Mid-Range Game 9: The Steel Ministry

[DeathClutch19 he/him]

 

People I am specifically cautious about are basically just Winter, Deathscythe and somewhat you

 

To be honest, I prefer the name Hellscythe.

Deathscythe isn't a name I associate with at all. Deathclutch is but I prefer Hellscythe.

 

Also if you're asking my evidence against Alfa you didn't read my will. That's ok I didn't die anyway so I don't blame you.

I'll repost it here for you.

Alfa - Ashbringer Fadraux ??? - X Claims Peweterarm but doesn’t provoke? (bad)

Why be pewter and not try to provoke an attack by the baddies? Seems like an easy skaa play to claim pewter to me. Susp.

2 inquis-aligned pewter dead. Chances of 3. Minimal.

 

Also I have something new to bring to the table.

 

 

Kipper being Skaa

Skaa Kills

______________________________________________________________________________

Mailliw-Medkit-9 atium --------------------------------------------Killed by skaa n1

Alvom - Larger Pan, Medkit, 0 Atium (as of C11)------------Killed by skaa n2

Sart (aka a smart guy) - 1 atium :\-------------------------------Killed by skaa n3

Note: All members of coporation (skaa) in previous game.

Now Alvron is killed by skaa-----------------------------------Killed by skaa n4

______________________________________________________________________________

Most suspicious because of these kills

Lopen --- appeared in long game and quick fix and already sus (died d5) he's skaa but seemed saltier about wyrm rather than the actual corporation

Orlok--- appeared in long game and quick fix and already sus (died d5)

Alvron--- appeared in long game and quick fix and already sus (died d5)

Kipper--- appeared in long game and quick fix and already sus (Last one still alive) <SKAA> Also the last experienced player left on the bad side of my list to have the knowhow to kill Alvron and the corporation players. He also votes for Clanky a very townie town.

 

Edit: @Wyrm As you might guess I don't like your vote on Winter because you're both in my town list. Also to clear up any misconceptions I didn't base your innocence solely off your vote on Lopen. It just pushed you over the edge from "Almost Pretty Good" to Good.

Edited October 29, 2015 by DeathClutch19

[STINK he/him]

Though this isn't that helpful, it is kinda my thing to do this.

 

Kipper, tell us more of your actions these last few days.

 

EDIT: There are a lot of people looking at this thread! 

Edited October 29, 2015 by IrulelikeSTINK

[polkinghornbd he/him]

I don't think that skaa would really kill in such a pattern, besides killing off all the players who were talkative because that helps them. I see that as a possible way to cast suspicion on another. Also, on your list, deathclutch, you put me as not likely a skaa because I was a copper and the skaa shouldn't have two coppers. While that might be true that the skaa only have one copper, the roles are given out randomly. For all we know, the eliminator a could all be copper, or as many as were assigned. M not going to vote now because my class starts in five minutes, but I will get on later and look at this.

[DeathClutch19 he/him]

Again. I UNDERSTAND that the roles are uncertain. I also believe Gamma would make a balanced game. Not that I know Gamma personally that's just what I heard. Your position on the list was moved from Skaa to (almost skaa). Not proven innocent.

 

Anything not in light green is not 100% certain! I said that at the end of the list in my will the day before.

 

I can only make assumptions just like all of you. And ruling things out just because "the eliminator could all be copper" is getting us nowhere. If we base everything on the extremes we can't make any assumptions as to who the skaa are. We have no true seeker roles and therefore every lynch we make will HAVE to be an assumption. And if you play the "what if" game all day long you're not making any assumptions you're only making excuses as to why those assumptions MIGHT not work.

 

Nothing in this game is certain. The "what if's?" are endless. So I make do with what is given to me little by little.

 

 

Edit: typo

Edited October 29, 2015 by DeathClutch19

[Clanky he/him]

@Deathclutch: Don't discount the chances that we were given three Pewterarms on the inquisitors. We made that mistake in LG14 and killed all of our Lifeless Operators(Similar to the lurchers in this game) because the GM would never give three protection roles to the same team. Spoiler, he did! Also Kipper may have good reason to be voting for me so I will be refraining from any sort of analysis based off the vote until we get the reasons.

