Mini #682: C9++ (Game Over!)

[Scheherazade]

Just confirming for everybody that I'm replacing afatchic. I'm still getting up to speed on the thread, but I plan on getting my hands dirty inside of twelve hours from now.

[Scheherazade]

Hello, all. I’ve been trying to understand all the reasons why people feel that afatchic/I might be scum. If you’ll let me write a couple things in explanation:

I think that afatchic was merely being hasty. I know it’s hard to credit hastiness with producing “one of the most antitown statements I have ever read (73)” et al. but I think that you’ll see that a lack of consideration of the implications of the pseudoclaim lead to early support with increasing doubts like “i don't think any other backup roles or anything should claim” (44). He did stick to his guns in calling for a miller claim, though, rather than just running as far away from germy as possible.

He began lurking and eventually left because Kairyuu was rather too rabid and the majority of the rest of you rather too eager to play ducklings.

__________________________________________________________
And I know a “then who?” follows every decent “couldn’t be…”

I’m still rereading and rereading to try to sort a likely suspect after Kairyuu claimed. I still think he’s been the most suspect player. I know that even if he and Myko were lying, they could be easily exposed in the near future (even tonight, if we’ve got a cop).

Sekinj leaps to mind. Her account of her unvote of Kairyuu gave me no satisfaction. I may be biased because the explanations came after Kairyuu already claimed mason. As has been stated, her vote for Kairyuu seems more opportunistic than logical (of course, am I not doing the same now!).

Her dismissal of springlullaby’s early vote for her isn’t itself suspect, but I admit that I expected her to respond with another admonishment to hunt for scum rather than random vote. So it sent a flag up for me. She later seems almost evasive and then almost re-directive (see: tizzy).

By three pages in, when many people were introducing material to discuss, she wasn’t prepared to participate fully in the conversation.

CF Riot makes a good point, I think, against her in post 100, when he points out that scum dislikes drawing attention to accusations.

I do give her points for briefly defending a confirmed townie, afatchic, but that was just part of a criticism of Kairyuu.

I think her response to germy being reintroduced as a suspect might itself be suspect. Normally, I’d see nothing wrong, but with everything else, it feels like she’s annoyed because she already knows whether germy is town or scum, which only scum or mason could know at this point… And she’s not a mason, it would seem.

Also… Did Sekinj add fuel to the Kairyuu/Artem fire? Maybe unintentionally, but Artem seems to think that Sekinj thought he appeased Kairyuu too much. Was that a weak attempt to make the row the focus of discussion? She then says that Artem is attacking Kairyuu too strongly… I find her involvement in the row irregular.

I know that taken individually, any of these things could be dismissed. What I think is suspect is the pattern. Therefore,

Unvote: Kairyuu, Vote: Sekinj

[Scheherazade]

@Myk: fine, my suspicion remains unchanged.

@Kairyuu: I meant that you still seem most suspicious because I feel you tried to confuse the search. Understanding that you're a mason, not scum, I suppose you can be explained by not wanting to lose an argument on any points for any reason. That's fair enough, but I do think it became counter-productive at a point.

When I said that you could be easily confirmed, I see that saying "(even tonight if we have a cop)" looks like an encouragement to use it. I beg pardon. Instead I meant to use it to show how easily your claim could be toppled if you had lied.

When I said "I do give her points..." I meant that I thought her defence of afatchic could indicate innocence. You see, I know that I'm town and if she were scum she would know that as well. While not a strong indication of innocence, I wondered if she-as-scum wouldn't have attacked afatchic as an easy target. Of course I realise that scum doesn't want to take out town perceived to be scum too quickly. Perhaps the remark was useless.

@Sekinj: I do apologise for annoying you. I understand that you're tired of hearing about some of the things I mentioned. However tired of them you may be, I do think that they deserve consideration as indications that you might be scum.

[Scheherazade]

@Sekinj: I feel it is. I fully admit that I'd be cautious to hammer, but I hoped that by presenting a case against you and voting, you might say more that would either fully convince me or make me double-guess myself.

@Kairyuu: Thanks for being reluctant to truncate my username, but I don't mind much what you type as long as I know you mean me. Sche, SC or Zade are most common. It's up to you.

As for my assertion, yes, I certainly was remiss in not mentioning examples. Here:

In post 130, you did rant a bit. I would be frustrated, too, but that post was not helpful, was it? On the same page, post 146, you give a long post that, rather than distilling and summarising your dispute with Artem, just seems to expand it. At that point, both of you (and you admit in this post) seem to know where you stand. Why continue to waste time and posts? It just slows people down (me, Ku_F, if I may speak for her) and attracts undue attention to you. You were a mason who was relatively close to getting lynched. By post 146, you seemed to be confusing the issues at hand in order to serve your argument with Artem.

Your firestorm, you must have realised, was making it easy for the scum. I think people in this game scraped through by active lurking and defining their positions by you and Artem.

Do you see what I'm driving at? I don't mean to be judgemental, I'm just saying that it didn't help and seemed suspicious because of that. I know that criticism might apply to Artem as well, but I feel like he was initially more of a victim than aggressor and therefore do not blame him as much for the consequences of your dispute.

I see what you’re saying about saying “I’m town!” to loudly, too often. My predecessor never took the time to do even that, so I feel like I’m making up a bit for the first ten pages.

@germy: Is it likely in your view that both Scigatt and I/afatchic would be lurkers and scum? What about other lurkers such as alvinz95? Do you have any other reason to believe that Scigatt is scum?

[Scheherazade]

@Kairyuu: My problem is neither with aggression nor long posts.

I brought up aggression because I see that it forced you to role-claim (and for Myk to role-claim to back you up). This is bad because it improves the Mafia's chances of hitting a power role townie like a cop. That is counter-productive for town.

Of course, you may not have realised until it was too late that your argument with Artem might cause you to have to role-claim.

My problem isn't that you made long posts. It was that you seemed to be going back to previously established facts. Even if Artem didn't agree with you or see what you were saying, continuing to argue those points seemed to diminish their relevance and clutter the page. I just felt that it was personal rather than productive posting.

As for considering Artem the victim... It may be that I found the kitten disarming.

[Scheherazade]

@Sekinj: I do love the cat. Is she yours? However, I suspect you despite how adorable your avatar is.

As for why I didn't vote for Artem: I haven't made up my mind about him, yet. I fully admit it. He might be scum, but I don't think that I know enough to state so. He might be town, but I'm a long way from gambling on it. I'd rather address you for the time being, for aforementioned reasons.

@Artem: I do think that afatchic trusted germy way too much. Reading his posts, he seems to leave no room for germy's guilt in the first two. In the second two, I think he's showing a lot more of his thinking, but not very clearly and without a whole lot of supporting evidence. The last two were mostly fade-away remarks, I think.

I think that he was operating under the assumption that only a townie would be interested in giving everybody as much information as possible. I quote post 44: "all it does is give the town a better idea of the setup, since the scum should already have a good idea about it since they already know 1/4th of the roles." He doesn't provide a lot more strong evidence for this, but then again he didn't provide much of anything.

Does it feel like he knows? Well, I don't know, so I don't imagine that he knows, and that biases me when getting a feel for his attitude towards germy. I think he assumes and never really questions his assumption in a post in this game.

I think that germy's soft-claim was a mistake for all the reasons that have already been investigated (gives the scum better odds at hitting an activated power-role, is not worth proving/unprovable). That being said, I think he concedes where he ought to concede, as when he advised cops to claim immediately.

Ultimately, he soft-claimed to give the town more information and to provide material for analysis in later days. I don't see the information he provided as particularly helpful. In post 58, he shows how his post would help another town player gain information about the setup, but I don't think that this is an immediate benefit. Even if another player figured something out based on germy's soft-claim, he or she would probably have to sit on it until later in the game.

Which brings me to the "Day 1 is a waste without my soft-claim" argument. I don't quite see this. There are more ways than that to generate content, I think. He could have discussed the probabilities without soft-claiming to give other town players a chance to figure out some things about the set-up, right? That would serve the same purpose as the days passed and more roles were revealed.

I do like how he tries to summarise what's going on. It seems he's performing a useful service with greater and lesser competence.

My conclusion is that he messed up, but there are bigger fish to fry. It isn't clear to me that he's scum.

[Scheherazade]

@SilverPhoenix: The scummy thing about her vote and unvote for Kairyuu starts with post 162, which is Kairyuu's:

"Well, other than knowing my own alignment to be town, I agree with the idea. I think that if we lynch afatchic then if he flips scum germy will be more likely town, because of the buddying up and then backing down. If he flips town, then I will hope that someone can confirm my alignment, but if they can't then I will not fight against being the D2 lynch, because I was the one who proposed the case in the first place."

(@Kairyuu: I thought saying "I'm town!" too often is scummy behaviour...)

He adds in 165:

"By the way, I'm going to have limited access for about a week. I'll still be around as often as I can, but I won't be able to be very active."

Sekinj has the next post.

At this point, Kairyuu has made the "confirm my alignment" comment, but Sekinj does not address it.

In post 168, springlullaby does address the "confirm my alignment" comment (hope no-one minds the abbreviation: it's a matter of convenience, not one of misunderstanding Kairyuu).

In post 170, Artem raises the possibility that Kairyuu is the godfather and asks for any similar suspicions.

Sekinj makes post 172, which points out that afatchic's silence strengthens the case against him.

She makes no reference to Kairyuu, to springlullaby's questions or to Artem's mild accusation.

