Author Topic: Suzumiya Haruhi No Yuutsu Mafia: DAY FIVE! (Read 67615 times)

Edible · « **Reply #150 on:** March 19, 2010, 05:50:30 PM »

You're parroting my arguments against you to make me look bad, and then cutting off any attempt to debate points by stating you won't "waste any more words" on it. Falsely ending posts on a point of assumed finality implies that you've found scum and want the lynch to go ahead. Thus, setting up a townie lynch.

UncertainJakutten · « **Reply #151 on:** March 19, 2010, 05:52:46 PM »

Spoiler:

Pesco · « **Reply #152 on:** March 19, 2010, 05:54:42 PM »

My turn to do the Evict count

(Copy pasta from Jam's. Blame her if there's a mistake)

Bard - 1
Edible - 6
Rou - 1
Zakeri - 4

Bard's switch is the hammer, so to speak.

Hating Zak's silence by now. And almost forgot Kefit was playing.

@Mod: What happens if we made you King?

Spoiler:

Edible · « **Reply #153 on:** March 19, 2010, 06:12:11 PM »

I think I'm at 5, pesco. Sakana switched out.

...

Though perhaps this is a good time for me to claim, huh.

Bardiche · « **Reply #154 on:** March 19, 2010, 06:16:41 PM »

Not time to claim yet, I don't see the early-Edible-voters weighing in, and I'd like to see them review what's happened, or at least affirm their vote is truly where they want it to be.

They might be convinced during this to vote elsewhere, and I don't see a ninjaKilgaking happening, nor a ninjaKilgaking ninjalynching either way.

I almost want to Kingmake the mod now, just to see what happens. :V

Spoiler:

Edible · « **Reply #155 on:** March 19, 2010, 06:21:28 PM »

Ninjakilgakingninjalynch is now the word of the day.

Bardiche · « **Reply #156 on:** March 19, 2010, 06:29:34 PM »

:V Ninjas everywhere, m i rite.

##VOTE: Town

Spoiler:

Pesco · « **Reply #157 on:** March 19, 2010, 06:34:24 PM »

Quote from: Bardiche on March 19, 2010, 06:16:41 PM

Not time to claim yet, I don't see the early-Edible-voters weighing in, and I'd like to see them review what's happened, or at least affirm their vote is truly where they want it to be.

I'm waiting for Zak.

FinnKaenbyou · « **Reply #158 on:** March 19, 2010, 07:39:09 PM »

Quote from: Edible on March 19, 2010, 05:43:27 PM

Er. I think I missed how this conversation got turned to townie-hunting - did I miss something?

That'd be the essence of the day if we were just looking for a King. The fear of the power to determine the lynch falling into the wrong hands would take precedence because hunting would be disorganised and thoroughly divided. If you wanted to get it in order you'd need something like, you know, a vote system.

Edible's case on Bard (which he took about a day to reveal) feels like grasping. Let's look at it this way: Edible attacks Bard for placing a joke in the vote tally after a call for serious business. So far, so iffy. Now because Bard doesn't see anything worth talking about, he's supposedly trying to cut conversation off.
You accuse him of trying to parrot your arguments against you. What arguments? You raeg at him for what you claim is softclaiming based on a joke in the votetally and offer nothing else in terms of reasoning until pressed. You even accuse him along the lines of 'that's not why I'm voting you' when in reading over every post up to your clarification of the 'case' I can't see ANY of the points you're suddenly bringing up.

Paranoia about what to do with the King is probably unfounded. It's UK, so presumably whoever gets chosen everyone loses somehow. >_>

Zak, start existing. The only thing worse than giving bad answers to questions is not answering them entirely.

Spoiler:

Edible · « **Reply #159 on:** March 19, 2010, 08:00:15 PM »

Quote from: Roukanken on March 19, 2010, 07:39:09 PM

You accuse him of trying to parrot your arguments against you. What arguments?

Quote from: Edible on March 19, 2010, 04:49:46 PM

@Bard: I had an interpretation of your actions. You have a different explanation of your actions. But thanks for spending several paragraphs grossly overstating my actions and adding severe misrep to your list of scum activity. I'll keep that in mind.

Quote from: Bardiche on March 19, 2010, 05:08:57 PM

your case is entirely nonsensical and based off a misconstruction of my actual words and grossly exaggerating my actual actions

In short, his entire counterargument boils down to "no u." That statement I quoted from him could just as easily be applied to his case against me.

Edible · « **Reply #160 on:** March 19, 2010, 08:01:38 PM »

EBWOP: Look at it this way.

