Eurobricks Mafia II: Mafia School: Day Two

[Nightshroud99]

Ok I just had a thought. I'm reading on what Danny said yesterday, not everything yet, and I keep thinking he's a strange target. I mean, what did he do that so blatantly painted a target on his back??

Then, I see that Trumpet had voted for him. Perhaps, after Trumpet came out of the scum closet, as a ruse, Danny contacted him? And then Trumpet told another townie (someone reading this) who had Danny killed??

What do y'all think of this?

[Chromeknight]

We also know that there is no SK and that there are 5 scums, not 6 as it was stated yesterday:

That means that there are either 3 killers - 2 recruiters or 2 killers - 3 recruiters, the former being more likely. Danny's death brings the scum numbers to 4 ...

You know, all this is true. But we're not dumb players, we can all count past five (even Peanuts) we can even see the possibilities outlined by Pandy that Danny wasn't originally scum, but both recruited and killed in the same night.

Given this, I'm not quite sure how helpful your analysis is. Are you simply trying to look helpful without actually contributing? Speculating on scum numbers is such a dead end of a conversation it ends up as a ping.

Now I could have the wrong end of the stick here, feel free to come back to us about it.

[Fugazi]

Ok I just had a thought. I'm reading on what Danny said yesterday, not everything yet, and I keep thinking he's a strange target. I mean, what did he do that so blatantly painted a target on his back??

Then, I see that Trumpet had voted for him. Perhaps, after Trumpet came out of the scum closet, as a ruse, Danny contacted him? And then Trumpet told another townie (someone reading this) who had Danny killed??

What do y'all think of this?

Well you said yourself that scum would have been pretty dumb to fall for such a ruse. Even had Li'l Danny been dumb himself -- and I don't mean to say that it is the case -- someone on his team would have advised him against taking such risks this early in the game.

I still think that Li'l Danny died because he said very little and therefore was one of the most unreadable players. He would have made a valid default target for an otherwise uninformed vigilante.

While it would have been possible for Danny to start out as town and be recruited right before he died, it's not in my opinion the most likely theory. I doubt scum would start by recruiting one of the most inactive players, already attracting unwanted attention for that very reason. I believe that Danny has been scum from the start. Whether him or Trumpet had any night actions is something we might only find out at the end of this ordeal.

[Piratedave84]

You know, all this is true. But we're not dumb players, we can all count past five (even Peanuts) we can even see the possibilities outlined by Pandy that Danny wasn't originally scum, but both recruited and killed in the same night.

Given this, I'm not quite sure how helpful your analysis is. Are you simply trying to look helpful without actually contributing? Speculating on scum numbers is such a dead end of a conversation it ends up as a ping.

Now I could have the wrong end of the stick here, feel free to come back to us about it.

Not wanting to get in a "who's more helpful" match here but .... Please point me to the place where you contributed .... Anything ... To the discussion?

This was made in regards to a comment made on day one which alluded to there being both an SK and 6 scum (I think it was a comment by KdM). Furthermore, it followed up on a series of comments where it was discussed who may have targetted Danny; analyzing numbers in this game may just prove to be helpful.

Also Pandy's comment was made several hours after my comment!

[Scouty]

The thing I can't shake is that Danny is usually fairly obvious when he's scum (he may not appreciate me saying that, but never mind), and he looked pretty town to me yesterday. And aside from all the other myriad of possibilities that have been discussed, we haven't considered that Danny may have been converted by scum and killed the same night. If so, then taking anything he says as being 'scummy' or false may be wrong.

If Scouty were scum, for instance, Scouty's team may have thought it beneficial to convert Danny. However somebody on the opposing scum team or the vig, for reasons as yet unclear, may have also decided to kill Danny. Possibly the killing scum team to frame Scouty?

Oh, that's an interesting possibility. It's partly based off of metagaming, but it's possible. To which is more likely, I wouldn't know. I'm not exactly sure how "my recruiting team" might have found it beneficial to recruit the person accusing me, because I can only see complications rising from that and I'm not sure what benefit there is. I don't think the reasons for Danny's death are so unclear (at least from the vig's viewpoint). Danny did get a couple votes yesterday, so it's not like there wasn't reason to suspect him, and thus kill him. I'm not exactly sure why the scum would kill Danny, he doesn't seem to be that good a target for them.

You may have thought that, but you still haven't answered the points he made against you, which actually seemed like reasonable points to me.

