Mini 414-Anime Mafia | GAME OVAH!

[Mert]

Vote: Jack

[Mert]

*They continually referred to cities as "New" this or that. New Geneva might be far away from Japan, but who knows?

Hmmm, I think if it was

Neo

Geneva then you might be onto a winner, but "New" just sounds so... bland, y'know?

[Mert]

Unvote, Vote: Andrew S

[Mert]

Mert: I second - why the vote?

Partly because your post 46 didn't sit well with me and partly just to see who, if anyone, would jump on the wagon after me.

[Mert]

Mert: If he did, in fact, have a posting restriction that required a random vote, as we believed up to this point (at least, I believed), then he WOULD be a major problem in the endgame. Say that it's down to 3 - 1 mafia, 2 townspeople and he randomly votes for the townsperson - the other mafia will obviously jump on, losing the game.

Yes, given. If he did have such a restriction then I'd see your point. But I don't particularly believe he does at the moment (I think it's too early to judge, he could just be messing around in the first few pages) and even if he did have one, I very much doubt it'd be random to the point of ruining the endgame - that would just be plain cruelty from the mod and, as you have identified, could just ruin the game.

On top of that, who's to say that he would have this potential post restriction in perpetuity? Killing him early might mean we lose a potentially valuable player who would be restriction-free by Day Three.

So basically, I found your post advocating his death a little unsettling. Not conclusive proof of your scumminess or anything, I'm not saying that, but it's enough for a vote this early on in the game.

[Mert]

I'm not sure I like this culture of calling someone out on putting on a pressure vote. It seems to me a few times during this game that someone has clearly voted to pressure someone into posting more / explaining themselves / whatever and then someone else has come along and demanded an explaination. The moment someone is forced to explaining that their vote is only for pressure, the pressure is dissipated and so less information is gleaned from their reaction.

[Mert]

please explain what would be a better environment. Unquestioned bandwagons?

No, of course not. I'm not saying we shouldn't question blatant bandwagonning etc, but we don't need to question every single action any player takes, as it stymies conversation and exploration.

For example, if I vote for somebody while giving few reasons it should be clear that I am, in part, looking to test that person's reactions to my vote, which I can then pick apart and we can all start to look into further.

If, however, someone else comes along beforehand and says "but Mert, why did you vote for him?" I would be forced to either admit it was to test his reactions (which stops it from being accurate as he'd try harder to temper such a reaction) or say I don't want to say yet, which would either make me look as though I didn't have any reason at all or give away my original intention of reaction searching.

I'm not saying we should let things slide, I'm saying it's not a race to see who can point out the lack of reasoning the quickest - there's no reason not to let the person give the reaction and then question the voter afterward - especially when we're so early in the game.

[Mert]

Mert , it might be clear to you that you are testing them, but to everyone else, it might look like scum distancing themselves, a cop with a guilty result, someone trying to distract town from something else, etc... That's why saying why you are doing something is more pro town - it directs town's attention to who you are asking the questions of, rather than onto both of you. Right?

I wasn't specifically talking about me here, it was more a general observation. Obviously on Day One it is impossible to have a cop with a guilty result as this game was a day start, so that's out. As for your other assertions, they're fine - the thing is, I'm not saying don't question them

ever

, I'm just saying you don't have to question them

immediately

. Sometimes you can find out more from watching what happens after someone does something strange than from demanding an answer from the strange person straight away.

So while it is generally true that "saying why you are doing something is more pro town", I find it to be generally less pro-town if someone is over questioning the entire town at every step of the way - it makes it look like scum looking for any reason they can for people to start attacking somebody.

Anyway, I wasn't aiming this at you specifically, just a general feeling that the town seems to be in a bit of a race to see who can question strange behaviour first.

Meh, could just be differences in playstyle I guess...

[Mert]

Wow, I'd forgotten I was voting for AndrewS! Since it was only a small suspicion anyway I'll

Unvote

for the moment.

[Mert]

This little bit between Skruffs and Cuban Smoker is very strange. Skruffs is correct to point out that Cuban seems to be inappropriately trying to stir up a lynch, but I

do

kind of see Cuban's point - we do need some voting to happen, otherwise everyone will just sit about and watch and we won't really learn a lot.

