The Half Monty [Concluded]

[Nightbringer]

um, yah, what DIY said :D

But honestly, that made a lot of sense, and given the lack of much else to go on at this point, there really isn't much reason not to vote:zack
At the very least he will stop tying up all our attention.

On a side note, JHT, I think we would be better served by your contributing to the discussion than just voting Renata because of something about a lady and a lap.

[Renata]

Well all righty, enough of that.

I'm Mayor Quimby, and the tie-breaking vote was mine. It was not a one-off; it will show up whenever I am part of a bandwagon that is tied with any other for the lead at the end of the day. (It will not *cause* a tie.) Hence why Khazaar got lynched; I was voting for him.

I was wondering who would be the first to portray this as an anti-town power and why; and who would conclude that it was NOT an anti-town power, and why. I won't reliably be around until this evening, so this is as far as I can let it run.

[Death is yonder]

I was wondering who would be the first to portray this as an anti-town power and why; and who would conclude that it was NOT an anti-town power, and why. I won't reliably be around until this evening, so this is as far as I can let it run.

There was no precedent for this thus far, nobody could have known. I do not see why you phrase your above statement as such, as if trying to lower the credibility of my post, as if my post was a wild thought that escaped free and should be locked up and forgotten.

Anyway what's stopping you from being an anti-town role? Claiming Mayor Quimby hardly provides any insight into your alignment. If you've soft claimed your role and your abilities, show your full role. Right now the only people reaping the full benefits are the mafia, because they know your alignment and now they know your ability (if you're telling the truth in the first place). I also note that conveniently you have 12 more hours to prepare any defense of your role/faking a role pm. Since you're online now, do claim quickly, or you're not telling the truth and should be taken to be Zack's partner.

There is nothing to indicate your alignment as either town or anti-town. There is only inthread evidence that "Mayor Quimby" played around with the tally.

The write up was ambiguous, it could easily just have been an ability-wise vote manipulation as it could have been what you claim to be your ability.

In any case, I don't see why the case on Zack should be so off-hand discarded, and I'm extremely suspicious of the fact that you chose not to respond to several of my points indicating Zack's wishy washy lynch reasonings which were obviously not made to find a guilty party, but rather to incite the town against a particular individual (fluffy). Moreover, he, as evidenced by in thread posts, constantly edited his case on fluffy, if it could even be called a case, to fit townie public opinion, where I clearly mentioned in my post that he suited his reasoning merely to meet town expectations. **[Removed two words for ease in my meaning being conveyed]

Regardless of whether you are telling the truth or not Renata, why are you ignoring the substance in my post that remain strikes against Zack irregardless of your post? (Even assuming you are telling the whole truth).

Its day 3 and still early in the game, its a fairly decent lynch based on his in thread behavior regardless, and if its a wrong lynch the town is still strong. Lynch Zack, he has been twitchy and jumpy in thread, and his votes are clearly not attempts at trying to actually find suspects. I really don't see why this shouldn't be the case unless a better suspect can be brought up.

***Anyway, where's the role claim hmm? I remember in older mafia games they had a general saying that "Role-claim within 5 minutes or its fake" or something along those lines. I apologize if the grumpy tone of my post rubs you wrongly, but I did spend over an hour and a half making it not for it to just be discarded so in such a non-substantiated manner

*Edited for clarity [2minutes after actual post]
** Edited for greater clarity, and I note that Renata is STILL online. [10 minutes after post]
***Edited again [13 ish minutes after actual post]
**** And you went offline just like that, right. [16~ minutes after actual post]

[Renata]

There was no precedent for this thus far, nobody could have known. I do not see why you phrase your above statement as such, as if trying to lower the credibility of my post, as if my post was a wild thought that escaped free and should be locked up and forgotten.

Dude, I'm not trying to lower the credibility of your post at all (in that sense); you're just wrong. I'm sorry you went to so much effort for nothing.

Anyway what's stopping you from being an anti-town role? Claiming Mayor Quimby hardly provides any insight into your alignment. If you've soft claimed your role and your abilities, show your full role.

I have not soft-claimed anything; that's the whole role. As such I didn't see much point to posting a role PM, but if you insist:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Mayor Joe Quimby

Role: "Diamond" Joe Quimby
Alignment: Innocent
Special Ability: Your vote acts as a tiebreaker. Whoever you vote for, secretly counts as double unless it would force a tie.

Victory Condition: All the murderers are wiped out. (Townie team victory)

Right now the only people reaping the full benefits are the mafia, because they know your alignment and now they know your ability (if you're telling the truth in the first place). I also note that conveniently you have 12 more hours to prepare any defense of your role/faking a role pm. Since you're online now, do claim quickly, or you're not telling the truth and should be taken to be Zack's partner.

