Jeopardizer is playing his first ever mafia game. I voted for him because newbie scums will very often respond in a telling fashion to lynch votes. Throwing votes at people to see how they react, in the way I did at you earlier on, is a very common tactic.

I never said that I voted for you because you didn't answer a rhetorical question, this is what I meant by stop inaccurately recounting the things I did. I voted for you because I wanted to see how you would react, and your reaction was to vote for the next easy target that came by.

No, where the hell do you get that impression from. People who share a QT never vote one after the other for the same person, to prevent people from drawing connections like that.

I did not ask random questions to random players. I asked very specific questions to very specific players, for a specific reason. I did not need to see how you would respond to questions at that time. So no, I shouldn't. And I voted to try and kill you, i think that should count as pressurising.

Again, throwing a vote at people to see how they react.

Again, you seem to think the only reason I'm voting for you is because you didn't answer a rhetorical question. No. I want you dead because of how you responded to the earlier votes. As I stated in post 107.

If I was trying to balance the votes why on earth would I go for you instead of AngelRick.

I read it, and I disagreed with him. We don't have to vote for one of those two. I'm not confident that either of them are scum. Whereas I am confident that you are scum. I want to kill the scum players, so I vote to kill you. What part of this is wrong?

I think that these are terrible reasons based on taking everything I say out of context, but sure if they're scumtells to you go ahead.

 

Well I've said earlier on that mishie just happened to post before I had a chance to read Rubicon's post, and you assumed that I voted for Rubicon because mishie did it.

The same goes for Jeopardizer and Stojil. I would have voted for Jeopardizer even if Stojil did not. That is, if I was here first.

Basically, you assumed that I was "diverting attention away" when I don't even have to do that. No one will follow your 'pressurising' lynch vote because it has no basis. You also took advantage of the timing that I posted and say that they are "scum-tells".

I think these are terrible reasons based on bad-timing and bad assumptions, but sure if they're scumtells to you go ahead. >_>

---------- Post automerged at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 PM ----------

I got that impression from......post #113

You replied that the pressure was from post #16, from you. Next, you said "I mean, it's possible that you're blind and didn't notice it, but you missed the second vote on you too?"

Then you quoted post #36

The way you phrase make it sound something similar to
"Hey, I voted you and you didn't notice, and then Riley voted you and you didn't see it too? They are 'pressures' put on to you!"

You assumed Riley is putting pressure on me. Why do you think that?
"Putting pressure" is different from "wanting someone dead". The former is testing the reaction of the player, to see if he/she will make a slip. The latter is....what it says.

 

Em... That's what Riley did which you seem to be claiming makes both of us scum. I voted to put pressure on you, and gave a few reasons. Riley said he agreed with my reasons and also voted for you. Even if his vote wasn't intended to put pressure on you, it still did by the simple virtue of being another vote on you.

 

Assumptions time:

1) It's VERY unlikely that Rubicon and fontisan are scumbuddies.
2) It's very unlikely that Rubicon and Sacrifice are scumbuddies.
3) It's very unlikely that Rubicon and Bill Door are scumbuddies.
4) It's very unlikely that Bill Door and Sacrifice are scumbuddies.
3) It's unlikely that every one of them is town.

And now connections:

1) Rubicon sort-of-defended Sacrifice when he said there would be no point in lynching him, but his actual point was that lynching anyone except himself and fontisan would have been stupid so it wasn't really directed at him.
2) Bill Door chainsaw-defended fontisan when he attacked Rubicon who was attacking fontisan.
3) Sacrifice chainsaw-defended fontisan when he attacked Rubicon who was attacking fontisan. He also directly defended one of her points ("he did something scummy but he's a nullread"). Then, he agreed with her about Republic and he also tried to justify the fact no one but Rubicon voted for her. Finally, the post in which he apologizes for thinking she was a 'he' reads weird.

So, I changed my mind.

Rescind Vote
Lynch: fontisan

It looks like there's more info to be gained by her lynch than Rubicon's, simply because of the heated confrontation between Bill Door and Sacrifice that started recently.

The fact she pretty much disappeared after all that mess isn't a good sign, either, nor is, like already stated, the fact no one but Rubicon voted for her.

I think fontisan/Sacrifice is much, much more likely than fontisan/Bill Door because:

1) Bill Door would have probably kept his vote on Rubicon if he had been scumbuddy with fontisan.
2) Bill Door gives off a strong town vibe.
3) In the argument with Sacrifice, he definitely came out on top, IMO.
4) There are more 'clues' indicating a fontisan/Sacrifice pair than a fontisan/Bill Door one.

 

Six Hours Remain in Day One

 

Alright. Rick's vote isn't going anywhere (today) and Stojil's mentioned something really good in his last two posts: the two separate 'sides' forming around Rubicon and fontisian.

Now I don't think scum would be quite so obvious as to have two other members come out to defend but, with the very real threat of a lynch, having one member playing defense? Yeah I can see that. Going off that fontisian/Sacrifice or Rubicon/Angelrick are two very possible scumbuddy scenarios.

I did say I found Rubicon scummier but given the fontisian disappearing act and Sacrifice looking worse the longer this arguement goes on with Bill Door I'm going to go with Stojil on this one. fontisian would be more informative.

Rescind Vote

Lynvh Vote: fontisian

 

Alright, my role isn't important so I don't mind dying too much. I was actually trying to hint at a power role in my first couple posts, but any chance of me being nightkilled when I'm such a lovely distraction for town are out the window at this point. Plus, if Rubicon flips town I'll probably be lynched tomorrow anyway, which would waste two town lynches.