Sekinj votes for Kairyuu in post 176. She says that she think's Kairyuu's behaviour can be explained if he is the godfather. Why didn't she raise this concern in post 172? Was she thinking? If she was, she only writes her thoughts on a comment of his, one already picked apart by Artem and springlullaby.

Her aside remark about Artem puzzles me: "It looks liek Artem thought the same, and that makes me think he really was just defending himself against and over-the-top attack by Kair." She tries to clarify in post 224 arguing "I just meant that if you were godfather, it was more likely that you were pushing too hard because you were trying to get a townie lynched." The townie Kairyuu wanted lynched was afatchic, wasn't it? Not Artem. What does that have to do with Artem defending himself against an over-zealous Kairyuu? At best she had fuzzy thinking and writing. At worst, I think she was trying to obscure a gentle nudge towards rallying around Artem (i.e. an implicit "all the things Kairyuu said against him were the sophistries of a scum player; it's clear that Artem deserves your trust and he suspects Kairyuu").

In her favour, she does say that she'd love to see Kairyuu respond to springlullaby's questions. However, she votes for Kairyuu anyway, without giving him a chance to respond to the charges levelled against his "confirm my alignment" comment. Is it to put pressure on him to respond? Well, he's already said that he's going to have limited internet access, so it seems like a waste of time. In fact, it's worse because if a bandwagon starts, he might be lynched before he ever had a chance to defend himself. Besides, Sekinj later says: "I dont' hop my vote around a lot. I consider it important each time I vote. Therefore, I'm not going to vote until I'm ready or think it is warranted." (post 265)

Why is she suddenly ready? She wasn't clear before whether Artem or Kairyuu was scummier. She didn't make much of Kairyuu's "confirm my alignment" comment until two posts after the fact, well after Artem and springlullaby introduce criticism. He hasn't made a defence against that criticism or posted anything game related in the intervening time. Why is her vote for him suddenly warranted? Even though she hadn't made post 265 yet, she does make a point of being patient and giving players the benefit of the doubt, i.e. afatchic in post 127, and I wondered why she would change her M.O. suddenly. She clearly wasn't giving Kairyuu the benefit of the doubt. In her own words "the only reason i voted kair is becuase it looked liek he was godfather and slipped" (post 224). One reason alone? Not patient, not forgiving, but hasty and unwarranted.

Personally, I think she sees that Artem's got some advantage over Kairyuu for the time being. Kairyuu's comment was unpopular, but she had to wait to know that for certain. Besides that, Kairyuu can't confront his attackers for a week. With enough negative criticism of his comment, he could've been lynched while away. That's what I mean by opportunistic.

You're right, putting someone at L-2 when both the scum are still hidden isn't very opportunistic on its own. I was looking at the motivation for voting--not to put pressure on Kairyuu, so it must be because she thinks he's scum--the reasons for suspicion--ones posted first by others, which is fine, but to which Kairyuu hadn't yet responded, which is fine, but for the fact that she likes to reserve judgement on everybody else--and the consequences--which could easily have been a lynch of Kairyuu before he even had time to respond.

She seemed to think that L-2 was bad, because as soon as he came back she unvoted him. Now, by the time she unvoted Kairyuu, I already suspected her of being scum, I admit. Post 208, she said: "Unvote. I'm quite convinced at this point" and added that "Kair's explaination cleared it up" in post 213. That's fair enough in my book. I don't think town needs a particularly strong reason to unvote town. Why I do count it among her scummy acts is the fact that she revealed in her explanation posts, 213 and 224, that her only reason for voting Kairyuu was the "confirm my alignment" comment. What? This sounds like an excuse to hop on a bandwagon. Her unvote simply confirmed my suspicion that she was far too hasty in voting for Kairyuu.

Sorry for the length of this post, but if you didn't see it before, I hope you can see my thinking on the whole affair more clearly.

[Scheherazade]

@Sekinj: Noted. I still think the basis of the vote and its timing are suspect. I also think that the way you play and the way a mafioso would exploit a single comment are consistent.

[Scheherazade]

@Sekinj:

"So I'm just trying to figure out if you are just townies butting heads, or if one of you is trying to intentionally trip the other up." (Post 166)

Your opinion only changed when you voted Kairyuu for making the "confirm my alignment" remark. Now that is resolved, what about Artem makes you think that he's scum? I mean, you weren't sure before you suspected this comment. In fact, you agreed with Artem when you cast the vote, implying strongly that you thought he was town. Now that Kairyuu's comment is explained, you jump on Artem? What changed your mind, please?

Also, encouraging someone to vote for the person with the most blame is scummy. It's not a good argument to say "that's what most people believe" in any context, much less this one where, as scum, you would stand to gain from a lynch made from ignorance rather than logic.

@Kairyuu: Read what you will in it, but it comes from never having played in a game with more than two scum before, anywhere.

[Scheherazade]

@germy: I think Kairyuu's reasoning is that I slipped, making mine a true statement and yours false, both in the counting of mafia and in your soft role-claim.

@Kairyuu: Correct me if I'm wrong, but if both you and Mykonian are masons, then it is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be two mafia. We would need SIX+ Ts to have two mafia. So, unless you and Mykonian were lying, then it is impossible for me to have accidentally made a true statement by saying "both the scum."

See post two:

TTTTTTT = mafia goon + mafia godfather
TTTTTT = mafia goon + mafia godfather + serial killer (DI, BI)
TTTTT = mafia goon + mafia goon + mafia godfather
TTTT = mafia goon + mafia goon + mafia godfather + serial killer (DI, BI, KI)
TTT = mafia goon + mafia blocker + mafia godfather
TT = mafia goon + mafia blocker + mafia godfather + serial killer (DI, BI, CI, KI)
T = mafia spy + mafia blocker + mafia godfather
0 = mafia spy + mafia blocker + mafia godfather + serial killer (DI, BI, CI, KI, SI, RB)

[Scheherazade]

I'm sorry, I missed your post by posting on a stale window.

[Scheherazade]

@wolframhart: It was an "oh-God-they're-ganging-up-on-me" feeling that caused afatchic to leave. See post 109, where he says so himself. I never meant to say or imply that running away when someone attacks you in this game is helpful for the town--exactly the opposite in this case. I meant to point out that there is always more than one possible explanation for something like afatchic's posts in this game. If the case against me/afatchic is strong on other grounds, then by all means, it's logical to assume that the lack of a strong defence is scummy (the case you mentioned). If, however, your case rests on an assumption that's likely wrong as not, then perhaps you should wait a little bit before passing judgement. But maybe that's just me, not you.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by your parenthetical remark "(and even apologizing is Zade annoyed her)," so I'm only going to address it for the time being by saying that it's my intention to find scum and not to annoy people. I apologised for the latter, but certainly not for the former.

As for the rest of that paragraph... Only the scum know that they're completely correct about somebody's alignment. I should explain that statement, though. I meant that at the time that "I'd be cautions to hammer." I don't mean that I didn't believe that Sekinj was mafia. I meant that now she was under scrutiny, her reaction would figure into my analysis of her. I kept open in my mind the possibility that Sekinj could say or do something to make me reconsider my judgement. I would only be "fully convinced" after I had seen her reaction to being scrutinised. Am I still being unclear?

As for the Artem remark, I hope the above partly explained what I mean. There's a difference between "I think you are mafia, but I'm not excluding the possibility that you'll change my mind" and "I can't get a strong read either way on this person." So, on Artem I wasn't "not fully convinced." I said myself, I didn't even know if he was mafia. In Sekinj's case, I wasn't "fully convinced" because I wanted to leave open the possibility that she could change my mind.

Our styles differ, I understand, but what you see as a contradiction is a misunderstanding.

So, you voted for me because you thought:
-I was calling afatchic's behaviour pro-town
-I voted without being convinced of scumminess
-I contradicted myself by voting for Sekinj, but not Artem
-I haven't been properly pro-town.

The first and third were misunderstandings on your part, perhaps as a result of my unclear language.

I was convinced. I admit, I didn't give a very detailed post with my thinking until maybe 327, partly because people seemed to vote on less in this thread than I posted when I initially voted and partly because, as I mentioned, I wanted to be sure that Sekinj wasn't going to say something that would completely change my mind after I voted for her.

As for the last one, I don't really know what to say. I'm not sure what you're looking for. Even if I did, I think I'd keep at what I'm doing until I'd learned better myself. If you have specific criticisms that I could use to improve my contributions to the town, then I'd be happy to listen. I'm not going to jump at anybody's bark just to prove that I'm town, though.

[Scheherazade]

@Kairyuu: I think that I've missed whatever it is that makes you think that Sekinj was an easy target except for the vote cast against her by CF Riot. Is one vote against a person enough to make her an easy target? Are you then suggesting that I should have fabricated a case against someone unsuspected thus far in order to distance myself from all "easy targets" and other players?

What about her made her an "easy target" before I came along? I ask, because it looks like you're grasping at straws. If you don't find my argument against her convincing, that's fine. But you and Myk are the only people besides Sekinj who seem to think that my suspicion of her was calculated to manipulate other people rather than to lynch scum. Why?

And "6. Continually repeats "I'm town"" is just flat out false. It was said once and defended. I used it to explain my logic, that Sekinj only took a stand to defend other players when she was busy trying to discredit the real targets of her posts. That was all. Where else in the five pages since I made that post have I said "HEY! I'm town!" or anything like that? When I teased you in post 327 for doing exactly that?

