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

His proposal to have the strong doctor role claim was very strange.

 

 

 

Please quote exactly where I said I wanted the doc to role claim. I'd love to see it.

 

I was liking your post up until the part where you said stuff about me that wasn't true. This entire game I have been nothing but upfront and honest about everything, trying to play as transparent as possible. The only player who has contributed as much or more than I have is Falzis, now we are both drawing suspicion? I always find it ironic that people who put themselves out there the most to try to help the town win always seem to draw the fire, while others who hardly contribute (Sir Jesus and others) get a free pass.

Here's the ironic part, though: I'd play this way even if I were scum. Trust me, this time I'm townie!

 

even more ironic: you suggest that there may be scum in the people that didn't vote for soj, but you also want people to vote against those that have voted against soj. contradiction much?

Why is this suspicious?

You are starting with "amongst those who voted for sojourner" as if only that set contains scum.

I put forth that there is also scum amongst those that didn't vote for Sojourner.

 

It's a moot point regardless, since I won't turn out to be scum.

 

Ugh hello. Your point is ridiculous because the point I was making by voting for you is precisely what you said, that I believe there is a scum amongst those that didn't vote for Sojourner (or more exactly those that voted for me) and it happens to be that I suspect you to be the scum (if also Theophilos, but that's another story).

 

Plus, there are only three people in the other camp. You (KevinH), Theo and Martino. So tell me, who do you (KevinH) think is the scum in that other side? Of course you'd have to choose between Theo and Martino... unless you're the scum.

even more ironic: you suggest that there may be scum in the people that didn't vote for soj, but you also want people to vote against those that have voted against soj. contradiction much?

Do you give a free pass to the whole set that didn't vote for Sojourner? I didn't think so.

 

It's a matter of probabilities. It is very likely that that one or more scum voted to lynch a townie. That's where we should seek to lynch today.

 

Nevertheless, it is still quite possible that not all scum voted to lynch the townie.

 

If there's a contradiction here, I don't see it.

I think you're just trying to make me sound like a fool here. I may have been unclear, I am not convinced of your scuminess although I think it is likely. I meant to convey that "I think" and "I am convinced" are two different degrees of certainty.

 

I'm not trying to make you look like a fool, I'm trying to make you look like someone who isn't sure of what he is saying, which could be a scum tell.

 

Anyway, I don't agree with your semantic gymnastics as I think you are trying to deftly maneuver out of a tight spot. I'm still keeping an eye on you.

Knock knock KevinH. Pressure time. Who do you think is scum amongst the three of you that voted for me?

What say ye now?

 

I say:

 

One, the assumption that scum wanted to lynch a townie was wrong and that scum chose to hide and not vote was the correct conclusion on scum D1 actions.

 

Two, dare I say, the analysis about my and even EM's innocence still stands precisely because of number One. We can't be scum since if scum voted for sojourner, he should have died because there was a manifested intent to lynch and there was a violation of the conclusion from number One that scum chose to hide.

 

Three, to that extent, I am extending the umbrella of innocence to Sir Jesus since he voted and didn't choose to stay under the radar.

Knock knock KevinH. Pressure time. Who do you think is scum amongst the three of you that voted for me?

 

And I would also love to hear finally why would you vote for me if you believe that my defense was a solid and inarguable case? I asked you that before and I've yet to hear the answer. Please don't say "You're still the best candidate" because if you believe my defense, which argues my innocence, you shouldn't vote for me at all.

Plus, there are only three people in the other camp. You (KevinH), Theo and Martino. So tell me, who do you (KevinH) think is the scum in that other side? Of course you'd have to choose between Theo and Martino... unless you're the scum.

 

You leave out Nerau-Narsis and CanucksDynasty. If I had done something like that, you'd be accusing me of attempting to mislead.

You leave out Nerau-Narsis and CanucksDynasty. If I had done something like that, you'd be accusing me of attempting to mislead.

 

But we're talking of people who voted. They were inactives. You said so yourself. There could be a scum in the other camp. I didn't assume you were talking about the inactive camp.

And I would also love to hear finally why would you vote for me if you believe that my defense was a solid and inarguable case? I asked you that before and I've yet to hear the answer. Please don't say "You're still the best candidate" because if you believe my defense, which argues my innocence, you shouldn't vote for me at all.

 

I believe your defense could be true. Just as I said that I play the same whether I'm townie or scum, you could be a scum making all the right townie arguments.

 

If you don't want me to say you're the best candidate, I phrase it this way: everyone else is a worse candidate.

