Adam

Fantastic game, Tammo! I always have an unreasonable amount of fun playing your games, even though I never win them. I have to commend TPRU, he played a fantastic game, and I would definitely call him the MVP of the scum team. There was a ridiculous amount of luck involved, as others have pointed out, and that's a little frustrating, but it takes real skill and risk to put yourself in the town block like that and keep up the ruse over the course of several days. Even with all the luck involved, I don't think the scum team could've won if it was anyone else in your position. Bravo, TPRU! To be honest, I was very close to not sharing that information with the block - I was pretty sure that I was impervious to conversion, but part of me wondered whether or not I'd be shooting myself in the foot in the event that I actually got converted. Whatever the case, sending me that message was a smart move - it lead to a lot of the confusion and debacles of the last part of the game, even if it was true. Even though the town lost, I feel like a learned a lot from this game, and I think I was able to grow as a player. I've played a number of games here over the past couple years, and I have historically always been a vanilla townie, so it was great to play a role. I thought I was doing reasonably well as a protector - I thought I had protected Speedy and TPRU from being impeached - but we all know how that turned out. I could never have predicted that! Regardless, I loved working with the (mostly) town block. The scum team may have been a tad large, and I'm not a fan of the jester role, but I'll leave discussion of these things to those of you with experience hosting games. As someone else noted, this game did have a lot of nasty comments being thrown around. I find this very troubling - mafia games can get heated, but I always try to keep a general amount of respect for my fellow players. I had a fun time, but I'll probably end up remembering this game more for the poor attitudes and troubling personal comments than anything else.

I wouldn't necessarily assume that. Furthermore, ignorance generally isn't a viable defense. When Gerald (Goliath) made his remarks, I was not in contact with him and I had not known that he was the blocker. Obviously I was curious about what he knew, and frustrated that he was so brazen with his role, but I didn't try to fish for information. Usually, when I want someone to shut up, I don't tell them to elaborate. When you say that you wanted him to "share insight for the rest of us," I can't help but be put off. That's more or less a euphemism for "fishing for information." In my experience, you only get as much out of these games... of life, as you put into them. As such, trying to get into behind-the-scenes conversations involves contacting people, not just waiting for them to contact you. In response to Gerald (Goliath) and his ill-advised claim, the townie thing to do would be to sweep it under the rug and publicly attempt to inundate the scum with information to throw them off the blocker's trail. Publicly fishing from Gerald (Goliath) is a great way to get the scum information about roles and night actions. It's not just about whose side you took, it's about your reason for switching your vote. If you had been honestly and completely convinced by Bob, that would be one thing, but you voted for Siegfried (Speedy) for a weak and mathematically unsupportable reason. You have already come under fire recently for not placing your votes correctly. If you really are a townie, you should be paying closer attention, especially when it comes to voting. As scum, it's very convenient to say that you simply screwed up your vote.

What solid new information? All Bob provided us with was rambling, wildly inaccurate conjecture that ignored any argument made by myself or Siegfried (Speedy). I have a question for you. I've been peaking through the transcripts, and I took a look at the moment Gerald (Goliath) not-so-subtley revealed that he was the blocker. This was your response to his post: I don't like fishermen and fisherwomen. They make me suspicious. Why were you fishing? The above is from yesterday. Very sudden and very convenient, your sudden mistrust of Siegfried (Speedy). This next question goes out to both Addie (adventurer1) and Lloyd (LegoSpy). Most of Bob's accusations hinged off either the harebrained notion that there is no vigilante or the idea that I was scum and I had faked the conversion message. It would be hard to go along with Bob's accusation of Siegfried (Speedy) without also being suspicious of me, since Bob grouped the two of us together as scum and a lot of his reasoning for Siegfried (Speedy) being scum relied on me being scum as well. Yet both of you argued that I was most likely town, and that I probably didn't fake the conversion message. Why were you so selective about which of Bob's arguments you believed? To me, it looks like you were using Bob's attack as an excuse for getting a confirmed townie out of office. Really? Your main reason for voting for Siegfried (Speedy) was because you were trying to ensure that a lynch happened? That's the most BS reason ever. Of course there was going to be a lynch, and voting for Siegfried (Speedy) instead of Bob didn't make it any more likely that a lynch would happen.

