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

Regarding Falzis' defense, I think he makes a good case and can't really argue against it. However, I don't see anyone else that would make a better candidate. The fact remains that he pushed for the lynch of a townie.

 

Despite my saying I can't argue against it, I'll make a weak rebuttal.

 

"I've put my head and neck too much out there to be a mafia."

Maybe. But this is a case of Wine In Front Of Me. Wouldn't a mafia want to put his head and neck out there to appear that he's not mafia?

 

"Sojourner's death cannot be solely placed upon me and cannot be a scum tell for me."

Maybe. Two voted for him on the first day and six voted for him on the second day.

 

sojourner (6): Falzis, Narsis, Electric Mango, Kaziocore, Aquinas, Sir Jesus

Falzis (4): Martino, Theophilos, KevinH, sojourner

 

Not Voting (2): Nerau, partyin01

 

I'm willing to bet at least one scum was part of the six that lynched on the second day. I haven't seen a reason to deviate from my first impression.

Yes but you have to tell me why of all six, I should be that one scum. I haven't seen a reason to not suspect the others as much if not more than me.

Yes but you have to tell me why of all six, I should be that one scum. I haven't seen a reason to not suspect the others as much if not more than me.

Narsis #1 was killed and proven to be townie so it's not him.

 

Falzis and Electric Mango were the two that voted unsuccessfully to lynch a townie (proven later) on day 1.

I understand it could have been a bad attempt at scum-hunting but we don't know for sure at this point.

 

Kaziocore, Aquinas, and Sir Jesus just don't seem as suspicious.

 

Narsis' replacing in has nothing to do with alignment. -M

Edited July 16, 200917 yr by molestargazer

I think he meant mole that of the 6, Narsis (the original, not Nerau-Narsis) died and is ruled out.

 

Anyways, it really seems to me that there is a mafia propaganda to let me take the fall, and paint EM as scum by association (which I do not credit or discredit).

 

It's so convenient for scum to step aside, let townies make a wrong lynch and wagon on it, then blame the proponents later. This strategy will chalk you up one more day lynch and you can just say the next day "Oh, I really thought Falzis was scum".

 

After all that's said and done, I have to go back to Kevin after all, with a stronger belief of his scuminess.

 

Vote: KevinH

@ Falzis - so out of the people who voted for soj...name 2 that you think are scummy and why. Convince me.

I think he meant mole that of the 6, Narsis (the original, not Nerau-Narsis) died and is ruled out.

 

Correct.

 

My bad.

Edited July 16, 200917 yr by molestargazer

It's so convenient for scum to step aside, let townies make a wrong lynch and wagon on it, then blame the proponents later. This strategy will chalk you up one more day lynch and you can just say the next day "Oh, I really thought Falzis was scum".

 

Alternatively, it's so convenient for scum to step in, orchestrate a lynch and say, "Oh, I really thought Sojourner was scum."

But I didn't do that. I said "Oh I was wrong, and he really wasn't scum!" per my concession to Martino's foresight.

 

@Canucks

 

I have 3 in mind I think they have equal chances of being scum. I'm sleepy right now and too lazy to sift through posts to make a comprehensive case but the short of it is Electric Mango, Sir Jesus and Kaziocore.

 

EM for role fishing (which I've found persisted since Day 1). Sir Jesus for proposing to vote for Nerau. And Kaziocore for being a newbie (might be playing or told to play the newbie card).

But I didn't do that. I said "Oh I was wrong, and he really wasn't scum!" per my concession to Martino's foresight.

 

@Canucks

 

I have 3 in mind I think they have equal chances of being scum. I'm sleepy right now and too lazy to sift through posts to make a comprehensive case but the short of it is Electric Mango, Sir Jesus and Kaziocore.

 

EM for role fishing (which I've found persisted since Day 1). Sir Jesus for proposing to vote for Nerau. And Kaziocore for being a newbie (might be playing or told to play the newbie card).

 

 

Then out of the 3...who would you vote for right now (ignoring the fact that you already voted for KevinH)?

I think you and Martino have the same question, I'll get to that in a second.