 

I looked back through Lopens posts and unfortunately didn't find anything too damning. I do however have the opposite view that Lopens Skaaness makes Wyrm an inquisitor. There was never any really good reasoning why Wyrm voted for Lopen or vice versa and it the votes never put either of them at risk of a lynch. It could easily have just been banter to distance themselves once in case one of them is killed and revealed. In other words while they voted for each other neither of them actually tried to get the other one lynched.  I don't feel strongly enough based with just that to try and get wyrm killed but it definitely moved him up in suspicion for me. 

 

In fact I happen to agree with wyrm at the moment about Winter. There hasn't been much analysis and a few posts seem off to me including this one

 

Whoah. Coinshot pro. Good job. On Orlok, I was certain he was evil. Oh well. You get some and you lose some and I'm considering that this cycle is a victory, even if we lost a Lurcher. Two Eliminators down is a great job done. Clap yourself on the back, Coinshot(s?). 

 

Also the response here when Orlok questioned Winters behavior this game. Should we just consider anything odd that winter does a result of normal erratic behavior and just ignore it?

 

 

 

I have looked at your post about your points. Unfortunately, if I retract, there won't be a lynch as I won't vote against Creccio because I don't suspect them. Like your point about Joe, seeing if you're good or bad will give us info either way. 

 

Furthermore this part of the quote (shown above, Winter is talking about Orlok) really contradicts the quote this cycle in which Winter is certain that Orlok was evil

 

 

EDIT:        , So many Ninjas!

 

EDIT: Put Lopen where Orlok should have been

Edited October 29, 2015 by Clanky

[Guest]

*snip*

 

Also I have something new to bring to the table.

 

 

Kipper being Skaa

Skaa Kills

______________________________________________________________________________

Mailliw-Medkit-9 atium --------------------------------------------Killed by skaa n1

Alvom - Larger Pan, Medkit, 0 Atium (as of C11)------------Killed by skaa n2

Sart (aka a smart guy) - 1 atium :\-------------------------------Killed by skaa n3

Note: All members of coporation (skaa) in previous game.

Now Alvron is killed by skaa-----------------------------------Killed by skaa n4

______________________________________________________________________________

Most suspicious because of these kills

Lopen --- appeared in long game and quick fix and already sus (died d5) he's skaa but seemed saltier about wyrm rather than the actual corporation

Orlok--- appeared in long game and quick fix and already sus (died d5)

Alvron--- appeared in long game and quick fix and already sus (died d5)

Kipper--- appeared in long game and quick fix and already sus (Last one still alive) <SKAA> Also the last experienced player left on the bad side of my list to have the know-how to kill Alvron and the corporation players. He also votes for Clanky a very townie town.

Okay, what the--

I died Night 1 in the QF. NIGHT ONE! Check the dead doc, I maybe posted like five or six lines in the Dead Doc and moved on. Like, I literally did not know who the Eliminators were in that game until you just posted something about them. IF you want to look at people who may be salty from the QF game (which is a bad idea, imo), you may want to look at someone who actually lived past N1...

P.S. I almost want to vote you for that, but I will remain strong.

 

About Clanky:

My red flags started D1, in the later portion of it. Clanky spent a good portion of time criticizing Joe's "plan," which we later found out to be not the real "plan." When I came and mentioned that it was a flawed plan, Clanky then spent a good portion of time attacking me, and it took me a bit to figure out why. I still don't understand why I was scrutinized so hard for saying that I saw some flaws. That's one. His vote on D1 also irks me for some reason, but I'm willing to overlook that.

 

D2: Suggest that Maill's death has some analytic value. I'd like to overlook this as well, but the post didn't actually say anything substantive about what value Maill's death might have. The post seemed to be more of a starter for other people to tack onto. It implied that perhaps some of the people who suspected Joe (like myself, presumably) might be evil. Again, though, it did not actually say anything concrete, and most of the other people during the day said that they did not think Maill's death had that much analytic value. So it seems to me that Clanky was simply trying to run a flag up a pole to see if would fly, to see if he could get a lynch going on someone he knew to be innocent. Of course, if he is evil, this is a great strategy to employ, because he has plausible deniability later. It's a very easy strategy to get behind, but I don't buy it for a D1 kill on Maill.

Also, Clanky does another Contribution Crusade thing, which just irritates me in general. I'm always wary of the Contribution Crusade, not because it doesn't have valid points, but because it was started by an Eliminator, and it's a nice strategy to use as an Eliminator.

D3: Not much to report. Voted zephrer for saying anti-skaa things without any analytic value, zephrer said "Yeah, but seriously I'm not skaa." Says Wyrm's plan wouldn't work that well.

