Mini 743: Sanity Ensues - Over!

[Green Crayons]

Confirm.

[Green Crayons]

vote: ZEE

.

Because I can.

[Green Crayons]

Why did you pull out the term OMGUS? I missed any reason to be throwing that around.


And are you suggesting there are actually conclusions that

aren't

a reach in the first few pages of D1?

[Green Crayons]

You really are reaching for conclusions right now.

Because I just can't ignore 3 scum tells in 2 pages.

1) A serious vote this early in day 1. Seriously?

Vote: Artem

... <serious reasons>

Do you find hypocrisy to be a useful tool?

He clearly screwed the tags up, and wasn't really FoSing himself.

Did you miss the sarcasm?

I don't understand why you pulled me into it, that's what I meant by "OMGUS-by-proxy"

So you pulled out loaded terminology incorrectly to force illegitimate suspicion upon another player?

unvote, vote: hohum

. Hypocrite. Distorting posts to fit his agenda. Improperly using loaded terminology to make his arguments seem legitimate. All within two pages.

[Green Crayons]

So if Artem's post was sarcastic why did he CHANGE HIS VOTE?

Vote: Alex

Tell us at what point it's not "so fast" to unvote and why you seem so concerned with it?

He voiced the point behind the pressure of his vote as soon as he made it. If you're assuming that votes at this point are supposed to more than pressure/phasing out of the random stage, you're doing a good job at once again being guilty of your own accusations ("You really are reaching for conclusions right now"). The first bit about Alex FOSing himself was quite apparently said tongue-in-cheek.

[Green Crayons]

And i believe Green Crayons is acting a bit aggressively. A sudden attack against one player. If I weren't smarter Id think he is trying to stand up for a certain someone.

I usually get aggressive when I see blatant and unapologetic hypocritsy, selective use of posts to take things out of context and then using a false construction of that post excerpt to attack with ease (strawmanning), as well as improperly used loaded terminology to give your arguments an appeal to authority. When it's wrapped up in a neat little bow of posts just a few hours between them, I can't but help note the abundance of reason to vote.

[Green Crayons]

As an addendum to the above - it's not so much being protective of another player, it's calling out crap and spreading it across the (highly figurative) lawn for everyone else to see. If hohum used these three separate scum tactics against three separate players, I still would be calling him out on it.

Scumplay is scumplay, regardless of who it targets.

Mod votecount, as per end of page 2

Artem

(3):

alexhans, hohum, ZEEnon

hohum (2):

Green crayons, Artem

Azhrei (1):

Charrat

Magus_Stragus (1):

Tom

Charrat (0):
Green Crayons (0):
Tom (0):
ZEEnon (0):
alexhans (0):
seb456zig (0):

Not voting:

Azhrei, Magus_Stragus, seb456zig

With 10 alive, it's 6 to lynch.

Edited to fix error.

[Green Crayons]

I just skimed the past few pages because I'm incredibly busy at the moment, so I'll post something more substantive in a bit - however, in my skimming I noticed hohum has neglected to confront any of my accusations against him.

Shall I simply assume his omission is a sign of acquiesence to my claims? His silence admits his guilt? Until an iota of explanation comes from him, my vote is staying where it is.

[Green Crayons]

I must apologize, my activity in this game has gone below my intentions. With the assumption that this day will continue to persist well after friday (my last day of hectic work that's been consuming my time for the past week or so), I intend to keep my vote where it is until I can play a little catch up.

[Green Crayons]

Read through the thread, these things caught my eye. In chronological order:

ZEEnon and seb456 need to post more.

Outside of calling out obvious lurkers, I'm generally not a big fan of such posts, because they fall under "posting for the sake of posting" category.

I wholeheartedly agree, except it's more like "posting for the sake of looking like an active contributor when really I'm not doing anything." Scummy.

Second, I don't like how hohum (I believe it was him) is using/used previous games as arguments for this one. It is true that players may follow the same strategies over games, but I don't think it's valid arguments to use previous games.

So do you discount the use of meta?

I would much rather lynch a complete lurker than an active but slightly scummy person this early in the game. We still have lots of time to talk, however, so I won't be parking my vote any place just yet.

I find it surprising that these two sentences are mushed right together instead of spoken separately - and by two different players. The first sentence is an argument for lynching a lurker over an active scummy person. The second sentence is an argument for not lynching lurkers because there is plenty of time unhinge them from their lurker ways and for prominent scumbags to show their true colors. Side-by-side, and topped with a delicious icing of an unvote, this post is an excellent example of a non-post. A post that has words in it but really says a whole lot of nothing. Scummy.

Curious, why would you changed your vote instead of simply calling me out with a FoS, HoS or IGMEOY? And how could you be certain that you made the correct choice 3 pages in to day 1?

Faulting people for wanting to change their vote on page three. Nice. Is it mere happenstance that they were wanting to change their vote to him?

