The Legonater Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 You're all making pretty good points towards both Mary and Alice. I'm still partial to Mary, but if we're going for Alice I'm all in - we have to lynch someone today, after all.
Hinckley Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 You're all making pretty good points towards both Mary and Alice. I'm still partial to Mary, but if we're going for Alice I'm all in - we have to lynch someone today, after all. What makes you partial to Mary?
Rufus Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 You're all making pretty good points towards both Mary and Alice. I'm still partial to Mary, but if we're going for Alice I'm all in - we have to lynch someone today, after all. Why not vote then?
Captain Genaro Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 It seems to me that both Mary and Alice have similar cases built against them. Jonathan points out that both Mary and Alice summarized and only voted when prompted to. When accused, both of them seem to be silent and take a good while to respond. While I can understand not immediately replying, they had plenty of time to respond. I am willing to lynch either of them but I feel that there is still a stronger case for lynching Mary. Why? There is still the issue of Mary's number. No, not the set it correlates to but her convenient "realization" that she posted the wrong number once Bob told us that the numbers relate to a building contest. The number issue is the main reason that I feel Mary is more likely to be scum than Alice. You might say I'm beating a dead horse, trying to lynch Mary again, but I don't think that I have anything else to go on. Vote: Mary (TheBoyWonder) If someone can convince me that there is a stronger case for Alice, I am willing to consider changing my vote.
TrumpetKing Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 I'm more convinced towards Alice then Mary. Vote: Alice (Rumble Strike)
ADHO15 Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 Oh, I can and will, Richard. She told us she would look into things further, but never did. She provided no further analysis, just summarizing what we already knew and no new analysis of anyone else's behavior. She just safely stuck to the two current lynch candidates. That's the difference. I do not do that. If I promise an analysis or to look at things further, I actually do so. It's a common Scum tactic to promise some investigation work and then say you came up with nothing. It's a little switch in the Scummy mind that says "I have to have an excuse for my absence while I plot with the Scummies and lurk." So her specific behaviors are adding up as Scum tells for me. Fair enough, I agree with that. I looked back over Alice's inputs from yesterday just before you posted your recap and I definitely see where you're coming from. She did not seem to bring up anything new following her reflections on the day's discussion, but merely summarised once again and reworded the ideas of others. You are more experienced than Alice, however, and I am not certain that this behaviour exhibited by Alice implicates her as much as you feel it does, particularly on Day One. Mary has done very little today, which is not unlike her, but could be an attempt to lie low and wait for the suspicion built up around her yesterday to dissipate and for eyes to fall upon a different target instead. To put it mildly, her defence failed to impress me yesterday and since nothing was acted upon in the meantime regarding her suspicious behaviour, I once again... Vote: Mary (TheBoyWonder)
Sandy Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 Words into actions. Vote: Alice (Rumble Strike)
The Legonater Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 What makes you partial to Mary? She just strikes me as more scummy. Mary jumped around a lot with her number, and just seems more hostile in general. Why not vote then? To be perfectly honest, I did not realize the voting had yet started. Vote: Mary(TheBoyWonder)
TheBoyWonder Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 I've had a busy few days, not everyone drops everything for mafia. Richard, I see you are still tunneled against me, but I can understand that, I haven't done much to defend myself today. But you cannot say nothing was done. What of the investigator? I imagine we have one, but what have they done, They haven't spoke to anyone, or that information hasn't been passed on. I imagine I was the target of such an action, be it a role of affiliation cop. I ask that if they did investigate me, they come forward with the information. I feel this is the only way I can truly justify myself to Richard.
