Mini 742 Monopoly Mafia - Game Over!

[Megatheory]

Hello, peoples! I'm reading now, will post soon.

[Megatheory]

You guys want to nameclaim? (Not your role, just name) I find in situations such as this it can be very helpful.

Possibly rolefishing. There is no way to know what names the scum might have as opposed to what names power roles might have. Even if we didn't nameclaim (which I do not support) the scum might have an easier time guessing who has a powerrole based on how they react to this suggestion.

Vote: charter

bandwagoning scum

wait THAT'S WHAT EYE'M DOING?!?!?!

unvote, vote: Empking's alt because I don't like alts

lol sorry.

Vote: Jebus

for bandwagoning ever more than charter.

Fakevotes charter and Empking for joke reasons, then actually votes Jebus. Suspicious maybe, but too bizzarre to be genuinely scummy.

Is that a serious vote yawetag?

Are all of the other votes serious?

Right now, it will stay. There's been absolutely no game play yet, and until I see something to change my mind, I won't move it. That said, I'm almost positive *something* will change my mind.

That doesn't answer my question. Was there serious backing to that vote or was it a joke?

There was obviously nothing serious about yawetag's vote. There is a good chance that charter is trying to find an excuse to suspect yawetag here.

unvote, vote yawetag

Why don't you be a good boy and answer his question?

I do not like this vote at all. It's plainly obvious what yawetag was doing.

unvote, vote yawetag

FOS Nightfall. Six posts and said nothing. Trying to fit in with the rest of the town.

Why vote now? charter seems to have set himself up for this vote and followed through once Gamma backed him up and Jebus jumped on the bandwagon. The FoS on Nightfall is waaaaaay too early for the reason charter gave.

vote: gamma

yawetog is obv noobtown

I don't take noobtown as a reason.

Yes, especially if this isn't a newbie game.

Gamma and charter are both wrong. If you don't take into account everything you know about a person (in this case, experience) you're either opening yourself to all kinds of mistakes

or

putting together an easy lynch.

Vote charter

The timing of his vote/FoS post is very suspicious. I'm not sure about Gamma yet (or anybody else, really).

[Megatheory]

You want me to show evidence where claiming names leads to catching scum? Or do you want to just assume everything I do is scummy?

About all but one of your points there about everyone is not scummy or you are wrong about. Sorry.

I'm voting for you because of your vote/FoS post. Everything else in that post is just a series of observations. If you didn't suggest nameclaiming, I'd still be voting for you.

[Megatheory]

BTW, which point was I right about?

[Megatheory]

Even if we didn't nameclaim (which I do not support)

the scum might have an easier time guessing who has a powerrole based on how they react to this suggestion.

The emboldened text suggests that you do not support the town not nameclaiming (and therefore support the town nameclaiming), but that seems contrary to your point as a whole.

Can you clarify?

I do not support nameclaiming. This is really silly. It makes no sense for me to support nameclaiming and speculate that charter was rolefishing by suggesting it.

Not rolefishing, also stems from the assumption that this suggestion has no pro town benefits. Also contradict yourself.

I find it interesting that you would assume I was contradicting myself there shortly after Spolium asked for clarification on that comment.

Is that a serious vote yawetag?

Are all of the other votes serious?

Right now, it will stay. There's been absolutely no game play yet, and until I see something to change my mind, I won't move it. That said, I'm almost positive *something* will change my mind.

That doesn't answer my question. Was there serious backing to that vote or was it a joke?

There was obviously nothing serious about yawetag's vote. There is a good chance that charter is trying to find an excuse to suspect yawetag here.

He provided a reason with his vote, I wanted to know if he meant that as a serious vote since he had previously posted but had not voted. Since he had already provided content you cannot assume it's a joke. And I'm looking for reasons to suspect people, not "excuses". Had he said yes that would have been a good reason to suspect him. It's called scumhunting.

K, let's work backwards a bit here. What do you mean by "serious vote?"

unvote, vote yawetag

Why don't you be a good boy and answer his question?

I do not like this vote at all. It's plainly obvious what yawetag was doing.

Contradictory. You don't like Gamma calling yawetag for calling out scummy behavior. (refusing to answer legit questions is scummy)

Obviously I don't think the question is as legit as you think it is. I think it's more likely that a townie would understand what yawetag was doing rather than question him and then punish him with a vote. I think Gamma jumped the gun with that vote. I don't think that's necessarily suspicious at this point in the game, I just pointed this out as a general note. How is this contradictory? I don't see it.

unvote, vote yawetag

FOS Nightfall. Six posts and said nothing. Trying to fit in with the rest of the town.

Why vote now? charter seems to have set himself up for this vote and followed through once Gamma backed him up and Jebus jumped on the bandwagon. The FoS on Nightfall is waaaaaay too early for the reason charter gave.

This is the only one of your points I'd say is an actual one. However I throw Fos's around like santa claus throws presents on christmas.

So you admit the yawetag vote was suspiciously timed? That's the main thing, the FoS is just gravy. You basically called Nightfall out for not contributing when we're on page 3 and serious discussion has just barely begun. I don't disagree with that general line of thought, but it's too soon to call him out for that reason. And if you throw out FoS's a lot, you should expect people to call you out on them, IMO.

Gamma and charter are both wrong. If you don't take into account everything you know about a person (in this case, experience) you're either opening yourself to all kinds of mistakes

or

putting together an easy lynch.

No, this will allow anyone to get away with anything because they've done it before. I've lied heavily as town, does that mean I should get to lie freely this game? Not at all.

It takes more effort to weigh someone's behavior against what you know about them then to pursue people based on general principles or policies. That's just my opinion. All I'm doing here is providing good advice (at least, what I think is good advice).

[Megatheory]

He provided a reason with his vote, I wanted to know if he meant that as a serious vote since he had previously posted but had not voted. Since he had already provided content you cannot assume it's a joke. And I'm looking for reasons to suspect people, not "excuses". Had he said yes that would have been a good reason to suspect him. It's called scumhunting.

K, let's work backwards a bit here. What do you mean by "serious vote?"

I get the impression that you're dancing around a valid answer here - the meaning of Charter's comment is quite clear.

charter could mean a number of things by "serious vote." I want to make sure we're on the same page before I fully analyze the situation. I don't want to mistakenly believe he meant one meaning when he meant another, nor do I want him to be able to change what he meant when it is convenient for him to do so.