Well, when I was writing my post, the page got refreshed and I lost it (I was on my mobile), which did address more Li'l Rick's points, I guess when I retyped it I got lost on a tangent (I did re-write the bottom paragraph first before re-writing the first, which was the one that referred Rick's points). Then I went to class (we're in school, remember ?). Even then, I addressed his "conversion" point, and I alsoo addressed (though not as directly as before) his point that Danny's death does not mean anything for me. One sentence I forgot to put back in was something like "Yeah, I don't expect that Danny's death clears me, I recognize the two scum team duality, so that only leaves as not on one scum team". What I seem to be getting from most people is that they leave out the option where I'm town (especially what I got from Rick's post) who's trying to explain himself, but ends up getting misread or I was not able to convey my point of view (as a townie, through and through; not as a scum with a townie perspective, but as a member of the town, who has had to put down any scummy appearance [which I was attempting to do in the beginning, or at least sow the seeds of it; to which it seems to worked quite well because I'm being so well scrutinized]).

On my comment of Danny: I was happy to see a dead scum the first night. I read his vote against me, but it was basically the same as what others have said before, I did not feel like repeating myself for it; I went to bed because I didn't want to get stressed by typing yet another defense. I thought his case was ridiculous then and just as ridiculous now. I literally went "WTF" when I read it. From my perspective, you'd know this to be true.

I think that covers Rick's points. Please let me know if I missed anything.

Scouty, you're getting mighty bristly. Share your suspicions. In fact, quote to me one time you attempted to contribute. You keep saying "accusing me is ridiculous, I'm helping/have shared what I want to share". I'm not discounting Earthling emotions because you- er- we all get a little angry when accused, but tell us why we're wrong in specifics, not broad strokes!

Day one:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Day two:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Here are my contributions so far this game, mainly consisting of: fluff (everybody is guilty of that) [1,(2) 2, 3], my input/opinion on how things are/what might've happened/my own opinions [2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11,(2) 1, 6] and defending myself [3, 4, 6, 8, (2) 4, 5]. On top of real life work, defending myself, and not be an obsessive, over-stressed hover player, yeah, I wasn't able to provide many in depth, detailed analysis. Sorry about that. Now it's my turn to accuse you of being someone of "broad strokes". So far, your case against me was basically of what was said before (primarily by Li'l CMP) (and can be said of Danny's case) and you had not indicated any suspicions against me before (except "Let's get the quiet folks!" But you seem to just be focused on me...so, so much for "folks". A comparison: CMP Zepher ). So far, it's my belief that you have been somewhat broad in your accusation and somewhat tunnel visioned (as I feel a lot of people, not just those accusing me, are doing). Tell me, specifically, why you think I should be lynched. That seems to be your goal, I haven't seen much evidence (this is for most people accusing me) of seeing both sides of the picture. I may be bitter and angry, but it's really me stressing over what I think is going to be a tunnel visioned lynch, not a simple "I'm going to vote for you because you're quiet." [i reply] "Oh ok, to the next quiet guy". Go point out those guys before coming back to me, because you're on a goose-chase with me. I'm not at all surprised that there was a scum (assuming he was not converted and then killed) among those who voted for/accused me, I wouldn't be surprised if there was another.

One thing that interests me is that my original accuser Li'l Pie, isn't following up on his suspicion against me. He made his case, I gave my reply, he replied "My vote stands", and hasn't touched on his suspicions against me, even today. With a vote like that, I'd think he'd keep better track of it. Doesn't seem like that to me. Maybe behind the scenes, but not in the thread.

Let me ask. Are you (all) harping on me because you don't want to feel "he's the one we let away"?

I've not forgotten about Li'l BoyWonder, but I've typed long enough for the moment.

[CMP]

Day one:

1,

Our mistake. That is such a meaningful contribution. Thank you for sharing that with us all.

I haven't decided whether or not to follow up. Now I think I will. If I don't get my renewed up case up tonight, it'll definitely be there tomorrow.

[Scouty]

Our mistake. That is such a meaningful contribution. Thank you for sharing that with us all.

I haven't decided whether or not to follow up. Now I think I will. If I don't get my renewed up case up tonight, it'll definitely be there tomorrow.

Thanks for cherry picking that. I put in all my posts thus far, and I, in the next sentence, marked that that quote was fluff. I said it myself. Please read my post more carefully before you cherry pick something in the tunnel visioned pursuit of me.

