The MSG Secure Hospital for the Criminally Insane (MSGSHCI)

"We don't call them inmates, we call them patients."

 

Night was falling on the hospital.

"Alright, into your room, come on..." a Nurse chivvied one of the patients into his cell, who had his head down. He slowly obeyed, but the guard in the corner of the room watched carefully. The Nurse began to shut the door, when suddenly a scream came up from a nearby cell. The guard turned. The nurse shut the door quickly, and turned to leave.

The patient's eyes, previously dull and submissive, became alert. He looked up quickly, and reached through the small window in his cell door and quickly plucked a key from the Nurse's back pocket. He withdrew his arm quickly before she turned around to check the cell had locked itself. A quick tug at the door, and she was satisfied enough, hurrying off to deal with the other patients.

 

The sound of footsteps slowly echoed through the corridors of the institution, made by the few people who were left on patrol. The inhabitants of this miserable place were now mostly quiet in their cells. Those who refused to be quiet had been sedated, and a slow calm was descending upon the place. Water dripped slowly from a leaky water pipe above one of the corridors. It was in this corridor where that one patient stood up from his bunk, and quietly unlocked the door. Something was about to happen.

Edited August 16, 200917 yr by molestargazer

I have always thought that scum would not try to shake things up, especially early in the day. That's why I like people who post their opinions and let their votes be heard. It's easier to get a read on someone if they give you lots of information. By not voting a lot yesterday we gained very little information and we have to get more people voting today.

 

If I had to vote right now I'd probably vote KevinH. He was against lynching yesterday which by itself is just Kevin being Kevin but he also FOS'd Soj just for having his vote on junkaholic. It would appear too obvious to send in a night kill on the person who voted for you. I can't see anyone doing that. He also FOS'd me and Falzis for voting to lynch yesterday. There's nothing scummy about voting for anyone as it only helps the town garner more information. I also had my eye on Kevin during day 1 so this new stuff just makes me even more cautious.

 

 

It also looks like Falzis is going to be our new most active poster. I'd be scared if I were you Falzis

hmm...i have my eyes on a few people...but saying who would just make them more cautious if they are scum...

Well, at least before I die you'll get something from me haha!! Unlike junk.... died young lolol.

hmm...i have my eyes on a few people...but saying who would just make them more cautious if they are scum...

 

That's not the Narsis I know... you're supposed the be ala mole or ala vgm. What happened to you?

• Junkahoolic had his vote on Sojourner.
  
  
• Junkahoolic got killed.
  
  
• FOS: Sojourner
  
  

 

Too simplistic reasoning for my tastes... However, everyone needs to remember it is just an FOS.

An FOS is a quasi vote. And if you read Kevin's post way way back he FOS'd everybody who didn't agree with his No Lynch strategy.

I'm considering voting for people who haven't posted much/anything so far today. The more we talk, the more info we can get. Let's get some discussion going from everyone.

saying who i have my eyes on now would on make them more cautious and i dont got any real "hard" evidence yet.

 

that said...i would like to hear more from the "newbie" guys.

If I were Sojournor and I were scum, I wouldn't want to be lynched day 2 so it makes sense to kill one of the players that was attempting to lynch me day 1.

 

If I were scum, I would want to lynch somebody, anybody, day 1.

 

Call it a quasi-vote if you want, but at this point it is better evidence than anything else on the table.

 

However, the case against Sojourner is weak because if I were scum I would kill somebody that voted for Sojourner so it looked like Sojourner was scum. A big WIFOM ...

 

And if you read Kevin's post way way back he FOS'd everybody who didn't agree with his No Lynch strategy.

Not Voting (9): Kaziocore, Aquinas, Narsis, Theophilos, Nerau, Martino, Calderone, sojourner, Sir Jesus

Regarding those that didn't vote day 1, I withdraw any previous FOS. It might as well have been a vote to no-lynch.

 

SFOS: Electric Mango and Falzis

i wish i had an idea but nothing comes up

If I were Sojournor and I were scum, I wouldn't want to be lynched day 2 so it makes sense to kill one of the players that was attempting to lynch me day 1.

 

If I were scum, I would want to lynch somebody, anybody, day 1.

 

Call it a quasi-vote if you want, but at this point it is better evidence than anything else on the table.

 

However, the case against Sojourner is weak because if I were scum I would kill somebody that voted for Sojourner so it looked like Sojourner was scum. A big WIFOM ...

 

 

Regarding those that didn't vote day 1, I withdraw any previous FOS. It might as well have been a vote to no-lynch.