Just so we're clear, I'm suspicious of Sacrifice because his overblown reaction to Bill Door's posts and, so when I flip town don't let that clear him. I believe that Sacrifice, Republic and AngelRick have all expressed the opinion that one of Rubicon and I must be scum, which would lead to two wasted town lynches if Rubicon is town, so watch them.

If Sacrifice flips scum, I would suggest going after Wetnurse after because he pseudo defended Sacrifice after he started getting a few votes.

 

That puts as at Rubicon 4/fontisian 3 I believe. If your going to switch your votes let someone from the Rubicon group switch over first, then we avoid any chance of a tie.

 

Rubicon: (4) Mishie, Sacrifice, Fontisian, Riley Poole
AngelRick: (2) Wetnurse, Jeopardizer
Sacrifice: (2) LochNess, Bill Door
Fontisian: (3) Rubicon, Uncle Stojil, Kalas
Jeopardizer: (1) AngelRick

Abstaining: (1) Republic21

With 13 players remaining, it is 7 to hard lynch, and 4 to soft lynch.

---------- Post automerged at 01:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:28 AM ----------

I will probably be asleep by the time Day ends. I would want to know which one we are going to lynch today. I don't want a situation where there is no-lynch.

Fontisian, if you believe that you being lynched will give us more information, lynch yourself.

 

If someone switches to me, I'll take my vote of Rubicon by the end of the day to avoid a no-lynch. But I will still really prefer to lynch him.

---------- Post automerged at 01:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:34 PM ----------

I will not lynch myself unless it is the only way to get a vote, which is clearly not the case at the moment. I'd like to survive past day one on my first game.

 

.. or, you know, you could switch instead of trying to convince someone to lynch themselves.

 

I could. However I think that Rubicon is the one that should go. So if Fontisian herself believes that lynching herself is a better idea, she should lynch herself, considering her vote is on Rubicon.

 

Like I said, would switch to fontisian if it came down to it,

Rescind Vote

Lynch Vote: Fontisian

 

Rescind Vote: Rubicon

 

LOL

/10 char

 

You're unexplained comments are always appreciated Stojil.

---------- Post automerged at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------

*Your.
Anyway, I'll post most of my thoughts once I'm done organizing them.

 

I was amused because your rescinding was a scummy move but, whatever you are, scum or town, I'm certain you believe it to be a townie thing to do.

There was no way this vote was going to stay tied. No. Way. What you did only served to take away a voting spot (probably the last one there will be, too) that would have been analyzed and used to draw connections/conclusions if it had happened (also based on whatever you/Rubicon would have flipped as).

 

So, here are my notes since the beginning of the day. I omitted anything that I thought might be detrimental to town.

AngelRick: Possible Vanilla / Scum. Trying to get lurkers to talk/ set up future lynch on lurker. Tries to backpedal with a bit of no-u. Argumentative.

Bill Door: Lynch happy/ Wants info about playing ability. Thinking about a third faction, but probably not part of it if there is one. Engaged Sacrifice and Angelrick after derps. Engaged Stojil / Jeopardizer after their weird exchange. Bit of a troll. Went after Sacrifice again with reasoning that's not that great.

Jeopardizer: Asks questions a lot. Doesn't really answer them. First to suggest 3/4 scum. Role-slip vs. Role-fish? Noticed anglerick's no-u, voted for him. Has a typical "what's going on!" post that doesn't add any content. Suspects Rubicon, me and Riley Poole.

Kalas: Hasn't really posted that much. First post had almost no content. He then attacked Angelrick and when it was clear that was going nowhere, went after me.

Lochness: Had some nice logic and speculation early on. Used a feels reason to attack Sacrifice. Defended Rubicon with good reasoning. Used another feels reason to attack Sacrifice. Switched lynch vote to me after Sacrifice lynch went nowhere.

Mishie: Raised a good point about scum making up roles, but apparently Stojil has a problem with it. Sort of liking him, though that may be because he attacked rubicon while I was out. Has been pretty quiet.

Repubic: Not that great according to Meta. Highlights this in first post. Doesn't want to lynch on first day, which is more of a derp move than a scummy one.

Riley Poole: Probably doesn't share a qt with Bill Door. Just sayin'.

Rubicon: I don't even want to get into this. The majority of my notes on him are along the lines of wtf.

Sacrifice: Says a lot of stuff early on + that one stupid post. Doesn't respond to Bill Door's and Riley Poole's votes. Gets a bandwagon surprisingly quickly. Jumps on Rubicon's post right with a tl:dr, a posting style that he seems to prefer when trying to make a point. Setting me up to be lynched after Rubicon if he's town.

Stojil: Look at him if jeo turns out to be scum, though he could be town and lying as a sort of gambit. Doing his whole "I have ideas that would be good for scum if I said them" thing. Man, that's annoying, but if it's actually good for town w/e. Latches on to specific language choices, which makes the role-slip vs. role-fish issue less weird.

Wetnurse: Sort of defends sacrifice, after his initial joke lynch. Copies kalas in going after angelrick (easy target at this point).

---------- Post automerged at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:19 PM ----------

See, that's the sort of thing you could have explained earlier when I offered to do this.
Would it be preferable for me to put my vote back on Rubicon for now?

---------- Post automerged at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 PM ----------

I mean, people already know that I'm going to rescind before the end of the day unless someone else votes on Rubicon, so putting my vote back on won't really put out any pressure.

 

Could you tell me wich questions (or what posts) I didn't answer? Because after re-reading the thread I didn't find it. It's the second time you mentionned it and I must say I'm a bit curious.

 

You had three posts before Stojil called you out, each of which had least one question.

---------- Post automerged at 04:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 PM ----------

Ok, sorry maybe I should actually read your post before quoting. At the time, I was thinking how you asked four questions without posting much content or following them up after someone answered with any analysis.