Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I realized I hid my vote in the paragraph above, please note that it is bolded and there is a vote there...

RustyKnight wrote:I'm thinking about Fifty's death, but I'm hesitant to place too much stock into pondering the night kill. The completely random nature of the kill reminds me of communications I had with Drk_O in a past game. He advocated night killing someone just to not give of a trail/confuse everyone. I'll probably go back over some of the past games and look for similar night kills. If he's a common denominator with such kills, that gives us a nice lead. If that seems to be a common tactic, not so much. The random nature does lead me to believe that at least one of the scum possesses some modicum of cunning. I'd think that a pair of inexperienced scum would kill someone vocal in the hopes of pinning it on someone (ie kill me, blame Thor or kill Thor, blame me).

Anyone care to weigh in?

I don't know how other people work as scum, but confusion seemed like a good idea. The flaws with it is, the people gunning for you are still alive, and probibly still gunning for you, and still alive.

Thor665 wrote:

Vote: Drk_O

Obvious lurking scum is obvious - he's usually waaaay more bombastic.

D: I'm doing my best!!!

You don't need to be soooo mean

Now I got that song stuck in my head...

WARORK93 wrote:

The random nature does lead me to believe that at least one of the scum possesses some modicum of cunning. I'd think that a pair of inexperienced scum would kill someone vocal in the hopes of pinning it on someone (ie kill me, blame Thor or kill Thor, blame me).

Anyone care to weigh in?

I'm inexperienced and even that sounds a little obvious to me. I can't help but wonder about two specific people who immediately pointed fingers at Fifty at the beginning of the game. Perhaps ( and I'm going on a hunch here) they investigated his past performances in other games and determined he might have been a threat, and accused him to try to throw us off their tracks, and now because of the confusion caused by styner's death fifty was just a bonus for em.

it might be obvious but then again, the killers might have tried to be obvious in their anticipation of us looking for something hidden.

please don't stone me its the best I could come up with.......

I was actually thinking something similar. Killing someone who's gunning for you is a good idea for scum, because, why would you implacate yourself?

RiTides wrote:I was surprised someone more vocal didn't die, too... I'd been betting on Rusty or the_ferret dying. However, you're right that doesn't seem to make sense... too obvious.

Will have a think on it, but honestly I think it's someone posting regularly as having a role would tend to make you more interested in the game. So my suspicions are currently on those contributing the most to this thread... unfortunately without body language to look at, if someone's just not posting I really have nothing to go on here.

The most vocal usually live the longest, because it's easier to read them, and figure out whether or not they're good to lynch. I've never been nightkilled, because I'm crazy, and I usually get voted off 4 or 5 days in. I've never lived to the end of the game, scum or not. I hope this game'll be different, but I know better.

Also, note that I have replaced Lord-loss, and he was the first person to vote (and he voted for Fifty). Given the fact that this was quickly followed by Thor's vote for Fifty, I am tempted to conclude that either:

1) Someone wants us to think Thor is bad
2) Thor is bad

Either way, I am going to Vote: Thor665 for now. I could easily be convinced into going after the_ferret, however, especially given that his hidden knowledge being revealed (which I was hoping would happen at sunrise) has not taken place, and I wonder if he's just leading us on about it to make himself look more innocent. On the other hand, for a villain it would make more sense to throw something out there for us to chase, rather than to stay suspiciously silent. It's still suspicioius, whether or not it's thought out, though...

I heavily doubt someone who voted for Fifty would use a nightlynch on him. I feel he was lynched by someone trying to confuse, as Rusty said. Why it wasn't you I have no idea. You were the perfect target for a diversion lynch, as you only just joined.

the_ferret always claims he knows something, but rarely reveals it. When he does, it's usually not that interesting.

Thor665 wrote:Ferret made accusations and observations you disagreed with.

He made observations that were false.

RustyKnight wrote:

Rusty wrote:

the_ferrett wrote:B) Until recently, no you haven't. Until..... oh 1/2 a page ago we were still all 'RVS'ing and cracking jokes. That's not serious in demeanor. And please try not to lie but saying otherwise.

