Suzumiya Haruhi No Yuutsu Mafia: DAY FIVE!

[FinnKaenbyou]

Kay, here's my thoughts on everyone as they came off from yesterday:

Jam: I don't actually remember Jam saying anything of use yesterday. The problem is that Jam didn't say much that helped last game, and she was Town then. >_>

Kefit: Has claimed RL issues, so D1 didn't happen. Hopefully he'll have some useful suggestions today.

Pesco: I'm really uncomfortable about Pesco, to be honest. More than anything it's here where he goes for Kilga on the basis of 'He didn't question me voting him for King, therefore he's scum'. Besides that it's going along with Sakana on a pretty bad case anyway, there was the whole nonsense about waiting for Zak and thus not bothering to contribute.

MSB: Besides the early day 1 incident with Nietz, I don't honestly think Sodium had anything to say that held any weight either. Mostly meta, but I'm hoping to hear more.

Edible: Oh good god I have no idea to go here. The claim is genuine, it seems, but that says nothing about alignment anyway. If he doesn't move on beyond 'jokes in votecount = RVS' and 'trying to set up a voting system is pointless', I might just go through with the Edible lynch.

Bard: Got caught up in the whole affair with Edible, mainly. Don't think he did much wrong, if perhaps he did tunnel slightly.

HW: Again, like Jam, I don't remember much useful from HW. He's been around to post votecounts, and asked a few questions, so I don't have much to say against him. Content is slightly better than Jam and MSB.

Sakana: Sakana is...huh. In terms of new-guy mistakes, he seems to have done pretty much everything and then some. Holding back his vote D1 and 'waiting for more info', insistence that asking for information is obnoxious, being okay with his own lynch, taking his vote back and then doing nothing with it again, and randomly deciding that Kilga is pressing Edible the hardest and voting him. I am starting to wonder how much of this is just too ridiculous to pass off as first time Townie, especially since Pesco chimed in with him on the Kilga case for an equally bad reason.

Zak: Following the same path Edible did and saying 'votes don't matter, I can make my evict vote as clear/unclear as I want and it's okay for me to leave my vote somewhere where it does nothing' does not make me like him. The lack of activity up until the Nietz case, which IIRC was based on a point that had happened at least a good day or two earlier, is also not gaining me confidence.

But, since new discussion is what we need rather than getting stuck on yesterday's cases, ##Evict: Pesco. Reasoning for the case on Kilga was crap, even for you.

[Edible]

Pesco started the awful case on me as well, for what it's worth.

Incidentally, and this is completely not game related, but I can vouch for Kefit's absence D1.

[Pesco]

I don't recall my case on Kilga being a copypasta of Sakana's. I had my approach and he had his own. I think my steps were laid out pretty clearly. Read better. Btw, since when were you so good at measuring my standards? :smug:

Is that some cheerleading by Teh_Foodstuff without doing any hunting?

I'm busy tonight. Reread and Evict tomorrow night.

[GMOFucker: Makin' GMOs To Fuck 'Em]

Sorry for the sudden inactivity during the latter half of D1, I'm currently grounded (and I probably shouldn't even be posting this right now hurrr) and didn't actually get the chance to post until it was night phase. I'll try to whip up a post soon.

Spoiler:

Will you require replacement or are you free enough to tough it out?

[Dead Princess Sakana]

I am starting to wonder how much of this is just too ridiculous to pass off as first time Townie, especially since Pesco chimed in with him on the Kilga case for an equally bad reason.

Well, the only defense I could give for my actions is that I'm only used to playing Mafia offline, and obviously playing the same way online doesn't work. I'm not going to hide behind that kind of excuse though, I'll just continue playing, try my best, however little it may be, and see where it leads me.

Anyway, I'll only be able to look over things a bit more thoroughly in the morning, and hopefully get some ideas, so I can't say anything about possible suspicions right now.

[GMOFucker: Makin' GMOs To Fuck 'Em]

Spoiler:

Will you require replacement or are you free enough to tough it out?

I can still probably find a way to get online for a bit, so I don't think I need a replacement.

