Webcomic Wars Mafia: D7- Be Thankful I'm Not The Author

[Fishythefish]

To me, Vino's recent posts have looked bad, but probably noobtown rather than scum. Any competent scum knows about the 'this sucks' scumtell and can transverse it pretty easily, and I don't think scum would push a NK theory they know to be false that hard.

This is irrelevant. It is clear that Vino, town or scum, does not know the "this sucks" scumtell. Therefore, it applies to him.

[Percy]

wagoning santos was stupid in the first place, he was obviously town yesterday as i had already explained

And as I already explained, that's a pretty weak reason to believe he's town.

what's with the suddent flying exclaimation marks and accusations?

I don't quite know what to say to this. I was rather incredulous that he expressed the attitude of the town towards him as "

fat

pressure", and he's looking incredibly scummy to me for the reasons I stated.

I didn't want to do every word for word in my role email because the mods here at this forum are hard core on claims that are too close to the role PMs. So instead of vanilla townie, I alternatively used townsperson.

So you're OK with calling yourself a vanilla townie now?

@Kise:

Lamont is scum.

unvote, vote: Lamont_Cranston

Retarded bread crumb.
Also, I'm the town cop.

Reading this, I took it to mean that he had a guilty investigation on Lamont. Otherwise, why claim his role? Why be so definitive?

Yes, it wasn't "I am the cop and I used my power to investigate Lamont and I got a guilty result", but I certainly thought it was implied. It's certainly how the town reacted. How else do you read yesterday's end?

[Head_Honcho]

Did Santos just forget that he softclaimed a power role yesterday?

[SerialClergyman]

This is irrelevant. It is clear that Vino, town or scum, does not know the "this sucks" scumtell. Therefore, it applies to him.

QFT. I take back my point.

Reading this, I took it to mean that he had a guilty investigation on Lamont. Otherwise, why claim his role? Why be so definitive?

This looks like after the fact backtracking to me. I certainly didn't think that qwints' claim had anything to do with a guilty investigation, and given this was a night start, there's no way he could have. He was just trying to counter claim.

That looks like a complete lie to me, Percy.

[Kise]

Do tell.

[Kise]

^That's directed at Honcho.

[SerialClergyman]

I'll tell for him then - I went to have a look to recheck it. It starts here

But it gets even more interesting a few posts later.

If you're vanilla, Santos, what were you talking about by 'clearing' Lamont?

[Fishythefish]

@mod

(and others): I'm not sure how much access I will have over the next few days, and I won't have any this weekend. I'll catch up early next week.

[Percy]

Did Santos just forget that he softclaimed a power role yesterday?

Well, sort of. SC linked, but I'll quote the relevant parts.

I can role claim if you like, but it would only help scum safe claim later.

It means I know a way to prove your innocence or guilt depending on your claim.

After the mod clarified about quoting role PMs, he posted

well crap, never mind on the confirming you by part of your role PM, Lamont.

His earlier posts certainly hinted at a special power, but now he appears (still waiting confirmation) to be claiming vanilla, and that his special power was that he received a win condition which would be the same as L_C's, and he wanted L_C to quote it. His willingness to verify L_C by this method is why roflcopter believes Santos is town.

Reading this, I took it to mean that he had a guilty investigation on Lamont. Otherwise, why claim his role? Why be so definitive?

This looks like after the fact backtracking to me. I certainly didn't think that qwints' claim had anything to do with a guilty investigation, and given this was a night start, there's no way he could have. He was just trying to counter claim.

That looks like a complete lie to me, Percy.

OK, well that was my mistake. I assumed it was a day investigation, rather than a simple counterclaim. That certainly makes sense as to why the scum would want to kill him, and why the doctors (if we have any) should have protected him. I misread the situation, so I apologise and retract my earlier statements based on that misreading.

