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'll actually be leaving this afternoon so i either need to get replaced or i'll be V/LA or whatever.

 

My theory why Narsis was targeted:

The scum was doing mole a favor.

Narsis was going inactive and it didn't matter much to the scum whom they killed.

My theory why Narsis was targeted:

The scum was doing mole a favor.

Narsis was going inactive and it didn't matter much to the scum whom they killed.

 

 

I don't see why scum would want to kill someone inactive though. It would favor the scum to go after the active players IMO. Inactive players wouldn't be much of a threat to the scum. I believe that there were other motives at play, similar to what CD suggested.

A bit late this time round ... sorry about that Mole ...

 

CD I'll post my thoughts from D1 and D2 later today 'cause it's 2am here and I'm really not up to searching for it now.

 

Do my biggest reason was that Falzis was using what is considered to be (more times than not) a pro-town style of playing (lots of exposure, etc.) to confuse and/or mislead other people in the game (most particularly the rather large number of newbies).

 

Which reminds me VOTE: Falzis ... I haven't changed my mind about him yet, I still think he's our best bet for scum.

 

EM - my FOS for him goes back to the support and "appologies" given to/for Falzis. I think his help always took just enough pressure off Falzis to allow him to "escape". Mind U it's only a FoS for now, 'cause I still need to re-read a couple of things.

 

# of scum in this game, I'd say three sounds good ... do I can't yet decide on the third person.

A bit late this time round ... sorry about that Mole ...

 

CD I'll post my thoughts from D1 and D2 later today 'cause it's 2am here and I'm really not up to searching for it now.

 

Do my biggest reason was that Falzis was using what is considered to be (more times than not) a pro-town style of playing (lots of exposure, etc.) to confuse and/or mislead other people in the game (most particularly the rather large number of newbies).

 

Which reminds me VOTE: Falzis ... I haven't changed my mind about him yet, I still think he's our best bet for scum.

 

EM - my FOS for him goes back to the support and "appologies" given to/for Falzis. I think his help always took just enough pressure off Falzis to allow him to "escape". Mind U it's only a FoS for now, 'cause I still need to re-read a couple of things.

 

# of scum in this game, I'd say three sounds good ... do I can't yet decide on the third person.

 

Thanks for the recap.

I have my own wild theory about Nerau that I'll share since you brought him up. The nk scene mentioned there were two killers. What if there were 3 mafia (as most vets would say is about the right amount) but since Nerau was inactive Mole didn't include him in the write up. Nerau could be the mafia godfather and when he didn't send in his night action it went to the 2nd goon in charge and Mole wrote the scene using only the two active goons?

 

That's a bit far-fetched. I don't think mole would use inactivity in the story-line. BUT maybe the story goes to the 2 goons carrying out the order of the godfather.

 

Any ideas why junk was nk on N1? Just wondering cuz so many vets (Martino, KevinH, EM) are still alive and kicking in this game...kinda makes me think 1 or 2 of the vets are scum.

Any ideas why junk was nk on N1? Just wondering cuz so many vets (Martino, KevinH, EM) are still alive and kicking in this game...kinda makes me think 1 or 2 of the vets are scum.

 

 

I was thinking the same thing, why kill Junk on Day 1? Either we have a lot of veterans as scum or a lot of newbies that don't know better and just went for the person with the most activity. There's no way nobody knew Junkahoolic was the cop.

I was thinking the same thing, why kill Junk on Day 1? Either we have a lot of veterans as scum or a lot of newbies that don't know better and just went for the person with the most activity. There's no way nobody knew Junkahoolic was the cop.

 

IF it's by actvity...then I blame KevinH and you. KevinH (I think) for the post count. And you for saying more active = power role.

IF it's by actvity...then I blame KevinH and you. KevinH (I think) for the post count. And you for saying more active = power role.

 

 

I didn't say that for the record. I said this ..........(POST 176)

 

However, there are experienced players out there who say the opposite. Some say that those with power roles (doc, cop, mafia, sk, etc) do more posting than others. They claim that the increased responsibiltiy is what drives them back to the thread more than those with just vanilla roles.

I didn't say that for the record. I said this ..........(POST 176)

 

 

Close enough.

Since Falzis won't be back anytime soon...I will add some pressure on the ones I suspect.

 

Vote: Kaziocore

Any ideas why junk was nk on N1? Just wondering cuz so many vets (Martino, KevinH, EM) are still alive and kicking in this game...kinda makes me think 1 or 2 of the vets are scum.

 

Ah, the ol' "if a vet is alive, he must be scum" argument.

 

I don't put much faith in that because it's prone to WIFOM. Scum can leave the vets alive and then they'll be lynched because they are alive.