This is just not true. Did you even go back and check my interactions with Zack yesterday? Does that really look like two mafia to you?

There is nothing to indicate your alignment as either town or anti-town. There is only inthread evidence that "Mayor Quimby" played around with the tally.

The write up was ambiguous, it could easily just have been an ability-wise vote manipulation as it could have been what you claim to be your ability.

I'm not going to try to engineer a tie with me in it just to allay your doubts, but I won't avoid it, either.

In any case, I don't see why the case on Zack should be so off-hand discarded, and I'm extremely suspicious of the fact that you chose not to respond to several of my points indicating Zack's wishy washy lynch reasonings which were obviously not made to find a guilty party, but rather to incite the town against a particular individual (fluffy). Moreover, he, as evidenced by in thread posts, constantly edited his case on fluffy, if it could even be called a case, to fit townie public opinion, where I clearly mentioned in my post that he suited his reasoning merely to meet town expectations. **[Removed two words for ease in my meaning being conveyed]

I didn't "choose not to respond", per se; I simply didn't have the time to. My claim should make no difference to Zack's overall scumminess or lack thereof, but I did intend it to shed light on what should and should not be considered evidence for that. That said, I think it quite possible that your conclusions about the "saving vote" are giving you some confirmation bias as regards Zack himself. I myself do not find him particularly scummy right now. I agree with his vote today on fluffy, and I'm most interested myself in the two players who used your (false) reasoning as evidence to join the Zack bandwagon. That would be slashandburn and Nightbringer. I think both should be greatly pressured.

vote: slashandburn

Regardless of whether you are telling the truth or not Renata, why are you ignoring the substance in my post that remain strikes against Zack irregardless of your post? (Even assuming you are telling the whole truth).

Because a) I didn't really read it (still haven't. will try to before the end of the day). I've been waiting for my "cue", so to speak, ever since Dawn, and a skim of your long post and the two votes following provided it. And b) My reveal had nothing to do with defending Zack, per se, only with (hopefully) trapping some opportunistic scum being opportunistic. So it wasn't particularly on my mind to care what you think about Zack himself.

Its day 3 and still early in the game, its a fairly decent lynch based on his in thread behavior regardless, and if its a wrong lynch the town is still strong. Lynch Zack, he has been twitchy and jumpy in thread, and his votes are clearly not attempts at trying to actually find suspects. I really don't see why this shouldn't be the case unless a better suspect can be brought up.

You don't think his vote on fluffy was any good?

***Anyway, where's the role claim hmm? I remember in older mafia games they had a general saying that "Role-claim within 5 minutes or its fake" or something along those lines. I apologize if the grumpy tone of my post rubs you wrongly, but I did spend over an hour and a half making it not for it to just be discarded so in such a non-substantiated manner

*Edited for clarity [2minutes after actual post]
** Edited for greater clarity, and I note that Renata is STILL online. [10 minutes after post]
***Edited again [13 ish minutes after actual post]
**** And you went offline just like that, right. [16~ minutes after actual post]

Yeah, you might want to check what the lag is on inactivity. I don't think I actually did anything on the site after posting; if there's a 15 minute lag, that would fit right in.

[johnhughthom]

On a side note, JHT, I think we would be better served by your contributing to the discussion than just voting Renata because of something about a lady and a lap.

Dr Hibbert said mommy fastened my diapers too tight when I was a baby and cut off the bleeding flying around my body. That's why I'm special. Moo.

[classical_hero]

I'm losing my perspicacity, so I only have a quick vote:Fluffy.

[Zack]

Yes DIY, because every mafia acts abrasively. I also would like to apologize for giving reasons for my votes; I will do my best to neglect to do so in the future.

[God Emperor]

bah just lost what I wrote.. =/ I will start over.

But thanks for your contribution DiY:)
Overall I will agree with you, but I will go through some of your points, for the sake of having more to work with :)

It is extremely unlikely that it was a pro-town role that used it

So yes, I'm accusing Zack

these are the two major points in your post (the last one is just being kept short so that it's more digestible)

I agree that the nature of the ability is somewhat anti townish.. Normally it wouldn't but in this game, where ties means no lynch, a tie breaking ability is working against the town's wishes as it will shorten the time we have to work with.

Zack is very aggresive, seems to care about the game, and is not working very hard to catch scum.. these are some of the points, and the first two bits I agree with, but for the sake of being fair I think we should go over his posts, to see how actively he is searching for scum.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Not voting Winston, eh? Who cares if he's not in the game?

Vote: JHT

a day 1 vote.. JHT votes for Renata and Zack votes for him.

I can't imagine why NOTW doesn't allow night talking.

adding this to second that he indeed cares about the game.. Spam is so far not good in any way.