Also, glad that you're coming out with a "renewed" case, only after I called you out on dropping away. Plus, what more is there to say that isn't just going to be repeating yourself? I've replied to the scrutinization against me, I don't feel anybody being open to it, just more scrutiny. I would say "potato" and you would find a reason to use that as a reason that I'm scum. That's a hyperbole, but its point stands.

Smug, crass remarks from CMP and Zepher here. You guys seem to be enjoying bullying me (it's a school, yeah?). You guys are making me not want to reply to you.

I haven't decided whether or not to follow up.

You hadn't decided on whether to follow up in a case that you started? That you said you wouldn't change your vote over? Nuh-uh, that you follow up on. Not "decide to".

[CMP]

Day One votes aren't often the kind you follow up on, unless you stumble upon a decent case. I believe I have, so yes, I've decided to follow up on it.

Sorry, I jumped to a conclusion based on the fact that you said you would list contributions. I did miss that you admitted most of it was fluff.

And if I have to decide whether or not I'm going to continue my accusations against you...well, that sort of puts the whole 'tunnel vision' accusation against me to rest, doesn't it? I try to be open minded, but most of the people here aren't acting as scummy as you are, so yes, naturally I'm going to focus on you, not fling suspicion every which direction.

Also, I apologize if it seems like I'm bullying you. I actually really hate that sort of behavior, and I'm sorry if I slipped into insulting you too much.

[Scouty]

I realize that I'm getting quite abrasive, I apologize for that, let me make up with a hug and a kiss. *hug* *mwah* .

But, still, my points still stand. If you could see from my point of view you'd see how ridiculous you're beginning to sound.

[CMP]

But, still, my points still stand. If you could see from my point of view you'd see how ridiculous you're beginning to sound.

I made (and will make another) valid accusation against you. I don't see what's so ridiculous about it, unless you think you're above suspicion for some reason. I can understand you're probably annoyed I'm accusing you, but that's how the game goes, what's so ridiculous about it? You don't think I have enough reason to go after you? You think I'm taking too much of a risk accusing somebody without something stronger to back it up? Maybe you're right. But voting is mandatory, and hell if I'm a pussyfooter! I intend to form arguments, not go along with the crowd for once.

[Scouty]

Day One votes aren't often the kind you follow up on, unless you stumble upon a decent case. I believe I have, so yes, I've decided to follow up on it.

And if I have to decide whether or not I'm going to continue my accusations against you...well, that sort of puts the whole 'tunnel vision' accusation against me to rest, doesn't it? I try to be open minded, but most of the people here aren't acting as scummy as you are, so yes, naturally I'm going to focus on you, not fling suspicion every which

If you were focusing on me, you seemed to...not...do that anymore at the end of the day.

I don't get it. You believe you have a case, so you want to follow up on it, yet you're saying you were deciding to follow up on it or not. Your decision has come to the conclusion of: "yes, I will follow up on that" after I called you out on it? Would you had I not?

I really hope this is not becoming like another Day Two affair like in the original EB mafia. Really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really do.

[Scouty]

I made (and will make another) valid accusation against you. I don't see what's so ridiculous about it, unless you think you're above suspicion for some reason. I can understand you're probably annoyed I'm accusing you, but that's how the game goes, what's so ridiculous about it? You don't think I have enough reason to go after you? You think I'm taking too much of a risk accusing somebody without something stronger to back it up? Maybe you're right. But voting is mandatory, and hell if I'm a pussyfooter! I intend to form arguments, not go along with the crowd for once.

I applaud you on your efforts to not be a sheep.

All I ask is you also scrutinize other people, it's tunnel vision if you are, indeed, focusing on one person, even if you believe you have a case, or not. I feel like I've been the only person under scrutiny thus far today, strong scrutiny, I really do not want to be the lynch today as one of the cases (underneath other, smaller accusations). I'll go (I'm sure my death will bring at least some information)' but I'll be damned if I go down like Li'l Trumpet and not have other serious contenders for tomorrow. Don't put it on me to do that, I'll try and do my part, but I'm also concentrated with my accusers and real life, my mind is not in the best analytical mood right now, I hope you do understand.

[CMP]

If you were focusing on me, you seemed to...not...do that anymore at the end of the day.

I don't get it. You believe you have a case, so you want to follow up on it, yet you're saying you were deciding to follow up on it or not. Your decision has come to the conclusion of: "yes, I will follow up on that" after I called you out on it? Would you had I not?