[Scheherazade]

@Kairyuu: Not to belabour the point, but you, Mykonian and Artem suspected me (see vote count at time of my arrival), springlullaby, if anyone, seemed to be leaning towards Artem (post 245), wolframhart actually just unvoted Sekinj because he didn't suspect her and instead was investigating Alvinz95 (203, 243) and suspected Myk until his claim, germy hadn't expressed a serious suspicion since you claimed and the rest were not voting nor had really expressed a strong suspicion of anybody.

If anything, Sekinj was an uphill battle because you had in no uncertain terms disagreed with CF Riot for voting Sekinj and in fact mentioned it when you HoSed him. Wolframhart had just declared that he didn't think that she was very strong. And CF Riot hadn't yet responded to Sekinj's defence of her vote/unvote for you, which made me think at the time that he was backing off.

So I completely disagree with your fifth point against me. Gut-feeling and all, I think the facts contradict your conclusion.

You called me out after I had posted twice: one of those was my confirmation post. I didn't mention it again except to explain myself and once to point out that you've done the same in past posts.

So I completely disagree with your sixth point.

On the other hand, thank you for apologising. I appreciate your honesty, even if you're trying to kill me.

[Scheherazade]

@mykonian:

I'm won't vote today for Kai, Artem, Sekinj. I feel they are the wrong way.

Mind you don't make them targets for night kill.

Kai is mason, had a very long discussion with artem, loads of information there. For that, Artem is off my list today.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I would like to know what you mean by putting Artem off of your list for the discussion with Artem. Was there anything vindicating that you noticed? I just don't quite understand your reasoning.

Sekinj has done some town things in my mind, and I feel she is an easy target for scum. She hasn't posted that much usefull things, and now everything she says is looked at as scummy. Following from the above, this seems scum driven to me.

What town things? I don't think that any of Sekinj's defences showed convincing evidence of town behaviour, so maybe you can enlighten me for her.

And the second part: do you mean to say that you think that it's scummy to identify her recent posts as scummy? Is it because you feel that people are trying too hard to lynch her? Is that necessarily scummy, given the approaching deadline? What are your thoughts here, please?

Like here

sekinj, since you are around, mind replying to my 367 beside in joking?

I dont' know what kind of response you want. I obviously don't like that you want to lynch me... I think you are wrong and misguided...

1.'Wrong and misguided' are word characterize a townie, if you think that of me, why are you voting me then?

2.In the post, I have addressed other questions to you (bolded text). I'd also like you to react to answer to your suspicions.

Here words are misused by Spring in here first point.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by misused here. I read them to mean "because scum know alignments, they vote with certainty; if you think that I'm voting in uncertain terms, then how can you call me scum?" I'm not sure if I buy the argument, but is that a misuse of the words?

And CF, Most of it I get from your and zades/afatchic reaction on Kairyuu (a certainty, so a starting point for thinking), and it has nothing to do with interaction between you and zade/afatchic. More how you react on what happens around you, esspecially Spring, Sekinj, and the Kairyuu-Artem thing. On this moment, this theory is what I'm sticking with till day 2. Then I can test it.

Would you care to be more specific about my "reaction on Kairyuu?" It seems like you're calling us scummy because we both have kept open the possibility that you and Kairyuu have lied. Is that so?

If that's the case, I think your statement itself is not very pro-town. You're trying to tell us what to think by saying "a certainty, so a starting point for thinking." Are you saying that because we don't base all of our thinking on the assumption that you and Kairyuu are masons, we're scummy? Not only do I think it's wise not to assume that the unlikelihood of you lying is the same as the impossibility of you lying, CF Riot and I aren't the only ones to consider the possibility that you're lying.

Besides that, simply because we react similarly to something doesn't mean that we're allied. Not to speak for others, but both germy and Artem posted to the effect that they too think it's possible that you're lying.

Therefore, not only is your statement anti-town, it shows evidence that you're perverting facts to make us look like scum.

Now, if it's simply a gut-feeling, at least have the decency to admit that. I'm not going to argue with you how you feel, unless the facts contradict your feeling.

As for my reaction to springlullaby, I'm not sure what it is. If I don't know what to make of springlullaby, then I don't really know how you know. Or are you pointing to the fact that I haven't addressed the springlullaby question?

As for my reaction to Sekinj, you seem to be saying that because CF Riot and I were the first to seriously suspect Sekinj, we must be allied--that, and the fact that neither of us thinks that Sekinj has vindicated herself in the past few pages. All I have to say is that Sekinj is suspect. You don't have to agree with me, but don't use that as a basis of making an accusation. It's pretty anti-town to say "because I don't agree with x, he must be scum." As stated above, if you feel that things she has posted vindicate her, then I'm still open to hearing the case from somebody. I just haven't had reason to seriously doubt my suspicion yet.

What reaction did I have to the Artem-Kairyuu thing? The fact that I felt Artem was more on the defensive? Partly that's because it felt like Artem was ready to drop it early, admitting his mistake in post 22. Kairyuu took a certain tone with Artem in post 62 that lead to Artem allowing himself to get involved in post 69. Partly that was because I thought it wasn't very wise of Kairyuu to rely on his ability to claim, but I think that he and I have discussed that adequately and need not discuss it further.

So, please show me 1) what you think my reactions to be, 2) how they are scummy on their own, 3) how they relate to CF Riot's in a way that implies we are scum-buddies, and 4) what the division is between the reactions that CF Riot and I had and the reactions of other players who expressed similar views.

[Scheherazade]

Edit: fifth line down, "Artem off of your list for the discussion with Artem" should be "Artem off of your list for the discussion with Kairyuu"

[Scheherazade]

@Mykonian:

1. Oh, I didn't mean to question you here, just to point out that saying some one is above suspicion might make them mafia targets.

2. Okay, fair enough. I asked because I'm still rereading Artem.

3. I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by "She was the only one that was uncertain." Do you mean that she unvoted before Kairyuu claimed?

4. Okay, I understand what you're saying here.

5. When you talk about voting, you voting for Kairyuu then Sekinj? I still think this is more or less logical. I'm not sure why exactly afatchic voted Kairyuu, but after Kairyuu claimed and was confirmed by you, it seemed logical that a) he should be unvoted, b) the next most suspicious person be examined, and c) his attackers, who could be scum trying to get town lynched, should be examined. You feel that this was not pro-town reasoning?

As for the reaction to the Kairyuu discussion, would you tell me what specifically you mean?

6. Okay, I misunderstood. I thought you, like Kairyuu, saw evidence of a scumteam. That was my mistake.

Two more things, though:

I wouldn't expect all the scum to choose for one side. And I would expect there reasons to be weak. The fact that you and CF move with eachother makes it hard to see from this point who of you is it.

Just to check, you think that my reasons for voting Sekinj are weak, I understand. But do you think they are weak in that they're unconvincing or in that they're an excuse to vote for her?

Also, what side do you think that I or afatchic have taken in more of the issues you mentioned?

I have to say, from this point Sekinj is far from confrimed, because you and CF are on a weird spot for scum to be on a wagon.

I don't understand what "on a weird spot for scum to be on a wagon" means, exactly.



I think that I have a much better idea of where you stand and why, thank you for your posts so far.

[Scheherazade]

3. Okay, thank you.

5. Okay, this goes back to an earlier post made by you and supported by Sekinj that thinks that I went after Sekinj because I wanted someone to accuse, not because I honestly felt she was mafia. I know the phrase of mine which implied that in my second post. I didn't respond earlier because I can't really prove to you that, in reading the game from the beginning, I put both Kairyuu and Sekinj on my list of likely scum. I don't really expect either of you to take my word for it, but I believed a case needed to be made against Sekinj for legitimate scum-hunting reasons, not to prove somehow that I'm town.

7. That could be a way to restate the question, but town could do either, scum could only do the second, I think. That's why I framed it the way I did. But my point in asking was this: no matter how hard I argue for a Sekinj lynch, I'm not going to convince you until you feel that I'm town. Therefore, I'm not going to waste our time restating my feelings on Sekinj until you won't think of it as making excuses.

8. a) On germy: I don't quite know afatchic's reasons, so no further comment.
---b) On Kairyuu-Artem: Could have been that he was choosing the player not attacking him, you're right. You think this is may be a scum tell because he took sides against his accuser in an unrelated discussion, possibly to discredit him?

9. Okay, so you meant that afatchic and CF Riot took what would be a risk for scum when they voted for Kairyuu, making you pause in positively identifying them as scum?

[Scheherazade]

@mykonian: I don't exactly fall into the above-mentioned category, so could you explain what you mean by 'complot' and where you see it in the game right now?

[Scheherazade]

With his vote, we also have a three way tie at three votes between me, Sekinj and springlullaby. As it stands, it won't even do to have all other players (springlullaby, germy and Ku_F) for one of the top three.

As a town, we've got to work out some sort of compromise if we're going to lynch anybody today.

I think we should lynch. Does anybody think that because we can't really identify one person as reasonably scummy, we should avoid a lynch at all? I'm pushing for a lynch because I think our odds are decent of lynching scum, even if we voted randomly, assuming germy, mykonian and Kairyuu are all right about their role claims. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've got either a 1/3 or a 4/9 chance of lynching an anti-town player (including the possible serial killer). Our chances might be even better than pure probability.

