Open 21 - Friends and Enemies (Game Over), before 453

[Ripley]

Well, all but three of us have names beginning with A, L or R, so obviously those three are the scum. I'll combine this thought with a bit of OMGUSsery and

Vote: Sir Tornado

I'm very busy till Weds/Thurs; I'll read the thread but won't be able to post much.

[Ripley]

I am not sure how to tell the difference between masons and scum on Day 1. As near as I can tell the tells should be about the same. But then I am a new player, so if someone could point me in the direction to a (finished) game, wiki, or other resource, I would appreciate it.

I've given some thought to things I'd expect masons to do, and things I'd expect scum to do, though not as much thought as I'd like because the game filled up so quickly and I've been so busy the last few days. But it has to be a mistake to start saying "look out for scum/masons to do this" right at the start of the game, you're just warning people not to do the very things that might otherwise have helped you spot them.

Lowell's post reads like a great long excuse for why he personally isn't going to be working to find the scum, which he seems to think is strictly up to the masons. He says his own personal game plan for the day is to drag on conversation and to make sure the masons don't think he's scum. As Sir Tornado points out, if all the townies adopted this strategy the masons would have to do the same in order to avoid being targets. That leaves just the scum hunting scum, which is unlikely to be a winning scenario.

I am suspicious of anyone who finds reasons not to hunt scum.

Unvote: Vote: Lowell

[Ripley]

I don't think he means that the townies should not hunt scum, although you could read his post that way. He just says that masons have more chance in finding scum than townies, which is true of course.

Hmm. Maybe, though phrases like "we're going to have to rely on the masons to figure out who the scum are" sound rather more clearcut than that to me.

This could happen too if all townies adapted this strategy: assume all townies act like they're not scummy. The masons would all vote for scum if everything goes right. Scum would vote for either mason or townie. If most townies didn't vote yet, they would see lots of votes on scum (from the masons) and lots of votes on mason or town (from the scum). The townies would only have to find out which one of two players is scum, rather than who of the 11 other players is scum.

I think you're radically oversimplifying things if you assume that (a) all townies are able to act townie (b) no scum are able to act townie and (c) the masons would be able to tell the difference with perfect accuracy, which is what this plan seems to require since it exposes the masons. If the masons take the lead and get it wrong, well, apart from scum that helps nobody. The first attempt at lynching scum that fails leaves us in real trouble in that scenario, so I can't see how it's an option you might want to use. Is the ability of 3 masons to pick 3 scum out of 8 people so very much greater than the ability of 8 protown players to pick scum from the whole field? Lowell seems very certain that it is.

I'm not saying that all townies should act like Lowell said, but it is a bit suspicious that you vote him for something like that. It does create discussion though, and you might be right.

You think it's suspicious? It seemed better than a random vote - a vote with any reasoning behind it is more likely to generate something useful. A vote doesn't require a cast iron case in these early stages. I can see other possible reasons for Lowell to post as he did, and could easily unvote him, depending on how things unfold.

I think in general terms we're in danger of paralysing ourselves if we focus too much on debating strategies specific to this setup. It might be better just to treat it like any other game, in the early stages at any rate.

[Ripley]

Posting, um...nothing is happening right now?

Not right now, but it's hard to believe there's not a single thing in the previous pages that you think worth commenting on.

[Ripley]

I use a broad definition of OMGUS. Ripley voting Lowell immediately after Lowell voting Ripley counts as OMGUS in my book even though she gave a full accounting for why she was voting against him.

It doesn't matter much one way or the other, but since you've raised this I will tell you that there was no element of OMGUS in it at all. I explained my vote and there was no more to it than that. I can't recall form sure now, but I doubt that I was even conscious that Lowell was voting me. I don't notice random votes much unless there's something else about the post or vote to make it memorable in some way.

And I'm still suspicious of Lowell. He seems to intend to be a major force in this game, but I'm yet to be convinced that he's a force for good. This "vote for whoever has gone longest without posting" policy might get people to post but it won't necessarily get them to post anything useful. Meanwhile Lowell's vote is automated, so he is accountable for nothing, and need never justify his vote, which is a mighty useful device for a scum, say, who wanted to avoid people deriving info from his voting should he get lynched.

