Open 194- Vengeful Reasons- GAME OVER!

[EmpTyger]

Random

vote: angelmouse

Tracker:
You need to bold your votes.

[EmpTyger]

Jack:
I'm a little lost... what's your "new playstyle"? (And what's with the colored text?)

Tracker:
Do you intend to be currently voting for Jack, or not?

Cat:
lol Just realized who you are.

[EmpTyger]

Speaking for myself, I was having page loading errors whenever I was trying to access the site yesterday. And it's still very slow for me today.

---

Tracker:
What do you feel about angelmouse and Cat in comparison to MR? Unlike MR, they've posted elsewhere on site, but not here. (Cat under the username skitzer.)

---

Jack:
Okay, then what do you feel is "significantly improved" about your play?

Do you have any reasons other than N892 (which I'll remind is still a game-in-progess even though you've died, be careful) why you think "lynch all lurkers" is weak?

If you think "3 days is the normal time players can go without posting", and it's been 1-2 days since we've posted (or in MR's case, dawn), then... what's your point?

[EmpTyger]

Jack/Budja:
I really don't want to unvote angelmouse right now, but you think MR is the most suspicious. Okay, talk me into a MR lynch. (Unless you want to compromise on Cat?)

---

Tracker:
So you wanted to pick up discussion on MR, but think it's too soon to talk about anything else...?

[EmpTyger]

Tracker:
It seems odd to me that you pick out MR, "don't appreciate her lurking", and you want to make her a center of discussion. Because in your response about Cat/angelmouse doing the same thing- you don't seem to care about their lurking, and you don't really want to discuss those 2. So- why the difference between MR and the others?

[EmpTyger]

Budja:
The vote on angelmouse was random. But the lack of unvote wasn't.

Do you feel Tracker's [24] was wishy-washy? The part he himself quoted in [34].

---

Tracker:
It's not in that post. It's in the comparison of your responses.
Caring: When you call out MR's lurking, and try to start immediate discussion about it.
Not caring: When you answered as vaguely as you can, and show no interest in immediate discussion about Cat or angelmouse.

My problem isn't that you think it's too early to make an accurate read about Cat/angelmouse. It's that you say it's too early to talk about them, but yet you don't think it too early to talk about MR.

Or, to put it simply: Why did you want discussion about MR, but did not want to talk about Cat/angelmouse?

---

Cat:
You just signed up for 2 more games. What's your excuse for not posting here?

[EmpTyger]

Jack/Budja:
I’m beginning to think you were right before, about voting MR. Really tempted to move my vote.

---

angelmouse:

<snip>

MR does need to comment on the game now he has returned and if he fails to contribute to make up for his absence, i would consider a L-1 vote.

With no comments from him yet, and early Day 1, i am not prepared to put someone at L-1 for not commenting.

I can however push and apply pressure that way.
<snip>

How are you applying pressure?
The blue sentence says that you *will* vote MR if he doesn’t comment.
The green sentence says that you “won’t* vote MR if he doesn’t comment.
That’s what’s wishy-washy.

---

Tracker:
I’m not making any assumptions. I’m just drawing conclusions based on *what’s in your posts*.

Consider these 2 statements:
1) It’s too early to be discussing MR’s lurking.
2) It’s too early to be discussing Cat/angelmouse’s lurking.

You say that you think 1 is false.
You say that you think 2 is true.

So I’m trying to figure out what made MR different from Cat/angelmouse to cause you to draw an opposite opinion. In response, you’ve
a) denied that there’s any inconsistency
b) said that the inconsistency is because I asked you a direct question
c) insulted me/called me scum
None of those explain how you think (1) is false and (2) is true.

[EmpTyger]

Budja/Tracker/angelmouse:
Who is more suspicious to you: MR or Cat?

---

Tracker:
You really don't see any difference between "pushing a topic to the forefront of immediate conversation", and "responding vaguely that a topic needs to wait until later"? (Especially when you concede that the topic is the same.) To the point where if someone does see a difference, your only choices are to insult them or call them scum?

...I've got to say, that's really pushing it on my "things I believe have an innocent explanation" meter.

---

Everyone except Tracker:
Can I get a reality check? Does anyone else agree with Tracker, that he's not "going after so-and-so while leaving others alone" here:

Ewkay, since this game has officially ground to a halt, so to get discussion going what do you guys think of Memorial not posting yet? I personally don't appreciate the lurking, but apparantly it's all the rage in this thread anyways.

[EmpTyger]

Jack:
After others weighs in on my reality check, I’d like to hear your “obvious explanation” about Tracker.

In the meantime, I couldn’t disagree more with this.

<snip>
We'll lynch an active today. Not now, certainly, but when we do lynch, it needs to be an active player, that is someone who has posted as recently as page 2.
<snip>

Are you assuming that every single lurker is innocent? Or do you somehow expect a lurker to start posting after you saying “hey lurkers, if you keep not posting you won’t be lynched”?