Q. If we both have equally bad cases against each other, why am I the only one with the train?

A. Because my train is scum-motivated.

FinnKaenbyou · « **Reply #161 on:** March 19, 2010, 08:22:03 PM »

Quote from: Edible on March 17, 2010, 05:39:41 PM

I'm on Bard because he went from "everyone, let's be serious" to "everyone, let's be silly" in one post.

I'm not sure where there's room for misinterpretation here. You said this, it makes no sense, him saying it made no sense is apparently bad.

Edible · « **Reply #162 on:** March 19, 2010, 08:43:09 PM »

He isn't saying it makes no sense, he's been saying (repeatedly) that I voted him for a reason other than what I voted him for originally.

When you do One Thing?, then immediately follow it up with what looks like The Exact Opposite?, you set off Flags In My Head?. This is exactly what he did and it's what caused me to vote him.

FinnKaenbyou · « **Reply #163 on:** March 19, 2010, 08:58:11 PM »

Quote

I am looking at those people, thinking there is something soundly weird with treating my making a joke in the votecount by citing the novels something bad or, dare I say it, scummy.

Quote

I'm voting you because your reasons for sticking to "joke in votecount MUST PERISH" and your apparent belief of "people jumping on a bandwagon doesn't deserve any scrutiny at all" just can't be reconciled as town actions for me.

I'm not seeing where you're coming from here.

I'm tired, and apparently my suspect is still AWOL. All I can say is that I have no idea what the hell Edible is talking about.

Edible · « **Reply #164 on:** March 19, 2010, 09:04:50 PM »

In both of those quotes, he is assuming he was voted because he made a funny.

This is not the case.

He was being voted because he made a funny directly after calling for serious business. This struck a chord with me, and so after I confirmed he wasn't softclaiming for some stupid reason, I voted him.

I'm not sure how many more times I need to clarify this.

Jam-Kiske · « **Reply #165 on:** March 19, 2010, 09:18:40 PM »

Quote from: Pesco on March 19, 2010, 05:54:42 PM

My turn to do the Evict count (Copy pasta from Jam's. Blame her if there's a mistake)

Bard - 1
Edible - 6
Rou - 1
Zakeri - 4

Bard's switch is the hammer, so to speak.

Hating Zak's silence by now. And almost forgot Kefit was playing.

@Mod: What happens if we made you King?

Spoiler:
Who knows ? Only one way to find out. Well, technically two, but one is waiting til postgame

I have:
Bard - 1
Edible - 5
Rou - 1
Zakeri - 3

So... umm... I dunno.

Nothing new to see really at this point. Rou and Edible going on back and forth isn't really doing anything... I'll stay where I am until Zak pops in again.

Bardiche · « **Reply #166 on:** March 19, 2010, 09:37:20 PM »

Quote from: Edible on March 19, 2010, 09:04:50 PM

He was being voted because he made a funny directly after calling for serious business.

Is there a reason you don't distinguish between "no jokevotes" and "don't make jokes"?

The "town with very bad case of blinders" feeling is beginning to rear its head, so let's clear up what exactly your problem is.

From my side, I honestly don't understand why me saying "Okay guys no more jokevotes" is synonymous to saying "Okay guys no more jokes", as you can still joke around and do serious Mafia.

Maybe it's lost in translation from my language to English, but can someone/you clear up for me why this needs to be such a point of contending?

To Rou: I can kind of relate to how Gordon must've felt in that game. I sincerely apologise.

Kilgamayan · « **Reply #167 on:** March 19, 2010, 11:51:58 PM »

Quote from: Edible on March 19, 2010, 03:31:03 PM

It's perfectly acceptable to do D1 and doubly so in a situation where our "evict" votes hold no real weight.

- No it's really not and I don't know why you think it is!
- I'll let you know right now that if I get elected King I intend on nuking whoever it is the public chooses to nuke (barring a really good, believable roleclaim), so the evict votes might as well be real votes as far as I'm concerned.

Evict vote is still quite happy on Edible, hilarious OMGUS and an interpretation semantics argument with Bard where his interpretation was pretty incorrect, I very much side with Bard on the wording argument here (and no, it is not Bard's fault if he gets riled up at you for you interpreting something the wrong way, it is your fault for pressing an incorrect interpretation as smugly as you have).

Would like Pesco to focus on more important issues than whether or not Zakeri "stole mind hax" or whatever it is he's going on about.

