History Mafia Mini Theme - 1358 Game Over!

[DeasVail]

That wasn't a vote btw in case there's any confusion.

[Quilford]

That wasn't a vote btw in case there's any confusion.

Was it intended to be one?

[DeasVail]

No, it was intended to be a "McStab look at this" type thing, but I posted and realised it looked like it could have been intended as a vote.

Anyway,

McStab

Claim please.

[Quilford]

Really? I think you're lying.

[Quilford]

And townies never lie.

[DeasVail]

Townies don't make double posts in an effort to inflate their post count either.

[Quilford]

I think we can lynch you next.

[DeasVail]

But then you'd have to bus me, and I'd have to pretend I'm town convinced you're scum trying to mislynch me and then you'd call me out for OMGUS and then I'd chuck a massive tanty and I'm just not up to doing all that until Day 3 at least.

Wait, was I supposed to start already?

[Quilford]

Yes okay. Last chance: were you lying?

[DeasVail]

That depends on the motive behind your double post.

[DeasVail]

So no (I think)

[Staeg]

unvote
Vote: mcstab

[DeasVail]

L-1

[Quilford]

So you just proved you were lying?

[DeasVail]

Quil, is it so important that we continue this or can we stop now?

[MichelSableheart]

Sorry for disappearing for a while. Couldn't find the enthousiasm for MS.

@666: to make sure I understood your #431 correctly: you believe IceGuy asked for a massnameclaim solely in the hope of outing powerroles? Wouldn't that lead to his immediate lynch as soon as he was forced to reveal his motives? I can understand why you feel asking for a massnameclaim is anti-town, but that doesn't mean scum is automatically more likely to do it. In general, scum tend to be more subtle, to avoid being easily accused. I still feel you haven't properly explained why this particular behaviour was more likely to come from scum then from town.

@MattP: why #437? Didn't you rage against Bitmap for doing similar speculation earlier? I would prefer to hear your reasoning over Iceguy's.

I really don't like the IceGuy attacks on the beginning of page 19.

McStab's vote in #490 is bad. I believe IceGuy softclaiming power has been established by now. Both his rolefishing and his refusal to reveal any further have been completely consistent with that softclaim. Voting IceGuy means disbelieving the softclaim, but rolefishing by IceGuy is not reasoning to disbelief that softclaim. Why exactly is IceGuy scum? And why only consider MattP from the players on the IceGuy wagon?

In the meantime, I notice CO has conveniently disappeared again. Posts little, and virtually no content when he does post. And he's getting away with it completely. Would love to get more pressure here, but I'm afraid that won't be feasible with deadline tomorrow.

666 continues fishing with his questions at Iceguy in #504.

---

There are a number of lynches I consider acceptable for today:

• ChaosOmega, for rolefishing, and for lurking through posting little content in those few instances he does post. With only my vote there shortly for deadline, this lynch seems unfeasible though. Lurking appearantly works.
  
• 666. His attack on Iceguy in the beginning of the game was unfounded, which he tried to cover up by ignoring the questions I asked about it. His continuous attack on Iceguy feels like scum being afraid of a powerrole, and trying to gain whatever info they can.
  
• McStab. Vash was likely simply inactive and didn't contribute much, which is not a scumtell, but also no reason to keep him alive. Then McStab replaces in, and comes with a poor attack on IceGuy while mildly defending 666. When he continues this with an admission that he has not fully read, it really makes me doubt his motives.
  
• Staeg is an acceptable lynch for the possible scumslip, though I don't have any direct problems with him.

With deadline this close, I have no problems hammering.

Vote: McStab

[DeasVail]

...

[Quilford]

McStab (2): Bitmap, ChaosOmega

+

VOTE: McStab

+

VOTE: McStab

+

VOTE: McStab

+

Vote: mcstab

=
McStab (5): Bitmap, ChaosOmega, MattP, Quilford, Staeg (because Bitmap was already voting for McStab/Vash)

With 13 alive it takes 7 to lynch.

You thought Staeg had put McStab at L-1 because you thought that you would have been putting McStab at L-1 in your botched vote back in post #549.

Obviously you weren't asking him a question because you always colour people's names (with no bold) when you directly address a question to them. Rather, you accidentally put bold tags around McStab's name instead of vote tags.

Quil, is it so important that we continue this or can we stop now?

I'm interested in your explanation for why you lied and then lied about not lying. If you can't provide a decent enough one, I'm just going to sub my own reasoning in, and it involves you being scum.

[Quilford]

With deadline this close, I have no problems hammering.
Vote: McStab

Unfortunately, no hammer for you.

[DeasVail]

I never lied.

Was this some elaborate reaction test? If not, why would I have lied, and what did you think I was doing afterward?

[Quilford]

That wasn't a vote btw in case there's any confusion.

Was it intended to be one?

No, it was intended to be a "McStab look at this" type thing

So you're still maintaining it wasn't intended to be a vote and therefore you weren't lying?

[DeasVail]

Yes

[Quilford]

Well: I think you're scum who intended to vote for McStab, realised your vote was scummy after you posted it, and got lucky in that you didn't use the valid voting notation and there was no immediately obvious reason why it was a botched vote.

Kind of backed up with your vote counting mistake, your insistence that it was you asking McStab a question despite not putting his name in orange as you normally do, you asking him to claim in the same post, and you immediately clarifying that 'it wasn't a vote' in your next post 'in case there's any confusion'.

--

Also your predecessor was scum.

[DeasVail]

And townies never lie.

So this was serious?

Also, what would have been so scummy about voting for McStab at the time?

[Quilford]

It was half-serious. I was still gauging whether or not you were joking around at the time.

Your question is irrelevant. Are you admitting to lying? If so, why didn't you admit to it earlier?