So, no.

We are going to lynch the most suspicious player, lurker or active.

Because suspicious behavior includes lurking. (But it’s not limited to lurking. It can also include, say, encouraging lurking.)

---

As far as your suspicion list:

No, I suspect

Tracker and

Cat

and MR and angelmouse

. I’m rather curious where you got that I suspect *only* Tracker and Cat. (I understand why you’d list Tracker for me; I am suspicious of Tracker, but not at the level of the other 3.) But I’m *voting* angelmouse, and I said I was really tempted to move my vote to MR.

In fact, the main reason that I’m hesitating over moving my vote is that I’m trying to decide which of Cat and MR is worse, since their play is so similar. (So

Unvote: angelmouse

, since she’s not in my top 2.) But which brings me to the question of how are you differentiating between Cat and MR? All that either of them have done is lurk and randomvote. Why would you say that Cat suspects no one, but that MR suspects you?

For that matter, why do you say that angelmouse suspects me? It’s not because she randomvoted me- because you don’t seem to give any weight to anyone else’s randomvotes. (And it’s pretty obvious that it was a randomvote since she immediately followed it with: “Other than that [the pressure votes on MR] nobody has displayed anything to make me think scum or town for that matter.”) And it’s not because she’s currently voting me, because you disregarded other current votes (mine and Cat’s).

[EmpTyger]

Vote: Memorable Raindrops.

At this point, I don't care between Cat and MR, and I don't see myself voting for anyone else. Tie goes to the person already with a vote.

---

MR:
How does not posting- and allowing a significant number of players in the game to also not contribute- help you be more sure of who's innocent or who's guilty?

[EmpTyger]

Jack:

Back to what started all this. I thought tracker's vote on MR was random, wasn't it? If so, no explanation is truly required. Not at the scale it's being taken to now, anyway.

Huh?
Tracker's randomvote wasn't on MR- it was on *you*. In fact, Tracker hasn't ever voted MR.

Here's what started all this:
1) Tracker tried to make MR the focus for <reason>.
2) Then Tracker said that it was too early to be talking about <reason> in the cases of 2 other players.
3) Then Tracker denied that he treated MR differently from the other players.

---

Tracker:
No one's saying you can't defend yourself. But why are the only 2 defenses you have "deny it explosively" and "deny it dullly"? Saying "no-I-haven't" (regardless of what emotion you use) doesn't do anything to address actual evidence that you've treated MR differently. And while there's disagreement about whether it's significant or not- but no one says that they think you didn't single out MR.

You want to defend yourself? Go for it. I'd love to hear a explanation for what I've outlined above to Jack.
"Really? REALLY? REALLY?????" is not an explanation.
Any denial is not an explanation.
"I'm too bored to explain" is not an explanation.
"You're scum trying to lynch me" is not an explanation.
Insulting someone for finding a discrepancy is not an explanation.
Saying "it's just plain untrue" is not an explanation. Not when I've shown it plainly is- and no one thinks otherwise.

Besides, do you really expect the defenses you're using to convince anyone? I mean, let's say you were arguing that Player X was mafia. And the only defense X had was "Really? REALLY? REALLY?????" and "it's just plain untrue" and etc. Are you seriously saying that that should be enough to convince you and the rest of the town that X is innocent?

[EmpTyger]

Jack:
We lynch someone else. What happens tomorrow?
"So now what? [The less suspicious/more active than Cat who we lynched] was town."
"Well who did Cat attack? Who attacked Cat?"
"Nobody. Cat didn't post."
"Oh"
(Although even in your case we'd have knowledge of who attacked Cat, so I'm not sure why you put that in.)

So, do you have a plan for dealing with non-contributors? Or, are you going to just assume that every single lurker is innocent? Or do you somehow expect a lurker to start posting after you say “hey lurkers, if you keep not posting you won’t be lynched”?

---

Tracker:
My sympathies for rl frustration.
But, look, this isn't my opinions. These are *facts*.
1) You tried to make MR the focus, for not posting.
2) Then you said that it was too early to be talking about not posting in the cases of 2 other players.
3) Then you denied that you treated MR differently from the other players.

You say that your choice of MR was arbitrary? Okay, that's an explanation for (1).
You say that you were giving a direct answer instead of discussing? Okay, that's an explanation for (2).

You still don't have an explanation for (3).

And so I'm looking at these facts, and they don't add up:

If you wanted to promote discussion, and a player's lurking was a suitable topic for that- then when I brought up the same topic why were you as vague as possible and said that it's too soon to tell and something to look at later?
If you thought that that topic was too early- then why did you pick that as a topic to try to jumpstart conversation?
And if was something specific about MR- but you said you chose him arbitrarily.
And if it was something else... well, I figured you would have said so after the first 3 times I asked you.

And even these are still not opinions. These are logical deductions based on facts. (An opinion would be something like "and I think that these facts, taken together, without any explanation, means that you must be mafia".)