Would also like to know where Sodium went. Sakana and Kefit too (though I think I know about the latter). Less concerned with huh what and Zakeri but they could also stand to post again.

Sodium · « **Reply #168 on:** March 20, 2010, 12:06:02 AM »

Sorry, I was doing other stuff(Mahjong, games, eating, etc.).

So, I really don't care about who the king is. From the looks of it, it'll end up being Kilga.

Quote from: Edible, 146

"Evict" votes are effectively meaningless because they have no bearing on the rules.

I though the whole point of them were to act as "votes" on Day 1(if the King doesn't lynch whoever is "evicted" then they're pretty much dead too), and later on, for all intents and purposes, view them as "votes" when analyzing actions of players on Day 1. =V

Nothing really happened. Talk between Rou, Edible and Bard didn't really lead anywhere(although it did clarify some stuff). =V Would prefer Zakeri lynch over Edible(obviously), but I doubt that'll happen.

*generic where are some people*

Edible · « **Reply #169 on:** March 20, 2010, 12:17:42 AM »

Evict votes are meaningless in terms of game rules. They obviously have impact in terms of who we decide the King will kill, but this is why we can have more than one - see Pesco's use of "exile", etc. I explained this to Rou already, Kilga. Why stick to rules that don't apply to us, when there are more flexible solutions?

Finally, as I'm somewhat annoyed by possibly being lynched due to a horrible ED1 case and blatant misunderstandings and misrepresentation, I'm going to get my roleclaim out of the way before we run out of time to pick a better lynch.

I am Haruhi Suzumiya, Townie Dreaming God.

I can prove this claim beyond a shadow of a doubt. The nature of the game permits me to do so.

Nietz · « **Reply #170 on:** March 20, 2010, 12:23:03 AM »

Quote from: Edible on March 19, 2010, 08:01:38 PM

A. Because my train is scum-motivated.

The irony is that I do believe that Edible is absolutely right here.
He was, after all, the one who motivated the case on himself.

After being prompted to, 'huh what' said his piece and just went inactive again, not looking much better in that aspect.

Waiting for Zakeri ,etc...

WHMZakeri · « **Reply #171 on:** March 20, 2010, 01:52:21 AM »

I intended to write this post 12 hours ago. I don't know what it is with me, I swear I don't do this on purpose. :ohdear:

Yes, Pesco, My vote on Rou mainly was for reaction gathering. Picking on Roukan will probably become a running thing If I'm not satisfied in his alignment.

Quote from: Edible

Simple, really. Opportunistic doesn't necessarily mean scum; it could just mean they're lazy and want to jump on the most popular case.

This is some pretty heavy sidestepping. If you didn't think Opportunism was good enough leverage for voting for someone, why did you just throw it out there for everyone to take it in? This reads like a backtracking excuse to keep the vote on Bard.
The OMGUS Call later isn't as justified as Edible would have liked it to be.

Quote

There's nothing preventing me from doing any of this except the mutually accepted assumption that everyone only has one "evict" vote because we're pretending it's a real vote.

This is a paranormal circumstance for me, since I was pretty close to making this argument as well when people were on me for voting Rou while attacking you. The only thing that prevented me from using this was because it was a stupid and scummy sounding argument, and would have gotten me lynched.

Quote

Votes aren't meaningless. "Evict" votes are effectively meaningless because they have no bearing on the rules.

You mean like how money is absolutely worthless because god didn't create intricately inked sheets of dead leaves molded into a flat rectangle?

post cut in half due to oh god it's a long, jumbled looking mess.

WHMZakeri · « **Reply #172 on:** March 20, 2010, 02:01:52 AM »

Seeing the role claim made me jump out of my chair.

All of these "Waiting for Zaks" makes me nervous. I don't know what to put anymore, so here's some random opinions:
Sakana is making a lot of mistakes - specifically that (s?)he is trying too hard to decide between me and Edible because we were "The obvious cases" which is effectively a complete halt on scumhunting when you look for that as a case trait.

I deserve the most hate for inactivity right now, so I really don't feel like poking names like "Kefit" and "huh what" right now since I'll be called out on it later.

Edible's claim is really bothersome. Not just because I'm not even sure if Edible proving it's true would mean it actually is true, but also Neitz's next post after it seems to have ignored it completely.

I read back Neitz's post while my own thoughts were recrystallizing. He's done a lot worse than Edible. His vote on "Huh what" in 57 was for doing what MSB thought Jam did, which was "Parrot Rou's suggestion and not vote" minus the "Not vote" Part since he did that in his first post after Rou's explanation. All this leaves is "Parroting's Rou's suggestion".