2) It's still pretty early in D1 to be throwing votes around behind hard evidence -- and I'm all for wagoning people to get them to drop scum tells. I don't think necessarily Magus' approach is any less correct than the way it's usually been done

So you're all for people voting on wagons but you're not cool with people wanting to change their vote to yourself? Looks like a double standard to me.

aestetically pleasing if
i cut them up. (at least to me)
im a bit of a perfectionist .

I've viewed this thread from a few computers. In none of them are your posts exactly lined up. I don't know how they look to you, but they don't look perfect. Nor are they aesthetically pleasing.

Further, your instinct was right. You shouldn't be attempting to answer other people's questions. In the normal flow of a face-to-face conversation that is considered bad practice. Feel free to comment on someone else's answer, but don't jump in on their behalf -- it's just bad form.

I see Tom's interjection more as a criticism to the basic assumptions about mafia play underpinning the question rather than an answer to your question on ZEE's behalf.

MFoS: ZEEnon because of attempting to make friends. Why would a vanilla townie try to make friends? ZEEnon, if you answer this in a nonscummie way then i'll stop thinking of you as potential scum (for the time being)

Whoa, slow down there Loaded Question-McGee. Might want to move that role fishing down to a simmer so you're not incredibly blatantly obvious, scumbag.

this isnt a competitive game, its a cooperative game. We are supposed to work together to figure out who is mafia and who isnt, not try and kill eachothere and be the sole survivor.

I couldn't help but lol a bit when I read this - and posted just two hours after the previous quote! First he produces this preposterously scummy question about why a

vanilla townie

would want to make friends but then he follows it up with a "whoa, whoa, whoa we're all friends here just trying to find the scumbags!" line.

I agree with the notion that your asking out loud "has anyone else not voted?" and stating "i dont see anything happening" made your post hollow.

I agree as well.

Please don't answer questions on behalf of other people. You're more than welcome comment and call my motives into question AFTER he answers it.

"Hi. Instead of voicing your perfectly legitimate suspicions about my incredibly sketchy question, you should wait until another player has answered my question so that 1. you may have forgotten what exactly you were suspicious of in the first place and 2. attention will be directed away from me and towards the other player whose response to my confining and controlling question can be nothing but seen as scummish in the absence of viewing the environment in which it was stated (e.g. the really sketchy question). Thanks!"

Yuck. Scumlogic smells bad.

Well, since things have cooled down a little bit, I will pose a few questions for anyone who would like to answer and maybe spark some more discussion.

1. At this moment, are there any players that you believe are town? If so, why?
2. At this moment, are there any players that you suspect are mafia? If so, why?
3. How would you choose who to lynch today if you do not yet have any suspicions of who may be mafia?

My answers...
1. No strong feelings yet.
2. No strong feelings yet. If I had to choose to person I think is least likely town at the moment, I would go with hohum because he has been voting aggressively with, in my opinion, weak justufication in each case. Not really scummy, though.
3. I would choose to lynch the least active or contributory player, probably Azhrei.

What a great post that actually doesn't add anything at all to the discussion. Next time please actually contribute something relative to the conversation - like, say, delve into your answer number two without confining yourself to a very rigid and very manufactured set of boundaries for your self-imposed questions.

plus this is My first game,
so i wasn't really expecting any
other roles, haha .

normally it COULD, but i played
so much in real life, the only difference
is that i had to learn the acronyms,
which i easily did through the wiki .

So, I'm confused. Is this your first game (so you wouldn't be expecting roles beyond a cop) or are you an experienced mafia player who has real-life mafia experience (and so roles beyond simply a cop wouldn't be out of the extraordinary)? I don't see how your two quotes match up.

It sometimes helps spark discussion, and thats always a good thing for the town.

What doesn't help is that you refuse to go beyond the questions you yourself conjured up. You issued several questions for the town to respond to, answered them yourself, and then vanished. It's incredibly suspicious because it doesn't actually have much of an interactive element to what's going on in the thread. It's like you're plopping yourself down from out of the sky and setting forth a very generic (and not incredibly helpful) questions which makes it look like you're contributing, but in actuality you're saying very little by typing a whole lot.

A) I'm not "just giving up." I'm making a sacrifice in order to out scum.

I'm confused. Through name calling and refusing to answer questions you're becoming a martyr? And who are we supposed to suspect is the mafia mastermind who is putting you up to this self-destructive play that we should go lynch after you're gone?



hohum:

And are you suggesting there are actually conclusions that

aren't

a reach in the first few pages of D1?

You really are reaching for conclusions right now.

Because I just can't ignore 3 scum tells in 2 pages.

1) A serious vote this early in day 1. Seriously?

Vote: Artem

... <serious reasons>

Do you find hypocrisy to be a useful tool?

He clearly screwed the tags up, and wasn't really FoSing himself.

Did you miss the sarcasm?