D4: This post really stands out to me. Contrast what he says in this post with what he said earlier about Maill's death. Earlier he thinks that there is analytic value in Maill's death. Now he votes Alvron for voting Wyrm, with some strange reasoning, saying that:

 

Everyone can tell that players are normally targeted by eliminators based on their threat and activity levels. I'm sure Wyrm knows that and was saying that he can't see what else we can learn by analyzing these kills.

Also says that he would expect the skaa to avoid the conversation because of randomness and irrationality. (possible IKYK) Says that he has a lingering suspicion of Creccio, which I would agree with as well. 

Anyway, that about sums it up. D1, D2, and D4 contain my main suspicion points, especially that viewpoint change on Maill's death.

 

 

Deathclutch

Two questions for you. 

1. What does this

 

Kipper - Kipper - Sus on Post + Post + NO D4 Post

mean? I can't respond to it if I don't understand it. If all it is is that I was in the QF too, I'm perfectly willing to just ignore that.

2. Why do you say Clanky is a very "townie town", as opposed to just a "town?" Is it something particular about Clanky that makes him very innocent in your eyes?

 

Edit: STINK, what do you want to know?

 

Edit 2: Removed vote on Clanky

Edited October 31, 2015 by Guest

[Clanky he/him]

 

 

1My red flags started D1, in the later portion of it. Clanky spent a good portion of time criticizing Joe's "plan," which we later found out to be not the real "plan." 2 When I came and mentioned that it was a flawed plan, Clanky then spent a good portion of time attacking me, and it took me a bit to figure out why. I still don't understand why I was scrutinized so hard for saying that I saw some flaws. That's one. 3 His vote on D1 also irks me for some reason, but I'm willing to overlook that.

1: I wasn't criticizing the original "plan". We all knew that there was more to the plan than that, Joe himself said so. I was bringing up problems that would exist in any incarnation of a plan based upon what I knew.

2: You were acting like you saw a flaw that no-one else did when I had been discussing those things the whole cycle. You just seemed to be acting like you were the only one who could see the real problem in Joes plan when many people had already been discussing the flaws. Sorry if you felt you were being scrutinized but it was a strange thing for you to come in so late and act like you saw things no-one else did.

3: I voted for Sart he ended up being good oops? It was day one

 

 

Unfortunately I have to leave the internet for a while and can't give my response to everything now. I will be back though.

[Guest]

1: I wasn't criticizing the original "plan". We all knew that there was more to the plan than that, Joe himself said so. I was bringing up problems that would exist in any incarnation of a plan based upon what I knew.

2: You were acting like you saw a flaw that no-one else did when I had been discussing those things the whole cycle. You just seemed to be acting like you were the only one who could see the real problem in Joes plan when many people had already been discussing the flaws. Sorry if you felt you were being scrutinized but it was a strange thing for you to come in so late and act like you saw things no-one else did.

3: I voted for Sart he ended up being good oops? It was day one

 

 

Unfortunately I have to leave the internet for a while and can't give my response to everything now. I will be back though.

1. Same as me. I was criticizing problems that would exist in any incarnation of the plan.

2. But it wasn't an act. I said things that no else said.

3. It's not that. I did that with Joe, so that's not my issue. It's just something about the reasoning that gets to me, and I can't pin it down. Don't pay too much attention to that. If it comes to me, I'll let you know.

 

STINK, what do you want from me?

[STINK he/him]

Kipper, I wanted to see some analysis After all, if everyone says that the people who write long posts are dying, shouldn't we get the last few remaining to do their job? Also, I wanted to see you write a post after a whole cycle with no posts from Kipper! 

 

Do you have to ask me the same question for every post? 

 

I'm not really sure who to vote now, anyone know any other people who may pride themselves on their analysis skills that may not be doing much of it?

[DeathClutch19 he/him]

 

 

Deathclutch

Two questions for you. 

1. What does this mean? I can't respond to it if I don't understand it. 

 

2. Why do you say Clanky is a very "townie town", as opposed to just a "town?" Is it something particular about Clanky that makes him very innocent in your eyes?

I was hoping the last standing experienced skaa wouldn't take my accusation lying down. Thank you for taking the time to respond. I saw you get offline and got scared for a bit.

 

1) As I was looking through joe's day1 10 page shenanigans and I wrote down any posts that stuck out as "suspicious" or "something I would say as skaa" and put it next to your name. Exactly what that was? I mean I can go and look back but you'll have to give me a minute.