This is a complete non-reason, and the only explanation for this is if he was trying to steal MSB's reason for voting right out from under him by voting for a different target. His later posts demonstrated that he completely missed the "Not voting for anyone" part. This is the kind of crap logic that would normally only be pushed by scum.

In post 72, he jumps from Huh what to MSB claiming that MSB was making stuff up while backtracked. This is the post I mean when he missed the real reason for voting Jam. The viscous turn on MSB looks like he just realized this mistake and instead of admitting to it he turned the vote away before it could be discussed further. He accuses MSB of grasping for reasons, but you can say the same thing for how he pulled out the vote switch in that same post.

The switch to Edible is also bad. He basically comes late on a bandwagon with only the same reason everyone else had. (I mean, heck, I'm the only one that brought up a second reason, and I'm practically second in line for being lynched). Edible's post found at the bottom of page four, while unwarranted, is a rather good point.

Whether Edible's claim is true or not, I'm comfortable enough to switch my eviction to Neitz now.

Jam-Kiske · « **Reply #173 on:** March 20, 2010, 04:42:54 AM »

Edible's roleclaim is interesting. In what way exactly can you prove it?

For now I suppose I'll #Unevict though I'm not sure when I'll next be on as I'm going out tomorrow so you guys will probably have to make the decision of whether or not to trust him without me as "I can prove it" isn't really enough. How can you prove it? How soon will you prove it?

Kilgamayan · « **Reply #174 on:** March 20, 2010, 04:45:34 AM »

A character name and role name do not a roleclaim make (and I wonder why Zakeri (and now Jam) are falling out of their chairs because of it), though the deadline is sufficiently far away that I don't really need to hear role details just yet, so whatever.

Jam-Kiske · « **Reply #175 on:** March 20, 2010, 04:47:34 AM »

I'm not really falling out of my chair over it. I'm just unevicting as I don't know if I'll be around when the mass decisions will be made. Edible "proving" this role may change everything as there's still some time for that. Though I suppose since it isn't a real vote it doesn't really make a difference now that I think about it....

Kilgamayan · « **Reply #176 on:** March 20, 2010, 04:49:21 AM »

You claimed his roleclaim was "interesting". How was it interesting? He didn't even actually roleclaim.

Jam-Kiske · « **Reply #177 on:** March 20, 2010, 04:53:53 AM »

Well it's interesting if he can actually prove it. And if he really wants to rely on that to save himself than he'd best get on that asap. It may be in our best interests to at least hear him out and see if it sounds legit or not.

Of course, just saying the name of the role doesn't say anything much.

Also: I did initially think, "Wait, isn't UK supposed to be Haruhi? If the mod is Haruhi why is there a Haruhi role?"
May not be really relevant since this is just a game, but that came to mind when I read the claim.

I'm basically saying Edible's claim if truly provable in a way that seems legit could make us rethink our strategy for the game. It isn't a for sure game changer, but given that we still have time we might as well let him speak his piece.

Edible · « **Reply #178 on:** March 20, 2010, 05:10:43 AM »

I was only planning on proving it if doing so was necessary (for instance, if someone tried to fake-counterclaim me), as I don't really want to divulge my abilities this early in the game.

Without revealing anything, I can prove my claim because I can state information that will be indirectly verified by the moderator the following day. Again, the nature of the game allows me to do this.

Until then, I'll wait to hear from all other active players before making a full claim and offer proof thereof.

Dead Princess Sakana · « **Reply #179 on:** March 20, 2010, 06:55:23 AM »

Okay, I will say I am not going to evict Edible again for today, same goes for Zak.

I might be stating the obvious, but the case on Edible is weird, were he really scum. The evict-counts heavily suggest that there's scum evicting him, but I see no reason why they should if he were a scum-buddy. His case was never hard enough to justify bussing (that's what it's called, right?), so they could have tried to just drag attention from him. Yet this doesn't seem to have happened, which concerns me.

It looks to me like the one who wants Edible dead the most at the moment is Kilga, which doesn't necessarily say anything but is reason enough for me to
#Evict: Kilga

That doesn't change my king-vote though.

Also, I'd appreciate it if some people would stop mentioning that I 'make mistakes', unless it becomes relevant to a case, without saying how.
I'll gladly listen to your advice after the game is over, but until there are some results you cannot say whether anything is a mistake or not.
I'm trying to enjoy this as a game of wits, not an angry slaughterfest, and I won't let anyone stop me form doing so.