Mini 962 - Mafia In Murrieta - Over!

[ICEninja]

Confirmed.

[ICEninja]

Alright, Hello again fitz, Scott, and Kerrigan. Nice to play with you three again.

Oh and hi SAMP.

Since everything so far has been random votes and talk about avatars, I'm going to fire off a couple questions in order to get things going.

What is everyone's timezone? This is mostly directed towards our overseas friends who may be posting at strange hours, so that I don't expect a post from you during my afternoon in case of a tight deadline.
What is everyone's general mafia experience?
About how much can we expect you to be posting?

I am in PDT, and will be posting during normal (though possibly late for east coast) hours in terms of American time.
I've played a handful of games, including being dead in a couple. I have some decent experience in party setting mafia, and generally come off as someone pretty comfortable in the game.
Traditionally I'm an extremely active poster. We'll be pushing in to finals soon, however, and there are multiple large projects due soon, so I might not present as much information and help for town during day 1 as I will in future days.

Fitz, you're voting me for old time's sake. However, if you actually remember that game, you'll recall that I was the cop who prevented the town-lead mislynch and correctly nailed the scum. Shouldn't that mean you would keep your vote away from me, for old time's sake? The only other possibility would be you voting me simply because we had some town to town headbutting, in which case I will then re-engage! For old time's sake.

Vote havingfitz

.

[ICEninja]

Also, why is the dead mayor posting in this thread? Isn't that against the rules?

Are you trying to draw our attention away from our win conditions to the mod? Is this possibly because you have something to hide?

[ICEninja]

Ice, is post 39 serious or just a joke?

Usually I tend to jump in to a game and try to cut to the point as quickly as possible, but people in this game seem inclined to relax a bit, and I followed suit. That being said, it seems as if Jack is doing that for me.

For the attack on Kerrigan for (What seems to be) a joke

My attack wasn't really more than checking to see how he would respond. I wasn't sure if I was going to get a joking response, a serious one, or a jumpy one. I wasn't expecting to get much, but there's always the chance to be able to pick at something that catches my attention. Kerrigan's response was following in a joking tone, so I can't really go deeper with that.

and for post 33, which seems to be throwing a smokescreen into the game, possibly to fog up any scummy actions.

This is something I do every game. It isn't a smokescreen, it's mostly just to help myself gauge the people I'm going to be working with and playing against. Since people here seem moderately experienced, I wont be playing the newbie card for anyone, for example, and will jump at obvious scum tells without accepting the "whops" excuse, because people know better. Also, we have a few players living across an ocean, and will be posting with different timing than everyone else. The questions I asked don't exactly advance or benefit the town, but are for my personal reference mostly. No smokescreen or confusion or distraction, just something I like to do.

Also, the quick backlash against Fitz' vote (Which was also, apparently, a joke) is rather suspicious.

I was hoping that my last "for old time's sake" would have made it obvious that it was no different than fitz's random vote, except with a little bit of bragging in there.

Your suspicion is noted, but I find something strange about your post. You put a random vote on cruelty based on his avatar, present "serious" arguments about me, but then state that you don't have enough evidence to vote me. Why not put your first vote on me, where you actually seem to be trying to build a case and just skip the random vote completely? If you're feeling like you need to random vote, then why put it in the same post as where you actually begin your first case?

It just seems off to me.

[ICEninja]

Ice, was 39 a joke or serious? I'm just looking for either "Joke" or "Serious".

It was a joke, but with a (very slight) purpose behind it. I guess it wasn't perfectly clear, but when I said that other people were playing more relaxed and I was following suit, is that other people were joking so I joined in to some extent.

chater, you definitely seem to be really caught up on that post, though, which is interesting. I understand that there isn't so much to go off of at this point, but is there a reason you asked for a black or white answer?

You're right Jack, I tend to take mafia very seriously, so joking more and playing with a light heart is not coming particularly naturally to me. I've been overly serious and intense in past games and I'm trying to moderate a bit, i suppose. Maybe I'll just stick closer to what I'm more comfortable with.

[ICEninja]

It seems as if Kerrigan just said 2 of the things I was going to say in my next post. I'll still point them out, though, as I feel they're pertinent.

Also, Ice, I don't see why you're so reluctant to give a black and white answer. Anything but would be ambiguous, and potentially confusing, which is highly anti-town.

As I said in post 53, when I admitted that it wasn't perfectly clear, I thought it was straightforward enough for people to understand. It definitely wasn't ambiguous. I just gave a little bit more detail than charter asked for, and it seemed to confuse him. Saying that people were relaxed and I was doing the same doesn't seem terribly confusing, but if anyone doesn't understand what I'm saying I'm always more than happy to clarify in simple terms. You'll find, though, that I don't tend to think in black and white polar means, and focus more on the thought behind everything.

you sure are chatty when all he wanted was a simple answer. and pointing out that you take mafia very seriously shows me that you are going to possibly become over-aggressive. maybe a way to prepare people for your scummy-like bullying?

I'm a chatty player. I'm sure several people in this game can confirm that. I also am a fairly aggressive player, though I'm not sure how you can assume that so early. However, going from chatty to OVER aggressive to scummy like bullying? That kind of reach is quite interesting. You seem to be taking a slight correlation between seriousness and aggressiveness (though I'm not sure where the over-aggressiveness comes from), and then a link between over aggressive players and bullying. You then assume that the bullying is going to be scummy.

I just see a lot of jumping to conclusions with almost no evidence to back any of this up, unless you're trying to get a meta read of me or something.

[ICEninja]

I agree with some things that have been said. A lot of it hasn't been worth commenting on, but I'm also suspicious of those who didn't like Kerrigan unvoting because it was a random vote. Kerrigan was absolutely right in saying that there was no need to have his vote there, and that a vote on gecko was worth doing. It wasn't at all that Kerrigan isn't willing to pressure someone, it is that Kerrigan doesn't want to waste time pressuring a non suspicious player when he can be pressuring a suspicious player.

We really don't need to get in to the arguments of the RVS's merit and purpose, as many people have different feelings about it. I personally dislike the RVS, and only participate at all because someone always get grumpy when I push out of it too fast. What I was referring to in my post that Jack found extremely ambiguous is that Jack is cutting through the RVS and making a real case early in the game instead of me.

Now I would like to

Confirm suspicion of fitz

as my random vote is already on him, but he has posted virtually nothing, with no suspicions, no content, or anything save a few empty posts. My vote is a serious vote now, please tell us what you think of some of the accusations and comments and cases made.

[ICEninja]

I definitely think that both fitz and cruelty need to get in this game and spend the 20 minutes to read the 3 and a half pages of content that we have. Seriously, if you can't find something that catches your attention (and cruelty even seemed to imply that he found Kerrigan suspicious, but put no pressure), then you are not paying very much attention.

Both fitz and cruelty were extremely prompt in confirming in to the game, so it isn't as if they aren't capable of paying attention or responding quickly. You 2 need to actually play and not just say there is no content or act like you haven't read anything yet.

[ICEninja]

So the only thing catching your suspicion is two players who have not posted very much? Well aren't you paying very much attention

There's a stark difference between what we're doing. I've commented on a couple of the head butting between players, responded to some attacks on me, and am now putting pressure on you to contribute. Because you haven't done much of that. I understand that some people have slow starts, but nothing is stopping you from asking some questions, pointing out things you notice, and calling people out for making weak votes on people (which is probably all you've done so far, for my vote on you).

I mostly find charter's attack to be town, but having played with town Scott before, I'm definitely finding his play familiar. He throws out one liners about relevant things, and doesn't use a lot of words to say what he's saying. He hasn't been particularly vague about anything so far, nor has he done much to really undermine anyone. Scott was dead right, I post a lot of words, and that doesn't make me scum.

SAMP also seems to be putting forth his argument in a fairly town way. Jack is bringing up good points, and I like him so far. Esp is definitely piquing my interest, and I'm still unsure of how I feel about Kerrigan at the moment.

There is nothing particularly damning yet, but I'm definitely starting to get a feel for a lot of the players. I'll start reading people in ISO soon to see if I can find any trends or evidence to suggest shifty behavior.

[ICEninja]

No. You are wrong.

Actually, you are wrong. Kerrigan is exactly right in saying that different people view the RVS in different ways. Some people find it a nice way to start off what can be a fairly intense game in a lighthearted way. They throw out a vote without much of a purpose, and enjoy doing it.

Some people, obviously many of those in this game, find that the point of the RVS is to gauge reactions. I personally agree that this is probably what it is for, but I don't feel that it actually does it. That is why in a majority of games, I tend to introduce myself and ask the questions that I did, and then try to poke at someone's random vote. Jack poked at my random vote, and this action ended the RVS. Almost nothing useful was gained during the RVS, which is almost always the case.

And now the only thing useful gained from the discussion ABOUT the RVS that is already over is that you are extremely narrow minded and are willing to force your opinions on others.

i do have an opinion. that there's nothing of particular importance being discussed right now.

If you feel we aren't discussing anything important, then by all means please direct us in a way that is more helpful in hunting scum. If you feel no one has slipped up and is worth voting for, then make someone slip up.

This is to fitz, too, who seems to only be able to scum hunt after others have done some for you. While I'm definitely not convinced you're scum at this point, there's absolutely no excuse to not ask some questions and poke at cases. If you want to see the discussion go in a certain way, or feel like you need more input from a specific player, then speak up.

We need to get reads on you, too, you know. We can't sit here and wait for you to get a read on everyone else before you say enough for us to get reads on you.

That being said, it is a play style difference and I wont further badger you about your play style. I would, however, like to keep my vote on you until either you give me a reason to take it off, or someone else gives me a better reason to put it on them.

[ICEninja]

ICEninja, you didn't answer my question either.

My mistake, I meant to address this, but I forgot to do so. I am unsure of you because your play in this current game is much like the last game we played together, and is difficult to read. I'm going to have to ISO you fully (which I plan to do for each player in the coming days, when I have the time) in order to really get a better stance on you. Essentially I mean I haven't seen you do anything scummy, but I'm not convinced you're town either.

Granted, you brought up something really eye catching about Thegecko that I approve of. Your last few posts, actually, are starting to give me a fairly town opinion of you, and not just because you're defending me.

I'm definitely feeling like Jack is pushing this thing on Scott's supposedly ambiguous post way too far. That is just the way Scott, even town Scott, posts. Someone put suspicion on me because I post a lot, and Scott came in and say that I tend to post a lot. I didn't see any intent to undermine anything, he's just pointing out that I post a lot. You've read so far in to that statement that you've invented scum tells where there are none. SAMP knows about doing that. <cough>.

[ICEninja]

my never reading a post that is over 10 lines rule

You aren't going to be reading very many of my posts then, once we move in to day 2. I'll keep that under consideration.

[ICEninja]

I am unsure of you because your play in this current game is much like the last game we played together, and is difficult to read.

In what way is my play here similar to that other game?

There is just something about the way you post that for some reason makes me question my reads on you more than other people. I can't really put my finger on it or explain it further. I have a neutral read on you, why are you questioning my neutral read so intently? That seems strange to me.

I also am wondering what made Thegecko seem more innocent. Sure he doesn't have much evidence to build a case on anyone else, and no one is concerned with his 1 vote on me, but he admitted this earlier in the post:

ill admit that this isnt a great reason but i still wanted to put some pressure and figured it would be a good place to start.

That, to me, is saying that his initial vote on me was just a way to get us out of the RVS. Because I tend to post moderately lengthy posts and am fairly chatty, he takes a long string of assumptions that ends up with me being scummy.

If you're going to continue to pressure me and leave your vote on me, you're really going to need to have more to say about me than my play during the RVS.

I also disagree with Jack saying that cruelty is looking scummy. He simply noticed a garbage argument being used against another player. Scott really doesn't seem scummy for the reasons Jack says. HOWEVER, the fact that Scott has made such minimal responses to the attacks against him, instead letting others do all the commenting for him, definitely worries me. All Scott has done is say this:

Don't really understand how I am lurking or being confusing.

Jack explained fairly clearly how he felt, and Scott never really said much about it. That just doesn't sit well with me. I need to see Scott putting some opinions out there instead of a few general comments.

[ICEninja]

Kerrigan, yes you were scum in that game, but I didn't suspect you of being scummy. I did, however, nail both ice scums on night 1. Which I was frozen for.

However, your current parallel to the other game, while difficult to pinpoint, does indeed make me feel uncomfortable with my townish read on you.

Like I said in my previous post, I can't quite put my finger on it, and I cant quite explain it further. I don't vote based on gut reads, ever. Don't worry about any gut read I have on you, because I won't be dropping a vote on you unless I have a reason to.

Jack, on the other hand, is really worrying me at this point. I don't find cruelty town at the moment, but I think your vote on him is fairly baseless. He disagrees with your logic about Scott, as does half the town, but he's the one voicing his disagreement the loudest. You find his posts to be void of content, but I'd say lately that hasn't been the case. The past 2 pages or so seem to be definitely acceptable, and has significantly more content than Scott. Who you've found scummy in the first place. Except you didn't vote for Scott, you voted for the guy who smashed your case against Scott. You also took your vote off gecko because it seems like he's more innocent now? Your reasoning for both your unvote of gecko and vote of cruelty just reek of scum trying to get their vote positioned correctly.

[ICEninja]

He can come back later and say he finds Ice scummy for posting a lot, and just say his earlier comment was an off hand remark about Ice's posting habit in a previous game.

Well I flipped town in that game he referenced where I was chatty, night killed on night 1 after successfully catching scum. He can't come back and say that I'm scummy because of that. There simply isn't an argument for switching sides based on what he said.

However, Scott should be coming in and saying this, not me. For the love of mod, you are the focus of the conversation and you aren't saying ANYTHING.

Actually, I think he's about due for a prod.

Mod, could you look in to that?

If I'm not satisfied with his posting in the next day or two I'm gonna switch my vote to him.

[ICEninja]

Jack, you did a good job of explaining your point. I like your case a lot better now.