Having said that, Skruffs' insistance that he's "being set up" seems a little out-of-place and odd... seems like a subtle, but significant overreaction to me. Enough for me to

Vote: Skruffs

for the time being. His next post about how he doesn't find anything worth voting for further compounds my suspicion - if he couldn't find anything even vaguely scummy in anybody then he should, at least to a degree, agree with Cuban's desire to get more votes - it's unlikely "someone hyper-defensive" will "defend their scumbuddy" without having something to defend them against. Erratic behaviour, if it is rather obviously just that, will not get people to act defensively as it is so easily shrugged off as "erratic". Nobody went mental over Jack voting for them, after all.

[Mert]

But let me get this straight - the fact that I don't find anyone suspicious... is suspicious?
I explained how I work. I don't really find anyone suspicious until they are defending themselves or someone else - nobody has any reason to defend other people on day one, except scum. The alternative to having a reason to vote, blindly wagoning with anyone else, seems careless and dangerous. [/b]

Imagine if everybody took the stance that they wouldn't vote until they were certain enough that the person was scum... how would you ever arrive at these reactions of which you speak? Who would need to defend others? Against what?

What I find suspicious is your apparent lack of desire to help the town find scum. If you did have such a desire then you probably wouldn't sit there saying you're not going to vote until you're sure - it's as though you think it's permenant. I'm not saying you should "blindly wagon with everyone else" but you could put a few votes out to see how people react - your ability to unvote is just as powerful as your ability to vote, after all.

[Mert]

IT's not much of a discussion starter, anymore, Jack, unless you say why with it.

For a change, I agree with you Skruffs

Since we're under deadline, there's less time to ponder over reactions to things like Jack's voting with no reasoning. I think it was fine in the early stages of the game (it

did

get a few people asking questions, after all) but I think we're a little short of concrete evidence at the moment.

Man, I hate deadlines

[Mert]

@AndrewS: That could very well be what he meant (And that would make plenty of sense). I would like to hear him say that, though.

Absolutely. This is the sort of thing I was getting at earlier when I said that people weren't allowing enough time for a response.

Andrew's Post 128 answers on behalf of Cubsfan, just like he did in Post 205. In addition to this, his Post 150, which reads:

Oh, and

Unvote: Cubsfan

The vote on him was random and I just realized that I was still voting for him.

Just strikes me as rather odd. I believe this may be either Andrew trying to attach himself to Cubsfan or some kind of connection of sorts. I favour the former at the moment, just because I've not seen much evidence of Cubsfan reciprocating. But I remain suspicious enough of Andrew to

Unvote

and

Vote: AndrewS

.

[Mert]

As the deadline looms, I think everyone should consider posting a list of people they are comfortable lynching.

I will do so, but I can't seem to find any reference to how a lynch will work if we reach deadline without the full number of votes, which will be a factor in my considerations.

Mod

, can you clarify what will happen if deadline comes with no majority vote? Specifically, what will happen if we have a near-majority and what will happen if two people are tied at that near-majority?

[Mert]

Thanks for clarifying, IH.

I would say that I'm most comfortable with an AndrewS lynch at the moment, as I believe he appears scummiest at the moment.

In terms of information, I believe Cubsfan or Jack would be best, but I wouldn't be particularly happy with lynching them just for information, as we'll get information from what happens during the night phase regardless and I would like to revisit their actions in Day Two rather than lynch them today, if possible. Lynching either may help us

find

scum, but I'm ultimately not totally convinced of their scumminess right now.

[Mert]

I don't like lynching AndrewS because I assume that he's just been away or something.

For the sake of clarity, I should point out that my reasons for favouring an AndrewS lynch aren't to do with his current lack of activity.

[Mert]

Oh really?

Maybe I missed something then.
Do you have any quotes or anything that you think make him look scummy?

*re-reading*

Ya rly (sorry, couldn't resist).

My Posts 59, 67 and 213 talk about my suspicions of AndrewS. The first two are due to his rather eager "if Jack has a random post restriction then we need to kill him" stuff near the beginning. The second one is about the fact he has twice leapt to the defense of someone prior to their being able to respond themselves.