So, don't repeat that you did X with MR. I get that.
And don't repeat that you did not-X with Cat/angelmouse. I get that.
And don't repeat why you did X with MR. I get that.
And don't repeat why you did not-X with Cat/angelmouse. I get that.
And don't repeat that you've not treated MR any differently, without providing any kind of reasoning. I've just explained why that's not true.

Just tell me *why* you've treated differently. Necause Budja and Jack are right- this is a minor point. This really shouldn't be this hard a question as you as making it out to be.

---

Budja:
Well, isn't this an ironic 180.
I really don't want to unvote MR right now, but you think angelmouse is the most suspicious. Okay, talk me into a angelmouse lynch. (Unless you want to compromise on Cat?)

[EmpTyger]

Cat:

Oops! I forgot to Watch topicfy this game!

Allow to me read through and then I will post, but please don't replace me!!!

You know, if you *did* that (read through and post)- instead of going back to playing Mishmash games- including signing up for and starting to play a new one games- including talking about how you're going to start up your own Mishmash game with all the time you apparently have that you aren't spending playing this game- then there might have been a chance of me believing that your lurking wasn't deliberate.

---

Budja:
I disagree.

MR has been in 3 completed games. That's 2 1/2 games more than he needs to know that this isn't acceptable protown behavior. This isn't a newbie game, MR's not a newbie. The "newbie excuse" doesn't give a player carte blanche to play antitown. And Cat's lurking is more suspicious than any post angelmouse has made. Because the main reason you haven't seen Cat making a wishy-washy post is because he's refused to post!

Lurking and playing poorly is more suspicious than being wishy-washy. Particularly when the lurkers/poor players are not making any attempt to change their antitown behavior. I still don't see myself voting today for angelmouse over MR or Cat.

---

Tracker:
Okay, but next time just say that to begin with!

[EmpTyger]

Cat:
The point (which is what Jack was saying) isn't "forgetting is a scumtell". It's "it's not believable that Cat forgot the game". Because players who aren't posting because they forgot about the game don't continue to not post after being reminded.

It's also not believable that you weren't able to read through a 3 page game. (Especially When 1 of those pages was basically random voting.)

<snip>
Another odd thing I found was that The Tracker was easily persuaded to unvote, which isn't something I find townishness.

Are you serious? In games I've been in, one of the most common causes of town victories has been when the town listens to one another!
On the other hand, one of the most common causes of mafia victories has been when the mafia plays the lurking game.

[EmpTyger]

angelmouse:

<snip>
lynching a lurker is only beneficial if they continue to post nothing useful during the game at all.

What indication have you seen from Cat and MR that they will be doing otherwise?
(Jack is essentially correct: they are suspicious for all of their behavior, and that behavior includes, but is not limited to, lurking.)

<snip>
Why do you need takled into a lynch? are you convinced of budja's innocence?
<snip>

No, I was convinced that MR or Cat would be a better lynch than you. And I was convinced that Budja thought that you would be a better lynch than MR or Cat.
Although I will say that Budja is very low on my suspect list.

[EmpTyger]

MR:
No one expects you to play perfectly (whatever your level of experience).
But you are expected to try.
And you don’t seem to be.

I mean, your earlier posts aside- take your most recent one. You’d rather whine out excuses for why you’re a newbie and should be allowed to play the way you’re playing

instead of changing what you’re doing.

That’s not someone who wants to improve. That’s someone who’s looking to justify why they should be able to get away with playing as antitownly as they can.

You’re at lynch-1. This may be your last chance. There are 6 other players in the game- talk about them. You have a role- claim it.

---

angelmouse:

Guys am I the only one that sees a l-1 vote on the second page with 2 players still to check in, little to no conversation to go on and in this set up as not a good move??
<snip>

It’s essentially trading a lurker for a mafia.
(And I submit that that’s good for the town. Even assuming (a) the lurker was innocent and (b) the mafia speedlynched, that’s a good trade. And if those assumptions aren’t true: if the lurker is guilty, it’s obviously good. If the mafia don’t speedlynch, then there’s no concern that no information will have been gained D1. And I also disagree that we’d have no information the following day.)

I’m more torn on whether I believe that you genuinely thought that trading a lurker for a mafia member would be bad. Because I’d expect someone who did think that it wasn’t a good move, to do something else. Attacking those who thought it was a good move, probably. Suggesting an alternative. At the very least, not saying, “let’s do nothing until we can do that.” So why did you do none of that?

---

Budja:
I think I’ve been getting that same vibe from Jack. I *know* I’ve been getting the same lag though, and I’m out of time tonight. Will look into tomorrow.

[EmpTyger]

Have to run, but quickly:

Jack:
Um, who (specifically) do you feel is buddying with Budja? Because I don't see anyone else voting angelmouse.