And whoa there, cruelty. You're jumping on Kerrigan there for just trying to defend himself when feeling attacked. You've not been particularly clear, as I was very confused when you put everything together as you did. It didn't seem to represent the tone you've previously had. I got the impression that you found Kerrigan's unvote fishy, but weren't following up on it much. I think accusations of misrepresentation are thrown out way too frequently, as most of them aren't misrepresentation. A lot of the time it is confusion, a lot of the time it is a different spin on the same thing, sometimes we get differences of opinion, then once in a while it really is scum trying to misrepresent what was actually said.

That being said, I feel that Kerrigan is being excessively jumpy at anything directed towards him. I've found that people who get highly reactive to neutral-ish reads, and we have both done, are often much more concerned with how people think about them than a town should.

Right now I'm leaning towards cruelty being scummy, but at the same time I think Kerrigan needs some pressure, and I still really need Scott to come out and comment on all the activity about him. I also need more opinions from fitz and Almaster.

[ICEninja]

Kerrigan, my commenting on how you seem jumpy at every statement directed towards you is backed up by you requesting me to point it out.

You've asked me multiple questions about my opinion on you. I stated that "I'm not sure how I feel about you", and you questioned that. I then told you that I couldn't really put it in to words, and you questioned me further despite me telling you that I will never vote based on gut reads. I flat out told you that I have a neutral read on you, and yet you've still tried to nit pick and pinpoint exactly why I don't view you as obvtown. Town really shouldn't be doing this.

Also, it hasn't just been me. You've jumped at cruelty who had a neutral read on your unvote on multiple occasions, and have demonstrated to me that you are more worried about looking town than actually finding scum.

Someone ask me something. I'm bored and have gotten bored trying to read the long posts. Might do it if someone thinks I should.

I hate playing with people like you. If you don't want to play the game, then just replace out. If you can't handle the thought of reading through a game that's only 7 pages, then I shudder to think of what the quality your contributions and analysis are going to be once we hit page 20 and you'll need to sift through a very large number of posts in order to actually make a solid case on someone. I'm not saying you're scummy, I'm just concerned that you're going to drag the quality of the game down. Honestly, if you aren't willing to tolerate that this post right here is going to be the average size of my posts all game, then I don't want to tolerate a player who isn't reading my posts.

Ok now to fitz. You don't really seem to understand Jack's case against gecko all that well, and part of your case against him is OMGUS. Your lurking added to that compels me to leave my vote where it is. I don't know what any of your opinions on players are besides Jack, and your only serious vote is garbage.

[ICEninja]

I'm not voting Jack because of his vote on gecko or his reasoning for that vote....which he gave as gecko being "over aggressiveness on someone who has very little (solid) evidence against them." I'm voting Jack because he thought enough of his reasoning towards gecko to vote him and then turned around and voted cruelty and called me out which IMO was displaying the exact same behavior.

While I suppose I can see where you're coming from, reading through this interactions between the two just doesn't give me the feeling like Jack is doing that. I believe that gecko had zero grounds to call me scummy (essentially calling my activity and seriousness scummy) but that Jack's initial case on cruelty had some moderate amount of base to it. Everything that I've seen pointed out about you has been true so far, so turning around and voting someone who put supposedly hypocritical pressure on you is exactly OMGUS.

Incidentally, could you point me in the direction of the post where you said you'd never vote based on gut reads, because I wasn't able to find it.

It is right here:

I don't vote based on gut reads, ever. Don't worry about any gut read I have on you, because I won't be dropping a vote on you unless I have a reason to.

While I definitely disagree that Jack is saying you are trying to undermine me or paint me as a bad guy in any way, I definitely feel like I have enough reasons to be pressuring you. At least fitz is making an effort now.

Unvote, vote Kerrigan

.

I am giving you my opinion. That is the point of this game: to give people your opinion. You are free to do whatever you want. Moreover, it's extremely hypocritical for you to say that I'm narrow minded when YOUR advocacy about me is "actually, you are wrong" and then a massive text wall about why you are right.

I said actually you are wrong in the context of, you just told someone else that they're wrong, and then presented your opinions of the RVS as to why they are wrong. You tried to tell someone they are wrong based on opinions instead of fact. I then come in and tell you that actually, you are wrong, and I then presented facts. Are Kerrigan's ways good? Do they pass your "suck" test? Not particularly. That doesn't mean you can tell someone that your views of the RVS are the only correct ones.

Also, mafia is a game much more about using facts to back up opinion. Sure, I can just go out and say "I think Almaster is scummy" and vote for you. People will ask me why, I can't just say "its my opinion, and you are wrong to not vote for him". Without facts, opinions in this game are only a place to start. People demand opinions so we get a feel for their intent, so we can call people out on going against their earlier opinions too much, ect.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, anybody, but I wouldn't say I've been narrow minded about anything so far in this game, save maybe that people should read all of the posts and not just skip over the long ones.

[ICEninja]

Ice...we'll have to disagree on my Jack vote. I maintain it is not OMGUS. Call it whatever you'd like but it is with reasoning and I maintain that suspicion.

Fair enough, we know what happens when we both push the same argument that we both feel is a certain way, I'm not going to push it this time, but I stand by almost everything Jack said in his post regarding you. His pressure on you and cruelty were both perfectly legit.

Kerrigan, I see it as "jumpy" because you're overreacting to neutral reads and null tells, demanding extra evidence, requiring me to quote things and explain every little thing. Essentially, I put a tiny bit of pressure on you and you gave a significantly larger reaction than town should have. You essentially jumped at a poke, similar in a way where a startled person would jump when poked. Town has absolutely no reason to be nervous on day 1.

All of that being said, I still disagree with Jack when he says you're trying to paint me as scummy or a liar to discredit my points against you. I don't see any of that. However, my vote will stand because I'm seeing you react very poorly to the pressure put on you. Considering how I haven't exactly put together a case to discredit, and haven't started a bandwagon, there isn't exactly much to discredit. I've just made some observations, and I think that these observations suggest a scum Kerrigan.

[ICEninja]

Kerrigan, you're putting a lot more emphasis than needed on someone having a slight suspicion, but otherwise, as you said, town points. When you were focused on other people, you were behaving as any town player should, and you were doing your best to find scum. However, while town does want to be thought of as town, town's win condition is to kill scum, not stay alive. Scum's win condition is to stay alive, and that is all. Therefore, scum are going to be putting a lot more emphasis on what others think of them as opposed to finding scum. When people put more questioning than is needed so early in to the game as to why someone isn't sure how to label you (scum/town), it demonstrates that you seem to be playing more to a win condition that involves you needing to look like town as opposed to a win condition of finding scum.

SAMP, you're using the same logical fallacy that we used in the last game, and you got called out on it during the last game too. Just because someone believes in their case doesn't mean anything. A good scum player is going to really look convinced that the person they're attacking is scum, even if they know they aren't. When analyzing a brand new player, you might be able to pick out people who don't truly believe in their cases, but that argument isn't going to fly here.

Jack, I'm definitely concerned about some of the arguments that you're putting against Kerrigan. I definitely find him scummy, but you're definitely making up some scum tells. He's absolutely right in saying that you need to take a step back, and really consider if I've been discredited at all. I feel like my case is as strong as ever, facing only defense from Kerrigan and not discreditably.

Espeonage, since I know you're too cool to read the rest of my post, please at least answer this

. Can you please point out what gecko is doing that you find scummy?

[ICEninja]

So you feel cruelty is scummy for the way he has approached his vote on SK, but you think SK needs more pressure. Do you see them as possibly bussing?

I try to not make scum connections during day 1, and wait until we have some dead bodies before I start putting scum team theories together. Right now I just have seen both of them give me reason to believe that they're scum. Bussing is a possibility, one being scum while the other is a bad read on my part is also possible, and they may both be bad reads. There isn't much to go on during day 1 to really be sure of anything. They've both done scummy things, so they both deserve pressure to hopefully flesh out scum either on today's lynch or down the line a bit.

Pointing for votes against someone without following through yourself certain seems scummy. You didn’t actually vote for Kerrigan until 183, which is much after this post.

I was pressuring Kerrigan without voting for him. I eventually did vote for him. When saying that Kerrigan deserved pressure, I wasn't asking for anyone to put votes on him.

Also, notice that your vote is on Scott but you are pressuring Espeonage.

Speaking of Espeonage, I quite agree with the points against you. How about some actual opinions backed up by things that have happened in the game?

[ICEninja]

His vote is on Espeonage now though.

Actually his vote is on Kerrigan. We were both wrong. My mistake.

[ICEninja]

Magna, good post 225. You seem to have a pretty good grip on the situation.

I genuinely believe that Kerrigan has now gone beyond questioning, and is outright misrepresenting the situation. He keeps on using this term "hazy scumread" when I repeatedly used the word "neutral". How does feeling like someone might not be town translate to hazy scumread? Had I said that your play is scummy because it looks the same as the game you were scum in, that is one thing. Simply saying that your games are parallel, I haven't seen you do anything scummy (at that point), and you've made a few good town points is not even in the realm of any kind of scumread.

You seem to be painting the picture as if I was finding you scummy right off the bat in this game before you started to overreact to everything. As Magna pointed out, I did not actually find you scummy until you started to overreact to my

neutral

(not "hazy scum") read on you.

I understand the case on Espeonage at the moment, but I feel like the case against him is for lack of content and lack of contribution. At the moment, I feel like we have solid evidence of Kerrigan's nervousness and misrepresentation, which is more damning than evidence that someone wants to be flying under the radar in my opinion. Kerrigan's play absolutely suggests a win condition that involves not being found scummy, where Espeonage seems to be playing to fulfill a win condition that involves not being discussed. One is scummy, the other is simply anti-town.

I'm not defending Espeonage, I think he might be a good place to start tomorrow. Unless Kerrigan pulls out a miracle post showing us why someone is a better lynch than him, or another player has a mountain of a case on them, my vote will stay as is for the time being.

[ICEninja]

I didn't call your overall read on me a scumread. I called the playstyle issue a scumread because that was what made me a neutral instead of a town in the first place.

You said I had a "hazy scumread" on you. Repeatedly. This was not specific to my one tell on you, as this whole time you've been trying to find out why my read on you isn't town. In terms of content, I had a town read on you, but I questioned myself on that because your posting was similar to our previous game where you were scum. There is absolutely no scumread in there what so ever. Town is never going to be overly concerned with people questioning if they are town or not. Now had you been heavily pressured and then started asking for good reasons why, that is understandable. However, you instead delved very deeply in to a

neutral

read on you that had almost no impact on my, or anyone else's, position against you. You keep trying to explain why a townie would do this, but nothing you've come up with holds any water.

Tell me this. What does a townie care if someone finds them neutral or town? So long as you aren't getting mislynched, it makes almost no difference. Scum needs to play in a way that puts them as far from the gallows as possible. Town obviously doesn't want to be lynched, but survival is a very secondary objective.

You've also said that clarifying a "hazy scumread" (neutral read?) on someone is a form of scum hunting. How is that scum hunting at all?

Once you showed what you actually meant, I dropped it. It's the same thing that happened with Ice, really.

This is a lie, as you have never dropped what i said. A post you made literally 3 minutes before making this post is still discussing my neutral read on you.

Well, gee, everyone's saying I'm overly concerned with being suspicious, so by golly, I must be overly concerned with being suspicious! I've already made craptons of posts answering why this isn't the case, so just ISO me and have at it.

Desperately placed sarcasm AtE duly noted. We have ISO'd you, and we've pointed out why it is the case, and your "craptons" of posts haven't convinced anyone otherwise.

To everyone who isn't voting for Kerrigan:
Are you voting for someone else because you feel the case on Kerrigan is weak, or because you feel the case on your preferred lynch is stronger? Please explain why.

[ICEninja]

What do you think of my reasons?

I think, summarized, your reasons are about Espeonage not contributing content to the game, and doing so in a scummy way. He absolutely deserves pressure, but I'm not seeing a reason to have him lynched.

Kerrigan, on the other hand, has quite a case built up against him. I've pushed several day 1 cases that were weaker than this. Granted they ended up being mislynches, but that's day 1 for you.

[ICEninja]

Essentially the reason I am voting for Kerrigan is that he isn't playing to fulfill a town win condition, but instead seems to be playing to fulfill a survival win condition (scum). This is evidenced by:
-Excessively questioning my neutral read on Kerrigan early
-Overreacting to cruelty's also fairly neutral stance on Kerrigan
-Insisting that I somehow had a scum read on Kerrigan

I'm not going to bring meta reads in to my case as I feel it isn't really solid. While the case I have presented above seems fairly weak, truly going through the interactions and watching Kerrigan's reactions to everything makes me feel really solid about my vote considering the unreliability of day 1.

Other players, such as Espeonage, seem to get votes for not posting content. I find that this is a good scum read, but needs to augment a case, not be the basis for one, in order to follow through as a lynch.

[ICEninja]

I've explained numerous times why I did this and how it isn't scummy, and you refuse to believe me

I've explained numerous times why this is scummy, and you continue to refute them with the same points.
Sound familiar fitz? I understand your position in that game much better now.
Anyways, it definitely seems like continuing to argue this point is meaningless.

The Cruelty thing was completely a misunderstanding on my part of what he actually meant. You yourself said you thought Cruelty found my L-3 unvote fishy but wasn't doing anything to follow it up (ISO 15), which was the angle I was pursuing. So what's the big deal?

I agree to some extent that since it was just a misunderstanding, that it wouldn't be a big deal except for the fact that it really compliments my first scum read against you, as both times you're overreacting to points made against you in a way that indicates, as I have said and others agree, a survivalist mindset.

Ahem! The scum read (or scum point, to be precise) you had on me is the playstyle issue that made me a neutral read in the first place. This is hardly the same thing as a scum read overall. Let's not misrepresent what I'm saying, please.

This is pretty much the point. I didn't have a scum read on you, so why did you care so much? I honestly just didn't understand why you were inquiring deeper about it like, 3 posts in a row or something because it was just so insignificant.

I get the first time asking for explanation when I say I don't know how I feel about you. Granted this was just a couple pages in, and it's really impossible to have a solid read that early. The second time, I had already suggested that it wasn't significant and that I didn't have a scum read on you, and yet you kept delving.