Rumble Strike Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 I just re-read Day One for your comments, and while I can't say I got the feel you knew about people's allegiances, I just realized you were the person who kept writing off the numbers as nothing even before we were told they were for a contest, which I found a bit suspicious yesterday. Hm, right I'm torn between Lifeguard Girl, who gives these numbers, like, way too much meaning, and you, who's quick to write them off (as well as generally flying under the radar). I consider you both good candidates for a lynch, but I'd rather vote for you right now. So... I was posting enough for you to notice I kept writing off the numbers, BUT I was also flying under the radar? I can't really do both, can I? For the record, I said twice that they may not mean anything, during some wild speculation, and I was eventually proved wrong. The concern is still the same. Mostly, in reading it back and looking carefully at it, Alice has told us in detail why she thinks one is Scum over the other. Overly justifying a vote on a Townie? We all knew, by this point, the case against each. Why has Alice gone through so many steps to explain why she was choosing one over the other? Maybe it's because I was hounding her about the summarizing post and asking for analysis. In that case, this wouldn't be Scummy so much as just her way of processing events. It could also be the Scum-perspective of needing to justify a vote in case the vote pattern gives her away later. Was she seeking advice on if she should vote for her Scum-mate Mary or was she trying to discern which Townie to vote for? Who knows? If she is Scum, we could speculate all day as to what she was actually thinking. This is not a very solid case when we look at it. She did do everything she said and even found a new suspicion in Bill. Still, the original "Ping" from me stands. It's a typical Scum-tell and perhaps she just did a valiant job trying to cover her tracks afterwards. OK, so if I had immediately put up a vote (as what Mary did), that would have been a Scum tell too? How about being accused of summarizing and then when I actually vote I'm then accused of over-justifying my vote? Like what Bristol was saying, it seems once someone has fixated on you for a lynch, there's no way of doing something that isn't supposedly a "Scum tell". As you yourself state, I have done everything I set out to do. I can't be held accountable for not coming up with startling new evidence on day one, despite your feelings on what my analysis was going to reveal, and therefore looked closest at the two people who had accrued the most votes. Yes, very lucky for you to not have voted for a Townie. And what do you think of Mary today? My opinion on Mary is the same as it was yesterday. Due to the mistake about the passenger number, she gets my vote still as being most suspicious. Vote: Mary (TheBoyWonder)
ADHO15 Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 I've had a busy few days, not everyone drops everything for mafia. No one is asking you to, but you should not have signed up if you do not have the time. Agreeing to the time commitments means that you can follow along somewhat regularly throughout the day and contribute where possible/appropriate, and not just getting in your one or two require posts each day. But you cannot say nothing was done. What of the investigator? I imagine we have one, but what have they done, They haven't spoke to anyone, or that information hasn't been passed on. I imagine I was the target of such an action, be it a role of affiliation cop. I ask that if they did investigate me, they come forward with the information. I feel this is the only way I can truly justify myself to Richard. I assume that if we did have one, they found something worth reporting and intended to do so, we would have heard from them in some way already, but sure, I'll wait. In the meantime, my vote stands.
Nightshroud99 Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 Vote: Alice (Rumble Strike) Alice hasn't changed my opinion of her.