Because I'm one of those who might be lynched today, I'd like to call on Kairyuu and mykonian to try to lead the discussion of a compromise. You two are as close to absolutely confirmed as we have. If you have been lying about being masons, I still think that your gambit can only last so long.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. We've got two days to decide a) whether we want to lynch (yes, I assume), b) who we ought to lynch, and c) who's willing to compromise to achieve that lynch. I have hope that we'll reach a compromise because not a few people have expressed willingness to vote for multiple players.

Criticisms, comments, accusations?

[Scheherazade]

Between the recent posts by springlullaby and arguments against her by mykonian and Kairyuu, I might vote for her, though Sekinj remains most suspect in my eyes.

As for Scigatt, I'm not sure I'm quite ready to vote that way. I do think his past few posts have been irrational. I think my reluctance stems from the belief that there are better suspects right now.

@Kairyuu: Uh-uh... You said "

my own alignment to be town" in post 162. You claimed in 215.

Admit you were just being a meanie and I'll call it even.

As I busy myself being obnoxious towards you, have you reread the game as you promised earlier? Has anything changed in your mind?

[Scheherazade]

Though this is still subject to change if we get stuck again before the deadline with a tie and no lynch, I will [/b]Unvote: Sekinj, Vote: springlullaby[/b].

I do this a) because I think springlullaby's posts over the past few pages haven't actually given me much insight into her thinking despite being asked questions I too want answered, which might be a tactic of scum, b) because she's reacted poorly to the criticism offered so far and to the votes against her, c) because I want to work out a compromise, and d) because my number one suspect, Sekinj, has gone on record strongly against springlullaby and I hope spring's alignment might strengthen or weaken my case against Sekinj (I'm keeping bussing in mind, too, don't worry).

[Scheherazade]

Edit: Oops.

Unvote: Sekinj, Vote: springlullaby

. That's what I get for not looking when I preview posts.

[Scheherazade]

I'm not familiar with games of mafia that allow the mafia to refrain from killing somebody. What motives would mafia have not to kill? Obviously, if no one dies, we're deprived of information. But this only brings the mafia closer to winning if it anticipates that we'll continue to kill townies. It seems like killing one of the claimed players would be safe for the mafia.

I know this all leads to WIFOM when applied, but I'm still trying to figure out what it means. Help?

[Scheherazade]

Hello, Mr. Secretive. I see you're out to make friends. I'd like to hear those reasons you mentioned as soon as they're declassified. I hope I'm not asking for anything sensitive, but you would have advocated lynching germy for his softclaim on day one? What are your reasons for that?

@SilverPhoenix: Ooops. I got so hung up on the "may" in the role PMs that I let myself discount the doctor entirely.

@Phoenix and wolframhart: Do you guys see any other possibilities? I'm trying to generate as many possibilities as possible before weeding them down to the ones that most likely apply. Right now, between the three of us, they are:

1. Doctor saved the target.
2. Mafia is scared of killing an obvious player.
---I'm not sure I follow here, though. What would they lose by killing germy?
3. Myk and Kairyuu are mafia and have refrained from killing to put off the time when we have any solid evidence that they're a scum-team not masons.
---Even if this were the case, germy seems like a safe choice, unless germy is the third mafia player.
4. The mafia has refrained from killing to cast suspicion on Myk and Kairyuu.
5. The mafia is content letting all the town live due to the suspicion of town players.

[Scheherazade]

@mykonian: I'm not quite sure how to respond to that reading of my opening post. I know that you suspect me and have suspected me/afatchic for a while. Does my post suggest scum motives to you on its own or is your reading an explanation of my post in terms of your suspicion?

@SilverPhoenix: Okay. I'm interested to hear what you went after when you hear back. That observation about germy is interesting, but I'm not inclined to think that a scum gambit is any more likely at this point because of the nights events. Of course, I was asking your thoughts because I wasn't quite convinced of anything.

@Wall-E: I follow you so far. Are you unhappy now that we haven't lynched germy? Has there been anything in this game so far in which germy's information would have been crucial?

@Kairyuu: Yes, yes, I figured you'd be back at it as soon as you posted.

As far as my reasoning for voting springlullaby, my reason c was the same reasoning you gave. Therefore, your problem isn't with insufficient cause. That indicates to me that one of the other reasons I gave seemed scummy to you. Which reason is it and would you care to elaborate?

And not to put more pressure on you (the APs are well worth your time, if you ever doubt that, believe me), but I just wanted to mention the rereading you promised, lest you forget it in the excitement of the new day.

[Scheherazade]

@Kairyuu: What's the major difference you see between this:

d) because my number one suspect, Sekinj, has gone on record strongly against springlullaby and I hope spring's alignment might strengthen or weaken my case against Sekinj (I'm keeping bussing in mind, too, don't worry).

And this:

I'm calling this right now. If Zade is scum, then sekinj is most likely town. If sekinj is scum, Zade is probably town. If Zade is town, it tells us nothing about sekinj, and if sekinj is town, then Zade is above 50% for being scum. I see more information in the sekinj lynch, so I will seriously consider moving to her soon.

Because I've been advocating lynching Sekinj since my first substantial post, you think that knowing her alignment will give you a strong indicator of mine, right? What's the difference between that and saying that because Sekinj is so certain that springlullaby deserves to be lynched, knowing springlullaby's alignment will give me insight into Sekinj's?

[Scheherazade]

@Kairyuu: I'm still slightly confused. It seems to me that your position when you declared a willingness to lynch Sekinj is a hope that her lynch will clarify my alignment to you. You've explained that you'd prefer the reverse, my lynch clarifying Sekinj's alignment, but see her lynch as more likely. However, as it stands, you've declared an interest in using an approaching lynch as evidence against me, your target for most of the game.

Now, is it the fact that I said "my case against" rather than "my suspicions about" Sekinj the reason why you think I'm advancing an agenda separate from the agenda of the town? I know that I didn't write this nearly so explicitly as you, but when I wrote that I had in mind the possibility that springlullaby would turn up mafia, clearing Sekinj. That's why I included the "or weaken" and mentioned, parenthetically, that I was keeping the possibility of bussing in mind. I'd only have said that if I had in mind the idea of letting off Sekinj due to springlullaby being confirmed mafia.

Do you really think that our intentions are that different?

[Scheherazade]

I think she's referring to germy's post, number 480, which I'm not sure I follow either.

germy, what makes you think that Sekinj and Wall-E are necessarily on opposite teams?

[Scheherazade]

@Kairyuu:

Yours gves me the impression that you somehow know of SL's towniness, which implies that you would be using it as a way to fabricate a stronger case against sekinj. You also implied (seemingly, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to be a hypocrite) that even if SL was scum, you would be going after sekinj (because 'weaken' would mean the case was still there).

If springlullaby turned up mafia, I'd still suspect Sekinj a little. I'm not treating anything as certain. I don't think that's any more suspicious than those who suspected you mentioning the possibility that you and mykonian are playing a scum gambit. It's highly unlikely, but it's something to keep an eye on, wouldn't you agree?

I didn't mean to imply that I'd pursue a case against Sekinj no matter what. I said weaken because, honestly, I'd reexamine Sekinj, not drop the case entirely. I don't like absolutes. I think that got me in trouble before.

The fact that you would be going after sekinj even if SL was scum seems to indicate that you already knew the result of the cardflip.

This seems shaky to me. If I knew the result of springlullaby's lynch, then why exactly do you feel that examining the course of action I implied I would have taken in the case opposite of that you suppose I knew to be true is worthwhile? Further, what about saying "I'll be going after Sekinj even if springlullaby is scum" implies that I know that springlullaby is town?

I apologise if I'm simply misunderstanding you, as you and Wall-E have suggested.

[Scheherazade]

@CF Riot: My suspicions haven't really changed. Obviously, I'm still watching Sekinj. There are a couple more whom I'm watching more closely than others, but I hardly think that I have enough to even suggest that they're mafia, so I'm going to keep my mouth shut for the time being, okay? Sekinj wasn't cleared by the lynch of springlullaby. I don't think that springlullaby's alignment really helps Sekinj's case, but it could still be mislynch by a townie.

As for the no night kill, I'm not sure that I have more to add right now. I don't want to discuss doctors/pro-town roleblockers right now. I'm inclined to think that we don't have a serial killer, based on last night's results. Short of a flash of inspiration, I'm not sure that I'm suddenly going to have great faith in one reading of the night's events or another. The best I'm hoping for is someone slipping in discussing the night's events. Sorry I don't have more to add.

@sekinj: Your second reading of my remarks to Wall-E was correct. I wasn't asking germy anything. And I'm not sure how it came off as worship.

As you're curious about the interaction between me and Wall-E, are there any questions you want to ask me? Or are you just waiting for more to happen?

[Scheherazade]

@sekinj: I wanted to mention this again in case you had missed it.

@sekinj: Your second reading of my remarks to Wall-E was correct. I wasn't asking germy anything. And I'm not sure how it came off as worship.

As you're curious about the interaction between me and Wall-E, are there any questions you want to ask me? Or are you just waiting for more to happen?

@Kairyuu:

Okay, I think we're square except for one thing:

Because if you didn't at least appear to consider the alternative, then you would appear even more committed to the movement from the SL lynch to the sekinj lynch, and you would definitely appear to know how the flip would go.

My question, which was rather excessively verbose, wasn't "If I were scum, why would I mention the case I knew wouldn't be true?" but "What makes you think examining what you can only think is a lie is worthwhile?" I ask because if your assumption were true, my motives for implying the opposite could be true are obvious (the motives you mention in the quote above).