The instances of these points I've made against you on their own aren't inherently scummy. The reason I think you're scum and why I'm voting you has to do with your overall mindset that makes it very obvious that you are extremely worried about how people view you. For day 1 play when you aren't under scrutiny, that's incredibly suspicious.

Plus the way you've reacted to the pressure, while it varies from player to player obviously, seems to be indicative of scum. I'm not confident about this last point, but it seems to add up.

So to anyone who wants the full in depth entirety of ICE's case against Kerrigan in one place, here you have it.

Dispute my points all you want, unless you say different things than you've said before, it probably isn't going to change how I view your actions. Find me a better lynch candidate or be lynched.

[ICEninja]

Fitz was actually starting to attract my attention to, but his post 259 makes me feel a lot better about him. That was a really well laid out case explaining your opinions on multiple people, and I agree that Espeonage is looking extremely suspicious.

My problem with the Espeonage wagon is it will probably fall apart should he put a decent case together against anyone.

Kerrigan, whoa whoa, so now you're calling my hazy scum READ on you (yes you've been using the word read all game) a scum POINT. These are 2 entirely different things. And no, me second guessing myself that you are town is not a scum point. I definitely don't do unexplained scum points. If I don't explain something, that's because it isn't worth explaining.

While I'm not going to use this as part of my case against Kerrigan, I would like to point out that this is usually the point in the game where scum tends to start jumping on to the leading mislynch wagon. The fact that kerrigan hasn't gotten any votes recently makes me feel good, because that means people are being hesitant about the case and need real convincing before they're willing to jump on.

Hoopla, (happy birthday!) care to explain your vote on fitz? It is bold font and extra large letters, but it seems out of place. There is no mention of him. Did you place a vote before reading through the thread fully?

[ICEninja]

Hoopla, you got your post off just before me, you said a lot of really good stuff that I would like to comment on.

That ISO thing you mentioned fitz doing on Espeonage was actually just him chopping up a single post in to different things to respond to. It was a pretty well laid out case that isn't terribly weak like you seem to suggest.

However, I have to agree with what you said about Espeonage's play not likely being indicative of scum. I disagree completely that it is a weak town tell, as town needs to contribute information to the game and get people lynched instead of fence sitting. Considering both your points and fitz's points, I'm more or less feeling that Espeonage is on the anti-town side of neutral. An unhelpful player that will likely make the game more difficult for town, but is difficult to feel like he's worthy of a lynch.

While I agree that you suggest Scott is active lurking, I only partially agree because of meta read. He's playing similarly to how he did in our last game together where he was town. However, if Scott really is town, then he would help us out a lot by giving us more opinions about players and what is going on. I currently have a neutral-ish read on him because his moderately anti-town play is somewhat evened out by my meta read on him. I'm really not feeling like he is deserving of a day 1 wagon.

Should Espeonage be killed and flip town, I'll be much more inclined to follow a Scott wagon.

If your Scott wagon doesn't follow through very well, who would you be targeting for a lynch instead?

[ICEninja]

Funny. How would you expect him to play as scum then? Better or worse play than his supposed town play? Meta runs both ways, you need to see town and scum games to have any chance of making accurate comparisons.

I understand you point, but your entire case against him is an opportunistic vote and his play style. The way he is playing can not be interpreted as scum because he does the exact same thing as town. While his vote was indeed potentially opportunistic, and deserving of pressure, you said that you're comfortable lynching him today. That is going way too far.

it's just a long way of saying he's been doing nothing.

His point is that Espeonage is actively doing nothing, which is a lot more suspicious than simply doing nothing.

And good lord your avatar creeps me out.

[ICEninja]

My apologies Kerrigan, you referred to it as a scum point once. Most of the time you kept saying I had a scum read on you (a "hazy" one) when in fact I had a neutral read. You keep saying you had all these town points, but they were pretty minuscule. I mean, they came from the first couple pages where you seemed to be putting forth rational thought. I said I didn't know what to think of you because you seemed sort of town, but I was second guessing myself because you resembled your last game. That isn't a scum point, its a hesitation point. It would take a scum point to negate a town case for you, but there never was one. My townish read on you was just as gut as my meta read. Neither really held any water to me. Thus the "I don't know what to think about Kerrigan".

So why point out a theory based on circumstance if you don't intend to use it? Because by saying "I'm not going to use this as part of my case, but..." you can suggest the theory to people, which makes me look even more scummy, without outright saying that it's actually valid (since it really isn't).

Just because I'm not using it as another point in my case doesn't mean it isn't a valid point. It makes me more comfortable with the case I have, is all. It isn't meant to persuade others that you're scum, only to make them feel more confident that my existing posts about you being scummy are accurate. Lets call it a supporting point, where my aforementioned case included my main points.

(By the way, I bet Ice is now going to take the above and say that I'm dissolving my town read on him in order to turn it into a scum read so I can vote him. That's tunneling for ya.)

Did you just preemptively strike me? Are you so worried about getting called out on OMGUS that you have to throw in a comment like that?

I am one of those people that likes as much day 1 content as possible, but I agree with Hoopla in saying we should start thinking about wrapping the day up. I've seen situations where a PR is claimed too close to the deadline and bad things happen as a result. Lets make sure that if we force a claim, that we do it with at very minimum 3 real days left.

As for alternate lynches, I'm no longer feeling good on a fitz lynch. I'd be tolerant of an Espeonage lynch, but that's really the only other person I can see myself lynching at the moment without some further pressure and a case built. Hoopla your predecessor was scummy, but your contributions have been very good for town so I can't see you lynched day 1.

If it came between lynching Scott or no lynching, I'd lynch Scott. But other than that, Its really Kerrigan or at worst Espeonage. There are a handful of other players that haven't been analyzed as much, however, such as cruelty, charter, and AMG. Should a solid case be presented on one of them, I might change my mind on this.

[ICEninja]

I did an ISO read of charter, and I can't possibly see a case coming up against him as today's lynch. His case on Scott was pretty bad, but he has a decent case on Espeonage, and has made it clear he finds Kerrigan scummy too. I'm not ready to declare this guy town yet, but he seems pretty straight forward so far.

The same thing with cruelty, for the most part. Actually, we tend to follow a similar mindset on a lot of things. Going through again, I'm not sure how I could have possibly thought cruelty found Kerrigan's early unvote suspect. He made it fairly clear that he never felt this way. I think I must have mistaken cruelty and charter at some point. Anyways, cruelty looks pretty good to me at the moment. I can't really see any case that could go up on him at the moment either.

Almaster absolutely needed some pressure put on him today. He's gone days without posting on multiple occasions, and hasn't contributed to much of the real discussion that's happened, or discussed anything that is currently relevant. I need this post that's coming later today.

I also feel like SAMP hasn't commented on much that has happened on the current situation. His vote was made in his ISO 6 for a weak early game tell, and hasn't changed it since. I haven't seen SAMP add anything to this weak case, and should either move his vote or make a stronger case. I need to see a new post from SAMP that discusses things that have happened in the past week that don't involve charter.

I've found Jack fairly townish for most of the game, but we'll need to see with the results of day 1 and night 1.

I like Magna so far. Scott is definitely quieter than I'd like, though I'm far from convinced he's scum. He's also been posting more actively as of late. I used to find fitz on the scummy side, but lately he's been improving.

tl;dr of my overall opinions of day 1:

Lynch Kerrigan, though if there isn't any desire for that, I'll settle for Espeonage. I doubt today's lynch will be anyone else, but I'll be open to persuasion for a lynch of Scott, SAMP, or Almaster if someone comes up with really good reasons why to lynch one of them and why to not lynch Kerrigan.

[ICEninja]

I'm at my wit's end, so I'm going to try the only sure-fire way I know to convince you that I'm not scum.

Or, you know, you could try showing us who is a better lynch candidate?

[ICEninja]

I'm not sure you've ever been the leading wagon. You've been at L-4 for days now, when Espeonage has been at L-3. You aren't at risk of anything so long that you can prove to us that Espeonage is a better lynch than you.

You can't rely on a case that you've already presented to convince those on your bandwagon. You've been so flustered and upset over the people on your wagon, and this whole time you've had fewer than half the votes required for a lynch.

It isn't time to prove your innocence. You've tried and people aren't buying it. It's time to prove another's guilt.

[ICEninja]

Well I don't think either town or scum would be making a very good play here. So in my eyes, this action is a null tell.

[ICEninja]

Hmm, SAMP has given me a lot to think about.

I don't blindly agree with all of his arguments, but a lot of them have merit.

I'm inclined to believe that town is more frustrated when they are being targeted, where scum is more frightened. This is obviously not always the case, but it seems to be that way. The martyr play is usually more out of frustration than a scared gambit, I'll agree.

However, it may also be to the point where because Kerrigan pulled this gambit, she's going to be too much of a liability to the town. Granted, this is a policy lynch, and I will not go through with a policy lynch in the face of something better.

My scum points against her still stand, but I will be thinking about things. I'm definitely not going to be pushing a lynch on charter, as SAMP suggests however. My vote holds for the time being. What do others think?

[ICEninja]

This is better. I think day 1 actually is going to be providing us with good information now. I don't agree with everything fitz said, but he made some great posts none-the-less. I don't like charter's vote on Kerrigan either.

Espeonage, I would also like to see your case against your preferred lynch targets.

Short post this morning. Don't expect too many of these.

[ICEninja]

If they are both not helpful (and they can’t be on their face so your use of might is again dubious) why do you feel the need to separate them. Harmful to town is harmful to town.

To Magna and whoever brought this up in the first place (I think charter?), consider 2 people: 1 scum, and 1 anti town VI. These players are both harmful to town. Having both of them present in lylo is dangerous as hell. However, there is an enormous distinction between the two of them. Lynching one fulfills town's win condition where the other puts town's win condition in jeopardy.

For the most part, there have been a lot of comments, few if any directed at me. I don't feel the need to respond to anything besides the above, as I feel that day 1 is over. Kerrigan did the right thing in unvoting in my opinion, but we have simply reached the point of no return. The more people other than Kerrigan himself on the lynch the better. This gives us better information to work with tomorrow.

For the most part, the things said in the past few pages will be where I will start my cases and analysis tomorrow, so expect me to comment on things that have been said, just not at this time.

[ICEninja]

Alright everybody, I would like to make a movement towards Kerrigan's lynch. I have a number of reasons why, and I will list them in order of how important I feel they are.

1) Obviously the largest reason we should lynch him is how scummy he has acted. Several players don't feel that the things he has done have been scummy, but a majority of players do. Even if you don't feel he is scummy, perhaps the rest of the reasons will show you why she should be lynched.
2) Kerrigan's self vote was incredibly anti-town. Call it a town move, call it a scum move, we all have different personal experience with self votes, and different perceptions of them. However with rare exceptions (scum cutting off discussion, perhaps, to save their scum buddy) it doesn't fulfill ANY player's win condition unless they're a jester or something. And we can be almost assured that there isn't one of those in this game.
3) Kerrigan has claimed VI, and while I believe at L-3 (would be L-4 without self vote). As others have pointed out, this simply narrows down the list of who scum should night kill to nail a PR. Scum isn't going to be night killing town Kerrigan at any point in this game, because they want him to survive to lylo at this point. Scum Kerrigan could possibly ride through some people's town thoughts of his martyrdom all the way to lylo and endgame us.
4) We have a huge amount of information to go on for a vast majority of the players (get in here AGM), and we should be able to start off day 2 with a bang. With vote analysis being prime for scum finding with how we've had dueling wagons, everyone should have a good place to start off tomorrow. Kerrigan's lynch will easily give us good places to work off of, because if he flips scum, we can look at those who opposed his wagon or targeted it half halfheartedly, and if Kerrigan flips town, we can examine those who have the more suspicious positions on the bandwagon.

In terms of day 1 lynches, this is pretty solid.

As a side note, I would also like to say that I've had gender confusion issues with Kerrigan, mostly because I play starcraft (and starcraft 2, currently hold a platinum division placement in the beta) and I know who Kerrigan is, and she is a chick.

As a second side note, I would like to apologize to Kerrigan on a more out of character level. I know getting trained on hard like I have been doing all game isn't very fun for a majority of players, and I've probably ruined this game for you. I hope you understand that I'm just playing to fulfill my win condition to the best of my ability. I hope you don't dislike me as a player now.

[ICEninja]

When Hoopla responds, however, he switches to offense and chainsaws by calling Hoopla "opportunistic."

There is a slight miscommunication in the way you read my post.

I understand you point, but your entire case against him is an opportunistic vote and his play style.

What I meant by this is Hoopla's entire case against Scott is that Scott made an opportunistic vote and has a play style that Hoopla disagreed with. I do not feel that Hoopla has done anything opportunistic.

AGM, what is your opinion of Kerrigan pre self vote?

[ICEninja]

Oh and AGM I'd also like to add that since several days between now and the 18th will be night, and then the beginning of a new day which is less critical, so long as you're willing to keep up with the game until day 1 ends you shouldn't need a replacement.

[ICEninja]

what is your opinion on how to handle Scott, who posts infrequently (according to meta) but isn't necessarily scum (because of meta … which I haven't actually read, btw, I am just taking your word for it)?

When you run in to players like Scott, who you can't really get a solid read on by how they post, you have to just wait for there to be enough important vote counts to analyze, then look at how strong he felt about certain cases. Once we have more confirmed flips, then we'll be able to better gauge Scott's motivations, and if they're driven by scum win conditions or town win conditions. I'll give him a closer look early day 2, and if we're both still alive by then, a MUCH closer look day 3.

Consider what I've said about Scott so far. I don't have a town read on him particularly. However, I feel that the things people are bringing up about Scott and calling them scummy are null, because he did all that in the last game I played with him where he flipped town. So at the moment, I have a pretty neutral read of Scott that I will probably maintain until there are some dead bodies.