While I'll admit that the latter makes most sense if Cubsfan is also scum, there's just something about Andrew's posting in general that hasn't sat well with me. If taken in a vacuum, none of his posts scream scum at you, but the culmination of various odd timings and reactions leads me to believe he is more than likely scum.

[Mert]

Mert - are you denying that if he DID have to vote randomly that he would be dangerous in an endgame?

No, but I'm denying the liklihood of there being such a restriction at all, especially given that this is a) a mini normal game, b) his votes didn't actually seem random. Arbitrary, possibly, but there did seem to be a degree of structure to who he voted for.

At best I would say he had a restriction that meant he had to vote in each post, which would be far less dangerous in endgame than you make out.

So no, I'm not denying that a random voting restriction at endgame would be dangerous, but I refer you back to my reasoning in Post 67 where I said (bolded for emphasis of specific points):

If he did have such a restriction then I'd see your point. But I don't particularly believe he does

at the moment (I think it's too early to judge, he could just be messing around in the first few pages) and

even if he did have one, I very much doubt it'd be random to the point of ruining the endgame

- that would just be plain cruelty from the mod and, as you have identified, could just ruin the game.

On top of that, who's to say that he would have this potential post restriction in perpetuity?

Killing him early might mean we lose a potentially valuable player who would be restriction-free by Day Three.

Your (extremely early) assertion that "we should really try to kill him before the numbers get too small" is based in large part on a huge assumption by you that we have a situation that, while not impossible, is very improbable and it seems, as Jack said earlier, like it was an easy way to attach yourself to something that could force a lynch either now or, more likely, in the coming days.

I don't like the way you keep reducing my suspicions of you down to whether or not I agree that "if he did have to vote randomly that he would be dangerous" because my argument is not really about that; it's about the way in which you presented the argument for his lynch based on severely limited assumptions. It's a standard argument from fallacy - by acting as though I

am

denying he would be dangerous if he had this restriction, you can clearly claim that I was wrong on that issue and, therefore, conclude that I was wrong about you generally. This repeated misrepresentation of my posts isn't really helping your case in my eyes...

[Mert]

Well, it was logical to assume at that early stage that he did have one.

Frankly I disagree. In fact, I rather think it was

il

logical to assume he had a restriction in the form you suggested in your post.

Also, if I was looking for an easy day 1 lynch, would I say "Before the endgame" and "Not today"?

Which is precicely why I said in my last post that you were more likely setting up a lynch for the coming days, rather than today. As already mentioned, he could have merely been required to vote for

somebody

(not randomly) if he had a restriction or any restriction could have expired at some point during the game. It looked like you were hoping he continued vote-hopping for the rest of today in order to set up a quick lynch on another day.

And finally, if you agree - then why do you find me suspicious?

Because while I agree with the hypothetical argument you presented, I believe that this hypothetical argument was little more than a weak theory that was incredibly unlikely to be the case. I find it suspicious that you presented this hypothetical argument almost as though it were fact and began planning future lynches based upon it.

[Mert]

I'm still here - I think the recent conversations are worthy of further discussion, but not one day before a deadline. I'm vaguely suspicious of anyone who seems to suggest an alternative wagon on Christmas Eve, but unless something very drastic happens to change my mind, I'll say now that I'm very unlikely to not be still voting for AndrewS by deadline.

To stop anyone asking how I can decide now when you don't know what might happen in the future, "something drastic" means someone looking far scummier than Andrew with sufficient enough momentum from the town to stop my change of vote effectively becoming a vote for no-lynch or Andrew doing something spectacularly townish that convinces me sufficiently.

[Mert]

I think its pretty obvious (unless there's an SK) that the Vig targeted Jack, Jack targeted the Vig, which would cause the Vig to Vig herself - and then Mafia targeted the Vig which led to Jack's death. Incredibly bad luck for us.

I wouldn't be so quick to rule out the possibility of there being an SK, personally.

HD had posted earlier that she wasn't sure who she was most suspicious of. This could be her trying to hide her role, or it could be an indication of the fact that she had no intention of vigging N1 - something which she could refer to later to back up her claim.