[Ripley]

I post when I have something to say. I'm not going to fabricate reasons for posting to satisfy the post count vultures. And I'll point out, as I so often have before, that I'm a slow starter in Mafia games. If Lowell and his sidekick Adel, who appear to be taking control of this game, are going to demand more than I have to say in these early stages, I will get myself replaced by a player more to their taste.

her last post was critical of hunting lurkers

If you had actually read the post, you would understand that what I was critical of was, specifically, of Lowell's adopting an automated voting method. And I explained why, quite clearly. I did not say I was critical of hunting lurkers, only of Lowell's particular intentions, and it makes me really suspicious that you would twist my words like that.

I totally disagree with you on Lowell though. We need

informative

content posted from all players.

But that's exactly what I said. And that's why Lowell's policy is not only mighty convenient for covering his own tracks, or, rather, for making his tracks useless, it's also useless per se.

Of course, as long as Lowell and Adel continue to police the thread like this, they are able to give the impression of massive protown activity, by repeatedly harassing others to post more.

The last time I saw a player like Adel, he was scum. The resemblances are uncanny: the bounding enthusiasm, the helpfulness, the taking charge, the quirky approach illustrated by posting charts and diagrams in thread. Maybe he (the other guy) always played that way, but I can say for sure that it's a most effective cover for scum.

[Ripley]

Wow, that was very to the point, Ripley.

Actually looking back at it my post was a bit sharper than I meant. I was annoyed at being nagged to post when I've made several contentful posts, the most recent only 2 days ago. I shouldn't post when I'm annoyed, and I apologise if it came over as aggressive.

[Ripley]

The reasons behind his vote was explained, makes sense from a pro-town perspective, and is the sole evidence you have against him. And you base your vote against him on

that

?!?.

Let's not argue any further about Lowell's motives, which I have said I find suspect, and which you appear to accept with such total unquestioning faith, because clearly we'll never agree on that. But the rest of what you say here is

provably

wrong. Look back at post 38 to remind yourself of the reason I voted Lowell. You'll find it predates the entire automated voting issue.

Adel, you are sounding somewhat obsessive about lurker hunting, and I'm also starting to question your following Lowell so blindly and uncritically. It's not something I've seen before, especially so early in a game.

[Ripley]

The only thing that sticks out to me as you could be scum trying to save A Papaya with this claim. I'm feeling more confident in my vote on Papaya but this new claim does make me wonder a little more about you now.

Are you serious? We have two masons confirming each other, as against

zero

counter claimants, and you're now

more

confident in your vote on Papaya? Sounds to me like you're so pleased with the success of disbelieving one uncountered claimed mason - it brought out a second - that you're sticking to the tactic in the hope of smoking out the third.

And if you're

more

confident in your vote on Papaya, how can you be just "wondering a little more" about ABR?

If there's a counterclaim, OK, I'll look at this again, but for the moment:

Unvote: Vote ryan

I've considered ABR's post about Adel. Assuming these claims are correct, which I'm going to assume for now given no other claims, Adel has done the town's cause vastly more damage than ryan - it's hard to recall a game where any one player has inflicted so much damage so early - but in his case I can just about see the possibility of him being too carried away with his own perceived cleverness and self-appointed role as policeman, his obsessive lurker hunting and his insistence on the game being played his way, to have the judgement to see what was happening. Of course, it might be much simpler than that - he could be scum. I could easily be persuaded of that, but for now I'm going with ryan, for the reasons stated above.

[Ripley]

I feel confident that Papaya is our scum and am a little surprised my comments all of a sudden turned you on me.

As anyone not confused by looking at things through scummy eyes can plainly see,

if Papaya is scum ABR is scum as well

. You didn't get this right in your previous post and you haven't got it right now. You continue to refer to Papaya alone as scum, and then you say this:

To the rest of the town, ABR should NOT reveal the 3rd member of the mason and I ask of you to post and tell him to stay quiet.

If you are confident that Papaya is scum, you would also be confident that ABR was scum, and you would therefore know it's not possible for him to reveal a mason. This concern is all faked on your part.

[Ripley]

Since then the fact he seems to be attacking you and Papaya seems even odder - as I point out why on earth would you if Papaya wasn't a mason, imply your also a mason.