The sixth post of page two is Thor's rebuttal to my initial salvo. Before that we have discussion of you (and whether to consider you suspicious). After that we get into the meat of Thor v Rust v BroSty, with us three posting a massive proportion of that days votes. I'd contend that the silliness of the RVS was curtailed towards the end of page one (with the events that lead to Thor and I posting several massive multi-quotes). Are there some jokes on page two? Yes, but the majority of the page isn't consumed with silliness. Furthermore, people stopped voting for silly things like names after page one.

I was incorrect to use "claims" in the plural; I got ahead of myself and I apologize.

the_ferret wrote:False claims? So its false claims for me to suspect you now.

Woe is you. I guess I'll claim this as a second false claim as I'd already pointed out the fallaciousness of the earlier claim, making this a (maybe ignorant) attempt at misdirection.

Thor665 wrote:I chose to lynch Stynier because he didn't look to be playing the game in a pro town way via the logic of his votes and due to the strange energy between you and him. I already made that quite clear.

This is all you've ever given for reasons to lynch Stynier.

Thor665 wrote:I like your ordinance guesstimate as well - honestly the only thing not making me switch was the way Styneir voted for the Ork. But something is odd in the energy amongst the pair of them.

Thor665 wrote:Well...he stated it was odd and *voted me*. By dint of him voting me obviously he thought something was there worth exploring - do you or do you not find his stated logic worthwhile? If you don't find his stated logic worthwhile (I don't) does that or does it not make you wonder what his actual logic was?

Thor665 wrote:Look at Stynier, he's already stating a belief that obviouslly *both* me and Lord Loss are the scum because obviouslly the scum will act in concert on every vote.

Reading the above, you voted for Stynier because of a "strang energy" between he and I (something you've never bothered to explain or offer evidence of), his switch to WARORK, and voting for you in the first place with less than concrete evidence. The first reason counts against Stynier and myself (probably more me as I was the one that initiated, so either we're scum or I am scum trying to drag him with me), the second reason had a good explanation (he thought he was about to be lynched, reread the voting post, he references needing to do it to avoid getting lynched, voting to avoid lynch a week before the deadline is just silly), and the third reason makes no sense. You grabbed one of us at random, accussed us of scummy logic and decided to lynch them for it. Both before and after Stynier's initial vote, worse reasons for voting were used. I myself voted based on a name, Lord-Loss just made a silly remark about being melodramatic and voted for me, Mordoskul voted based on a name, etc. Stynier votes for you because you and someone else voted for the same person, and you lynch him for it.

So, I don't eally think you made your reasons for voting Stynier abudantly clear with even a modicum of good reasoning.
---
I've got to go, but I'll respond to what I missed later today.

Current Voting Situation
0 - n0t_u
1 - Drk_Oblitr8r (Thor665)
0 - RustyKnight
0 - the_ferrett
0 - WARORK93
0 - Mordoskul
0 - RiTides
2 - Thor665 (RustyKnight, RiTides)

0 - No lynch

Not voting (n0t_u, Drk_Oblitr8r, the_ferrett, WARORK93, Mordoskul)
Not posted during Day 2 (n0t_u, Mordoskul)

If the day ended now, Thor665 would be lynched

Day 2 ends at 0900 GMT 5th April 2011 [12 Days 21 Hours 50 Minutes]

RustyKnight votes Thor665
Thor665 votes Drk_Oblitr8r
RiTides votes Thor665

Mr Rusty, with your bone of obsidian (because we all know that's the hardest material to break) what must I do to have you burry your bone? Be eliminated? Is that the only way?

Use a diamond rebuttal?

WARORK93 wrote:I'm inexperienced and even that sounds a little obvious to me. I can't help but wonder about two specific people who immediately pointed fingers at Fifty at the beginning of the game. Perhaps ( and I'm going on a hunch here) they investigated his past performances in other games and determined he might have been a threat, and accused him to try to throw us off their tracks, and now because of the confusion caused by styner's death fifty was just a bonus for em.

it might be obvious but then again, the killers might have tried to be obvious in their anticipation of us looking for something hidden.

please don't stone me its the best I could come up with.......