 

SFOS: Electric Mango and Falzis

 

Huh? Oh Kevin my kevin, you're backpedaling.

 

First, if I were Sojourner and I were scum, I wasn't even close to being lynched on Day 1. Killing one of the measly three people who voted for me would make it look obvious I were scum.

 

Second, the only reason you have any "evidence" at all is because some people (ie. me) were willing to vote while the rest of you were willing to hide and cower your bets.

 

Third of all, I just thought about it, but what was the logic again for FOSing me and EM? /scratches head

 

@Narsis

 

How can you make a person more cautious than they already are? And you'll never get any more "hard evidence" if you don't start saying who you think is scum and start contributing more than you have on D1, which consisted of you defending yourself and role fishing and being noncommittal.

Well, at least before I die you'll get something from me haha!! Unlike junk.... died young lolol.

This doesn't make any sense to me. What will we get from you before you die?

An FOS is a quasi vote. And if you read Kevin's post way way back he FOS'd everybody who didn't agree with his No Lynch strategy.

I disagree. A FOS can also be used to simply mark suspicious behaviour. One suspicious act does not have to make someone scum, especially if that person has made plenty of pro town moves. So you could actually have no intention of voting for someone, but still want to point out that they did something suspicious. That would be a good moment to use a FOS.

I'm considering voting for people who haven't posted much/anything so far today. The more we talk, the more info we can get. Let's get some discussion going from everyone.

While I agree activity is good, voting for one of the inactives would be pretty much equal to a random vote. We lost our cop, we need information, not random lynches.

How can you make a person more cautious than they already are? And you'll never get any more "hard evidence" if you don't start saying who you think is scum and start contributing more than you have on D1, which consisted of you defending yourself and role fishing and being noncommittal.

Sometimes you can get a whole lot more information by not interfering. For example, if someone does X and X is suspicious unless he does it for reason Y. Then if the current discussion seems to go towards the exclusion of reason Y, it would be better to sit back and watch it unfold. Because if you would question him, he might be able to conclude that the only reason to do this as a townie would be for reason Y. In fact:

I already have my suspicions...

Why was it alright for you to post that you had your suspicions without adding any extra information, but why was it not okay for Narsis? That certainly seems like a big contradiction to me.

 

vote Falzis

After re-re-re-re-*I guess we all know were this is going *-reading everything ...

 

I gotz a vote and a FoS (I'll think about the latter one for a bit more before posting it)

 

Vote: Falzis

 

Flip-flopping on his opinions, than fishing way too much not to be scum/mafia, faulty reasoning, than add the pro-lynch "hardline" (which in it self isn't a bad thing, but together with everything else ...). Finally the only vibe I'm getting from him is, that he wants to appear townie at all cost (by his account everything he does is without a doubt pro town, on the other hand he points to mafia every time someone does something he doesn't like ...).

 

Still I maybe reading way too much from his posts, but there you have it ... for now.

It was odd that he called out Narsis for the same thing he did. I'd like to get an explanation on that one.

This doesn't make any sense to me. What will we get from you before you die? I disagree. A FOS can also be used to simply mark suspicious behaviour. One suspicious act does not have to make someone scum, especially if that person has made plenty of pro town moves. So you could actually have no intention of voting for someone, but still want to point out that they did something suspicious. That would be a good moment to use a FOS. While I agree activity is good, voting for one of the inactives would be pretty much equal to a random vote. We lost our cop, we need information, not random lynches. Sometimes you can get a whole lot more information by not interfering. For example, if someone does X and X is suspicious unless he does it for reason Y. Then if the current discussion seems to go towards the exclusion of reason Y, it would be better to sit back and watch it unfold. Because if you would question him, he might be able to conclude that the only reason to do this as a townie would be for reason Y. In fact: Why was it alright for you to post that you had your suspicions without adding any extra information, but why was it not okay for Narsis? That certainly seems like a big contradiction to me.

 

vote Falzis

 

Wow a vote already for not even a glaring scum tell. You are the one who said "especially if that person has made plenty of pro town moves". I ask you why did you vote for me so nonchalantly and without due consideration and not even so much as an FOS with no contextual reading of all my posts and reasoning? You're too quick to jump and you're the one contradicting yourself. Demand from yourself what you demand from others.

 

What I did wasn't a contradiction. When EM asked me to say what my suspicions were, I immediately did. Saying "I have my suspicions" was me being cool and playing around with the mafia game. Saying my reasons for saying "I have my suspicions" was me being frank and honest and putting pressure on people. Which was the same thing I did to Narsis. If he has suspicions, I want to know. Guess what he didn't reply what they were except another "I can't lay it all out yet". Which is understandable if you disregard the reply I already made, that "how more cautious can people get", plus putting pressure on Narsis to say what's on his mind, because as we all know SILENCE and D1 DILLY DALLYING didn't get us anything.