Similarly, Jack may not have used his role.

Don't get me wrong, I think your post makes sense, but it is only one of a few possibilities in my mind and I'm not ready to write off the possibility of an SK just yet.

On a seperate note, I'd like to revisit this if I may:

I forgot something important that happened early game. For the record, I think AndrewS is not scum.

Spectrum, now that Andrew's role is confirmed, can you please clarify (with quotes or post numbers where applicable) what you were referring to here.

[Mert]

Actually, the more I think about it, the more Yamahako's Post 359 worries me. Particularly the "I think its pretty obvious..." part.

I don't quite see how it's more obvious that there was a vig kill. As Thrawn said, I don't think a vig would necessarily kill on N1 and I don't see why Jack would swap with Hemisphere Dancer above all others.

I detect a slight reluctance to highlight the liklihood of there being an SK in his post so I'm going to

Vote: Yamahako

for the time being.

[Mert]

Sorry Spectrum, maybe I'm being thick here but I don't see how that implies Andrewtown. Our rolenames are all names of existing animes - his knowing the name of one and attributing it to another player means... what? It's not even like he could be some kind of rolename cop, because he picked a player who didn't actually have that rolename...

Sorry, I just don't get it. If I've misread you then I apologise, but please explain for my benefit as I just don't understand why it's "obvious".

On a semi-related note, I think that, at best, a mass rolenameclaim will achieve nothing for the town (if rolenames are not related to role) and, at worst, will give subtle clues to the scum as to people's roles (if there is a connection of sorts between rolename and role). I don't even see why we're entertaining the possibility, to be honest.

[Mert]

This eagerness to nameclaim unsettles me greatly. We have not even had a town

discussion

on this issue yet, let alone a consensus!

[Mert]

But I am more interested in ubertimmy, who stressed that he was a very bad lynch shortly before the deadline. We have now lost two power roles, which means the probability he actually is power role is much smaller now.

This is true...

Since ubertimmy is also alive, he is much more likely to be mafia than anyone else.

...but this I just don't see. Ubertimmy hinted at a power role at the end of Day One, it's true and, while the potential for him being a power role decreases as more are exposed, this doesn't make him "much more likely to be mafia than anyone else". It could equally merely make it much

less

likely that other players in this game have a power role.

I see where you're coming from but I think you've jumped to conclusions rather swiftly here. It seems like you're fishing.

It is important, if we do this name-claim, that we do it in an arbitrary order.

We should try and force mafia to go first so we have the chance to catch them with a counter-claim.

There seems to be a large conflict between these two quotes. If we're to reach a general consensus on who is most scummy and force them to claim first, this is no longer arbitrary.

Unvote, Vote: Cuban Smoker

I think it's fair to say there's a fair bit in this post that I don't like.

[Mert]

Yamahako, how suspicious of AndrewS were you? Did you join the wagon mostly to avoid a no-lynch or were you mostly suspicious of him and joined because he was your favoured candidate at the time?

[Mert]

I wrote a long post about Yama just before downtime and now it's all lost

I remember I stopped short of voting as the VC seemed a bit messed up and didn't want him at L-1 accidentally...

[Mert]

IH, you have me as both voting for Yamahako and not voting. In the interest of clarity,

unvote

as I don't want Yama to be at L-1 at least until other players have checked in.

IH, even when you're the

mod

, you're still scum, trying to mislead the town like that...

[Mert]

I think some of the Yama posts I looked at are still here so I'll try my best to represent my argument when I'm more awake.

[Mert]

Apologies, full response tomorrow. I'll admit I haven't got around to the re-read of this thread that I'd promised myself I'd do but I'll make sure I a) re-present my suspicions of Yamahako and b) respond to Skruffs by tomorrow evening.

[Mert]

My case against Mert: I was trying to explain why I thought a name-claim would be a good idea, and suggested we try and use a random list to make people go in an arbitrary order. Mert didn't like it or understand it and voted me for it. I think ubertimmy jumped on shortly after.

I find above behaviour scummy.