Hinckley Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 If you hate the plays, there's a summary at the bottom. *lights dim* *Enter Jonathan in a "Members Only" jacket sporting some fake side burns and heavy framed glasses with enormous lenses.* The Assassin Plot by Jonathan Hinckley Jonathan: Jodie, I love you. Zangara: Come on now, don't confuse people who aren't used to you writing plays. There's no Jodie. Jonathan: I forgot about people who haven't seen me write plays. I'm just trying to give def a headache. Zangara: Carry on then. Scene 1 (Day One) Raymond Lee Harvey: Good news! I'm a day investigator and I investigated you as Town. Jonathan: Really? That's convenient. Am I supposed to trust you? Raymond Lee Harvey: Yup. I've told someone else I have a role. I'll tell you who later. Jonathan: That's nice. Raymond Lee Harvey: No I'm not going to tell you the other person, because if you're the Scum Godfather, you'd blame my death on him. Jonathan: OK. Say, will you investigate Alice on Day Two? Raymond Lee Harvey: Um, can't. It only works on odd days. Jonathan: That's ducked. (Day Two) Raymond Lee Harvey: I just made that up so you wouldn't kill me until Night Two if you're the Godfather. I'll tell you my backup, it's Giussepie Zangara! I investigated him and he's Town and we're all a happy Townie family now. Let's add him to our PM. Jonathan: This stinks of Scummy lying. Raymond Lee Harvey: How so? Jonathan: This is a convenient claim with convenient sudden backup and you're telling me one minute it only works on odd days and then suddenly it works every day. Zangara: Jonathan? He's Town? But he's the Scummiest! He's being so aggressive! Jonathan: (punches Zangara in the face) I'm always aggressive! Zangara: Good point. Scene 2 Jonathan: I'm suspicious of Sam Byck. Something's weird about him, dressing up like Santa and sweating all the time. Zangara: I talked to Sam Byck. He claimed neutral. Jonathan: So he's the serial killer? Zangara: How about a little play within a play? Jonathan and Raymond Lee Harvey: Fine. Scene 3 Sam Byck: I'm neutral. I'm a jewel thief. I win when I get the diamond. Even if I lose it afterwards or die, I still win. Zangara: I highly doubt you could make that up, Capitalist American pig! Sam Byck: I'm hardly the bourgeoisie. Cut the historical crap, it's just confusing. Stick to the game! Zangara: Sorry. So, you're kind of like an investigator? Sam Byck: Kind of. If I target a Scum, I get the diamond but there are other jewel thieves who can take it back. I win even if they take it back. Zangara: So what are you told if you target an Innocent? Who did you target last night? Sam Byck: Scott. He was totally sitting on the fence, so I thought he was Scum. Look, let's not make a big deal out of this. If people know, they'll freak out and I'll get lynched. Nobody likes neutrals. Scene 4 Jonathan: I read that story and see that Sam Byck killed Scott. Raymond Lee Harvey: It sounds like horseshit to me too. Jonathan: However, if it's true, then the Scum may have an investigator...even a day investigator, maybe... Scene 5 Jonathan: Why were you out of your cabin last night? What were you up to? Lynette Squeaky Fromme: Helter Skelter, I was tracking someone. Jonathan: Who did you track? Lynette Squeaky Fromme: I tracked Scott. He didn't target anybody. Boy, your first question scared the crap out of me. Jonathan: Why would you be so scared?? Lots of people targeting Scott. Why did you target him, exactly? Lynette Squeaky Fromme: It was a shot in the dark. Jonathan: Why not Mary or Alice? Lynette Squeaky Fromme: I assumed one of them would be lynched, so I tried to use my informative role to find someone I could trust. If Scott didn't target anyone, then I'd assume he was vanilla and could work with him. Jonathan: Tracker is a Scummy claim and a convenient one in case you were caught targeting Scott... The End *lights back up* Summary for play-haters. There's a day investigator, Raymond Lee Harvey, who investigated me and Giussepie Zangara as Town. He claimed it only works on odd days but claims he was trying to keep me from killing him Night One if I was the Scum Godfather. Plausible. Sam Byck claims to be a neutral jewel thief who targeted Scott on Night One. For those not paying attention, Scott was murdered on Night One. He also claims to be one of many neutral jewel thieves out there and that all he has to do to win is steal the diamond once. He wins after that even if he dies. Lynette Squeaky Fromme claims to be a tracker, a Scummy role indeed. After some squirrely back and forth she also admits to targeting Scott, for questionable reason. Apparently Scott didn't target anyone. In conclusion, I think the neutral that targeted the dead player or the claimed tracker that targeted the dead player should be lynched and not Mary or Alice. I'm sure it will be asked why so much info had to be made public. Isn't it more fun if you know what's going on? Now everyone can be more active, seeing all the Action and the names are protected, thus the convenience of using aliases.
def Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 No. Again, point out where I "went on" about Mary. I asked you three times to answer one question, if that's what you mean. Another thing that raised suspicion about you was ignoring the simple question I asked. You conveniently skipped my questions. What happened to your suspicion of Mary? I agree Mary could be a good vote for the day, though I still like the idea of lynching Alice. I'd like to hear from Barbara as to why her suspicion has so suddenly left Mary and focused on me for apparently no solid reason. And you know this host may actually commit such a faux-pas, so it's not that far-fetched and worth exploring. So, third time's the charm, what happened to your suspicion of Mary? You say you didn't want to vote for Jordan and you started the vote yesterday on Mary, so what happened? As far as your focus falling off of Mary, that is particularly relevant. Especially considering it took you all day to change your vote from a "so-so candidate". Why do you think you're above suspicion in every game? I never said you were pushing for Mary, did I? And yes, your accusation does make me suspicious of you. Especially considering you're clinging to its flimsiness. I'm not saying you were focused on Mary. You said it several times yesterday that you weren't and even made fun of the bandwagon that formed behind you. My concern was that you were the first to vote for her and today had nothing more to say about it. No, you say I had suspicion of her, that I had a focus on her, and that you weren't saying I had a focus on her. It's pretty repetitive to me. Especially since it was a casual day one vote. Def's "shit don't stink" attitude aside, I'm still planning on voting Alice today. Seriously, get over it. Be suspicious of me if you like. I'm not speaking for the town. I'm speaking of myself. The only thing I made note of is that you had zero suspicions of me until I pointed a finger at you. Not that I am obviously an innocent, or that you're foolish for making claims at me. Call that a "shit don't stink" attitude, but it's you being an patronising megablocks. Seriously, find a single example of me having a "shit don't stink" attitude on here. It's pretty boring to get the same bitching from you yet again, and hardly called for.
The Legonater Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 Well that sheds some light on the situation. It's a pity you used aliases and not the real names, though I understand the need for secrecy.
Scubacarrot Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 I'm not speaking for the town. I'm speaking of myself. How true. Jonathan you´re trying to disperge attention to everywhere. So you claim a bunched of stuff happened around you, we aren´t going to be helped by this, really. So let´s recap what we know, there´s a lying investigator around, there some neutral with a potential useful role to the town around, there´s a potential tracker around. You could have just said that and possibly have claims and unmasked a liar. Plays suck. Wouldn´t it be possible to threaten this neutral guy and force him to target targets we like? Surely he doesn´t care as long as he survives/wins or something right, since you know who it is, we have him in a tight spot? Oh, and vote, Mary (TheBoyWonder) I just don´t want the risk that the scum enforced the vote on Jordan and get away with it.
CMP Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 Jonathan you´re trying to disperge attention to everywhere. So you claim a bunched of stuff happened around you, we aren´t going to be helped by this, really. So let´s recap what we know, there´s a lying investigator around, there some neutral with a potential useful role to the town around, there´s a potential tracker around. You could have just said that and possibly have claims and unmasked a liar. Plays suck. He'll probably out whoever seems most suspicious to everyone so we can vote for him. How aren't we going to be helped by this? It's the first real information we have.
def Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 Not nearly condescending enough for your usual smug self. If you act like a dick, I'll treat you like one Personally, and in all honesty, I find it really, really frustrating that someone comes in with the idea that I have to be smug and condescending. If you make an issue of calling me that on a repeated basis, I will become so, for two reasons: 1) you will come across like an idiot to me and of course I will look down on you and 2) the game starts to lose any pleasure, so I'll become more irritable. Say what you like about me, I certainly wasn't the one who starting in with the personal insults (and I consider smug and condescending insulting terms). You're working those angles, it seems. Maybe it's time for def to take another break, since my reputation is hampering my ability to have fun. In fact, having fun and getting along is now something to be suspicious of! I'm sure Barbara will insult my intelligence for daring to question her, but that's OK with me. This is what is see in reading back over Day One. I didn't think people's accusations of Jordan held much weight, but thought it better to get a lynch. I didn't see the whole of town switching to a new third person in the 5-6 hours before the day ended, and nobody had changed their vote by the time I went to bed. Maybe that's suspicious...
Scubacarrot Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 He'll probably out whoever seems most suspicious to everyone so we can vote for him. How aren't we going to be helped by this? It's the first real information we have. It´s impossible to make a solid judgement of that, remember, we don´t have the information, only he has. And as for real, we´d have to see.
ADHO15 Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 So, Johnathan, you have spend all day stating your strongly felt case against Alice and now you suddenly have so much new information and your suspicions of Alice have been dropped now that voting has begun? How do you justify that? He'll probably out whoever seems most suspicious to everyone so we can vote for him. How aren't we going to be helped by this? It's the first real information we have. Lauren is right: it is only 'real information' if you believe Johnathan, and so far he has done nothing to earn my trust, merely begun a voting bandwagon against an innocent and done a lot of distracting and switching of ideas.