I think it's become more a point of interest to me than one very relevant to the argument you're explaining, for the record.

Oh, and I'm glad I remind you of a STD you encountered once.

[Scheherazade]

@Kairyuu:

If I were scum, I'd have known that springlullaby would turn out town. Therefore, if I talked about her flipping scum, it would be, as you said, a give-away that I knew springlullaby's alignment not to talk about her flipping scum. However, when I talked about her flipping scum, it would all be fabrication.

Now, you assumed it was fabrication because you assumed my guilt, right? And the fabrication you saw was an implied "I'll be going after sekinj even if springlullaby turns up scum." If you believed that implied statement, then you'd have a reason to suspect me. But you believed that statement was part of a lie to bolster my credibility.

So I was asking about what use you saw in examining the lie in the manner that you did. You assumed it was a lie, therefore you couldn't take the statements I made as part of it at face-value, right? But it seems like you did, partly, when you said "The fact that you would be going after sekinj even if SL was scum seems to indicate that you already knew the result of the cardflip." I'm not trying to wrestle you in to a black or white position--i.e. either it's a lie and none of it can be trusted or it isn't a lie and can therefore be used against me--I'm trying to figure out what that grey margin you saw was.

[Scheherazade]

@wolframnhart: I think we're with you...

Hello, Mr. Secretive. I see you're out to make friends. I'd like to hear those reasons you mentioned as soon as they're declassified.

@Wall-E: Welcome, welcome. Hope to see your reasoning become clear in due time.

And @Wall-E - I don't appreciate your reasons being kept secret. If you have a case against me, then bring it, otherwise unvote. I'm not going to sit here mute while you continue voting for me with zero justification.

@Artem: Good-bye.

@SilverPhoenix: Would you walk me through the analysis of night one you feel has most influenced your suspicions, please? Also, did you hear back from the mod on your little investigation? Would you care to share?

[Scheherazade]

@wolframnhart: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make you feel bad. I just didn't want you to think we were all ignoring Wall-E or siding with him.

@SilverPhoenix: Thank you for your post. I'm still interested in the information you garnered, when you're ready to share.

@CF Riot: You're right, I've been holding off making assertions for previously stated reasons.

I've been waiting to vote for sekinj again until after I see her reaction to the events of the night. Her non-reaction and somewhat irritated sounding posts do make her seem more suspicious to me. I'd still like an answer to the questions I asked her earlier--I'd like to start a dialogue, but she seems hostile to that with you.

Also, I'd rather Scigatt simply posted more before I vote for him. Do you think he's mafia based on his behaviour or do you simply want to wagon him to force him to defend himself? I realise that I might be rewarding "lurking" behaviour here...

@germy: Is there anything else you see that implies a connection between CF Riot and wolframnhart? And what do you mean by "reek of fishing?" That they're trying to get a townie to expose his thinking before he's ready?

[Scheherazade]

@sekinj: Well, I'm actively trying to hurt anybody's feelings. In the posts you mentioned...

I'd like to hear those reasons you mentioned as soon as they're declassified.

...was a reference to his reasons for voting for you. I guess it wasn't very clear right next to questions about his suspicion of germy. I do give proof of my intention in post 529 to wolframnhart.

I was pursuing the line of questioning about his suspicions of germy because I didn't quite know if his comment was a threat of some sort against germy.

His mentioning the softclaim also made me wonder if he saw some flaw in germy's posts that I missed indicating that he was deceiving us.

If it seems like I'm treating Wall-E with a different tone, I don't quite know what to say. I was a bit ironic in the first post, but otherwise I think that I'm treating him the same, more or less, as any other player so far.

[Scheherazade]

Rereading Scigatt's posts, the only downright scummy thing that struck me is his insistence on bringing up the case against me (individual posts 10, 14-16). His posts superficially find in my favour, but the fact that he raises an investigation that had been settled before without adding any new content to it while saying things like "I may have missed some arument of yours, though, so do not hesitate to mention any gaps" strikes me as a strategy to cast suspicion on a player he knows already has strong accusers.

In the meantime, his only suspicions have been...

I'm no gonna throw around my vote like you apparently want me to do...for some reasonFoS germy. However, sekinj, from what glances I've seen of his posts and cases against him, looks interesting at least. I'll look at him later today.

He never follows up with germy and never follows up with sekinj. The "some reason" that comes to my mind when reading this is the vote germy has placed on Scigatt.

While I was looking at sekinj, I took another look at this post. (Maybe someone spotted this before, I'm not sure.)

Right, I'm not particularly enjoying the new turn of the discussion and wouldn't be unhappy if you guys would just leave the setup alone. It's no fun and I think scum have brains too.

Germy, I still think you're most probably town, but you're starting to push it.
What's the point of hunting for scum reaction when you make evident what you are doing?

I dislike mykonian's last post a lot, I don't see any point in it. Myko, would you care to explain what purpose it served?

I'd like to see more from afatchic and all people who have no vote placed on someone.

First of all, I don't see how talking about the setup for a few posts, as opposed to roleclaiming, can hurt the town. The scum will discuss this among themselves anyways at night, and I don't how this could be town move.

Vote:springlullaby

On the heels of his "I'm not going to throw my vote around" remark, he votes for springlullaby because she objected to discussion of the set-up. I'm not sure that springlullaby defended herself well, dismissing his reason as "lame," but he completely ignores mykonian's question: "Scigatt, since when is talking about talking about the setup a scumtell? This is ridiculous."


My point to all this is that he's devoted most of his energy to vindicating someone he thinks is town when that person couldn't really use his help while his suspects seem to have been found through reaction. Just as a break down of posts, it seems that he's spent more posts discussing me/afatchic than his two suspects combined. That makes me think that I'm his real target, and the indirect way he's targeted me says scum to me.

[Scheherazade]

@CF Riot: I'm still here, considering Sekinj. I've been hovering, yes. Lately, I've been looking at her exchange with Wall-E and trying to see what was so town that he was convinced not to vote for her.

@Wall-E: What was so town?

@Shanba: Please don't mistake a diffuse case for an unfocused one.

I'll try to summarise it. The specific posts and arguments have been posted previously.

In short, the case against Sekinj hinges around her vote for Kairyuu. It came at an opportunistic time, it was uncompromising, and it used other peoples' reasoning. That in addition to its position on the bandwagon (conservatively late to reduce the burden of proof from her and close enough to risk lynching him before he could respond to the charges against him) made it look like a scummy vote.

She also makes a claim in this game that she doesn't throw her vote around. Her move on Kairyuu and her rapid unvote seem completely out of her self-described character--one proven by her earlier fixation on springlullaby. Inconsistency in play style is scummy in my mind. It looks like she's putting up the appearance of pursuing town goals until an opportunity to accomplish a mafia goal comes along.

Looking at her play leading up to her vote, she seems to have the appearance of taking sides without taking sides. I'm looking at the dispute between Artem and Kairyuu. Also, she doesn't take a hard position on germy's claim.

When she does voice an opinion or go after a player, it looks like it's always after other players have committed to it. She doesn't add a whole lot of original content or perspective.

Later, she avoids direct answers, shows irritability with even being suspected, and attacks her accusers, mainly CF Riot.

Now, some of the posts against her you might look at are 327 and 333. There's been a lot of posts between those and now which deserve a comprehensive treatment, but I think her play now is simply a continuation of the patterns she established day one.

[Scheherazade]

@Wall-E: I'm re-reading those posts. Do you mind if I ask a few more questions?

Is post 13's sentiment, which, if I may paraphrase, is that she's waiting on more reactions to vote, itself town to you?

I agree with the sentiment here as well, "it's hard for me to seperate whether you are just winning the argument, or are actually the one in the right," but I do fail to see what's inherently town about this statement. Help?

Which conclusion do you mean from post 40? And do you think that they are merely sound conclusions or do you feel that they are the correct ones and therefore suspect CF Riot? How does his response affect your interpretation of this post?

Which bits of post 58, if I may ask? And, because this post does take a faintly accusatory tone with SilverPhoenix, do you share sekinj's reservations about his actions at this point in the game?

I'm sorry to be grilling you so. Obviously, I'm very interested in the subject.

[Scheherazade]

@Wall-E: My first reaction was "that's suspicious."

Thinking about it, I saw that we weren't in any immediate danger of lynching sekinj based on your unsupported vote. I'd have been more alarmed if sekinj were closer to being lynched.

You also seemed very confident of your ability to back up your vote: I thought that we'd get your reasons in due time and I could make a better judgement then. Of course, if they never came, I would have been rather suspicious, too.

So it was a flag for me, not outright scummy. I think my final thought was that scum wouldn't really have anything to gain at that point with a post like that. You may still be scum, but I don't see any substantial gains for the mafia by that post except possibly information.



Looking through your responses, I do have a couple further questions.

First, I agree with your observation that "It behooves scum to conflagrate conflict." Do you think that the sections of sekinj's posts 12 and 21 directed at Kairyuu and Artem are trying to extinguish or fuel the dispute between them? In their effect, which do you think they accomplished?

Second, you think that the purpose of her post 40 was to ask those two questions?

[Scheherazade]

@Shanba: I'm sorry, I mistook "fragmented" for "having too many directions" making the case "unfocused."

But yes, from your posts it seems like you understand the case I see against sekinj.

@mykonian: I'm having difficulty deciphering post 597, where you criticise the case against sekinj. The things you bring up are weak, I agree, but you seem to be missing other significant parts of the argument.