Also, vote: Zack

Vote: fluffyone was the most egregious spammer last night.

a day two vote. Zack votes for fluffy with no reason and accepts Renata's no reason vote, as he does not make a comment on it.

let's try with a second vote on you
Vote: Zack

Let's try giving reasons for our votes.

With a second vote on himself it's not fun anylonger and he now quotes Renata and myself. ; changing behavior towards votes.

Silly Day Two vote based on something trivial.


Immediate squirmy reaction.


Trying to fit in and play it cool; finds an excuse to OMGUS.

My vote stays.

Zack mark down his own vote as silly.. Does not go well in hand with his reaction towards votes on him with no real reason imo.
The next two bits is an attack on Fluffy.. These are at least to try and scum hunt, however..
'Immediate squirmy reaction' I personally do not agree with the conclusion on Fluffy's behavior, as to me it seems like fluffy is joking around and having a good time.
This post's goal is to replace the old reason for voting fluffy with a better one. But the 'Silly Day Two vote based on something trivial' contradicts his reaction towards silly behavior.. that is worth a notice, although it has been observed before that some people a not treating themselves the way they are treating others.

I meant something more than just Vote: Whomever.


I hadn't check this site until I voted.

As mentioned by DiY, Romanic spots this contradiction.. Zack does not back off but keeps claiming that his vote on fluffy is better than a Vote: random. Imo suggests scared/rigid behavior.

"extremely jumpy"

Deflects accusations with aloof and mocking behavior.

Whichever one is rolling their eyes more.

again, defending himself with the rolling eyes and mocking behavior .. That has been observed in scums

Sorry if my comment's does not say a lot, the main purpose was just to have his posts listed.
I would say DiY is correct on Zack's behavior.. Zack is not trying to catch scum and that does not go well in hand with serious behavior.

But honestly, that made a lot of sense, and given the lack of much else to go on at this point, there really isn't much reason not to vote:zack
At the very least he will stop tying up all our attention.

As Zack's behavior alone should be enough to have him lynched, I think this is a good point.

It is extremely unlikely that it was a pro-town role that used it

Now Renata claimed Quimby rather early.. That in itself is an interesting move and should be looked at.
DiY suggests that there is a connection between Quimby and Zack, but Renata decides to make a counter to that claim

Well all righty, enough of that.

I'm Mayor Quimby, and the tie-breaking vote was mine. It was not a one-off; it will show up whenever I am part of a bandwagon that is tied with any other for the lead at the end of the day. (It will not *cause* a tie.) Hence why Khazaar got lynched; I was voting for him.

I was wondering who would be the first to portray this as an anti-town power and why; and who would conclude that it was NOT an anti-town power, and why. I won't reliably be around until this evening, so this is as far as I can let it run.

According to her post, Zack was not saved ad the accusation on Zack is more or less BS "Well all righty, enough of that."
I believe DiY points out that her focus is off.. anyway I will second his opinion (as I have done a couple of times now) .
She has nothing to say in regard of Zack's allignment.
As stated before this ability has a scummy feel to it, and that alone should mark down Renata as suspicious.
imo there are two things to look at when it comes to her

1) Why did she so quickly come to Zack's aid and reveal her ability?

2) How has her voting patterns and similar been so far. She is in charge of a powerful (and harmful) ability, and she should thus tread with caution. There is a certain quote I wanted to reach :p

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Marge is my hero.

I just want to second what Romanic said a few days ago; Renata did this as a scum in another game.

Also, vote: Zack

Voting Zack.. so far so good.

No I didn't.

unvote, vote Khazaar

I kinda like where Romanic is going with his vote.

looking at Romanic's post

vote: Khazaar

His last vote may be an attempt to swim under the radar. While everyone is talking about Zack/Fluffy, he's casually throwing a vote on slashandburn.

You like where he is going with this? It's a fair vote in itself in fact, but I expected.. a bit more concidering what your vote leads to

Tally

3 Zack (GE, Fluffy, DIY)
3 Fluffy (Zack, robbie, classical)
3 Khazaar (Romanic, Blackadder, Renata)
2 Renata (JHT, Yaropolk)
1 slashandburn (Khazaar)
1 God Emperor (Nightbringer)
--
3 not voting )Csargo, pever, slashandburn)

She just doomed Khazar instead of Zack.. That's hard to overlook concidering the suspicion that has been gathered Zack.. If Zack turns out to be scum, then Renata should go. Zack was saved and he was saved by Renata.

Unvote; Vote: Zack

[Renata]

*That particular* accusation against Zack was BS, because I am the reason why he was saved, and I am town. Kindly don't put words in my mouth.

[Renata]

Oh, and don't tell me how I should play with my role, either. Or if you must insist on me being "more careful", then tell me how I'm supposed to anticipate being part of a tie at the time I made my last post, given where I live and when the deadline is, and given how useless a tie vote is anyway.