Hinckley Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 No, you say I had suspicion of her, that I had a focus on her, and that you weren't saying I had a focus on her. It's pretty repetitive to me. Especially since it was a casual day one vote. Seriously, get over it. Be suspicious of me if you like. I'm not speaking for the town. I'm speaking of myself. The only thing I made note of is that you had zero suspicions of me until I pointed a finger at you. Not that I am obviously an innocent, or that you're foolish for making claims at me. Call that a "shit don't stink" attitude, but it's you being an patronising megablocks. Seriously, find a single example of me having a "shit don't stink" attitude on here. It's pretty boring to get the same bitching from you yet again, and hardly called for. You're counting the times I said her name? Jonathan you´re trying to disperge attention to everywhere. So you claim a bunched of stuff happened around you, we aren´t going to be helped by this, really. So let´s recap what we know, there´s a lying investigator around, there some neutral with a potential useful role to the town around, there´s a potential tracker around. You could have just said that and possibly have claims and unmasked a liar. Plays suck. You must enjoy having a pathetic attitude towards things. Oh well, to each their own. Where did I say the investigator is lying? I'm saying what he said worries me, but I never said I thought he was lying. So, Johnathan, you have spend all day stating your strongly felt case against Alice and now you suddenly have so much new information and your suspicions of Alice have been dropped now that voting has begun? How do you justify that? Lauren is right: it is only 'real information' if you believe Johnathan, and so far he has done nothing to earn my trust, merely begun a voting bandwagon against an innocent and done a lot of distracting and switching of ideas. So, you think I should have sat on this info? And continued to let the Town vote between two people who have no actual evidence against them when I have two people admitting they've targeted Scott? One who claims to be a neutral jewel thief. You want to continue voting for either Mary or Alice knowing that? What am I distracting everyone from, exactly? Bringing solid info to the table is distracting? The info about Sam and Lynette came after I posted my recap of suspicions against Alice.
The Legonater Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 So, you think I should have sat on this info? And continued to let the Town vote between two people who have no actual evidence against them when I have two people admitting they've targeted Scott? One who claims to be a neutral jewel thief. You want to continue voting for either Mary or Alice knowing that? What am I distracting everyone from, exactly? Bringing solid info to the table is distracting? The info about Sam and Lynette came after I posted my recap of suspicions against Alice. The fact is, though, that we still don't know who Sam and Lynette are, and so we can't act on it.
Capt. Redblade Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 Uneasy about her affiliation or uneasy to vote her? Her affiliation. I thought I made that clear yesterday. *snip* Well, that was... interesting. You're certainly right that someone will ask why this info had to be made public, and why now of all times? So far you've been throwing out a lot of rather random-seeming theories and accusations, you started a bandwagon against young Jordan, you're duking it out rather publicly with Babs (which will get you both confined to quarters if it escalates much more), and now... this. This is all difficult to verify at the moment and, though it is possible that there may be more than two factions, all we have is your word to go on, and you have not as yet shown yourself to be more trustworthy than anyone else, in my opinion. In conclusion, I think the neutral that targeted the dead player or the claimed tracker that targeted the dead player should be lynched and not Mary or Alice. Perhaps, then, it would make sense to share their names? Even if what you say is true, we don't know who's behind those noms de plume, so we can't act.
def Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 I'm a neutral jewel thief! I win if I get the diamond just once, even if lynched day two (though I don't have the diamond, so I would lose). The role is such that I would have zero incentive to play if I succeed in my goal. I was planning to announce this after I got the diamond, so other thieves (who I was notified exist) could get it off me and win. My winning has zero connection to the winning of either town or scum. Jonathan thinks the host is capable of lying about the distribution of the set numbers, but this is particularly unlikely.... Um, okay. Vote me out if you want to test this theory. It will save me the trouble of being told I'm a dick for the next two weeks.
CMP Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 Could Sam Byck be used as a sort of investigator, assuming he's cooperative?
Recommended Posts