Spoiler:

Alright, I trust ya

[Sodium]

Doing HMWK right now. Will post later tonight.

[Bardiche]

All these people chiming in with excuses what is this!!

Unexpectably hilarious flips. Both Mikurus? One after the other? :psyduck:

Not much to say on the day's restriction yet, curious when the "further notice" comes, don't want my post edited by mod, kthx.

Don't like Roukanken's list of observations, whole lot of text and means fairly little since it's mostly uncertain feelings. Can't substantiate this beyond much of warm and fuzzy feelings, but I have my eye trained on you. And if I'm busy using it, I'll train someone else's eye on you... anyone up to lending one?

Jokes aside.

##VOTE: Roukanken, since he's basically trying to paint everyone in a bad light with that wall of text from him. There's a fault with everyone, however slight, and painting suspicions on all the living players only stirs up paranoia and serves town none.

[Bardiche]

oh screw me sideways I meant to Evict. ##EVICT: Roukanken

>_> ##UNVOTE: Roukanken?!

Spoiler:

Too bad. It's stuck

[Pesco]

Way to commit your vote already.

And it doesn't look good.

[FinnKaenbyou]

##VOTE: Roukanken, since he's basically trying to paint everyone in a bad light with that wall of text from him. There's a fault with everyone, however slight, and painting suspicions on all the living players only stirs up paranoia and serves town none.

Saying that several people need to contribute more doesn't really count as 'painting them in a bad light' as much as it's 'start existing, whatever you are'. Normally Lynch All Lurkers would be in effect, but when about half the game is guilty of it then you sort of have to draw the line. >_>

I'd rather make my discontent with the lurkers obvious rather than let them think their lack of contribution is tolerated. I've made several bigger points against the people I do want to follow, so I don't see why I can be seen as passing around paranoia.

In the 'blatantly obvious' category, though, GJ talking about how votes are permanent and then throwing a vote on your first post of the day. T_T

I don't recall my case on Kilga being a copypasta of Sakana's. I had my approach and he had his own.

One person making a bad case is iffy. Two on the same person is outright suspicious.

I think my steps were laid out pretty clearly. Read better.

'No-one objected to me making a move to elect a king, THEREFORE THE PERSON I VOTED MUST BE SCUM'? Not seeing the brilliant logic here.

I'm busy tonight. Reread and Evict tomorrow night.

Not busy enough to miss Bard's vote, apparently. >_>

[GMOFucker: Makin' GMOs To Fuck 'Em]

Currently still kind of suspicious of Zakeri, I'm finding it odd how he disappears for a bit while people are questioning him then attempts to shove the pressure on Nietz based on an issue from a while ago as soon as he gets back. Then he tries to redirect pressure to Nietz again in post #191. Once people start switching over to Nietz, he accuses Nietz of having no real defense while seemingly ignoring Nietz's actual post that he was apparently responding to. Plus he never actually answered my question about if he had any other reasons for keeping his vote on Rou over switching to Edible... unless what he said about his Rouvote being for reactions was supposed to answer that, but if so, it doesn't do a very good job at it.

@ Zakeri:

How does the fact that I'm portraying your actions as scum-minded actions make me scum?

I'm pretty sure he meant that portraying seemingly neutral actions as scum-minded is scummy because, you know, it's misleading and causes unnessecary suspicion? But then again I'm no spirit medium and I can't speak for the dead, so.

Also, @ Bard:

Zakeri had the opening :psyduck: of "voting Rou for looking townie", but that can be forgiven as Day1.

What about everything else he's tried to pull? "Town doesn't care about looking town", the whole Edible voteswitch problem (though to be honest that doesn't count for much at this point), and so on. Plus, just about every early mistake could be forgiven on the grounds that it's day 1, but that does not make it any less of a mistake.