[EmpTyger]

Budja:
On reread, I'm still not getting "opportunistic" out of Tracker. On the contrary- he was the first to focus on MR, and he was the only one to try a Cat lynch over a MR lynch. In fact, even Jack isn't as much as I thought he was. He was skeptical of the "wishy-washy" accusation and pushed against the initial lurker lynch.

[EmpTyger]

Budja is correct- no counterclaiming today.

Unvote: Memorable Raindrops

.

[EmpTyger]

MR:

You’re at lynch-1. This may be your last chance.

There are 6 other players in the game- talk about them.

You have a role- claim it.

What part of that wasn't clear?

---

Tracker:
So am I. But it's happening tomorrow at the soonest.

---

Budja:
Sorry, you've made a good case, but angelmouse is still number 3.

Vote: Cat

[EmpTyger]

Budja (and everyone else, really):
I strongly suspect that you were right- about both.

Unvote: Cat

. Right now, to be honest, I'm convinced enough to go ahead, but I don't see any reason not to take a safety play of having a round of counter-doctorclaims. (But still nothing regarding the copclaim until tomorrow.) We tomorrow either will have a confirmed innocent, a confirmed mafia, or the doctor indirectly will have protected the cop.

The only case where that's suboptimal is if the mafia is MR/angelmouse, and I'm not really worried about that case. Do you (or anyone else) see any reason not to have a real doctor counterclaim?

---

angelmouse:
Who's Jack's partner?

[EmpTyger]

I am not the doctor.

[EmpTyger]

Per Rule 1,

request extension

until at least after all 7 playerslots have players in them.

[EmpTyger]

HH:
Likewise, if you *aren't* the doctor claim so ASAP.
However, do *not* say either way whether you are the cop or not.

[EmpTyger]

HH:
What does this mean?

Good thing I read through before seeing those last two posts. I missed the counter-claim piece, so I probably would have claimed it all had I not seen what was going on.
<snip>

Also, I wouldn't mind hearing your initial thoughts with a disclaimer that they would be revised with the recent claims.

---

Budja:
I'm still thinking through your second reason against evilsnail. But I'm definitely not willing to lynch just for vanilla.

---

Everyone except Budja/Jack:
What do you think of a Budja/Jack mafia?

[EmpTyger]

evilsnail:

<snip>
There are other conceivable reasons for 2, you know. Think about it.

No, you tell us.

---

HH:
I was suspicious of Cat for not doing anything to help the town and then giving an excuse for antitown behavior that didn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.

<snip>
I first thought you wanted me to claim everything, which was not what was discussed in thread. After re-reading, I caught that you just meant we're counter-claiming.
<snip>

Here are the posts in question:

@HackerHuck, in response to a doc claim we are having a "mass counter-claim".
If you are the doctor claim so ASAP.

HH:
Likewise, if you *aren't* the doctor claim so ASAP.
However, do *not* say either way whether you are the cop or not.

I'm having a hard time believing that someone could read those 2 posts as "claim everything". Especially someone who allegedly hadn't yet read the thread. Budja's only mentions a doctor claim/counterclaim. And he says you should claim "If you are the doctor". And I explicitly say *not* to claim cop. Am I missing something that doesn't make this just an attempt to manufacture mud at Budja and me?

You also made a big deal about needing to reevaluate based on claims, and going to check to see if angelmouse's claim stacks up. And yet your post doesn't do that at all. How come?

---

Tracker:
I had half an idea. There's something about that pairing gnawing at me. The biggest problem I'm having with Budja/Jack is that Jack/MM seems likelier. (And then the problem with Jack/MM is likewise MM/evilsnail.) I think I need to reread them.

[EmpTyger]

ugh I feel evilsnail is the most suspicious player, but that HH/Budja is the most suspicious pairing.

(And for completeness’s sake: I don’t see Tracker paired with anyone. Jack I still don’t know what to make of and still need to reread. angelmouse is confirmed innocent.)

---

evilsnail:
Making vague insinuations that you lied in the exact way that you blasted MR for, for some unspecified hypothetical reason- that’s not a defense. And certainly not one that “makes any sense”. And certainly not when Budja and Tracker are voting you, and HH and I have said that we can’t see how your play makes sense.

I don’t bend over backwards to find mafia a defense. I *vote* them.

---

Budja:
Why are you so dismissive about HH? Especially considering that, as best I can tell, your current list of suspects seems to only have 1 suspect on it. In fact, the only other person I can remember you expressing any suspicion of is now a confirmed innocent.

---

HH:
I'm not sure whether it's “a big deal” or not. That's why I'm asking about it. To find out.
Because what you're saying right now doesn’t seem plausible to me.