2) Yes. All of Clankies posts day 1 were extremely town to me. Every post I read just solidified his position as a town member. I stand by my position to put him in my town circle along with Wyrm and Winter. They are in no way 100% not skaa, they're just more likely to be town than you.

 

Also Kipper,

I died Night 1 in the QF. NIGHT ONE! Check the dead doc, I maybe posted like five or six lines in the Dead Doc and moved on.

Dying night one might be the reason you were salty. Don't take this as me attacking you I know nothing about you and don't intend for you to take offense. I'm just saying dying night one is a valid reason to be angry at a skaa team.

CASE AND POINT THANK YOU: http://www.17thshard.com/forum/topic/46623-mid-range-game-9-the-steel-ministry/?p=345447 oh look Mail died D1. How convenient.

http://www.17thshard.com/forum/topic/46623-mid-range-game-9-the-steel-ministry/?p=345891I'm just finding golden gems in all of your D1 posts today aren't I kipper? Your plan in Step 1. seems to have come true. You killed Mial, lynched Joe, killed Alvron yesterday and kasimir was switched with Ripple so there's no need to kill her. Why you killed Sart over Wyrm is beyond me(good bronze check on lurcher?).

 

 

 I'm still suspicious of The Only Joe, most of all. I want him dead.

Unfortunately your teammates haven't given me such blatant clues to being a skaa like you have. If you could tell me who they are that'd help me a lot.

 

@Kipper I'd like to hear your opinion on your fellow skaa members Alfa and Zephrer if you don't mind. Also Honey Badger. He seems bad.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 @Clanky I understand what you're saying Clanky. 3 pewter's wouldn't be OUT OF THIS WORLD anyways. As I have nothing more than "he's not playing like a good Pewter should" and "2 good pewters are dead" I'll change my vote to skaa leader Kipper Oh another reason I suspect Alfa that I didn't write down was that he voted for Phattemer without any reasoning Day1 another person I believe to be very town. Also Alfa has only had one post to my knowledge that had any sort of Inquisition-like substance. This can be seen here http://www.17thshard.com/forum/topic/46623-mid-range-game-9-the-steel-ministry/?p=345797

Edited October 29, 2015 by DeathClutch19

[RippleGylf she/her]

I honestly feel like I'm failing at my second go at things. I have no veritable suspicions that I feel strong enough about to really vote for. I try to get on as often as I can, but I don't have the time to make good analysis. However, this is what I think of people at the moment.

 

DeathClutch: Your tone is very harsh and biting, but the depth that you've gone though to make analysis seems very villager to me. I don't see why a skaa would go through the trouble of reading every single post, especially after being inactive a couple days.

 

Kipper: I don't think Kipper seems like a skaa. Granted, a day 1 death from my perspective would seem like more cause to be sour, (I'm still a little salty over your assassination of me in MR8 after I dodged the lynch, by the way, but I can't blame you for being accurate) but perhaps Kipper is just the kind of player that doesn't get very worked up about dying.  However, it seems like he is trying to divert attention to Clanky after refuting the arguments against him. That seems more skaa to me.

 

Winter: I can't really blame her for not posting often, as I suspect that she has the same problem I do with time to analyze, but it wouldn't hurt to actually try to contribute once in a while. That being said, I don't like the way that these kind of suspicions work on people. It leaves some with an attitude of "Oh, you want me to vote/contribute/whatever? Then I'll do that, then!"     This doesn't allow a villager to adequately defend themselves, as these posts only exaggerate suspicion. It just makes a huge downward spiral that doesn't help anyone. Mini-rant aside, I think Winter is one to keep an eye on, but she hasn't gotten my suspicion to the point of lynching yet.

[Creccio he/him]

@Kipper

 

What do you have to say to Clutch?

 

I myself had my suspicions on you from here

 

Maybe you just said your plan out to everyone... who would do that? What Skaa would give out their plan day 1 and then continue to do it?

 

There are some possibilities

.

• Someone on the Skaa team thinks you got a good plan and is following it
• You are a Skaa and believe your plan is the best course of action based solely on experience of said players.

So... What do you have to say about those two points?

 

Also... what is your metal and how many charges you have? I am curious 

 

 

@Ripple

 

Winter is not a Skaa... i dont know why, but i just dont feel it.. Granted I have already lynched 2 villager (namely you and Orlok). That being said, I dont believe that is  a reason for her not to say what she has in mind. Let us know about your suspicions 

 

 

EDIT:

 

I also used my Zinc yesterday transferring anything from x to y if any seeker wants to say anything to confirm or people just want to know...