From Day 1:

VOTE COUNT

sojourner (3): Electric Mango, Falzis, junkahoolik

No Lynch (1): KevinH

 

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

 

Hypothesis: Electric Mango and Falzis are scum. The 3rd scum that was needed to lynch the townie on day 1 was an inactive player at the time.

 

It's as good a theory as any.

But we're talking of people who voted. They were inactives. You said so yourself. There could be a scum in the other camp. I didn't assume you were talking about the inactive camp.

 

Let's quote what I really said:

I put forth that there is also scum amongst those that didn't vote for Sojourner.

 

Twisting my words? Is that a scum-tell?

I say:

 

One, the assumption that scum wanted to lynch a townie was wrong and that scum chose to hide and not vote was the correct conclusion on scum D1 actions.

 

Two, dare I say, the analysis about my and even EM's innocence still stands precisely because of number One. We can't be scum since if scum voted for sojourner, he should have died because there was a manifested intent to lynch and there was a violation of the conclusion from number One that scum chose to hide.

 

Three, to that extent, I am extending the umbrella of innocence to Sir Jesus since he voted and didn't choose to stay under the radar.

 

you do have a point...although what happens if two decided to stay under the radar and one didn't. or vice versa. any combination of scum could have voted or not voted as long as the result wasn't a lynch.

 

also, where did SJ vote and not stay under the radar?

Wait lemme check if I remember correctly. I think he voted for KevinH on D1.

He did vote on page 14, the last page before D1 ended but I only saw the top part of it (mole's summary). It seems SJ unvoted in the middle of the page.

Let's quote what I really said:

 

 

Twisting my words? Is that a scum-tell?

 

I was wrong. I thought we were talking about the same thing. So let me rephrase the question. Who do you think is the scum from those that didn't vote for sojourner?

on another side note: why hasn't Martino posted lately? i would like to hear his opinions of what's going on. sitting in the background won't do much good now.

I'm pretty busy and the last few pages haven't really changed my opinion on most people. But I'll give my opinion on a few posts now.

It's difficult to know anything. It's a bit random but we just need to lynch someone and see where it goes from there.

I believe this was more a case of an unfortunate formulation than KevinH really suggesting that we randomly lynch someone. It's simply completely out of character for KevinH. Still, I don't really like his posts that contribute nothing such as:

I am just someone. You must want the town to lose.

That is not getting the town anywhere. On the other hand, there is not really much of a case against him, so I can understand his frustrations. Still, these posts do not help his cause nor do they help the town.

Vote: KevinH

That earns you my:

 

FOS Narsis.

 

I really dislike voting without a reason. It just makes it so easy to find an excuse in a later stage. If you want to vote, you must have a reason. Even if it is just agreeing with someone else, you should still share it with us. That way we can either agree with you and vote alongside you or disagree and try to prevent the lynch of a possible townie.

Now I'm really confused...

Yeah, that is not going to get you off of my scumlist.

 

Also, I almost completely agree with Aquinas' posts. The only difference is that I think that the link between EM and Falzis might be a bit too obvious. I'm not sure if scum would play it that obvious.

on a side note: why is it only CD that asked for my reasoning behind my vote on Kevin?

I found that remarkable as well. Still, while you have attacked KevinH in one of your last few posts, you haven't answered his question. So, could you please list your reasons for voting KevinH?

 

So in short my current opinion: I think the case against KevinH is not very strong and, even though I have my suspicions of Falzis myself, I think there are better targets than him as well. My first target is still EM, for his 'suggestion' of the strong doc roleclaim, his vote on Sojourner and his mirroring of Falzis. Closely followed by Kaziocore for his vote for Sojourner based on a false reason and his general refusal to do anything to help the town.

For now I'm really convinced that KevinH is not scum so I won't be voting for him. As for Falzis and EM, I'm very suspicious of the two but more at EM. It's kind of weird that he started to put the idea of the roleclaiming doc and everything after I tried to sacrifice or something. And the way he said this

 

Con's

-------

 

We lose our last power role

We have a good to fair chance at lynching a scum without the information anyway

The strong doc may have any more information for us if he survives another day

 

It's like telling us that the only con in the roleclaim doc thingy is "The strong doc may have any more information for us if he survives another day" and the pros over-weigh the cons or something.

 

Also I'm guessing why EM told that I'm a townie and also Falzis started to unvote when I told you people to vote me instead was because they could be mafia and they thought I was going to be lynched and the next day when I'm found townie, they won't get much votes because they defended a townie or something.

