what makes it curious to me
It was a Mod kill- maybe the colour was designed to include all factions, but IIRC it was “human teeth marks”
His body was pretty beaten up. His head was on the wrong end to start with, and unspeakable things seem to have been done to his kidneys which were on full display along with the rest of his entrails. There were at least 36 bullet holes and some serious burns and something that seemed suspiciously like teeth marks. Human teeth marks. Clearly none of the forces in Doperville were capable of this. It was almost as if some very angry God decided to end Dante’s life, and drenched the town in gallons of blood at the same time (an inappropriate level of blood really. Human bodys don’t hold that much blood. Now there was blood everywhere! And right after the town had been cleaned too!)
opening bit in spoiler
Why read extra anything into it in the first place?
It wasn’t me who suggested that friendly third parties claim; I think that was Chronos.
Angel’s interesting. I actually have a separate section in my notes of ‘Angel stuff’ because I respect her town game so much. And apparently she’s a dirty busser to boot. So if there’s not scum in her suspicions right now I’d be shocked. So far from what I’ve been able to take note of she’s criticized or expressed suspicion of Boozy, Drain, and Zeriel.
No, it’s not “always claim truthfully”; it’s “never claim untruthfully”. Tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but not necessarily the whole truth. I’m not claiming anything right now about my role: I may or may not be a power role, and I see no benefit in letting the Scum know right now either way. But I will eventually claim, one way or the other, if I don’t die first. And when that happens, I’ll claim truthfully.
The obvious follow-on to everyone saying now whether they’re third party is that if someone says they’re not third party now, but later on says that they are, then they’re a liar, and we lynch them. I don’t see that it matters much why they’re lying: If they claim to be a non-hostile third party who intends to help Town, but we know that they lied, then we can’t trust them.
But it’s not entirely about third parties. It’s actually even more about Scum. Eventually, Scum will have to claim, and they’ll have three options: They can claim a Town power role, they can claim vanilla, or they can claim third party. All three options have their risks: If they claim a power role, then there’s someone who can counterclaim them. If they claim vanilla, then there’s the risk that they’ll be caught as a liar by a watcher. If they claim third party, then they’ll have to make up a role PM, and there’s a risk that they’ll screw it up, or that Town will decide they’re not worth the risk and kill them anyway. Because of these risks, Scum would really prefer to wait and see what the situation is before claiming, to decide which option is least risky (for instance, if the watcher is already dead, then it’s safer to claim vanilla). By making everyone commit to Town or Third Party now, we take away one of the options from Scum.
Oh, and I think that the bullet-hole count is just Storyteller joking around. He often incorporates things that come up in the thread into his color posts when he’s moderating. I think the original “37” was just a random number, and when posters started speculating about it, he picked it up and ran with it. Honestly, I expect more than four third parties, since I’ve seen Storyteller games half this size that had that many.
***“I am not now and have never been a Communist either in the sense of support for or agreement with Communist ideas or policies, or in the sense of joining the Communist Party. I have never been and am not now a member of any organization or under any oath which conflicts with the oath of loyalty which I took in good faith when I became a citizen of the United States and which I expect to keep.”
I’ll accept that this “loyalty oath” that people are giving is well meant, but I’m not going to join in. Perhaps it’s just the Libertatian in me coming out, but I don’t like the idea that I am guilty until proven innocent. I will make a claim, partial or otherwise, when and if I feel that it’s necessary, and not before. I find it interesting that several people jumped all over Total for “harassing” septimus bout his maybe-soft-claim post, but nobody seems to have a problem with Chronos (and others) subtly suggesting that anyone who doesn’t make a claim now is anti-Town.
Back to Colby’s “slip” for a moment. For reference, here’s the post in question:
The Mayor in the Night 0 introductory post died with 37 gunshot wounds. Dante died with 36 gunshot wounds. The implication that some have drawn was that those numbers represent the number of Town players; I think that’s a reasonable assumption…though I don’t know that it really gains us a whole lot at that point even if it were proven to be true.
My issue with Colby’s phrasing here is in the second paragraph: “I think the fire is probably from the other team, or an arsonist. We do have 2 sets of scum in this game, so it’s safe to assume that each get a kill.” It’s been quite a while since I’ve played Mafia, so I don’t recall all of the intricacies of various players’ posting styles and phrasing…all I have to go on is what the players in this game have posted, and how those posts sound to my ears. And to my ears, using the phrase “the other team” to mean “Scum” just sounds wrong. Add to that the fact that in the very next sentence he points out that there are two different Scum factions, and it sounds even worse.
Now, it’s certainly possible that I’m wrong, and that it was an innocent ‘mistake’; an unfortunate turn of phrase. But either way, it certainly cause quite a ruckus. If Colby is Town, then the “proper” thing for him to do, having caused all of this confusion, would be to try to make up for it: double down on analysis, share his thoughts and suspicions, get as much information out as possible. Either his actions would help overcome his “slip” and prevent him from being lynched, or else we’d be left with a good supply of “Townie” information to sort through in upcoming Days. But Colby did none of that. He’s barely participated in the game, and when he does, it’s mostly song lyrics.
My count has Lakai, ToeJam, and AngeloftheNorth as the other main candidates for Today’s lynch. If I’m not mistaken, the same basic argument applies to each of them: too many posts with too little actual content. The same applies to Colby…with the kicker that he made a post which kinda sounds like he’s on “the other team”.