And I’m taking a closer look at your [213] and I’m noticing a much bigger problem. Here’s what you said with regard to the accusation of angelmouse being wishy-washy:

<snip>
EmpTyger- <snip> He actually does a good job of catching Angelmouse's wishy-washiness. I didn't catch that even on my reread of her in iso.
<snip>
Budja- <snip> I really don't like the accusation of wishy-washiness. This game is definitely not a standard setup, so risking L-1 here was likely to get a lynch from someone who didn't count well.
<snip>

You say the exact opposite thing about the exact same action! How on earth is it good when I call angelmouse wishy-washy, but bad when Budja does?

As for what you said about the “

counter-

claim”:
Even if you somehow missed the “counter” in Budja’s post- I’m not sure how you can misinterpret

“However, do *not* say either way whether you are the cop or not.”

And “EmpTyger is being defensive” doesn’t provide me with an explanation either.

As for what you said about angelmouse:
*You* said you wanted to “go back over everything to see if Angel's claim stacks up.” In your next post, I didn’t see any sign of you “taking her being cleared into consideration”. However, I did see you still providing a list of suspicious things you found in angelmouse.

[EmpTyger]

evilsnail:
A wise man once said to me, "Maybe he was trying to save his skin or something, but that's no excuse for what really is just atrocious play."
...At least, he said he was a wise man. He may have been lying about that. You never know.

Vote: evilsnail

---

Everyone except evilsnail:
Who needs convincing?

1) evilsnail says he concocted this elaborate lie because his situation was hopeless and he had no other choice. And yet he did so before he finished reading the game. Before angelmouse's alignment was even known! Yet somehow he already knew that he was 100% the nightkill. Somehow, he knew that (a) the mafia wouldn't go after a confirmed doctor and (b) the mafia wouldn't deliberately leave him alive and counterclaim him to a mislynch tomorrow.

2) His reaction now is implausible. He's unclaimed twice now, and then thinks is the most unreasonable thing in the world that someone's skeptical? Instead, he's acting like his play is the most obvious thing in the world, to the point of insulting people who happen to be skeptical. And contrast that to how accepting he was of people who were skeptical of MR's first claim. He's okay with someone doubting MR's motivation in claiming cop; but it's somehow outrageous for doubting evilsnail's motivation in claiming

vanilla

cop.

3) blahblahWIFOMblah. "If I were scum I'd just ridden it out." Because according to him, he knew already that tomorrow would be lynch-or-lose, because he knew the town was going to mislynch today, because see-point-#1. And the right course of action for the WIFOM was so obvious to the town that see-point-#2.

---

Jack:
One of these days I really am going to reread for you.

---

Budja:
This is not the same situation as before.
There was still a reasonable chance that MR could be a cop.
There is not a reasonable chance that evilsnail is a cop and played that way.

You seem very certain that HH's posts means nothing. And again, it's not like your suspect In fact, you still have a 1-person-long suspect list. Which is the gist of why people are saying you're actively lurking.

---

HH:
...Okay, *how* is my claim of wishy-washiness on the part of angelmouse different from Budja's. according to you? I mean, I obviously get that you think so- I pointed it out. I don't see why- and given what Budja asked, it's not just me.

I mean, you said "I do want to go back over everything to see if angelmouse's claim stacks up". No, I'm not saying you had to delete that section. In fact, the opposite. I'd expect you to *write* something acknowledging her claim after your reread. Considering, you know, you supposedly reread for that reason.

I just have a hard time seeing an innocent player coincidentally managing to miss the relevant word from one post and the relevant *half* of the following post. Enough that I'm going to consider other possibilities. And Budja's utter certainly that it's irrelevant isn't making me less curious.

[EmpTyger]

Budja:
After 3 weeks, and 2 days until deadline, you don’t have a suspect? Someone you allegedly don’t want lynched is about to be deadlinelynched- and you’re not doing anything about it? While saying as little as you can in evilsnail’s defense (“Point 1 is just plain wrong”? *How*? Because evilsnail said so? )?

Unvote: evilsnail, vote: Budja

I’ve been having trouble seeing who evilsnail could be partnered with besides you, but I can also see you easily partnered with HH or Jack.

And you know what the icing on this is? You haven’t cared about finding suspicious players (except with angelmouse, who turns out was innocent)- you’ve only cared about who is claiming cop. Well, guess what.

You’re not the cop.

If you were, you would have safely hammered the fakeclaiming evilsnail right now. So that makes you the best lynch by the logic you used in [209], right? Because in addition to the rest:

You’re not the cop- you’re vanilla if town.
And you *bought* the who copclaim/takeback thing despite saying that it sucked.

And that’s just *your* alleged logic.

---

evilsnail:
Who do you think my partner is?

And despite the above, you’re not off the hook. Not when you are simultaneously arguing that your plan was “ill-conceived” and “an obvious protown move”.

---

HH:
Okay, *how* was my catch "more reasoned" than Budja's? Because, I used colortags? Asterisks? How? Can you answer as specifically as you can this time?

---

angelmouse:
If you have anything to add, you really should do it soon. Confirmed innocents tend not to have a particularly long life expectancy.