It would be nice if you could also mention the names of the players you find suspicious for those acts. Generally speaking conversation of suspicions help those suspicions because either people will agree or disagree with them, and that gives you more information.

RiTides wrote:Also, note that I have replaced Lord-loss, and he was the first person to vote (and he voted for Fifty). Given the fact that this was quickly followed by Thor's vote for Fifty, I am tempted to conclude that either:

1) Someone wants us to think Thor is bad
2) Thor is bad

Also, note that RiTides replaced Lord-loss, and he was the first person to vote (and he voted for Fifty). I followed quickly with a vote on Fifty, I am tempted to conclude that either:

1) Someone wants us to think RiTides is bad
2) RiTides is bad

I don't find you logic very bankable. Why is my second vote more suspicious than your first vote? Also, considering I stopped voting Fifty very early on and didn't press on him for more then about a page or so - why is it suspicious at all?

RustyKnight wrote:

Thor665 wrote:Ferret made accusations and observations you disagreed with.

He made observations that were false.

First off, did he make any accusations that were also false?
Second off, did he apologize about the incorrect observation and move on?
There's a BIG difference between interpreting/recalling something wrong and outright lying about it for strategic gain in the game. Even if he was lying I don't see any real advantage to it. Also, quite frankly, this accusation by you on him;

the_ferret wrote:False claims? So its false claims for me to suspect you now.

Woe is you. I guess I'll claim this as a second false claim as I'd already pointed out the fallaciousness of the earlier claim, making this a (maybe ignorant) attempt at misdirection.

If no one has any opinions we could just lynch Drk_O, that would be sweet.

Someone needs to poke Mordoskull.

Day 2 has only been running for 2 days, so he isn't due a poke yet

Thor665 wrote:If no one has any opinions we could just lynch Drk_O, that would be sweet.

I have an opinion. So no one should lynch Drk_O ever, reguardless of how supercool and awesomely awesome that guy is.

Sorry Bishop ><

((ooc Bah. Earliest I've ever died.))

2 votes to go and we're silent?
8 days to go and we sit on our laurels?
Feth that.
Vote: Rusty
Discuss that.

Vote: Rusty

Since apparently I can't get anyone to bandwagon Drk_O for some reason.

I'd at least like Rusty to come back and justify all the 'lying' accusations he's throwing around.

This has to be the quietest Day 2 I've ever seen...

Will be poking Mordoskul shortly.

Current Voting Situation
0 - n0t_u
0 - Drk_Oblitr8r
2 - RustyKnight (the_ferrett, Thor665)
0 - the_ferrett
0 - WARORK93
0 - Mordoskul
0 - RiTides
2 - Thor665 (RustyKnight, RiTides)

0 - No lynch

Not voting (n0t_u, Drk_Oblitr8r, WARORK93, Mordoskul)
Not posted during Day 2 (Mordoskul)

If the day ended now, nobody would be lynched

Day 2 ends at 0900 GMT 5th April 2011 [8 Days 10 Hours 15 Minutes]

RustyKnight votes Thor665
Thor665 votes Drk_Oblitr8r
RiTides votes Thor665
the_ferrett votes RustyKnight
Thor665 unvotes Drk_Oblitr8r
Thor665 votes RustyKnight

Sorry about the massive delay.

Thor665 wrote: First off, did he make any accusations that were also false?
Second off, did he apologize about the incorrect observation and move on?

You can check this just as easily as I.

Thor665 wrote: There's a BIG difference between interpreting/recalling something wrong and outright lying about it for strategic gain in the game. Even if he was lying I don't see any real advantage to it.

The advantage was in deflecting me. Who decides what is lying and what is a mistake? Why were you so set on Stynier having an ulterior motive but not the_ferrett?

Thor665 wrote: Seriously? That's just silly, and doesn't rebut the point ferret was even making, and looks more like just deflecting his comment and turning it around as another "lie" in order to continue to downplay his suspicion of you. I don't like it, and I don't find what ferret did suspect.

Ferrett claimed that I argued that suspicion of me was false. I never argued anything of the sort. Like his earlier claim about nothing being serious, this was a false statement easily proven by going over the thread.