That is not why I voted for you. It's hard to recall my exact words as the post has gone, but your liking of a nameclaim was only one part of it. If we were to nameclaim, I have no problem with the pseudo-random order, but I wasn't sure exactly how you were proposing we did it and what benefit nameclaiming would bring.

Moreover, there was something about the tone of your post that gave off a vibe. Sorry I can't be more specific - I wish I had the old post to refer to.

At the time, you stated your suspicion of me was not to do with me not understanding or being adverse to a massnameclaim, it was something to do with being "too picky" about the specifics and not having a "feel" for it... something like that anyway.

[Mert]

As for my reason for suspecting Yamahako, I've been racking my brain trying to remember where we were at before the move. For some reason I've found it more difficult to do so in this game than I have in most others, but I think I have remembered enough to give you a brief praicee if nothing else.

Yamahako was talking about moving his vote to AndrewS to avoid a no-lynch. He mentioned in his post (one of his posts?) about this that he knew that it needed four votes and so he put on the fourth.

I pointed out that the mod had simply said that the largest number would lynch. At the point this was clarified by the mod, Cubsfan and Andrew were tied for votes and so his assertion that his vote was to make sure we avoided a no-lynch seemed a little strange at that point.

So I went back and decided to see why he was suspicious of Cubsfan - all I found on the issue was the following:

Do you prefer lake or fly - seeing as how fishing seems to interest you...

Check his post history :-/

unvote (if I'm voting), Vote Cubsfan4ever

How sure are you that Jack is acting off or Random

I'm not pro-cubansmoker, but we might be on the same wave length. I hadn't noticed the correlation. But I do like his dislike for Cubsfan, which is a plus in my book.

I think he's scummy in this game, I've never played a game with him before - so I don't have any meta reasons for my vote - just what I've already stated.

Unless I've missed something, I couldn't quite find a particularly strong case against Cubsfan - there are a few bits and pieces but nothing where I could go "aha,

that's

his suspicion of Cubsfan, right there".

My post that was lost on this subject was one part suspicion over the confusion of the whole "I had to vote Andrew to avoid no-lynch because he needed four votes" thing and one part question as to what his reasons are for being so sure Cubsfan is the play - he's been on him for a long time now but I can't find anything in his post history that explains why.

I didn't vote for him because a) I didn't want him at L-1 yet and b) I wanted him to explain his suspicions on Cubsfan before I decide whether or not to cast my vote.

[Mert]

I don't think Mert is suspicious because of the case laid out by cuban. I know that there are plenty of people in this forum who get jumpy every time claiming is suggested, and Mert could simply be one of them. As a matter of fact, if I didn't want to claim first, I'd also have jumped at it. Simply because name-claiming, if the order is not done properly, and not well-discussed, often helps scum to out power roles.

I guess I do get "jumpy" because I don't see the point in it in this game. There have been times when I have full advocated a massclaim, but I think this is not one of those times where it'd be appropriate or useful. Partly because it could mean nothing at all and be a waste of time, partly because I doubt the scum have reason to lie (unless they

don't

have role names, in which case I don't see how this is classified as a "normal" game) and partly because it could be used by scum as a way of attacking somebody unjustly due to some arbitrary reason such as "your anime isn't broadcast on TV Tokyo and all ours are - die scum".

Moreover, those people that rushed into claiming so quickly (I forget who specifically, I think some or all of it was lost) ruined any possibility of a structured, town-agreed order as they'd already just jumped in prior to town consensus.

So you're right, basically - my points above expand on your "Mert might just be jumpy" statement.

[Mert]

Hi All,

Just to let you know, I'm going to be away from a computer after today until Monday evening (British time) so won't be able to post for the next few days. I will catch up upon my return and post opinions and answer questions directed at me then. If I need to be replaced as a result, then I'll completely understand, but if you can keep me in for that period of time then I'd be extremely grateful.

I'm posting this in all my games that are in the day phase.

Thanks,

Martyn

[Mert]

Hi all, I have returned.

AbboTT, I agree with Skruffs here - why not wait until Ubertimmy has the opportunity to respond to these accusations? They're the sort of accusation that is really best answered by the accused directly, because their response is everything. I'd personally like to hear Ubertimmy's reason for his post at the end of Day One and I don't think you giving him some options in-thread is the best way to get those reactions.