 

FOS: Martino for jumping the gun

After re-re-re-re-*I guess we all know were this is going *-reading everything ...

 

I gotz a vote and a FoS (I'll think about the latter one for a bit more before posting it)

 

Vote: Falzis

 

Flip-flopping on his opinions, than fishing way too much not to be scum/mafia, faulty reasoning, than add the pro-lynch "hardline" (which in it self isn't a bad thing, but together with everything else ...). Finally the only vibe I'm getting from him is, that he wants to appear townie at all cost (by his account everything he does is without a doubt pro town, on the other hand he points to mafia every time someone does something he doesn't like ...).

 

Still I maybe reading way too much from his posts, but there you have it ... for now.

 

Flip-flopping? Can we get meticulous on that I would want to see specific examples instead of name calling me a flip flopper. And don't repeat the ones I've already answered.

 

Fishing what? Role fishing? I asked what roles in this game could be ONLY once, and Narsis called me out immediately and I explained. Who persistently role fished? Not I. Better read again.

 

Faulty reasoning? Again, more point by point illustration so I can know what to defend myself against.

 

Pro-lynch hardline. Ok I'm guilty. But if you took the time to read my posts and not just post hallow accusations, you would see that I was pro-lynch because I want to know where the cards of each individual here laid. I wanted to get voting patterns and meta-game information. And because I read that No Lynches only increases chances of mafia winning the game statistically according to mafiascum wiki. Oh god I'm just repeating myself.

 

You say everything I've done is pro town but only want to "appear" pro town. Uhmm... maybe because I am. Yes Mafia do want to appear pro town but they don't do it by 1. posting frequently (thereby putting themselves out there and getting exposed to making more mistakes - less talk, less mistakes) 2. posting so so early (thereby giving more information earlier to the town) 3. posting aggressively (thereby creating a chance to be misunderstood and seen as really a Mafia instead of a Townie because of putting pressure on people - which is a townie tell if you ever see one). All of this is major WIFOM but if you reason with yourself, you'd conclude that the simplest explanation to my frequent, early, and aggressive posting is that I am a townie instead of a scum pretending to be a townie by doing all those things to make you think the opposite.

 

Occam's Razor my friend.

 

You say I point to mafia (when did I point because I don't know who the mafia is, I'm pointing to suspects) every time someone says something I don't like. Uhmm... that's called scum hunting and putting pressure on people. =.=

 

FOS: Theophilos for bandwagoning hastily and unmeticulously and unreasonably

This doesn't make any sense to me. What will we get from you before you die?

 

Umm... what you'll get from me is information. Loads and loads of it. You'll get voting patterns, people who I was suspicious of in case I die and proven a townie, posts by other people in response to my pressures. Yes that is what you will get from me instead of the silence and non-information you got from other people on D1.

 

Bow.

Wow a vote already for not even a glaring scum tell. You are the one who said "especially if that person has made plenty of pro town moves". I ask you why did you vote for me so nonchalantly and without due consideration and not even so much as an FOS with no contextual reading of all my posts and reasoning? You're too quick to jump and you're the one contradicting yourself. Demand from yourself what you demand from others.

But that is just it. I don't think you have been clearly acting pro town. Yes, you have been active, but that doesn't make you pro town. Yes you have voted, but you voted without a decent case, so I would hardly call that pro town. I do believe the pressure you put on a few people was pro town, but that is not enough to make me withhold my vote.

 

What I did wasn't a contradiction. When EM asked me to say what my suspicions were, I immediately did. Saying "I have my suspicions" was me being cool and playing around with the mafia game. Saying my reasons for saying "I have my suspicions" was me being frank and honest and putting pressure on people. Which was the same thing I did to Narsis. If he has suspicions, I want to know. Guess what he didn't reply what they were except another "I can't lay it all out yet". Which is understandable if you disregard the reply I already made, that "how more cautious can people get", plus putting pressure on Narsis to say what's on his mind, because as we all know SILENCE and D1 DILLY DALLYING didn't get us anything.

 

FOS: Martino for jumping the gun

I think the two cases were very similar. You both said you had your suspicions about a few people. You were both called out and you both refused to give any names when you were called out. All you did was state that it were the more experienced players. While this is a new player heavy game, approximately half of the remaining players is somewhat experienced. That is still way too broad to help us. So, I still think it was a clear contradiction.