Thor665 wrote:Um, actually I did (Stynier even agreed with it). Remember when I was pointing out how strange it was that you leapt to his defense so aggressively and fully? Yeah, that's the strange energy and I did explain it.

I thought there was some sort of reciprocity between an energy between us. My apologies for not associating my defense of Stynier with a "strange energy" between us.

Thor665 wrote:Stynier's reason was bad while attempting to look serious - and that's why the logic was bad. I'm pretty sure you went into the 'vote for name' vote with the intention of it looking silly. STynier actually presented logic, which means that logic needed to be looked at, and I found it lacking as already explained.

How was Stynier's logic bad; he said you and someone else had voted for the same person. Is it rock solid? No, but it wasn't like there was anything else to bse votes on at that point in time. You yourself have said that someone has to eventually take something seriously in order for the RVS to end (I still don't read Stynier's vote as being much more than an RVS vote, I think he agreed with you in an attempt to save himself).
---

the_ferrett wrote:Mr Rusty, with your bone of obsidian (because we all know that's the hardest material to break) what must I do to have you burry your bone? Be eliminated? Is that the only way?

Not doing absurdly scummy things would be a good start. Having someone else do een scummier things would also draw my attention, but I think I have enough to spread around.

Thor665 wrote:

RiTides wrote:Also, note that I have replaced Lord-loss, and he was the first person to vote (and he voted for Fifty). Given the fact that this was quickly followed by Thor's vote for Fifty, I am tempted to conclude that either:

1) Someone wants us to think Thor is bad
2) Thor is bad

Also, note that RiTides replaced Lord-loss, and he was the first person to vote (and he voted for Fifty). I followed quickly with a vote on Fifty, I am tempted to conclude that either:

1) Someone wants us to think RiTides is bad
2) RiTides is bad

I don't find you logic very bankable. Why is my second vote more suspicious than your first vote? Also, considering I stopped voting Fifty very early on and didn't press on him for more then about a page or so - why is it suspicious at all?

I agree with Thor. How does Thor voting second lead to you to think someone is trying to set him up? Thor voting second isn't all that suspect. He does have a habit of piling onto people.

With that said, Thor's reply is dumb. RiTides voted first; neither of your two conclusions (RiTides is being setup/is bad) make sense.

the_ferrett wrote:2 votes to go and we're silent?
8 days to go and we sit on our laurels?
Feth that.
Vote: Rusty
Discuss that.

This group has been crazy quiet since the beginning. Why are you voting for me?

Thor665 wrote:I'd at least like Rusty to come back and justify all the 'lying' accusations he's throwing around.

I mean to.

......

Honestly I'm at a loss, I can't really follow this "he said, she said" whatever it is, and I haven't seens any REAL evidence against anyone besides paranoia.

For now, I'm just not going to vote, sure I could hop on someone's bandwagon but what the kinda good would that do?

RustyKnight wrote:Sorry about the massive delay.

Thor665 wrote: First off, did he make any accusations that were also false?
Second off, did he apologize about the incorrect observation and move on?

You can check this just as easily as I.

I have checked it and I have my own opinion (that what he did isn't scummy) I was rather hoping you would be willing to support your thesis that it is.

RustyKnight wrote:Why were you so set on Stynier having an ulterior motive but not the_ferrett?

Why were you so set the other way? I honestly am not sure I have a good way to read ferret's scum game - but I do know that thus far he is playing identical to his town game and yet you're calling him on it which leaves me wondering about you far more than him.

RustyKnight wrote:Ferrett claimed that I argued that suspicion of me was false. I never argued anything of the sort. Like his earlier claim about nothing being serious, this was a false statement easily proven by going over the thread.

I think you and I disagree on what 'false' means.

RustyKnight wrote:Thor voting second isn't all that suspect. He does have a habit of piling onto people.

With that said, Thor's reply is dumb. RiTides voted first; neither of your two conclusions (RiTides is being setup/is bad) make sense.

It makes exactly as much sense as me voting second serves his case - I was ointing out how the case itself was flawed, not that I actually believed what I was saying when i quoted his case exactly and just replaced his name in where he had mine. Do you see what I did there?