---

Tracker/Jack:
Assuming you are leaving your vote on evilsnail- who you think his partner is?

[EmpTyger]

Apparently according to the firstpost the deadline is now Friday, so we have slightly more time. But that’s still close.

---

Budja:
You don't think evilsnail’s the right lynch...
…but you're not helping to defend him. You say as little as possible, as vaguely as possible. You’re content to let evilsnail defend himself (obviously ineffectively, given that he’s at lynch-1 and you are the only one even close to agreeing with him). Even if you think 1 of my points is wrong, you don’t say anything about the other 2. Even if you’re not sure about evilsnail, you’re not doing anything to find out further about him. If someone was at lynch-1, and weren’t sure about them or genuinely didn’t want him lynched- you would be doing something about. Not being as vague as you can.

You think someone else should be lynched today…
…but you're not trying to get an alternate target lynched. You're not even trying to find an alternate target! And this is the biggest problem. Because no townsperson who truly didn't want an evilsnail lynch would be sitting back as passively as you were and still are this close to deadline.

Do you have any explanation for this besides mafia trying not to stick out their neck?

(And as for my point 1:
There's only 1 way for evilsnail (or you) to know for certain what the mafia would do. Whether the mafia will kill a confirmed innocent doctor, or instead kill a claimed cop they might very well be able to mislynch D2 (for a win, after a mislynch D1- which evilsnail also conveniently assumes is definitely going to happen, without basis). And that's if he (or you) is mafia.)

---

Tracker:

<snip>
And what exactly do me and Jacky Boy have against us?
<snip>

What are you asking here?

Is there anyone other than Budja who you think is evilsnail’s partner? Who and why?

[EmpTyger]

I’m having some technical difficulties from my home computer, and it’s not going to get fixed until the weekend at the earliest. I can use another computer at the meantime today and tonight, but probably not

tomorrow, when we have a deadline.

More attention to Budja. I want everyone to take a look and get on record regarding him.

---

nessarae:
Half of the game is trying to persuade others. If you make it hard for people to understand you, you’re shooting yourself in the foot.

---

Budja:
Where did you “stuck your neck out by going against the flow”?

With everyone besides evilsnail- you haven’t stuck your neck out. You’ve done so much *nothing* that half the players in the game have accused you of active lurking!
With evilsnail, you went *with* the flow. You yourself said you were being wishy-washy. You didn’t try to stop his lynch. You didn’t try to find an alternative lynch. I’ve already explained all this in my last post.

I presume you figure your best chance is to ignore my accusation and try not to call further attention and hope no one listens to me between now and deadline? Since you can’t actually rebut my accusation?

---

evilsnail:
Is the only thing you have against me that I don’t believe you? That I’m trying to get you lynched? Because:

Yeah, I don’t believe you.
Neither does Tracker. He’s voting you.
Neither does Jack. He’s voting you.
Neither does nessarae. She’s [trying to] vote you.
Neither does HH. He’d “be pretty happy with a lynch on evilsnail,” put you in his top 2 suspects, is voting Tracker solely for allegedly supporting you, and most recently, “Evil retracted his claim, which was pretty scummy.”

So that’s 5 players who don’t believe you.

That’s at least 3 townspeople who don’t believe you.

In fact, it seems like not believing you is a pretty *protown* thing, actually. (In fact, the only one who doesn’t think you are lying is you and Budja, and even then Budja isn't completely believing you, because he himself admitted that he was being wishy-washy on you. And I’ve explained how Budja wasn’t reacting to your lynch as if he didn’t want it.)

So, anything else? (Besides the circular “My best bet at the moment is a The Tracker-EmpTyger scum pair, because you are the players who I am most suspicious of.”)

---

HH:
So does you think evilsnail is lying and that it’s Tracker/evilsnail? Do you have any argument against Tracker besides “he’s evilsnail’s partner”? Because if the only thing suspicious that Tracker’s done is “be evilsnail’s partner”, then why not lynch evilsnail first?

And, I don’t see Tracker as evilsnail’s partner. When Budja and I made it clear that MR wasn’t the lynch today, Tracker continued to push for a MR lynch.

---

Tracker:
Again, I can’t tell what you’re asking here. What did you mean by this:

<snip>
And what exactly do me and Jacky Boy have against us?
<snip>

[EmpTyger]

nessarae:
Uh, really? We ended D1 thinking that evilsnail was lying through his teeth and should die. And... he was. And... he did.

So, what's changed?

---

Budja:
By "We ended D1..." I mean "everyone except you ended D1..."

Vote: Budja

[EmpTyger]

Budja:

<snip>
@ Bugja

Can u tell us why u desided not to vote ??????

I just want to make sure you see nessarae's question. So that it becomes obvious that you're avoiding answering it.