[Mert]

My point was that scum could take any two or more rolenames and point out arbitrary differences between them as "evidence" of someone's role not fitting in with the rest. You could do it with literally

any

group of rolenames, so I'm not sure what you aim to achieve.

What your post basically says to me is "cool, Mert's totally thought of a way scum could try and present a false argument against somebody and push for their lynch, I'm

sooooo

doing that"

[Mert]

You have been against the idea of nameclaiming from the moment I suggested it, yet I know looking at my name that the town won't lynch me for it, as it falls in nicely with the theme of the dead townies. What do you have to fear?!

I have yet to have read an argument

for

a mass nameclaim that has convinced me that it will achieve anything better than not really learning anything - this is why I have been against it - it could either be pointless or it could be detrimental, the way I see it.

If you insist that I nameclaim though, I will, but I'd rather hear from a few more people on the issue first.

[Mert]

We may want to leave these decisions up to the moderator.

Agreed. It's not our place to decide whether somebody is replaced - sure, we can request it but it's the mod's decision, ultimately.

That said, Skruffs' point about Ubertimmy's soft claim yesterday does have some weight to it. Ubertimmy hinted at a power role and is, therefore, a strong potential candidate for a scum hit tonight. In light of that, I'd like to see him make a big contribution today just in case he doesn't make it until tomorrow. I don't think he necessarily needs to reveal any night actions or claim at this point, but hearing from him would be good.

[Mert]

Mert : You don't seem to have any reason to think he's not actually a power role. Why?

Because, given his semi-claim, his overnight survival should be a big enough clue to work from. If he's killed tonight then it's likely due to the claim. If he's not, I think we'll all view him with a healthy amount of suspicion.

I'm not saying I have no reason to think he's lying, I'm saying it doesn't matter if he is as things will become clearer tomorrow regardless. He is in my opinion, therefore, not the best play for today.

[Mert]

Eh? I guess. But the scum will know if he's not one of their own then his soft claim probably has some weight to it, so there'd clearly be a degree of risk to leaving him alive if he's protown.

I mean, I guess they can decide that it's an acceptable risk to take if they want, but allowing us to re-evalute tomorrow based on which risks were taken feeds more information into the town than if we lynch him for not being about.

!Mod

, can we get a prod on Ubertimmy if you haven't already?

[Mert]

Just curious: where did the speccy thing come from?

Might be wrong, but the ZX Spectrum (old computer thing) was colloquially known as the "speccy". [/geek]

And, for AbboTT's benefit, here's my previous post on Yamahako:

As for my reason for suspecting Yamahako, I've been racking my brain trying to remember where we were at before the move. For some reason I've found it more difficult to do so in this game than I have in most others, but I think I have remembered enough to give you a brief praicee if nothing else.

Yamahako was talking about moving his vote to AndrewS to avoid a no-lynch. He mentioned in his post (one of his posts?) about this that he knew that it needed four votes and so he put on the fourth.

I pointed out that the mod had simply said that the largest number would lynch. At the point this was clarified by the mod, Cubsfan and Andrew were tied for votes and so his assertion that his vote was to make sure we avoided a no-lynch seemed a little strange at that point.

So I went back and decided to see why he was suspicious of Cubsfan - all I found on the issue was the following:

Do you prefer lake or fly - seeing as how fishing seems to interest you...

Check his post history :-/

unvote (if I'm voting), Vote Cubsfan4ever

How sure are you that Jack is acting off or Random

I'm not pro-cubansmoker, but we might be on the same wave length. I hadn't noticed the correlation. But I do like his dislike for Cubsfan, which is a plus in my book.

I think he's scummy in this game, I've never played a game with him before - so I don't have any meta reasons for my vote - just what I've already stated.

Unless I've missed something, I couldn't quite find a particularly strong case against Cubsfan - there are a few bits and pieces but nothing where I could go "aha,

that's

his suspicion of Cubsfan, right there".

My post that was lost on this subject was one part suspicion over the confusion of the whole "I had to vote Andrew to avoid no-lynch because he needed four votes" thing and one part question as to what his reasons are for being so sure Cubsfan is the play - he's been on him for a long time now but I can't find anything in his post history that explains why.