I recall you saying that you had a gut feeling that sekinj is town, so I'm not going to try to change your mind right now, but if you have criticisms of the case, would you phrase them again so that I might answer them?

@sekinj:

So... are we done talking about the lack of case against me? great.

Your attitude has certainly vindicated you in the eyes of a few players, but that last exchange didn't exactly come out in your favour. Wouldn't you prefer that the town discuss your case a bit more? If it's rubbish, it ought to crumble.

@Kairyuu: You're going to die a lot on the inside if your wish comes true. I take it from this post that your reread hasn't changed your mind much on me. I'm glad you're interested in examining sekinj, another pair of eyes will help, I feel.

I do wonder, when you say "I also like his reasoning on sekinj, which leads me to now link Wall-E to my ever growing association tree" you mean that because he reasons his unvote of sekinj well you tie his alignment with sekinj's? I'm not sure I like my alignment being tied to CF Riot's and sekinj's, but those I can understand if not support. I don't quite understand this one, though, between sekinj and Wall-E. Nothing here lowers the likelihood that they could be of two alignments in my mind. Would you care to explain?

---

I'm leaning towards a Scigatt lynch today. I brought up my specific thoughts on his scumminess earlier. I'm withholding my vote until his replacement can answer.

[Scheherazade]

@Wall-E: I was raising a point, which you see. You and I read those sections differently. It's interesting to me to hear that we had exactly opposite conclusions, that you believed they sought to diminish strife and I thought they sought to increase it.

I think I understand you on post 40.

[Scheherazade]

@mykonian: Okay, but do you think active lurking is all there is against sekinj? That's what confused me, I suppose. Was that statement made because you felt that active lurking was all that was left of Wall-E's case after you'd dealt with those specific posts?

@germy: It's odd, but I'm inclined to take him at his word for now, that he thought he had reasons, slept on them, discarded them and won't share more now because he thinks arguing against someone he believes is town will waste our time or give scum an opportunity. I made that statement thinking "if your vote was on sekinj and your reasons never came, then I'd be suspicious." I'll keep it in mind, but I still don't quite see what he would have gained as scum. If you see an advantage for a scum player there, then I'd be happy to hear.

[Scheherazade]

@mykonian: Okay. I'm willing to revisit this after we've dealt with Scigatt, or whomever will replace him.

And yes, I've been waiting a bit.

Do you want to lynch before the replacement so that we don't lose focus when he arrives?

@Shanba: To quote mykonian:

Thank you for the lesson. It helps.

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but not directly. Thanks for sharing your experience and being patient.

@sekinj: I don't think that the conclusion of that exchange was "there's no case against sekinj," making your post look like it's trying awfully hard to show that you're not afraid of scrutiny while you are hurrying to avoid more.

It was just an impression, so I asked a question. The wrong question, it seems. What was the point of that line?

Oh, and I wasn't talking about your meta so much as the reaction of certain players in this game, Wall-E and springlullaby, to your attitude. I'm not sure if that's what you were responding to...?

[Scheherazade]

@Kairyuu:

Yes, the one remark was a joke. I didn't intend for anybody to be swayed by it in the least.

With regards to sekinj, I suppose I read too much into this comment:

I'm on her side for now,

but may look into her a bit later (Some of this opinion comes from the reread that I finally got around to).

I thought you were on her side before, making the "but" statement part of the new opinion formed from the reread. Therefore, I thought you'd moved away from support and towards possible re-examination. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you: I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

I don't really like your system of linkages. The first problem you mentioned: that townies attack townies all the time. The second problem is with this:

townies attack each other all the time,

but often don't defend each other without damn good cause.

See, it seems like you're forming a two-way connection between people based on the behaviour of one. The statement that "townies don't defend each other without a good cause" aside, where do you account for mafia defending townies? Isn't the defence link one way, tying the defender's alignment to the defended's but not the defended's to the defender's?

I ask because I see this tactic pulled by scum often in real life. The meta here is different, obviously, but if we're simply discussing the logic of your system, I feel that this is a hole. In an ongoing game on another site, a mafia player pulled exactly this stunt, defending a town player who looked like a certain lynch, in order to get his alignment "confirmed." I don't think that finding CF Riot or Wall-E guilty has a powerful bearing on my alignment or sekinj's.

The last thing I don't really like is that you've laid this out. I might be partly responsible, because I was curious about your thinking. But now it looks like you're giving the scum a map to manipulate your system. Are you going to be able to trust anybody who becomes linked to your system now? He could be mafia trying to get in bed with the two masons.

All that being said, if it works, it works. I think Scigatt is scum and being linked to him is very uncomfortable. However, if your drive to get me lynched will result in the lynches of two of my top suspects, I think that I can't complain.

Lastly,

myko = sekinj (confirmed)

What? Is this a mistake? How do you see sekinj confirmed town? mykonian is more or less confirmed, but that doesn't confirm sekinj. He's just been defending her. And he has a "damn good cause" because he thinks that I'm scum driving a town wagon. So he's just playing well by defending her. There's no way she could be "confirmed" unless you know something that you haven't shared yet. Am I misreading this?

---

@Wall-E:

I agree with SilverPhoenix's identification of CF Riot's request to delay Scigatt's lynch to day three suspect. I think the vote was hasty, but CF Riot's post is just odd, especially this part:

Say we don't get a replacement any time soon, wouldn't it be worth it to lynch someone else today and go back towards a Scigatt lynch D3?

There's no danger of this yet. Advocating delaying Scigatt's lynch an entire day does come off as trying to protect him, or at least preserve him another night.

That's why I'm not interested in jumping on SilverPhoenix. That and I worry that if I'm mean to him he won't tell me what the mod told him. I didn't miss that, did I?

@SilverPhoenix: I didn't miss that, did I? ^^^

Anyway, Wall-E, I'm still not really convinced by the arguments put forward for a pre-replacement lynch, but I'm not sure that it's inherently scummy. It feels more like frustration than malice.

[Scheherazade]

@Kairyuu: Understood, mostly. I want to question you further on this point, though:

See, it seems like you're forming a two-way connection between people based on the behaviour of one. The statement that "townies don't defend each other without a good cause" aside, where do you account for mafia defending townies? Isn't the defence link one way, tying the defender's alignment to the defended's but not the defended's to the defender's?

You are entirely right. Some of the current links have gone in reverse as well, but for the most part the links are one way. For example, if I die, and flip town, it really has nothing to do with sekinj's alignment, but if she flips town, then (if I wasn't already a claimed mason) I would look more town for defending her.

The reason I bring this up is the connection you see between me, CF Riot and Scigatt. If Scigatt or I flip town, how will it influence your suspicion of him? And given that the only connection you've mentioned between me and Scigatt is the fact that CF Riot has stuck his neck out for both of us, how much do you think our alignments will actually impact one another in your read of the game?

I ask because you seem, to me, rather absolute in your links. Reading your post, you seem to imply that if one person on a grouping flips one way or the other, you will assume that the others in that group will flip the same way. Your response to my questions imply that your read is much, much more nuanced.

---

@sekinj: I don't think that I'm trying to sound P.C. I could be misreading me. If anything, it's a desire not to cause strife that would make this game less enjoyable. Tone is difficult to convey over the internet sometimes, so I may be exaggerating what I mean to be polite posting behaviour. However, I will use more curse words if it'll make you feel more at ease.

[Scheherazade]

Well, that happened faster than I thought it would. I thought SilverPhoenix was going to sit on his information forever.

Frankly, I'm inclined to believe SilverPhoenix because of his statement a long while back:

@Phoenix and wolframhart: Do you guys see any other possibilities?

There is another that I am waiting on from a mod pm to confirm. I won't say what it is yet.

I figured that he was a pro-town power role at the time. Of course, he could just have played us (me...) very well, but there was no real need for him to fake a role-claim at that time. So I'm against lynching SilverPhoenix right now. I believe his claim.

Beyond that, I'm not sure of how to proceed.

I'm willing to be lynched if it'll show that Natirasha is scum, but I don't believe that's the case. Urgh, he doesn't have the courtesy to say anything that's obviously a lie. Look at his posts: they could be entirely true for either a mafia or a town role-blocker.

I don't know a way of untangling this to prove anything. All four of us could be town, for all I know. So I'd like to stick to my suspicion of Scigatt/Natirasha. I think that if I exclude the role-claims entirely, he's the most scummy of the three players in this web who are not me. I hope that lynching him will shed light on the situation.

[Scheherazade]

@sekinj: I didn't "know" that's what SilverPhoenix meant when he posted that remark which I quoted earlier on this page.

We were talking about what happened the night before when he PMed the mod, leading me to believe it was a reaction to the night before and therefore he mostly probably was asking for clarification of the rules or of the impact of his action.

The fact that he mentioned it in response to me questioning him for suspects confirms it in my mind: if the rules worked the way he thought they did, then one of his suspects would be the target of his night actions.

That pointed to role-blocker and I was kind of itching to figure out who he targeted, even without a role-claim.

This is one of the reasons why I didn't react so negatively to SilverPhoenix's vote of CF Riot. I thought that CF Riot might have been his target. See post 630 and my response 639. Does that clear it up?

---

If we lynch a target, a Town status tells us the claimer is mafia..
If we lynch a target, a Mafia status tells us the claimer is possibly town.

If we lynch a claimer, a Town status tells us the target is mafia.
If we lynch a claimer, a Mafia status tells us the target is possibly town.