 

These things and the fact that it looks like he always team up with Falzis which I am suspicious too I'll

 

Vote: EM

 

I could be wrong but right now he's at the top of my scum list.

 

But it won't matter anyway right? Falzis was the first to reach 3 votes unless someone changed their votes.

Unvote: Sir Jesus

Vote: KevinH

Obviously I'm changing my vote at this point to save my own skin. If I'm correct it was a three way tie between Falzis, KevinH, and myself. I know that I am a townie and between Falzis and KevinH, I think that KevinH is a better candidate for reasons already stated.

 

I'll be back later to present my formal defense. In the mean time I'd just like to say that I can't believe I'm catching this much heat for discussing (power role) strategy. My comments have been taken out of context, or just plain misrepresented by those that voted for me. This is the latest example by Kaziocore.

 

We lose our last power role

We have a good to fair chance at lynching a scum without the information anyway

The strong doc may have any more information for us if he survives another day

 

It's like telling us that the only con in the roleclaim doc thingy is "The strong doc may have any more information for us if he survives another day" and the pros over-weigh the cons or something.

 

You just quoted two other ones that you are choosing to ignore for some reason. Needless to say, I'm a little frustrated.

as requested: my reasons for voting Kevin:

 

1. i'm unsure of who actually is scum still at this point. making it a two-horse race(and by now a threesome) is giving me insight on who is teamed with who. i'm fairly sure that at least one of those we are voting against is scum, simply because:

 

a. i know i'm not scum.

b. i'm assuming three mafia.

c. i'm betting that some of the scum are going to be playing a more active role.

d. i have reasons to believe that Aquinas is townie.

 

so based on that the following could be mafia:

 

Falzis

EM

Martino

Kevin

 

2. following up on the above, and based on their play, there seems to be sort of two teams: Falzis/EM, and KevinH. what i was hoping to do with my vote was to expand these sides a bit.

 

3. if i could expand these sides a bit then even if Kevin(or whoever dies) is a townie then i, and the town, could begin looking to the other side for the mafia.

 

4. Kevin so far has seemed to be playing below his townie norm. in other words, the way his playing is reminiscent of his playing as mafia.

 

5. it's getting close to the end of the day so might as well make my voice heard.

For now I'm really convinced that KevinH is not scum so I won't be voting for him. As for Falzis and EM, I'm very suspicious of the two but more at EM. It's kind of weird that he started to put the idea of the roleclaiming doc and everything after I tried to sacrifice or something. And the way he said this

 

Con's

-------

 

We lose our last power role

We have a good to fair chance at lynching a scum without the information anyway

The strong doc may have any more information for us if he survives another day

 

It's like telling us that the only con in the roleclaim doc thingy is "The strong doc may have any more information for us if he survives another day" and the pros over-weigh the cons or something.

 

Also I'm guessing why EM told that I'm a townie and also Falzis started to unvote when I told you people to vote me instead was because they could be mafia and they thought I was going to be lynched and the next day when I'm found townie, they won't get much votes because they defended a townie or something.

 

These things and the fact that it looks like he always team up with Falzis which I am suspicious too I'll

 

Vote: EM

 

I could be wrong but right now he's at the top of my scum list.

 

But it won't matter anyway right? Falzis was the first to reach 3 votes unless someone changed their votes.

 

Very out of character! Not that I'm discounting the possibility of you giving a substantive post but I would assume you would maybe in the next mafia game, but not in this game. If you're always confused, I wonder why the clarity now? I'm thinking you're being fed. And that makes me very very amenable to voting for you instead.

 

Secondly, I don't think EM said for the doc to roleclaim. He said "hey guys, let's discuss the possibility of the doc roleclaiming". They are two very different situations. And you can accuse me of defending EM and we look like buddies but I think it's a gross misrepresentation to say he was from the start advocating the doc to roleclaim.

 

And if you say, oh hey, he could have misguided a poor new soul, let's backtrack and look at the environment. A lot of us posted immediately the dangers and pitfalls and say, oh no that's not a good idea and even a good discussion to pursue. Plus, the only newbie left is Kaziocore.

VOTE COUNT

Falzis (3): KevinH, Theophilos, CanucksDynasty

KevinH (3): Falzis, Sir Jesus, Narsis, Electric Mango

Electric Mango (3): Martino, Aquinas, Kaziocore

 

as it stands. bolded are those who voted for sojourner minus original Narsis, non-stylized for those who voted for me minus sojourner, and italicized for replaced players.

 

for easy reference of camps.

EBWOP Kevin's numerical vote should read as (4).