Suzumiya Haruhi No Yuutsu Mafia: DAY FIVE!

[Bardiche]

... Yeahokay what? How are my jokes inappropriate? Sigh, I'll chalk it up to different gamestyles. Fine, I'll not try to have fun with flavour again, because it'll just make people think I'm scum. Town can't have fun, CAN IT? No.

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.

Staying on Zakeri. Not happy with "first person making sense = scum", best target so far, and he's not being particularly helpful by going all "snrk" on people who comment on his behaviour.

Better Day 1 case than "he made a joke".

[Edible]

It's not just about you making a joke, it's you literally going from the first serious post of the game to a comedy routine, back to back.  That sort of thing is disconcerting.

Though the "case" has pretty clearly run its course, I still have little reason to move my vote.  I'll leave it there until I find somewhere better to put it.

[UncertainJakutten]

Spoiler:

The Fourth "Yuki Muon Madobe Nite KINGMAKER" Vote Count

"Feelings of love are just a temporary lapse in judgement. Like a mental illness."

1. Jam(0)
2. Nietz (1): Kilgamayan
3. Kefit (1):  Kefit
4. Kilgamayan (1): Pesco
5. Pesco(0)
6. MSB (0)
7. Edible (0)
8. Bardiche (0)
9. huh what (0)
10. Sakana (0)
11. Roukanken (0)
12. Zakeri (0)


Not Voting (9): Jam, Nietz,  MSB,  Bardiche, huh what, Sakana, Roukanken, Zakeri, Edible


With 12 alive it takes 7 to elect your lord and master (for the day)
Deadline is in ~47 hours at 10 PM EST, Saturday, March 20th

[Edible]

While we debate endlessly, I'm going to go ahead and nominate Kilga as well.

##vote Kilgamayan

[Pesco]

I'm still wanting Zak to answer me if he used my Mindhax^TM when deciding to vote Rou. It links to how I read Bard's vote and in turn, Edible's.

Calling huh what HW from now on. It's weird typing his name in normal speech.

[Jam-Kiske]

Still keeping my evict on Edible for being so on Bard. It took you until now to realize that you might want to look at other people? Also, you just voted for a King when before you said we should pick a King before who we're lynching?

I don't see any problem at all with Bard trying to throw a bit of flavor into the game. If he were just being ridiculous with no reasoning then sure... but I really don't see a reason to dwell on him at all.

It'll be interesting to see who you decide to switch your vote to and the reasoning Edible...


Aaanyway... before sleeping time... this ought to be the evict count:
Bard - 1
Edible - 5
Rou - 1
Zakeri - 4

[Dead Princess Sakana]

First of all, joining in on the king votes:

## Vote Kilga

I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be him.

I hope we'll get to see a move from Edible soon. I'm not too comfortable with my evict on him at the moment, but the only other obvious target right now would be Zak, who seems to be offering himself up to be lynched far too much.

Just to be safe until I make up my mind: ##Unevict

[Pesco]

Short phone post.

Jam: Your point on Edible making a king vote makes no sense.

Sakana: Evict hammering is not final. Your unevict is totally unnecessary. If you're waiting on him, why do you let off your pressure?

[Kilgamayan]

Ugh, way too much chaff. Pesco in particular could stand to knock it off. Makes me want to kneejerk evict him. Still happy with my Edible choice, though. Also he just ninja'd me with the exact question I was going to ask Sakana.

Most everything else looks not worth picking through.

[Dead Princess Sakana]

Sakana: Evict hammering is not final. Your unevict is totally unnecessary. If you're waiting on him, why do you let off your pressure?

With the same logic I could say that me unevicting doesn't make a difference either.
I made it clear that I'm still onto Edible, so the pressure won't change just from whether I have written two specific words or not. If those were 'real' votes, I'd agree, but as it is now, I'll leave things as they are for the moment.

[Pesco]

Committed intentions. They mean a lot.

[FinnKaenbyou]

Though the "case" has pretty clearly run its course, I still have little reason to move my vote.  I'll leave it there until I find somewhere better to put it.

You said in an earlier post that you thought Zak and Jam were being opportunistic, now you say you have nowhere else to put your vote even though you have no momentum on Bard? I'm not getting your reasoning.

Sakana is still being stupid, but for newbies stupid is a nulltell. It's clear he's trying, but he just has no idea what he's doing.

I made it clear that I'm still onto Edible, so the pressure won't change just from whether I have written two specific words or not. If those were 'real' votes, I'd agree, but as it is now, I'll leave things as they are for the moment.

Here's the thing. Votes do more than produce pressure, they make you accountable for your opinion. If your vote is down for someone and they flip Town, you can't turn around and say 'I never wanted anything to do with it'.

Ninja'd by Pesco saying what I was going to in 6 words. T_T

[Dead Princess Sakana]

Committed intentions. They mean a lot.