I don't understand why you pulled me into it, that's what I meant by "OMGUS-by-proxy"

So you pulled out loaded terminology incorrectly to force illegitimate suspicion upon another player?

unvote, vote: hohum

. Hypocrite. Distorting posts to fit his agenda. Improperly using loaded terminology to make his arguments seem legitimate. All within two pages.

I just skimed the past few pages because I'm incredibly busy at the moment, so I'll post something more substantive in a bit - however, in my skimming I noticed hohum has neglected to confront any of my accusations against him.

Shall I simply assume his omission is a sign of acquiesence to my claims? His silence admits his guilt? Until an iota of explanation comes from him, my vote is staying where it is.

Holy crap answer me.

I have attempted to answer your questions, along with everyone else's. You reject my explanations.

I must have missed where you actually addressed my points. That's okay, we'll start over from a clean slate. Explain yourself - from the beginning. Feel free to quote your posts where you actually addressed my points.

B) I've already answered every question that everyone has asked of me. The only reason you and Azhrei can't see that is because you're both reading selectively. You've dismissed the answers I've given you and have defaulted back into this mode of asking your questions over and over again.

blol. Either I'm blind or you're a liar. Either is fine by me, just point me out to your response and I'll apologize. Or keep my vote where it is.


I like my hohum vote for obvious reasons.
I could go for a seb vote. He's role fished pretty hardcore, used loaded questions and shifted the platforms of his arguments against a single player as it benefits him, even if those platforms are contradictory.

[Green Crayons]

When i say that, you gotta take into account that cooperation isn't always with friends. We work together because we have to. Not because we got the choice. What I'm saying is that making a friend is very suspitious, even if we are trying to work together. It's almost as if you're telling people to forget that there is mafia within our group. Making friends makes you believe that your friend is a townie, but it wouldn't be that hard for a mafia to make friends with a townie.

Tell me what you think

For starters, I think it's interesting that you picked this issue to stand your ground on instead of the role fishing. So, I'm curious - do you not deny that you were role fishing or should I expect some explanation in the future?

As for your quoted rationale, I think it's a fine example of splitting hairs but not actually providing a strong enough difference in the two scenarios, especially considering the context of the posts. ZEE makes a flippant remark about making friends that you take incredibly seriously and call him out for, but when he wants to clarify that it's still a competitive game you give him crap for that as well. It's a lose/lose situation that you've set up for him.

By the way, I'm not necessarily discounting the fact that he was trying to befriend someone, but that post itself didn't look incredibly scummy to me - especially because I don't think anyone was taking it too seriously. But what just really bothered me and stuck out was this false dichotomy that you set up: ZEE's either scum who wants to make us all friends or ZEE's scum who wants us to rip each others' throats out.

This made me laugh a bit because I thought the questions were very broad and not limiting at all. It doesn't say "respond in 17 words or less" or something like that. My response just happened to be short. We could have expanded upon it more if someone wanted to, but that particular statement just happened to fall by the wayside. And its a little out of date now, since Hohum looks pretty town to me right now. He is still an over-zealous finger pointer, though.

And that's part of the point: they were so broad and so general it looks like you plopped down out of the sky without any true relation to the thread. It looks artificial and like a forced attempt to mesh with the town.

i have real-life mafia experience with only townies and mafia. does that match up for you?

Surely it does.

Just trying to see if you're mafia. How can that be scummie?

You asked him why a "vanilla townie" would do whatever it was. Looks like power role fishing to me.

This is the puppy & master pairup. You follow whatever Charrat tells you to do because he is more experienced than you.

I wish scum would be so blatantly obvious. These games would just be easy. I'm also curious if your only basis for this claim is that they're both voting you?

Oh good, I'm not the only one who 'missed' his answers. I was beginning to doubt myself there. You've just reaffirmed my suspicions.

Didn't spy any of his answers in my read through... just a lot of disgruntled talk.

And then that last comment... 'does that match up for you?' fuuuuck. Could you sound any scummier, you seem to be trying to make up whatever you think he will believe.

It seems to go in line with seb's "Tell me what you think" phrase. Neither of which I find to be an impressive tell.

Why what? I IGMEOYed him coz people (not all ppl) think he is scummie, and they might be right

But if you don't currently think that there is any legitimate suspicion on hohum, then you shouldn't be putting IGMEOY, a FOS or an anything else on him. It doesn't make sense to do so unless if you're laying the groundwork for wanting to do a quick-switch vote on him off if it benefits you.

[Green Crayons]

I'm comfortable with the seb pressure, but is hohum just taking a break from actually participating?

[Green Crayons]

As far as I'm aware, a scum has no reason to distance from a townie that's about to get lynched. If anything, a scum is likely to keep the pressure up.

Could you explain your reasoning behind this a bit more? I don't really follow.

[Green Crayons]

I didn't even remember about the deadline. Glad I decided to check the thread right before work.

unvote, vote: seb

.

First and foremost, a no lynch is a bad thing.