Sakana's actions seem rather fishy (hurrrr) as well. Aside from basically saying "don't call me out on mistakes!" in post #179, he evicts Kilga... yet keeps his vote on him? I don't understand what he intended to accomplish by this, why would somebody ever want a person who they think seems suspicious enough to be evicted to be the King? His reason for evicting Kilga makes little sense either since Edible wasn't looking particuarily pro-town (the shaky "roleclaim" doesn't even suggest anything about his alignment), so wanting him dead shouldn't really be considered a crime. Then later he switches to Nietz because he "thinks the case against him seems to have the most substance", and apparently because of his limited experience he can't actually look into it himself beyond that, so it just seems like he's saying "Oh hey, a bandwagon! * Jumps on *"

I'm going to give Sakana the benifit of doubt since he appears to have "THE NEWBIE EXCUSE" (lol hypocrisy), but to be honest some of what he has said just seems kind of outlandish. Zakeri, however, has not been very convincing, especially since he was pushing the case on Nietz the most. Definitely keeping my eye on Sakana in the future, though.
##Evict: Zakeri
Also lol at Bard's permavote.

[GMOFucker: Makin' GMOs To Fuck 'Em]

Also, early evictcount:

Pesco (1): Roukanken
Zakeri (1): huh what
Roukanken (1): Bardiche

I'm going to assume we're going to let Bard still unevict even if his vote is set in stone? Since the evict system is just "imaginary" ( <- bad wording) anyway.

[Sodium]

Bard: HMWK>Mafier
Also, lol.
---
Not in the mood to write anything long.

##Evict Jam

Tunnels on Edible for all of Day 1.

Unevicts Edible after he claims to be able to be able to prove his role(which was true, but she didn't know that at the time, but the initial claim had little to no proof). Jam's reaction seemed like she knew it was "true"(in the sense that Edible=Town) which only an informed minority(scum) would know, and quickly jumped off the wagon. Other reason she said for unevicting was because she wouldn't be here at the end of the day, which wouldn't be that bad in conjunction with Edible claiming to say proof later but...

Does not put her evict onto anything else after her unevict of Edible, and does not vote for a king, which makes no sense because it's would've been better to have something down if you're not going to be able to post at the deadline, whether it was an evict, or a vote for someone to be king. This is bad because she does not pitch in her opinion on who she wants to lynch.

Other people in a later post.

[Jam-Kiske]

Posting mostly to say I'm alive.

I went out Saturday [like I told you all I would] and then spent Sunday packing to leave.
School started again and my laptop isn't connecting to the Internet in my dorm room for some reason so... yeah...

I've just finished a butt ton of work and it's almost 1 am so I require sleep.
I'll read and contribute tomorrow at some point.

[Dead Princess Sakana]

in post #179, he evicts Kilga... yet keeps his vote on him? I don't understand what he intended to accomplish by this, why would somebody ever want a person who they think seems suspicious enough to be evicted to be the King?

I did that because we had agreed that the kings would be dead meat if they didn't follow the majority eviction, even if it meant for the king to suicide.

His reason for evicting Kilga makes little sense either since Edible wasn't looking particuarily pro-town

I'm pretty sure I laid out why I couldn't see Edible's ections as that of a cornered scum, even if he didn't look much like town either. So I tried to look for other noteworthy people and, well, failed.

"Oh hey, a bandwagon! * Jumps on *"

As bad as that makes me look, this is what I did. I could understand the points that were being made about Nietz, I wouldn't have been able to make the case on my own though.

Also, Rou: Could you please explain why you seem to have both misread my and Pesco's reasons for evicting Kilga? Because it makes me want to look into the stuff you wrote about the other players and see if you didn't misrepresent something there as well.

randomly deciding that Kilga is pressing Edible the hardest and voting him

I didn't say he was pressing Edible. I said he was pressing people starting to deviate form the Edible-case. I found it apparent after he called out to the people who were going to file Edible town after his claim at once. With his town-flip, this becomes void of course, but I just wanted to make it clear.

Same for Pesco's case

where he goes for Kilga on the basis of 'He didn't question me voting him for King, therefore he's scum'

Where did he say that? He never referred to the king-votes in that post, only to the Evicts on Edible.

[FinnKaenbyou]

I didn't say he was pressing Edible. I said he was pressing people starting to deviate form the Edible-case. I found it apparent after he called out to the people who were going to file Edible town after his claim at once. With his town-flip, this becomes void of course, but I just wanted to make it clear.