This is being pointed out above, but it's worth mentioning again that there's a chance that both a target and his "role-blocker" are town. If the doctor saved the mafia's target, then the pro-town role-blocker didn't target the mafia player carrying out the kill. Therefore, the pro-town role-blocker could be targeting pro-town while the doctor saves the mafia's target... Meaning no night kill and no guaranteed mafia from the four players.

[Scheherazade]

EDIT: Of course, there would be a liar between the claimed role-blockers based on what we think we know about the set-up. Kaiyruu's post and SilverPhoenix's post above.

[Scheherazade]

@wolframnhart: As has been pointed out by mykonian for one, it's more likely that the mafia kill was blocked by a doctor than the role-blocker at that point in the game.

If Shanba is town, then he can either confirm or not confirm that SilverPhoenix blocked him. Confirming would mean role-claiming, i.e. "I'm the cop and my night action was blocked." That would make both of them targets for the mafia, not just one. Also, it would cast suspicion on SilverPhoenix, which Shanba wouldn't want if he believes that Natirasha is lying. Being unable to confirm would mean that he's claiming vanilla. In that case, he doesn't know that SilverPhoenix is lying and he can't really argue that SilverPhoenix lies.

If Shanba is scum, then obviously he would have to claim a pro-town role to refute SilverPhoenix. Given our apparent knowledge of the set-up, that would be very, very risky, I think. It's also possible that if Shanba is scum that voting for Natirasha is a way of bussing someone who's a likely lynch.

@Wall-E and sekinj: I think you're both half right. What are you thanking me for, Wall-E?

@mykonian: If that happens, I submit an "I told you so" in advance, applicable to you, Kairyuu, the vig, and anybody who's voted for me for silly reasons.

[Scheherazade]

Is there any reason not to hammer Natirasha now? Are we going to get more out of this?

@Kairyuu: No, it'll make me feel less stupid when I say "I told you so" out loud after you kill me.

[Scheherazade]

This nk (and I know I shouldn't say this) should point us to shanba. Wifom, and my personal view of shanba is town.

Let's see who I want to lynch...

vote scheherazade

. Afat was scummy, you had a weak start. Scigatt defended you, and Nati attacked you. Somewhere you are special to them.

The last are not strong points, but I'd like to tell you a story.

The story started, not so long ago. Nati had just accepted to replace in this game, and while rereading she couldn't believe how weak the play of his predescessor was. Scigatt only defended his buddy. He was going to be lynched, but he got an idea. They wanted him to claim? they would get one. Not to save himself, no, but to save Zade. He claimed roleblocker and said he blocked Zade. Nice bit of Wifom, as Scigatt defended Zade. Who would be able to read her correct now?

Off course the above is not prove that Zade is scum. It only shows that if you want, the weird play of Nati could fit in with Zade as scum. Reasons for Zade being scum are already posted, and he would be my choice for a lynch now, if nothing weird happens.

I think the last attempted case against me ended in shambles. The only undisputed points were that afatchic should have posted more and stood behind germy after he apparently sided with him. Kairyuu ceded both his points against me, which only leaves his suspicion that the implications of my vote for springlullaby were scummy, a discussion of which ended on a note of feeling. Shall I repost the places where Kairyuu ceded points? And I hope I'm not terribly misrepresenting Kairyuu when he says:

What it really boild down to is, like I said, the implications of the statement. Yours gves me the impression that you somehow know of SL's towniness, which implies that you would be using it as a way to fabricate a stronger case against sekinj.

I didn't mean to imply that I'd pursue a case against Sekinj no matter what. I said weaken because, honestly, I'd reexamine Sekinj, not drop the case entirely. I don't like absolutes. I think that got me in trouble before.

I suppose this is a good enough explanation for me. I still don't really like what I read as the implications of your point, but I've run out of things I can say about it to try to explain it to you. At this point I'll reduce it to more of just a feeling I got when I read it.

Basically, Kairyuu has no case against me right now.

Yours seems to rely on Kairyuu's assessment of afatchic's play and one post by me that you perceive as weak, without describing its weak points or acknowledging the information provided in following posts which give examples of the behaviour I described in that post. Instead, you "feel" that my case against sekinj was "sought."

Therefore, you'll understand if I ask you for a case against me that doesn't rely on a narrative of Scigatt's behaviour. If we're basing our votes solely on speculative narration, I invite you to read my assessment of Scigatt's behaviour which came when he was initially under suspicion and long before his lynch was imminent.

Furthermore, you know very well that you've delved far into WIFOM. I don't object simply because it's WIFOM reasoning, but because you do it riding on the implications that you have a semblance of a decent case against me.

Let me go one further and show you why your description of Scigatt's behaviour as "defending" me is groundless:

The first time he mentions afatchic is this post, from 18 October:

Prodded. Looking at afat now, will report later.

Which is followed by:

Okay, from my reading of afat/zade, I come away with the strong feeling that she is most likely town. Afat wasn't very impressive, but even then I felt the case against him wasn't as strong as Kair and others stated. Zade was just decent with her first posts, but seemed to get better as she went along. Also, all her posts seem to be either reasonable defences or attempts to scumhunt.

However, if anyone (especially Kair) can show me where I have gone wrong with my reading, with references and explanations, I might be persuaded to change my mind, though not without some argument.

There are some other things that might be noticed, but right now I want to go to sleep.

Note that before this, there had been no discussion of lynching me since 16 October, two pages before. The only vote cast against me was a pressure vote from SilverPhoenix. After I had presented a more solid post against sekinj, SilverPhoenix removed his vote. Therefore, it's suspicious that he'd bring up the case against me.

The bolded part above leads me to think he was actually trying to reintroduce the case against me because he desired my lynch.

My suspicion is that he was actually trying to divert attention from sekinj, because CF Riot and I had both just posted cases against her. I'm not going to argue that here, simply that his real goal was to get me lynched.

Why didn't he? I think for three reasons. Kairyuu made a mistake in attacking me (when he seized on my "both scum" remark), which looked like a speed-bump to my lynch. In addition, people did not reopen discussion of the case against me. Lastly, attention was being shifted to springlullaby.

This post:

I'm no gonna throw around my vote like you apparently want me to do...for some reasonFoS germy. However, sekinj, from what glances I've seen of his posts and cases against him, looks interesting at least. I'll look at him later today.

Is all but proof that he began casting around for a new target. This, myk, is seeking a case against somebody.

He leaves for a while, possibly because he'd managed to attract two "FoS," if my count is correct, for the last two posts.

He returns in time to capitalize on the wagon against a townie:

While I was looking at sekinj, I took another look at this post. (Maybe someone spotted this before, I'm not sure.)

[omitted]

First of all, I don't see how talking about the setup for a few posts, as opposed to roleclaiming, can hurt the town. The scum will discuss this among themselves anyways at night, and I don't how this could be town move.

Vote:springlullaby

I think he's abandoned hope of getting me lynched after Kairyuu dropped his attempt to reintroduce the case against me.

Vote cast, he disappears again for five days. When he pops back up it's to say:

Hmm...

Okay, what the heck is the case on Scheherazade? I've read hers and afat's posts but nothing seems scummy enough to warrant this attention.

This is following three votes on me, so it sort of makes sense to ask. But one of those votes came with the remark:

Vote:Scheherazade

Him or Scigatt. There additional votes, especially right at the end near Deadline, reek of scum to me. I'd be perfectly happy with either.

So he completely ignores the reasons cited in the votes and completely ignores the fact that germy would just as soon lynch him, Scigatt, to question the votes on me?

Then he disappears for three days. When he comes back, he decides to drag the case against me up again, after it had clearly fallen to the background. I say this because of my exchange with Kairyuu that ended with the aforementioned admission of feeling, not logic, driving his case against me.

Scigatt presents an extremely weak defence of me and ends by saying:

I may have missed some arument of yours, though, so do not hesitate to mention any gaps.

Look! Yet again he tries to rekindle discussion of my scumminess. What a pal!

His request is ignored, at least for long enough for him to attract votes. And on that note he leaves the game completely.

So, mykonian, looking at the facts, do you really think that Scigatt defended me?

1) I wasn't under attack when he "defended me"
2) He openly attempts to invite more discussion of my scumminess
3) It's clear from his other posts that he's actively trying to find somebody to lynch,

as soon as he realises that people aren't going to move to lynch me

To contend that this is a defence would be to contend that Scigatt mounted an unquestionably bad defence where one wasn't even needed. It would also ignore the fact that he only tried to find somebody to lynch when his "defence" of me failed to generate discussion of me. Is that what you're saying?

I haven't even addressed the reasons why Natirasha would lie as he did, because I think the advantages for scum to accuse a townie like that are obvious. One clear advantage is the way his lie put me under consideration for lynching. Another is the way you're not using it to try and lynch me.

Why me in particular? Could be because I have two players bent on lynching me with or without a case already.

Why not another person with a lot of suspicion? Could be because the other candidates really are scum.

In conclusion:

If you want to lynch me, make a case.

Scigatt didn't defend me, he tried to get me lynched in a way that he could easily claim was simply bad townie play, a scum tactic.

Natirasha had every reason in the world to involve me in his lie knowing that I am town.

[Scheherazade]

EBWOP:

Another is the way you're

now

using it to try and lynch me.

Correction in bold.

[Scheherazade]

Secondly, you had absolutely no problem hopping on a townie lynch D1 right before it went through, while staying off of a scum lynch the next day that had more than the townie lynch as evidence to back it up.