Secondly, I take exception to hohum's contention that he's answered everyone's questions. He hasn't even acknowledged my existence in this game, much less answered my questions. You could go through the game and if you were to read his posts you would have not a clue that I am in this game and I have posed several questions that have gone unanswered because he deems them to be "too vague" or some really crappy excuse along similar lines. If that's the case, he could ask for clarification, not simply refuse to answer questions - scumbags drag their feet and make excuses not to answer questions, not town.

With that in mind, however, it's apparent that hohum isn't going to be the lynch today. That's fine - if he continues to refuse to answer questions in the future, I hope more people will see through the crap excuses. In the meanwhile, I'll hope he'll attempt to be productive instead of a lurker extraordinaire.

So, coming to my third point, seb has been second on my list of most suspicious players for a while now, and so I'm comfortable with the town's continued pressure on him - much more so because I don't care for how he's squirmed in the limelight. He hasn't adequately explained his power role fishing or position shifting. I don't like the bad reasoning he has deployed for trying to get other people to be suspicious of ZEE. And the "don't lynch me on my birthday and forget about that whole deadline" line is so very unhelpful to the town. While I feel the quality of hohum's scum tells are of a greater weight (evasion of questions/refusing to answer questions is a pretty significant tell in my book), I think the quantity of seb's suspicious actions outnumbers any other player and simply cannot be ignored.

[Green Crayons]

Wow, looks like I'm a day behind (thought night ended today). Thoughts soon.

[Green Crayons]

Wow. From reading just these two pages of this second day there are so many assumptions that people are relying upon to voice their opinions but there just isn't any evidence to back them up.

I don't have an exceptional amount of time on my hands right this second, so I will address only one: I don't think scum in any (realistic) potential setup for this game would fake-claim on Day Two. It's an incredibly gutsy move. I don't know why hohum would want to let this assumption (that there would be scum who would pull this move) affect his vote. And while I think Magus' lynch the self-outed cop idea is just bad, hohum sticks out because of this: He went from post 317 saying that we should start with lynching Charrat and within the span of 12 posts he reverses course and say we should lynch the cop first. His reversal just strikes me as incredibly odd and he doesn't really explain why he changed his mind.

Someone who would want to lynch first and ask questions later when it comes to a claimed cop is scummy.

[Green Crayons]

Looking forward to Green Crayons finding more time to comment on the earlier happenings in the day.

I'm looking forward to hohum actually acknowledging my existence in this game.

[Green Crayons]

Btw, can someone please explain me why are the pressure on hohum? I'm not defending him, I just want to know why Artem, Azhrei and GC (and possibly others) say he's scummy, in order to see if I missed something. Hohum acted weird, but not enough for me to cast a vote. So, I want to know if I missed something or what.

For myself:
1. Because he has failed to acknowledge

any

of my posts, legitimate points or activity within this game. Apparently hohum doesn't think I exist.
2. Because during Day One he said "I'm not answering questions" (scummy) "because people have asked me questions that I have already answered" (only partially true - there were plenty of questions that went unanswered; scummy) "and the remainder of questions are so vague that I'm not going to answer them" (so, refused to answer questions instead of pointing out these allegedly vague questions and asking them to be refined so he could answer them; scummy).
3. Because:

I don't think scum in any (realistic) potential setup for this game would fake-claim on Day Two. It's an incredibly gutsy move. I don't know why hohum would want to let this assumption (that there would be scum who would pull this move) affect his vote. And while I think Magus' lynch the self-outed cop idea is just bad, hohum sticks out because of this: He went from post 317 saying that we should start with lynching Charrat and within the span of 12 posts he reverses course and say we should lynch the cop first. His reversal just strikes me as incredibly odd and he doesn't really explain why he changed his mind.

[Green Crayons]

For starters:

Will be in Florida from the fifth to the eighth. No access.

I don't particularly want to be replaced, but just a head's up.

Secondly, I don't know why I'm receiving a prod notification just

five

posts after I have given valid input. While I appreciate a game that requires constant activity, I don't think I should be threatened with being replaced because I wasn't able to come up with something worthwhile to respond to in five posts. I can't drum up activity myself and don't want to be replaced in a game of which I think I have been keeping myself well abreast.

Third:

I don't know what to say besides you're wrong about my alignment.

Holy crap why don't you freakin' just respond to one of my posts. That's something you can say. Why don't you talk about anything I put to you?

Fourth:

I actually kinda forgot that Green Crayons was here, there always seems to be one person every game that I just don't seem to remember in my head. Not blaming him, just saying.

Yeah. The difference being, is that I haven't bugged you several times throughout the course of the game and you just flat out ignored me (as hohum as done with me). You and I just haven't really interacted.

Fifth:

I would never do you guys the disservice of hammering until you as a town believe you have gotten everything out of me that you can possibly get.