You don't seem to be making much mention of the real points I had against Kerrigan. A majority of my case against him was built around him playing to fulfill a survival win condition as opposed to a lynch all scum win condition. Someone was able to bring up every single post Kerrigan has made, and it is so incredibly overshadowed by how much time Kerrigan has spent attempting to survive. When survival seemed to him to be impossible, the self vote came. Make of it what you will, I'm interested to hear what you think about the case that was up against Kerrigan before that.

[ICEninja]

Mod

, we haven't had a vote count in a while. Could you please put one up before the hammer falls so we have a final pre-lynch vote count?

[ICEninja]

Deadline is in a few days, there are no possible secondary wagons at the moment. Who is ready to step up to the plate and swing?

[ICEninja]

<out of character> LOL fit'z avatar looks like it is shouting "BAH!" <out of character>

It should be pretty clear that there was scum on Kerrigan's wagon, especially since someone who was not on the wagon was night killed. Scum didn't want to narrow it down for us.

The best places to start looking are the people who were the most opportunistic about their vote. The people who are most likely to to be scum on the wagon are the ones who hopped on the bandwagon without pushing it.

At the moment, I'm thinking Scott was probably the most opportunistic on the wagon. I'll examine everything closer.

[ICEninja]

Let's take a look at that hammer vote we had.

StK: Are you going to give this up? If not I will vote for you to stop this thing but I don't think you are scum and I don't really want to do it.

Espeonage at this point blatantly claims that Kerrigan ISN'T scum.

StK may not be pro town with that. But it isn't scummy either.

Again, though less blatantly.

Well that's the thing. I only really have 1 lynch target at the moment. All others are covered under the blanket of bad vibes. I have presented my case on fitz.

Kerrigan is NOT one of Espeonage's acceptable lynches. The only acceptable lynch to Espeonage was fitz, who is now confirmed town.

Talking from my experiences the three times that someone has self voted in my games it has been a townie

More evidence to show that Kerrigan is indeed town, at least in your personal experience.

Well seeing as the only other option for todays lynch is me.
Unvote, Vote: StK

And bam, you do it anyway.

No to be fair I was the secong choice of most people on that wagon. Magna even said that his first act tomorrow will be to vote me.

This is your reasoning.

A litany of Kerrigan is not scum followed by a hammer to Kerrigan to save you while people are suspicious of you. Honestly, either you were scared town praying that Kerrigan was scum and that people would leave you alone after, or you're scum and you just wanted the day to be over with. If you really did think Kerrigan was town, then it was playing against town win condition to hammer, but perfectly fine for scum win condition to hammer.

Looks scummy as hell to me.

Vote Espeonage

.

[ICEninja]

I knew Kerrigan was town. I also know I am town. He claimed VT and therefore I saw no reason to let myself die. There was no way a scum was going to be lynched thanks to the only two wagons being pro-town players.

So your logic therefore lead you to help kill the other town player instead of doing more to expose scum? If you were so sure Kerrigan was town, then you would help town by attacking people who have scummy positions on the wagon. You had your vote on fitz, who wasn't bothering with the Kerrigan wagon. You must have known, assuming Kerrigan was town, that there was scum on his bandwagon. Why weren't you looking for it? Why did you hammer someone you felt is town? Saying "if the lynch didn't go through, I would die instead" just looks like a survivalist mindset, not a scum lynching mindset. Which is exactly why Kerrigan was mislynched yesterday, because a townie was caring too much about how others felt about him and cared not enough about who the scum really was.

Then again, Kerrigan completely flipped the survivalist mechanism off and opted for self destruction, never really doing much to find the scum on his own wagon. He made a couple points about me, but didn't even really look at the players with more opportunistic points on the wagon.

Don't make Kerrigan's mistake, Espeonage. If you're town, you'll explain to us why you aren't scum AND ALSO will find scum. Doing one but not the other will only hurt town. If you can logically point out someone who had a scummy position on the wagon and put some pressure, you'll be doing what Kerrigan wasn't.

[ICEninja]

my biggest issue with espeonage is the lack of commitment to a particular issue - he's acknowledged he's been deliberately fencesitting which leads essentially to active lurking.

This will fly day 1, but right now, your reasons for voting Espeonage are pretty pathetic. You just hopped on the wagon without anything new to say except my reason for voting isn't good. I don't care how "necessary" the hammer seemed, AGM stated that he was fully willing to throw down the hammer himself, and he felt that Kerrigan was scummy.

Now had all the people off the bandwagon been saying "I'm not hammering that, Kerrigan isn't scum!", then that would make sense. However, there were people MUCH more convinced of Kerrigan's guilt that were ready to do it.

Almaster is acting like it's utterly impossible to have a town read on SK, while completely ignoring my logic for doing so. That's how scum chain mislynches.

I have a very strong opinion on the matter, but I would like to hear Almaster come in and answer this himself before I speak up.

The standard scumhunting procedure for analysis of votecounts is that the scummiest positions on the wagon are the L-2, L-1 and Hammer votes. Those positions belong to Scott, Jack and Me. I am obviously not going to be voting for me and Jack is alot more town that scott is.

Standard scum hunting is also going after people who historically make lots of posts without saying anything. Just because statistically, the last few people on a bandwagon (and I've heard it more frequently the 3rd and 4th people, not the L-2 through hammer) are scummy does not mean that is where you should automatically throw your vote when the next day rolls around. Actually go in and look for people's reasons for voting and reasons for not voting. Jack, for example, was a very longtime supporter of the "Kerrigan is scum" idea, before a majority of the people on the wagon were. However, Jack was pursuing other options when the case against Kerrigan grew.

You're exactly right about Scott, because he jumped on to the bandwagon without much warning and didn't say much after already having voted. However, the nature of his vote being L-2, L-1, or a hammer doesn't inherently make it scummy. Show us reasons why votes are scum driven. That is what cases are made of.

I can actually build a vote-worthy case on Scott right on the spot that is almost as good as the one against you. I want you to be the one to do it, though. Right now, you have the burden of proving to us why Scott should be lynch and why you should not be lynched. Your current case states that you and Scott should equally be lynched, because you were both on the last 3 slots of the bandwagon.

[ICEninja]

There have been cases made on Scott and if I were to compile the case on him I would just be parroting others. I have added a new layer to the case and acted on it.

The actually good reasons for voting him haven't been discussed or made in to any cases at this point in time.

I'm still not satisfied Espeonage is scum.

Care to give reasons for this that actually make sense? As someone pointed out yesterday, compiling a number of slight scum tells in to one overall town read doesn't fly.

[ICEninja]

Hoopla, you didn't touch on what I voted Espeonage for. That hammer came after repeatedly declaring Kerrigan as town. That is why I find him (her? I hate female avatars without the poster's gender displayed) scummy.

This is ALWAYS suspicious. The "I'll call someone else sketchy yet slip a vote in on someone else." Why didn't you vote SMAP? Please refer me to a post where you mention me as a possible suspect. I'm hard pressed to believe that post exists.

A little bit OMGUS to not go looking for a lack of said post yourself. However, if Almaster can't come up with any previous scum comments against you, this vote is dead on.

Also I hate the "THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SCUM ON HIS WAGON" argument. Of course. If its a wagon, general probability says there will be scum. A wagon needs to consist of more than half of the game. Scum will be there.

Go through a bunch of completed games. Just pick like 10 games at random or whatever. Chances are, every single one of them that has a mislynch day 1 will have scum on that wagon. It doesn't just have to do with taking more than half the players, it has to do with the fact that day 1 mislynches are assisted by scum 90 something percent of the time. If this game has 3 scum for 12 players, that means there is a pool of 9 townies. It is almost impossible to believe that 7 of the 9 townies in this game went for the Kerrigan lynch. There is almost absolutely scum on the wagon, and probably multiple.

Not to mention you just contradicted yourself saying you hate the argument that scum has to be there, and then also saying scum will be there.

[ICEninja]

Well then my fellow townsfolk. Do we lynch me or do we lynch Scott. I believe that is the question of the day. Personally I would prefer a Scott lynch but then again that kind of goes without saying.

You do realize that the deadline is weeks away, right? Don't assume that the lynch is either going to be Scott or yourself, as not everyone has even posted contribution in day 2 yet!

Also if you're already feeling like you're good to lynch Scott, then you better be telling us why, and with specific details. There is absolutely no reason we should be already set on a lynch so soon after day begins, particularly this early in the game. If there's something about Scott that I've missed, such as why he's scum beyond his L-1 position on the bandwagon, then please let me know.

Good analysis Hoopla. It gives me a lot to think about, and opens some new possibilities as to who is probably scum and who is probably town based on what Espeonage's flip is, should we lynch him.

[ICEninja]

Since no one seems to be willing to do it, I'll present the actual reason Scott should be a lynch candidate. Lets take a look at his ISOs.

Scott's first mention of Kerrigan is in ISO 7 and is as follows:

Well this is the point of the game. Everyone is trying to appear town to some extent. I agree with Ice about your questioning of his neutral read seems like you care a bit too much what he thinks of you.

This seems to imply he has some kind of "hazy scumread" on Kerrigan. Then again in post 9, we have Scott presenting this question to the town essentially implying a scummy read on Kerrigan without actually saying it.

Has anyone played with SK as town? Some people just get over-defensive when anyone attacks them, but it reminds me of his behavior in the last game I played with him before he replaced out (he was scum).

After this, Scott is dead silent about Kerrigan until ISO 18, which is after Kerrigan pulled the martyr card. Scott then says this:

Gambits are so useless and rarely help the town. Why couldn't you do this as scum? It's not like you put yourself at L-1, L-3 is still safe. If you are town, you are presenting yourself as an easy target for scum.

This implies that Kerrigan is anti-town.

I don't think scum would do this either, but that is up to us to decide and not SK.

This is Scott blatantly saying that he doesn't feel what Kerrigan has done is a scum tell.

But it doesn't help at all. You get mislynched (if you are town) and we learn nothing. You are creating an easy out for scum (if you are town) to jump on your wagon citing your meltdown.

Once again, Scott saying that Kerrigan is anti town and not scum.

I have only seen self-vote done as town, but it seems others have seen it done as scum. I also don't like the unvote, you were so high and mighty about sacrificing yourself for the betterment of the town, removing yourself as a distraction. Then you come in and place a convenient unvote when you are at L-1.

After this comes the vote. In terms of personal experience, Scott actually finds that self vote a

town

tell, and is relying on other people (possibly lying scum?) who have seen this action used by scum. This comment about the unvote was really the only point anywhere in this entire fiasco that ensued after Kerrigan's self vote that points anywhere towards Scott finding Kerrigan scummy. Yet he puts him at L-1 anyway.

This is easily tied with Espeonage's hammer for more opportunistic vote on the Kerrigan wagon. My vote stays on Espeonage however, for scummier day 1 play pre Kerrigan meltdown. Scott was fine before putting Kerrigan at L-1.

[ICEninja]

I'm going to be moderately busy this weekend, but staring Monday I'm going to have a huge amount of time.

When I can manage I'm going to go through and analyze every spot on Kerrigan's mislynch wagon and look at the motives of all the players, and check out the reasoning for all the players. This will hopefully give us some insight as to where the scum on the wagon is.

Preliminary thoughts are that Jack, charter, and Magna are less scummy on the wagon, where Scott and Espeonage are on the scummiest side. I need to really reconsider Hoopla's arguments for the lynch as I can't remember all of them.

[ICEninja]

"If we lynch Scott and get his scum flip, then everything's good. If we lynch Scott and get a town flip, that means I'll get mislynched. If we lynch me, then that means Scott is scum."

He never mentions

"If we lynch me and I flip scum, then we can say that Scott probably isn't scum."

I don't know why, but his refusal to play Devil's Advocate just reeks of scum for me.

OK good now Espeonage has commented on this so I won't be answering any questions for him.

This is absolutely garbage reasoning. I don't mind someone calling Espeonage the scummiest player, but is that seriously the best argument you can come up with? Of course Espeonage knows his own alignment, he isn't going to say what would happen if he was scum. If he's town, it wouldn't make sense for him to say what he know couldn't possibly be the case, and if he's scum, he's lying about it anyway. There's no reason to play devil's advocate here.

You claim that Scott's defense against "flawed logic" is town. Was my case against him flawed? If so, please point it out. He also hasn't responded to my post with solid logic or otherwise.

You're also saying that I'm scummy for my wagon against Kerrigan. The wagon that you pushed almost as hard as I did. You say that encouraging a hammer when deadline is in (I believe) less than 2 days, with NO competing wagon is scummy? It was inevitable, there was no reason for the hammer to not fall at that point.

Can you please explain how my wagon could have possibly been opportunistic? The lynch took most of the day, and I never once backed down on my aggression. I was wrong, yes, but town usually is for the day 1 lynch. You were tunneling less than me, but you were just as sure of a scum flip from Kerrigan as I was. Opportunistic would have been jumping on to the wagon that was forming against Espeonage.

[ICEninja]

This game is getting fairly weak, guys. People need to step it up. A lot.

Scott you just posted twice, having completely ignored the fact that a decent number of people have voted you, and that I posted a fairly decent case against you. Don't you have anything to say about that?

[ICEninja]

Then, in post 274, he sets up a lynch of Scott if Espionage flips town. Seeing this a second time, I'm much more suspicious of it. First off, if Ice and Esp are scumbuddies, this is just fake scumhunting. If Ice is scum and Esp is town, he's setting up a lynch quite nicely.

I tend to get called out on this. I personally don't find saying "if someone's lynch gives us X information, then I will find Y player scummy" is a scummy thing to do. Others seem to disagree, and it frustrates me. Following through clearly with your line of logic is important.

I think there's a good chance Ice and Esp are scum together. The first two times I saw that Ice mentioned Esp were just neutral non alignment remarks. The third time I saw it, was post 230, which I think is pretty scummy. He tries to down play the scumminess of Esp while at the same time saying he thinks he's anti town.

During most of day 1, Espeonage doesn't do much that I inherently find scummy. Refusing to read long posts and fence sitting and stuff is anti-town, but not exactly scummy to me. Fence sitting if it is at a very critical time is definitely scummy, but he just seemed like he hadn't made up his mind yet. That isn't scummy.

What WAS scummy was how Espeonage declared Kerrigan town repeatedly, and hammered anyway. People are targeting Espeonage for the wrong reasons. My telling people about how bad their reasons are have nothing to do with what I feel about Espeonage, but voting someone for terrible reasoning is really scummy. I like to point it out when people do really scummy things.

If someone votes a scummy looking player for reasons that don't actually mean anything, most good people will call them out on that.

I was giving Espeonage an opportunity to change my mind about him by asking him to form a case on Scott. His refusal to do so simply set Espeonage as scum in my mind. Thus my vote stands, even though I've built a decent case against Scott.

I suppose, however, that people could feel that my interactions with Espeonage line up with scum busing. I really just am willing to see him lynched for how scummy that hammer was. I'm really in disbelief at how few people have said anything at all about that hammer.

It's like he doesn't believe his own vote.

It is too early in the day for a lynch, but unless new information comes forward, I would see through an Espeonage lynch. Even if the lynch doesn't go through, I doubt very many people feel the pressure is unwarranted. I absolutely believe in my vote.

I still think Hoopla, Magna, and Jack are town. I agree with just about everything Magna and Jack say. Hoopla is more of a gut read. I'm also leaning towards Cruelty as town due to how he handled the Kerrigan situation.

I agree with most of this, pretty much. A bit unsure of Cruelty, but it definitely isn't a scum read. His day 1 posting was pretty good.

I also agree SAMP is mildly scummy, but I can't seem to catch him on anything.
AGM is lurking hardcore, I can't declare a solid read on him until I see some content. I agree pretty much with Cruelty saying that I don't want to spend too much time worrying about AGM for lurking, and I mostly feel this way because he made some good day 1 posts.

At the moment, I feel charter is looking fairly townish, too.

[ICEninja]

Kerrigan was anti-town and yes I voted him on that premise. He created a distraction too big to ignore.

So you admit to policy lynching Kerrigan? Too big of a distraction, too anti town, can't possibly be left alive, but not necessarily scum?

During my review this popped out me. Why do you assume that the NK was made to protect Scum identities? Couldn’t fitz have been a prime Doc / Cop candidate? Couldn’t his suspicions have warranted his kill? I’m dubious that the springboard for your attack today rests on NK WIFOM.

Of course fitz could have been a doc/cop. Scum, after all, tend to go after either the most pro-town or the person that looks like a town PR. However, you accusing me of my attack today resting on night kill WIFOM is not the truth at all. I'm using the fact that more than 9/10 times, a day 1 mislynch is scum fed. I've looked through a lot of games, and that is just the best place to start looking for day 2.

You say that I'm using WIFOM to "springboard" my attack. I've never once made a WIFOM argument. I've simply stated that I've noticed trends of scum leaving the bandwagon intact so that it is harder for town to find the scum on the mislynch wagon. There isn't any WIFOM argument in there at all. The night kill is just a piece of evidence, once again pointing to a trend, that supports my theory that we should be looking for scum by considering the motives of the people on Kerrigan's wagon.

Once again you ignore the fact that had not a single new vote been cast SaintK would have been lynched by game rules. So encouraging a hammer only serves to set someone up for scrutiny Day 2 if the lynches flips town.

This is actually a good point. In a majority of the games I've played, not having enough votes to ensure a lynch results in a no lynch, which is the better rule in my opinion. I read through the rules, but due to being in 2 games I forgot that this game doesn't have the no lynch clause.

I also get accused of coaching periodically because when my main scum suspect acts like a VI, I want to give them a chance to actually contribute to the town. Refusing to do so simply solidifies my scum reads. Since it is quite obvious that Espeonage refuses to help the town, I'm no longer going to make any effort to getting worthwhile contribution out of him.

[ICEninja]

You are ascribing a direct reason as to why Fitz was killed – so that scum didn’t narrow down the pool of potential scum candidates on the SaintK wagon.

I am describing

a

(not the only) reason why fitz was killed. In my experience, unless scum has an extremely good reason to not, they will kill someone who was against the day 1 mislynch for multiple reasons. Firstly, townies who were against the wagon are harder to mislynch in future days. Secondly, the more living townies there are on the mislynch wagon, the harder it is for the town to pick out the scum on the wagon. Perhaps you've had different experiences, but doing this is simply what scum does, and for good reasons.

I didn't include other factors such as scum's perceptions of town PRs or who fitz was voting for because these factors are not important to my case.

This is WIFOM, plain and simple.

It is not. Had scum night killed someone ON the Kerrigan wagon, it would be WIFOM to say that scum night killed someone on the wagon to throw us off and make us think there isn't scum on the wagon. Taking a situation that is equally or less likely to be the case and suggesting that it is impossible to tell which situation actually occurred makes up the WIFOM argument. I'm simply stating a situation that is good scum play that probably happened.

If you wanted to start the day looking at those on the wagon with the most scummy reasons you certainly didn’t need to say, with certainty, why Fitz was killed.

I added a supporting statement to add to my reasoning of "scum was probably on that wagon". It doesn't particularly add to the strength of my case, but honestly it's so widely accepted that scum are going to be on the day 1 mislynch that you don't even need much supporting evidence. You seem to be exaggerating in saying that I said with certainty why scum was killed.

[ICEninja]

If you admit that it doesn’t add to the strength of your case why did you bother to include it? Based on the death of Fitz it is almost a mathematical certainty that at least 1 scum was on the wagon. Adding a statement that doesn’t support your case is just padding out the post. And we will have to disagree as to whether your statement said with certainty why Fitz was killed.

It does support my case. Just because it doesn't make the main point valid doesn't mean it isn't exactly supporting it. It didn't strengthen the argument significantly, as I said, but it wasn't to pad the case.

I also think it's really odd how Ice acknowledges some of the points against him are good. He did it with Magna's 'encouraging a hammer' point and he did it with some of the things I said about him.

Well Magna was right. I wasn't aware that there wasn't a no-lynch policy in this game. Just because his point about me was correct doesn't make me scummy. Getting mixed up about the rules is a null tell. If someone makes a good valid point, I'm not going to refute it. That would be silly. There hasn't been any valid points made about me that point me to scum though.

Claiming hider, hmm? That's an unexpected claim. I'm honestly not exactly sure what to make of it.

[ICEninja]

I'm honestly not positive how the hider mechanic works. If he hides behind scum, he dies, but if he hides behind town he's immune to night kill? What if he hides behind town and the townie is night killed. Does the hider die as well? Does hiding protect him from other night actions such as roleblocking?

Seems to me like if Espeonage is a real hider, then he could serve town a great service by hiding behind a scummy player like Scott or Almaster, and telling us who he plans to hide behind. Should Espeonage die that night, and flips hider, that's just as good as a confirmed cop with a guilty read on someone.

The trick with claiming hider, however, is it seems like its the perfect role for scum to claim because they aren't going to die that night either way. Scum can't night kill a hider, because the hider can simply hide behind the most townie player and be immune. Had he claimed cop, we know that a true cop claim is going to get knifed during the night. As a result, scum Espeonage can easily claim hider, get out of this lynch, and not raise suspicion by surviving the night (where a cop surviving the night is going to be incredibly suspicious, no sane scum would let the cop get another shot at them).

I haven't fully thought this through yet so someone let me know if there are any gaping holes in my logic, but it seems to me like we should let Espeonage live today with the purpose of hiding behind the scummiest looking player (and telling us who), and if he lives then we policy lynch him tomorrow. I say we policy lynch him tomorrow because I don't actually believe his claim for reasons I've stated above. If he dies, then we've got a confirmed scum kill on whoever he told us he would hide behind.

It seems like should Espeonage really be a hider, we'll be able to get some really good information and possibly nail a scum with it. Also, on the off chance we have a cop, Espeonage would be insanely helpful should we get an actual confirmed townie on him. He'd essentially be a cop that wont die until he finds scum, and will be clearing townies in the process.

[ICEninja]

Jack definitely seems like a good place to hind behind, as he was pro town, but on the mislynch wagon so a less likely night kill candidate. I believe that much, but not much else.

the problem with getting him to hide behind playerX is that the mafia knows who he's hiding behind and can get a two-for-one special (if the claim is legit).

I didn't know that Espeonage would die if the person he's hiding behind dies. The idea of having him hide behind a pool of 2 or 3 people, so scum would have to guess could work. However, I'm really concerned about Hoopla blindly believing this claim. I'm inexperienced outside of open setups, but from games I've read, hiders don't seem particularly common in non-themed games. Also the fact of a hider being protected from night kills makes it the perfect claim because no one would question him surviving the night. Also the lack of bread crumbing on such a questionable claim, plus the lack of comments about Jack and him being cleared town just don't make me feel like Espeonage's claim is true. HOWEVER as I've said in my previous post, the potential helpfulness we could get out of hider Espeonage is really good so I'm not willing to lynch him today. Therefore:

unvote

.

Now this interaction between Hoopla and charter is extremely interesting. Obviously Hoopla is not going to self incriminate, but Hoopla was in favor of both of the leading wagons around this point in time for the so called "damning" vote count. It seems convenient that she used that one, for sure. However at the same time, I somewhat agree that charter reacted a bit oddly to the claim.I'm not really sure what to make of it. I feel like it is fairly likely that one of them is probably scum.

I'm wondering, especially since we have an even number of players in the game, if sacrificing town-Espeonage isn't actually worth it. If Espeonage really is a hider, and we send Espeonage to hide behind someone really scummy like Scott or Almaster, then we'll get a confirmed guilty on one of them if they're scum and Espeonage is town. Should Espeonage be telling the truth about being town and hide behind town and both of them get night killed, we're behind in the game but not so far behind. After all we'll come out with a confirmed town Jack, and back to the more favorable odd numbered game. If Espeonage lives the night, then we'll have to decide what to do about it.

What are your thoughts on being a Sacrificial lamb, Espeonage, if you really are the hider?

Has Almaster been prodded? He definitely should have been.

[ICEninja]

Anyone notice that Hoopla just suggested EXACTLY what I did in 449?

Anyways, we can have Espeonage hide behind Scott tonight and see what happens there. Personally, I'm feeling pretty good about an Almaster lynch, as while he wasn't on the Kerrigan wagon, he did promise the hammer, so is somewhat of an "honorary" member. He also has behaved extremely oddly during day 2 the few posts he has made (such as voting Scott while having just made another player look scummy), along with outright lying that he would be posting on Tuesday.

We're almost guaranteed to have scum somewhere in the 3 of them, and we're bound to only lose scummy townies in the process, which seems like a really good trade to me. We'll end up with our pro town players in the more critical days, and some good information based on analyzing everyone's motives around this interesting juncture.

Vote AlmasterGM

.

[ICEninja]

I would much rather have charter be today's lynch or tonight's Hide

Is your reasoning any deeper than his presence on Kerrigan's wagon before you joined along with his reaction to the hider claim?

I'm not sold on the AGM push.

I'm not ready to see him lynched, but I do want him to come back from his overly long hiatus at L-1.

I'm actually a bit more wary of Magna myself at the moment. I thought he was town during day 1, but we simply had similar views. As of the end of day 1 I didn't know of much incriminating about Magna, but for some reason it seems like he's posting with a different tone today. I can't quite put my finger on it, and I'll examine deeper this weekend just to make sure I'm not crazy.

[ICEninja]

Looking briefly, I haven't found anything hugely damning about SAMP, mostly because his vote was on you instead of Kerrigan, but I'll look closer if you're so convinced.

I should have plenty of time this weekend to come give a good analysis of hopefully all the players.

[ICEninja]

I read through SAMP in ISO as promised. I'll get to other players later. The overall thing I noticed is that SAMP has been uncharacteristically lurky and with his massive ego in check. Either he's calmed down some lately, or he's playing his game differently. I'm not going to read deeply in to it, but I'm definitely waiting for his flip in a game we played together that I'm dead in.

In terms of specific things that I noticed, he forced Espeonage's L-2 claim with his vote on Almaster, which is strange. If he really wanted to force a claim he would have switched his vote to Espeonage or waited until Espeonage was at L-1 then threatened a hammer. It seems like he doesn't really want an Espeonage lynch, and never has, yet he wanted the claim to come out. I'll definitely be watching SAMP, especially after seeing what Espeonage flips.

SAMP, you said you "agree" with the plan of having Espeonage hide behind a scummy looking player. Who do you suggest he hides behind? Do you believe his claim? Do you find it fishy that he claimed a PR that probably won't be NKed?

Can you also give us your top 3 scum reads and why?

[ICEninja]

Why are you voting for me and not SAMP? Aren't we both guilty of the same thing, except I was actually claiming to be busy whereas SAMP has no excuse?

I voted for you mostly because you needed pressure. I stated a bit ago that I haven't been particularly wanting you lynched today (though you're definitely an acceptable one, we ARE getting closer to the deadline) but the fact that I wanted you to come back from your extended break at L-1 to see what you would comment on.

You did a decent job of explaining some of the stuff that was brought up against you, and at the moment I really don't feel like you're the best lynch.

Unvote

.

I don't think SAMP is, either. I have some questions for him, but if he answers them in a satisfactory manor, I won't be voting for him.

In taking a look at both charter and cruelty, I've noticed that they both have a few points against them here and there, but I just don't see anything I can build a case on at the moment. Right now the 2 players I'm most concerned about are Magna and Hoopla. Magna is doing a pretty good job of being open to lots of different things, and I don't exactly want to see him lynched today, but the way he's reacting to a lot of things concerns me. I'll go in to a lot more detail about this if I decide I want to actually move towards a Magna lynch, because at the moment I only have enough time to go in to detail about one person.

Hoopla has definitely been a pro-town player ever since switching in. She makes decent cases and evaluates things pretty cleanly. However, some of her day 2 actions are really concerning me. I haven't felt at all good about her ISO post 22. As was pointed out, you're completely running with the assumption here that Espeonage is town, which several people do not believe based on the claim. Also, Hoopla's reasons for suspecting charter seem really sketch. She hasn't said why, really. She was on the same wagon that charter was on not too long after the vote counts she used were put up.

Additionally, as others have also stated, Hoopla replaced a pretty scummy looking gecko that definitely isn't helping her history.

It just seems like Hoopla is trying to set things up to suit herself more than anything. I'm not liking it at all.

Vote Hoopla

.

[ICEninja]

If Hoopla is right and Esp is town, what is your opinion of her then?

I'm honestly not sure. It would be between having a good intuition, having a lucky guess, or being scum and actually knowing the claim is true, and attempting to work the claim to suit her own benefit. I'm not exactly accusing Hoopla for thinking someone is town, I'm accusing her of jumping too swiftly at an opportunity to clear someone. It could suggest either protecting a scum buddy, or buddying up to a townie.

I proposed policy lynching Espeonage day 3 if he survives simply because the night kill protection the comes with the hider claim, combined with the fact that this is not a themed game leads me to believe that the likelihood of it being a false claim is much higher than the likelihood of him actually being a hider. This is also augmented by the fact that Espeonage has played fairly scummy, and claimed at L-2 when no hammer threat was posed.

[ICEninja]

assuming we have the time to do so, of course

We DON'T have time. We're using him as a cop of sorts, this isn't to gauge him being scum or not. Espeonage is going to die, scum or town. We're going to use him to determine who to kill.

[ICEninja]

I asked SAMP some questions in my ISO 64.

I agree with much of what you are saying, and will base a good part of my opinion on SAMP based on how he responds to those questions.

[ICEninja]

Actually I usually play with my ego in check.

Then I may need to reevaluate my meta read on you. You've posted less cocky things and post less frequently than I'm used to from you, but I just checked and yes it has been across the site so I'm not going to use that against you. No you aren't exactly lurking, but compared to our last game you're involved a LOT less.

If I voted him it would've been L-1. L-1 votes have a risk of quicklynch, and are rarely necessary to force a claim.

L-1 is good for placing a scummy player under pressure. It's good to put someone at L-1 to force a claim, because otherwise there may not actually enough momentum for the lynch to happen anyway. If someone just threw down a hammer before waiting for a claim, that pretty much assures us scum dies somewhere either that day or the next.

My preference for Esp's hide target is charter. Failing that I'm okay with Scott.

Why? Charter is your 3rd scummiest read, and only because he put a vote you found sketchy. You're saying you're "fine with Scott", but you don't even seem to have any scum read on him at all.

I don't know. I'm definitely not feeling great about SAMP, but I just don't see him being a good lynch for today.

[ICEninja]

I seriously can't believe you're accusing me of manipulating the Hider claim to my advantage, when you have been advocating THE SAME THING, according to you.

My plan isn't what you started out with.

OH COOL. I'm scum if Espeonage flips scum or town.

You're making quite a leap from "I'm honestly not sure" to "I think you're going to be scum regardless of Espeonage's flip". I presented the possibilities, and was clear that I wasn't sure which one it would be.

This post was fairly uncharacteristic of you. You've taken fire before, but this is the first time you've reacted so harshly. Why is that?

[ICEninja]

Ok back. Will have a substantial post tomorrow when I don't have an assessment due in less than 6 hours.

Really looking forward to this.

Because I'm not in a good mood. And your post sucked. Stop sucking and I'll be happier.

Well gee, I'm sorry that the fact that I'm not very good at mafia (my sig says it all) inconveniences you.

Mod

, can we get a prod out to Scott?

Scott, what are your thoughts on Hoopla, charter, and SAMP?
Also, what are your thoughts on what has happened over the last 2 pages?

[ICEninja]

The reason i have misgivings is that I would prefer to hide behind people with a bit less likelihood of being scum so that there is a greater chance of my survival to the next night and thus able to clear or incriminate someone else.

Keep praying, if you want, but it isn't going to be useful for you really. If you're really the town hider, then tonight is your only chance of nailing scum. I'm pretty sure we're lynching you tomorrow.

We're getting close to deadline, and frustratingly enough, I don't really have any rock solid scum reads. For the most part I have a list of people who I feel are acceptable lynches, and people I'm not willing to lynch.

Let me start by saying we aren't lynching Espeonage or Jack today, regardless of weather or not you believe Espeonage's claim.

I'm not willing to lynch SAMP or cruelty for not being on the mislynch wagon, either. Almaster wasn't on the wagon either, but he stated that he would be willing to hammer Kerrigan, so he would have been there instead of Espeonage.

Out of the people I'd like to see either lynched or have Espeonage hiding behind most include Hoopla, Scott, Magna, and Almaster, not really much in any order. I'll see charter hidden behind, but someone will have to twist my arm a bit to convince me over the previously stated 4.

I'm about 95% sure that there's at least 1 scum in the 4 I mentioned based on day 1 events. It's more likely that there is 2, unless Espeonage and or Jack are scum.

[ICEninja]

@Ice – How do you evaluate the play for players you don’t have experience with, from a Meta standpoint?

I examine, to the best of my ability, their motives. If the person is actively hunting for scum, then either they're town, or doing a really good job of blending in. The more effort scum puts in to this, the more they end up helping town, as they tend to help town get better reads on everyone. Alternatively, if the person seems to be playing to fulfill a survival win condition (as Kerrigan seemed to be doing, for example), then it is more likely that they are scum. It's not to say that town doesn't want to live, but it is less important to town. Unfortunately some town don't play to truly fulfill their win conditions.

People acting lurkey, and posting without saying much tends to not benefit the town, and therefore not playing towards a town win condition. Actively posting and hunting scum is playing towards a town win condition. Only really good scum can fake this good enough to not get caught on their voting patterns. However, I'll never policy lynch a lurker unless I have a really good reason to do so. I much prefer to put pressure on them in order to get a better read.

[ICEninja]

Deadline is coming up soon. Who has not reread SAMP's posts? I ask because I really think we should be able to get a wagon on him, but it's not happening.

Then make a complete case against him, including all the points raised up.

He wasn't on the day 1 mislynch wagon so I won't be inclined to switch my vote, but if you make an exceedingly convincing case I will not ignore it.

[ICEninja]

Ok, so if someone had hammered me today you would've been upset about that?

Mildly, yes.

@Ice - why are you so anti-SAMP wagon?

Don't mistake me preferring other lynches to being anti-SAMP wagon. My general rule of thumb is if day 1 was a mislynch, I don't bother too much with anyone who was off the wagon unless there's exceeding precedent. He isn't saying a lot with his posts, and his reads along with the reasoning behind his reads are even weaker than mine, which is moderately scummy. However you and charter make him out to have done obvscum things, and he simply hasn't. Even the guy pushing his wagon with you can't really put much of a case together besides "look this guy isn't doing anything pro town, and he's weak on his reads and isn't scumhunting etc.".

Granted, you're right, he's on the scummier side of things, and I wouldn't be upset over a SAMP lynch today. I guess I'll put SAMP in the same boat as charter, I'll be willing to lynch him but definitely not over others.

I would like everyone's (besides Magna's, obviously) opinion of Hoopla. Does my case and Magna's case on her make any sense to anyone? It definitely isn't getting much attention. I'll drop the case against her in the interest of the approaching deadline if the case continues to get ignored, but I'm definitely feeling like Hoopla is a good lynch candidate for today.

[ICEninja]

@Ice: SAMP vs myself for today's lynch. Your pick is?

You, but it's pretty close.

Can we get a prod on Scott?

This is also getting too close to the deadline for my taste. Everyone give top 3 lynch and hider target picks. Hoopla, Scott, and Almaster are mine. Tolerant of Magna, SAMP, and charter.

[ICEninja]

Almaster's post 510 is an absolutely awful attack on SAMP. I wanted to respond to this after SAMP had a chance to defend himself about it, because it was truly bad.

For the record, I'm not doing this to defend SAMP, I find him moderately scummy. However, let's take a look at the pieces of this attack.

No, my argument is "he disagreed with us and was right when he had no reason to do so." You keep leaving out the KEY PART which is that your defnese of SK, while correct, was just too miraculous of a brainwave.

He thought that Kerrigan was town. He wasn't the only one. Why aren't you questioning Espeonage, who hammered despite feeling Kerrigan was town? What about Cruelty who wasn't on the wagon? Fitz thought he was town, and it was probably one of the reasons he was night killed.

I don't care what your justification was. what SK did was scummy, end of story. You thinking to come up with this elaborate defense is really random and uncalled for from someone who has no additional knowledge of the situation.

This. This is what makes me feel comfortable you are scum. You just blindly defy the possibility that maybe people have town reads, and maybe people have different perspectives than you. SAMP tends to get town reads on people and stick with them, so this is not unusual behavior from him. However, he DID justify it. Granted, SAMP said very little about the Kerrigan wagon before his self vote, which is scummy, but once Kerrigan did the self vote, SAMP pointed out that every single time he'd seen someone do this, they flipped town. I really don't think scum is going to make up something like that to defend an easy mislynch wagon.

SAMP has some statistically odd information. It is like seeing a bunch of male black cats, and no female black cats. There are both, sure, but SAMP has only seen male black cats and therefore is going to assume all black cats he sees are male. Faulty logic, yes, but not his fault. What if they were ducks with green heads? You're never going to find a female one of those. Strange analogy, I know, but the whole Kerrigan self voting thing was ultimately a null tell. Some people disagree with me on that statement, and they're allowed to based on personal experience.

Someone coming in here busting through saying "I don't care how many male black cats you've seen, that black cat was a female, it was blatantly obvious, and you had absolutely no idea whatsoever to say otherwise", when you were wrong is just bad.

My point isn't that you said that explicitly. It's that your posts are designed to make it appear as though you are here without actually talking. Combined with the fact that I was inactive, you fell totally off the radar becuase if people were going to go after an inactive player, they would go after me, and if they were going to go after someone saying stuff, it wouldn't be you becuase you weren't saying anything.

Some of his posts do this for sure, but lately he's been a lot more meaningful in his posts. A fact that you seem to be hell bent on misrepresenting.

obv dodge is obv. Presuming I live through the night, why shouldn't he hide with me?

That wasn't an obvious dodge. You lynch your biggest suspect, and investigate (send hider to hide with) your second or third biggest. That is exactly what he's planning on doing.

The day is drawing to a close, and you seem to be the most likely lynch candidate. I understand that your attacks on people are getting desperate, but honestly you're losing this push. Now, charter's points against SAMP are a lot better, and he's done a lot more to convince me that SAMP is scum than you. However, you're just not the town player in this argument.

Unvote, vote AlmasterGM

.

[ICEninja]

Here is the post where I voted for Hoopla, for cruelty's sake. I am, however, probably not going to push for a Hoopla lynch today. We simply don't have the time.

I haven't felt at all good about her ISO post 22. As was pointed out, you're completely running with the assumption here that Espeonage is town, which several people do not believe based on the claim. Also, Hoopla's reasons for suspecting charter seem really sketch. She hasn't said why, really. She was on the same wagon that charter was on not too long after the vote counts she used were put up.

Additionally, as others have also stated, Hoopla replaced a pretty scummy looking gecko that definitely isn't helping her history.

It just seems like Hoopla is trying to set things up to suit herself more than anything. I'm not liking it at all.

[ICEninja]

I would just like to throw out a very loud warning sign to everyone.

The deadline is in less than 24 hours and we do not have a single decent wagon

.

We also have multiple people not really contributing much. I really don't want Jack to replace out because I need to hear his thoughts on the Espeonage policy lynch.

I think Almaster is our best bet, with SAMP as the competing wagon. Unless anyone has any exceptionally good reasons to vote for anyone other than these 2, and please bring them forward right now, put your vote on either SAMP or Almaster, based on who you find scummier.

Other than that, we need to be voting for one of these 2.

It seems like Scott is probably the best bet for who Espeonage should hide behind. He's on the scummy side, but says so little it is almost impossible to read.

[ICEninja]

We actually have 3 people with a scum read on Hoopla (Magna, Scott, and myself) and we can potentially add Hoopla as a competing wagon. If a 4th person voices a desire to lynch Hoopla, I'll switch my vote back.

[ICEninja]

I really liked Magna's post of SAMP. It was well thought out, and makes really good points. It essentially says the same thing AGM and charter have been saying, and after doing another more detailed read of SAMP's scumhunting, I'm starting to really see how SAMP has been just coasting. Now I generally don't lynch people based simply on that, especially when they avoided the day 1 mislynch wagon, but I can certainly see a decent argument for having SAMP lynched primarily because I don't really have any intensely strong scum reads besides Espeonage, who bought himself another day with his claim. For the moment, I'm still feeling like Hoopla is the best lynch, but unless someone other than Magna or Scott voices suspicion for Hoopla, I'll see a SAMP lynch through.

Unvote, vote SAMP

We need to hear from cruelty, hopefully some updated opinion, along with Scott taking a stand and Jack hopefully picking up his prod.

[ICEninja]

I don't understand how you being roleblocked automatically makes you assume charter is scum. I'm definitely not following that logic.

Also, you are not particularly under threat because of the SAMP/AGM wagons, and it was fairly foolish to claim. You being roleblocked night 1 doesn't give us any information, and you surviving the night and thus being able to use your tracking ability again, which would actually give town information.

Oh well. People who aren't voting, for the love of god vote.

[ICEninja]

I don't like the Ice wagon hop. Magna didn't really do anything that charter hadn't already explained, in my opinion. It looks to me more like, "well, AGM wagon revival attempt is failing, so I might as well get on the bus."

I don't really, either. I wish we had a few more days before deadline. I admitted as much that Magna just repeated stuff that people have been saying all along, but I suppose after seeing 3 people talk about it, and going back and really reading in to it and finding that, well, there just isn't anyone scummier to lynch.

Lets take a look at SAMP's last post defending himself.

The first half of it is simply going on and on about how charter was so scummy in doing 2 fairly innocent things. The whole Scott ambiguity deal was completely retarded, and I feel like IQ drop every time I read through that part of the game. There really was no scum hunting involved, just moving us away from the RVS in to more readable situations. After people get reads from situations like this the scum hunting begins, but at this point it's just blind accusations. We didn't learn anything meaningful from reactions or anything here.