"It looks to me like the one who wants Edible dead the most at the moment is Kilga"?
The point is that he'd been pressing Sodium all day, as he himself said and you agreed with.
In other words, your only piece of original opinion is outright incorrect.

Where did he say that? He never referred to the king-votes in that post, only to the Evicts on Edible.

That would be here, all of four posts after the one I linked to.

Either you're doing a really bad job of misrepping me, or you're not reading the thread properly. And why are you so eager to speak in Pesco's defense, exactly?

[Pesco]

Short post first. Obv Rou doesn't know how to read my entire post.

[Dead Princess Sakana]

The point is that he'd been pressing Sodium all day, as he himself said and you agreed with.
In other words, your only piece of original opinion is outright incorrect.

I'd say wanting to see someone dead and pressing them is two different matters. In fact, why should one press a person they want dead when the victim already does nothing to defend themselves.
Also I only agreed that he called Sodium 'more pressing', while both I and Sodium himself couldn't even see where he was supposed to be 'pressed hardest'. And I still don't see it, to be honest.
Either it was too subtle, or we have different understandings of 'pressing'.

As for Pesco: Okay, I overlooked the quotes you made in your response to him, my fault. But that's why I was asking, to get that cleared up.
I'm not trying to defend him here, and I can't remember doing it before. Pesco is high on my mental list of suspicious people, for pretty much the reasons you stated.
However, there seemed to be some inconsistency in your reasoning on him, that's what I called out to.
It'll be interesting to see his response to you.
Btw, had I asked about your reasoning on any of the other players, would that count as 'being eager to defend X' as well?

Either you're doing a really bad job of misrepping me, or you're not reading the thread properly

I could say the same about you misrepping me, you know?

About the thread, yes, I admit I'm not picking apart every little word in every post, and I'm not always rereading the whole thread after everything that's been said. Because I have a life outside of this thread, and because this is a game. When I play a game, I want to have fun, not make myself a mental wreck.

[FinnKaenbyou]

I'd say wanting to see someone dead and pressing them is two different matters. In fact, why should one press a person they want dead when the victim already does nothing to defend themselves.

Besides convincing other people to go along with you?

Also I only agreed that he called Sodium 'more pressing', while both I and Sodium himself couldn't even see where he was supposed to be 'pressed hardest'. And I still don't see it, to be honest.
Either it was too subtle, or we have different understandings of 'pressing'.

Sodium, why are you not voting to evict anyone?

I'd also like to see an exile vote down from you, though you're a less pressing concern than Sodium.

Would also like to know where Sodium went.

These references found by reading through Kilga's posts for all of 5 minutes.

Btw, had I asked about your reasoning on any of the other players, would that count as 'being eager to defend X' as well?

No. The point was that you happened to come to the defense of the only other person to suggest evicting Kilga yesterday.
And by saying that I had misrepped Pesco, rather than letting Pesco defend himself - that isn't asking about reasoning, that's out-and-out defense.

About the thread, yes, I admit I'm not picking apart every little word in every post, and I'm not always rereading the whole thread after everything that's been said. Because I have a life outside of this thread, and because this is a game. When I play a game, I want to have fun, not make myself a mental wreck.

Serious answer: There's a difference between 'not taking the game seriously' and 'not paying attention'. Town WANTS to read carefully in order to find scum; scum don't need to worry about hunting so much as they want to look like they're hunting.
Joke answer: You're playing on the wrong forum, then. :V

[Pesco]

jsdvjkzvzdfbhkzdfibgzdflhzdbihbsdfjkhbv nhbvieasmngaeblmvuiv,sebhvsdl;fmbhvilsehklhdbsoihjbiaejiaovjbopsrthsiphjadsr;kbhdh

Post got eaten. Redoing it.

[Pesco]

Screw dem nice Quote boxes. Text only and capital Q's.

Rou: Your link about me talking about the king-votes is only circumstantial because I was responding to your Question about why I king-voted Kilga in the first place. The main point I brought up was the lack of scumhunting on his part. Preferring to be laconic is no excuse.