This is pretty ironic, since you say these things but then you don't really follow through. You ignore questions, flat out refuse to answer questions, you haven't explained who you thought to be these scum that are pushing your bandwagon (assuming you're actually town, then you already have the knowledge that you'll flip and so you should be able to divine some sort of insight into your bandwagon that we're miraculously supposed to determine come tomorrow) and I'm not entirely convinced with your Art suspicions because I haven't seen anything qualifying as "stupid reasons" that weren't just early D1 crap. You usually want to actually provide content after pronouncing that prolonging your existence is a benefit to the town. Otherwise, it all looks like hot air.

[Green Crayons]

Since hohum has decided that instead of actually contributing to the discussion and help the town he will use what remaining time with the town he has to insult players, I have no issue with

vote: hohum

.

Worst case scenario is that he's a miller town who was bad for day play (for all the reasons people have listed) and bad for night play (because he's a miller). Best case scenario is that he's scum.

[Green Crayons]

... Alright, I'll take the bait.

Why am I obvscum?

Because after giving you plenty of chances to respond to my several points of concern regarding your anti-town behavior you address them with what amounts to a three line "screw you" and, finally having enough of your negative play which is only hurting the town regardless of your true alignment I finally vote you?

You have been absolutely nothing but detrimental to the town in this game. Assuming you turn up town, it's going to be difficult to actually look at your lynch in a critical fashion because there are so many reasons why you need to be lynched. It will be hard to tell if any scum were hiding behind a legitimate cause because they are just that: legitimate. My cat puts more of an effort into getting me to give her an afternoon snack than you did in attempting to dissuade any of the points made against you. And lord knows you aren't attempting to help us out now, even as the noose hangs nigh.

Your case against Art is "He voted for a stupid reason in the random voting stage. SCUMMY. Oh yeah and he voted me. His reasons were crap. I don't want to address them, just take my word for it: they're crap. SCUMMY."

Your case against me is "..." This is the second freakin' time all game you've acknowledged I'm playing. Hell, this is the first time you've actually addressed me directly... and even then, that's a stretch since they seem more like global, generic comments intead of actually addressing any of the points I have put to you.

So, no. You're not allowed to make some sort of vague proclamation based off of crappy or no logic and feel justified. It's bad play as a town. It's bad play for the town. You're either scum or a really bad townsperson who ended up being miller. Either way, you need to go. Good riddence.

[Green Crayons]

Don't care for Shinn's potentially self-congratulatory post.

MC sounds good to me.

[Green Crayons]

I think the obvious answer is yes. I'm a cop. Not sure why you think everyone has a power role.


Zero: My guess would be the fairly obvious reason. By not killing you they're leaving us in the dark as to your sanity which makes your previous night choices unhelpful for the time being.

[Green Crayons]

Either Shinn or Charrat would do for me.

[Green Crayons]

GC, what were your results? And on who?

I was debating whether or not to withhold my results until both Shinn and Charrat claimed, but since I named both to reveal I think a mafioso could readily determine who my night choices were and thus any waiting I might do is rather pointless.

My results were: Magus (replaced by Shinn) as innocent Night One, Charrat as guilty Night Two.

[Green Crayons]

Zero investigated Charrat and received a guilty, not hohum. This was, in part, why I investigated him myself on Night Two. This doesn't change your (accurate) speculation as to what his sanity may be.

I would like to have all claims out on the table before we go speculating as to how we should start handling the already outed investigations. Any further revelations will undoubtedly have some sort of impact as to how we view what limited information we currently have before us.

[Green Crayons]

This is possible, but seems like crap. I am a cop, and Shinnen & Green Crayons

claim to be scum too

Freudian slip?

which means that there are 3 cops, provided the fact they are telling the truth.

If Shinn and myself are telling the truth, then there are actually

four

cops. You're forgetting Alex.

I highly doubt this, though.

(Shrug). I'm not too terribly inclined to believe that there are this many cops either, and scum could readily make a false claim to hide amongst the real cops. But there's also the mod's note that this setup is "slightly bastard." And the whole "Sanity Ensues" game title. While we should by no means totally disregard our current investigation results, I don't think we can rely as heavily upon them as one might in a normal, non-screwy game. First must come our reasonable suspicions, and then see how the investigations confirm or clash with those suspicions while noting from where exactly these investigations are coming from.

My main thought as of now who could be scum is Green_Crayons because I wanted to investigate him and my role was (probably) blocked.

I'm scum because you wanted to investigate me but failed? Hunh?

This doesn't make him scum

...So what you're saying is that the reasons you suspect me of being scum aren't actually reasons for why I would be scum? c r a z y.

but the fact that he also claims to be a cop makes me feel uncomfortable.

Understandable. I'm not too keen on all the cop claims, either. That said, I'm most comfortable with Zer0's claim because of the timing and his D2 reaction to his alleged result (both very un-scumlike).

Still, either we have double of some sanity or one of the "cops" is lying.

Looks to be that way.

I am a doctor. I protected Charrat both nights.

Really wish Charrat claimed first. Where is he, anyways? And why did you claim after your post 418?

[Green Crayons]

Yeah, If you read right after that. LITERALLY. RIGHT AFTER THAT. It says that doesn't make you scum.

Yes. And I noted that in my post. Which has me scratching my head - if something doesn't make me scum, how does it make you suspicious that I might be scum?

I'd guess that one of our docs and one of our cops is scum. Which ones is the question.

This was my initial sentiment as well. I took a moment to gather up my current opinions of other players:

Strong Town

Az
zer0

Unsure

Art

Suspicious

Charrat
Shinn

With this in mind, I wanted to look at what might be the most probable "safe claim" scenario routes the scum might have taken and then see how well I could fit my suspicions into them.

Scenario One

The scum claim townie to fly under the radar while the town confuses themselves over town power roles. I think that there is some risk involved in this claim, because if the player is just suspicious in general, a townie claim isn't going to save them from the noose. A power role might not help in a potential LYLO situation anyways, but in terms of scum claiming it certainly doesn't hurt. I had to keep in mind, however, that I am of the opinion that we have two scumbags left - pitting one against nine just seems too bastardly to me. That would mean, with only one remaining player claiming town, that one scum took the townie route while the other is hiding in with the power roles. However, considering the player who actually claimed townie, my opinion of the probability of this scenario being what has happened dropped. Significantly.

Scenario Two

Both scum claimed a power role. This seems to me to be the most likely of situations, but there are three subsections to this scenario:

Scenario Two.One

Both scum claimed cop.

Scenario Two.Two

Both scum claimed doc.

The first two of these scenario subsections requires an assumption: that the scum would put all their eggs in a single claim basket. It makes sense in a long term strategy sort of way: if one of the fakers were to die and their alignment exposed, then the remaining scum would look like the "true" claim. This works long term and not short term, however, because a town is more likely to lynch a person from two clashing claims. With the overabundance of power roles in this game, maybe scum didn't think this would be too much of an issue. If I were to consider either of these two scenarios as the route scum took (both claiming either cop or doc), then I would also assume that they thought at least one of them was already suspicious enough to potentially be up for a lynching today.

When I look at our remaining players and their respective claims, I can only assume that if the scum decided to claim identical roles, then they must be the doctors. This is because out of the remaining cops, I think everyone agrees that zer0 seems pretty solid in terms of legitimacy for reasons already established. That would mean that myself and Shinn would be scumbags, but I know this not to be the case because I'm not scum. Others, of course, will have to judge a Shinn/GC scum team for themselves.

So, if I were to go this route, my belief would be the scum team is Charrat/Art the claimed docs. A long term strategy might make sense if this was the scum team: Charrat has two cop results saying that he's guilty (which would make any scum jumpy, regardless of what sanity may be behind the investigation) and Art, while not really done anything suspicious, hasn't really cemented himself as a solid town player (at least in my mind). If Charrat were to be lynched and turn up scum, I think my initial reaction would be to trust Art just that much more.

Scenario Two.Three

One scum claims doc, one scum claims cop.

I think this would be a more traditional route for the scum to take as it allows them to diversify their risk. Before delving further into the potential scum groups that may be a part of this scenario, I think it's exceptionally important to take note of my investigation result: Shinn as innocent, Charrat as guilty. That means the town holds in their hand scum: Either Shinn (because I'm insane), Charrat (because I'm sane) or GC (because I'm scum and am lying). If we are to assume that I am telling the truth, then I'm not too sure of the likelihood of this scenario. If I am town and if I am sane, that would make Shinn town and Charrat scum, which would mean zer0 would need to be Charrat's partner to make this scenario true - and I don't really buy that. If, however, I'm town and insane, that would mean Shinn is scum and Charrat town, and in order for this scenario to hold weight Art would need to be Shinn's scumbag partner. I don't know how I feel about that, but I suppose it's entirely possible, especially considering I don't have too solid of a grasp on Art's alignment.

tl;dr version

1. We might want to limit our choice to one of the following to lynch today: Shinn (if I'm insane), Charrat (if I'm sane) or GC (if I'm lying).
2. We could chose one of the above based off of our assumptions of how the mod would have set up the game, but I think that's a big risk. While we shouldn't disregard this, we should also keep in mind our own suspicions/opinions of these three players to help guide our way.
3. There are four scum claim scenarios, each with their own assumptions about scum tactics and require our attention. I think, however, that their importance will play a larger part come tomorrow instead of today, assuming we lynch correctly.
4. That said, something just sparked in my mind as I reviewed my post: a common "scum partner" in these scearnios is Art. He's either Charrat's partner (due to Scum Scenario Two.Two) or Shinn's partner (due to Scum Scenario Two.Three). This doesn't account for a situation where I'm a lying scumbag, but since I know that I am not it's something I'll need to think over - and I will suggest others to do likewise.