<snip>
Emp's attacks on MR are null/little town. He was less enthusiastic about a MR as so much as a lurker lynch.
---
Huck's bad Tracker vote looks worse.
<snip>

How are those not things that you've did worse?
*You* were the most unenthusiastic about lynching evilsnail.
*You* made a bad vote on angelmouse.

---

HH:

While I don't like how Budja was non-committal at the end of the day, I'm not sure that scum would have taken that position when there was no feasible target other than evilsnail when we got close to deadline.

Interesting. If you think that evilsnail's partner wouldn't do that, then what do you think that evilsnail's partner *would* do in that situation?

Emp-tyger - if you really thought that evilsnail should die, why weren't you on his lynch?

Would you be asking this question if I had gotten online and cast the 4th vote on evilsnail- instead of you?

[EmpTyger]

Budja:
Oh, I disagree- I think you’re making a great case on yourself. Your defenses are either laughable or nonexistent:

“I thought evilsnail was town.”

Being the only player to want to go along with a mafia’s lie is not a sign of innocence. It’s a sign of guilt.

“I didn't have an alternative.”

Town try to find mafia. You didn’t.

“I know I am town.”

Just like evilsnail said he was the obviously protown, right?

---

Everyone not voting Budja:
Please provide an argument for why someone other than Budja should be lynched today, taking into account that:
1) evilsnail was mafia.
2) Budja *didn’t* want to lynch evilsnail.
3) Everyone else *did* want to lynch evilsnail.

---

HH:

While I don't like how Budja was non-committal at the end of the day, I'm not sure that scum would have taken that position when there was no feasible target other than evilsnail when we got close to deadline.

Interesting. If you think that evilsnail's partner wouldn't do that, then what do you think that evilsnail's partner *would* do in that situation?

<snip>
You couldn't figure out the answer to these? If elvis was going down anyway, why wouldn't he have jumped on the wagon?
<snip>

Oh, I figured that out. I was asking whether *you* had. Because I don’t see how you could truly think that “if evilsnail was going down anyway, his partner would have jumped on the wagon” when

that’s exactly what *you* did.

<snip>
Emp-tyger - if you really thought that evilsnail should die, why weren't you on his lynch?

<snip>
Would you be asking this question if I had gotten online and cast the 4th vote on evilsnail- instead of you?

If you were voting for evilsnail, why would I ask you that question?

Er, that’s my point- you wouldn’t. Because then you’d have to ask yourself why *you* weren’t on his lynch. So I don’t see why you’re attaching importance to it in this situation.
(I think I’m making my point clearer in the first part, so feel free to focus on that.)

[EmpTyger]

Everyone except Budja:

"Repeated things I've done to hinder the town don’t definitely make me mafia, therefore I'm town."

And the repeated things MR/evilsnail did to hinder town made evilsnail town too, I bet.

Also, he's lying about being in this position because of "gut". Because when I gave *logical* reasons, Budja said my *reasoning* was wrong. (Not that he could say why when I pressed him, of course, since he was lying.) He was arguing that the *logical* thing to do was leave a claimed cop alive.

No, the real reason he's in this position because he thought the town wouldn't lynch evilsnail yesterday. And we did.

---

Budja:

<snip>
Would anyone like to comment on my case on Huck, even if just to say its rubbish (with reasons).

You want me to comment?

<snip>
Huck's bad Tracker vote looks worse.
<snip>

You call that a case?
You want everyone else to reply with reasons, when you haven't presented any reasons to start with?

---

Jack:
If you think Budja's innocent, then present an alternate theory or 2.

[EmpTyger]

Jack:
…So if Budja did something that you think is lynchworthy, it will be my fault that you haven’t tried to lynch anyone else after I’ve asked you *twice* to propose an alternative?

Do you need me to ask you a third time? Because that’s at least 2 times too many.

If you don’t like my theory on Budja, *you* propose an alternative.

---

HH:

<snip>
EmpTyger - I'm not very comfortable with how gung-ho you are on lynching Budja. This is carrying over from yesterday where you were also not on the evilsnail lynch and were parked on Budja. Now you're talking about how evilsnail was obviously scum and Budja is his partner. What can you point to earlier that shows Budja as scum and why did you stick your vote on Budja when you thought that evil was so scummy?

That’s lovely. Now, how about a little reality check:
1) Jack voted evilsnail yesterday because my arguments against evilsnail were so “gung-ho”, as you put it.
2) nessarae (based on her voting) reached the same conclusions as me about evilsnail yesterday and about Budja today.
3) Budja thinks you’re more suspicious than me.
4) I’m not voting myself any time soon.

So I don’t really care if “you’re not very comfortable”. Especially when here’s what you are comfortable with:
Why *you* were so “gung-ho” about lynching Tracker yesterday. (Because for all you should know at this point, I could be right about Budja/evilsnail. But we definitely know you were wrong about Tracker/evilsnail.)

Why *you* only joined the evilsnail lynch when it was inevitable. (Which you yourself admit.)

Why *you* think that evilsnail’s partner would be doing exactly what *you* did.

