**
This** is snipped.
This is what I thought when I saw this, but I figured that this would be a good case for a this.
Was this not a good case for this, in this case?
Ok, this is getting silly, I think if I keep this up, I will be this close to getting this many votes against me, on the grounds of this is enough of this, and in effort just to keep this in check.
What the h*ll is this?
This.
Meeko, are you attempting to draw attention away from Chronos for some reason?
Right, let’s do this thing.
There’s been a lot of focus on the “most expendable” part of Chronos first statement (here at post #372), but I want to start with the above.
“He was apparently a standard Godfather.”
Mahaloth has made two public statements, essentially, regarding Skeezix’s role:
(1) in the Dusk post (#340): “Red Skeezix was Lord Voldemort, leader of the Death Eaters, whose mind was impenetrable by magic.”
(2) in the player list after Dawn (#371): “Red Skeezix – Lord Voldemort(Death Eater – Leader and Occlumens)”
So where does Chronos generate the confidence to say that Voldy was “apparently a standard Godfather?” The Occlumens thing certainly suggests a Godfather element, but given that the word “Godfather” was never used it’s not definitive, really. And more importantly, in the role list, Mahaloth describes Voldy’s role with two words: Leader and Occlumens. I, for one, wondered whether the word “Leader” had power-related relevance, since it was listed as separate. Others did, as well. But Chronos, apparently, did not wonder about that. He was comfortable jumping straight to “standard Godfather.” This gives me pause.
The “most expendable” thing has already been covered, but I more want to look at this as a whole. This sounds to me like something Chronos has already discussed, doesn’t it? I mean, he’s right - until I read this post I did sort of give slightly higher credibility to those who voted for Skeezix, especially key votes, then is really warranted with the investigator dead. This is because the perspective that Chronos offers here seems to be one that would occur first to Scum, not to Town. From a Town standpoint, *yay, we got the Godfather! * But Scum will have viewed this more closely, perhaps even discussed the situation at more length, and might have come to this conclusion - that with the investigator gone a Godfather is effectively vanilla - such that it was right on the tip of the tongue, as it were.
Then what’s the point of making the observation at all? It seems like Chronos here is trying to paint the entire wagon on Skeezix as a giant Null Tell - hey, can’t blame the early voters, can’t credit them, let’s talk about something else. That seems like a weird way to approach the lynch of any Scum.
So, OK, Chronos gets called on it. He says this (among other things - [post #397]):
This seems like a reach to me. There have been many, many games with all-vanilla Scum teams, or with a vanilla Scum team plus a Godfather. Chronos appeal here to the idea that hey, I thought ALL Scum teams had power roles seems very weak.
So yeah, OK.
vote Chronos
Wow on Tiltawhirl (spoilered):#141Tilta responds to vote from Chipa, comments on Rysto’s discussion
#142In response to Chipa’s explanation of his vote, adds that it expressly avoids accountability
#182In response to Chipa’s argument that Red flinched possibly because he was trying to protect Tilta, argues that she was in no danger and that Red was likely “pushing hard to find the smallest possible scum slip”
#225Explains why she hasn’t voted Omi - the case against him is for anti-town play, not because he’s suspected of being scum. Suggests the bandwagon deserves a hard look
#332Apologizes for absence, endorses the lynch candidate and votes Red
#348Fluff celebrating lynchChronos subs in:#366Fluff
#372Theorizes on Red’s motivations for the false claim - either most expendable scum or had a different win condition
#373Question to Mod about charger/changer
#379Corrects Inner Stickler’s fractions, theorizes on number of scum (4.5)
#384Comments on tilta’s lack of participation
#387Was inclined to believe Red’s claim
#397Responds to Inner Stickler’s question about “most expendable”, backtracks to “tied for most expendable”, comments that (Mahaloth’s) scum teams generally have diverse roles. Responds to Ninja v2’s suggestion that Fenrir is still among us, no point as no counterclaim is likely. Comments on dead players as subs
#403Power role kills could have been luck or hints that players are non-vanilla, not necessarily due to investigation results
#409Responds to vote, was just giving an example of scum team formation, was just saying that power role kills aren’t evidence that scum have an investigator. To Ninja v2, scum wouldn’t have killed Snape even if they knew he’d align with Town - no more valuable than a vanilla.
#412Doesn’t see any point discussing the existence of Fenrir
#414To Ninja v2, comments on implications of scum recruitment.
#416Apologizes for contributions so far, will re-read
-Tilta really didn’t do much or leave much of a trail. The only posts that really stand out are the slight defense of Red and the one towards the end of Day 1 where she explained why she didn’t want to vote for Omi but then didn’t vote for anyone else
So, the “most expendable” comment does appear to be a scum slip. If true, and Chronos flips scum, Omi will have inadvertently caused the lynch of 3 scum due to his own vote reasoning which appears to have been intended to protect Red who flinched in response to a vote on Tilta. How often does that happen?
