mean, that sees through your curtain of lies?

[kloud1516]

No, I mean that sees I actually provided reasoning and backed it up when voting for you; showing my actions were quite the contrary to MBL's accusation of me simply testing the waters of your wagon.

[Yosarian2]

No, I mean that sees I actually provided reasoning and backed it up when voting for you; showing my actions were quite the contrary to MBL's accusation of me simply testing the waters of your wagon.

So, which is it? Was it a carefully reasoned, strong argument you were committed to, or were you "just testing the waters"? And why did you say you were just testing tho waters if it wasn't true?

[kloud1516]

No, I mean that sees I actually provided reasoning and backed it up when voting for you; showing my actions were quite the contrary to MBL's accusation of me simply testing the waters of your wagon.

So, which is it? Was it a carefully reasoned, strong argument you were committed to, or were you "just testing the waters"? And why did you say you were just testing tho waters if it wasn't true?

It was a reasoned argument that I was committed to. Did any of you actually read the back-and-forth? From your responses, it would appear the answer is no. Let me point out something to everyone:

The quote that armlx responded to:

2) I voted for ABR just to see if the wagon would gain momentum.

Don't buy this.

Was the first sentence of this post:

2)

I voted for ABR just to see if the wagon would gain momentum. Really, BuddyLee? If I voted to test the waters of this wagon, then what were you doing with this:

vote: ABR

hmn? I hope you have a fainting couch on hand, for the hypocrisy of this accusation will surely knock you off your feet. While you drop a vote without any reasoning whatsoever, you level claims at me for trying to test wagons. At least when I voted, I provided (in my opinion) ample reasoning for doing so, and, when others commented about it I backed it up. Granted, said players may not have liked the reasonings I gave, but I still

had

reasons. I find it slightly comical you would level accusations at me when in fact your vote screams "opportunistic jump onto the most popular bandwagon."

Which was a direct response to MLB's point within his initial case against me:

kloud, you think yesterday provided us with useful information that shouldn't be disregarded haphazardly. Well, here's you from yesterday:

FoS: xtoxm

I will go back and point out exactly what posts I do not like, which will most likely parallel posts already quoted by others, but I feel it would be beneficial for me to do so anyways.

At the moment, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and see whether or not your day cop claim is true by going along with the suggestion of lynching either you or armlx. I would much rather not risk losing a power role so early in the game, and so I will

vote: armlx

.

And today you FOSed armlx but didn't vote.

And now you voted for a policy lynch on ABR instead, waiting to see if it would gather momentum.

And while you babbled on for ages about Barrett and character names vs. power roles, you haven't even touched on ABR's Cid claim.

I don't think you're trying terribly hard to find scum. You're trying to look like you suspect armlx, but you're not following through. And you're a little too willing to lynch ABR, who you don't really find scummy.

vote: kloud

It is good to know that everyone is actually paying attention and reading posts in their entirety. If any of you had, you would have seen that the first sentence was SARCASM. MBL accused me of testing the wagon for momentum, despite the fact that I provided reasoning for doing so, then defended this reasoning when others commented on it.

[armlx]

See, I don't see you countering the point, only accusing him of hypocrisy.

[Albert B. Rampage]

I have NOT been trying to push this wagon. I placed my vote and gave reasons for doing so, but at no point thus far have I encouraged others to place their votes on ABR. When a player commented on my reasoning, I responded to it, so your claim of me pushing the ABR wagon is utterly ridiculous.

Seems pretty wishy-washy to me dude.

[kloud1516]

2)

I voted for ABR just to see if the wagon would gain momentum. Really, BuddyLee? If I voted to test the waters of this wagon, then what were you doing with this:

vote: ABR

hmn? I hope you have a fainting couch on hand, for the hypocrisy of this accusation will surely knock you off your feet. While you drop a vote without any reasoning whatsoever, you level claims at me for trying to test wagons.

At least when I voted, I provided (in my opinion) ample reasoning for doing so, and, when others commented about it I backed it up. Granted, said players may not have liked the reasonings I gave, but I still

had

reasons.

I find it slightly comical you would level accusations at me when in fact your vote screams "opportunistic jump onto the most popular bandwagon."

You wouldn't consider this bolded section as countering the accusation of me simply testing the waters of the ABR wagon? Me establishing the fact that I provided reasoning DOES refute his claim, for it shows that I didn't just place a vote to see how others would respond, and the fact that I kept my vote on and defended myself only emphasizes this point more.

[armlx]

Hmm, I definitely missed that. My bad on the misrep there.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Kloud is pretty coherent though. Makes sense.

[MrBuddyLee]

Let's not forget that kloud's "reasoning" for voting ABR is not that he finds ABR scummy. He voted to waste a day and get rid of ABR so ABR would not be able to confuse us during scumhunting on D3 or D4.

Assuming this game lasts 6 days, I think wasting a day by lynching a nonscummy player reduces our chances of victory by 17%. Albert already reduced our chances by 17% yesterday, and I don't think we should repeat that mistake. We should lynch the scummy guy today so we have info tomorrow. A policy lynch doesn't teach us much about the people on or off the lynch. A policy lynch makes D3 into yet another D1.

It seems to me that if you actually think ABR is confusing the hunt for scum but isn't scummy, you could simply ignore his posts. If you think he's scum, make the case. Promoting a policy lynch as you've done today, kloud, is in my opinion about as scummy as what Albert did yesterday--Albert got rid of a player we all thought was useless, confusing and scummy, and you only think your lynch target is two out of those three.

[Dead Rikimaru]

I apologize if my last post sounded "angry".
That was not the intention, but I was under sleep deprivation, so I may not have expressed myself well.

[Dead Rikimaru]

Vote Count Number Twelve: The 'STOP LURKING, FOLKS!' votecount

CallMeLiam - 6

(

iamausername, Albert B. Rampage, Cavebear with a toothache, wolframnhart, armlx, Cludsy

)

Albert B. Rampage - 5

(

DynamoXI, Zac, Grimmy, MBPikamon, TonyMontana

MBPikamon - 1

(

Empking

)

Zac - 1

(

christiano drago

)

kloud1516 - 2

(

MrBuddyLee, Zakeri

)

Zakeri - 0

armlx - 0

iamausername - 0

wolframnhart - 0

Jebus - 0

Empking - 0

Cludsy - 0

Grimmy - 0
Yosarian2 - 0
SpamWise - 0
DynamoXI - 0
GhostWriter - 0
MrBuddyLee - 0
TonyMontana - 0
christiano drago - 0
Westbrook_Owns_U - 0
Cavebear with a toothache - 0

With 22 alive, it takes

12

to lynch.