[Green Crayons]

Not sure why you're accenting the fact that you want things rushed? Or am I just reading your post incorrectly?

At any rate, it's a reasonable assumption that we're in a lynch or lose situation. We can't haphazardly lynch someone, hoping their alignment will tell us who to lynch on the morrow. We might not have a tomorrow. Not sure why you think we can only "begin" our suspicions and scum hunting tomorrow?


Art: Completely and totally forgot about the potental for there being a Godfather. That makes my scenarios less than water-tight, perchance.

[Green Crayons]

Why would someone suggesting a mass claim make you think there would be a ton of power roles?

[Green Crayons]

Shinn:

So, you go from talking about how the mafia has been lucky to get both cops and docs because the mafia was lucky to simply get a doc (then why mention a cop?), then you aren't surprised that there are plenty of power roles after a mass claim suggestion for no real reason (even though there wasn't really an indication of a plethora of power roles prior to the MC), and then you suggest lynching one of the cops even though you apparently were expecting several cops and not this many doctors?

Did I get that right?

[Green Crayons]

I guessed that, but I don't quite understand what he thinks from that post. Can you be a bit clearer?

Alright. I will break it down into a series of questions. Feel free to answer them as you see fit.

In post 400, you claim that the mafia is lucky to have killed both a cop and a doctor. Do you agree with my sentiment that your 400 sounds a bit congratulatory, if you were to be scum?

Now, your post 400 seems to mesh quite nicely with some of your later sentiments that you didn't think that there was a large population of power roles in this game. However, you freely admit that you thought there were at least three cops, which makes the ratio of town power roles:general town population approximately 1:2... giving scum about a 50% chance of hitting a cop in their night action. If you thought there were so many cops in the game, why did you include the scum hitting a cop with your surprise and you considering the mafia were "zetta lucky lately?" Shouldn't it have been reduced to simply surprise that the scum hit a doctor, since you were assuming there wasn't one in the game?

Then, you go from surprise that the mafia could hit two power roles in a row to a belief that power roles are going to be a dime a dozen. Do you see any sort of contradiction in these two posts just four hours apart?

In looking Art's MC post over, I personally don't have my gut telling me that there are going to be a plethora of power roles outing themselves shortly. Do you have any explanation other that "gut" as to why you thought this way? Or, if not, do you have any explanation as to why your gut was feeling this way?

Finally, you have expressed that you believe there to be numerous cops in this game. But your suggestion from the beginning has been to lynch a cop (while explaining it away as a tactic that would steer us away from "random lynching," which I'm not entirely sure out of what butt you pulled that out of). If you think multiple cops are probable, why do/did you think we should focus our lynch on a cop?

Also, do you not find it suspicious that after you wanted to lynch a cop and realized that would ultimately pit a lynch between me vs. you (since nobody suspects zer0), that you pulled a 180 and argued for a scumbag's safe haven: the no lynch?



Excessive wine drinking really hampers my ability to communicate clearly over the internet. Hopefully the above is a bit more clear than my original attempt.

[Green Crayons]

Posting so I don't get replaced.

[Green Crayons]

(Oh and obviously I'm awaiting Shinn's response.)

[Green Crayons]

Shinn, if you would just answer this question, it got lumped in to your third reply but you didn't address it.

Then, you go from surprise that the mafia could hit two power roles in a row to a belief that power roles are going to be a dime a dozen. Do you see any sort of contradiction in these two posts just four hours apart?

Right now, I'm thinking that there isn't an issue with doctor sanity. The mod said that this was

slightly

bastard. Couple that with the fact that Zeenon's death didn't reveal a sanity (just "doc," not "(in)sane doc,") whereas Alex's role reveal included sanity, and I think we don't have doctors with any type of sanity issues.

In all likelihood, however, this would mean that one of our doctors is a lying scumbag. I'm actually quite sure of it based off of my previous deductions of the type of scum strategies in terms of fake claims. By that same token, I also don't think the mod would include four cops with an overlap in sanities. It just doesn't feel right.

Doctors with no sanity means that we're missing a RBer, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's a scumbag's ability since nobody has openly claimed it for their own. With a kill and a block at their disposal, and one (potentially two) doctors who are lying through their teeth, I don't know how safe of a move a no lynch is. It would seem to me that a no lynch could very well be us simply waving the white flag, giving the scum a chance to win the game without us having our one last chance to win.

Plus, even if you want to assume that there is only one scum, then lynching today is still the most optimal of choices. Even if we lynch incorrectly, tomorrow is going to put us at at a 3:1 ratio against scum.

I simply fail to see how a no lynch helps us in any way that doesn't potentially hand the game over to scumbags.

[Green Crayons]

They're trying to much to make a lynch, out-ruling the possibility of a no-lynch when it leads us to a situation similar to what we are now. Both of them are taking the worst case scenario, while ignoring the good possibilities.