 

 

 

Coming to someone's defense that I think is a townie is my obligation to the town. If we lynch the wrong person today we will be starting the next day in a big hole. I don't want us to make a mistake. If it's ok to voice our suspicions of others, is it not just as ok to voice our opinions if we think they are innocent. I presented good reasons why I think he has a good chance of being a townie.

 

 

 

 

I cannot tell you if I am for it or against it because I don't have all the facts. I will however give you scenarios and what I would do for each.

 

Strong Doc could be a psychiatrist or something similiar. This could very well be a plausible scenario given our setting, a mental hospital.

 

A psychiatrist's night action is that he can choose one post to send to Mole. Mole would then tell him if that post is true or not.

 

Let's say someone posted, "Nerau is scum". The psychiatrist would send that post to Mole and Mole would tell him yes that is true, or no it is not.

 

If that is what a Strong Doc can do then he could know the alignment of 2 other people, plus himself.

 

If the town was close to lynching someone the doc knew was innocent then I would support the doc role claiming. This would also greatly help narrow down the list of possible suspects, another reason to support the role claim in this scenario.

 

 

Now if the strong doc is just a normal doc who can only protect others at night then I would only support him role claiming when there were 8 people left alive. Since it would be most likely 5 vs 3 a wrong lynch would mean the town would lose. The wrong lynch and a night kill would put it at 3 vs 3 and scum automatically win. This makes 5 vs 3 a do or die situation and the doc should role claim to help narrow the list of suspects down.

 

Any other situations I would not support the role claim.

 

 

For all we know, Kaziocore (sorry for picking on you but you are obviously the newest player) could be the strong doc but not know how to best utilize his role. Having these discussions make it easier for our newer players to learn how to best use their roles.

 

Again, I never asked the doc to role claim.

 

I'm not convinced. This entire post is a straw man argument for the question I addressed to you. Something like, what are your opinions? Do you condone this strategy etc etc. I don't care right now what roles could still be out there. Odds are its just the strong doctor left. The nature of that role is not what I asked for. I asked for your opinion on whether or not you condone role claiming as you purposed. But okay, maybe what your said wasn't crazy left field in addressing my question. However, you seem a bit dodgy to get a solid yes or no to role claiming out there. I don't care if you don't have all the facts. No one does. I never asked you to. Just give us your opinion on this theory. You certainly have defended both sides so pick one. If you think the doctor should role claim right now, say so. No one knows what the strong doctor knows and they can't tell us without role claiming. Do you think the pros outweigh the cons or not because you've illustrated quite a few of each. You asked us

 

I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on this please. Did I miss something, is it a good idea, is it a bad idea, what else should we consider?

 

So I want to know definitively right now, considering all that you have said: Is it a good idea or is it a bad idea for the strong doctor to role claim? Would you recommend the doctor role claims right now?

 

VOTE COUNT

Falzis (3): KevinH, Theophilos, CanucksDynasty

Sir Jesus (1): Electric Mango

Electric Mango (1): Martino

KevinH (1): Falzis

 

Not Voting (4): Narsis, Kaziocore, Aquinas, Sir Jesus

Edited July 16, 200917 yr by molestargazer

So I want to know definitively right now, considering all that you have said: Is it a good idea or is it a bad idea for the strong doctor to role claim? Would you recommend the doctor role claims right now?

 

Since I don't know what the doc knows and you're asking me to make a blind judgment without all the facts my answer is.........

 

No, I would not want the doc to role claim.

Since I don't know what the doc knows and you're asking me to make a blind judgment without all the facts my answer is.........

 

No, I would not want the doc to role claim.

I'll agree with that!

 

If there happens to be a truth-confirming role...

 

I am townie and Falzis is scum.

@ Mole - Can we get a prod on Martino please

I'll agree with that!

 

If there happens to be a truth-confirming role...

 

I am townie and Falzis is scum.

 

Not sure how that would work.

IF it came back NO...what would that mean?

NO, KevinH is not at townie or NO, Falzis is not scum?

 

IF anything it should be broken up.

 

I am townie.

KevinH is townie.

Falzis is townie.

Martino is townie.

EM is townie.

Narsis is townie.

Kaziocore is townie.

Aquinas is townie.

Theophilis is townie.

Sir Jesus is townie.