You say that I and Sakana made iffy cases on Kilga. By that, you admit that our cases are different. By the same measure of iffy cases, what do you say of Zak and the other people on Nietz wrt their case?

You also know exactly what I was busy with when I made those posts and you understand that I could not pay attention at that time for analysis.

Bard: Is Rou going MOARSCUMDAKKA as bad as Zak's approach on Nietz? I don't think it's such a strong tell on Rou and calling him for IIoA would have made a more compelling reason.

As Rou also pointed out, you were Quite aware of the rule in effect and made your hard vote. Stuff like that pings scummy for me because your vote is now a throwaway.

Sakana: It standsd out to me that your main focus yesterday was Nietz, Kilga, Edible and Zak. Two dead, who are your scum now?

Sodium: You make a post, that's nice. So why is Jam scummy? Same old IIoA crap you always do.

I've read Zak in isolation to try understand his case on Nietz. Tbh, I don't see much. He made the initial suspicion and then people piled on.

Whether Edible's claim is true or not, I'm comfortable enough to switch my eviction to Neitz now.

This was what he said when making his 'switch'. There's no syntax stating it clearly enough for us and is open to misrep. It seems like it leaves room for backtracking, which was also in his 'I'll evict edible too' comment. Overall I think Zak did more pushing on Edible without really tying himself too strongly to the wagon.

##Evict Zak

[FinnKaenbyou]

Rou: Your link about me talking about the king-votes is only circumstantial because I was responding to your Question about why I king-voted Kilga in the first place. The main point I brought up was the lack of scumhunting on his part. Preferring to be laconic is no excuse.

I've already mentioned things like his poking of Sodium when talking to Sakana. I don't think your claim of a lack of scumhunting holds, especially given that he was easily contributing more than, say, Jam or HW.

You say that I and Sakana made iffy cases on Kilga. By that, you admit that our cases are different. By the same measure of iffy cases, what do you say of Zak and the other people on Nietz wrt their case?

Like I said, two bad cases on the same guy are suspicious.
I think the Nietz case was valid in that he made genuine stupid mistakes. What I don't like about it is that Zak pulled it out at the last minute rather than when it had happened, making it look less like scumhunting and more like saving his own skin by not contributing until the last minute.

You also know exactly what I was busy with when I made those posts and you understand that I could not pay attention at that time for analysis.

Noted. I'll concede this point.

Damn, I'd forgotten how much playing here wore away at my sanity. T_T

[Dead Princess Sakana]

These references found by reading through Kilga's posts for all of 5 minutes.

And those were also pretty much all the references to Sodium he made, as far as I can recall. He made about the same number, or more, to me. Anyway, this is nothing that leads both of us to anything, so I guess we should drop this matter for now.

And by saying that I had misrepped Pesco, rather than letting Pesco defend himself - that isn't asking about reasoning, that's out-and-out defense.

I saw two potential flaws in you reasoning. Only pointing to the one about me would have brought me nothing if I wanted to find out if there were more. That's why I referenced both. That it happened to be on Pesco's case was coincidence. I can see how it appeared as suspicious though.

Serious answer: There's a difference between 'not taking the game seriously' and 'not paying attention'. Town WANTS to read carefully in order to find scum; scum don't need to worry about hunting so much as they want to look like they're hunting.

I hope you can believe me that I take the game serious. I have no idea how to read deep enough into things to make cases yet though, so I'm trying to keep it at maintaining a general overview for myself >_<

Okay, now for answering Pesco's call: I wouldn't consider Nietz my main focus, as I only jumped on. The other three are true however. As my opinion on Edible's weird way of 'defending' still stands, that leaves Zakeri.
In addition to what you already stated, it could also be noted that he had to specifically call attention to his case on Nietz, because it went unnoticed when he stated it the first time.
Zak, you said you'd take responsibility for a Nietz-mislynch, now show it:
#Evict: Zakeri

[GMOFucker: Makin' GMOs To Fuck 'Em]

