Kage writeup is now up.
Atheotes writeup is up.
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
Kage writeup is now up.
Atheotes writeup is up.
Last edited by Visor; 03-24-2012 at 11:19.
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
Okay, I'm only behind on two writeups now.
Nightbringer has been killed. Begin Day Six.
Alive 7/17:
1. SalmonSoil
2. LazyMcCrow
4. Arjos
8. Jarrema
9. DaveShack
12. Askthepizzaguy
16. BSmith
Dead 9/17:
5. Monty: Lynched Day 1
15. Lewwyn: Killed Night 1
14. Splitpersonality: Lynched Day 2
10. Tuuvi: Killed Night 2
3. Riedquat: Lynched Day 3
13. White_Eyes:D: Killed Night 3
11. Kagemusha: Lynched Day 4
6. Atheotes: Killed Night 4
17. Seon: Lynched Day 5
7. Nightbringer: Killed Night 5
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
We have two shots left, if we didn't hit any of them so far.
5:2 -1 (lynch) = 4:2 -1 (murder) 3:2, (lynch or lose)
Vote: Arjos
9 posts, one vote per round, votes every round. Indicates he's very interested in the game, not so much interested in discussing who needs to die.
Just shows up to kill someone, then leaves. I don't get a whole lot of townie vibe from that. But there's more:
Votes Split due to name, not a real reason, which presents nothing to argue against.Originally Posted by Arjos
Votes Atheotes for being quiet. Hard to argue with that, but atheotes is always like that.
Easy target.
Easy target. Nothing to argue against here.
Everyone Arjos voted for is dead. Not many comments made against anyone else left alive. Essentially, Arjos has the dreaded Mafia ESP.
Main criticism I have is that everything that Arjos presents as a reason, or non-reason, for his vote are simple statements which refer to facts, but do not argue why someone is scum. It goes right from the fact to the conclusion.
Split's name references mental illness- conclusion, he's scum.
Atheotes is quiet- conclusion, he's scum.
WE avoids WOG- conclusion, he's scum.
Kagemusha agrees about WE voting, WE murdered - conclusion, he's scum.
Seon's vote moved- conclusion, he's scum.
None of these things are arguable points, except the conclusion. Since there was no reasoning presented, there's nothing to debate.
That, plus the fact that Arjos hasn't commented on pretty much anyone besides the folks he's voted for, votes every round but doesn't move his vote and doesn't contribute to the discussion, tells me that Arjos has a motive of killing folks one by one, doesn't want to argue or debate about the voted candidate, doesn't want to leave himself open for criticism due to his own votes, and possibly indicates a nervous/guilty psychological state which spans the entire game.
Arjos is not behaving like everyone else, and it doesn't feel natural to me either. In my opinion, his reasoning and behavior both serve as concrete evidence of a guilty psychology. As such, he must be eliminated before we can continue.
#Winstontoostrong
#Montytoostronger
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
I would vote for him if I could ATPG.
In any case, I think it unlikely ATPG is scum at this point. Killing me was likely done to try to incriminate him since I was trying to target him. Unless it is a double bluff, but that can just go on forever.
Of course, the scum also dislikes activity, so maybe I was killed off just for starting to speak, whether it was because I had anything good to say, or just because I got other people to react, meaning more activity in general. This would support the scum being apparently inactive people.
Last edited by Nightbringer; 03-24-2012 at 13:50.
Moderator of The Throne Room
“Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead.” ― Kurt Vonnegut
"Education: that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge." ― Mark Twain
"Imagination is a quality given a man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is." ― Oscar Wilde
“While money can't buy happiness, it certainly lets you choose your own form of misery.” ― Groucho Marx
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
ok
I do not have enough psychic energy left to think now.
As a placeholder vote, that will stay if I have no better idea, vote: Arjos
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
Who has any case on day one?
As I said, I can't tell what they are up to, just writes vote: x and disappears...Atheotes is quiet- conclusion, he's scum.
Very oversimplified: he voted hours past the end, with the most flimsy reasonining I've ever read...WE avoids WOG- conclusion, he's scum.
People agreeing on silly stuff, do that for an easy way out: for example Diana agreed about lynching you as host in Darkling...Kagemusha agrees about WE voting, WE murdered - conclusion, he's scum.
Again, he unvoted many times basically with the only reason: "oh goodie, a wagon!"...Seon's vote moved- conclusion, he's scum.
I commented on your off-character behaviour and since then you've been more active for a start...That, plus the fact that Arjos hasn't commented on pretty much anyone besides the folks he's voted for
But if you want to know more:
- Crow and BSmith are a merry stubborn duo, whole game all they wanted was Nightbringer dead; what that makes them I don't know, usually townies are narrow sighted and adamant...
- Salmon, I've played with him only once, can hardly point out a pattern...