I didn't vote for him because a) I didn't want him at L-1 yet and b) I wanted him to explain his suspicions on Cubsfan before I decide whether or not to cast my vote.

I should probably point out, however, that his response to this post struck me as more town than a lot of his other posts throughout this game, so I'm not going to get on his wagon right now.

[Mert]

Skruffs, who's that aimed at? I'm confused.

[Mert]

What does it matter what kind of defense I put up in this game if no one will actually read the game well enough to get their facts straight?

I believe I put up some specific questions (based mostly on the facts of the deadline rules and your voting pattern) for you to answer. You did so in what I considered to be a protown way, so I no longer suspect you as heavily any more.



I agree that we should lynch "for real" this time rather than letting the deadline decide for us. I agree that Cubsfan hasn't seemed amazingly protown from his posts - I haven't attacked him much today primarily due to little activity, but I'd say he seems more scummy than protown generally and not just due to his lurking in Day Two. Finally I think that even if he is town, it will tell us quite a bit due to various interactions he's had with other players throughout Day One and some of the votes cast on him.

Vote: Cubsfan4ever

[Mert]

Cubs, how come you're suddenly so happy to be lynched? Do you just want out of this game? Because you can ask for a replacement if you'd prefer to help out your teammates...

[Mert]

Seven alive with no dead scum. This could very well be LyLo, boys and girls...

I am going to start by stating that, like Scruffs, I do find it interesting that

Ubertimmy

OverTheUnder didn't die last night. I'm going to re-read what little of him there is and see if it is just pure WIFOM-led conjecture or if there is something that jumps out at me.

[Mert]

Okay, SK is scum, but I mean there are no dead

Mafia

. If we assume for a second that the number of Mafia in Mini games is generally three then that would still mean we're at LyLo, and that is my point.

[Mert]

Agree absolutely.

[Mert]

Request: Modprods

OverTheUnder has not posted since 15 May.

Shanba has not posted since 21 May.

Please prod both for us so we can try our best to get through a day without a deadline

[Mert]

I now feel we're in a suitable situation for me to support massclaiming, but OTU should definitely go first, in my opinion.

I personally nominate Skruffs to choose the order, but obviously this is up for debate among the living players.

Just so we're clear, nobody should claim

anything

about their role until an order has been decided upon by the town. Except OTU, he might as well claim as soon as he gets back.

[Mert]

Erm, I saw you nameclaim, but not roleclaim...?

[Mert]

EBWOP: My last post was aimed at SV...

[Mert]

Actually, the order on the first page really isn't bad

[Mert]

Yup, sorry that you joined at this time but there's been a move toward a mass claim and you're up first...

[Mert]

But UT hinted at a power role toward the end of that day which has caused much suspicion and discussion so far and it's an issue I'd rather see resolved through a claim before moving forward.

[Mert]

Want to see what I claim, so you can counter claim, get me lynched and win for the scum? Or just adjusting your claim? What is it?

Neither, now stop stalling and claim.

[Mert]

Zu Faul, it's clear you really don't want to claim first, but please at least explain

why

without giving away what your role is, if you can do such a thing. Right now it looks like you're saying you don't want to claim first because you don't want to claim period... is this the case?

[Mert]

Claim. Now.

[Mert]

Claim or get my vote, Faul.

[Mert]

Thrawn, you're up.

[Mert]

Zu_faul is dodgy indeed. Seeing him pile on when thrawn is in quicklynch range makes me want to unvote.

I think he's probably just trying to bus his partner, to be honest, I wouldn't worry too much.

[Mert]

Heh, it was an absolute car crash of a claim, it's true. I'm happy with a Zu Faul lynch too though.

[Mert]

mert, shanba, hope you realize you are defending thrawn.

I'm not defending Thrawn, I'm attacking Zu Faul, something I have good reason for doing.

[Mert]

I agree.

[Mert]

Skruffs, look at the dead players - we might not even

have

any more power roles and, if we do, there probably won't be many of them.