What, when the votes piled on Trumpetking and he claimed scum? Yeah, I quieted down a little. I considered switching my vote, but it wouldn't've mattered. See, if I had seen my accusations straight through all that, that would've been tunnel visioning you. As it was, I recognized a better lynch and target and let my argument stand. Now, without any better suspects (unless I'm mistaken? I haven't seen anyone calling out others today, but I might've missed something), I figure it's a good time to pick it back up again.

Would I resumed if you hadn't called me out on it? I planned building a case against you today, yes. I wasn't banking on any informative night action results cropping up, and you were still my best suspect. I was going to give it some time so that people discussing whether or not you're worth wouldn't eat up time or opportunities to discuss other suspects, but time enough has passed already, and you're getting antsy about it, so why not I just do it now?

Anywho...

I know others have been skulking around just as much as him, but when you equate mayorship to death and openly fear it just because you label yourself good...that doesn't ring townie to me. That doesn't even ring 'townie with a role to protect' to me, that rings me as someone who places their own life above everything. I'm not saying we should be careless with our lives, but thus far that seems like your only concern, especially when considering it's the only thing you've brought up period.

This was the meat of my argument yesterday. Your response.

Well, yeah, it's true, but you have to remember that this is the beginning. We have so very little to go on. So very, very few (and even nought) people to trust. So, yeah, I don't have much reason not to put my life above, since I only know who I am and nothing about anybody else. This is day one, I expect my attitude to be different day two and on when I get a grasp of things better. Also, "doesn't ring townie to me" congrats, you're getting the point of the game . I haven't had much reason to pip in today, though I do try to keep up, pop in from time to time, and spot anything suspicious in my eye.

Which there are some that have been spotted. For one, I don't find Kiel's or yours cases particularly strong, yours especially. You don't even go so far as to accuse me of planting big behind explosives, more like a "I'm going to vote for you like a slap in the face to get you talking". Well, hi, how're you doing? . Kiel's case is stronger, but when I read it I can think of ways to debunk it. Then again, it's just day one, so such a case isn't too out of line. I keep chasing my tail in situations like this If I had to point to who I think would be scum, it would be you two, but honestly, it's only my gut talking and not my brain, but it's good to get such suspicions out. (Though that didn't serve me too well when a certain JimB was loose for so long before)

It's a pretty casual response if you ask me. In hindsight it looks as if you just shook off my argument with "It's Day One, I'll do better tomorrow" and turned your suspicion right on the two people who had even bothered to make any cases. I call you out on that last thing, and you respond...

Look, if I appear scummy it's because I want to. If I'm selfish, well, there's nothing I can say against that. But still, it's not like everybody except me leapt at the chance to be mayor.

I do, but I hope you don't tunnel vision me simply because its the first day. It doesn't always work, and you'd be wrong (if you're town).

Well, I read what you guys said and it did (am I about to say this?) ping my radar (god ). I just saw the "scum perspective" of it, or at least I made the mistake of imposing it instead.

You want to appear scummy, I guess. If you really were just trying to attract attention to see if some scum would claim to you hoping you were the other team, well, that's fine, but if that's the case then the last thing you can be is selfish. These kinds of ploys will get you killed. You should know, I joined you in doing so in the first EB Mafia. You know the risk, so I doubt this is a sting, especially as your first meaningful was comment was you fearing for your life. If you really are trying to pull a sting, well, congratulations, you look like scum to me. Especially since you're seeing the "scum perspective" of valid accusations.

Anyway, moving on to today.

You poke fun at Li'l Peanuts for a while and then get annoyed at Li'l Zepher because he's suspicious of you and anyone relatively inactive.

So, you're implying you're the towniest of town now? As li'l Zeph has just pointed out, with two scum teams it means nothing at all. And, now that I think about it, if li'l Danny was a member of the recruiters, you'd make an excellent conversion target after having been accused by him.

Uhm, no. Not that this implies I am scum either. It only ensures that I'm not on his team. Thanks for leaving out the option that I might be town. Furthermore, weren't there several people who said that they were convertible yesterday? I may be mistaken, but they'd be more likely targets than I for conversion (though not to forget the possibility of watching, but there's still the chance that the scum would choose the least likely choice to be watched). To continue on that thought, the only reason (the most logical to me, anyways) that Danny voted for me was because I already had 3 votes against me. It was his attempt to put more heat on me so that I would be put under further scrutinization today, and it seems to be working. I hope to extinguish that because, and I give you my word, I'm as green today as I was yesterday. Doesn't that sound more likely? More logical than your "ifs"?