@ Mole - Can we get a prod on Martino please

That won't be necessary; I'm still around. I just didn't find your defence strong enough to unvote. Your basically saying that you have no opinion regarding the strong doc roleclaiming because you don't know what his role is exactly. Wouldn't it make sense that the weak reffered to the power of the doc role? And the doc role is always related to protecting players from night kills. So then there would be no reason for the doc to roleclaim. Which is why I think you were rolefishing and not trying to help the town.

 

Now, you say that the strong doc is perhaps not a doc but a psychiatrist. But why would mole call the psychiatrist a strong doc? It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Not sure how that would work.

IF it came back NO...what would that mean?

NO, KevinH is not at townie or NO, Falzis is not scum?

 

IF anything it should be broken up.

 

I am townie.

KevinH is townie.

Falzis is townie.

Martino is townie.

EM is townie.

Narsis is townie.

Kaziocore is townie.

Aquinas is townie.

Theophilis is townie.

Sir Jesus is townie.

In fact, even that won't work. As a townie, I only know my own alignment. So if I add a statement like KevinH is a townie. Then it could no longer be used to investigate as I don't even know myself if that statement is true or false. So if we are going to do this, we should only add the statement about ourselves:

 

I am a townie.

I thought as much.

 

As per your question, the two I would pick of the 3 I suspect right now would be EM and Sir Jesus. Kaziocore the least because the case against him is built more on negative evidence (what he isn't doing) more than on positive evidence (what he has done).

EBWOP: I am townie.

The MSG Secure Hospital for the Criminally Insane (MSGSHCI)

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

 

I think there might be more tied into the theme.

 

I normally think of an insane cop as always getting the wrong result. Maybe something similar would have happened here if the cop didn't get night-killed right away.

 

We assume there is a strong doc because we know there was a weak doc. Maybe the description weak was just meant to contrast it with normal in other games.

 

.

.

.

 

Note to those that will scream "scum-tell for role-fishing": please tell me how the scum will benefit before pointing the finger at me.

So if I add a statement like KevinH is a townie. Then it could no longer be used to investigate as I don't even know myself if that statement is true or false. So if we are going to do this, we should only add the statement about ourselves:

 

I am a townie.

 

Assuming there are a limited number of queries, it's more efficient to do it in groups.

 

The statement could be "Nerau-Narsis, Kaziocore, and Aquinas are townie."

If it's true, you have cleared 3 people.

If it's false, you can lynch with a least a 1 in 3 chance of catching scum.

How does it benefit us to second guess power roles anyway?

Assuming there are a limited number of queries, it's more efficient to do it in groups.

 

The statement could be "Nerau-Narsis, Kaziocore, and Aquinas are townie."

If it's true, you have cleared 3 people.

If it's false, you can lynch with a least a 1 in 3 chance of catching scum.

 

I think Martino's point was that we only know our own alignment that's why putting statements for other people's alignment won't help if the doctor/psychiatrist only detects truth or lies from that player.

I thought as much.

 

As per your question, the two I would pick of the 3 I suspect right now would be EM and Sir Jesus. Kaziocore the least because the case against him is built more on negative evidence (what he isn't doing) more than on positive evidence (what he has done).

 

We know soj was a townie.

 

IF we presume that you (Falzis) are townie...then that means it would not matter to SJ (if he is scum) who he placed his vote on as a townie would get lynched. IF that is the case...I don't see why SJ would need to be the last vote on soj. EM and Kaziocore were in the middle of the votes and would garner more suspcion from me.

My suspicion of SJ is based on his proposition to vote off Nerau (now Narsis).

acutally, it wouldn't even matter that SJ put his vote on soj, soj would still have died unless someone voting for soj withdrew his vote, or one of the inactive players voted for Falzis. however, considering the case against soj, i doubt that anyone would have switched.

 

so in my opinion it would put the suspicion more so on those that voted earlier.

My suspicion of SJ is based on his proposition to vote off Nerau (now Narsis).

 

but why would that make him suspect? Nerau could easily be mafia. in fact i would almost say more so then townie since he caved under pressure.

 

imo, mafia would want to leave an inactive player alone since they couldn't hurt them by being inactive. i think that the mafia would have been looking for an active player to lynch, or at least someone semi-active(*cough*Kaziocore*cough*).