Mini 745 - Moving Day Mafia (GAME OVER!)

[Jazzmyn]

/confirm

[Jazzmyn]

Vote: don_johnson

because Miami Vice was one of the worst tv shows ever.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

ZEEnon, what's with the weird line spacing of your posts? Do you hit the return key every X number of characters or what?

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

haha i'm actually not sure,
i think everytime i write a post
there is an immaginary line
that i decide i can't cross .

Okay, that's just plain weird.

Unvote. Vote: ZEEnon.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Some people have annoying ways of playing, and so far as those go ZEEnon's is pretty tame, certainly not deserving of a vote now that we seem to be very much out of the RVS.

Well, it sure felt to me like we were still very much IN the random voting stage, thus my

random

vote on the basis of "that's just plain weird" which should have made it obvious that it was, in fact, a random vote, putting ZEEnon at - OMG! - L-5.

That's a majorly silly reason to be voting for someone... if you have other reasons, please do tell, but if this is only reason, than you're not being very helpful to the town.

See above.

Just posting to say that my aunt passed away today, and the funeral's on monday, so I'll be unavailable from sunday evening until tuesday.

Sorry to hear of your loss.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Jazzmyn, since my vote has failed to light a spark of activity under you how about a direct question. Do you have an opinion about who the scum are? (Anyone else is, of course free to answer this.)

Actually, your prompt post came at 2:28 a.m. this morning in my time zone, and I was asleep by then. I am not able to post during weekdays as I work for government and have to abide by its "Internet acceptable use" policy, which says that we are not supposed to use our work computers and Blackberries, etc., for personal use, games, etc. I generally do not get online on weeknights until after 7:00 p.m. my time (although a bit earlier tonight because it's a long weekend here and Monday is a holiday so I left a bit earlier than usual) and then on weekends, I am able to post more than during the week. All of which is to say that I didn't see your post #99 until I logged in tonight.

In addition, this week I had a couple of other games with looming deadlines and such (including one with a deadline in LyLo last night, no less) so those had to take priority.

That said, I have gone through this thread and started my game notes and the players who are giving me the greatest scumvibes at present are dejkha, ZEEnon and, to a lesser extent, ac1983. Dejkha for his weak responses to Erratus after Erratus' "wagons are the path to victory" comment. It's okay to accuse and to seek clarification, of course, but to continue to cling to a notion once a reasonable response and explanation has been provided, and to 'defend' that stance with circular reasoning and other poor reasoning instead of just moving on - on Day 1 in the very early stages - is suspicious to me. ZEEnon for voting Erratus while saying that he didn't have to explain why, and for his poor replies to Erratus' responses to his vote and his follow up posts, including the one in which he says that he thinks it should be obvious why he didn't have to explain his vote. This kind of so-called 'logic' makes my brain hurt. To a lesser extent, ac1983 for the exchange about it being 'bad form' to vote for someone without a lot of evidence in the early going, and the repetitive posts on this same point in #67, 68, 69, 70. There is rarely a lot of evidence as to who is scum in the early going, so his comments on this point and his hesitance to vote for someone who he said he thought was scummy come across as a bit forced. But, as mentioned, I am getting a lesser scum vibe from ac1983 than that which I am currently getting from dejkha and ZEEnon.

Erratus, Q21 and Herodotus strike me as pro-town at present. I'm not getting much of a read on the remaining players as yet, and I haven't played in any previous games with the vast majority of players in this game so I don't have any meta type information that might assist me in knowing their playstyle, etc., so this is all subject to change, of course, as the day progresses.

My guess is that Jazzmyn is some kind of Jester- even the dumbest players wouldn't lynch Zeenon on post length- so this doesn't seem particularly pro-town or pro-scum. Just dumb.

I wasn't "lynching" ZEEnon (or anyone for that matter) based on the weird formatting of his posts. It was a random vote for a nonsensical reason which I thought was apparent, given that I wrote, "That's just weird" which I would think anyone could divine as random. And, no, I am certainly not a Jester.

You contribute almost nothing to the discussion, and then make a vote for a silly reason, and no acknowlegement of what is really going on, claiming that you think we are still in the joke vote stage, where anyone who had actually read the thread would know that was not true. This was my initial assesment, which you proved with your response to my & q21's questions... There are much better reasons to be voting for zeenon other than his unorthodox posting style.

See above. It was a random vote for a nonsensical reason (which is what I thought would make it apparent that it was a random vote). Meta me, if you like, and you will see that I don't cast serious votes without setting out my reasons.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Ack. I wrote a post for this thread earlier today but somehow I lost it when I was switching between windows to multi-quote into one post, and I also ended up messing up and posting part of my response intended in this game in another game, and had to EBWOP to strike it out. Duh@ me. Anyway, I will try to re-create what I wrote earlier, bearing in mind the recent posts in the interim that may have made some of what I said earlier redundant.

I think that Jazmynn is scum because of her

constant

attempt of trying to feel/look like she's in power and defensiveness. Obviously being defensive isn't bad, but I think it's something to find suspicious because she

never

says when she thinks she's wrong or made a mistake.

Huh? What on earth do you mean by "attempt to look/feel like she's in power"? I don't even know what you mean by that. Also, I have all of six or seven posts in this game so far, and I have never played in a game with you before, so I would also like you to explain your choice of language (the bolded parts) above.

Also, don't exaggerate, I haven't "voted for everybody who's been posting regularly in this game...". I've voted EA and Torvarish - both random votes neither accompanied by any suspicion, Jazzmyn - hardly a regular poster, especially not at the time of my vote and you.
In short - don't accuse me of things I haven't done.

I actually erroneously posted a response to ac1983's allegation against Q21 in another game thread where both Q21 and I are playing, and then had to EBWOP to strike it out...but it's redundant now since Q21 has answered the allegation here.

if you can't find scum its because you are.

That's a pretty big leap to make from ac1983's actual post. Just because he said that nobody seems too suspicious to him in the early stages of the game doesn't mean he 'can't find scum' and doesn't mean he's scum. Is that the only reason for your vote? If so, it's pretty weak and smacks of opportunistic voting. If you have additional reasons, please cite them.

Mod: Could you also prod Plonky, please?

Sorry, thought he posted last Friday, either way he has been prodded

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

the underlined part is the exact same thing.
were you trying to make it seem like
there was more evidence against me?

No, I wasn't exaggerating anything; rather, I was commenting on multiple posts of yours, including one in which you made a serious vote without explaining it, and one in which you subsequently defended not explaining it.

this is true. i could tell that it was a random vote,
and as such, i replied in a sarcastic way.

Yes, I saw that you recognized it for what it was, thanks.

how you would or would not act

if

you were mafia

is

wifom. don't get me wrong, the "i want to be careful with my vote" is a reasonable pont to make, but venturing into "if i were scum" territory is unproductive. and that appears(to me) what you have done here.

I agree with this; it was WIFOM, but it's easy to slip into WIFOM and it is not necessarily a scumtell to do so. Town does it as often as scum, it seems.

Come on q you know how i roll, but i would put you in the town group for now, don, erratos look like scum to me.. my spider sense is tingling.

If "how you roll" is to never post anything of substance, and never to offer anything more than fluffy posts such as "everyone looks scummy" and "I'm here" type of posts, without offering any analysis or any explanation for your inane comments, what is the point of you signing up for the game? You can't help town by being virtually mute, and your lack of contribution makes you look scummy in the process, in my view.

@Zero: You have not responded to my post #135. Please do so.

I think that Jazmynn is scum because of her

constant

attempt of trying to feel/look like she's in power and defensiveness. Obviously being defensive isn't bad, but I think it's something to find suspicious because she

never

says when she thinks she's wrong or made a mistake.

Huh? What on earth do you mean by "attempt to look/feel like she's in power"? I don't even know what you mean by that. Also, I have all of six or seven posts in this game so far, and I have never played in a game with you before, so I would also like you to explain your choice of language (the bolded parts) above.

More tomorrow... I've been sick as a dog the last couple of days and I have to do some catching up in other games before I cart my sorry butt off to bed early tonight.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

I do play, i just generally dont do much on day 1's.

And me saying "almost everyone looks scummy" was just a general observation at that time, no examples, i wont provide them so stop asking.

In addition to what others have said above, this is also extremely selfish if killa is town. It means that he leaves the rest of the town to do all of the work while he sits back, does nothing and contributes nothing. If it leads to him getting lynched, the town suffers as a result of his refusal to play the game. If he doesn't get lynched, it also means that he puts the rest of us at greater risk of being NKed because with him contributing nothing to the game, scum will probably look elsewhere and target a player who contributes by scum hunting, and leave it to us to lynch him on another day if he continues to be so powerfully useless.

Given the rules of the game, as Herodotus pointed out, there does not even seem to be any basis upon which he can be replaced (except voluntarily) if he answer prods and posts nothing but "I'm here" type posts.

And, if he's scum, his self-imposed non-participation gives him cover to avoid being lynched early on in light of the general consensus against policy lynches or lurker lynches, while simultaneously depriving the town of any read on him.

I've never played in a game with killa before so I have no personal knowledge about whether he's useful if and when he decides to actually play the game, and I understand and agree with the position against policy lynches and against lurker lynches, but I really dislike blatantly selfish play and unabashedly deliberate uselessness, so I would not rule it out entirely in this case. I'll have to think about it some more.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

killa seven, you are now at L-1, and I see little reason not to hammer you since you've done nothing but demonstrate that you are being egregiously selfish, deliberately useless and anti-town. But I do not want to hammer without giving you an opportunity to claim.

So, to use the vernacular: Claim or die.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Also, Killer claiming or not has nothing to do with the reasons he is anti-town. I prefer my question (will he commit to future participation?) over Jazzmyn's request for a role claim.

That's all well and good, but regardless of a player's alignment, what do you think his answer will be to a request to "commit to future participation"? Do you expect scum to say no, they will not commit to future participation? Do you expect town to say no, they will not commit to future participation?

I have a low tolerance for mollycoddling, and I expect players to actually contribute to the games they sign up for and not leave other players to carry their weight.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

what do you exspect me to do?

As I said previously, if you are town,

I expect you to actually contribute to the game you signed up for

and not leave it to others to carry your weight for you.

that killa seven guy looks scummy tho, he wont post up to my standards and he tends to lurk, he should die

It's not

my

standards that we are talking about but the reasonable standards of any and every player who signs up to play here. We all agree to contribute to the games that we sign up for, and we all agree to post at regular intervals, etc. Posting "I'm here" when you get prodded by a moderator for non-participation doesn't cut it. If you have no intention of posting anything useful and no intention of contributing on Day 1 (which your posts seem to indicate), then I have no qualms about seeing you lynched, as you are just as likely scum as town.

Townies should never deliberately act against town interests, and you are not only doing so but you are flaunting it as though it's a badge of honour or something. If you're town, stop expecting the rest of us to carry your load for you, and stop deliberately being unproductive, scummy, and unhelpful by refusing to participate in any meaningful fashion on Day 1. It's ridiculous.

Are you going to contribute meaningfully or aren't you?

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

And you think this is protwon approach?

You, of all people, are hardly in a position to talk about pro-town approaches. You have made it clear that you have no interest in helping the town on Day 1, apparently on the basis that you simply can't be bothered to play games you signed up for unless and until you live to Day 2.

You do nothing to help the town, you put townies at greater risk by sitting back and not lifting a finger to contribute to the town cause, and you flat out refuse to participate in the game in any meaningful fashion. To me, this signifies scumminess, selfishness, and self-centeredness.

From your posts, it seems that you expect everyone else to give you a pass in every game you sign up for and then promptly refuse to play for the duration of the first, and arguably most important, day because, in your words, 'that's the way you roll'. This is utterly ridiculous. If everyone adopted such a blatantly anti-town, pro-scum attitude, no game would ever get past the first few posts.

But somehow it's supposed to be acceptable for you to act this way because 'that's the way you roll'? I don't think so.

Perhaps if others stop letting you get away with your scummy refusal to participate in the games you sign up for, you will actually start playing the game on Day 1.

So how about choosing one of these options, killa seven:
1) commit to participating meaningfully in this game on Day 1;
2) ask to be replaced; or
3) confirm that you will do neither 1 or 2 above.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Just as a head's up...I am posting this from a neighbour's house as I have been having a problem with my home Internet service since Monday and I am not supposed to post from work so I have not been able to post for the past few days as I have had only horribly sporadic to non-existent access. I am told that the problem is with the outside portion of the Bell line, and that it should be repaired by Friday. If it isn't, I will snag a laptop from work and use some random wi-fi in the neighbourhood to post throughout the weekend.

I have been able to read along from work but posting from work is a major no-no, so I'm pretty much up to date on things but just not able to actually post (except I think for once when a post went through before timing out). It's very frustrating, but it should all be sorted out by Friday evening when I get home from work.

Just wanted to let you know.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

My home Internet access has been fixed. Upon rereading, I see and understand the cases presented for and against killa seven, but I see much more reason to support his lynch than to shy away from it and give him a free pass. I also see the case presented for and against acfan but I don't see anything there sufficient to support an acfan lynch. Call me naive if you want but I believe his posts about his family issues and I believe that those kinds of issues would interfere with his game, so I am not willing to jump on a bandwagon that started only when he bared those personal issues in the thread.

I also see and understand the case presented on plonky, and I think that plonky is a better target than acfan at the moment.

And, for the sake of completeness, I also see the cases presented on dejkha and EA, but they, too, seem to be lacking in evidence thusfar.

But I just can’t stand the scumminess, selfishness, and grossly anti-town play of killa seven. I feel very strongly that NO player here should be permitted to deliberately and willfully refuse to play the games that he signs up for purposes of building up a meta that he can later exploit to garner himself a ‘get out of jail free on Day 1 card” in every game he plays, as a means to excuse him from playing in subsequent games. Permitting this puts every townie and every town power role at greater risk in

every single game he plays, whether he is town or scum.

Because if he’s town, he sits back, contributes nothing meaningful, and gives the scum a smaller pool of townies to try to lynch, putting every townie at greater risk. And if he’s scum, he puts every townie and every town power role at greater risk because not only does he fly under the radar by virtue of the meta he’s created, he deliberately increases the opportunity for his scum partner(s) to mislynch a townie, while simultaneously getting away with posting nothing at all for use by the town in later days that could otherwise be used against him and his scum partners, which he would not be able to do if players who play the game as it is meant to be played would not meekly accept his deliberate refusal to play the games he signs up for in the manner in which they are meant to be played.

Yet, this is what killa seven is doing and some people seem content to let him just get away with it. I do not understand it. I do not understand why anyone thinks that it is okay for a player to willfully and deliberately put himself and his own meta above the interests of the town if he is town. I can see how getting away with it benefits killa seven personally and how it benefits scum when he is scum, as noted above, but I see nothing at all beneficial to the town and I see nothing at all beneficial about it to the game of mafia overall or to this site as a whole. If everyone played like killa seven, this site would cease to exist very quickly, since no game would ever progress beyond Day 1, and the posts would consist of nothing more than “I’m here,” “I’ve been prodded,” “I’m not interested in Day 1,” “**** you,” “Maybe on Day 2, I’ll participate,” and similar nonsense. He has made it clear that he is not interested in posting any meaningful content and he won’t ask to be replaced, so he is anti-town no matter how you slice it, and more likely to be scum than town, given that his refusal to play on Day 1 benefits scum much more than more than town, no matter what his alignment is.

[can you tell that i dont care by now?

I dont care if im lynched on a day one game that i have put no effort in

And yes i care if my team wins allways

One of these things is not the like the others, one of these things does not belong. [/singalong]

So, killa seven is the player whom I am most inclined to lynch today if he continues to refuse to resile from his pro-scum play style - because that is what it is, make no mistake about it - he is not just acting in a manner that is “anti-town”, he is acting in a manner that is pro-scum.

I fully appreciate that it is neither necessary nor desirable to lynch anyone right this minute as we still have lots of time to talk things over before deadline, and we should use all of that time for purposes of garnering information, so I am not suggesting that anyone should be lynched immediately. But if it comes down to a deadline and the choice is between killa seven and someone who has at least contributed meaningfully to the game, I know where my vote will be. Damn the torpedoes and all that...er, jazz.

Unvote. Vote: killa seven

Can someone who is pointing fingers at acfan(since he's the player with the most votes at the moment) please itemize the case against him? Because he doesn't look particularly scummy to me, and I'm getting the impression that he's being railroaded by scum.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

If people don't have more that they want to say on day one, I think it's time we went ahead and lynched Dejkha to make sure he's scum. He hasn't said anything of consequence since Wednesday, so to all those on the killer wagon, I say why not choose the lurker against whom we have a few pieces of evidence of a scummy motivation? If you really want Killer dead, we can consider that issue tomorrow if he's still alive. There's some chance we have a vig, and I'd say vigging a useless person is better than lynching them, if they need to die.

I guess I just don't see how dejkha looks scummier than killa seven at present. Killa looks more scummy to me than dejkha to me. If I've missed something, please clue me in.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Killa looks more scummy to me than dejkha to me.

Ugh, several alcoholic beverages = poor grammar and silly syntax. Sorry about that. Disregard the repetition there.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

I think that q21 being "shovelled to death" and buried alive sounds more like the work of mafia, while dejkha being "cut into pieces" sounds more like the work of a serial killer.

Catching up on the new day's posts. Man, you guys write a lot during the daytime hours while I am at work. I'll just write this as I read the posts, sorry for any unnecessary duplication.

However, my reaction was out of proportion and petulant.

It happens. But you've apologized, which indicates you've learned from it, so don't sweat it.

I will continue to participate in the game and interact with everyone.

This is a good thing.

I'm really surprised at dejkha's death.

I'm more surprised about the fact that q21 was a cop.

Me, too. And it feels just a little bit 'off' somehow to me that Porkens expressed surprise at dejkha's death and none at all about the revelation that Q21 was the cop. Hmm.

He was a strange choice for a scum kill imo.

I agree that he seems an unusual choice for a scum kill in light of the suspicion on him. I know it's all WIFOM and probably of limited value as a result, but still, one would think that scum would prefer him alive today as a lynch target in the circumstances.

i am always suspicious of the first to post on day 2. especially when they write:

Well, that sucks... we lost our cop and a townie.

we can all read. added commentary like that above is usually considered a "scum tell".

Yeah, I have seen lots of players call this a scum tell, but I don't agree. In my early games, I posted similar things as town when I saw the results of the scum's night actions upon the dawn of a new day, but that was just me posting my first reaction to learning of the events. I don't post things like that any more, simply because so many people claim that it's a scum tell, but I still don't agree that it is, at least not if it's done by fairly new players.

He was a strange choice for a scum kill imo.

Why do you think he was a strange choice for a SK?

I take it from reading this in context that by "SK" in the bolded sentence, you are referring to a "scum kill" rather than a "serial killer", yes?

He was a strange choice for an SK because he had a lot of suspicion on him (might have gotten hung if I hadn't hammered K7) and probably would have gotten himself hung sooner or later. Seems like a waste of a nightkill.

Ok, I agree with this... though there could have been a motive we can't see. Maybe if Zero is the SK, he was worried his brother might be able to figure it out from out-of-game information. Or something Dejkha said worried the SK.

Okay, now I'm confused. In this exchange, it seems that Herod is using SK to mean "serial killer" rather than "scum kill" but that doesn't follow from the preceding exchange. Can you please clarify, Herod?

More in a bit, as I've realized that it's probably better to read the rest of the posts before continuing since these points may have already been addressed, etc.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

*note: some posts are snipped for brevity to avoid overly lengthy quote posts.

If one was to assume that "scum kill"="mafia kill", then my question would be incredibly out-of-place. And so would your answer.

Thanks for the clarification. That makes the exchange make sense to me now. I thought that 'scum' referred to mafia and 'SK' referred to serial killer.

Now, to continue from where I left off. Again, I am just going to address posts in order and apologize for any undue repetition. On the weekend, I should have time to post more of an overall summary/analysis rather than just responding to posts in order like this.

A point of strategy:
...

The SK should claim now

(assuming we are right that there is an SK.)
...
Also, knowing that you are the SK will help us find the mafia.

^^This is an excellent post and it seems like a good strategy to me.

the first question makes some sense. however, i doubt that someone would play several games poorly just to establish meta for when they are scum.

Perhaps, but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility out of hand. It wouldn't be all that different from killa7, who deliberately established a meta of refusing to participate in the games he signs up for on Day 1, which he uses to insulate himself from suspicion even when he is scum because "that's the way he rolls".

This feels like such a trap, but it also makes logical sense.

Claim - Serial Killer

Annnd, just like that, the strategy pays off. Wait, that seemed kind of quick.

Assuming there is three mafia (the most likely amount), lynching me today would be a mistake for the town

Yes, agreed (If the claim is true).

And my number one suspect is either herodotus or Jazmyn. Have people forgot about her? She seems to be playing under the radar or something. She, to my memory has never actually been involved with any discussion, even I have been in at least a little, but she never posts anything, especially involving her thoughts.

This is simply untrue. You should try reading the thread instead of relying upon your "memory" since it seems apparent that your memory is faulty.

TBH, I was half-expecting Jazmyn to come out of left field with a SK (Serial Killer) claim.

Really? Well, sorry to have to disappoint then but no, I am not a SK. (I have to admit that I would love to get an SK role some time, but I haven't to date and have only played in one completed game so far where there was a SK.)

After consideration, I don't believe acfan's claim at this time
...
acfan breadcrumbed that he was a cop. (I think this may be the real reason why Q21 believed him to be scum.) I almost called him out for soft-claiming, but figured if no one else was saying anything about it, he was probably really the cop and possibly the mafia wouldn't notice. (This was also the reason I defended him, and the reason I was surprised that Q21 was a cop - I was thinking ac was a cop.) But since a cop is dead, people would notice his fake-breadcrumbing while rereading day 1, and his plan to fake claim cop was severely weakened.
...
Also, the fact that an innocent (Q21) who suspected him was killed by the mafia is a bit suspicious (though on its own, it would not have been a big enough factor that he wouldn't have wanted to kill Q21.) Regardless of the WIFOM, acfan definitely had a reason to want to kill Q21 last night.

Acfan knew he was a likely lynch, but also that the town would not want to lynch the SK. The best way for acfan to make sure he would not be lynched is to claim a role that (a) had a reason to falsely breadcrumb cop and (b) was somewhat helpful to the town.

For these reasons, I think it is very possible that he is a mafia member lying about being the SK.

Oh, man. I noticed the second post you cited of Acfan's cop references on Day 1 and made a note of it as a possible breadcrumb, but I missed the first one.

What the hell are you talking about? I didn't breadcrumb anything. Show me the post where I did it. And anyway, as an SK, I would never claim anything but vanilla, SK, or Vig.
...
I am not fakeclaiming SK. I was one of the few people who suspected dejkha D1, I had motivation to kill him. I had already decided if we didn't lynch scum D1, I was going to go after who I thought was mafia to try and keep the game balanced.
But yeah, I never breadcrumbed cop, I wouldn't even know how to really breadcrumb. Please show me where you think I did this.

The posts are linked in Herod's post to which you replied. They do look like breadcrumbs, although it is also possible that they were innocent remarks that just happen to look like breadcrumbs. But saying that as a SK, you would never claim anything but vanilla, SK, or Vig doesn't help your claim at the moment as (a) it is WIFOM, and (b) it confirms that you are fully conversant with making false role claims, which tends to negate the idea of "innocent remarks that just happen to look like breadcrumbs" noted just above.

I'm going to have to think about all of this and will probably have to re-read yet again.

I was just being quiet about Herod's silly plan because, shit, he was aiming to out 2 scum.

What was silly about Herod's plan? It seems to have worked well so far: already, it has either shown us who the SK is or it has outed one of the scum. It may end up doing even more, depending on how things play out when everyone else chimes in, whether there is a counterclaim, etc. I wouldn't dismiss it as "silly" at all.

I'd

rather

not give control of the game to the SK.
(the following examples show the morning after this lynch. The left column represents what would happen if the SK killed a townie tonight)
...
In A, the SK decides who wins, and has a small chance to win himself. In B, he has

thrown the game away

.
...
In C, the SK's chances to win for himself are much, much better, and the town's is almost nill.

You make some good points here. But we don't have to decide the lynch issue yet. It makes sense to me to let this play out further until we see what, if any, counterclaims are made and what additional information we can garner before worrying about the lynch.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Also, welcome, sotty7. Looking forward to your input.

Also,

Mod, please prod Tovarish

. He hasn't posted in 10 days.

Regards,
Jazz

I have, twice, no response so he will be replaced.

[Jazzmyn]

So, thinking about things and trying to figure out the possible outcomes, it seems that first I would need to know the likelihood of there being 3 scum + SK as opposed to some other combination of scum, SK, watcher(s), tracker(s), etc. I haven't played in very many games yet where there has been a SK, so I just don't know if it is most common for there to be 3 scum + SK vs. other setups.

But assuming for the moment that there are 3 scum and 1 SK, then with 9 alive, that means we have 5 townies at present. Without knowing for sure whether town protective roles (e.g. doctor, roleblocker, etc.) will succeed during the night to stop a NK, let's assume for purposes of the following exercise that they will not (to get a better view of the worst case scenario rather than the best case scenario).

Scenario 1:
If we lynch SK today, that leaves 5 townies/3 scum going into night
Scum NK, leaving 4 townies/3 scum going into Day 3

Scenario 2:
If we lynch scum today, that leaves 5 townies/2 scum/1 SK going into night
Scum NK, leaving 4 townies/2 scum/1 SK
If the SK kills scum, that leaves 4 townies/1 scum/1 SK going into Day 3
If the SK kills a townie, that leaves 3 townies/2 scum/1 SK going into Day 3

Scenario 3:
If we mislynch today, that leaves 4 townies/3 scum/1 SK going into night
Scum NK, leaving 3 townies/3 scum/1 SK
If the SK kills scum, that leaves 3 townies/2 scum/1 SK going into Day 3
If the SK kills a townie, that leaves 2 townies/3 scum/1 SK going into Day 3

Do I have this right? If so, then it seems to me that if we mislynch today, it could lead to a very quick scum win if the SK kills a townie during the night.

Of course, as I said above, this does not take into account potential successful town role blocks or other protective roles, etc., so it may not be as dire as it looks but man, a mislynch today appears to me to have the potential to be catastrophic.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

there are also some advantages to keeping acfan alive if he's the SK. A lot depends on what the missing players have to say. For one thing, I don't think that a lynch should be carried out as a response to the fact that some players are missing, or even while they are missing if there's a chance their input may have value.

I agree that we need to hear from the missing players, especially Tovarish's replacement since Tovarish had not posted since several real life days before the end of Day 1.

As for advantages to keeping acfan alive if he is the SK, I'm not sure that I see many. His value to the town is that he might be able to take out scum for us at night, but if he takes out a townie instead, he not only hurts us, he quite likely assures a town loss. Acfan pointed out that it is likely that we have a town roleblocker role and he says that we can block him at night to stop him from killing a townie, but then doesn't that negate his value to us? And is it not also possible that the scum have a roleblocker role and that they could block acfan to prevent him from killing

them

at night? If so, then doesn't that, too, negate his value to us?

Are there other benefits to keeping a claimed SK alive that I fail to see? If so, please advise. But if not, I don't think I much like the idea of putting our fate into the hands of an admitted anti-town role.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

I agree. In fact Ac hasn't been helpful at all. I mean, he needs us to not lynch him today to even get close to a win. The fact that he doesn't seem willing to not kill tonight is almost enough for me to vote him. I still think there is a strong chance he could be a mafia member as well.

Actually, I think he said that he

might

be willing not to kill tonight, depending on whether or not he thinks it would help him achieve his personal win condition. But that doesn't really give me any comfort since (a) if he is a SK, his personal win condition requires him to survive all of us and the scum; (b) we have no reason to trust him; (c) if we mislynch today and he kills a townie tonight, we are pretty much guaranteed to lose; (d) as previously mentioned, I don't really care for the idea of putting our fate into the hands of an admitted anti-role role; and (e) it is entirely possible that he's scum fake-claiming SK.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

EA is lurking, and I consider this particular bit of lurking suspicious. As Porkens pointed out in 497, he's conspicuously said nothing about acfan's claim or whether he will counterclaim.

Yes, this does indeed look like the suspicious brand of lurking.
@EA: what say you?

Also, I've reviewed the votes on the last few pages of day 1. EA had no votes during the last two pages before the lynch, which really stands out if you diagram the votes/claims/cardflips. I've made such a diagram, and I'd be happy to post it, but I have no idea how.

I'm afraid I can't help with posting pictures (I haven't even managed to work out how to properly link posts yet) but hopefully someone else can assist and get your diagram posted.

Lurking and/or noncontributing seems like a strategy that scum are more likely to take after a townie was mislynched for it. They can rely on remorse to make town-sided people hesitate to carry out a second lurker lynch.

This is a good point. That said, I doubt that this will be much of a factor in this particular game since killa7 wasn't just lurking, he was deliberately refusing to play the game for his own selfish and pro-scum purposes of furthering his stupid meta. So, it wasn't really a "lurker lynch" per se, and it was a lynch that nobody should regret for more than a fleeting moment (and that only because he happened to flip town in this particular instance). Killa7 is a detriment to the game and to the site as a whole, so meh. It sucks that he happened to be town in this game but I, for one, would vote to lynch him again tomorrow if he does the same thing in another game as he did here.

To say a little more about acfan: I wanted to wait for Tovarish or his replacement to chime in first. Apparently the mod isn't okay with our waiting, so I will provide more exposition sometime soon, but I'm not feeling up to it at the moment.

I wanted to hear from Tovarish's replacement too, but I don't blame the mod for not wanting the game to stall while waiting. I hope that you will be feeling up to providing further exposition soonish as I, for one, am not seeing the advantages to keeping a claimed serial killer around at the moment, so your further input would be appreciated.

Back, sorry for the absence, I'll try to catch up on the posts within the day.

I hope that you will add some actual content and analysis once you catch up. I've realized that I find myself mostly tuning out your posts because they lack substance and often make little sense. So, I've re-read them but still find that they don't often make much sense. Could you try to make your posts more cogent and coherent, and perhaps use the quote function so that it is clear what you are responding to?

That doesn't mean that's necessarily what will happen, but I would be willing to. Like I said early, it depends on the conditions when we go into the night. But I do have my own win condition to keep in mind, just getting rid of the mafia isn't my goal.

Acfan, please respond to my post #539, specifically this part:

As for advantages to keeping acfan alive if he is the SK, I'm not sure that I see many. His value to the town is that he might be able to take out scum for us at night, but if he takes out a townie instead, he not only hurts us, he quite likely assures a town loss. Acfan pointed out that it is likely that we have a town roleblocker role and he says that we can block him at night to stop him from killing a townie, but then doesn't that negate his value to us? And is it not also possible that the scum have a roleblocker role and that they could block acfan to prevent him from killing them at night? If so, then doesn't that, too, negate his value to us?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Yeah he said

might

. The whole tone of that post was basically I'm going to look out for me, at least that's how I read it and I don't like it.
I'm also very worried about points b, c,d and e.

Agreed. And his subsequent posts have not alleviated my concerns any.

Scotty and Jazz, you've both indicated a willingness to hang AC today. Can we make this a reality (or at least Reality -1)?

I am leaning in that direction but I would prefer to hear from Tovarish's replacement first if possible. If that is not possible (as the mod has indicated that he isn't going to hold up the entire game over it), then I will probably vote acfan rather than taking the risks set out in my prior post.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

First of all, if I'm alive and we choose to try and lynch mafia, the chances of us hitting mafia are changed from 3/9 to 3/8 for today. Secondly, if things are starting to look mafia sided, (ie we mislynch) I can attempt to kill a mafia member and hope that the pro-town roleblocker knows the numbers and that the mafia doesn't have a roleblocker.

That did not actually address my post or the specific concerns raised in it at all. Please, try again, and please address the specific points raised in the post to which you were directed. You seem to have (a) firstly, ignored it, and (b) secondly, tapdanced around it.

As an aside, what is with the "ie we mislynch" phrasing of yours? Since when was a serial killer part of any "we" and since when did a serial killer "mislynch" anyone, since its role is to kill everyone except itself?

And why you are now positing the existence of a town role blocker as though it is a given when there is no evidence that this is the case, and dismissing the possibility of a scum roleblocker with the wave of a hand when the latter is just as possible as the former?

I am not getting anything from your posts that makes me want to put my faith or the fate of the town into your hands, as the claimed serial killer that you are, sorry. I don't see any reason to trust you, and I don't see anything in your posts that leads me to believe that you will act in a manner that benefits us. I don't blame you for playing to your win condition, of course, but your win condition does not coincide with the town win condition, and I just don't see any reason to trust you. If we mislynch today and you kill a townie tonight, you will pretty much assure a town loss. I am not feeling inclined to take that risk.

Unless someone can explain otherwise, I am just not seeing the benefit of leaving a claimed anti-town role alive today in the circumstances in which we find ourselves presently.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

As far as having two mafia is concerned, that was my first thought when acfan started talking about tomorrow being lylo, but yesterday I saw Invitational 10 with 3 mafia, 1 SK, and 8 town-sided people. So I don't know how many there are, but it's definitely easier to figure the odds under the condition of 3 mafia members, and that's definitely a possible scenario. I'd also think that if there were 2 mafia, that would just boost the town's chances in all scenarios, maybe also adding a little to the SK's odds if we don't lynch him. It's also significant that we won't know fur sure until the game is over.

Wait, what? Only 2 mafia? I thought from what others said previously and from the games that I have played and the games that I have read, that the most likely scenario was 3 mafia (and possibly even 4) but I never considered that there might be only 2. Is that common in a 12 player game?

If he lives until night, the mafia would want to NK him, because killing him is pretty important to them, but they're also not sure whether they can. Honestly, I think I'd prefer he didn't tell us; that information (which I note that you subtly asked for) would help only the mafia. In fact, if he does answer, he should probably lie. Or tell the truth but make it look like a lie. Or lie but make it look like he's telling the truth but pretending to lie, etc...

I agree with the part about not wanting acfan to say one way or the other whether he's NK immune or not, but I don't know why you're so sure that scum would want to NK him, or why they would even bother trying since acfan is really not of much use to the town. I.e., if he lives to the night, (a) if we have a town roleblocker, he may very well block acfan to prevent acfan from NKing a townie; (b) if there is a scum roleblocker, he may very well block acfan to prevent him from killing scum; (c) if either a or b (or both) occurs, there doesn't seem to be any reason for the scum to try to NK acfan as he is effectively neutered and they would probably be more likely to target a townie, wouldn't they?

I will be happy to be corrected but I'm just not seeing the advantages to keeping a claimed SK alive at present (although that may change depending on what Tovarish's replacement has to say if and when the replacement appears).

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

I think that I can see both the pros and cons of lynching a claimed SK, but I don't know which way to go. I really don't like the idea of giving control of the game to a claimed SK, but I do see how it could benefit us if we lynch well today and the SK kills well tonight. Still don't know which way to go, though. I would really like to hear from the replacements before deciding, if at all possible .

Also, I didn't understand Zero's paranoid cop claim or his no-lynch suggestion, I've looked up the role in the wiki, so I get that it is a cop who always gets a guilty result, but is it normal to have such a role in a mini normal game where there is already another cop?

@Zero: why would you suggest a no-lynch?

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

quick, unrelated question about mafia scum that i've never come across:
what happens if there's a tie in the votes?

It depends on the rules that the game moderator sets at the beginning of the game. In

this particular game

, ties are dealt with as follows:

When the deadline hits, the player with the most votes will be lynched, provided that player has gained a "majority majority" of the votes (ie. 5 votes with 18 alive). If there is a tie, then votes will be removed in the order in which they were placed, starting with the most recent vote, until one player has the most votes. That player will then be lynched.

In other games, the mod might make it a rule that a tie at deadline results in a no-lynch, or other possibilities, I guess.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

This just gets weirder and weirder. First, Zero makes an unsolicited cop claim out of the blue, and later claims to have tried to investigate a dead player who had flipped town? And then wonders why the 'action could not be performed'? And he wonders about his sanity... oh my.

Anyway, I asked previously whether it is normal to have a role such as a paranoid cop in a mini normal game where there is already another cop, and a couple of you seem to have indicated that it is possible. Has anyone ever played in a 12 player game with two cops? I haven't completed very many 12 player games yet so I'm just not sure how common or how rare it might be.

I'm not voting because I'm torn on what to do right now. We have one replacement, I'm more than willing to let him catch up with us all.

In the mean time I will probably have to give the last few pages another read. I'm not sure what to think about Zero's half assed cop claim. Scum coming out like he did really makes little sense. Maybe we have two cops. One for mafia, one for the SK? Right now I'm not sure.

Zero really needs to come back in here and you know.. Start making some sense. That would be helpful.

This is such a scummy post.

What is scummy about it?

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

vote jazzmyn

Awesome - something new to talk about. Welcome aboard, Looker.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

This is such a scummy post.

What is scummy about it?

Porkens, you haven't answered my question. Perhaps you missed it. What is scummy about that post by Sotty that you were referring to?

Since I voted you for no reason, I would like to give you the pleasure of informing me who, out of the following five, you think is scummy (and why).
erratus, don_johnson, zer0ph, scotty, herodotus

And I would like you to give all of us the pleasure of sharing your thoughts about the game so far, your suspicions, observations, and analysis. Once you've read the thread, we can engage in a thorough exchange of ideas. When I replace into a game, I find it useful to do a thorough read while generating my own ideas, suspicions, observations and analysis rather than just asking someone else who they find suspicious.

In the meantime, though, I am presently most suspicious of acfan, Zero, and you conditionally. acfan, because (a) I am not entirely sold on his SK claim, in which case he would be scum fake-claiming SK and (b) if he is a SK, he's admittedly anti-town in any event; Zero because his play strikes me as bizarre and I'm not entirely sold on his cop claim, (but those with more experience than I seem to think it's plausible so I'll have to think about that some more); and you, conditionally, because it is scummy to vote for someone without any rationale at any time (except in the random vote stage), let alone on Day 2, page 25, without having even read the thread. I'll leave it at that for now, and we can discuss further once you've read the thread.

Tovarish's last post makes him/Looker look relatively pro-town. He asked the mod to replace Killer -- if that had happened, the Killer lynch would have been much less likely.

I didn't get any scum vibes from Tovarish at all while he was here, but I'm not sure that I agree with your point about his last post. He was pretty clear in his posts that he found killa to be legitimately scummy (as did I and several others), and he had his vote on killa for a couple of weeks by that point. He certainly had the option to unvote if he changed his mind about his belief in killa's scumminess but he never did. So, I don't think your logic on that one holds.

But, as I said, I felt that Tovarish was pro-town throughout. His replacement, well, we'll see once he reads the thread and offers his insights and thoughts. It is entirely possible that Tovarish was good as scum and had me completely fooled (it certainly wouldn't be the first time).

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

I've been thinking about the possibility of a town RB claiming, as has been suggested, and although I understand the arguments both in favour of it and against it, on balance, I think that it's better that the RB not claim (if we have one). We don't know if we have a doctor to protect him and we don't know if the scum have a RB as well, which, if they do and if we do not have a doctor, could just negate the town RB's ability and also open him up to being NKed by scum.

in a sense, I find him suspicious because he's "too pro-town" I guess you could say, but that's a reason why I am so hesitant to vote for him.

A serial killer is anti-town, by definition. His win condition is to kill everyone but himself.

I hope that the mod finds a replacement for Erratus soon. It seems we're at a bit of a standstill until we have a full complement of players.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Oh, I was sure that serial killer was pro-town, but his main goal was to keep himself alive. Okay, well that changes things.

Actually Porkens, I claimed to be scum in I believe 3 of my 5 games and yes, none of which I was scum. And the reason I'm not claiming to be scum in this game is because I couldn't deal with the fools in my other games.

Your posts make my head hurt. Claiming to be scum when you're town is ridiculously bad play. Blaming it on others is even worse. Now, you're claiming to be a cop in this game, even though we know for sure that we have a dead cop. Have you ever claimed to be a cop in any of your other games?

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Why bring this up if you don't want the RB (if we have one) to claim?

Huh? I was commenting on the issue because it had been raised and there were differing opinions on it. I thought about it and added my opinion.

this is the knind of question scum post to make it look like they're contributing.

That's a good point. I hadn't been feeling a scum-vibe from Sotty, but it sure is an odd question considering the context, and I should probably do a re-read of him and his predecessor soon.

I asked because she didn't add anything to the discusion. It felt like role fishing to me because she brought up the idea of the RB claiming and yet decides against it.

Now, this is just silly. I added my opinion to the discussion because the issue was up for discussion. I didn't "bring up the idea" - I added my opinion on a matter that had been raised. And how do you get "role fishing" from that, when it is actually the exact opposite?

Why even comment in such an elaborate way? If anything

she

was posting fluff and not adding anything new. That's what scum post to look like they are adding to the discussion when they clearly aren't.

Since when is offering one's thought process in a clear and transparent manner "elaborate" or "fluff"? Since when is offering one's opinion on an issue that is under discussion scummy?

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

unvote

Alright, here's my New Deal®:
I have realized that I will probably not win this game. I will definitely not win if I get lynched today. However, I have come up with a plan that will help the town, hurt the mafia, and give me a very small chance of winning.
A)We will not lynch me today
B)I will do a popular vote to determine my nightkill. Everyone can vote like this:

AC:<name>

, with name being the name of the player you want me to target for a kill
C)I will kill whoever gets the highest number of votes. Votes by dead scum will not count.
D)Unless the game reaches a point where the town cannot win, I will assist the town in victory over the mafia, because I would much rather see the town win than the mafia.
E)If it comes to a point were the town can no longer win, however, I would like it if all townsided roles helped me to win against the mafia.

So what do y'all think?

Hmm. I'll have to think about it, particularly since you've already said that you will act in your own best interests, not those of the town. So, I'm not sure why we should believe you now that you will do otherwise.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Perhaps I could have explained myself better in the original post but the comment just raised my heckles and wanted to know more. It went hand in hand with your “awesome” response to being voted out of the blue by Looker. That response felt strange, like you were trying

too

hard to fit in.

Don proclaiming me a fluff poster is just ridiculous though.

Well, your accusation was pretty strange since it was blatantly obvious that I was commenting on an issue that was under discussion and adding my opinion on that issue, and yet you chose to characterize my offering of my opinion on the matter as scummy in a very strange manner, and it didn't make any sense. So, it seemed like you were just trying to post a very flimsy accusation for the sake of posting.

I don't think that makes you a "fluff poster" and I didn't take don's post about your strange accusation to mean that you are a "fluff poster" but rather that that particular post of yours looked like posting for the sake of posting an accusation without foundation - in other words, a fluff post. To me, that's not the same thing as a "fluff poster". Your mileage may vary.

And as for my "awesome" response to Looker voting for me out of the blue, you really shouldn't take just one word from my response and pretend that it was the entirety of my response. I didn't say just "awesome". I said, "Awesome - something new to talk about." See the difference? The "something new to talk about" was his voting for someone out of the blue for no reason. Unfortunately, he hasn't bothered to participate much in the game ever since, so the discussion on that point hasn't progressed very much. Presumably, he will provide his thoughts and analysis some time soon and that discussion can continue.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

HANG HIM PLOX

Plox, really?

What does "plox" mean?

@Herodotus: Let's see if we can't work something out here. I have class, PT, and minimal free time, so it's kind of hard for me to read twenty-some odd pages of posts and remember what's going on everyday.

Look, you signed up to replace into the game knowing how long it was, etc., and presumably knowing your own personal schedule and commitments, so how about contributing to the game instead of making excuses for why you won't? That would be much appreciated.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

"Plox" is like the most retarded way to say please.

Ah, I'd never heard of that before. Thanks.

You have your way of seeing things, I have mine. I have every right to question statements I find scummy. Although I do admit, I could have made my query a little clearer.

Nobody has ever suggested that you do not "have every right to question statements [you] find scummy". (Unusual choice of wording there, by the way, although I don't think anything turns on it.) But the fact remains that your accusation was pretty bizarre since it was blatantly obvious that I was commenting on and offering my opinion about a live issue at the time. It is difficult to fathom how you could legitimately purport to view that as 'scummy' or 'rolefishing' when it was clearly neither. And, don't forget, everyone else has the same "every right" to question and comment upon your statements as you do to question and comment upon those of others.

Does that mean you would have had the same reaction if he had done that to another player?

That's a valid question, actually, and the answer is "probably, yes, although I might not have prefaced it with the word 'awesome'" and I would have followed up with questioning him about the basis for his apparently baseless vote, etc. It is because it was directed to me that I found it humorous enough to preface my response with the word, 'awesome' but had it been directed to someone else, it is unlikely that I would not have found it humorous, since I do not know the alignment of anyone else with any certainty.

We can lynch the claimed SK or we can let him live to night with his little plan. I still feel off about trusting him, he needed to come out with this plan when he first claimed. In fact I tried to get him to do just that but he wanted to stay true to his win condition. My worry at this point is that he is saying what we all want to hear just to make it to night.

On this, we agree. I have been struggling with it similarly.

I see a flaw in acfan's plan. If the scum have either a RB or doctor, they will base their use of that action on whether the consensus candidate for acfan's NK is on their side or not. Even if it outs one of their number, they can buy some time by preventing ac from killing one of them, while if he will target an innocent, they can allow him to kill that player. This means that we don't want the mafia to know whom he will be targeting if he kills tonight.

And then there's this. ^^
It seems that we have a sort of Catch-22 situation here. Some of us (me included) do not trust acfan to act in the town's best interest so it would be preferable to be able to direct his night kill to 'test' him, as it were, but we simultaneously run the risk of mafia interference in the event that they have certain roles available to them, which would lead to us being no better off tomorrow even if we do adopt acfan's plan.

I and others have previously made points against Porkens. I especially don't like his recent tactic of making one or two line posts with little or no meaning. Everything else I've plainly stated elsewhere.

You should present the points to which you are referring if you intend to rely upon them as a case against Porkens. It shouldn't be too difficult for you to do if, as you say, it's all been "plainly stated elsewhere."

Archaist replaces EA starting...
...
now!

Excellent. Welcome, Archaist.

More to follow once I get through the most recent posts after that.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

And if the mafia has a busdriver, the town would almost certainly lose.

I've looked at the wiki but can't find anything on this - what is a busdriver?

@Looker: if you aren't going to play the game, please request a replacement.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

sweet

Hella

sweet.

What the?

Porkens, care to explain these posts?

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

What did you

think

I meant?

I had no idea, thus the question asking you what you meant. "Sweet" with no explanation added seems a very unusual reaction to the death of our doctor.

A quick lynch is not what we want right now. Zero has a guilty on Porkens and he has acted scummy but if there is a three man team we have to be really careful because this is lylo. Ideally I would like discussion

before

votes regardless.

^Yes, I agree with this.

I'm not sure, though, about the guilty that Zero has claimed to have on Porkens. As I said yesterday, I'm not entirely convinced of his claim to be a cop at all. If he is, though, and assuming that the wiki is accurate, a paranoid cop always gets a guilty, regardless of alignment, but an insane cop always gets a wrong result. So, if he's really a paranoid cop, that doesn't tell us anything about Porkens' alignment, but if he's really an insane cop, that would tell us that Porkens is town-aligned. As a result, Zero's claimed investigation result is useless to us, so evidence of Porkens' scumminess will have to be found elsewhere. There seems to be quite a bit of it in the thread, though, disregarding entirely Zero's claimed result.

Right now my top suspicions are Porkens, Jazz and Hero. This is mostly gut right now, I'm going to have to look back though the thread to see if it is warranted or not.

Please do so.

My current top suspects are Porkens, Zero and Sotty, but I cannot see the three of them as a scum team together. I am going to have to re-read again to see who/what I'm missing.

More in a bit.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

EA/Archaist read town. EA's entire play seems extremely unabashed and reads vanilla townie as far as i can tell. I also doubt scum would be out voting early on day 3 in possible lylo.

Makes sense.

Jazz/Hero read town, but both chimed in against the roleblocker claim which made me suspicious yesterday. i'll have to reread some.

Just because I disagreed with your idea to have a potential town roleblocker claim doesn't make me scum, and I have a really hard time seeing Herod as scum. You should, indeed, re-read.

@all townies: I would like to suggest that every town-aligned player do a careful re-read of the game. We are at a crucial stage here and we really need to be careful.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

EBWOP:

Makes sense.

Somehow, part of my post got lost in editing. This was supposed to say: Makes sense. But please see below regarding re-reading.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

I've been re-reading the game to try to figure out who is scummiest, and Porkens is standing out for me.

Going back to his predecessor, Plonky, who started in on dejhka by voting for dej because dej was not enamoured of early bandwagoning, which seems like a pretty poor reason to start in on someone.

Then there was his insistence that killa7 was not a townie and not scum, with such assurance that only scum could actually have. Repeatedly, he referred to killa7 as non-scum at a time that only the scum could know that with certainty.

When he was called on that, he disappeared from the game.

Porkens replaced him and says that he didn't even read Plonky's posts. Well, that seems rather odd to me. I mean, sure, it's not as though a replacement is expected to or able to answer for everything that a predecessor does, but to not even read his posts seems off to me. It's not as though there were very many, and since you're reading the thread anyway, it strikes me as bizarre to read everyone else's posts and not your predecessor's. In retrospect, I think that Porkens did read them and just wanted to quickly distance himself from his predecessor in hopes that we will let Plonky's scummy posts go.

Then he quickly posts a list of 4 top suspects (Tovarish, Zero, acfan, and dej), votes for Tovarish, and adds that he would hammer killa7 if he were put at L-1 again. He ultimately did so, as he said he would, but again in retrospect, this looks like the ultimate in distancing himself from his predecessor's scummy posts, and in particular, his predecessor's unexplained knowledge that killa7 was a townie.

Then, I see Porkens trying to paint Herod as scum merely for being alive after Night 1, this too strikes me as odd in retrospect. Analyzing it a little further, it seems like Porkens trying to send the message that if he was scum, he would have offed Herod, with the inference being that, therefore, Porkens is not scum.

Then there is this comment: “The dead cop could be random luck by the mafia, but I think more likely that q21 got pegged by a smart maf.” While this is relatively minor, I just wanted to mention that whenever I have seen a player refer to the mafia as smart, especially when discussing night kills, that player has nearly always turned out to be mafia themselves.

Then there was Porkens' post 55 “this is such a scummy post” directed to Sotty shortly after Sotty replaced in, without saying what was supposedly scummy about it. It didn't seem scummy to me, so I asked Porkens what was scummy about it, and in his post 60, he gave some very weak justification that still doesn't make it look scummy to me.

Then there was his "sweet" reaction to the death of our doctor. Again, this is minor, but odd enough to add to the list of things that look odd, in my view. He later explained it as meaning that he doesn’t have to scratch his head over Looker, but still, it’s a pretty bizarre reaction to the death of the doc.

As Archaist pointed out, Porkens did not acknowledge, let alone dispute, Zero’s claim to have received a guilty on him during the night. Then in 77, he engages in unnecessary sarcasm in his response to Archaist in a manner that makes it look to me like he’s trying too hard to justify those last two points.

Then he gets all in a tizzy and votes don based on his own misunderstanding of the various cop roles.

Then in 82, he votes don again, based on what seems to be another misunderstanding.

He's pretty quick to vote while we're in a position where votes should be based on articulated and rational reasons, rather than on a knee-jerk reaction.

I recognize that some of these things are not necessarily classic "tells" etc., but cumulatively, there are an awful lot of things about Plonky/Porkens' play that make him highly suspicious to me.


Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Jazzmyn; if you find Porkens suspicious, why aren't you voting for him? You seem reluctant to place a vote, as you haven't done so in a while.

You're right, I am reluctant, due to a combination of it being possible LyLo, being a holiday weekend, and fear of being wrong.

But I see that Porkens is here today, so it seems that the holiday isn't a factor, and I see that he hasn't bothered to address or respond to the cases made against him, which strengthens my belief in his scumminess even more. Plus, I don't get a scum vibe from either you or don_johnson, so it's time to put my vote where my suspicion is.

Vote: Porkens

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Welp, to be blunt, if she's town, and she gets no scum vibe from you or Don, she may need to have her radar adjusted.

What are you talking about? I said that I don't think Archaist or don_johnson are scum; I didn't say anything about Zero. As Archaist and don_johnson are the players who were voting for you when I added my vote, that made me shrug off my hesitance to put you at L-1, since I do not believe it to be a scum-driven wagon.

I think that the reason that nobody hammered you is because you are scum and your scum buddies are, naturally, not voting for you.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Woot! Good game, all.

If you've read the scum-chat, you can probably imagine how surprised I was when Zero came out claiming to have a guilty on Porkens (although it was a good move, it surprised me because we had discussed it and decided against it); and I was gobsmacked when don came out with a JOAT claim after that. That was quick thinking on don's part - well done! - but I was worried that it looked almost too 'pat' and concerned that it would garner a boatload of suspicion on both of them. However, don did a fabulous job of making it look legitimate. Impressive.

To the town: this was a thoroughly enjoyable game, and I hope to see all of you in another game soon.

And to our illustrious moderator: thank you, raider!

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Jazzmyn, I nearly forgot you were scum. You were always in the same mood and tone and I would never have suspected you. HOW DO YOU DO IT?

Heh - I could tell you, but then I'd have to shoot you...

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

meh...

I'll PM you. Can't give away too much in thread, after all, or I'll end up having to create an alt...

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

I can't imagine that anyone would have believed such a claim, personally, in which case, one of you would have been lynched more quickly on Day 2, and the other would have been left alive by the scum team overnight while we took out another townie, and left the other to be auto-lynched on Day 3 as either a lying townie or a claimed SK. I seriously doubt that either of you would have survived such a claim, and I seriously doubt that you would "take control of the town" in any way with such a lie.

But, by all means, try it in another game. Should be fun! (*writes note to self about Herod in future games*)

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Hmm... I think there's a chance people might have believed we had discussed possibly making a fake-claim of some sort if needed in order to draw out a counterclaim, then confirming each other.

If one of us was going to be lynched, wouldn't it have been AC? Given that, would the revelation that we had lied about being masons necessarily be seen as scummy? Yeah, probably. Lynch All Liars, if nothing else.

Yeah, I think that had you tried that, one of you would have been lynched immediately (probably acfan who had already claimed SK) and then the scum team would have NKed Looker anyway, since you would have been lynched promptly and swiftly at first light by the town.

Regards,
Jazz