I still think it's possible ryan's first instinct was "oh wow, we refused to believe Papaya and that worked perfectly, we've flushed out a second one, let's try and see if it works again for the third". Like theo I could take a good guess at the third mason myself, but I doubt very much whether ryan thought of that right away.

I'm not against flushing out lurkers but as I said it's not the only way to skin a fish and these three more than anyone were pretty much using it as a basis to attack anyone.

Precisely. The thing is, when you look at their posts the one who is really, really obsessed with lurker hunting is Adel. She just can't look beyond it. Even now, over and over again it's "I was hunting lurkers, so was ryan and Lowell, therefore everything we did was good, Albert was interfering therefore Albert is bad!" Everything is seen in black and white terms like that, and she is apparently unable to see that there are also other, more subtle and complex ways of hunting scum. The point I'm making is that I think it's easier to hide behind someone else's obsession than to fake an obsession, and that's another reason why I'm looking first at ryan, who may have been using Adel in this way.

I'll reread later, though.

[Ripley]

He may well be scummier than scum, but he and Papaya have both claimed mason, without a counter-claim I believe them. End of story.

This is precisely what I think. It really is that simple.

I'm massively suspicious of anybody that continues, in the absence of a counterclaim, to say otherwise. I strongly suspect that there's an attempt going on to bait ABR into revealing the third mason.

I have no difficulty accepting that ABR, as a genuine mason with A Papaya, would have claimed when he did.

1. Whatever some people have said, there was a lot of doubt about Papaya's claim, and vocal players like ryan and the ever-busy Adel were going to be campaigning against him. A Papaya, on the other hand, was clearly unable to defend himself further. His only defense was his claim, and he'd used it already.

Even now

, with a second mason having come forward to confirm him, three players (so far) are still claiming to disbelieve him. What on earth chance did he have on his own?

2. This is something I've only just worked out, knowing as I do now (but didn't yesterday) about the running war between ABR and Adel. I strongly suspect ABR's real,

gut

reason for claiming when he did is neatly encapsulated by his own remark in his claim post:

Yes, I am Mason. Take that Adel, you pompous ***.

It even appears on the same line as the claim. ABR was sick to death of Adel's officiousness and, knowing he was in the right and she was in the wrong, he spoke up to puncture the pomposity of which he complains. I am absolutely convinced that he would not have done this as scum, leaving it open for Adel to ultimately gloat over him that she was right all along. Just look at the psychology of it. He's telling the truth all right.

If the scum do not NK him, then it would be proof positive that he is the scum and is lying, and we lynch him on day 2.

You can surely see the flaw with that. You just offered the scum a free pass to use their first night kill to try and find the third mason, and promised that the town would lynch ABR next day for them.

I agree with Sir Tornado that we need to hear from the absentees and that scum could easily be found among them. I think the ryan/Adel/Lowell scum group is probably too obvious.

More later. (Just saw a load of new posts on preview, sorry but I haven't read those yet.)

[Ripley]

Give me one reason why we shouldn't lynch YOU or ABR if your choice of lynch turns out to be a townie?

Sir T, you seem convinced that the scum will NK a known mason if possible, so you must surely believe that if ABR and A Papaya are masons it will be apparent to everybody on Day 2 by the fact that one of them will be dead.

The reason being, that if we get 2 lynches incorrect, we lose the game. It is as simple as that.

Is it? I thought we were allowed two mistakes. 11 of us alive today, 8 town 3 scum. If we lynch wrong, tomorrow 6 town 3 scum. We lynch wrong again, 4 town 3 scum. We're still alive. (Numbers aren't my strong point, I may easily have this wrong.)

[Ripley]

Give me one reason why we shouldn't lynch YOU or ABR if your choice of lynch turns out to be a townie?

Sir T, you seem convinced that the scum will NK a known mason if possible, so you must surely believe that if ABR and A Papaya are masons it will be apparent to everybody on Day 2 by the fact that one of them will be dead.

I don't quite get the connection between what you have quoted me and what you are asking me.

You were saying (or I thought you were) that if ABR and Papaya led the lynch on someone who turned out to be town, they should expect one of themselves (ABR/Papaya) to be lynched the next day. But you had earlier said you were sure the scum would Nk a claimed mason (if they are indeed masons). Therefore according to your own theory (which I don't support) we would know by Day 2 whether ABR and Papaya were masons. Therefore their choice of lynch on Day 1 would be irrelevant towards the issue of their innocence.

Or maybe I've misunderstood you somewhere along the way. Actually I see ABR has answered you as well, maybe his answer is the one you wanted.

Adel is either scum or the most disastrously deluded townie I've seen in a considerable while. I still think, and I believe somebody else has agreed, that she's trying all she can to bait ABR into revealing the third mason, or if that doesn't work to build up pressure on him to do so by campaigning to have either him or Papaya (uncounterclaimed masons) lynched today. Scum, or a townie blinded by the inability to accept that she's been totally wrong? I'm still not sure.

[Ripley]

Sir T, if there is a group of masons that are not papaya and me, please read what I posted at the end of the previous page and tell me what you think. Counter-claiming would be the best possible scenario for the town.

The plan of having both teams of claimants reveal all 3 members for a guaranteed win would be brilliant if there was any way to force the second team to reveal their third member once the first team had revealed theirs.

[Ripley]

Suppose we do this: we state that if the current claimants are not to be accepted as masons, two more masons must come forward and confirm each other.

We decide to lynch one of one pair. If we get it right, there follows a straight exchange of two scum for two masons, leaving for Day 3: 5 town, 1 scum, 1 mason. We get 3 shots at finding the scum. I strongly believe ABR and Papaya are masons, for reasons already given, and that lynching one of the new claimants would result in this scenario.

If we get it wrong, we still get two scum, but because we lynched a mason first we now end up on Day 4 with 1 scum, and either a) 3 townies + 1 mason or b) 4 townies (more likely). This is actually not such a bad position. We get two shots at picking out the scum.

As I said, I never guarantee my numbers are right, but if so, is this worth considering?

[Ripley]

Theo, as the cool voice of reason amidst all this, would you take a second to look at the plan I sketched out in post 381 and tell me if you think it's worth considering?

[Ripley]

Theo, as the cool voice of reason amidst all this, would you take a second to look at the plan I sketched out in post 381 and tell me if you think it's worth considering?

Sorry, it's post 391.

[Ripley]

I don't know what happened to that counter claim: They are on vacation, or think that a mislynch of me will aid their counter claim tomorrow, or maybe they think there is still hope for today of lynching y'all without outing themselves

Adel, there's been no counterclaim

because there aren't any other masons

. You can keep on desperately scrabbling around to fantasize other reasons if you must, but it's just making you look, more and more definitively, either (a) scum or (b) so desperately closed-minded and deluded that you continue to be a huge danger to the town's prospects.

By this point I am really hoping Adel is scum. In that case, we have Adel and two other scum working to bring the town down. If she's town, we have Adel and

three

scum working to bring the town down. In one sense it won't make much difference, since Adel will be the ringleader and talk three times as much as all the remaining scum combined. But it means numberswise the scum have one more; basically they have a fourth member.

I think this is, at least in part, what Albert's referring to when he says Adel has become as much of a threat as a townie as if she were scum, and that the prospect of leaving her alive for any kind of endgame is a nightmare. Not only would she get it wrong, as she has got everything wrong so far, but she would push and push and insist and harangue and give orders and basically go on and on and on and on. And on.

I really believe, from reading Adel's posts made yesterday, that her ideal outcome for Day 1 would be to flush out the third mason, and then lynch one of them. (And that having wreaked this havoc on our chances she would, on Day 2, assign all the blame to the masons.)

For the moment I'm leaving my vote on ryan because I still think his reaction to ABR's mason claim was an example of scummy confusion. You can often catch a scum by their immediate reaction to a claim, before they have time to think and remember what they should now know if they were a townie. But I have been seriously thinking of changing to Adel. I'd like to hear from the players who have been away before deciding.

Adel - if,

if

you are town, let me say just a few things to you. ABR suggested earlier that you step back and reflect, and I think this is actually very sound advice. Step back, reread, consider. Draw breath. Try not posting for 24 hours. You don't need to be in control all the time; let others step forward sometimes. You will learn far more about them. Watch, observe and reflect. Try and construct other scenarios from the one you are insisting is correct. Ask yourself honestly if there is at least a possibility that you are clinging to it because you can't bear to be have been wrong.