Vote Chronos
On another note:
I have decided to role claim.
Hello, everyone. Have a jelly bean. It might taste like mucous, though. Careful.
My name is Fred Weasley. I am one half of a two-person Masonry. There are no other Masons of which we are aware (which means there are almost certainly no other Masons, eh what?).
My other half - almost said better half, that would have been kooky, huh? - would like to continue to lurk in the shadows for a while, but given the fact that there’s only two of us out here we thought it was time to let people know the deal.
Quoth Guiri:
That was a product of hasty re-reading. In the post where Normal/Snape died, his role was described as just having the ability to choose a side, with no other power mentioned. Then, in the post immediately after that clarifying, he’s still not said to have any other power. It’s not until three posts after that, with the updated player list, that Mahaloth mentions the bonus kill. So, I was saying to myself, “Wait, did Snape have any other powers?”, went back to double-check, and didn’t see the later post that says he did.
Quoth Storyteller:
The Godfather is usually the nominal leader of the Scum team, but I’ve never seen that “leadership” carry any meaningful power with it. Sometimes, the Godfather will break any ties in the decision of whom to Night-kill, but that’s not really a big deal, since the Scum can generally come to a consensus about that anyway. It’s standard for a Godfather to be immune to investigation, and it’s also standard for a Godfather to be called “leader”, so Red being immune to investigation and being called “leader” makes him a standard Godfather.
I’ve been reading and thinking about this game from the time I made my first post to the thread, so I saw the Red Skeezix thing go down as it happened. You have to admit that his claim was very weird, and when I see weird things, I start trying to make sense of them. So if it looks like I thought about what I had said there before I said it, well, that’s because I thought about what I had said before I said it. Is thinking about the game suddenly some sort of Scum tell?
I didn’t say that was the case in ALL games, only that it seemed to be a pattern in games based on some canon. Crimson Glyph had all Scum roles distinct; Lost had all Scum roles distinct; Screamers had all Scum roles distinct. And further, if I’m remembering correctly all of those games (plus Weird Wild West, which also had a diverse Scum team) were moderated by the same person as this one.
Storyteller really ought to be able to make a better case than this: His vote on me consists of, first, that I assumed that a role was what it was described as; second, that I thought about something before I posted, and third, that I assumed that there was no Scum role weaker than vanilla.
And then we get a role-claim out of the blue from him. Story, what possible good is that supposed to do? You’re not under heavy suspicion right now (I don’t think there’s even anyone voting for you), so you’re not trying to save your neck from the noose. In fact, if your claim is true, the Scum have no reason not to just kill you immediately (which they probably wouldn’t have done otherwise), leaving George with nobody to confirm him if he waits to claim. And until we do have a George claim, there’s no reason whatsoever to trust your claim.
Until we do have a confirmation of that,
Vote Storyteller
For making an extraordinarily weak case, and for making an unverifiable claim that serves no apparent purpose.
George as in George Weasley? While I understand the logic of identical twin brothers being masons, why do you assume George is in this game and is the other mason?
Your other half should NOT stay in the shadows, and in fact with one of you claimed, I am going to commit to voting for **storyteller **tomorrow unless his fellow mason confirms him.
You were IN monkgate, you know why it’s dangerous to have a mason claim sitting out where one kill can leave it in an unconfirmable state.
I am going to break one of my cardinal rules, now–the other mason ought come forward as soon as possible or this play makes very little sense.
In fact I’m pretty sure that George Weasley isn’t in the game, since I think storyteller is lying. But really, if Fred is one member of a two-member masonry, who else would it be?
I am assuming that the “Occlumens” title refers to a Godfather power - which, actually, is not entirely certain (or at least, may not be complete. That his mind is impenetrable to magic could have other implications, beyond what has been stated. Perhaps we have a Vigilante who kills using mind-based magic and old Voldy was also immune to that. Your simple confidence about the idea that we can divine the extent of Voldy’s powers from a two word description that doesn’t even actually contain the word Godfather is my concern here.
I have never seen a Scum Godfather identified as “Leader and [Godfather]” before, and am confused as to why both terms would be used if they are meant to mean the same thing. Did the Department of Redundancy Department write the color for this game?
That’s a mischaracterization of what I said. Thinking about the game is obviously not a Scum tell. My point is that your view of the situation seems to me to be a view that Scum would have - not the perspective of a Townie. Could I be wrong? Perhaps. But after this frantic flailing defense/OMGUS post, I kind of think I’m not.