I would also add that CanucksDynasty is as much a vet as anyone ...

I would also add that CanucksDynasty is as much a vet as anyone ...

 

 

Yes I am a vet...however...the difference being is that I am replacing a role that was previously replaced.

Close enough.

 

Not close enough for my book but I'll compromise and just say that we agree to disagree.

 

 

 

Yes I am a vet...however...the difference being is that I am replacing a role that was previously replaced.

 

You still could have been night killed last night but were not. You also have the most wins out of anyone here I might add. That would put a pretty big target on your back according to your own reasoning.

 

Since Falzis won't be back anytime soon...I will add some pressure on the ones I suspect.

 

Vote: Kaziocore

 

I agree with CD, it's time to turn up the heat.

Vote: Sir Jesus

 

For reasons already mentioned

Sir Jesus hasn't really done anything "scummy" but I just get a weird feeling about him. He put on one of the final votes to pretty much guarantee that soj. would be the one lynched. Either that or he just threw his vote in with the rest of the crowd to play along. Either way he's playing too close to the vest. Also on day 1 and day 2 he's been unusually quiet. I know he had medical issues so this may give him a pass but I still expect more from him after he said he was feeling better. Even when he does post he doesn't really say anything too controversial.

 

I assume this is what you are referring too.

 

Personally, I believe this is very weak reasoning. The only thing I've done "wrong" was vote for the person I thought was the scummiest, and I happened to be a little late in getting to my computer... Lets consider my options in this situation.

 

-Vote Sojourner ... The person I believed was by far the scummiest, this will result in a sure lynch of sojourner.

-Vote No-lynch ... Not even really an option for me, this will result in a lynch of sojourner.

-Vote Falzis ... Not the scummiest choice, Day ends with a no-lynch result and scum pick one more of us off.

 

Essentially my choices were 1) Sojourner is lynched 2) No-lynch reult

 

Which would anyone here choose?

 

 

EM, you know my playing style very well. Whenever I see concrete evidence I will push and push for someone's death, and if there is not I generally play by intuition. If I see any glaring scumtells I will be the first to point it out, and I will equally defend someone I believe to be townie. So far this game I haven't seen much "real" evidence, which I partially blame on the Day 1 no-lynch.

 

VOTE COUNT

Falzis (2): KevinH, Theophilos

Kaziocore (2): Martino, CanucksDynasty

Sir Jesus (1): Electric Mango

 

Not Voting (5): Nerau, Sir Jesus, Falzis, Kaziocore, Aquinas

 

- Falzis will be V/LA until July 11th.

- Nerau still needs replacing, I have no-one lined up, they're all busy. Anyone knows someone / anyone dead wants to do it, shoot me off a PM.

Edited July 8, 200917 yr by molestargazer
Vote count.

I don't see why scum would want to kill someone inactive though. It would favor the scum to go after the active players IMO. Inactive players wouldn't be much of a threat to the scum.

We only had 2 players that didn't vote yesterday. Neither of those 2 got night-killed so in a sense, the scum did go after an "active" player. Narsis would have replaced by somebody agreeing to play so that would have been another "active" player coming in.

 

The scum know if the active players are on the right track and if they are not, then the scum would be well-served to keep them alive.

 

I almost just talked myself out of my vote on Falzis. Almost, but not quite.

I assume this is what you are referring too.

 

Personally, I believe this is very weak reasoning. The only thing I've done "wrong" was vote for the person I thought was the scummiest, and I happened to be a little late in getting to my computer... Lets consider my options in this situation.

 

-Vote Sojourner ... The person I believed was by far the scummiest, this will result in a sure lynch of sojourner.

-Vote No-lynch ... Not even really an option for me, this will result in a lynch of sojourner.

-Vote Falzis ... Not the scummiest choice, Day ends with a no-lynch result and scum pick one more of us off.

 

Essentially my choices were 1) Sojourner is lynched 2) No-lynch reult

 

Which would anyone here choose?

 

 

EM, you know my playing style very well. Whenever I see concrete evidence I will push and push for someone's death, and if there is not I generally play by intuition. If I see any glaring scumtells I will be the first to point it out, and I will equally defend someone I believe to be townie. So far this game I haven't seen much "real" evidence, which I partially blame on the Day 1 no-lynch.

 

This entire reasoning is only valid if we believe you a townie.

 

If you are scum then your options look like this

 

1) Lynch a townie and pick up a night kill

2) Night kill only

 

Obviously it would be in the scums best interest to kill two, not one.

 

Also it's not fair to not vote on day 1 and then blame the lack of "real" evidence on the day 1 no lynch is it not?