- Jarema and DS are pretty much giving concise reasons about their votes and then split, just like me, what does that makes us? Active players posting their views behind their votes, people open to arguments or mafia? Don't know, that's the game...
- ATPG, wasn't ATPG, now he survived 'til mid-game and wants me dead...
Could really the openly united duo being a mafia duo? Is bloodlust Salmon one of the vets? Are any of those blending in (Arjos, Jarema and DS) mafia? Is ATPG working on the fact that there haven't been many arguments in the game so far, exploiting it for the "last phases somewhat valid" argument to lynch opponents?
Hell I know! Who am I, the source of all knowledge? XD
I take great pleasure from that :)Arjos is not behaving like everyone else, and it doesn't feel natural to me either.
Last edited by Arjos; 03-24-2012 at 17:08.
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
In the end, can't really say whether you lurked or not...
Monty lately has a thing about getting lynched on day 1 as mafia and he wants you dead, but gah...
Vote: DaveShack
Of all people, he voted only twice in intervals to avoid the 3 in a row rule and with the following reasons: there's still chaos and this is better than the other case...
Among all, he's the one striking me as the "nothing here, vote elsewhere"...
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
Blatant spam: Hall of fame.... 2011.... be there or be nowhere.
Visor, perhaps a round extension would be in order, if we don't get more voters. This is nuts.
#Winstontoostrong
#Montytoostronger
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
Daveshack is incredibly quiet, with only 3 posts, one of which is his sign up, however this seems way to dangerous for a scum, and seeing as we really need to lynch scum right now I can't vote for him.
I agree that Arjos seems a bit suspicious, but actually ATPG's argument on this page grabs my attention more. Using Arjos's day one vote, which was nothing out of the ordinary, as part of an effort to incriminate him. Seems like he is trying really hard to make his argument appear stronger just by piling up 'evidence'.
As Nightbringer said, his own death could be intended to either incriminate of prove innocent ATPG.
vote: ATPG
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
FoS: SalmonSoil for using WIFOM as an actual argument for a lynch.
#Winstontoostrong
#Montytoostronger
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
It's always hilarious when people use this sort of non-reasoning.
A better argument would be, "Pizza is the Sheriff, and th Sheriff is an SK, so I should vote him."
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
Wait, non-reasoning, what? I was referring to what Nightbringer said. Nightbringer said he was probably killed to incriminate Pizza, or it could be a bluff to draw attention away from Pizza. That was what I was trying to say, Nightbringers murder is neither conclusive evidence for or against Pizza being scum, and is thus not reason enough to disregard him as a suspect.
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
In other words, it doesn't mean anything?
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
It's a counter argument in advance, I wanted to explain why I disregarded that event.
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
The way the post was structured made it seem as if that was the rationale behind the vote.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
Vote: Arjos
Self-preservation, and the pizza dude's analysis makes sense.
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
Forgot to bold. Vote: Arjos
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
For shame.
Round extended by 24 hours.
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
Apologies afk for the entire weekend, many thanks for the extension.For shame.
Round extended by 24 hours.
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
But why is the lynch bait killed every time?
vote: ATPG
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
Beg your pardon. Can you elaborate on who is or has been lynch bait?
#Winstontoostrong
#Montytoostronger
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
I know you didn't just do a flyby and leave. Finish your thought, if you would please.
#Winstontoostrong
#Montytoostronger
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
Do you know what? I could, but it actually doesn't matter. You are mafia and so is Arjos. He is taking one for the team in order to get you through the final day.
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
Couldn't resist.
#Winstontoostrong
#Montytoostronger
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
:) Good answer.
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
Incidentally, I have more of a history of supporting teammates lately. I refer you to Giraffeboards where I, as mafia, argued against the lynch of my entirely deadweight and completely useless *inactive* mafia partner, on a team of four, because I argued, he was most likely going to be an inactive townie. I also didn't bus my two active partners either. I could have gained creds from lynching him and him flipping scum, but I decided having the extra partner to count toward outnumbering the town was more advantageous.
Bussing is a bit predictable, but even worse, it gains me nothing especially in this situation; I would gain no townie cred from lynching Arjos-as-scum, as scum, because it's a no reveal game. I could have chosen not to support it, especially in such a low-voting situation. I could have gone after DaveShack or yourself or whatever.
In theory, if I am mafia, Arjos isn't my partner. Who would be the next person on the list you'd suspect of that?
#Winstontoostrong
#Montytoostronger
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
Also, I see you lurking, Monty. Nothing to add to this discussion, you crazy corpse?
#Winstontoostrong
#Montytoostronger
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
I'm online now, but I almost always leave my PC running.
Just to throw people off?
Anyway, the game is already lost. Pizza, Crow, and Daveshack are the scum.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
WOOOOT!!! I WIN AGAIN, BABY!!!
wait, three?
#Winstontoostrong
#Montytoostronger
Re: A History of Violence [In Play]
Sheri-i-i-i-i-i-i-f!
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks