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

[Wall-E]

I can't believe y'all didn't lynch germy for softclaiming on D1.

sekinj's post 51 sucks. Shut up sekinj.

germy has a fullblown case built on three players on page 3.

I love Nightwolf's post 71, despite the verboseness. Especially liking where he tears apart germy's bad logic. You'll find I prefer to be vastly more succinct compared to what I've seen so-far on pages 1-4.

Artem used the word "affected" instead of "effected" in post 88. This fact has nothing to do with anything important. I'm just picky.

Everyone is being WAY too confident on D1.

I'm not going to lie and say I read ALL of that. In fact, I read about 20% of it. I mostly looked at posts where people voted. Too much time was spent arguing meta or playstyle.

I partially agree with the springlullaby lynch, but I think it's unfortunate he was hammered before getting a chance to claim/inspire more discussion. I think the things that are said during twilight/just before a lynch are important.

I found myself agreeing with CF Riot often throughout my readthrough.

I'm going to

Vote: sekinj

. I have reasons, but wish to withhold stating them publicly for now. I also have a reason for that, but I'll save that, too.

[Wall-E]

you would have advocated lynching germy for his softclaim on day one? What are your reasons for that?

1) We could find out if he's lying, and if he's not, use the information he gave the town.
2) To prevent others from doing the same. It's best to keep as much information a secret as possible for as long as possible. The other extreme would be a massclaim, and I can't ever see that being useful unless the setup itself is broken. This setup is not broken, so it's a bad idea to softclaim unprovoked. I have more to say about this if anyone's interested.

[Wall-E]

@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?

Not unhappy. I would have liked to see a bit of a threat put against him for town-training purposes. I feel he could've had is feet pressed against the fire a bit more for it. I don't think further information would have helped, but it's always nice when someone cracks under pressure and says something scummy.

[Wall-E]

or

someone

wants

the claimants

to get lynched to save themselves some trouble.

What do you mean by this? Who is the bolded selection referring to? Who is the underlined bit referring to?

[Wall-E]

mafia, isn't it obvious?

Obvious or not, it's important I get an answer.

[Wall-E]

@Wall-E:

What do you mean by this? Who is the bolded selection referring to? Who is the underlined bit referring to?

Are you serious? The "someone" is the scum, and "the claimants" are me, myko, and germy, you know, the people who have claimed their roles. That could not have been more obvious.

Thanks for clarification. You can take me at face value. If I start cussing at you, I think you're town and being dumb. If I ask a straight question, I'm just clarifying.

If I build a case on you, you're scum.

[Wall-E]

@Wall-E: Fair enough, except for the part about you only building cases against scum, because that would imply that you are always town, and always right (which cannot possibly be the case).

I was being facetious.

[Wall-E]

Any comments on my arguments against Zade?

I agree with your comments about zade. It may be a misunderstanding on zade's part, but I'd have to hear how from him/her before making that judgment call for sure.

[Wall-E]

First of all, I loved post 48. ++town points there. Second, you've claimed, and I have yet to see strong evidence you lied, so I'm on your side (face-value until proven scummy?). Third, you have been pushing for a zade lynch for nearly 8 pages, starting when you first asked him for a way to shorten his name, extending through your nicknaming of him... you almost obsess over his posts. If your assessment is accurate, town wins. If it's not, I'll probably build my case against you.

Your sureness I will follow like breadcrumbs, and based on where they lead us, I hope to learn something.

That might actually generate more questions, which I will answer, but you might not understand my weird brain.

[Wall-E]

I would like to know one thing because i might have missed it, but Wall-E did you ever post you reasons for voting sek? - Quote from wolframnhart

Not yet.

[Wall-E]

@Wall-E:

First of all, I loved post 48. ++town points there.

Second, you've claimed, and I have yet to see strong evidence you lied, so I'm on your side (face-value until proven scummy?).

Third, you have been pushing for a zade lynch for nearly 8 pages,

starting when you first asked him for a way to shorten his name, extending through your nicknaming of him... you almost obsess over his posts.

If your assessment is accurate, town wins.

If it's not, I'll probably build my case against you.

There don't seem to be very many people who actually like the way I play. Hell, I'd have been lynched if I couldn't confirm myself in this game. To find someone who actually agrees with my playstyle is quite nice.

You don't earn respect from mafia players by making friends. It's one of life's many contradictions.

Bolded: I don't play for town points. I play to catch scum. While it is nice that you find me pro-town, please do not let that affact the way you play the game. If I do something you find scummy, call me out for it.

Granted. Still, endorsements are sometimes important, too.

Italics: I like that phrase (pro-town until proven scummy). It's the way I generally play, so I can't fault you for it.

It's math. 1/9 people is scum (roughly). The probability that any random player is scum is lower than that he's town. I will usually vote for someone once I'm 50% sure they're scum.

Underlined: More than that. I've been pushing for Zade's lynch since I called out afatchic on page 2 or 3. Afatchic's responses made me convinced that he was scum, but Zade's play is good, and I'm leaning towards confirming his alignment indirectly through his (and much of the town's) top suspect, rather than the other way around, because if he is town and I've been jumping at shadows the whole time, then I'll be really pissed at myself for getting a very logical player lynched.

I'd go along with that.

Bold and underlined: And how is that? It would mean that we've caught one scum, and that two more remain to find. I'd say that we wouldn't be overly close to winning yet.

We're always one lynch and a good vigging away from kicking ass. Don't lose heart!

All three: So you think that townies can't be wrong about something they feel strongly about? That makes no sense logically. If anything I would say that I look more town simply by sticking with the case so long, even though it has become almost impossible to get new points to stick. When I look for scum, the players that hold strong convictions for a long time generally don't ping my radar, even if they are wrong. Probably just a difference of playstyle.

Granted. I think I meant that more like a backup plan, and even then I'd have to actually have said case to build, so if you're innocent, no worries, right?

[Wall-E]

Are you talking about Scheherazade?

I agree that if she/he expects me to hang and prove her more townie by defending me, the above statements would be a good scumtell on zade.

But.

Considering the source, namely you, I have to take this with a grain of salt.

[Wall-E]

Are you talking about Scheherazade?

I agree that

if

she/he expects me to hang and prove her more townie by defending me, the above statements would be a good scumtell on zade.

But.

Considering the source, namely you, I have to take this with a grain of salt.

[Wall-E]

So you went from wanting zade dead to wanting me dead, then?

[Wall-E]

Is it? Time will tell. In the meantime, can you name a player you think is town? Can you name a player you have not attacked yet? Finally, can you name a player you think would vote along with you if you tried to wagon me?

[Wall-E]

Thanks for answering.

Unvote

[Wall-E]

Blast. There goes my theory.

Which theory?

[Wall-E]

Wall-E:

So now that you're unvoting, do we get to hear the reason why you voted in the first place?

Sure.

When I started my readthrough, he kept pinging on my scumdar. I started to build a case on him. I went to bed. I woke up. I read my case again. I wasn't quite sold. When I asked those questions I was judging his reactions as a kind of a final yes/no judgement. I think he's questioning, paying close attention to the thread, and generally doing very helpful things (assuming he's town, which I now do), so I'm happy to let him continue to ask questions and provide content for today.

Unfortunately, it means my top suspect is off my list for the time being, so I'll start a new case (as of five minutes ago).

[Wall-E]

Wall-E - Your confidence in voting sekinj with so-called "reasons to explain later" implied that you knew with surety that sekinj was scum. Meaning: you are a Cop that investigated sekinj to get a mafia result, or you are a Roleblocker who blocked sekinj and resulting in no night kill. Since you unvoted, neither of these must be the case, and although I am still somewhat suspicious of sekinj, not as much so as I am of others.

I am actually more suspicious of you, now. In response to CF_Riot, you didn't actually answer his question. What "case" did you build, beside pinging scumdar? Again, what was your real reason for voting sekinj in the first place? And why did you feel the need to keep such reasoning secret?

Better to be overconfident and wrong, so as to grow, than to be underconfident and turn out to have been right.

It's possible my wording is effecting your read of my posts? That has been a problem of mine before.

I'm a simple man, and I post simply.

[Wall-E]

Let's keep things as short and sweet as possible.

[Wall-E]

What's your hurry, CF Riot?

[Wall-E]

I didn't write down the things against him. I can go through the thread and pick them out if you'd like, but building a case against someone I think is town seems distasteful to me.

[Wall-E]

You don't have to like it. I still stand by it. There was a lot of discussion about you when I started checking you out, so I don't feel I was wasting my time (or anyone else's, for that matter).

[Wall-E]

If you want to argue semantics, yes.

Hi.

I'm Wall-E.

[Wall-E]

It's not arguing semantics. You lied.

Can you quote the lie(s)?

Wall-e, I would like it if you posted reasons for a vote, so we can have that information too. We may have missed the points you tought reasons enough for a vote, and it can be the beginning for our thinking. If you are town, giving your reasons can only help.

Ok.

sekinj votes without a reason, then later gets indignant when someone invariably calls her on it, starting in isolation post 14.

I didn't care for the bit in isolation 20 where sekinj compares another player she's arguing with to her husband, saying words to the effect of, "I can't argue with you. You argue like my husband, the lawyer."

It sounds like a compliment bundled in clever deflection.

In isolation 30, unvotes Kair after the false choice given of "Oh, I didn't know he wanted something BESIDES to have a town power wasted on him. In that case, I trust him."

I didn't mean that just because artem thought you were godfather he was correct in the previous argument, but from my words do bear clarification.

This is a pet peeve. What does this sentence mean? Its meaning is lost forever. The reason? Bad grammar. Nobody will ever be able to figure out what in the hell the words "but from my words do bear clarification" means. I'm not going to say sekinj was doing things like this on purpose, but if I ever got good enough at doublespeak, throwing in logical nulls like this would make for some awesome scumplay.

My case continues on for a while, but guess what? You're not getting any more of it! Why? Because I think sekinj is town, and if you want to hang him, you're going to have to do the dirty work yourself! Like a prospector! With a goldpan!

[Wall-E]

I hope people that are voting Sekinj have more of a case, because after reading the post Wall-e mentioned, and what his comments on it are, I can't say it would have been a strong case. Good you didn't vote her for this.

The implication here is that you are aware of a stronger case than mine might potentially have been.

What case is it?

How are you confident my case would never have convinced you sekinj is scum?

I understand you've claimed mason, but I'd still like to hear your thought process.

[Wall-E]

@Wall-E: What was so town?

His posts 13, 23 and the conclusion in 40 is sound, and I liked bits of post 58. His reaction to my vote on him was also taken into account.

[Wall-E]

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

Never.

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

It's more about the tone of it, as if she's saying "Excuse me, I'm playing a game here. Do you mind?" Typically scum don't have balls like that.

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?

It behooves scum to conflagrate conflict. This post helped douse the flames.

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?

CF

p0 - "Forgive me for keeping the possibility open that you're lying. =] " --

I never liked the ambivilance shown by CF's first post.

p1 - "@All: Question, what is the down side to a mafioso claiming miller?"

p2 - "I didn't ask you anything. No one asked you anything. ???" --

CF brings this up again later, questioning chuck pretty heavily as to what he was answering. This even makes CF put chuck as #3 on his early LoS... I'm not sure why CF put so much emphasis on this, and why he apparently considered it scummy.

p3 - "Nightwolf and Kairyuu's arguments have me leaning towards it hurting the town more than it helps. " --

looks like he is trying to buddy up to the players that seem the most town so far

p4 - "I'm going to throw out the idea that if no one has claimed miller by the end of page 5, we don't have any.<snip>I think any miller claims after page 5 can be considered lies, with reasonable exceptions." --

I don't liek that he felt the need to have to tie this down. What was the point of this? So that if anyone claimed miller later he could point back and say it was already scummy? I don't really see the need to define/discuss/warn about what actions will be considered scummy if they occure.

p7 - I make #2 on his LOS after calling him out on not making accusations. --

seems convenient. his only case at that point is the SL joke vote.

p12 - addresses SL asks her to verbalize a statement more thoroughly --

This is the first and last time he EVER addresses SL. the only other mentions of her name are when he is talkinga bout his case on me. That makes this really seem more like coaching than actual clarification.

p14 - "I think Sekinj could be a good lynch, and I'm considering Artem after a reread, now that you're claimed mason." --

this post was made Mon Oct 13th... keep this in mind...

p15 - one example of charter as scum and one as town --

sorry, I don't buy it. I'm in a game with charter that just now ended and his behavior in this game breaks your little scenario wide open. i don't buy it one bit. over-reacting is a null-tell, and has more to do with playstyle than alignment

p16 - defends not wanting Kair to claim fully. "Wolf, Germy, who are you looking at now?" --

the last part seems like he is trying to deflect in order to get the discussion off of himself

p17 - says my thoughts/defense had no bearing on his opinion

p18 - pushes me to vote

p20 -

seems liek too much of an appeal to the town. Instead of strongly stating a defense he asks if he should point out things, and post his earlier thoughts on afat (which are practically null now anyway)

p21 - "Did a reread of Artem, and I don't really see anything suspicious there, but I was iffy about him earlier in the game so I guess now I'm neutral."

-- this was posted Oct 16th (see his post#14) Artem had made 5 posts between the time CF did his first "reread" of artem and then this his second "reread" of artem.

A) what exactly in those 5 posts made artem go from being 'considered after my lynch' to 'nothing really suspicious' (maybe it was the purrr post). B) Why does CF feel that Artem needs to be reread so often?

These questions are sound. I like how the entire post leads up to something. This player has purpose, and it shows.

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 don't share his viewpoints publically, but I do see what he did as something to be applauded. The implications in the post are "Don't talk unless you're ready to back it up, buster." and "I won't be an easy target." Again, these are typically town tells versus scumtells.

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

I always enjoy a good grilling.

What did you think of my vote-without-a-reason? What was your first reaction to it? Do/did you think it was scummy?

[Wall-E]

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?

You raise an interesting point about posts 12 and 21 (if you even were making one... I feel like I'm second guessing what I originally thought of BOTH of those posts). I originally thought they were diminishing the conflict. Now I'm not sure. I'm going to stick to my original assessment and assume I'm overthinking things like I sometimes do.

I don't think that was the purpose of post 40. I think the post naturally flows: It's an organic argument. A follows B follows C follows conclusion. The convincing tone of it is what originally drew me to the post.

I'm happy that Artem had a solid play, that gives Wall-e room to play (don't use it too much).

Can you explain what you mean by this? (I'm pretty clueless 90% of the time... it's called Asperger's disease )

[Wall-E]

And I'm not suspicious of Wall-E because of his playstyle. It's more something else, which unfortunately happened in an ongoing game so I can't explain more fully.

Well that's convenient.

601 is scummy for the following reasons:

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

Flippant attitude... typically a town tell, but

after

getting off the hook...?

I'm still supicious of Wall. I didn't like his vote against me, but I also don't specifically know what in my responses made him unvote.

When I don't know something I ask a question. Leaving the fact of your ignorance dangling like proof I'm scum is attempted framing. You can blow this comment out your bung tunnel.

I think many of Sig's comments have been ignored becuase of his lurking. (what does this add to the conversation?) I know earlier when he wasn't making sense, I didn't bother questioning him because I figured he was still trying to catch up in the reading or something. (why didn't you ask a question, then?) I always have a hard time reading lurkers, but I can definitely see how his comments have been anti-town and confusing. (translation: "wifom meta and what he said") I think if he posted more we would be able to see it more clearly, but I woudln't have a problem with a scig lynch today. (whatever, as long as it's not me)

[Wall-E]

The only reason you have stated for voting sekinj was for "pinging your scumdar." This is not "reasons," let alone needing to save it. Either you were being intentionally misleading, or you still have not shared your reasons for voting sekinj in the first place.

False choice, because in actuality, I did build a case, and then I erased it.

Wall-e consider it, you help town more by posting your reasons, and thereby you improve your chances of winning. If you don't do this, you actually act antitown, because you could have acted more protown. And lynching you when you are a towny couldn't help also, could it?

Sentence 1: I disagree.
Sentence 2: I don't understand this part.
Sentence 3: What?

[Wall-E]

I'm unsure how to proceed with Wall-E. I can't push a tell I can't explain. I do think he's scum, though.

Keep testing the waters. I'm certain to piss enough people off to get you some supporters soon.

[Wall-E]

SP: Who do you find most suspicious after Scigatt? Have your suspicions of Sekinj faded?

I'd still put Sekinj after Scigatt, then Shanba/Artem close behind. Although....

I know we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but I just feel like we need a claim at least. Some real content and input would be nice, and yes it may or may not convince us to change our minds, but say we got a replacement and they claim some kind of role. Wouldn't that be worth waiting for? 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? I can see that being a problem closer to endgame, but for us it's D2 and there were no NK's. I think we can afford to wait for a replacement.

Let's see....2 weeks to deadline...asking for a claim...pleading not to lynch Scigatt until D3....not good. That entire statement was antitown.

Vote: CF Riot.

You better have a good reason for it.

WTH

Why on earth would ANYONE want to lynch someone before a claim??

Someone catch me up please, because my first instinct is to scream scum at SP.

[Wall-E]

Um, it's pretty clear that's now what I'm doing. I have a specific reason I am suspicious of you, but it is

a direct reference to an ongoing game

, and thus illegal to discuss, and I've made that clear already. If I were scum testing the waters I'd want something concrete I could attack, even if it was only something small, rather than something ephemeral I'm unlikely to be able to explain this game, as the other game is a long way off finishing. Hidden reasons never win votes.

Frankly, I feel SP's post about Riot was ridiculous. I'm going to quote the second one, because it's an explanation of the first and thus tells us what SP was thinking at the time (which is not entirely clear from the first post - i.e., what he found anti-town etc.)

Bolding mine.

The inference here is that you have a meta scumtell on me from an ongoing game we are both in. Convenient, since you can't talk about it, but others will now say to themselves, "Hm, I wonder what it could be. I think I'll read through Wall-E's posts and try to figure out what it could be." It's dirtying my good name with no chance for me to defend.

I think it's borderline cheating to even mention the other game.

Unfortunately for you, I've only been scum on mafiascum in one game, High School Mafia, so bring on the BS cases, partners of Shanba.

Now, moving on to current events:

SP:

the only possible role that he could safely claim is vanilla

Can you explain why you're so sure the current claims made have all possible power roles covered? I haven't claimed yet. There are others who haven't as well. Please elaborate on this point.

the impression I get from this is that you would only vote Scigatt if he was close to lynch

That is true

Orly.

Unvote: Vote: SilverPheonix

[Wall-E]

Alright, that was minimalist to say the least. Time to break kayfabe.

I don't think you're scum, SP. My votes are sometimes just to add impact to my words. I play kinda ass-backwards.

So I'll make you a deal:

Elaborate to my satisfaction and I'll unvote you.

[Wall-E]

But option 1 includes the subset potential for: Scigatt is what his replacement claims he is. I'll take option 2 every time. A 1-for-1 trade is always acceptable, even if it's at the cost of the doc (I might be swayed by a cop claim, but it would be situational).

I consider your proposal anti-town, germy. That's two strikes in my book.

[Wall-E]

If he's scum, germy is using sheer audacity as a weapon. The scary thing is, it's sorta working on me.

[Wall-E]

There is a chance, sure, that Scigatt is town, maybe with a power role. But if he's scum (which I believe to be far more likely), then if he claims a power role he won't be lynched. People might be too hesitant, combined with the fact there won't be any time for discussion. Plus, I don't want a real townie to out himself, just to get killed.

That's not your call to make. It's up to everyone.

[Wall-E]

Fucking serious? I always replace dudes under suspicion.

Do you need a crybuprophen?

I skimmed it, but I don't feel confident in my knowledge to give you an unbiased opinion. I mostly read the vote posts.

[Wall-E]

Your third post is a bit awkward, maybe nervous?

Not saying it's a tell. Just an observation.

[Wall-E]

sekinj's statements about CF Riot are, um... not very convincing, shall we saw. The idea that being invested in the game is scummy, or being set in your opinions is scummy, or being desperate for the game to continue is scummy (and I don't think that's an accurate assessment of his position on the replacement anyway); all three of these assertions are balderdash.

I was reading more into reactions when I unvoted sekinj. sekinj strikes me as someone who also did a gut read on CF Riot. I have also been suspicious of CF Riot based on gut before. It faded with time and analysis, but I can see sekinj as someone who might not have let it fade.

[Wall-E]

@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.

That's wifom, imo.

[Wall-E]

Or were you just giving an example?

Either way, just pointing out the obvious over here.

[Wall-E]

Unvote: Vote: zade

Let's find out if you're telling the truth, shall we?

[Wall-E]

You RB'd Zade and there was no kill last night. What other conclusion can I come to?

[Wall-E]

Unvote

Mod: Votecount please?

I'll revote after the count. You know, in case zade's claim is interesting/enlightening.

[Wall-E]

Let it be known that I am on the zade wagon in spirit.

[Wall-E]

[Wall-E]

OK TIME TO HAVE A SMOKE AND FORGET THIS THREAD FOR AN HOUR

[Wall-E]

Let's let this kettle simmer and see what the rest of the town decides about how we should serve it.

[Wall-E]

I disagree with wolframnhart and SilverPhoenix:

The situation is this:

Natirasha's claim has presented us with the following scenario:

Either Natirasha is lying or Scheherazade is. Given that: SP is lying if Natirasha

and

germy are telling the truth...

I dare anyone to refute me so far! I will listen to arguments to the contrary with an open mind.

...then there are two modifiers to the SP is lying scenario. 1) SP is scum. Duh. 2) SP is town trying something.

SP has made this into a three-way choice rather than a 2-way choice. I still like our odds. I'm siding with the scenario more likely to yield the town two confirmed scum: SP is telling the truth.

...I think I just confused the HELL out of myself.

Let's lynch: Zade, Nat, SP or germy today, provided these claims. Can anyone simplify this situation with some logic for me?

[Wall-E]

I agree with CF Riot, but would prefer to

Unvote: Vote: Shanba

[Wall-E]

Fact: There was no mafia kill last night.

Fact: Two people have claimed roleblocker.

Therefore: One of the two blocked people are scum.

Suspect one: Nat's target zade.

Suspect two: SP's target Shanba.

Just to clarify the situation and eliminate some options.

Anyone see a problem with my assessment?

[Wall-E]

You should start with the targets, imo. If one of the two targets: Shanba or Zade, flips scum, we know their protector is town, and the other RB is scum.

[Wall-E]

I will sort this out tomorrow. I have lots to say, but will probably be pre-empted, which is fine. As long as the information is laid bare for people to read, I'll be happy.

[Wall-E]

what a clusterfuck

thanks sha-HAIR-ah-zod

(pronounciation is key!)

[Wall-E]

To me, what ever Scigatt/nati will be, my suspicions will be the same.

At first, I thought the move of vote to zade to be suspicious (Sekinj). Wall-e isn't: he stated reasons.
SP is the roleblocker. I have not a lot to suspect SP, nati is scummy. He picked the powerrole with the least chance some other person would have it, chose absolutely the wrong person (zade is the only one scigatt defended) so that claim is dead. Let's lynch scum.
To Nati's counter: if you are not a roleblocker, we need only one D, to have a doctor that had a 50% chance of targeting the right mason.

We have no SK, because with all this town power, the SK's kills could hardly be protected.
I had germy maybe as SK, certainly no scum, or a backup power role, and because he is no SK, he spoke the truth.

I agree that we have no SK.

Why said Nati-scum that he targetted zade: Wifom. Ultimate distancing. If one flips scum, the other is far from confirmed.

I think zade is scum, yet Nati is far more obvious. A shaky claim, a solid counterclaim. If Nati is scum, now he is spreading doubt. Don't let him succeed.

Conclusion: To roleblock a kill is hard. To doc-protect one of the two masons is easy. One of the two claims is wrong and I still think whe have a doc.

They could both be telling the truth. It's a very slim percentage of likelyhood, so I won't push this issue beyond mentioning it.

lynching the roleblockers target tell nothing about the RB.

No, but the scum didn't kill last night...

Nati is scum, and not lynching the scummiest player is antitown, as the chance is bigger to mislynch on an other player (assuming (scumminess*constant)=(chance player is scum))

I could be convinced to lynch Nat. I'd still prefer my own choice, but I'll play ball with this suggestion if that doesn't pan out.

[Wall-E]

What else should be discussed here?

[Wall-E]

This situation is extremely convoluted. I don't trust my understanding of things 100%, but I'm trying my best. If anyone can do a better job of summarizing the situation for me I think I'd be able to make a more informed decision.

[Wall-E]

What are you thanking me for, Wall-E?

I was being sarcastic. Thanks for the explaination (not sarcasm this time).

[Wall-E]

How can zade be using something as your response? Can you reword that so I can understand it?

[Wall-E]

Unvote: Vote: Natirasha

Let's see what this does.

[Wall-E]

I was more a Vanilla Ice kid.



to the extreme i rock a mike like a vandal
light up a stage and wax a chump like a candle

[Wall-E]

Hey, go us!

Let's compile what we KNOW of the setup:

TB

Uh... what say you, germy?

[Wall-E]

Myco's on a roll!

Unvote: Vote: Zade

[Wall-E]

Shanba's assertion that there is a difference between interpretation and supposition is flawed. I think in this context they can be used interchangeably.

[Wall-E]

I think you're trying to split hairs and it's lame.

[Wall-E]

This is the fundamental assumption upon which all my mafia playing is based. It's a crucial, crucial distinction. What germy is trying to do is simply impossible - he's trying to get into the mind of the scum without even knowing who the scum are (assuming he's town). For a theoretical question of "Why would Shanba scum kill SP", he might be right - certainly, it wouldn't be an

un

reasonable assumption. But for a question of whether or not I'm scum, it's flawed, as there are just as many other reasons to believe that other players would have killed SP.

Ok, this I can agree with more. That other stuff you were saying was just confusing.

[Wall-E]

After some reasearch, a bunch of that stuff checks out, in my opinion.

Unvote

I think it's silly to blame CF Riot for SP's counterclaim. SP made that choice, not CF Riot.

[Wall-E]

To be clear: Are you advocating a massclaim?

[Wall-E]

I have no personal strong objection to a mass claim, but I would also like to see what others have to say about it. I'm saying I could be persuaded, given a proper reason.

[Wall-E]

I find myself agreeing strongly with zade's insistence that the massclaim's benefits are outweighed by our anonymity.

Point to zade in my book.

[Wall-E]

I'll do it if EVERYONE does it.

[Wall-E]

I would like those who suggested and agreed to the massclaim to go first. I'll volunteer to go third. All of this is predicated on EVERYONE agreeing to massclaim, to reiterate.

[Wall-E]

What is this "popcorn" style? Last claimant calls on the next one?

[Wall-E]

That's brilliant because the scum won't hand the ball to their own for fear of massclaim, so it ensures the scum go last.

[Wall-E]

V

anilla

T

ownie here.

[Wall-E]

Kairyuu, go!

[Wall-E]

I have the greatest power role of them all.

[Wall-E]

What really

uh

ok

whichever of these three sees this message first:

Sekinj, wolframnhart, Kairyuu

your turn!

...like that?

[Wall-E]

We are establishing an order, you know.

Should I be working this the other way? I'm new to popcorn massclaiming.

[Wall-E]

Oohhh, I just figured it out.

Duh, we want the scum to claim earlier, since they have to lie, so more people can counter claim and catch scum!

So Kairyuu, you are NOT my choice. I choose wolframnhart or sekinj, whoever logs on next.

[Wall-E]

Yeeeeeeeeaaaaaaah... I think someone's lying.

Where's my magnifying glass... *dons hat, pipe*

It's elementary, Watson!

[Wall-E]

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)

unclaimed

germy, you forgot Natirasha, the mafia.

Questions: What kind of mafia was Natirasha? Is there a way to tell?

I'll tell you this much; the claim is narrowing down the possibilities: The setups the wolves are implying by claiming vanilla. Here are all possible setups we have right now:

RTTTTTT = town blocker + mafia goon + mafia godfather + serial killer (DI, BI)
R?TTTTT = town blocker + mafia goon + mafia goon + mafia godfather
R??TTTT = town blocker + mafia goon + mafia goon + mafia godfather + serial killer (DI, BI, KI)
R???TTT = town blocker + mafia goon + mafia blocker + mafia godfather
R????TT = town blocker + mafia goon + mafia blocker + mafia godfather + serial killer (DI, BI, CI, KI)
R?????T = town blocker + mafia spy + mafia blocker + mafia godfather
R?????? = town blocker + mafia spy + mafia blocker + mafia godfather + serial killer (DI, BI, CI, KI, SI, RB)[/b]

And I'll leave this bit on as a reminder:

(.8%, 5%, 16%, 27%, 27%, 16%, 5%, .8%; exactly 50% of all games have a serial killer)

What's all that mean? It's actually awesome. It means no mafia claimed a power role, so all possible setup permutations are parsed down to exclude those in which we would have assumed there were town power roles included. We simply do not care about those permutations, so we have about a fifth of the permutations to sort through. Further, as of this mass claim the mafia have more guesswork to do than the town. We may have liar town amongst us who are hiding some very nice powers, and now they are less informed about what to look for than we are. Since clearly no mafia claimed power roles, we don't have to try to figure out setup beyond how many Ts there were. No townie who has a power role and claimed vanilla matters to the investigation any more. The mafia have tipped their hand bigstyle.

Hi scum!

[Wall-E]

It's easy to pick apart 815 since you didn't take the time to make the post... armchair critics grumble grouch

[Wall-E]

I believe germy.

Kairyuu, why don't you

Vote: Shanba

if you believe germy?

[Wall-E]

Unvote

until germy calls his target.

I'll take whomever germy calls with a grain of salt until Shaba flips scum. If Shanba flips town, I'm killing germy.

[Wall-E]

Vote: Shanba

It's been fun, Shan! See you on the other side!

[Wall-E]

Yay!

Vote: Zade

I've killed like five mafia this month. I'm on a roll!

[Wall-E]

Uh, do I get to claim?

[Wall-E]

ok

I see those words, "Lynch Wall-E" from someone who the town respects and I get jumpy.

[Wall-E]

The game from my perspective:

germy claims one of four sub-roles

it's revealed that there's an RB

germy claims RB backup and says to lynch me (?)

i'll fight this lynch to the bitter end... lynch someone less active please

[Wall-E]

i won't win if germy's the scum

[Wall-E]

Alright.

Vote: Wall-E

Don't lose guys!

[Wall-E]

This is my, "bah!" post, but I really feel like saying, "whoopee!"

So, whoopee, go town!

[Wall-E]

I helped!

[Wall-E]

ITT germy was the MVP of this game.