 

2 charges left....

 

Suggestions?

 

EDIT

 

Added a question to Kipp I'm so jealous, i wish i had cats

Edited October 30, 2015 by Creccio

[Guest]

...I'm not even sure how to respond to all that, but I'll try. Firstly:

 

 

 

CASE AND POINT THANK YOU: http://www.17thshard...istry/?p=345447 oh look Mail died D1. How convenient.

This post was essentially one big half inside, half not-inside joke. The first part was saying (again, in a joking way) that I couldn't personally support a D1 lynch on Ripple, because I had already killed her (him?) D1 in a previous game as an Assassin. Then I made another joke about being the sacrificial lamb in her place, but then said "No, I actually don't want to die N1." Because, for obvious reasons, I don't want to die Night One. Then I said to kill Mailliw instead, because he happened to "call me evil." It was a joke. That's all. I'm sorry that I have to explain this, but apparently I do. Correlation does not imply causation. Other notes: I'm not the type of person who gets mad when I get killed D1. It's happened to me twice at this point, and I don't go on vendetta sprees against the Eliminators who killed me. That's just not me. If anything, that D1 kill made me satisfied that I was considered a threat enough to kill, and it gave me more time to focus on the LG. Like I said, I didn't even know who the Corporates were until you posted them. Yes, I killed Ripple, because I thought she was an Eliminator, but so far she hasn't been all like "KILL KIPPER, HE KILLED ME." To be completely honest, I'm not even sure how to defend against this utter nonsense. You're being so agressive, and I'm not sure that anything I can say will convince you at this point that I'm not a Skaa. Like, what still-reasonable person says stuff like 'okay  Kipper, do you want to tell us anything about your Skaa teammates Alfa and Zephrer?" This is just bull. I'm sorry, but this stuff is irritating. I don't know if I'm entirely rational at this point... The accusation for the other post has more substance...

 

 

 

http://www.17thshard...istry/?p=345891I'm just finding golden gems in all of your D1 posts today aren't I kipper? Your plan in Step 1. seems to have come true...Okay, for one thing that was not a D1 post. By virtue of me talking about someone's death, that has to be post-D1. And like others, I was simply shedding some light on the reasons for Mailliw's death, as I see it. That would be my thought process if I were a Skaa. I would have killed Maill/Wyrmhero if I was a Skaa. I would have. Creccio, we've been over this before, so I don't think there's anything more we can say that isn't just rehashing what has already been said. I think accusing people that offer good reasons for why something happened is very rational or well-thought-out. Note that this post was AFTER Maill died, again, so it's not like I just posted a plan for the Skaa to follow. It already happened. Other players agreed with me (most other players who posted), but no one detailed the thought process like I did.

 

 

 

...You killed Mial, lynched Joe, killed Alvron yesterday and kasimir was switched with Ripple so there's no need to kill her. Why you killed Sart over Wyrm is beyond me(good bronze check on lurcher?).

If I were Skaa, yes, that is what happened. ? Why is there a need to re-inform me of my supposed crimes? Am I supposed to say, "Oh yeah, I'm a Skaa, and here's why I killed Wyrm?" The obvious (to me) reasons are many.

A. Wyrm is an Eliminator and can't kill himself.

B. The Skaa want to put suspicion on Wyrm as an experienced player who didn't die with the rest.

C. The Skaa wanted Sart dead for whatever reason.

D. And many variants of these.

 

@Creccio, I have one charge of metal left. I will keep the metal type secret for now. As an extra bit of info, I was the person (or perhaps one of the people) who visited Joe Night One.

 

Edit: This whole debacle makes me REALLY want to vote for Deathclutch. Maybe next cycle. I hope he/she is just being irrational right now, and I do believe that my accusations of Clanky have merit, especially his attitude shift toward Maill's death.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Guest

[DeathClutch19 he/him]

...I'm not even sure how to respond to all that, but I'll try. Firstly:

 

 

I'm not sure that anything I can say will convince you at this point that I'm not a Skaa. 

 

First off I'd like to apologize for being aggressive. But you are skaa so please understand. You're killing my teammates one by one and have the intention of finishing me off tonight as well!

 

I agree with you I'm not sure anything will convince me you are not skaa. Apologies. This whole post just makes me believe you are Skaa more. You write everything off as a joke and then say this.