[Ripley]

I am against a massclaim. We either lynch ABR, A Papaya or we make up a plan that does not reveal a mason, neither reveals someone on A Papaya and ABR's side (since that wouldn't help if they speak the truth, and that wouldn't be needed yet if they are scum).

So, let's see: you would support only 3 options, which are (a) lynch ABR (b) lynch A Papaya (c) unfortunately here you present no plan, just a load of objections to possible plans presented by others.

I have already suggested a plan (Post 391) that,

even if ABR and A Papaya are scum

, leaves us, at the very worst, with 2 scum dead on Day 4, with 5 players still alive (1 scum, 4 town) and therefore two shots at finding the third scum. And that's the worst case scenario. This plan requires two players from any counterclaiming masonry to come forward and confirm each other. I strongly believe that there are no masons to counterclaim, but that if they are they should come forward.

If you would like to come up with a plan that gives us such good odds, regardless of ABR and Papaya's alignment, then let's look at it. But appears your only plan is to lynch an uncountered mason. Do I have this right?

[Ripley]

I hope as soon as possible to hear the views of Aimee, bird1111 and Lowell. I realise they have an awful lot of catching up to do as a result of the posting explosion that followed ABR's claim, but we know so little about them, compared to everyone else.

[Ripley]

ryan. $10 says I know why he got modkilled.

Maybe this is obvious to everyone but me - I haven't got a clue. Is it something we're allowed to speculate about in the thread? Lowell, if your suspicion is correct, could our knowing about it help us find ryan's scumbuddies in any way?

[Ripley]

Lawrence does look very scummy. One reservation I have about the Lawrencelot/Adel pairing, though, is this:

Adel, are you that certain of papaya being scum that you want to risk being lynched next day? I don't know if you can still do anything about it, but I won't blame you if you unvote. If you keep your vote on him, I might vote A papaya too but if he is town I will vote you next day.

Lowell picked up on this a few posts later:

FOS Lawrence

. The last post (201) really rubs me the wrong way. Looks very much like a set-up to blame someone else for a mislynch. If A Papaya turns up town, this is where I'll go first.

Yes, it's the old "two for the price of one" lynch scum strategy where you hold one townie responsible for the lynch of another. Which wouldn't make much sense if Adel were scum along with Lawrence.

I can certainly see where ABR is coming from with regard to ryan PMing a scum buddy. However, with ryan clearly breaking the rules again here by posting content after his death, I think we have to be slightly sceptical about his motivation for doing that.

[Ripley]

WTF? Does that mean she is the third mason or that she is scum identifing masons? Excuse me if I am just being dense.

What is that supposed to mean? Are you telling us that the masons meant to reveal themselves to everyone on the first day right from the start?

I'm not surprised you were confused. I don't understand why ABR did that.

To clarify: Except for the first two introductory lines, ABR's Post 607 consists entirely of a PM I sent him and A Papaya last night explaining how I'd coded their names into an early post, in case we needed to prove we were masons. It's not uncommon for masons to do this to support their claim. It didn't seem likely that it would be useful in this game, the way things had gone on Day 1, but I thought they should have the info just in case.

ABR, if you wanted to reveal me as the third mason, and I don't even understand why you did that, you just had to say so.

Whatever. This isn't my show. It's done now.

[Ripley]

Lowell's recent arguments favoring a lynch of Lawrencelot seem sensible to me. I personally think we would be making a mistake to lynch anybody before bird either returns or is replaced, and I would like to get input from Papaya's replacement too, but I'm afraid that in this game any pleas for patience and caution will be trampled over, so:

Vote: Lawrencelot

[Ripley]

At the moment I still think Lawrencelot is probably the best lynch. However, if Adel continues to say this sort of thing:

I'll tell you what Lowell, if ABR tells me to vote for Law I will.