[EmpTyger]

Jack:

<snip>
If you want an alternative so dang badly, why don't you answer some of my questions so I can think about it.
<snip>

Um, I *don't* want an alternative. I want to lynch Budja.
You're the one who wants an alternative "so dang badly". So you do something about it.

And you had no problem with me "coming on hard" yesterday for evilsnail/Budja. In fact, you multiple times praised my skill. What's different now?

---

Budja:
You tried to argue logically yesterday that we shouldn't lynch evilsnail, and when he nevertheless was lynched, you're now trying to pass it off as "gut" instead of "logic".

You also never tried to find an alternative the way you would have if you were genuinely an innocent who thought evilsnail was innocent. You just cared about not-evilsnail.

You also seem to think that everyone should think you're innocent because you tried to get us to believe a confirmed mafia's lie.

Oh, you've made yourself perfectly clear.

---

Jack again:
See, this is a real false dilemma:

Either Emp is scum trying to get me lynched or one of you two are exposing his over-the-top attacks to get him lynched tomorrow. Ah the WIFOM.
<snip>

Because there's a third possibility that Budja's leaving out: Either I'm mafia, or (Jack or HH) is mafia,

or Budja is mafia.

As for me, I'm saying that there are only 2 possible choices in this situation because there are. Either (1) we lynch Budja, or (2) we lynch someone else. If you have a third option, then you say. (Not that you're even specifying a second option.)

[EmpTyger]

Jack:
Why on earth are you so bent against Budja's death, yet so against saying who is a better alternative?

(Early D1, Budja wanted to lynch angelmouse and I wasn't convinced. I asked Budja why he thought angelmouse was guilty, I said I disagreed, I said why I disagreed, and

then I said why I thought MR was more suspicious and tried to get him lynched

. I didn't whine that Budja had to spoonfeed me reasons, and whine that he had to spoonfeed me better reasons, and whine that I was going to be a townsperson in a game of mafia who wouldn't lift a finger to do the primary thing a townsperson is supposed to do: find suspicious behavior and get it lynched!)

[EmpTyger]

Just got back, don't have time to gloat, so just

Vote: HackerHuck

[EmpTyger]

Thanks all and mod for the game.

I need to remember (yet again) not to second-guess myself. Also, it feels refreshing to have a game where the mafia were simply the liars and the lurkers.

---

Jack:

Good job guys, but you should have given reasons for your tells. Finding scum without logic is like making a lucky guess. It isn't much to be proud of.

I realize and admit I was being kind of obstinate at the end. But know that I hadn’t completely decided between you and HH at that point. It wasn’t that I didn’t have logic- it was that I cared more about seeing what yours and HH’s logic were. Despite my confidence in Budja, I didn’t really lose anything in preparing for a potential D3 by taking a closer look at you and HH.

Or to put it another way- you needed to not only look at what I wasn’t providing, but then compare it to any logic of anyone else.

Also, you did play D1 very well. The only way I really saw you as mafia was as Budja’s partner. In the end, when D2 didn’t really give me anything conclusive, that’s what I went back to. Of course, then the N2 nightkill made it moot anyhow.

nessarae:
I don’t mean to be too condescending, but you did have a huge luxury this game- being confirmed innocent. You won’t always have that. You clearly made good deductions, but in most mafia games you’ll need to be able to persuade it to others.

evilsnail:
Good job pulling the wool over at least 1 townsperson’s eyes. I don’t think you deserve this loss as much as MR.

HH:
Likewise, I don’t think you deserve the loss as much as Cat. (Incidentally, mafia could talk during the day? I actually missed that in the role PM. That makes Cat’s lone attempt at defense even more illegitimate.)

I was surprised that Jack died- I didn’t really see any indication of nessarae voting me, and I certainly wasn’t voting her. It seemed like your only chance was to hope to capitalize on what happened D2 between Jack and me. Though I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong- just a bit of a gambit. But regardless of your nightchoice, I think you have to start off D3 more proactively. When I realized I was going V/LA, I was worried I’d get back too late.

When did you realize Tracker was the cop?

Tracker:
Mafia fakeclaim to save their own neck as well as to expose the cop. It’s a tricky balance to prevent both of those. Good try nonetheless, although I doubt if you counterclaimed cop at the start of D2, anyone would have believed evilsnail over you.

Budja:
The problem was, your burnout happened to coincide with the mafia’s imploding. With everything else- I really couldn’t ignore Occam’s Razor here. I’m glad there was a margin of error to lynch you. For all the safety play, I was actually really expecting the game to end with your lynch.

DeathNote:
The main thing was the “surprise” of mafia being able to daytalk- I didn’t expect that from the Open description in the queue, though my fault for not reading the roles in-thread more closely, I guess.

The only other thing I might have thought about was calling the game a town game when all of the mafia required replacement. But that’s hardly usual practice, so no problem with how you handled it.