 

 

 

" I would have killed Maill/Wyrmhero if I was a Skaa. I would have. " - Kipper

 

As a frequent Mafia player this statement are highly indicative of skaa. Unfortunately for you, you did not know about it. Fortunately for you not many other people do either and may not believe me which is fine. I would hope people wouldn't take everything I say without at least a small hint of doubt.

 

Let me explain. Skaa(Traitor's, Mafia, Werewolves, etc.) will often repeat things they have already said two sentences in a row so that they are certain they got their point across(they don't want to die because of miscommunication on their part they'd rather die a noble death). 

Example: I'm not skaa. I assure you.

TL;DR Double Affirmatives are indicative of Skaa.

 

I learned this from a psychology major(and I didn't just take his word for it I tested it several times myself) I am not that good guys I didn't figure this out myself xD.

 

But yeah sorry. There's no changing my mind so you might as well kill me tonight if you aren't lynched today.

Edited October 30, 2015 by DeathClutch19

[STINK he/him]

Where do you play Mafia?

[DeathClutch19 he/him]

I play with my floor(I live on campus) in college every week. We use cards and just go to sleep by putting our heads down.

I also play in the Custom Games section of Starcraft 2 fairly often as well as TTT in Garry's Mod. (FPS version of Mafia)

 

Along with all that I play ranked in Town of Salem when I have free time.

My username is Dscythe feel free to add me I love playing with other people!

[Guest]

As a frequent psychology major and a frequent player of mafia, surely you know that saying things like, “And now you will kill me tonight" greatly increase your chances of dying? And if you don't die, your suspicion of me will only increase, because your mind will invent a reason why I wouldn't kill you. You are more likely to believe something that you personally write down, even if you just copied it...

All that aside, I get that you are convinced of my guilt, no matter how trumped up the charges, and you're even pretty good at coming up with more and more rationalizations for why I'm evil. Just be aware that I've played a lot of mafia as well, and I'm not exactly inexperienced. I know about Double Affirmatives. I use 'em all the time in normal posts and PMs. Other people do as well. It doesn't imply evil, and you should not infer that. It implies desire that people take your message seriously.

The psychological issue that I think you are running into right now is called confirmation bias, or in its less sophisticated form, tunnelling. It's when you don't even consider a person's arguments, like mine against Clanky (and instead just say “His posts just seem Towny to me"), but you read a player's posts with the intention of finding something to use against them. Heck, my post about Clanky would have been twice as long if I had been doing that. I'm acutely aware of what I say in thread, and this is yet another baseless attack. This is part of the reason I'm so flabbergasted, because I try to make a policy of never saying things that could be construed as blatantly suspicious in thread, no matter what. I'm reading back through my old posts, thinking, “What was it that started this tunnel?" And I can't find anything. Now all that I'm wondering is what you'll come up with in this post that is suspicious to you.

1. Only Skaa talk about psychology like that!

2. It's a very Skaa thing to do to turn the tables on the accuser and accuse them of tunnelling!

3. You just seem like a Skaa!

4. Skaa use words like “heck" to precede a sentence, making them seem more homey, warm, and approachable!

5. Only a Skaa would deliberately try to not say suspicious things in thread!

6. You've only been evil once out of all your games. The Gambler's Fallacy says you must be Skaa.

7. The whole first paragraph is designed to take blame off of Skaa Kipper for killing me if I die tonight!

8. That whole list of things is set up to deligitimize a point that I may or may not make! (See, that was VERY Skaa, to point out a tactic that I might use to draw suspicion away from myself...)

9. Create your own!

Feel free to choose from this list, as I've already set up rebuttals for #s 1-7. Please do not pick #s 8 or 9, as I have to go to bed, and rebutting #8 would just be irritating.

TL;DR

A. I'm very aware of what I say in thread

B. We could bicker about what types of words/phrases/sentences are more psychologically likely to come from a Skaa (and I would be happy to; ask little Wilson and STINK how much I like to talk about psychology!), or we could discuss actual issues, like...

C. Do you have anything in Clanky's defense beyond “Every one of his posts has been Towny?"

[polkinghornbd he/him]

I don't know what it is, but DeathClutch seems to be acting a little strange.  I agree with Kipper that you seem to be too confident in your beliefs.  Usually, being single minded is reason to be thought of as an eliminator.  I am not saying you are, but the ways you have been communicating, you seem to think you will be killed, and Kipper is the devil incarnate.  I think the fear of death might be a hope to remain under the radar while being in the middle of the action.  This may be idle suspicion, but I think there might be an ulterior motive here.