 

As far as your playing style goes, I think I do know your playing style well and hence my vote on you. You say that you will push hard for someone's death and defend someone you think is innocent but you have been very quiet this game. You say it's because of a lack of evidence but how are we to gain evidence unless we get more aggressive. You have been very conservative and seem to be just going along with the crowd. I could say this about a few others as well but I just expect more from you. CD has only been playing for a few days but has already begun to lead discussions and has been asking very good questions.

We only had 2 players that didn't vote yesterday. Neither of those 2 got night-killed so in a sense, the scum did go after an "active" player. Narsis would have replaced by somebody agreeing to play so that would have been another "active" player coming in.

 

I still don't see Narsis as an active player though. There's no guarantee that the person replacing him would be any more active. Also we are still looking for a replacement for Nerau, and that's been for some time now.

 

Also you said,

 

The scum know if the active players are on the right track and if they are not, then the scum would be well-served to keep them alive.

 

This could all be WIFOM and is very similar to the situation in which you said this.

 

Ah, the ol' "if a vet is alive, he must be scum" argument.

 

I don't put much faith in that because it's prone to WIFOM. Scum can leave the vets alive and then they'll be lynched because they are alive.

 

So when is it ok to believe in WIFOM and when is it not? Your reasoning seems to contradict itself, does it not?

I assume this is what you are referring too.

 

Personally, I believe this is very weak reasoning. The only thing I've done "wrong" was vote for the person I thought was the scummiest, and I happened to be a little late in getting to my computer... Lets consider my options in this situation.

 

-Vote Sojourner ... The person I believed was by far the scummiest, this will result in a sure lynch of sojourner.

-Vote No-lynch ... Not even really an option for me, this will result in a lynch of sojourner.

-Vote Falzis ... Not the scummiest choice, Day ends with a no-lynch result and scum pick one more of us off.

Essentially my choices were 1) Sojourner is lynched 2) No-lynch reult

 

Which would anyone here choose?

 

 

EM, you know my playing style very well. Whenever I see concrete evidence I will push and push for someone's death, and if there is not I generally play by intuition. If I see any glaring scumtells I will be the first to point it out, and I will equally defend someone I believe to be townie. So far this game I haven't seen much "real" evidence, which I partially blame on the Day 1 no-lynch.

 

That is incorrect. Look at the rules again. A tie would have resulted in the first person getting the most votes to be lynched. Aquinas vote was the 5th. Yours was the 6th. Essentially....it would take both Nerau and my votes plus someone else to unvote soj in order for Falzis to be lynched. With the deadline so close...that's unlikely.

Since Falzis won't be back anytime soon...I will add some pressure on the ones I suspect.

 

Vote: Kaziocore

 

Aside from pressuring me and my reasoning for voting sojourner is bad what else is the reason why you voted for me?

Is it because I don't contribute that much?

Aside from pressuring me and my reasoning for voting sojourner is bad what else is the reason why you voted for me?

 

Mainly cuz when you voted...it just seems like you joined the soj lynch bandwagon. Your reasoning was weak. It was only provided when Martino had to ask for it (twice). You post very little as to not draw attention to yourself. You are not actively scum hunting (although this is not indicative of townie behaviour...but most of the time it is). I typically give newbies a pass on D1. However, we are in D3...no more free passes for anybody.

Kaziocore 9

CD 26

EM 15

SJ 3

Theo 2

Aquinas 4

KevinH 7

Martino 3

Nerau 0

Falzis 0

 

 

You all know that I love activity. This is everyone's post count so far Day 3. As Kevin said before it does not take into effect quality of posts, merely the number of times you have posted.

 

As you can see we have some who are contributing much and some not so much at all. Day 3 is very important and if we don't get a good lynch in today our chances of winning will become very small. I encourage everyone to read over today's posts and share your thoughts and ideas.

So when is it ok to believe in WIFOM and when is it not? Your reasoning seems to contradict itself, does it not?

 

Reminds of the liar's paradox ("Everything I say is a lie. I am lying" Am I a liar or not?)

 

To answer your question, I always believe in WIFOM; just some times more than others.

Mainly cuz when you voted...it just seems like you joined the soj lynch bandwagon. Your reasoning was weak. It was only provided when Martino had to ask for it (twice). You post very little as to not draw attention to yourself. You are not actively scum hunting (although this is not indicative of townie behaviour...but most of the time it is). I typically give newbies a pass on D1. However, we are in D3...no more free passes for anybody.

 

I voted for him because at that time sojourner looks the scummiest. If I did not vote for him and it turns out he's a scum people will suspect me and I don't want to waste my vote again.