Right now the scum are on the spot having to think of fake claims all by themselves and it seems to be working. I'd like to continue with the mass claim because if we go to night then it gives them the chance to discuss fake claims and come up with a plan that will make them harder to identify.

Forcing them to claim before we go to night means we have a far more "raw" claim to base things off. Right now we need to lynch successfully three times in a row... if we have to sacrifice a power role in order to get more useful info to help us do that then I think that's acceptable.

[Mert]

I do not want to give the scum a night to discuss and solidify their fake claims. We can only kill one person today, so it is very likely that two scum will go into this evening. Forcing a claim now will force them to claim without having been able to work something out between them.

Moreover, the scum can only kill one person tonight. They might go after any claimed power roles, but if we have more than one claim then we will at least have one claimed power role going into tomorrow.

[Mert]

I'm Cowboy Bebop, the cop.

All bolding in the following quotes has been added after the fact to emphasise my meaning in this post.

I first mentioned this very slightly here:

I wasn't specifically talking about me here, it was more a general observation. Obviously on Day One it is impossible to have a cop with a guilty result as this game was a day start, so that's out.

And breadcrumbed slightly more significantly here:

In terms of information, I believe Cubsfan or Jack would be best, but I wouldn't be particularly happy with lynching them just for information, as

we'll get information from what happens during the night phase regardles

I also let the town know that I was going to investigate Zu_Faul's predecessor with this post:

I'm not saying I have no reason to think he's lying, I'm saying

it doesn't matter if he is as things will become clearer tomorrow regardless.

He is in my opinion, therefore, not the best play for today.

During Night One I investigated Skruffs who is a protown/investigation-immune player which is why I said he should choose the claim order.

During Night Two I investigated

OverTheUnder

Zu_Faul and got a guilty result, which is why I have been against going after Thrawn for today.

[Mert]

Scum wouldn't need an investigator... and if you're a cop you couldn't investigate that person... So this has got to be a lie...

What? I investigated Skruffs. He is either town or he is scum that is investigation-immune (GF, for example). What about that "has got to be a lie"?

I'm semi-suspicious of ZF too, however - why are you against going after Thrawn? hmmm... possibly because he's your scum buddy? If ZF isn't scum - then trying to get people to vote ZF would end the game. Skruffs (who you've cleared) also went gung ho against ZF at the beginning of the day. Could we have a Thrawn, Skruffs, Mert mafia group?

I said I have been against going after Thrawn

today

. If you had a guilty on a player in LyLo then you'd go after the person you knew to be scum over the person you highly suspected to be scum for that day as it'd mean definitely avoiding a loss rather than only probably avoiding one.

[Mert]

It certainly looks like Thrawn is going to be the play. The problem I'm having is that while I'm 95% sure Thrawn is scum, I'm 100% sure that Zu_Faul is, so my natural reaction is to go down the route that I

know

won't make the town lose rather than the one I just

think

won't.

It worries me that so many people are pushing for Thrawn rather than Zu_Faul, despite my guilty result and I have two theories about this:

1. Thrawn is actually town and the scum are pushing for his lynch instead.

2. Zu Faul has some kind of power (roleblocker, perhaps) and it's more important to the scum that Zu Faul is alive instead of Thrawn.

Of the two, I think the latter is the more likely and so I'm fairly sure there is scum on this Thrawn wagon (or at least vocally saying they support it over Zu Faul).

I'd have to be a fool to go after a 95% chance when I have a 100% chance sitting in front of me, so

Vote: Zu_Faul

.

[Mert]

True, although my survival doesn't necessarily mean I am scum - I could be roleblocked, for example or you could die as you are confirmed innocent (or GF, I guess). But your point is taken and understood.

Does anybody see anything wrong with me hammering Thrawn then?

Spectrumvoid has yet to have claimed but I am ready to move to night if everyone is comfortable with that?

[Mert]

Actually, with Yamahako's vote that should be a lynch.

That's what I thought... it's why I didn't reply after he voted...

Ah well, fingers crossed.

[Mert]

Bah! Do it, town!

[Mert]

Nicely done, Skruffs!

[Mert]

train wreck of a claim

There's

got

to be a custom title in there for Thrawn

somewhere