No, it wasn’t. It was described as “Leader and Occlumens.” You assumed that meant “Godfather.” I argue that this is an unsupportable leap.
Bullshit mischaracterization, and fortunately transparently so.
That’s not what you said. You said that Voldy, as a [effective] vanilla, was the MOST expendable - ie, definitionally weaker than all the remaining Scum. That is not the same as what you say in the quote above. You’re spinning, but you’re doing it dishonestly, and if you’re Town, you wouldn’t be doing that.
(1) There are only two Masons. It is of value to know this. My compatriot very well may claim toDay. Time will tell.
(2) See below.
Correct.
Wait - the Scum could kill me?!?!?!?! Holy cow, I had never thought of that before! Why didn’t I read the rules? It just never occurred to me before making my claim that the Scum might actually target me. Gosh. Well, I surely do feel stupid now.
When did the Scum gain the ability to attempt kills?
Oh, and by the way, the parenthetical statement in the above quote directly contradicts the quote above it. The Scum always have reason to kill a player who is under minimal suspicion.
You mean, other than the fact that it would be profoundly stupid for a Scum to make an unprovoked Mason claim, and that there has been no counterclaim (and most likely will be no counterclaim, although I’d like to enthusiastically urge any Scum who’d like to counterclaim to do so. In fact, I volunteer to get lynched first. If someone counterclaims me as Mason, lynch me first. OK?).
But you know what - you’re right. You have no reason to “trust my claim.” But absence of a reason to trust it is not the same as presence of a reason to distrust it.
New rod and reel you’d like to test, then?
VERY happy with my vote.
Jesus, this is NUTS. Seriously, why didn’t anybody tell me the Scum were allowed to try to kill people in this game?
Or if he’s not a mason at all then one of the existing pair of masons should declare. That way we’d have one absolutely confirmed scum. Wouldn’t we?
I note you didn’t actually address my point.
In fairness to you, I can make a pair of assumptions that makes your strategy make sense, but I don’t think they’re safe assumptions at all.
NETA: You know, your sarcasm doesn’t change anything about the fact of the matter–your fellow mason is 100% useless if you die before they declare.
Two things:
(1) You don’t know as much as you think you do.
(2) How did Monkgate work out, for the Town, in the end? Remind me; I think I’ve forgotten.
Which is to say, obviously I am aware that I could be killed. Either you accept that I am a Mason, in which case you accept that I probably have a reason for doing this, or you think that I’m not, in which case you should vote for me and lynch me.
But accepting that I’m a Mason and then demanding details regarding what I’m doing is anti-Town.
By the way, I don’t mean to come across as obnoxious with the sarcasm.
But look.
Suppose I die toNight. Suppose toMorrow, you have two claimants for my Mason partner. Suppose you lynch one of them and are wrong. The following Day, you will lynch the second, which means we’ll have traded two Masons for a Scum. I can live with that trade-off (two Masons in a 2-person Masonry points out to about 4, right? Versus 4.5 for a vanilla Scum and more for a non-vanilla Scum). And that’s the worst case. If you guess right between the claimants, then that’s a free Scum caught.
Which is why the Scum will not counterclaim the real Mason, because it’d be an incredibly stupid risk for them to take.
If there are any real masons. Even then, if there are real masons and they’re not Fred and George, Storyteller could still just say that maybe there’s two masonries (I don’t think I’ve ever seen that in a game, but it’s not completely out there).
I think that what happened is that the Scum all got cover identities (this is supported by the fact that Voldemort appeared to be Luna in the death-scene, and is one standard way of preventing a name-claim from breaking the game), and that Storyteller got the cover name of Fred Weasley. He figures he can spin that into a reasonable-sounding Mason claim, but with Scum hurt as bad as they are, they can’t afford to have two false-claiming masons (heck, for all we know, there might be only one left, and most likely only two), so his “partner” has to stay in the shadows. Even with a cover identity of Fred, he’s still taking the risk that there’s a real George out there (who of course isn’t a mason), but even there, he’s left himself an out (albeit a weak one): If there’s a George counterclaim, he can just say that he never claimed the other mason was George.
Except that’s silly.
The cover identities aren’t important. Anybody could look like anyone: that’s the purpose of a Polyjuice potion. It could only be bad for a scum to announce his cover: if he was Luna Lovegood, for example, the real Luna could claim.
If his cover identity is Fred, then let’s not mess about: who would put Fred in a game and not George? Either a scum claims George or the real George claims it, and just as you say it would be dangerous for TWO scum to pretend to be masons.
Which, come to think of it… we don’t really know how many scum there are. We only know that because the game isn’t over there’s still more townies than scum.
Yeah, I’m comfortable with this.
Vote Chronos