[DeathClutch19 he/him]

I choose 9 !!!

 

I'm glad we could get to this point. As I said before I was hoping the last standing experienced skaa wouldn't go down without a fight!

 

In a world where you are Inquisition you write my suspicions off as just that, suspicions and move on because you understand there is nothing that will change my mind.

 

Unfortunately in this world you are skaa. You feel threatened. You should. I called you out. With a degree of aggression I apologized for. 

And in this world you defend yourself to the best of your ability. I applaud your defense it was grandiose. However, I think you overdid it a little but don't take it to heart every skaa would do that.

But it's up to everyone else now to make up what they think of your defense. Not me. You're not convincing me. Like you said I'm tunneling. "It's when you don't even consider a person's arguments."

 

Edit: (ninjaed by polking) "you seem to think you will be killed, and Kipper is the devil incarnate." This is true. 
 

You seem irked Kipper. I apologize if I cause you stress but it was necessary to bring out the true skaa in you and also my goal.

Also

 "“And now you will kill me tonight" greatly increase your chances of dying?" 

Yes.

Edited October 30, 2015 by DeathClutch19

[polkinghornbd he/him]

I disagree, DeathClutch.  You are making allegations.  Kipper responds, and you respond.  This is a conversation, and as you have been accusing him, he has been responding.  You accused someone because they saw your accusation and then waited, but now you use them replying as proof that they are skaa?  It just doesn't make sense to me.

[DeathClutch19 he/him]

I didn't want to say it outright to anger kipper more but being overly defensive is indicative of skaa haha.

Like I said though it's not up to me. I've cast my vote. It's up to whatever you guys make of my evidence and what you guys make of his defense. I've said my piece. I've gotten the intended response. Use your wits to the best of your ability and decipher who is skaa and who is inquisition.

Edited October 30, 2015 by DeathClutch19

[Guest]

I choose Pikachu!

Oh wait, we're on Scadrial; never mind.

I was deadly serious about going to bed. You had to pick #9. Alright. We've had a heckle. Time for the heckle put-down.

Stormin' right I ain't going down without a fight! Your opinion matters a lot to me, and I wish we could just be friends. Friends. (<-- See what I did there?)

When does an Inquisitor just ignore suspicions? To the best of my knowledge, nobody says, “Eh, I don't care," when faced with an accusatory post.

As I said, I definitely feel threatened. (<--Indirect Double Affirmative) One of my problems is that I'm having an incredibly hard time coming up with logical defenses to your accusations. I humbly accept your apology, but I heartily disagree with your word choice of “grandiose." “Eloquent." “Charming." “Urbane." “Gentlemanly." These would all have been acceptable words to use as descriptors for a post in which, as you say, I defended myself to the best of my ability. Even a combination of multiple words from the above list. As for overdoing it, well, I sometimes think the sun is overdoing it when it burns my skin, but I still need the sun to live, and I don't call the sun “grandiose," either (hmm, that sounded a lot better in my head).

Oh, I know. I've given up trying to convince you. In the bottom of my heart, I'm still hoping this story ends with: “And then Deathclutch and Kipper strolled hand in hand into the sunset. ‘Isn't that grandiose?' asked Deathclutch. ‘Shhh,' said Kipper, ‘let's just enjoy it for what it is.' They both smiled faintly, as if sharing some private joke, then walked on."

But for now, we're THROUGH! At least we can agree that you're tunnelling.

If all you're worried about is me being the devil, we can just drop it now. We're trying to lynch the Skaa, not the devil. Hell (heh), I may be devilishly handsome, but that's not a good reason to lynch me.

Guys. Guys. (<--Dang it, I can't get away from these Double Affirmatives) He put white text in there. SKAA DO NOT READ!!!!!

You still haven't answered my question about Clanky...