Vote: Mencot (Molly Callaghan) Unless some shocking new information comes to light, and unless Molly (Mencot) decides to rouse herself and come up with a better defense than calling us stupid, this day is at risk of stagnating after everyone places his or her vote. As such, I propose we fire up discussion by playing a little game: who is the godfather? Bjorn (badboytje88) has pointed out that Molly (Mencot) is the only non-investigated member of this assembly. Since I'm sure anyone found to be "Octan" would have been singled out, that means that everyone here has only a town read. One of us is the godfather, and I'm curious who everyone thinks the godfather is. In case I formatted my vote wrong... Vote: Molly Callaghan (Mencot)

I'm now 100% confident that there is no scum converter - there is no way that there could be so many "Not Octan" results if there was a converter. It was a clever ploy to make us doubt ourselves, and I'm kicking myself that I fell for it - it's one of the primary instigators of yesterday's debacle. I fully support a lynxh of Molly (Mencot). By sheer process of elimination, she has to be scum, and if her only defense is to call us stupid then I have no doubts about where my vote is going. Lloyd (LegoSpy) and Tiny (TPRU), I'm curious: how do you feel about a Molly (Mencot) lynch?

Who are you, Sherlock Holmes? "Behavioral analysis?" If you're billing today as either you or Siegfried (Speedy), I'm going to go with the one who's in the town block and who helped spearhead the lynch of two scum, not the one who thinks that I'm scum because I did something no scum would ever do. Vote: Bobby (Bob) Not that this should surprise you, since apparently I'm predestined to copy Siegfried's (Speedy) vote, according to you.

Here you see why I copied and pasted it instead of directly quoting him. It's kind of tough to read with all that font crap in the background, isn't it? I'll say this again. Why the hell would I make this up? What does this do for me if I'm scum, except draw attention to me? Instead, as I said before, I did the townie thing and shared this with everyone, knowing it would make some people suspicious of me. Because I'm town.

Beyond the fact that I was cleared, you're arguments aren't really sound. I'll reiterate what I said before: most people had a town read on me before I mentioned Sinclair (Scaevola) contacting me. Even you claim to have had a town read on me. If I were scum, why the hell would I throw the possibility of a conversion into the mix? If I had said nothing, you and everyone else would have still thought that I was town. Instead, I told the truth and revealed what Sinclair (Scaevola) had sent to me, knowing it would bring me attention and possibly suspicion, because that's the townie thing to do. Share information. As for why I tried to string him along instead of bringing his message to the town straightaway: I was trying to get as much information as possible out of him. Would he have revealed his scum buddies? Probably not, but maybe I could learn more about the recruiter role, or about the "special advantage" that he mentioned. Maybe I could find out if he was bluffing about any of that. I believed that it was best to try and get as much information out of him as possible. As for Siegfried (Speedy) and me being cleared, there isn't much I can say, because I don't know whether or not the Speaker was referring to me when he said he wasn't confident in one of the town readings. However, I'm betting there's been at least a couple town readings besides me (we know Siegfried (Speedy) and I were cleared, and we know Stanley (StickFig) was found to be scum, so that leaves what, two others?), so maybe he was referring to one of those people. But again, I don't want to presume what Siegfried (Speedy) is thinking or whether or not he thinks I'm suspicious. All I can do is argue against your claims, which I believe I have done.

If I were scum, why would I make up a story about a conversion? Nobody thought I was scum before I brought it up, why would I need a ploy? Sinclair (Scaevola) contacted me offering a conversion. I don't know if he was truthful or bluffing or what.