Then SAMP votes charter for a ridiculous reason, claiming that charter putting Scott on blast and voting for him was the same thing as "subtly undermining others' votes". Not scum hunting.

Then there's more discussion about bad early votes that doesn't end up getting us anywhere. SAMP's collection of "scum hunting" pretty much revolves around the very first votes out of the RVS and stops there almost dead.

The whole quick lynch thing, well, forcing someone to prematurely claim can be more damaging than is worth mitigating the slight risk that an idiot town quick hammers someone.

I provided reasons why AGM attacking my day 1 play is scummy. Other than that I don't know how to prove it's not OMGUS

Your reasons sucked, you can't really prove that it wasn't OMGUS. Granted, I didn't like AGM's day 1 (or 2) play much either, but there were better cases flying around for sure.

After having read up more on SAMP's day 1 stuff in detail, I really do see why people are voting for him. Unfortunately, it is more of a scummy overall read than really having a significant quotable case to make against him. This is why I also understand why people are against voting for him. Even more unfortunately, deadline is just about here and there isn't time for much else.

We've really wasted today. 2 town PR claims, neither in particular danger, neither gives us reliable information. There's no cohesive attitude or wagon, just a bunch of people pushing weak wagons. I really don't know where I'm going to go with things on day 3. I suppose a lot of it comes down to what happens with Espeonage, Hoopla, Scott, and Jack overnight.

[ICEninja]

Oh the deadline is tomorrow morning. My mistake. That's what happens during summer break, I have no idea what date it is anymore unless i actually check my calendar.

Anyways, I'll respond again to SAMP's defense.

Yes it's scumhunting! It forces charter to explain his vote for Scott, and the difference between Scott's reaction to gecko's vote and his own, how is that not scumhunting?

Charter explained his vote for Scott when he laid it down. The contrast was extremely stark. Sure, every vote can be considered scum hunting for pressure or whatever, but that early in the game, no one really hopes to actually flesh out scum. People are mostly just getting a feel for each other and developing reads. I suppose in a fairly loose sense that's scum hunting, but my point is everything that you're parading around as "look I've scum hunted!" was useless. You never substantiated a vote, and nothing you've posted to suggest otherwise actually shows you substantiating any vote. You just sat in the background and argued about stuff.

Do you think forcing Esp to claim was premature?

Had you pointed out, at the time of the claim, that Espeonage was at L-2, and there were 2 people who have voiced significant reason to vote him, then it wouldn't have been premature. The fact is that you demanded a claim without actually putting your vote down on him. That right there is just sketchy as hell.

My reasons were basically the same as yours when you were voting him, how do they suck all of a sudden? Obviously I don't agree that there were better cases!

I stated quite clearly that my vote was on him during his inactivity so he'd have a lot of pressure to play more seriously once he returned. I wanted him to be at L-1 when he picked up his prod, although I believe he was at L-2 instead. I wasn't strongly considering an Almaster lynch really until his awful case against you. He called you scummy for reasons that didn't even really exist. Granted I still found you scummy, but for real reasons. Before that he was simply a tolerable lynch instead of a good one.

It is probably a play style thing and not a scum tell, but you have recurring issues with town tells. You don't give them up easily, even in the face of evidence that someone is scum. You might want to reevaluate your town tells more frequently. In every single game I've played, there was someone who was scum that I didn't consider could be scum until the very last day, and the most recent game that I lost was lost because everyone carried a recurring town tell of the last scum player. i was the only one who really thought he could be scum, and that's because I had more information about him (we were the last 2 unconfirmed players on a mislynch wagon, and I KNEW scum was on that wagon). He looked town as hell, and good scum players always do.

[ICEninja]

@cruelty
Charter isn't being lynched today. Please give your revised opinion, and VERY soon.

Mod, can you replace Jack over the course of night 2?

.

[ICEninja]

Welcome Unsight. The case against SAMP is minimal, and in my eyes we're mostly lynching him because there isn't any ovscum, and he's been scummy.

Recent posts by charter and Magna have the best reasons for lynching him.

There have been 2 town PR claims today already, from Espeonage and Hoopla.

[ICEninja]

We have a lot more to analyze now. Thoughts for the moment are essentially, why did we have 1 night kill during night 1 and 2 night kills for night 2? Essentially, there are 3 possibilities:
1)There are 2 mafia families, and they either targeted the same person or one of the group's kill failed (possibly targeting Espeonage if the hider claim is true).
2)There is a vig who either held his fire day 1 or failed to kill his target.
3)There is a serial killer who failed to kill his target.

Considering the smaller nature of this game, and the way the flavor text was written, I'm guessing it is either the vig or serial killer. I'm not sure how common serial killers are, as I've only read one game that contained one, and have never encountered one. It seems like a vig is the most probable option.

The other thing we need to talk about is where the scum votes were. SAMP and cruelty both died, and both of them had their votes on someone other than the day 1 mislynch. With Magna dead, we have myself, Hoopla, Jack (Unsight), charter, Scott, and Espeonage. Essentially everyone but Almaster. Therefore, at the moment, I'm going to consider Almaster fairly town, especially for bringing so much attention to SAMP, who was scum that was not under scrutiny. Almaster, charter, and myself were on the scum lynch, and because the lynch never went through officially, I feel like there probably wasn't any busing happening.

Therefore, if we have a single scum team of 3 mafia left, it is probably safe to say it is between Scott, Espeonage, Hoopla (who claimed power role), and Unsight.

I'm still feeling like Espeonage's claim was fake, Espeonage didn't die. If Espeonage is lynched today and flips hider, then we've got confirmed town on Scott and Unsight, and we lynch Hoopla tomorrow and win. Otherwise, Espeonage is scum and died today. This is about as much of a win-win as I can imagine.

Vote Espeonage

.

Now, if we have a vigilante who attempted to night kill Esponage on night 1 and failed, please claim now so we can confirm all 3 as town and lynch Hoopla for the win right now.

Hoopla, who did you track night 2?
Espeonage, did you indeed hide behind Scott?

[ICEninja]

After actively defending SAMP

For the record, I'm not doing this to defend SAMP, I find him moderately scummy. However, let's take a look at the pieces of this attack.

This was the first piece of the thing you quoted. I found SAMP scummy, yes. Your attack on him was absolutely awful though. Charter and Magna brought up the good points about him. You had a case that made sense to you and such, but the points you brought up simply weren't good.

However, seeing as you were right, I no longer find you scummy. Magna didn't echo your case, but it was fairly similar to charter's. Your cases came to the same conclusion, so that's why I lumped you in with their cases, but in reality your points were just terrible.

Seems like you had a good gut read and a feeling about SAMP that you couldn't quite pin down very well.

[ICEninja]

And you can say all you want that you weren't defending SAMP, but the reality was you were finding excuses all day not to vote for him by saying he was only "moderately scummy" and that you didn't really "get" the scum read on him. Seeing as that was your advocacy the WHOLE DAY, I want you to explain specifically to me how a single, short summary post from Magna can changed your mind, especially given you had just posted a massive case on me 24 hours prior.

The town was flopping. Deadline was extremely close (thought 24 hours later than I thought it was) and there was absolutely zero cohesive thought from the town. Every person was pushing their own preferred lynch, and seriously go look at people's preferred lynch lists. It was so varied and all over the place that there was no way we could pull off a majority vote on anyone.

Your case on SAMP was awful. Charter's was OK, and Magna had the same general idea as charter except instead of saying "everything he's doing isn't scum hunting", Magna actually went and pointed out specifically what SAMP was doing that deserved lynching. Magna actually stepped up to the plate and really made a case out of it.

SAMP was scummy, though he didn't have anything damning, really. No one did. There weren't any incredibly strong cases anywhere in sight, and I had to vote for someone. My play during day 2 was pretty weak, I admit that, but realize that had I kept my vote on you, the lynch would have gone to you not SAMP. Why would scum switch the leading wagon over from you, who would probably be a mislynched townie, to nailing a role blocker? Explain to me how busing a scum PR who can role block the multiple claimed town PRs is good scum play, when it would have been exceedingly easy to have you lynched. No, scum was clear of SAMP's lynch.

I am still eagerly awaiting posts from Hoopla and Espeonage.

[ICEninja]

Assuming the second NK was a Vig and not a SK, we have 3 lynches remaining. Esp and Hoopla are claimed PRs. Scott is basically confirmed town unless there's a four-person scumteam, which I strongly doubt. Therefore, I suggest we let all three of that group live another night and focus today's actions on one of the following people:

charter
ICEninja
Unsight
And I suppose, for all of your purposes, you can place me on that list as well if you so wish.

Why is Scott confirmed town? What about Jack/Unsight? Are you still assuming Espeonage's claim is valid? Haven't you considered how smart is would be for scum to claim a town PR that won't be night killed? Scum could have easily killed Scott for a double kill and getting Espeonage, too. They also ignored Hoopla, a claimed power role, in favor of a pro-town player who lynched scum. This just looks downright fishy to me.

I really don't see any way out of lynching Espeonage unless we have a power role that can confirm him as town. If he flips hider, we've got 2 confirmed town (Unsight and Scott), and that is worst case scenario. More likely we lynch Espeonage and we have a scum flip, which could potentially end the game.

The risk we're weighing in leaving Espeonage alive is there being either a 4 scum mafia team or 2 mafia families. If we knew there was only 3, then we can safely assume that both Unsight and Scott are town.

Looking at the flavor text, it seems like both of the dead scum possessed something used to kill the mayor, which would suggest they're in the same mafia family. It seems like cruelty's death (staked to the ground) seems more like a serial killer than a vigilante flavor, but I won't assume anything from that. However, I will assume that both of the dead are of the same mafia family, and probably not a second mafia family. We can expect 2 deaths again tonight, unless we kill a vigilante or serial killer today.

Right now, I'm feeling like the plan of action should be to lynch Espeonage, but I need to hear from Hoopla before solidifying a plan of action for today.

[ICEninja]

Espeonage is at L-1 DO NOT HAMMER!!!!

[ICEninja]

Alrighty, Hoopla has done exactly what I wanted her to do, and that is to reveal that she was role blocked last night.

SAMP didn't role block you. I did.

I am the town jailkeeper, and I've thrown Hoopla in jail both night 1 (for having a scary avatar that frightens the children of Murrieta) and night 2 (for an unlawful claim violating Murrieta's penal code, requiring a town PR to either give the town information or be used under dire threat of mislynch.)

Had Hoopla claimed to successfully track someone today, that would have been a guarenteed lynch time for Hoopla. However, with a dead role blocker, no scum would know to lie about being role blocked twice.

I did indeed bread crumb, right after Espeonage's claim someone reminded me to do so.
My ISO posts 60, 61, 62, and 63 began with the letters J A I L.

J

ack definitely seems like a good place to hind behind, as he was pro town, but on the mislynch wagon so a less likely night kill candidate. I believe that much, but not much else.

A

nyone notice that Hoopla just suggested EXACTLY what I did in 449?

I

s your reasoning any deeper than his presence on Kerrigan's wagon before you joined along with his reaction to the hider claim?

L

ooking briefly, I haven't found anything hugely damning about SAMP, mostly because his vote was on you instead of Kerrigan, but I'll look closer if you're so convinced.

This assures Hoopla's claim to be clean.
Assuming everyone believes myself and Hoopla, let's take a look at what happens if we lynch Espeonage for day 3.
1)He dies and flips scum or serial killer. Town either wins, or is down to a single threat, with 2 confirmed PRs that cant both possibly be killed in one night.
2)He dies and flips hider, thus confirming beyond a doubt that both Scott and Unsight are town.

All that we have left is charter and Almaster.

This is what I propose for day 3. On the grounds that we only have 2 people left that haven't claimed or been cleared by a power role, we get claims from both charter and Almaster. Barring anything unexpected, as there seem to be too many power roles out there for more in a non themed game, we lynch one of them and tell Espeonage to hide behind the other. If Espeonage dies, we know who the scum is. If Espeonage lives, we know who scum is.

I quickly ran through the possible situations, and the only outcomes I can come up with where town loses at this point is terrible luck with a serial killer, scum and town all hitting town, or Hoopla being a scum PR. She can't possibly be the serial killer, because I had her in jail. Considering how confused Hoopla has been about being role blocked, I believe the claim 99%.

Unless the rules dictate that a hider may hide behind a serial killer without dying (which I HIGHLY doubt), then we can safely proceed with the following plan:

Day 3: Lynch Almaster and force Espeonage to hide behind charter. Or the other way around, it doesn't make a significant difference at this point. The worst case scenario is that we lynch town, and 2 town are night killed. We then enter a pretty awful mylo situation, but we still have a possibility of winning. More likely we come out either a win, or 5 players going in to day 4 with a clear idea of who to lynch to end the game.
Day 4: We lynch Espeonage if he lived, we lynch the one we didn't lynch if he died. Espeonage's flip reveals a lot.
Day 5: This means there are 4 threats to the town, and Espeonage was one of them. This gets sticky, but seems pretty unlikely.

I'm pretty sure town has this game.

Unvote

.

Shall it be charter or Almaster?

[ICEninja]

I'm pretty convinced it's either charter or Espeonage. Unless anyone finds any significant flaw in my plan, I'll actually go ahead and

Vote charter

We can actually do what Espeonage suggested, minus lynching me tomorrow. Go hide behind Almaster tonight, and if you're alive tomorrow, we lynch you.

I know, sounds familiar from what I said before, but I think as I presented, we're better off saving the Espeonage lynch for tomorrow.

[ICEninja]

The reason I wasn't targetted for the kill last night was due to scum trying to kill me on Night 1. When this failed, due to me being in jail, they assumed a protection role may be out to save me yet again on Night 2.

I didn't consider that. My jailing you may have actually been pretty good. I admit I freaked out a bit when you claimed, because I thought for sure I'd just protect Jack, and scum would try to nail him and we'd have a no kill night. The fact that Jack/Unsight has yet to be targeted makes me feel suspicious somewhat. Also the fact that Scott wasn't night killed last night to have a double kill on him and Espeonage, which would be an exceedingly smart move for a serial killer, leads me to believe that Espeonage is either scum or SK, and if he is scum than one of the people he "hid" behind was an SK, or if he is an SK that he "hid" behind scum.