Edit: Oh boy, I was just ninja'd. Bow howdy, was I ninja'd. FYI, this is a game to me. A game I try to win, and win it hard, yes, but a game nonetheless. To date, the only things that have actually angered me are people insulting me in Dead/Spec Docs without me being there to defend myself. For the record, I fully expected you to come back with something like, “Well, he's defending himself, and only Skaa defend themselves." Tbh, I'm giggling like a maniac right now. This is the most fun I've had all day.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Guest

[Clanky he/him]

 

D2:1: Suggest that Maill's death has some analytic value. I'd like to overlook this as well, but the post didn't actually say anything substantive about what value Maill's death might have. The post seemed to be more of a starter for other people to tack onto. It implied that perhaps some of the people who suspected Joe (like myself, presumably) might be evil. Again, though, it did not actually say anything concrete, and most of the other people during the day said that they did not think Maill's death had that much analytic value. So it seems to me that Clanky was simply trying to run a flag up a pole to see if would fly, to see if he could get a lynch going on someone he knew to be innocent. Of course, if he is evil, this is a great strategy to employ, because he has plausible deniability later. It's a very easy strategy to get behind, but I don't buy it for a D1 kill on Maill.

2:Also, Clanky does another Contribution Crusade thing, which just irritates me in general. I'm always wary of the Contribution Crusade, not because it doesn't have valid points, but because it was started by an Eliminator, and it's a nice strategy to use as an Eliminator.

D3: Not much to report. Voted zephrer for saying anti-skaa things without any analytic value, zephrer said "Yeah, but seriously I'm not skaa." Says Wyrm's plan wouldn't work that well.

3:D4: This post really stands out to me. Contrast what he says in this post with what he said earlier about Maill's death. Earlier he thinks that there is analytic value in Maill's death. Now he votes Alvron for voting Wyrm, with some strange reasoning, saying that:

 

Also says that he would expect the skaa to avoid the conversation because of randomness and irrationality. (possible IKYK) Says that he has a lingering suspicion of Creccio, which I would agree with as well. 

Anyway, that about sums it up. D1, D2, and D4 contain my main suspicion points, especially that viewpoint change on Maill's death.

 

 

 

Okay I a finally back and able to address the rest of kippers suspicions about me. It seems like things have escalated while I was gone.

 

1: So when I suggested that Maills death had some analytical value I did give my ideas about what I thought they might be. That is in this post. I didn't give any hard accusations about what I thought because I wanted to know what other people thought. Unfortunately al I got from people was don't look into it too hard because it was probably just a fear kill. I decided not to keep pressing on about it because of all the negative feedback I was getting. Tat is why you saw me post this  

 

 

Everyone can tell that players are normally targeted by eliminators based on their threat and activity levels. I'm sure Wyrm knows that and was saying that he can't see what else we can learn by analyzing these kills.

I do tend to believe in most cases that the first few kills are fear kills and the other part of this post was supposed to be slightly sarcastic in that everybody knows not to attempt to analyze eliminator kills(Except me). I understand how this makes me seem like I changed my mind but I have still been keeping the maill kill in mind when analyzing this game and I am currently leaning towards this option as to why it happened: 

 

 

Was it to get people to focus on Joe/Wyrm/Kas and everyone who was accusing/defending him? I think this could be a viable reason and that the Skaa were not involved with Maill in any way so they attempt to put suspicion somewhere that they have no part

This is actually one of my main reasons for not voting Wyrm.

 

2: If you actually go and see what I said about the contribution crusade you will see that it bears very little resemblance to the original"only try and lynch inactives unless there is undoubtable suspicion". I was attempting to find a different way to spur inactives into participating by threatening death by coinshots. It doesn't eliminate the power of the lynch but can still work to promote activity. I'm sorry that I used the words contribution crusade while doing this but I do like the true goal of the crusade even if the original name and banners were created by an eliminator.

 

3: I tried to answer this in the first rebuttal I made but if I didn't I would be glad to answer any more questions you have kipper.

 

 

Now after seeing kippers reasoning I feel no different about kippers guilt or innocence. This obviously was a well thought out argument and I hope that I answered your suspicions to your liking. 

 

EDIT: Got Kasrippimar and Wyrm confused

Edited October 30, 2015 by Clanky

[DeathClutch19 he/him]

Clanky could I get your opinion on me?

Any read is welcome.

 

 

edit: he got offline I cry everytime

Edited October 30, 2015 by DeathClutch19

[STINK he/him]

I'm just gonna say here, (mainly to DeathClutch) that while aggravating people to deliberately get some secrets out of them is a strategy, when the person replies and is annoyed/overly defensive, it isn't always because they are evil but also because they are being aggravated. 

 

I don't think many people would respond with smiles of joy if this tactic was used against them, and if you wanna see when this tactic goes wrong, just look at Seonids death in the previous LG, where I tunneled and aggravated someone who turned out to be a great asset to the town, though Kipper may not be a great asset to the town