[johnhughthom]

I'm losing my perspicacity

Holds up a banana.

Here it is.

[slashandburn]

I have no reason to not believe DIY's statement, following your role reveal it becomes obvious that Zack is not as convincing a candidate as we once believed. so,I will
Unvote:Zack

[Death is yonder]

I have no reason to not believe DIY's statement, following your role reveal it becomes obvious that Zack is not as convincing a candidate as we once believed. so,I will
Unvote:Zack

Admittedly it was stated that I based it on quite a few assumptions:

1. That it was likely a one-shot ability (small game makes it untypical for pizza to allow multiple usages of a vote manipulation ability)

2. That it was even a usable ability (most certainly did not account for the possibility of a passive ability) [I'm still taking the claim with a pinch of salt though]

3. That Zack lives in Northern America (EST time zone), a detail which to me seemingly confirmed the fear element, especially seeing as how the typical population isn't extreme enough to purposely stay up till 3am/4am just to make sure that nobody broke the tie

However, in any case Renata, I will once again put forward that the reasoning of the case does seem to be very plausible from the unenlightened point of view, in conjunction with the fact that there was a noticeable lack of clear suspects, your suspicion of S&B and the others could as easily be invalid as it is valid.

Edit: However, if the opportunity does arise, you should at the very least demonstrate your ability, though it need not necessarily involve you being one of the lynch targets.

[Renata]

Fair enough, but I'd still like an opinion from a CFC'er on whether Zack usually behaves in such a sardonic and sarcastic manner when pressured/faced with lynches.

I don't know. I can't remember him being pressured before.

[Renata]

I have no reason to not believe DIY's statement, following your role reveal it becomes obvious that Zack is not as convincing a candidate as we once believed. so,I will
Unvote:Zack

Does this comment even make any sense?

[Death is yonder]

I believe that he's commenting on how previously he mentioned that:

Your reasoning was clear, I wouldn't have switched the votes if I had that power.

Which he agreed with in my case.

Yet now you said that clearly it was not the situation with your role reveal, so he switched. Seems clear to me.

You probably should do a deeper read once you have the time

However, JHT doesn't seem to be making sense. Do enlighten us all JHT.

I don't know. I can't remember him being pressured before.

Mmm..

[Death is yonder]

Dude, I'm not trying to lower the credibility of your post at all (in that sense); you're just wrong. I'm sorry you went to so much effort for nothing.

From my unenlightened point of view, it does seem very, if not extremely plausible. Oh bother, at least I tried, the material is out there for perusal, I've asked questions, restarted discussion in a different angle, and done my civic duty as a dead townie

This is just not true. Did you even go back and check my interactions with Zack yesterday? Does that really look like two mafia to you?

A quick skim. Then again, you are rather capable of hiding your intentions in my opinion, and I am rushed for time.

I'm not going to try to engineer a tie with me in it just to allay your doubts, but I won't avoid it, either.

That's perfectly understandable, but my central point was that at the point of time, you presented an unsubstantial rebuttal of something that I did consider very likely from an independent point of view, especially considering that I hadn't factored in a creative curve ball by the host.

I didn't "choose not to respond", per se; I simply didn't have the time to. My claim should make no difference to Zack's overall scumminess or lack thereof, but I did intend it to shed light on what should and should not be considered evidence for that. That said, I think it quite possible that your conclusions about the "saving vote" are giving you some confirmation bias as regards Zack himself. I myself do not find him particularly scummy right now. I agree with his vote today on fluffy, and I'm most interested myself in the two players who used your (false) reasoning as evidence to join the Zack bandwagon. That would be slashandburn and Nightbringer. I think both should be greatly pressured.

Fair enough, but I'd still like an opinion from a CFC'er on whether Zack usually behaves in such a sardonic and sarcastic manner when pressured/faced with lynches.

Yeah, you might want to check what the lag is on inactivity. I don't think I actually did anything on the site after posting; if there's a 15 minute lag, that would fit right in.

Hmm alright.

You don't think his vote on fluffy was any good?

I'm saying that gradually his reasoning on fluffy evolved due to public criticisms of his reasoning. Its hardly his own reasoning anymore, but rather what he thinks the public will accept the best. You don't doggedly pursue a single suspect for many consecutive voting rounds simply based on wishy washy reasoning. If Zack had investigative results or something he would have mentioned it by now or at least alluded to it.

And Romanic still needs to answer my question about why he ignored the fact that Khazaar was being Khazaar but defended Fluffy being Fluffy, especially considering that he's played on this site for quite a while already.

[thefluffyone93]

I'm losing my perspicacity, so I only have a quick vote:Fluffy.

Losing your WHAT?
Oh hey, you voted for me.