You must understand that as a townie, I'm a bit annoyed that some of these behavior analysis are incorrect, in that I am doing things to fool you (I.e., "He's playing with the make fun of Lil' Nutty Nut..."), when they are, in fact, genuine. After my last stress-filled schoolyard game, I made it a point to relax more this time around (nor does this mean I will not do my job to get scum, as some of you think. Thanks for your wonderful insight into my own mind, I truly did not know what it held). From my perspective, this is becoming a game of scapegoat, and it's becoming to get to the point where there's nothing I can do to convince you. No, I do expect to be scrutinized and I do welcome it, but then it gets to the point where it's unreasonable scrutiny.

Hmm.

You say that his vote ensures you're not on his team. Where's this logic coming from? If it's really a last minute vote, he can vote for whoever he wants and it wouldn't make a difference on who's lynched, would it? All it would do is distance himself from you - something any two scum on the same team would want. This is absolutely by no means conclusive that you're scum or you're on his team, I'm just pointing out that it's faulty logic to think it clears you of being one of Danny's scum team.

You then accuse him of having laid heat on you by making the last minute vote, when earlier you imply to Zepher it was because he was just choosing a quiet townie at random, rather than to get at you in particular:

Seriously, is there anything I can do that's not just going to be misperceived by others and this guy who says he wants to go after the quiet folks but doesn't actually bother to name them? You're starting to look like Danny's last minute vote.

And then you just get annoyed because you're being accused. It becomes a recurring theme, as anyone could see in any post since then.

This, above all else, is why I'm continuing to accuse you. You're annoyed because you're being accused in the first place. Not one place do I actually see you address anything thrown at you. Your response is to use guilt on your accusers, call it scapegoating, claim you're under serious scrutiny, etc...if you're so sure you're town, where's your defense? You can't use the fact that I'm accusing you as a defense. You can label it tunnel visioning, misguided focus...whatever. The reason I'm still making a case against you is because you're using circle logic. Your logic looks to me like you're fighting accusations against you on the basis that you're just being accused too much. You're stating the same things over and over and over. I don't blame you for that, it's not like later days when making a defense is easier. Right now...you're just using an alternative I find scummier than deflecting suspicion.

[Scouty]

Not one place do I actually see you address anything thrown at you

This is not true, absolutely not, not one bit. This is what annoys me so much. Statements such as this. (And the one Zepher said "quote me one contribution you've given" which he implies I've not given any at all, which I think I have). I've addressed comments, then they are not really, truly, taken in...then, and just then, I begin guilting my accusers, because I feel it justified, though regrettably harsh at times.

Au revoir, I'm tired of this. I'm not dealing with accusers anymore, I've had enough. Honestly. I'm just going to sit back, get lynched, and try and do some behavior analysis on anybody that warrants it, if time permits for me.

This Boy Scout beaver has snapped, strong enough to chomp a tree down with one bite.

[CorneliusMurdock]

That's no way to behave, Li'l Scouty. Taking your toys and going home? Act your age... Oh, wait. We're all Li'l. Never mind.

But you're not making a ton of sense right now. The spotlight can turn on anyone. Saying that it's unfair for people to shine it on you is not productive. This is what a town does.

But I'm sure we'd all love some behavior analysis. Please do that.

[Chromeknight]

This was made in regards to a comment made on day one which alluded to there being both an SK and 6 scum (I think it was a comment by KdM). Furthermore, it followed up on a series of comments where it was discussed who may have targetted Danny; analyzing numbers in this game may just prove to be helpful.

Also Pandy's comment was made several hours after my comment!

Fair enough. Obviously I wasn't expecting you'd read pandora's post when you wrote yours, that was more pointing out that she had taken the discussion on numbers and added a new possibility, which you hadn't considered (not that you'd've been expected to, it is an unlikely scenario after all.

[Hinckley]

It is very odd that there was only one kill last night but let's face it; if the Vig is an experienced player (which is a fair assumption to make) he/she would likely not have killed on night one (unless absolutely sure of the target's scuminess based on, let's say, a day investigation result) . IMO the more plausible explanation is that the scum targetted the 'wrong' person and ended up killing a recruiter; it is however possible, but less likely, that Danny was Vig-killed.

I don't think it's odd that there was only one kill. In a game with blockers and protectors, there are many possibilities. From what I remember in EB I, the vig was optional and the Scum forgot to kill on Night Zero and there were no penalties so I don't think their kill was compulsory either. Doesn't mean this game is exactly the same, but the Scum may have stayed home to cause confusion or avoid killing a recruiter. Just as likely as the vig staying home. I don't understand how you think it's more plausible that Danny was killed by the other Scum team... unless you know something we don't.