Have you ever heard of the saying, "Err on the side of caution?" No lynching is nine times out of ten the worst possible avenue of action for the town, because it's inaction. It's giving the mafia a chance to make an additional move without the town being able to keep up. The fact that you're continually trying to push (and push hard) for a no-lynch makes you more suspicious than ever.

[Green Crayons]

A no-lynch would led us to the same spot we are now, with the possibility of having more information. You're basing your suspicious in me wanting so hard for a no-lynch, but, as I said before, does a no-lynch guarantee an instant town lose? No. It doesn't. It gives us the chance of getting more information. How that can be scummy?

We have no idea what position a no lynch will put us in tomorrow - even assuming there

is

a tomorrow with a no lynch. I don't understand why you want the town to handicap ourselves so much that we're relyng upon our power roles to win us the game - power roles which in and of themselves cannot be wholly trusted (sanity issues, scumbags lying) and whose results may give a false read (godfather immunity). I don't know what power the mafia has - maybe they can neglect to do a kill to double role block. Maybe they can neglect to roleblock to do a double kill as a one time deal. Maybe the whole mafia is investigation immune.

I

don't know. Nobody from the town would know. Your blind faith in the mafia not having some "slightly bastard" advantage makes me worry because only two groups of people know of what the mafia is and is not capable: the moderator and the scumbags.

You're asking the us to give up the security of being able to lynch scum today based off of our suspicions and opinions for the hope that tomorrow we aren't completely screwed over. Basically: Forgo the time-honored, proven method of catching scum and hanging them high just so we may have the potential to rely on more sketchy power role results.

Wow, where can I sign up for this epicfail?

[Green Crayons]

Well, I'm certainly not in this to win a popularity contest.

I'm currently doing a reread of Charrat since I stand by my previous suggestion of us lynching either Charrat, Shinn or myself.

[Green Crayons]

A vote needed prior to the end of a physical 24 period does not make sense, is rather arbitrary, and makes the mod an active player in the game (as opposed to a passive observer/arbitrator).

It makes most sense if spring meant it by the end of the game day. If you check the rules, there is nothing covering if there hasn't been a single vote cast before the end of the game day. Her reminder simply covers up this gap.

[Green Crayons]

I finished up my Charrat read through. I'm sort of on the fence about how I feel about him. He hasn't done anything too particularly scummy, but I think coupled with his lack of actually doing anything too particularly townish makes me worried.


Going to do a read of Shinn real quick.

[Green Crayons]

I'm thinking Shinn/Art or Charrat/Az - if there are no godfathers. With godfathers, Shinn/Charrat doesn't seem too bad.

[Green Crayons]

Am I still required to make an obligatory post even though I don't have anything to say and we already have a lynchee? If so, here it is.

[Green Crayons]

Here is the mafia quick topic. I doubt Charrat will mind. He didn't say anything damming to the other players. I don't think I said anything especially derogatory to any other players, but apologies if I did.

A side note to the quick topic - I got my days mixed up, thought we had another until the mass claim occurred. Regardless, I was more than willing to lynch some Charrat today to throw him under the bus, block Shinn and kill me some Zero for some awesome town points while counterclaiming Shinn's block to have him lynched as the GF (thanks Art for that great idea).'

I feel as if I spent this game drugged up. That's the best way I can describe my absent mindedness and detachment. Hey, whatever wins I guess.

[Green Crayons]

Double post:

Alex, because you were rationale and clear headed. DANGER WILL ROBINSON, etc, etc is what flashed through my head.

[Green Crayons]

@Green Crayons: what was your reasoning here? did you give it much thought or relied more on the lylo situation you were in?

My results were: Magus (replaced by Shinn) as innocent Night One, Charrat as guilty Night Two.

Either we would lynch Shinn (good for me with auto win) or we would lynch Charrat (good for me because it would look like I just found town some scum and am the sane cop).

[Green Crayons]

I think on town side alexhans and Zeenon did a really good job as far as scumhunting go and were nightkilled as reward.

Yup.

Zerophear, Azhrei and Shinnen suffered a bit from inexperience imo, as no-kill was the right decision the last day as it allowed for more investigation as well as improving the correct chance.

I realized this (no lynch was the best policy for town) after my first anti no-lynch post, which had me kicking myself because I thought someone was going to call me out on this. Thankfully, nobody did. Just goes to show that a no-lynch does have advantages in certain scenarios - though I think we could still have won the following day since we had both a block and a kill to assist our aims.

Green Crayons ... had seemingly infinite bullshit power day 3.

Such high praises.

This one is a huge slip in my book. In lylo, no town would ever suggest their own lynch, unless there are really bad at this game.

I was debating whether or not to include myself in the "people we should lynch" opinion. I figured if I would throw myself in there and explain it was because the other townspeople should consider if they think I'm lying it might come across as seeing neutral/objective. ...Which it probably does, but neutral isn't protown, eh?