I’m disappointed that you won’t be responding to my questions/comments about your accusations of me.
But I’ve heard that’s a really good movie, so I can’t blame you! 
I’m not sure how much I’ll be able to participate before the end of the Day. I’ve got a training class, but I don’t know how hardcore the trainer is gonna be about me actually paying attention, so we’ll see.
I don’t understand why lack of participation is forgiviable just because it’s expected. The man put more effort in one post suspiciously 2 hours after I called him on it then his three days put together. sachertorte’s absolute requirement of 4 substantial posts a day means if I don’t see 3 more from MadTheSwine and he doesn’t get replaced I’ll seriously question the impartiality of the mod.
It’s funny. I noticed the contradiction that zuma picked up on when I was putting together the post that lead zuma to notice it. I didn’t post about it though because I thought myself in circles trying to decide if it was actually scummy or not. But when you combine that with this:
Which comes across to me at least as an attempt to role claim without actually role claiming, I feel compelled to change my vote.
unvote Sitnam
vote Menocchio
What contradiction are you talking about here? I’m trying to evaluate the case against Menocchio and I’m just not sure what you’re referring to.
To me, this is REALLY flimsy reasoning. It seems very clear to me that Menocchio only mentioned role claiming because it’s been such a big discussion topic. There’s been (seemingly) endless debate about motivations for role claiming, which roles are likely to be in this game, and giving people the opportunity to role claim before they are lynched (to avoid lynching a pro-town power role).
What does it even mean to “role claim without actually role claiming”? What motivation could there be to do this? I can’t see any.
Investigating YOUR motivation:
There’s a snowball rolling down a hill with Menocchio right now and joining a bandwagon is definitely a safe thing to do for scum. You don’t initiate anything and if you’re wrong, well, then so were a bunch of others.
On the hand, if someone is looking very scummy then the town will definitely want to lynch them.
Unfortunately that’s not the case here. Your reasoning is paper thin which to me says you’re joining a bandwagon because it’s safe.
Consequentley:
**Unvote WF Tomba
Vote Nanook of the North Shore**
Well, the bandwagon has definitely started rolling now. I think Menocchio may be getting trapped into the end of Day “most votes and no one else better to vote for” quagmire. I am going to be suspicious of those who vote for him at this stage without clearly stating why. Saying stuff like “I’m voting for Menocchio because of the case laid out by others already” should not be allowed to pass. I voted for Menocchio originally a couple days ago as a Random/Lurker vote, with the idea that I would change it if I found something meatier.
I think **MadTheSwine’s vote for zuma was suspicious and my subsequent exchanges with him about it have not improved my opinion. I’ve been waiting and hoping for more interaction with him so I could be sure in my own mind that his vote for me was not causing an OMGUS of my own, but we’re running low on time, so…
**
Unvote Menocchio
Vote MadTheSwine
{Bolding Mine}
I’ll say that low content is somewhat subjective, but surely stating so isn’t true without demonstrating examples. I, personally, haven’t noticed a low content level from bufftabby, but to be fair, I haven’t had the opportunity to evaluate all our citizens equally yet. So if you’re going to make such a statement, be prepared to back it up Menocchio.
To bufftabby, be careful with these kinds of generalizations. What’s the motivation for scum to completely fabricate reasoning? Surely, if it’s completely fabricated, it will easily be torn apart under scrutiny. Instead, what I think you mean, is stretching subjective reasoning like content level, emotion, fluff, etc. But still, while that does tend to lean toward scummy motivation, I have effectively used it in the past, as town, to generate an interogation angle when I’m suspicious of someone and want to apply pressure so I can get a better read.
Bottom line, establishing any sort of black and white expectation in this game will open one to manipulation or simply poor conclusions. Please, establish tendencies, but there are very few things in this game that are always one way or the other.
Back on page 6. First post 261.
Post 280.
It’s a minor contradiction, which is part of the reason I didn’t post anything about it originally. My first thought was to jump all over it like a ton of bricks, but I stopped myself and thought about it a bit more. I could see it going either way. But with the part that sounded like a role claim without being a role claim, and a general vibe I’ve been getting for the past several pages, I wanted to change my vote and make sure I got everything out there so that my reasoning was clear.
You raise a decent point, though I believe I’d like to still go with my gut on this one. I think a scummy feeling is better than just lynching a lurker.
In any case, perhaps it’s best not to vote for MadTheSwine - I’d take a possible modkill at this point - it essentially means a double lynch for Town, since MadTheSwine is likely to end up second on the vote list (if he’s not first and lynched anyway).
Tick Tock, three hours to go:
2 - bufftabby (WF Tomba, Menocchio)
1 - WF Tomba (pedescribe)
1 - Queen of Town (peekercpa)
2 - MadTheSwine (Sitnam, ShadowFacts)
1 - Nanook of the North Shore (Ice Cream Man)
1 - ShadowFacts (MadTheSwine)
5 - Menocchio (fluiddruid, bufftabby, zuma, Blaster Master, Nanook of the North Shore)
2 - peekercpa (Koldanar, Mind Wanderer)
1 - fluiddruid (Queen of Town)
As you often do, you make an excellent point. You interpreted my post precisely. You often state things much better than I do!
The wording of it does not come across to me as simply mentioning it since it’s been discussed. It strikes me as saying “I have a town power role, but I won’t come right out and say so since people have been expressing doubt of such claims.”