I hate Chronos’ lynch all liars spiel so much. Though I never had to, I was 100% prepared to false claim vanilla in the last game I played, and it would have been for the best possible reason.
(oog: So the event that was going to consume my life today isn’t going to happen. So I have time to post. However, I have a lot of other things I need to do, so I don’t have much time to post. Anyway…)
Exactly why? What about my tone bugs you, and what about it indicates I could be scum?
And you still haven’t addressed why you didn’t like post 798. Or the one after that that I hadn’t even posted. Especially since your comment was prompted by Drain Bead’s examination of the septimus vote/unvote record, and 798 had nothing to do with septimus. (And neither did–obviously–the next post that I didn’t make.) You’re typically a better player than this to be this sloppy.
Since the scathach vote isn't going to go anywhere (it was mostly a prod vote trying to get him to explain his reasoning anyway.)
**unvote scathach**
**vote lakai**
This should bring the vote total to **Colby: 9** and **Lakai: 8**.
His "let's start a mob" post by him has already been addressed.
[quote="Lakai, post:311, topic:776577"]
I would ask everyone to consider what **DiggitCamara** wrote up thread, that a defense of player with very little evidence is more suspicious than a vote for a player with very little evidence. There is little evidence for any vote and everyone has to vote for someone, but not everyone has to defend someone.
[/QUOTE]
[quote="Lakai, post:775, topic:776577"]
I've been thinking of Colby's defense of his statement and how undefensive it was. I think it mirrors my own response to people voting against me. On day one without any voting records or solid data any vote is going to based on nonsense. As a town person it feels hopeless to defend yourself because every town person will be suspicious no matter what you say.
However, if you are scum, then you are part of a small team that supports you and defending yourself feels less hopeless.
This is still a flimsy day one vote based on very little evidence, but I'm voting for Toejam for being too defensive.
Upon rereading Colby's incriminating statement, I think it was just bad grammar rather than a scum tell. If he were on one scum team talking about the other team, why would he think most of the fire would come from the other team? There is no reason why one scum team would be more violent than the other. Is there?
[/QUOTE]
So would you say you're defending Colby by saying it was just bad grammar? Aren't you opposed to defending people? What evidence do you have that Colby's statement was just bad grammar?
[quote="Lakai, post:1006, topic:776577"]
I think town people have to be suspicious of everyone. There is no reason to not to be suspicious of someone until their corpse shows up in the light of dawn. I'm changing my vote because not suspecting someone is an attitude that you can have if you have inside information on other players, or if you want to get someone else to trust you. I don't see a town person doing it unless he is really confident of his ability to detect scum, or he is a mason. But I will take that risk since all votes are going to be risky no matter what.
**Unvote Toejam
Vote AngeloftheNorth**
[/QUOTE]
(Bolding mine)
Umm... what is this vote about? You don't explain why you are unvoting Toejam or voting AngeloftheNorth. Just some obvious statement about how no one without perfect knowledge should consider anyone cleared until they die.
[quote="Lakai, post:987, topic:776577"]
What's with all the questions **GuiriEnEspaña**? Can't make definitive statements? Don't want to be pinned down to a position? Possibly a scum move by casting suspicion everywhere just to see what sticks?
[/QUOTE]
Would you rather Guiri take your tactic and make definitive statements that signify nothing all the while ducking the questions people ask of you? Town should never fear answering the questions asked of them, even if the answer to that question is another question or an intentional ducking with good reason. (For example, if you suspect a question is scum fishing, point that out rather than answering the question.)
Good catch, Lightfoot. The fact that they were “human tooth marks” makes it less likely Wolf Colby thought they were wolf bites. And this makes it slightly less likely that Guiri’s analysis of Colby’s scummy post is correct. Once again, I’ll remove myself from the bandwagon.
Unvote Colby11
I’m happy to see Colby11 or Lakai Lynched. Or perhaps one of the names on Normal Phase’s list, e.g. Boozy, Hoopy, Prof. P. Just please don’t jump on me again for jumping off the Colbywagon.
Ditto.
and whilst you are here ** SB ** have you any interest in responding to my comment post 938
Or did it go unnoticed like my reasoning for * my * vote on Lakia?
It’s been a rather “busy” game, and I’ve not kept detailed notes on post content, only voting history. None of those three has particularly struck me as overly Scummy…but perhaps I’ve missed something.
Not from **Chronos **in that post, no. But the suggestion has been made by several people that “Town have nothing to lose” - which is technically true…but they have nothing to gain, either. Also, that “It’s about Scum”: we should force Scum to claim now, in order to limit their ability to false claim later. Which again, makes perfect sense. But it also seems to mean “if you don’t claim Town now, that means you have something to hide. And if you have something to hide, you must be Scum (or malicious Third Party), so we really ought to kill you now”
Basically, it’s saying “everyone should make a partial claim now”. I don’t like mass claims, I’ve never liked mass claims, and I’m not going to participate in a mass claim.
Ahh…gotcha. My bad. I was doing a multi-quote and forgot to reference back to the original post which is why I missed the context. I withdraw that part of my argument.
I still stand by the rest of it and my vote, though.