You're by no means a freshman like Addie (adventurer1) or Lloyd (LeogSpy), and you seem to have been paying attention this game. As the Speaker (Speedy) said, it's either scum or dumb when it comes to thinking Gerald (Goliath) was scum instead of the town blocker. Right now you're at the top of my list. What are you even talking about? Are you even trying to play this game? To answer a few questions that I was unable to get to yesterday, Sinclair (Scaevola) hinted that the scum had some kind of special advantage that we were unaware of. Whether this special advantage was the ability to recruit, something else, or just a bluff, I don't know. I can't even say for certain that the scum are able to recruit. Sinclair (Scaevola) told me that someone would contact me during the night, offering me the chance to switch sides. I was never contacted. This struck me as unusual right off the bat, because usually the target of a conversion has no choice in the matter. I am seriously beginning to doubt that the scum can convert. Sinclair (Scaevola) probably just contacted me knowing that I would tell everyone that he did, hoping to throw a monkey-wrench into the town's plans and expectations.

Perhaps this will spark some discussion. I received this late in the day yesterday before Sinclair (Scaevola) was impeached. I strung him along a little bit, making it seem like I was interested in conversion, but ultimately turned him down. Has anyone else been similarly approached?

Come on, man. It doesn't matter if you're town or scum, this kind of thing is unproductive and frustrating. If you're a vanilla townie, as you claim, show some backbone and defend yourself. If you think there's a better option for a lynch, name that person and give a good argument for it. The only way this makes sense is if you're a jester, and somehow I find that unlikely.

I had forgotten that Pierce (Piratedave) was blocked the other night. I guess that's as good a reason as any, since any other vibe I have is based off of hunches and metagaming. Vote: Pierce Davy (Piratedave84) I'm also leaning scum on Bob and Bjorn (badboytje88), mainly because they're playing different town games than I'm used to - uh, I mean, they're representing their districts differently than I remember. That said, it's been a while since I've been to an assembly, so I don't feel 100% confident in metagaming-based hunches.

Addie (adventurer1) has a real point; you should've identified yourself as unproven, because to the town at large you are as yet unproven. Moving beyond that, I can't help but find issue with most of the conclusions you've drawn. This conclusion doesn't really achieve anything. Lloyd (LegoSpy) is inexperienced and incorrectly formatted his votes. What does this mean? Would scum blatantly draw attention to themselves by abstaining so often? This conclusion ignores the Speaker tally and disregards the fact that two out of the four "voting with the majority" votes were on confirmed scum. The same argument against Conclusion #2 can be used here. Also, you failed to mention that you also hopped on the bandwagon 3 out of 4 times. You're leaving yourself out all over the place here. Whoever Sinclair (Scaevola) voted for last night was going to have attention placed on them, for good or ill. Some people will say that he would try to draw suspicion on a townie, some like yourself will say that he was voting for one of his own. I think that the scum wouldn't want to draw attention to themselves, so I'm leaning townie on Gerald (Goliath). The big conclusion I've drawn from looking at these voting patterns is that the scum have spread out their votes wherever possible. This is a wise move on their part, because it prevents them from being caught together, as Sinclair (Scaevola) and Stanley (StickFig) were.

So you're saying that everything the cop has done up until now has been unreliable? I'm going to apply Occam's Razor and say the cop is right on the money. Vote: Scaevola (Sinclair Viola)

You've made some solid points in previous posts, but I'm not sure I can agree with this. Sinclair (Scaevola) provided the same justification for his vote against Jacob (JackJonespaw) as we all did. The same reason that you gave when you voted for him, and the same reason I gave when I singled him out at the end of the first day. Jacob (JackJonespaw) played a quiet, scummy game. You claim that all of your votes have been placed because you "believed it was the right choice." I'm sure Stanley (StickFig) would've told us the same thing had he asked him. I don't know that "the right choice" is a good enough reason. To me, some of your arguments today feel like the pot calling the kettle black. You've been talking a lot these past few days, but I'm not really sure you've had much to say. The Bob I remember is the strong-silent type. Who are you and what have you done with the real Bob?