[SerialClergyman]

OK, well that was my mistake. I assumed it was a day investigation, rather than a simple counterclaim. That certainly makes sense as to why the scum would want to kill him, and why the doctors (if we have any) should have protected him. I misread the situation, so I apologise and retract my earlier statements based on that misreading.

This is from your hammer post.

I'll drop the hammer. Unvote, Vote: Lamont_Cranston. Whilst I was willing to let his lynch wait in light of his claim, the counterclaim from Qwints needs addressing today.

You specifically say counter-claim, you say nothing about a verdict looking at your posts at that time.

So either you genuinely thought that there was a day investigation by qwints, but only developed this thought AFTER the post above, or you're just continuing to lie.

What exactly did you misread? And when did the misreading happen, becausei t sure didn'th appen when you dropped the hammer. You knew you were hammering on the back of a coutner-claim, not a verdict. This whole thing has been a lie ot push the case on Santos, and your covering up of it (and the cap in hand choirboy apology) has just nailed you as scum.

unvote, vote: Percy

[Tarhalindur]

First thoughts:

Play:

Sucks for Us! from Vino and Santos. Neither read strongly scum (Santos is Village Idiot or possibly scum (SK?) with knowledge of the town win condition; Vino has been hovering in my "might be scum, we'll deal with him later" list for a while.

Santos wagon is mediocre (he *might* be SK with knowledge of the town win condition or scum that knows there is more than one faction, but I strongly doubt he's Mafia of a single faction given his attempt to get Lamont to reveal his win condition or similar; he's reading strongly Village Idiot.).

SensFan's very short posts (including the "like scum don't claim Cop D1" yesterday and the "Santos is more fitting of "Sucks for Us!" than Vino" today) are increasingly scummy - I'll read some of his past games to see if he has a meta of short posting, but IIRC this is much shorter than usual for him.

FoS: SensFan

.

Percy:

Reading this, I took it to mean that he had a guilty investigation on Lamont. Otherwise, why claim his role? Why be so definitive?

This looks like after the fact backtracking to me. I certainly didn't think that qwints' claim had anything to do with a guilty investigation, and given this was a night start, there's no way he could have. He was just trying to counter claim.

That looks like a complete lie to me, Percy.

OK, well that was my mistake. I assumed it was a day investigation, rather than a simple counterclaim. That certainly makes sense as to why the scum would want to kill him, and why the doctors (if we have any) should have protected him. I misread the situation, so I apologise and retract my earlier statements based on that misreading.

Wait.

WHAT?

Like HELL you thought he was claiming a day investigation. You showed no sign of that yesterday, and (more importantly) there was no reason to assume daycop w/ investigation at ALL since Rapid Action cops are rare (in no small part because they can't be roleblocked).

You've been here long enough to know that cops generally investigate at night; hell, I know damn well you've been cop at least once (remember Suzumiya Haruhi? Mind you, you were scum cop there, but that's no reason why you should be assuming Rapid Action cop), and Suzumiya Haruhi also gave me the strong impression that you had a pretty good grasp of Mafia theory and were a good player.

Speaking of that... I just quickread your posts in Haruhi again for my own reference... that was a multiscum game (where scum scumhunt) and you were fairly clearly scumhunting there. Here? I'm starting to have doubts (for one thing, your posts are MUCH shorter and less detailed here, especially since the beginning of D2).

I'll reread Haruhi more thoroughly and check a town game or two of yours to be sure that this isn't typical Percy town play. In the meantime:

Vote: Percy

.

Setup thoughts:

I strongly doubt we had two full sane cops - either one (coughElancough) was nonsane (naive Elan makes much sense) or we have multicop for multiscum. I'm leaning towards the former.

I'll want another night to be sure, but it looks like we can't have both a second scum group AND an SK.

[Santos]

Sens played this way when he was scum claiming cop in another game. All I called him out for was for hating on newer people who ended up being townies and he wasn't scum hunting. He also doesn't represent very well as an IC.