Forgot this earlier.
@ Roukanken: I don't really understand your evict against Pesco. As far as I can see from what he said in the post where he evicted Kilga, it was for not scum-hunting and because of how abrupt/"I agree" Kilga's vote on Edible was, he only brought up how nobody questioned his vote on Kilga afterwards. I'm not saying his case on Kilga was good, but it seems to me like you were basing your evict off of one post which wasn't even Pesco's original reason for evicting Kilga. I find this confusing, as you must have read Pesco's original post evicting Kilga since you responded to part of it at one point, but your post evicting Pesco seems to imply that Pesco evicted Kilga just over something else. You even linked to Pesco's original post instead of the one that brought that point up (unless my browser is being sucky). Am I just being derpy and overlooking something, or can you clarify/expand on this a little? Did you forget the contents of the post or something?

[FinnKaenbyou]

HW: Like I said, the evict on Pesco was for the sake of information. Everything that Zak has done is pretty clear, so I was intending to let him talk before I dropped a vote on him. Given that he's disappeared, though...:V

Think that's been a day. Any sign of Jam or Zak?

In terms of linking to the wrong post, I wrote the wall up in a hurry and linked the post where I saw him vote Kilga, and I remembered taking offense to him claiming that Kilga trusting him made him obvscum. >_>
Still, the point I took offense to in general is clear, and I mentioned other points like 'hanging around waiting for Zak and not contributing to Edible discussion' and 'conveniently timing his case to go with Sakana's'. Kilga's supposed lack of scumhunting was a point I looked over after discussion arose and found to be equally unconvincing.

[Kefit]

Oh hey this thread is finally open at a time after my finals are over when I'm not busy with social engagements. Never thought I would see that happen.

Edible's roleclaim shenanigans yesterday bug the hell out of me. Sure, we know that his role is likely true, but it does absolutely nothing to prove that he is town. It's a role that could easily be held by a scum.

I'm even less impressed with Jam's response to Edible's roleclaim (here, here, and here). Her posts are short and lack proper analysis or real thoughts on the matter. She just says "ooh interesting" and backs off with her vote. Kilga's subsequent posts do a fantastic job of pointing out the problem's with Jam's response. In short, it seems like she latched on to Edible's roleclaim as a chance for her to Do Something (aka Appear Active) as scum without having to face the risks of attempting to act like town in early game when scum have vastly more info than town.

At first I thought that both Jam and Edible might be scum, but looking back on the D1 vote record I find that Jam placed the third evict vote on Edible at a point when no other player had more than one evict vote. If Jam and Edible were both scum then I doubt Jam would vote for his eviction under such circumstances.

Evict: Jam

As luck would have it, I will be gone most of today on a social outing. I should be back tomorrow though.

[GMOFucker: Makin' GMOs To Fuck 'Em]

@ Rou: That explains a bit I guess. Meh. I must have missed the post (or part of it) where you mentioned timing the case with Sakana's though.

Pretty sure Jam was online yesterday after D2 started but didn't post anything.

Evictcount update:
Pesco (1): Roukanken
Zakeri (3): huh what, Pesco, Sakana
Roukanken (1): Bardiche
Jam (2): Sodium, Kefit

[WHMZakeri]

I would laugh at Bard's permavote if I was more certain about Bard's alignment, or even less about Rou's. As it stands, it's not funny.

Any defense I could come up with for leading the crusade on Neitz would just be useless WiFoM. I'll leave it at this: I really did think he was scum.

I'm going to be spending the better part of the day catching up.

[FinnKaenbyou]

Jam's Lack Of Everything is bad, but like with Zak I want to at least give her a chance to talk.

On that note, Zak's return consists of...a promise of a reread at the end of the day. I'm hoping he's meaning RL day here, and even that may be too long given that we don't have a lot of time to decide a target since that no-one can put a vote down until they're totally decided. Worst case scenario is people get divided on wagons and we get no lynch. :|
I'm waiting to see what he comes up with, but so far I'm still not liking him.

Spoiler:

Reading comprehension is CLEARLY not your speciality. I advise you reread the rules and get back to me.