Sure! I volunteer to be the confident of all town PR!

Weird joke.

Well, it's good news that one scum is dead. I wonder if that's the result of Li'l Trumpetking's ploy, or just pure luck?

And I wonder what happened to the other kill. Maybe we got lucky and blocked their killer, maybe they got lucky and blocked ours.

Do we even have a blocker?

Ever hear of a protector? Why is the only option in your head that a killer was blocked?

A sting huh, I suppose that is a decent gambit at the end of your life. Somebody probably told lil Trumpet to do this however, otherwise I doubt anyone would have believed what he said if info was learned, until today. Hopefully something came out of it.

Yeah I called him out, I think everyone was thinking the same thing as me. I mean come on, it's pretty dumb for a scum to fall for a ploy like that; and if he was scum I hoped to put some seeds of doubt in anyone trying to contact him. It's a really big gamble for scum to make on day 1, whether pulling the ploy themselves or contacting Trumpet.

As for Dannylonglegs, I really hadn't paid much attention to what he was doing yesterday. I will go back and read, when I have a few minutes. Of course, someone will probably post what he's said before that. Good on you future sleuth.

Only one kill is interesting, I can't say I have anything to add though. Either the vig or scum killer was blocked, or we lynched the vig. Preferably the former, in which case the blocker knows what's up.

Again some who misses the possibility of a protector choosing the right target. Two people who think only a blocker would know what was up last night.

And you: a person who also gave nothing for the lie detector to work on. (unless I missed it). Not to mention, the only person to not make a statement for the lie detector. I think it's insulting of you to insinuate Li'l Trump couldn't have come up with the gambit on his own. Especially since you think it was so transparent. That's not an accusation, just something that annoys me in these games. When people think other players must've had some coaching. Nice. But if you think it was so clear to be a sting, how do you hope something came out of it?

Ok I just had a thought. I'm reading on what Danny said yesterday, not everything yet, and I keep thinking he's a strange target. I mean, what did he do that so blatantly painted a target on his back??

Then, I see that Trumpet had voted for him. Perhaps, after Trumpet came out of the scum closet, as a ruse, Danny contacted him? And then Trumpet told another townie (someone reading this) who had Danny killed??

What do y'all think of this?

Oh, here's your Scooby-Doo analysis. The obvious ploy might've turned up a vig target? So Li'l Trump tricked Danny into contacting him and somehow already knew who the vig was? That's an odd, and dare I say contradicting, anaylsis.

I took a look at Danny's posts as well:

I'll Mayor: Li'l CorneliusMurdock. I don't think a scum would be so bold as to volunteer for the scrutiny the role entails, but I don't think it's important enough a role to matter, to be honest. Maybe when things get closer to even, later on it'll matter that the person breaking the ties is on our side, but for the time being, anyone who wants it can have it. Either way it'll provide us with Action results and behaviors to analyze.

He starts the vote for Corny for mayor. That's just a fact. I'm not implying anything. It's just potentially interesting. His last sentence would make an excellent reason for a vig to kill him. The bold sentence is rather clever. Nice one, Danny... if you were indeed Scum at the time. Ow, my brain.

Apart from his over-all defensive attitude, this comment really stuck out to me as being odd. I realize that our goal is to confuse the scum and all, but he's literally using that as a defense. That's not "appearing scummy winkwinknodnod," that's actually appearing scummy and then claiming "It's on purpose," failing to either act scummy or help the Town.

And then just now, there's this:

I know Li'l Hinck usually points me out for doing this, but there's two different fonts in this post.

Danny makes a really good point here. Scouty saying "I'm acting Scummy to catch Scum" kind of blows the act of acting Scummy. You're not likely to catch Scum if you tell people you're acting Scummy only to catch the Scum. I doubt they will confess to Li'l Scout now. The font markup thing is a hard thing for me to base an accusation on. It's something that happens. I'm not sure we've heard satisfactory answers from Scouty for these valid points made by Danny.

I realize that I'm getting quite abrasive, I apologize for that, let me make up with a hug and a kiss. *hug* *mwah* .

Which is not the relaxed attitude you claimed you would be adopting. So breath and don't take any of this personal...Scummy.

I'm not discounting Earthling emotions because you- er- we all get a little angry when accused,

Whatever side you're on, I love when you play.