As for Percy, well, obviously the contradiction in his statements warrant a

Vote: Percy

.

[delathi]

Did Santos just forget that he softclaimed a power role yesterday?

Well, sort of. SC linked, but I'll quote the relevant parts.

I can role claim if you like, but it would only help scum safe claim later.

It means I know a way to prove your innocence or guilt depending on your claim.

After the mod clarified about quoting role PMs, he posted

well crap, never mind on the confirming you by part of your role PM, Lamont.

His earlier posts certainly hinted at a special power, but now he appears (still waiting confirmation) to be claiming vanilla, and that his special power was that he received a win condition which would be the same as L_C's, and he wanted L_C to quote it. His willingness to verify L_C by this method is why roflcopter believes Santos is town.

I wouldn't say certainly hinted at a special power. It looks more to me like he was going to try to either judge based on a mod PM quote or judge based on Role flavor text. I think both of those are pretty useless ideas, but I don't think her was soft claiming anything useful.

[SensFan]

Sens played this way when he was scum claiming cop in another game. All I called him out for was for hating on newer people who ended up being townies and he wasn't scum hunting. He also doesn't represent very well as an IC.

In addition to what you said earlier about me.

You have two options:
*Stop slandering me with your biased opinion
*Or I

will

replace out of this game

[populartajo]

Im catchin up tonight. Had a very busy weekend.

[delathi]

Sens played this way when he was scum claiming cop in another game. All I called him out for was for hating on newer people who ended up being townies and he wasn't scum hunting. He also doesn't represent very well as an IC.

In addition to what you said earlier about me.

You have two options:
*Stop slandering me with your biased opinion
*Or I

will

replace out of this game

Isn't slandering people based on a biased opinion sort of the point if you are scum?

[SensFan]

Sens played this way when he was scum claiming cop in another game. All I called him out for was for hating on newer people who ended up being townies and he wasn't scum hunting. He also doesn't represent very well as an IC.

In addition to what you said earlier about me.

You have two options:
*Stop slandering me with your biased opinion
*Or I

will

replace out of this game

Isn't slandering people based on a biased opinion sort of the point if you are scum?

Not slandering people's reputation, no.

[Vino]

Threatening to replace out of the game because someone is making you cry? In my book that's called "pulling a farside22," except that it wouldn't be a town tell this time.

I have a bit of free time and I'm going to use it to re-read D1 and respond to some of the criticisms against me. Expect that in an hour or two.

[Santos]

Well, I try seeing your side of the argument, Sens, but you never acknowledge mine except to slander my reputation. So who's the hypocrite?

[Empking]

Vote; Percy

- For trying to get out of the consequences of hammering the town cop.

[Vino]

Most of the arguments against me relied on Lamont flipping scum. Other than that Fishy was my main detractor on D1 (still is apparently) so I'll focus on his claims.

1. In a very minor way, I still believe in the point at the beginning of the game; his random vote sounded false.

Sounded false? What about it? Nobody else had any problems with it.

Yes. But the reason you give seems to apply in greater measure to the players who actually voted you.

Not necessarily.

Anyhow to say I was so scummy with no reason so early in the game didn't make sense so I voted you.

I don't hold that conviction as strong as I did before, but I think it still applies. He gave no why's and then jumped on a bandwagon. The post looked pretty scummy to me, and people are still saying that he's not talking enough. That argument doesn't apply to Korlash Tajo and whoever else.

Do you mean that we should lynch me, or LC?

You. If we can get information on a cop/scum without lynching him, that's a good thing.

Now this makes zero sense. I wanted to address it yesterday but I didn't want to detract from the pressing matter of the Cranston lynch. Maybe I just don't understand the theory enough here, but at the time we had a claimed cop that looked very scummy, but you thought we should lynch

me

instead. What am I missing?

