Glork wrote:Seriously, everyone, go back and look at Zazie's posts. I was uberconvinced that he is scum, until I realized that he has been 100% offsite for over a week. Now I'm just "mostly sure." Either way, we need to put a lot of pressure onto Zazie/Replacement tomorrow. Get them to take firm stances and commit to suspicions. Same goes for BV, except I think he's more actively lurking than Zazie. Bill still feels wrong to me. I feel like his posts are of similar ilk to SE1... I'd love to see some input from you guys on Bill's posts (specifics) tonight.
Prana wrote:Okay, working through Bill's posts.
I note that his ISO 6 says that Dram needs to be looked into, but then ISO 8 says Reck isn't scum with Dram, but it's "possible" he is only interested in keeping Dram around to play more with him... then suggests we should trust Reck (which I take to mean not lynching Dram), trying to keep appearing pro-town when Dram gets lynched?
Also, isn't it from there where the whole "Reck only wants Dram around to play more with him" began? I admit I continued pushing it too when Reck started screaming and shouting and providing zero reasoning, but even so... if that's where it began it's suspicious considering he's also suggested trusting Reck at that point.
ISO 17 has him saying if JPs ability was automatic then those on his wagon should get +town points. This was before we knew there was an executioner. So I'm actually suspicious of those he singled out as getting pro-town points there. An attempt to make his team mate(s) seem better by association with a scum lynch?
ISO 18 has him stating Vezo "is" town purely by claim alone. Now while I'm willing to currently give Vezo the benefit of the doubt, I honestly wouldn't suggest he's 100% town at this stage. Which to me suggests either Bill knows Vezo is town, or they banked on using the ability as a way of appearing pro-town. This increases my suspicion of a Vezo/Bill scum team there (which also suggests they're not with JP & Quadz, but instead are with InHim... who incidentally was on the JP wagon too, hmmm)
ISO 26 Bill only now comes out and talks about how poor the judgement was on a mass roleblocker revealing themselves... despite having made a few posts between the reveal and this post. Which smells of "Ooops, best make a comment on it".
ISO 28 he runs through everyone on his wagon and tries to state how all of their reasons are poor. Even so far as to point out I was completely absent day 2, despite the obvious fact I was V/LA, and despite his argument to the contrary, it was obviously placed there in an attempt to make me appear scummy.
Also that post shows InHim suggesting Bill was the executioner... possibly a chance to try and distance at the last minute? He even says InHim has reasons... but then dispells them as "shoddy reasoning".
ISO 42 Is suggesting that if there's a mason cop they should claim, blatant role fishing under the guise of revealing town players. Considering at this stage at best there would be 2 reveals (remember night 2 had the mass RB) that would be a pretty poor choice to reveal right there.
So actually looking more in depth at Bill, I'm finding him more likely to be scum, with it being slightly possible that Vezo is his scum buddy (guarenteed scum buddy if he doesn't mass RB tonight for that matter).
btw, Vezo, your ability, your PM, does it say you can only use it every other night, or does it say if you use it one night, you can't use it the following night? Just wondering.
Kdub wrote:That's a pretty weak case IMO:
Iso 6 - dram wasn't even the vote leader at the time. He did say he didn't want to vote quadz (who was at L-3), which is a bit concerning, but this is an argument for him being on JP/quadz's team, not inHim's team.
Iso 17 - A bit of a reach, but it's a fair point.
Iso 18 - In post 519 (iso 20), you AGREE with bill about vezo, now you are using it against him?
Iso 26 - This is a fair point, the timing is strange.
Iso 28 - But the thing is, all the reasons against him WERE poor. Can you look at the votes he responded to and honestly say there was a good case on him?
Iso 42 - Well, I had suggested the same, and I think there is merit to it, as long as the cop has at least one clear. Assuming it was 2:2:6 at the time, and assuming that we had two consecutive lynches, clearing 2-3 people right off the bat makes it much easier to hit scum, gives any doctors an idea of who to protect, and presents both scum teams with the problem that they need to kill each other and deal with a growing number of confirmed innocents. Since there was no claim, I am guessing that either there is no cop, or the cop had no results on players who were still living. I still think it was a reasonable idea if they did though.
I know I am defending bill quite a bit, but seriously, there is no case on him. When I look through your posts, I see almost no justification of your vote on him. You question him very briefly on him trusting Reck, but after that, you agree with him on vezo (which contradicts your case on him now), then you call him out in 563 (iso 22) for a post that he never actually made (vezo was the one who voted bv despite saying it was a bad wagon). You never admit to this mistake despite quadz pointing it out in the very next post, and you vote bill shortly after. From that point on, you never raise any new arguments against him despite repeatedly calling him scum.
So basically, I see you as reaching and contradicting yourself in an attempt to paint bill as scum.
Bill wrote:ISO 6 - I'm more pointing out the curiousness in the changes of view, from saying Dram needs looking into, to saying Reck should be trusted when he says Dram is clear. Not wanting to vote Quadz also doesn't suggest he's not scum either. At that stage neither scum team are likely to have known there was a second team (unless Kise told them, but I doubt that), so Bill would have been unwilling to vote someone he thought would flip town, on the basis of appearing town.
ISO 18 - Viewpoints change once you look back on things, I'm sure you are aware of this. At the time it was different, looking back with other things in hand it stands out to me. Also I've never outright suggested Vezo is 100% town, I've always said is probable town, lately I've been a bit confused as to whether he is or not, and thus Bill's statement stands out more in my eyes.
ISO 28 - I agree some of the reasons weren't great, but outright discrediting them seemed a bit much, if they were that poor he could have just mentioned it in passing and moved on with scum hunting immediately. Also, what about his blatant attempt to paint me as scummy for not being around, despite my being on V/LA?
ISO 48 - It's still an exceptionally poor idea. At this stage of the game the cop would have, at most, 2 results. If they'd got a guilty they would have either announced it or gone after the person, if they've got 2 innocents, I could understand revealing. But just a single innocent? That would be rather foolish I find, especially if they have a shot at catching another scum.
Also, so far all town roles have been VTs, so what happens if the only pro-town power roles WERE in that mason group? The cop could be outing themselves for a free kill, that would be terrible cop play. So if there's a cop out there I'm glad they didn't reveal themselves as they'd be dead tonight unless Vezo uses his ability, even then they would be dead the next night before they had chance to reveal anything.
Regarding my calling out of bill's poor vote when it was Vezo, fair point, and the only reason I didn't say anything about it on return was because other stuff had happened in the meantime and it seemed pointless to retread something that was simply "my mistake, ignore this" when everyone else had already forgotten that.
But like I say, there's no contradictions when it comes to rereading and using information that has come to light to see links. What I said back then was done before any information came to light, what I'm saying now is after plenty of information has come out. Do you not see the difference?
If I accused person A of stealing something from Person C, and stated that Person B couldn't have done it, but then evidence came to light that person B was actually in the vicinity of it when I previously believed they weren't, would I be contradicting myself to say Person B now possibly did do the stealing? 'course not, it's just taking the information presented to you at any one time to work things out, which is what I'm doing.
What I have done though is state that I had a gut read on Bill, and reading through the ISO convinces me I'm likely correct as well.
I could not have *known* that dram was going to be lynched, and at the time of those comments, quadz was the one being lynched. During that day phase, I believe I agreed with Devo's analysis on quadz and as such I threw a vote on him, while at the same time saying I wanted to put a temporary town read on reck/dram (which was against what Prana was saying; Reck wasn't offering a logical reason that dram was town, so Prana voted Reck)I note that his ISO 6 says that Dram needs to be looked into, but then ISO 8 says Reck isn't scum with Dram, but it's "possible" he is only interested in keeping Dram around to play more with him... then suggests we should trust Reck (which I take to mean not lynching Dram), trying to keep appearing pro-town when Dram gets lynched?
I was trying to account for all possible scenarios, though I admitted later that it felt fairly weak. And if the scenario I presented was true, then I would stand by those comments because I don't think his own team would gangrape him so quickly under the knowledge he would die in fewer votes.ISO 17 has him saying if JPs ability was automatic then those on his wagon should get +town points. This was before we knew there was an executioner. So I'm actually suspicious of those he singled out as getting pro-town points there. An attempt to make his team mate(s) seem better by association with a scum lynch?
Even if I were scum, I can't *know* whether someone is town or not. There are players I believe to be town, and I believed vezok to be town based purely on ability. Same as Chrono. I said on numerous occassions that that vezok/Chrono were playing very shitty but called them town because I simply couldn't see how their abilities would be for scum (in Chrono's case, it'd be that a Mason fake-claim would be a terrible claim late in the game).ISO 18 has him stating Vezo "is" town purely by claim alone. Now while I'm willing to currently give Vezo the benefit of the doubt, I honestly wouldn't suggest he's 100% town at this stage. Which to me suggests either Bill knows Vezo is town
Bill, meanwhile, was not on JP wagon., or they banked on using the ability as a way of appearing pro-town. This increases my suspicion of a Vezo/Bill scum team there (which also suggests they're not with JP & Quadz, but instead are with InHim... who incidentally was on the JP wagon too, hmmm)
Or it smells of ACCOUNTING FOR ALL POSSIBLE SCENARIOS. I answered this earlier, btw. I've never seen a mass roleblocker scum who can block other scum kills (possibly his own).ISO 26 Bill only now comes out and talks about how poor the judgement was on a mass roleblocker revealing themselves... despite having made a few posts between the reveal and this post. Which smells of "Ooops, best make a comment on it".
ISO 28 he runs through everyone on his wagon and tries to state how all of their reasons are poor. Even so far as to point out I was completely absent day 2, despite the obvious fact I was V/LA, and despite his argument to the contrary, it was obviously placed there in an attempt to make me appear scummy.
I was the one being lynched at that time. NOT inHim. In fact, if I recall, the only vote on inHim at that time was Kdub's.Also that post shows InHim suggesting Bill was the executioner... possibly a chance to try and distance at the last minute? He even says InHim has reasons... but then dispells them as "shoddy reasoning".
ISO 42 Is suggesting that if there's a mason cop they should claim, blatant role fishing under the guise of revealing town players. Considering at this stage at best there would be 2 reveals (remember night 2 had the mass RB) that would be a pretty poor choice to reveal right there.
No, it wouldn't. IF there existed a Cop, and IF they had a scum read on someone, at this stage in the game, they should have come out and said so. BTW, kdub suggested the same thing. Would have to respectfully disagree, at least, in an overall sense.Glork wrote:Fuck it, I don't know. I'm just going to repost the exchange and let you all decide what you think.
Glork wrote:Seriously, everyone, go back and look at Zazie's posts. I was uberconvinced that he is scum, until I realized that he has been 100% offsite for over a week. Now I'm just "mostly sure." Either way, we need to put a lot of pressure onto Zazie/Replacement tomorrow. Get them to take firm stances and commit to suspicions. Same goes for BV, except I think he's more actively lurking than Zazie. Bill still feels wrong to me. I feel like his posts are of similar ilk to SE1... I'd love to see some input from you guys on Bill's posts (specifics) tonight.
Glork wrote:From QT:Vezo wrote:Hey I have an idea. What if I don't roleblock tonight. The scums may be certain that I will block and kill nobody. And I can use again the next day?
What do you think of this guys?
Also I need the doc protect if this is the plan.Prana wrote:I think the scums would be stupid to not send in a night kill regardless.
I know damned sure if I was scum I'd be sending in a kill every night whether I knew you would be mass RB'ing or not, just in case you did decide otherwise.
The only difference would be if the ability was restricted in some form (every other night, only even/odd nights etc.)
You're also then of the assumption the doc is in this town, and if they're not (say it's Reck) then nobody could tell them to be 100% sure they protect you.
I say use the RB regardless, it moves us into day phase guarenteed. Hell, I'd only be suggesting your plan to you if I was scum with you, purely to screw with town, as it wont screw with scum.Midnight wrote:Vezo, why would you not use it? The only one it wouldn't have worked on would have been Fate, but he's gone so your free to use it without anyone dying
....and thats a good thing yes? .-.Glork wrote:Block tonight. There is NO question about it. We cannot afford to risk losing anybody due to scumkills if you can in fact block everybody. If you do not block tonight, then I will assume that you are a One-Shot Scum Massblocker, and that you used your ability to try to "confirm" your alignment early on in the game. Do I make myself absolutely clear? You are not to be trusted with making ANY important decisions yourself for the rest of this game.Kdub wrote:vezo, you should definitely mass roleblock tonight. Having effectively two day phases in a row is extremely valuable. We want that to happen as often as possible.Glork wrote:Still waiting on Vezo to confirm that he is going to massblock tonight.Vezo wrote:Hi guys.
I hope I can use the mass roleblock. We will know after the day begins.
I call 100% bullshit on Vezo. We told him THROUGHOUT THE NIGHT, and he postedA FULL DAY BEFORE THE THREAD OPENEDthat he "hoped" he would be able to send in his ability.
Complete and utter bullshit.
There isNOdoubt that Vezo is scum. He WILL be lynched today. But we're not going to fall into the same trap as we did yesterday. I want posts from Zazie and BV. I want each of them to name the last two scums for us, and I want each of them to give us FULL details on WHY those to players are the last two scums.
*Raises eyebrow*xRECKONERx wrote:MS's Scum Plan:
1) Show up in thread.
2) State that you haven't read anything.
3) Fake anger at vezo for not sending in the mass roleblock.
4) Promise to catch up later.
5) Wait for town to start yelling at each other and line up a mislynch.
6) Show up later and inconspicuously join the vezok wagon.
Unvote; Vote: Midnight's Sorrow
How would a mass roleblock work for a scumteam? Vezo, when did you use the mass roleblock before?