What’s the motivation to claim without claiming? Lets break it down from both town and scum perspectives.
An actual town power role might want to do that to try and derail a bandwagon on them without outting themselves totally to scum. I reject this choice because if he is a power role, he’s pretty much outted already. The only question is what role specifically.
A vanilla townie might do this for the same stop a lynch reason, with the addition of not wanting to false claim. A very selfish reasoning if so, and Menocchio’s an experienced enough player to know that a mislynch of a townie on Day 1 is far from the end of the world, and is in fact fairly common. I don’t believe he would do this.
And finally scum. Scum would do this for the obvious reason of wanting to avoid a lynch. And by getting people to possibly think they’re a power role, they can avoid suspicion on future Days as well. By not actually claiming, they don’t have to worry about counter claims leading to a 1 for 1 trade.
As for joining a bandwagon because it’s safe…well obviously not. And from the games I’ve read in the past, late to the bandwagon people often get higher scrutiny. If I were scum, what would be safer? Leaving my vote as a one off on Sitnam, which was drawing no attention whatsoever, or joining a bandwagon and having my name attached to what would presumably, by your thinking, be the mislynch of a townie? It seems to me that the first option would be the safer by far.
FWIW, I find your defense underwhelming.
I don’t understand the logic here. If you’re vanilla town, you have no reason not to claim. If you’re a mason, you’re still worth more to us alive. Obviously, if you’re the doctor or detective you’re definitely worth more to us alive than dead. The only reason I can see that you wouldn’t claim but are pro-town is if your role is better off dead than known to the scum. I can see this in a recruitment game (which this is mod-confirmed not to be), or MAYBE if you were a Vigilante who is required to kill each Night, but beyond that…
OTOH, if you’re scum, you’d know that claiming Vanilla gains you nothing, but claiming a power role would, at best, put you inside a box that will fall apart when the real power role falls apart, but more likely is less convincing in light of the power role discussions in which you were involved earlier Today. This sort of reaction also makes sense if you’re a Serial Killer, but I’m much less inclined to believe that role exists in this game.
The tone here bugs me. Don’t you think that, if she is town, she’d figure out that it was just confirmation bias? This isn’t an argument against her case at all, just a snuggle.
This leaves me confused as well. How can you be LESS bloodthirsty in this game when you specifically pointed out that you voted for no-lynch on Day One in the previous game? I can’t imagine a LESS bloodthirsty way to play than that, and considering you actually have a vote on bufftabby, this seems outright self-contradictory.
I don’t know what you guys are talking about - Mad now easily has more than 4 substantive posts. Not substantive in terms of length, to be sure, but certainly enough actual gameplay not to be mod-killed.
I’m not taking a position on Menocchio, but I think you’re not reading carefully. He said he couldn’t be as bloodthirsty as he got, that is to say became. He is claiming that he started out not bloodthirsty at all and became so over the course of the game.
I really don’t want to be defending Menocchio at this point 
, but I feel compelled to jump in here and explain what I think he meant. One of **fluiddruid’s **reasons (IIRC) for voting for him was that he was much more aggressive last game than this. He is saying that he was much more bloodthirsty last game after Day One (when he voted No Lynch). Therefore, it’s not a fair comparison to compare his bloodthirstiness from Day Two on in the last game to his lack thereof so far this game.
Yikes, that’s a convoluted explanation. It makes sense in my head, though 
NETA: And **WF Tomba **beat me to it. Preview is my friend!
Oh. I didn’t doublecheck what was said. My bad.
Yes and no. The problem is that everyone voted no lynch in that game on Day 1, for several reasons. There was only one scum and some people simply didn’t want a one day win, others felt that there wasn’t enough information to go on and there was no value in creating a voting history (due to specific game mechanics - recruitment could be attempted each night). That simply doesn’t qualify here so it doesn’t make a heck of a lot of sense.
Please point out the 3 posts that are substantive pillars of evaluation, reasoning and contribution to public discussion:
Post #122 “Hehe, I was thinking the same thing BM. That said, HI Everyone! I’m back from my mafia sabbatical,time for a nice relaxing game of mafia .”
Post #131 “That does seem odd.I also thought asking for examples of mistakes is scummy.
Vote Ice Cream Man”
Post #190 "My fault for not checking upthread for validation of your statement,three pages in I didn’t think it was necessary. I had already conisidered voting for Ice Cream before with his “mistakes” post and your “fuck up” helped make my decision.
Strange how you fuck up and then vote for me because I believed what you said.
Post #193 “OH MY GOD!!! YOU SUCK!! It’s a you vote fer me,I vote fer you thing. So there!”
Post #255 "I always skip over BM’s math,it does little good. i will Unvote Ice Cream Man since my vote was influenced by wrong info.
Post #325 Vote Zuma
With his early lurking,switching votes three times and casting the dreaded 3rd vote for Mennochio
Post #336 "Not sure that it is,but they sure came in rapid sucession.Just raised a flag.
You’re right, you must vote your conscience. But I stand by my assessment that no information can be gathered to determine summiness if someone doesn’t talk at all and gets away with explaining it as ‘personal style’.
I could very well be wrong but a Mod kill isn’t in the rules, he’ll simply be replaced with someone who will (hopefully) post more often. If he’s lynched at least we’ll have more talkers tomarrow.