There are a few people pinging my radar. Lil' Scouty...

Care to share who else?

[Nightshroud99]

I'm a townie

Why would the masons even try to recruit him if the scum get first recruitment? That doesn't make any sense.

Lil Hinckley and Lil Capt Redblade have made some good points at you, and it's nice when everything is laid out. I get the impression you are a nervous and confused person. Probably because you're scum.

I'd say this is better than an O.K. lead, and if you do turn up scum Lil Cecilie may be next.

Vote: Li'l TrumpetKing (TrumpetKing)

Again some who misses the possibility of a protector choosing the right target. Two people who think only a blocker would know what was up last night.

And you: a person who also gave nothing for the lie detector to work on. (unless I missed it). Not to mention, the only person to not make a statement for the lie detector. I think it's insulting of you to insinuate Li'l Trump couldn't have come up with the gambit on his own. Especially since you think it was so transparent. That's not an accusation, just something that annoys me in these games. When people think other players must've had some coaching. Nice. But if you think it was so clear to be a sting, how do you hope something came out of it?

Saying it twice doesn't make it more true. I don't have all the roles memorized, so I didn't even think of protector. It could also be a possibility. I'm not trying to downplay Danny by any means, once again I give to much credit to other players who, I hope, would have come to the conclusion that he came up with the idea on his own. I added that someone else could have told him that it was a play he could perform.

I'm optimistic at times; by all means if the scum are dumb enough to fall for it then sure let's hope for the best. Hence, my scooby doo analysis when I started to re-read Dannys' posts.

Oh, here's your Scooby-Doo analysis. The obvious ploy might've turned up a vig target? So Li'l Trump tricked Danny into contacting him and somehow already knew who the vig was? That's an odd, and dare I say contradicting, anaylsis.

Uh huh, like I said the targeting of Danny seemed pretty random, and they were already tied together in that Trumpet had voted for Danny earlier. It seems pretty far-fetched, but I don't understand your aversion to the idea of it.

[Hinckley]

Saying it twice doesn't make it more true. I don't have all the roles memorized, so I didn't even think of protector. It could also be a possibility. I'm not trying to downplay Danny by any means, once again I give to much credit to other players who, I hope, would have come to the conclusion that he came up with the idea on his own. I added that someone else could have told him that it was a play he could perform.

I'm optimistic at times; by all means if the scum are dumb enough to fall for it then sure let's hope for the best. Hence, my scooby doo analysis when I started to re-read Dannys' posts.

Uh huh, like I said the targeting of Danny seemed pretty random, and they were already tied together in that Trumpet had voted for Danny earlier. It seems pretty far-fetched, but I don't understand your aversion to the idea of it.

Sorry I missed your lie detector post. I thought I was pretty thorough. I think you mean you're not trying to downplay Li'l Trump?

Good point about Danny and Trumpet being connected through the vote. It's hard for me to imagine why a vig would target a person who a confessed Scum voted for, yet unvoted at the time of the confession. That would be an interesting risk for a vig to take, so maybe he was taken out by the Scum.

Ugh, this concept can be taxing on the brain. Is it naptime, mr. def? If not, I'm going to sleep at my desk for the next eight hours anyway.

[Zepher]

But I'm sure we'd all love some behavior analysis. Please do that.

Yes, that's actually what I'm asking for... not for you to say more, but to say things of substance. I didn't want you to point out every time you spoke up, but rather when you said something of import.

Weird joke.

He starts the vote for Corny for mayor. That's just a fact. I'm not implying anything. It's just potentially interesting. His last sentence would make an excellent reason for a vig to kill him. The bold sentence is rather clever. Nice one, Danny... if you were indeed Scum at the time. Ow, my brain.

Whatever side you're on, I love when you play.

Care to share who else?

Thank you! I'm over the moon for you too! :wub:

The Danny thing is a bit of a stretch. Scum don't drop little hints like "better if they were on our side... hehe, that's being the scum side, hehe, I'm so clever". I don't think his wording in that case can be really an indicator of anything, though his vote is intriguing, even if only a little bit. It would actually be more likely for a scumbo to nominate a town player, early on- Mayor rarely survives (though I've got my talons... fingers crossed for you, Corny! ) and sometimes when voting for someone for mayor gains their trust a little. Not to be discounted, but not particularly strong.

Interestingly, (and Scouty, you'll be happy to hear this) Piratedave was already pinging a little even before that joke as a "fluff" poster. Then he made that awkward "tell me your PRs, just kidding, but seriously" sort of joke. Can't say I'm a fan.