Then I'll call what I did commited unease, sorry

I know we don't have that much time anymore, but I won't be able to really commit myself to anything until tonight, so please wait warmly.

[Dead Princess Sakana]

EBWOP: I'm probably just trying to think too much about stuff anyway, ignoring that this is only D1

[Edible]

You said in an earlier post that you thought Zak and Jam were being opportunistic, now you say you have nowhere else to put your vote even though you have no momentum on Bard? I'm not getting your reasoning.

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

[Bardiche]

##UNEVICT: Zakeri
##EVICT: Edible

Good enough to get me to switch. Not Scumhunting less scummy than Posting A Joke In A Votecount? Sign me up for his lynch.

[Edible]

Now it just sounds like you were looking for a reason to OMGUS.

[Edible]

EBWOP:

Also, you continue to ignore why I actually voted for you - this makes you look more scummy, not less.  Just as an aside.

[Kilgamayan]

No no no no no, if we start chalking up known scumtells to "they could just be playing bad" that would undermine the entire foundation of scumhunting.

[Nietz]

Also, you continue to ignore why I actually voted for you - this makes you look more scummy, not less.  Just as an aside.

Edible, pretty much everyone already agreed your vote on Bard sucked, the only point of discussion about it is whether it was scummy of you or not.

Also, joining the Kilga kingwagon.
##Vote Kilgamayan

[Edible]

No no no no no, if we start chalking up known scumtells to "they could just be playing bad" that would undermine the entire foundation of scumhunting.

It's perfectly acceptable to do D1, and doubly so in a situation where our "evict" votes hold no real weight.  It's enough that I'm expressing suspicion.

Edible, pretty much everyone already agreed your vote on Bard sucked

I did as well, if you'll recall.  But I hold it was valid as any other vote for ED1 - I will not budge on this.

[Bardiche]

EBWOP:

Also, you continue to ignore why I actually voted for you - this makes you look more scummy, not less.  Just as an aside.

I've given that subject enough talk already, but if you insist that only I can persuade you to get off your arse and start scumhunting, I'll humour you.

It was a joke in the votecounts, votecounts have nothing to do with Mafia content, it is not related to my voting and it was just me having fun with a votecount. Having fun with a votecount does not equal jokevoting. Jokevoting is making a vote for someone with no basis other than 'lolz so random XD' and saying that that needs to end does not equate to 'you're not allowed to enjoy flavour!'.

Frankly I feel it's a waste of my time to get it through to you, you just seem totally set on "votecounts = jokevote", and that we can't have fun with the flavour and that's your best case in 5 pages worth of discussion.

If you had voted on anyone else for doing this, I would still have voted you. It doesn't look like you understand just how terrible your argument is. You're disjointing what I say and reconstruing to fit your little fantasy of "Bard is contradicting himself, HE MUST BE MORE SCUMMY THAN PEOPLE JUMPING ON A BANDWAGON". At first I thought you were just desperately looking for something to build a Day 1 case on (even Zakeri did better in this regard) and were a misguided town, but when you proclaim it the scummiest thing so far and pass blatant bandwagoning off as "just being lazy and jumping on a popular case", I have to wonder where your priorities lie- and they don't seem to lie with a Town Victory.

Get it now? 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.

[FinnKaenbyou]

It's perfectly acceptable to do D1, and doubly so in a situation where our "evict" votes hold no real weight.  It's enough that I'm expressing suspicion.

So in short, you can base practically every scumtell on 'but maybe it's lazy/stupid Town', and this isn't detrimental to the scumhunting process? You're basically saying it's okay not to hold people accountable for their play here.

[Edible]

@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.

So in short, you can base practically every scumtell on 'but maybe it's lazy/stupid Town', and this isn't detrimental to the scumhunting process? You're basically saying it's okay not to hold people accountable for their play here.

Thanks for ignoring the "on Day 1" part.  D1 scumhunting is always a shot in the dark unless scum does something immensely stupid.  As an example, the "case" on me has evolved from "I dislike why he voted for this person" to "his reasons for voting this person are incredibly scummy" with little to no evidence in between, and lo and behold a bandwagon is formed.

You also ignored the part where our "evict" votes are completely meaningless, aside from showing where our suspicion lies.  Should I "evict" Jam and Zak too, for the aforementioned opportunistic actions?  What about Kilga, who has been lurking all game yet still has an "I agree" vote on me?  Or Neitz, who arguably has the worst "explained" reason for voting me?  Or Bard, who eventually turned to OMGUS voting me?  Etc, etc.  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.

Additionally, don't confuse my vote on Bard for not having any momentum (per your previous statement).  My fakevote hasn't moved from him for a reason.

[FinnKaenbyou]

Thanks for ignoring the "on Day 1" part.  D1 scumhunting is always a shot in the dark unless scum does something immensely stupid.  As an example, the "case" on me has evolved from "I dislike why he voted for this person" to "his reasons for voting this person are incredibly scummy" with little to no evidence in between, and lo and behold a bandwagon is formed.

And accountability for your opinions is irrelevant? Arguing that votes are meaningless is scummy, because it lets scum get away with not producing a solid opinion.
The entire point of the Evict/Exile votes is to make something useful out of a day that's otherwise 'HEY GAIZ LET'S CHOOSE SOMEONE WHO LOOKS TOWNIE!'.

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.

So you would prefer to try and play the horrible bastard mod version of the day rather than try to construct something relatively sane?

[Bardiche]

 :V Brilliant case, fellow. Everyone who's on you must be scum. You just named just about everyone who's on you as being targets you are suspicious of. Just because you voted for me doesn't make me voting you OMGUS: it's only that if I vote you for voting me. Which I don't, but I think my previous post should have outlined that.

My list of scum activity now consists of finding your case on me severely bad, making a votecount with flavour after saying we need to start voting seriously (two matters which have nothing to do with eachother) and voting you because I think passing off bandwagoning as if it's just lazy town, which you somehow mistake for me voting you because you vote me. (which I don't care about, as your case is entirely nonsensical and based off a misconstruction of my actual words and grossly exaggerating my actual actions)

In other words totally satisfied with Edible as a lynch target unless someone else steps up to be the target for the day. Don't feel like wasting more words to it, 'cause it looks like everything I say to him is first bent sideways before it reaches him and somehow construed as something totally different from what's said.

Content to Kingmake anyone, and since there's a Kingtrain on Kilga forming, ##VOTE: Kilgamayan.

[Edible]

And accountability for your opinions is irrelevant? Arguing that votes are meaningless is scummy, because it lets scum get away with not producing a solid opinion.
The entire point of the Evict/Exile votes is to make something useful out of a day that's otherwise 'HEY GAIZ LET'S CHOOSE SOMEONE WHO LOOKS TOWNIE!'.?

Votes aren't meaningless.  "Evict" votes are effectively meaningless because they have no bearing on the rules.  Suspicion and applied suspicion are exactly what "evict" votes represent.  I'm running into the same issue Pesco did, and his choice of action (which you seem to find perfectly acceptable) was to just add another kind of vote to the list.  Mine is to say "I find this suspicious."  Are you that tied to the concept of votes?

So you would prefer to try and play the horrible bastard mod version of the day rather than try to construct something relatively sane

Given we have an equal chance of hitting scum if we just give someone the gun and let them go at it as we do with days of D1 "discussion", yes.  Moreso, given I'm town (not that you know this for sure yet).

Ninja by Bard, who seems very satisfied in his efforts to set up a town lynch.

[FinnKaenbyou]

Votes aren't meaningless.  "Evict" votes are effectively meaningless because they have no bearing on the rules.  Suspicion and applied suspicion are exactly what "evict" votes represent.

So we should follow the rules to the letter and try to spend the day hunting for Townies? On Day 1? The reason I wanted the Evict system to be accepted was that the alternative was basically clusterfuck Mai-Hime territory. We all know how well designating Townies to fight went.

I'm running into the same issue Pesco did, and his choice of action (which you seem to find perfectly acceptable) was to just add another kind of vote to the list.  Mine is to say "I find this suspicious."  Are you that tied to the concept of votes?

I read his explanation of the Exile vote as akin to an FoS. A declaration of suspicion, but not an actual vote. While it does irritate me that he jumped on the newcomer for making a newcomer-style mistake, Zak is worse for cheerleading a lynch while bringing nothing new to the table, and then playing the holier-than-thou card with 'Just because I have nothing new on Rou and plenty on Edible doesn't mean I should switch votes!'
So in short, yes. I am tied to the concept of votes, mainly because I want to make something coherent out of a ridiculous pro-scum rule like this. Any feeling of satisfaction I feel from beating UK at her own Bastard Mod game is wholly coincidential.

Spoiler:

Any feeling that you are beating me at my own game is at best a very fond hope and more likely delusion . Remember, the only one who wins a UK game is UK, regardless of which side actually wins

Given we have an equal chance of hitting scum if we just give someone the gun and let them go at it as we do with days of D1 "discussion", yes.  Moreso, given I'm town (not that you know this for sure yet).

So we should just skip to D2, since D1 is pointless. That's great reasoning. D1 is flimsy and imperfect, yes, but it needs to happen so that real discussion can take place further down the line.

[Edible]

So we should follow the rules to the letter and try to spend the day hunting for Townies?

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

D1 is flimsy and imperfect, yes, but it needs to happen so that real discussion can take place further down the line.

This is a reasonable point.  I concede to your logic.

[Bardiche]

I'll bite. What are "[Bard's] efforts to set up a townie lynch"?