Lamont defended me a lot in the beginning stages of the game, which would have turned out looking bad for me if he flipped scum. Thank goodness he didn't, but I can understand you saying, "Let's lynch Lamont to see if Vino is scum." That's a pretty obvious train of logic, if Lamont defends Vino and then flips scum, perhaps he was defending his scum partner. (

In reality I would think a smart scum would be more low-key than Lamont was in trying to defend me, but regardless...

) If he had flipped scum I would have likely been today's lynch target, barring unforeseen events.

It doesn't follow the other way around. How does lynching me tell you anything about him? A renegade townie (which is what he ended up being) is just as likely to defend someone of unknown alignment as a scum is to defend his scum buddy. Whether I flip scum or townie doesn't tell you anything about Lamont because I had very little interaction with him. The logic doesn't work the other way around. You were (and still are) suggesting that we lynch me because someone who has now been shown to be a townie was defending me. It makes no sense. Explain your logic please.

As for Percy, he looked okay yesterday but is now acting strange. I reserve my vote for now.

[Santos]

^this makes sense. Conversely, I think people wanted to lynch Lamont based on his spastic accusations. He really dug his own grave, IMO. I will do a reread and see who advocated we lynch Lamont before and after his claim and see if anything adds up (because it seems putting a player's thoughts of Lamont before and after would really help in finding a scum who was all for lynching him at the best of opportunities.)

[hasdgfas]

Vote; Percy

- For trying to get out of the consequences of hammering the town cop.

any elaboration here? I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.

[Percy]

Firstly, what I said about the day investigation was true. It was my first thought when I saw qwints' post. Furthermore, when I referred to it as a 'counterclaim', in my head it was more than simply a counter roleclaim. It was completely unnecessary, and caused me a lot of unnecessary confusion.

But you can't be sure of what's in my head, of course. I could be lying. But I would like someone to explain to me how this is a scum move, rather than what I said it was: a stupid mistake.

I am not trying to get out of responsibility for hammering L_C. I'd do it again, given the same information, no questions asked.

@Santos: Are you, in fact, claiming vanilla?

I'm going to do a re-read to clear my head.

[Korlash]

Because I'm tired of people pushing the buck on new players and ending up lynching just townies. That seems to be the way everyone rolls in these forums instead of trying to coach the newbies. Its so stupid.

It's called newbie games... If you want a newbie card and coaching go there, otherwise don't expect to have anyone hold your hand.

I'll want another night to be sure, but it looks like we can't have both a second scum group AND an SK.

... Why not?

Firstly, what I said about the day investigation was true. It was my first thought when I saw qwints' post. Furthermore, when I referred to it as a 'counterclaim', in my head it was more than simply a counter roleclaim. It was completely unnecessary, and caused me a lot of unnecessary confusion.

I like how when you talked about your 'referring to it as a counterclaim' you ended up explaining nothing. In fact, instead of explaining it you seemed to try nd shift the blame onto Qwints for you not understanding it...

But you can't be sure of what's in my head, of course. I could be lying. But I would like someone to explain to me how this is a scum move, rather than what I said it was: a stupid mistake.

You want someone to explain how lying would be a scum move?

In this particular example though, no I doubt it's a scum move. I think it's a misunderstanding on the part of the people pushing the vote on you combined with your utter lack of being able to correctly explain it. So while you try and figure out how to word it I'm just going to jump ahead.

Vote: SC

This whole thing has been a lie ot push the case on Santos, and your covering up of it (and the cap in hand choirboy apology) has just nailed you as scum.

unvote, vote: Percy

Um.. perhaps you can explain to little old me how any of this, if indeed a lie, had, has, or will ever have to do with Santos? It's one thing to push that something is a lie, it's something far more to try and say that it discounts something it had nothing to do with.

On the "Vino/Santos 'this sucks'" issue... Vino's was more of a recap then a this sucks... That's my say on it... >.> Moving on...

@ santos: Can you address the concerns about your statements yesterday and how they conflict with your claim today?