Personally, I find it very doubtful that a scum would spearhead the lynch of one of their own, when they presumably have nothing to gain from it. It's certainly probable that we have a vigilante instead of a third party, but I feel the town should tread lightly. There are other possibilities: a third party might choose not to kill to appear town, or may have targeted you. As you said, you were protected last night. These doubts make me feel that it might be a good idea to impeach the confirmed scum today, whoever that might be. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and I'd feel better ending the day knowing that a scum has been put out of office. Leaving that responsibility to the vigilante could put too much to chance: what if the scum know who this vigilante is, and choose to block or incriminate this person? Dude, this isn't some kind of mafia game, nobody's going to die... hopefully. I digress. Claiming vanilla is easy; there's no burden of proof on a vanilla townie. What townies usually don't do is claim they are "ready to die" or tell their accusers to suit themselves. In my experience from past assemblies and from reading about old court cases, loyal politicians fight accusations; they don't pretend like they don't care.

It's good that this information came out, giving us a vote we can be confident about. Vote: Stanley Figurelli (StickFig) Calling us wimps hardly constitutes a defense. If you're the town vigilante, why would you claim in-thread after only one vote against you?

Vibes are all well and good, but I'm of the general opinion that a vote needs more than just vibes to support it. So a statement that you mostly agree with is what you're using to justify your vote? That hardly makes sense. It seems to me like someone called you out on making a baseless vote and you went through the transcripts after the fact to try and come up with valid reasoning. I think you misunderstand. I said completely the opposite. Let's take a look at the transcripts: I was of the opinion that our blocker, if that person is even still alive, probably didn't block the scum photographer. I thought it was more likely that the photographer's target was protected. Furthermore, all of that was merely conjecture. We can't say with any certainty what happened last night; these are only educated guesses.

That's disappointing. I'll admit I feel a bit guilty about campaigning so hard against Jacob (JackJonespaw), but the few comments he made seemed like possible scum-slips, and when accusations were raised against him he failed to raise a defense. This is the question of the day, isn't it? I agree with the general assessment that Bryant (Brickelodeon) was a victim of the vigilante. If I were a vigilante with little to go on and few real suspects, I would probably go after a quiet player who placed an oddball vote. I'm going to be optimistic and assume that this is the case, in which case I believe that the scum victim was protected. I think that this is slightly more likely than the possibility of our blocker stopping the scum photographer: it's easier to guess who might be a potential target and protect that person than it is to guess at who might be the scum photographer. That said, if we do have a living blocker, that person should definitely block the same person again tonight.

With a majority of votes against Jacob (JackJonespaw), he still has yet to come out with a solid defense or response to the votes against him. We could chalk this up to inactivity or inexperience, but I'm beginning to get worried. Wouldn't a scum team, in addition to setting up a proxy vote to try and save Jacob (JackJonespaw), also give him advice on what to say in his defense? Wouldn't they be prompting him to speak up for himself? These aren't substantial enough doubts to move my vote, however. Please refrain from name-calling and insults. I realize that we're in a tense situation here, and things can get rather heated, but we should all attempt to maintain a measure of respect for our fellow representatives. Furthermore, using methods like name-calling and insults only serves to devalue your arguments and move the conversation away from our true purpose: finding scum.

That's my point, nobody can prove definitively that they're a Loyalist. Isn't your whole argument against Siegfried (Speedy) that he's scum because he can't prove he's a Loyalist? By the same reasoning, you would be scum. I'm not saying that Siegfried (Speedy) isn't suspicious - personally, I'm put off by the fact that he didn't share his vote stealing ability with the town until now - but when you vote for someone, you need a viable reason. This is the second time you've voted for someone with a nonsensical motivation, the first time being yesterday with Carol (Calanon). In my experience, only the scum vote for players with flimsy reasoning.

I agree with your assessment of Jacob (JackJonespaw), but when did Addie (adventurer1) suddenly fall off your radar? You seemed to be pretty set on her.

What is he going to do, claim scum? Can anyone here prove definitively that they are a Loyalist? As a bit of an exercise, why don't you prove to us that you're a Loyalist. Will your secret vote show up in the official tally?

I agree. Vote: Jacob (JackJonespaw)