1) We were up against a deadline with springlullaby. We were not with Natirasha and I actually agree with sekinj that we didn't have any pressing reason to lynch at that time.

2) springlullaby had been thoroughly questioned, while Scigatt and Natirasha had not. I thought springlullaby had ample time to defend, while the other did not. Scigatt didn't answer any questions and Natirasha, if I'm reading correctly, only pushed for my lynch and tried to buttress his false claim.

3) I was actually preparing to hammer Natirasha and asked for any final remarks from the town before I did so. The only reason I didn't hammer was that Wall-E beat me to it--this is available for you to review. The only thing that changed my mind from point 1) is that Natirasha's limited ability to post would reduce the likelihood that he'd post something that we might use to more certainly identify his partners.

I'm still doing the math and analyzing the game again, but I'm pretty sure I have the other two power roles pegged (doc and vig/child). Also, if my approximation is correct, a massclaim makes the game a hell of a lot easier for the town.

Before I support this, what specifically will make it easier for the town? What scenarios do you envision?

By the way, I noticed something odd about what you said. You didn't include the possibility of a mafia role-blocker. You said:

while the scum's powers are useless or can be rendered such (godfather negated by lack of cop, and spy negated by a massclaim)

Where's the role-blocker? Clearly, based on the assumption that we have the set-up...

MMDDBTX, with X being either a third M or a V.

...then we have all three, mafia spy, role-blocker and godfather. And clearly, the mod isn't telling us which one Natirasha was. Why have you left role-blocker off of the list? Do you know that Natirasha was the mafia role-blocker?

How? 0.o

Furthermore, the role-blocker would actually be helped a bit by the mass claim, wouldn't he? So if he's still in the game, he would be one mafia player whose powers

aren't

useless. Instead, he'd be more effective because he'd know who the doctor is.

In fact, a mass claim would be excellent for the mafia if the role-blocker is still alive, because if we didn't lynch one of them, then the role blocker could block the doctor and the mafia could kill the vig, if he exists, or the innocent or the nurse followed the next night by the doctor, demolishing the town's advantage.

On second thought, isn't it kind of scummy of you to be asking for a mass claim?

[Scheherazade]

@Kairyuu:

I notice a bit of a contradiction:

The last thing I don't really like is that you've laid this out. I might be partly responsible, because I was curious about your thinking. But now it looks like you're giving the scum a map to manipulate your system. Are you going to be able to trust anybody who becomes linked to your system now? He could be mafia trying to get in bed with the two masons.

Meh. It's out there because I am a firm believer in laying out any and all information I have for the town to pick apart if I am town. I do a little bit of it as scum too, but only null tells or weak stuff. I just find it to benefit the town way more to have all of my reasoning laid out in the thread in the event of my death.

Before I support this, what specifically will make it easier for the town? What scenarios do you envision?

I would like to say that, but I won't. Why? Because if I do then the scum know exactly what I am looking for. Besides, having the possibilities open makes it more likely for the scum to figure out a possible way around the trap.

From these, I can only assume that you believe your current plan will result in the identification of the scum players before you might die. That's why you refuse to share it with us.

It also indicates that your plan, if guessed correctly, can be avoided. Which means it isn't fool-proof: as long as the scum players don't guess what you're playing at, you'll be fine. If they do, your plan has the potential to kill the town's power-role advantage, at best.

Which means not only do you have extreme faith in your plan to begin with, but you have confidence that nobody else in this game will be able to predict your plan.

That brings me to the fact that I think a mass claim would help the scum more than town. Right now, the doctor and the other power-role are hidden with two other players and all of them are under suspicion. I think that represents a form of protection against the mafia.

If we mass claim, that gives us four vanilla claims to choose from to lynch mafia, but lets the mafia know who our power roles are.

If we don't mass claim, our doctor and final, unidentified power-role retain protection and the town has six players to choose two mafia from. If we're about to lynch, we can call for a claim and counter-claim.

Of the two options, I fully admit that I prefer the second unless you have a good reason to call for a mass claim. If you think that's scummy logic, lynch me.

As for this:

Nice one. The whole "start at agreement but turn it around to suspicion" play.

I never pretended to agree with you: I simply left the possibility open and voiced my biggest concern with your plan. That's why I said "before I support this" not "I support this but." You're getting illogical again when dealing with me.

[Scheherazade]

EBWOP:

Another way of stating my analysis in the second to last part of my post is this:

Assuming all claims are true thus far,

Without a claim, the town has 1/3 chance of going after scum, with the possibility of a last minute claim increasing our chances, while the scum has 1/2 chance of hitting a power role, with an incentive not to try to kill one because all four of their pool are under suspicion.

With a claim, the town has a 1/2 chance of going after scum, while the scum have a 1/1 chance of hitting the desired power-role with all incentive not to kill the doctor removed.

As we're at two mislynches to ly-lo, our chances of getting both the scum before losing are 1/4.

Of course this doesn't try to account for our ability to scum-hunt. But I don't like the numbers at all. Which is why I see your request for a mass claim as a request for our blind trust in you and asked to see your reasoning.

If somebody else can provide a compelling reason that won't compromise Kairyuu's master-plan, then I'm still willing to listen.

[Scheherazade]

Well, that's a majority of the town responding in favour. I'm ready to start, using the set-up proposed.

[Scheherazade]

Not at all. I'm vanilla town. I think that CF Riot should claim next.

[Scheherazade]

Let's wait for the last two claims before we start speculating more, myk.

[Scheherazade]

I'm awake, now.

[Scheherazade]

springlullaby was Vanilla Town
SilverPhoenix was Roleblocker
Natirasha was Mafia

germy claimed Nurse
Kairyuu claimed Mason
mykonian claimed Mason
Scheherazade (afatchic) claimed Vanilla Town
CF Riot claimed Vanilla Town
Wall-E (ChuckNorris) claimed Vanilla Town
sekinj claimed Vanilla Town
Shanba (Artem) claimed Vanilla Town
wolframnhart (Nightwolf) Vanilla Town

We need to look back over the set-up: either we missed something or some townies are lying. If germy's telling the truth, then our doctor seems to be hiding.

[Scheherazade]

I don't know if that "agreed?" was directed at me, but I think it's a good plan for now. Running through it in my head, I don't think that the mafia could gain by refraining to kill in order to throw us off.

I'm going to vote Shanba as soon as germy lets us know who he's going to block.

@CF Riot: SP is def. town, not prob. town, 'cause he died, if I'm reading correctly.

[Scheherazade]

Vote: Shanba

[Scheherazade]

Okay, I'm fine with that. I think that point five made above by Kairyuu is invalid, but the only difference between lynching me now and scum later as opposed to scum now is time. We win regardless of my lynch.

Mod: Is self-voting allowed?

0.o

[Scheherazade]

Vote: Scheherazade

[Scheherazade]

@Kairyuu: Oh, it's just a game. There's no need to apologise. I'm just glad I was around long enough to see the town slide into a sure win. I win, too, even if I'm dead, so I'm pleased.

Besides, I already said my "I told you so."

[Scheherazade]

@germy and CF Riot: I think we might just be delaying a town win by fussing over which vanilla townie claim to lynch, right now.

@mykonian: To be fair, I've only received a lot of attention from you and Kairyuu. Aside from you two, only Artem and wolframnhart kept their votes on me for long. I'm not really interested in arguing whether or not we should lynch me, but you should be careful saying that there's a lot against me. The only points are points against afatchic and the fact that Artem defending afatchic, which ignores the fact that aside from the two of you, Artem has been the happiest person with my lynch upon examination of the vote record.

I'm just posting this because you two are good players who have pursued this lynch beyond the point where reason, or even gut-feeling, can justify you. I don't know why exactly it is: Kairyuu says he's just stubborn and you say you just get a scummy feeling. I think maybe you're each finding validation in the conclusions of the other because you knew from the start that you were masons together.

Either way, you guys might want to think about it once I'm dead.

So let's get today's lynch in. I want a win. The mafia's been screwed since germy revealed his real role. Why're we taking so long to deliver the death blow?

[Scheherazade]

Okay, so wolframnhart, germy and mykonian are confirmed.

CF Riot, sekinj and I are the unconfirmed vanilla claims. While I'm happy with any lynch order, I, too, would enjoy seeing sekinj lynched sooner rather than later. In addition, I think that sekinj is likely mafia judging from the timing of her posts elsewhere on the site and the beginning of the day phases. It's not much to go on, but it's difficult to screw this up, short of lynching one of the confirmed townies.

So, I

Vote: sekinj

.

[Scheherazade]

germy, that lynch order is fine by me. myk's right about tomorrow. The game won't last past tomorrow's lynch, regardless of what sekinj has to say.

Unvote, Vote: CF Riot

(L-2)

[Scheherazade]

Germy said he would block zade, zade was blocked and once again there was no kill, this should be over.

Wrong.

Vote: Scheherazade

[Scheherazade]

Because the policy that we agreed on--and should have followed each day, probably--is to lynch the person blocked by germy the night before.

And if it isn't pretty damn obvious to you who the last scum player is, arguing is only going to draw the game out longer.

Just stick to the plan, the town's won. I'll be back after the game ends.

[Scheherazade]

Yay, town! This was a fun game: I'm glad I replaced in. I liked the people and I hope to see you in later games. I'm glad sekinj turned up mafia.

Thanks for modding, iamausername.