Redblade has also been a consistent fluff poster as well. Sorry if that's too broad, Lil' Scouty.

[Cecilie]

Interesting point about Danny's vote for Li'l Corny for mayor, but I somehow strongly doubt Danny would have put Corny out there like that if they were on the same scum team. The mayor is more likely to attract night actions after all, something a scum wouldn't want.

[Piratedave84]

I don't think it's odd that there was only one kill. In a game with blockers and protectors, there are many possibilities. From what I remember in EB I, the vig was optional and the Scum forgot to kill on Night Zero and there were no penalties so I don't think their kill was compulsory either. Doesn't mean this game is exactly the same, but the Scum may have stayed home to cause confusion or avoid killing a recruiter. Just as likely as the vig staying home. I don't understand how you think it's more plausible that Danny was killed by the other Scum team... unless you know something we don't.

SNIP

I don't; this is my opinion and the way I perceived things at the time. Bare in mind this was said before Def clarified the PM structure and it was made apparent that the Vig is probably mandatory and the Scum kill is perphaps optional. Knowing that now makes me think it was in fact a Vig-kill rather than scum.

SNIP

Weird joke.

SNIP

Yes it was however in the context being discussed at the time (to find out if a block/protect had happened) it was well placed IMO ... Sorry ... I guess ...

SNIP

Interestingly, (and Scouty, you'll be happy to hear this) Piratedave was already pinging a little even before that joke as a "fluff" poster. Then he made that awkward "tell me your PRs, just kidding, but seriously" sort of joke. Can't say I'm a fan.

SNIP

Sorry, I shall refrain from speaking my mind and will, from now on, just lurk in the shadows

Seriously, I say things as I see them and try to contribute what I believe are valid points/observations. I apologize for not having a super-strong case against anyone to bring forward and debate ... after all, this is day 2 and it would be expected that we all have very convincing arguments to debate!

[Hinckley]

The Danny thing is a bit of a stretch. Scum don't drop little hints like "better if they were on our side... hehe, that's being the scum side, hehe, I'm so clever". I don't think his wording in that case can be really an indicator of anything, though his vote is intriguing, even if only a little bit. It would actually be more likely for a scumbo to nominate a town player, early on- Mayor rarely survives (though I've got my talons... fingers crossed for you, Corny! ) and sometimes when voting for someone for mayor gains their trust a little. Not to be discounted, but not particularly strong.

Interesting point about Danny's vote for Li'l Corny for mayor, but I somehow strongly doubt Danny would have put Corny out there like that if they were on the same scum team. The mayor is more likely to attract night actions after all, something a scum wouldn't want.

Good point. Perhaps the potentially interesting part about Danny voting Li'l Corn for mayor is that we can have more confidence that he's not on Danny's Scum team. Or it's all WIFOM. Again, it's hard to know anything for sure in a game with so many conversions.

As for the wording, yes, perhaps it's only clever in retrospect. It did stand out to me, though. There's not much to go on in the two substantial posts he made. Most of his posts were about having long legs.

[def]

Rule 5.5 added. Feel free to make up your own theories regarding the hosts notes as you like in private, but doing so in thread will garner you a penalty. Again, it goes against the spirit of the game; when they give a hint, the one side complains, when they mislead, the other side complains. I'm not having any of it. All that has been confirmed was confirmed before the game started. Do so in private at your own discretion, and no complaining afterward if you choose to do so.

I don't; this is my opinion and the way I perceived things at the time. Bare in mind this was said before Def clarified the PM structure and it was made apparent that the Vig is probably mandatory and the Scum kill is perphaps optional. Knowing that now makes me think it was in fact a Vig-kill rather than scum.

Penalties for Li'l Piratedave. Once again, the point of those notes were to not confirm things. If you want to use them for theories, do it in private and at your peril.

Voting has opened, go for it!

Vote Tally:

Li'l Pirate Dave 4 (penalty x 4)

[CorneliusMurdock]

Good point. Perhaps the potentially interesting part about Danny voting Li'l Corn for mayor is that we can have more confidence that he's not on Danny's Scum team. Or it's all WIFOM. Again, it's hard to know anything for sure in a game with so many conversions.

I'd have been surprised if no scum at all voted for me. And I'd be surprised if some didn't as well. But, as long as you promise not to tell anyone else, I can tell you I'm not on either scum team so you've got nothing to worry about Hinck.

Scouty, you can come on back with that analysis now.