I may actually be feeling like we should go through with an Espeonage lynch today, and go for charter tomorrow if Espeonage is innocent. That way we have a more clear target for the confirmed townies to hit should we end up in lylo or mylo.

[ICEninja]

Oh and during mass claims, it generally seems like people request who the next person to claim is after claiming. I'd like charter to please claim next.

[ICEninja]

Ah, I had it figured in my head that Scott and Unsight were vanilla. Don't know why I did that.

I actually did too until this whole mess of mass claiming today.

The only possible way there is a 4 man scum team is if town has a vigilante, and I find that somewhat unlikely because they probably would have come forward by now. And even so, a 4 to 8 seems rough, even with multiple town power roles.

An Espeonage lynch flipping into hider confirms beyond any shred of doubt that there is a scum and SK in charter and AGM. Unless Hoopla is a scum tracker. In that case town loses regardless of what happens.

An Espeonage scum or SK flip means we go in to day 4 with 4 townies against 1 scum, with 1 of the townies being confirmed town by PR (whichever of myself or Hoopla that survives the night). Possibly 5 townies to 1 scum with 2 confirmed if I successfully jail the remaining threat to town.

I sat down and thought about it, and claiming hider as an SK is absolutely brilliant move. You're immune to NK anyway as an SK, and can pretend to hide behind townish players who look like they'll probably going to make it to lylo anyway. Scum leaves you alone, thus not wasting their NK, and having a higher likelihood of scum nailing a town PR, and it's one of the only claims I can think of that will get town off your back for multiple days.

It is a similarly decent move for scum, too. It was a smart choice, Espeonage. It's a pity for you that we caught on to you so early, had you pulled off this claim a couple days in, you probably could have made it to lylo.

[ICEninja]

I have never encountered so many power role claims in a game before. I'm starting to feel like it is indeed possible for Hoopla to be a scum power role to balance things out a bit. This is definitely a rough game to be a serial killer in though.

Everyone has claimed. Everyone seems to agree that Espeonage is the correct lynch for today. He really is.

Vote Espeonage

.

[ICEninja]

Come on. Look at all the information that has come out. There is nothing to counter my claim and yet you all want to kill a town power role before the claimed VTs.

If you really are the hider, then let's consider this for a second. You dying confirms Unsight and Scott as town, and Unsight confirmed as town confirms him as cop, which confirms both Hoopla and myself as power roles, and me as town.

All that is left is charter and Almaster, and POSSIBLY Hoopla. They can't kill all of us town power roles in one night.

If you're scum or the SK, then we're taking off the second NK by lynching you. Good stuff.

[ICEninja]

AGM get your vote off me. We aren't lynching me. Period.

[ICEninja]

I am extremely confident that Hoopla is indeed a power role. I have not confirmed her as a town power role, as I thought scum would have only had a single PR. However once Unsight's claim came out, I realized the likelihood of a single scum power role against an SK and multiple town PRs is fairly low.

The lynch today is still Espeonage, but we need to figure out how proceed with night actions. They definitely depend on Espeonage's flip. Here is what I propose we do:

1)If Espeonage flips town hider, then Scott and Unsight are both cleared, and Unsight is indeed a town cop. In such a case, I would suspect that Hoopla is the last scum and charter or AGM is the serial killer. Therefore I suggest Unsight investigates Hoopla, with me jailing charter to hopefully cut down on the night kills. Hoopla, if indeed town tracker, should track either myself or Unsight as one of us will be the night kill. You'll have to use your better judgment there. We should only have one night kill, and we're almost guaranteed to hit scum or SK on day 4. If we end up with 2 town night kills, we're in a bit of trouble here, but still have a chance of pulling through, though the game will probably go to the SK. This is the situation we pray doesn't happen.

2)If Espeonage flips scum, Hoopla is cleared. She can't be the SK, as she was jailed last night and the SK got the kill. Scott is cleared, but Unsight is not. I'll still probably jail charter, and Hoopla should probably track me, as I'll be the most powerful confirmed power role. Unsight, if he really is the cop, should investigate AGM, and that's the best coverage we can get. If the SK night kills me, Hoopla will know who it is, and town wins the next day. If the SK leaves me alive, we lynch AGM and I jail Unsight the following night, leaving only confirmed townies left, and we win. This is the best case scenario.

3)If Espeonage flips SK, Unsight is cleared but Hoopla is not. Scott and myself are still cleared. I'm feeling like I'll still jail charter, Unsight should investigate Hoopla, and if Hoopla really is the town tracker, use your best judgment once again as a NK deterrent. If charter is the scum, there will be no night kill. If I am night killed, charter is cleared and we have guilty or innocent on Hoopla, and lynch either Hoopla or AGM accordingly, and win. If Unsight is night killed, charter is once again cleared, and we lynch Hoopla while I jail AGM, and only cleared townies are left. Town wins. This is also the best case scenario.

That's the only way I see anyone but Ice as confirmed town.

Scott is confirmed town. 2 claimed power roles have cleared him, and there can't possibly be a 3rd threat to the town. Regardless if one is telling the truth, both are telling the truth, or both are lying, Scott is still town.

If we get a successful hit on Espeonage tonight, we win. If Espeonage flips town, then we're screwed IF the threats are AGM and Hoopla, and they both target different people. If that specific case doesn't happen, then town will probably win on day 4. I need everybody to go through everything I proposed to make sure its clean and tight. If I have overlooked anything, or someone has a better proposal, let me know. Once everyone gives the OK, we can throw the hammer down on Espeonage and pray for the flip.

[ICEninja]

What, how is he cleared? It means Espeonage has been faking his results all along. That is the only role clearing Unsight.

Hmm, I swear I had some line of reasoning that made Unsight only capable of being SK and not scum, but now I can't remember what it was. It was probably faulty logic.

Upon thinking about it, even without Unsight confirmed, it seems like town will still probably win doing the same idea, except you should probably track me. If the remaining scum NKs me, then you know who did it, and charter is cleared. We'll have enough days to lynch both who you claimed targeted me during the night and you, so even if people don't believe you it's fine. If I'm not NKed, then we'll move in to there being 3 of us confirmed (probably minus Scott so 2) against 3 unconfirmed. Being that I'll be more or less night kill immune because of Hoopla (who is either telling the truth or will lose, thus having us win), we'll lynch 1 unconfirmed during day 4, I'll jail another, and even if scum still pulls off a night kill, there will only be 1 unconfirmed left who will get lynched in lylo.

It is a more complicated process without Unsight being cleared, but town still wins.

Did I make any errors there?

Unless I've made an error somewhere in my suggestions, town is guaranteed to win so long as Espeonage isn't town. If Espeonage is town, then Unsight is cleared. Therefore, there is absolutely no point whatsoever to arguing about the veracity of Unsight's claim, because if Unsight is scum, then he will be lynched methodically, without any care to his claim being true or not.

The only possible point of contention is Hoopla's claim in the instance that Espeonage flips town. Otherwise, as I said before, we force Hoopla to track me, and if Hoopla is scum, she cant night kill me, and I'll narrow down the suspects by far too many.

So essentially, the only point left to argue is IF Espeonage flips town, do we believe Hoopla's claim or not? Espeonage's town flip proves Unsight's innocence, and thus shows that town will already have 3 power roles, so I can see it fishy that there are 4 town power roles. However, if Hoopla is being honest about scum power roles in the recent 3:1:8 setups, then a tracker/role blocker on the scum team seems unlikely. I'd lean towards believing Hoopla's claim for the purpose of day 4.

[ICEninja]

Ice, your plan has one large hole in it (at least from my perspective) is that if Espionage flips town hider, and we only have one kill (through both SK and mafia targeting the same person or one of them decides not to kill) then I'll be lynched tomorrow and that would mean game over for town, since there would be four alive with a SK and mafia, which is a very bad situation for town.

Then you think Espeonage will flip town?

You're mistaking a watcher for a tracker ICE. I follow people and see who they target. If I track you, I don't find out who visits your house. I find out where you go.

My mistake. Instead of tracking me, then, track the second scummiest player that Unsight isn't investigating.

I'll jail charter tonight regardless of flip. I suggest Hoopla tracks Unsight tonight and Unsight investigates AGM. If Espeonage is a serial killer, then Unsight may want to investigate Hoopla. I feel like someone should investigate AGM, though, because it feels to me like AGM is more likely to be a town threat than one of our claimed power roles.

Was that the hammer?

[ICEninja]

No that wasn't the hammer. Espeonage is at L-1.

Well couldn't I hide with someone we think is scummy. ICE jailkeeps Unsight, unsight investigates me and we can wrap this thing up tomorrow.

No, because we have all the investigations we need. We have 2 claimed power roles already that can take care of that. I need to jail charter because he seems to be someone very likely to have a killing role. If the scum team is AGM and Hoopla, and they manage to night kill different people, then town loses. Otherwise, the town pretty much wins.

[ICEninja]

I would have preferred a slight warning, Almaster, especially considering how minimal your contribution has been today.

What is your flip, Espeonage? Might be good to have the PRs have a quick discussion during twilight. I'm going to jail charter unless anyone has a good reason for me to jail someone else.

Charter, you shouldn't mind at all if you're town. After all, it just makes you night kill immune right?

[ICEninja]

I jailed charter, and we had no night kill. I'd say town won.

Vote charter

.

If the SK is trying to trick us in to lynching charter or whatever, it wasn't a good move. I really don't see any way we've lost this. Hoopla is cleared because Espeonage wasn't the SK, and Hoopla couldn't possibly have killed anyone with my role blocking. Scott and myself have already been cleared, and Unsight is for the most part probably clean. Unsight cleared AGM, so unless the SK brings up an innocent investigation (which case Scott could also be an SK, and makes things stickier for us if charter actually isn't the SK) we're fine. And that shouldn't be the case anyway.

If for some reason charter isn't the SK, I'll jail Unsight, but I simply don't think any more townies are going to die this game.

[ICEninja]

Scott wasn't cleared. Remember, the Mafia Godfather said he was innocent. The Mafia Godfather would have no way of knowing if Scott was an SK or not.

Wait, what? YOU said he was innocent. Are you forgetting that you investigated him yourself?

But honestly, Espeonage flipping godfather was literally the single best flip that could have possibly happened, because I was concerned you would possibly clear a godfather if Espeonage was the SK. With a role blocker and godfather, we can be about 99% sure there is no more scum, and that it is indeed an SK. It also means there probably are indeed 3 town power roles, you, Hoopla, and myself.

Anyways, if it really was the SK trying to get a no night kill in, then I'll just keep jailing people until I die. We'll lynch charter today, I'll jail Almaster tonight if the game isn't over, and if there's another no kill, we lynch Almaster and I jail Scott, then we lynch him. Otherwise we lynch Scott first.

Whoever the SK is, charter, your game is over. You played well, and I suppose it makes sense to have some kind of last ditch effort to play the game out to another day and pray the town starts to disbelieve the power roles, but it's pretty much over.

[ICEninja]

FAILPROOF PLAN TIME: Why don't we just no-lynch repeatedly and let Unsight and Hoopla scan every single person left in the game?

That is silly, if we mislynch today, I can jail another player and Hoopla and Unsight can investigate every single unknown player left. There is no need to do a single no-lynch.

[ICEninja]

I used a variation of the Jailkeeper role that looking back on it I should have probably put in the role pm.

This is exactly what I thought the jail keeper is supposed to be, and I found no hitches with my role PM or my role.

I think my decision to have the GF and the SK not be night kill immune could have really hurt me, and my sincere regret on that (even though neither were night killed) to both Charter and Esp, it could have gone badly.

The Godfather should not be night kill immune, but the SK really needs to be.

The mafia team unfortunately messed up as you can see night 1, I think the outcome of the game would have been much different had ICEninja been killed like I knew they wanted because of the talk in the QT (Which if they want to put up I will leave for them to do so), but because I had told them twice to give me a PM, and warned them I hadn't received one yet, I thought it fair I didn't just kill ICEninja, and I still stand by that judgement.

What happened with this? Had scum night killed me on night 1, town would have lost for sure.

I'm pretty bitter about this, since I feel the town caught zero scum and won just because the game was loaded with power roles that confirmed each other. All the townies unvoted and believed Espionage's claim. Kerrigan imploded doing who the hell knows what. Town was floundering around day two and barely managed a deadline lynch on SAMP. And I don't think anyone was suspicious of Cruelty. Mafia did even worse though, so...

Yeah, I definitely feel like this game was won due to power roles instead of scum hunting. I did not, however, at any point believe Espeonage's hider claim, and I made that very clear. I caught him on his horrible hammer right off the bat. SAMP was simply because so few other people (you especially) were actually scummy, besides Espeonage who hid behind his hider claim. As much vote throwing as I did on day 2, I did believe in that lynch at the end, and wasn't particularly surprised when he flipped scum. What DID surprise me was night 2. Your nailing of cruelty really saved us, because I don't think we'd have lynched cruelty.

I don't really feel like this was a clean win though, because I should have been dead night 1, which would have resulted in SAMP not getting lynched day 2, me not making a push for Espeonage day 2, charter not getting blocked night 3, and town probably losing. It's impossible to tell for sure, but this was a bit of a shallow win.

That being said, I had a load of fun. I really enjoyed going through every single possible situation and analyzing the best play to follow, especially considering how many unconfirmed town PRs we had.

The one thing that confused me is why no one questioned my claim what so ever. People felt that I was more confirmed town than Scott, and I knew that my claim was really convincing, but it seems like no one even considered the possibility I was scum. It ended up being a good thing, but honestly it surprised me somewhat.

Sorry Kerrigan, I came down on you like a train, and it was undeserving. I probably ruined the game for you. I hope you don't hold a grudge against me in future games.

Thanks for the modding, Wolf. You were a couple hours late opening day 3, and that is literally it. Everything else was great, and your flavor text was some of the best I've ever seen, probably only matched by Nikanor's fire and ice open setup that I played a while ago.

[ICEninja]

I'd love to see the mafia QT