You're free to think what you want to think but Narsis' case and mine have clear differences. I immediately expounded when prodded, he did not. It's that simple.

 

Sorry if I don't appear pro town to you but the feeling is mutual. And you're actions are way scummier than a "clear contradiction" since contradictions are not glaring scum tells in and of itself, especially when it's not a contradiction in the first place.

 

Quick to vote and hallowed basis? Scummy.

 

And it would appear you didn't read my post very well. If you read it back again, you will see specifically who the "experienced" players I was talking about.

 

Lastly, even if you don't get what I wrote, conceding that it's "too broad to help us" means at least you think it helps. Narsis' post on the other hand in no way helps.

 

So please, read again.

You're free to think what you want to think but Narsis' case and mine have clear differences. I immediately expounded when prodded, he did not. It's that simple.

Again, I don't think 'narrowing it down' to 50% of the players was a very helpful expansion of your suspicions.

 

Sorry if I don't appear pro town to you but the feeling is mutual. And you're actions are way scummier than a "clear contradiction" since contradictions are not glaring scum tells in and of itself, especially when it's not a contradiction in the first place.

 

Quick to vote and hallowed basis? Scummy.

I disagree. I believe that contradictions are decent scum tells. If you are contradicting yourself, one of the two statements must not have been honest. Townies should always post what they really think, not what makes them seem protown/helps them in their attack on someone. If you always post what you really think, you shouldn't end up contradicting yourself. Unless someone convinced you of the opposite in the meantime, but I doubt that is the case as you hadn't explicitly stated who your suspicions were about when you attacked Narsis.

 

And it would appear you didn't read my post very well. If you read it back again, you will see specifically who the "experienced" players I was talking about.

 

Lastly, even if you don't get what I wrote, conceding that it's "too broad to help us" means at least you think it helps. Narsis' post on the other hand in no way helps.

 

So please, read again.

I've just read it again and I still don't see who you were talking about. I've pasted the explanation post below, perhaps you could bold the part where you specify who you were talking about. I have seen you attack KevinH and Narsis, but those attacks were in direct response to posts they made after this post. So those cannot have been a clarification of your previous suspicions.

Well I think the scum is more likely to be a veteran of playing Mafia games. Reading off junk's death, it would appear a very lucky NK. But junk could have very well been targeted because he was the most active.

 

Now why would that have been a smart NK instead of a lucky one? Simple. There were WIFOM posts here stating that usually the most active ones are those with power roles and I don't know if it's a breadcrumb but I'm pretty sure the scum knew this that's why they tried their luck to the person that was most active.

 

I have more suspicions but I'm going to cohere my thoughts first before I post it. I wouldn't want to lay all my cards and have the tables turned on me by the mafia once I put pressure. I'm going to have to fight experts... and I'm presuming they would try to counter me. But for now I suggest you look at the meta-game and WIFOM posts. Look for internal player consistency and posts in relation to junk's death.

 

**** I'm scared.

 

Funny thing is, you even mention the consistency in your own post. So at least at that point you must have thought that being inconsistent could be a scum tell.

meta-game and WIFOM posts. read between the lines.

 

And I didn't say contradictions are not scum tells, I said they are not glaring scum tells and in and of itself is not a scum tell. Because as you have said, you have to take into consideration all the other posts and the context of the post.

 

Plus, what I did wasn't a contradiction. If you still want to push it, fine. But it's your interpretation that is way out of perspective since again, I expounded, Narsis didn't. You're seeing the trees for the forest.

First, if I were Sojourner and I were scum, I wasn't even close to being lynched on Day 1.

One more vote at the deadline and he'd have been dead. That's not close?

Vote: Falzis

for attempting to mislead.

At least you're voting. And I'm pretty sure now at least one of the three people voting for me is scum. With 10 people alive, 5 or 6 is the majority? Need clarification mister mole.

 

And it wasn't an attempt to mislead, I forgot about that half majority gets lynched thingy. I was thinking along the 7 votes needed.

Ooops there are 12 people seems lower since only a few are active. I guess it's still 7? Or 6?

 

With 12 alive, you need 7 to lynch.

Vote count to come in a minute.

Edited June 17, 200917 yr by molestargazer

VOTE COUNT

Falzis (3): Martino, Theophilos, KevinH

 

Not Voting (9): sojourner, Nerau, Sir Jesus, partyin01, Narsis, Electric Mango, Falzis, Kaziocore, Aquinas

 

With 12 alive, 7 votes are needed to lynch.