Rusty, apart from my earlier vote on you, I was voting to start up the motor of this put-put boat. As I said, 2 days of silence makes me edgy that we'll end up in a no-vote situation.

WARORK93 wrote:......

Honestly I'm at a loss, I can't really follow this "he said, she said" whatever it is, and I haven't seens any REAL evidence against anyone besides paranoia.

For now, I'm just not going to vote, sure I could hop on someone's bandwagon but what the kinda good would that do?

I agree with all of this, except for the "not going to vote" part. I am torn between voting on Rusty or on Thor...

Of course, the killers could just be watching us have a field day tearing each other apart, as BishopGore so aptly described the murder scene.

For now I am satisfied with my vote as honestly the more offended/indignant the response, the more likely I think a person is guilty. Not that BrotherStynier did not respond this way at all, and was innocent (and even was apparently playing one of the roles). Some of this can be put down to style, but when I've played this game in-person, the most indignant ones were sometimes the killers- and that's all I've got to go on for now, really.

Both Thor and Rusty are rocking a 9 or 10 on the "offended/indignant" meter... but then again, it is 1 a.m. right now while I am reading this thread.

In my larger paragraph above, second sentence, the first word should be "Note". Makes it a lot clearer

Also WarOrk, I would like to make the case that you should vote for one or the other. Some progress needs to happen, as it has been said it has been surprisingly quiet. Unless we can get some momentum going we may end up going into the second night almost as blind as the first.

Personally, Rusty and Thor are 1-2 on my priority list right now. Heck, it'd be genius to argue incessantly and give the rest of us "wall o' text" syndrome, so much so that we write them both off as "they can't be guilty, they're the only ones putting effort into finding the killers".

I am reasonably sure that you are not guilty, given your response to my earlier accusation. I'm also going to rule out myself for now (although that's up to the rest of you to decide, really). Finally, I will rule out Mordoskul, on the basis of simple human nature- if he was a killer, he'd be more interested in the thread. Leaving:

Rusty
Thor
the_ferret
Dr_O
not_u

If my reasoning is correct, there are TWO killers out of these 5. not_u has posted little enough to make me a bit uneasy (as keeping quiet is one of the best ways to avoid suspicion in some ways). Dr_O has acted odd but seemingly innocently (could be an act). The top 3 are to me suspicious, and even if that's their "game persona" as they are more veterans of these, I do not see them as being innocent based on what they have posted.

So those are where my current suspicions lie, and I would like us to make some progress in ferreting out the killers from that group, or hear reasoning why I should suspect someone else instead.

That's actually good - I'll be curious to see who votes next to push either wagon, as that should be excellent info to have.

But, seriously, "sometimes" indignant people are scum so you'd vote either of us? Not sure that's a case written in win from the heavens.

What do you think about Rusty beating up on ferret while voting me?

WARORK93 wrote:For now, I'm just not going to vote, sure I could hop on someone's bandwagon but what the kinda good would that do?

Right now? A lot. At the moment we aren't lynching anyone, and I do assure you the scum are not going to kill themselves for us.

I too find n0t_u suspicious, I even tried to get him talking in the last day phase by voting for him. He barely responded when he did.

Vote: n0t_u

Maybe if more of us vote for him, he'd be more chatty...

^^^
Why was no one willing to back my play voting for Drk_O? Seriously?

I don't like voting for myself, and not many seem to actually read what you say? "You're saying heaps, I find that suspicious -votes-"

I'm less talkative because my main play for today was based on a trap from yesterday. Which kind of failed leaving me with nothing and a little rusty to this game. I'm trying to get back into the swing of things.

Being quiet is mostly my main play style. I observe and chime in if I have something to add but most of the time my suspicions and points I'd raise are covered so would add on little to the actual discussion (well generally when Thor is in the game as well, seems to miss very little unless it suits him to remain unknown). Though there was that time I was given the investigative role.

After this I may just retire to hosting these games instead.

@Drl_O - ...? Yeah, I want you dead. If one person votes for you I will come help that wagon like nobody's business.

@n0t_u - what was the trap that failed? Who are your current suspects, if any? What is your Read on the Rusty/Thor competition? What is your read on ferret and/or Drk_O?