.. I might well vote for her instead. Adel, I would really like to see you take responsibility for your own vote. As Lowell has already indirectly noted, we get much more useful information about you that way. If you are effectively proxying your vote to another player we learn nothing. This was one of the mistakes that were made yesterday; not only was an active and helpful townie speedlynched, but we didn't even get the usual side benefits of a mislynch, ie looking to see whose votes were responsible for the lynch, and whether the timing and reasoning behind their votes were credible or suspicious, consistent with their earlier posts or inconsistent. Other than Sir Tornado, the voters were all Obeying Orders, and thus evade responsibility. We learned nothing.

Looking forward to hearing from bird1111.

[Ripley]

Now Lowell is attacking me for not wanting to vote Law, and you are attacking me for wanting to vote Law by following ABR.

Adel, I was quite specific about what I was attacking you for: for following another player with your vote. The fact that it's Lawrence who would currently be the recipient of that vote is actually irrelevant, though I would hope the fact of his being on 2 votes already, with only 4 needed to lynch, would act as a further deterrent to you. Presumably you don't want another day abruptly cut short? We don't know a thing yet about what bird1111 thinks. About

anything

.

If you eventually come to your own conclusions that you want to vote Lawrence, that's a completely different matter from voting him blindly because another player is.

You're likely to get attacked today because you're near the top of most people's suspect list. The answer to this is not to say "all right then, I'll do whatever Albert tells me". If you're innocent, another day of slavish obedience is unlikely, as you seem to realise, to do any more than postpone the inevitable. Personally I'd much rather see you play independently and make your own case. I won't necessarily agree with it, and you may of course get lynched anyway, but at least you'd leave a record of your own suspicions and votes, which would be much more use to us.

Sir Tornado and Lowell as well. All three were for the A Papaya lynch along with Law and I, and I don't see how they got their pass.

It was really the behavior of you and Lawrence following the second claim that's got you where you are now. You were both actively trying to lynch one of two masons who confirmed each other, in the absence of even a single counterclaim.

[Ripley]

I don't think we can deduce a thing from bird1111's failure to post. He appears to have been away more or less when he said he was. We have already reached page 30. That's a lot of catching up.

Sir Tornado. Some questions.

You say you voted Aimee, despite not finding her suspicious, and in a situation that would clearly lead to her lynch since we all knew A Papaya would do whatever he was told - because you believed that her lynch would "open the game up and give us a clear path for day 3". Do you think this has happened, and if so, what is that clear path? I see no sign of enlightment in your posts since Aimee's death. Apart from a query to Lowell that might be interpreted as testing the waters for a diversion of the Lawrencelot lynch to Adel:

Why Lawrencelot? Why not Adel? Any difference between them, or are you totally convinced that they are the two scum (as you said yesterday) and you don't care in which order they are lynched?

... I can see nothing in your posts to indicate what you learned from Aimee's lynch and who it's directed you towards for a lynch choice today. Which makes it even weirder that you would make post 729, which offers the town two options, one of which is "Conclude that we already have all the information we need and lynch someone right now.". Especially since several people had already stated they wanted to get content from bird1111.

Did you agree with ABR's deductions based on Aimee's alignment (quoted by you just now in 738)? Did you check them? Did you make predictions of your own based on Aimee's alignment, and if so what were they?

You have said (Post 736) that before Aimee's lynch you had concerns about ABR's behavior, and that you thought he was overconfident about Aimee being scum. You had just seen him out a fellow mason for no reason at all. And despite all that, you decided to place such faith in his judgment and ability to accurately predict other roles based on Aimee's alignment, that you just... obediently lynched her? Not even believing she was scum?

This just feels all wrong to me.

Anyway. At present I'm just about on the side of those who think Lawrence and Adel are probably not

both

scum. And I've always thought that of the two Lawrence made the most likely scumbag.

[Ripley]

My conclusions after Aimee's alignment was made clear:

Adel/Lawrencelot and Bird

After the NK was revealed:

Adel and Lowell.

Why did you change your mind?

[Ripley]

Failure to NK ABR. I mean why leave ABR? He's the most dangerous mason around... the way he just got Aimee lynch out of nowhere.

That's a very strange example, since it surely shows ABR as a danger to the

town

. Surely that would encourage scum to leave him alive, hopefully to do the same again?

Only 2 people benefit from ABR's non-lynch, myself and Lowell.

Please would you explain how you have benefited and how Lowell has.

Also, you didn't explain why the nightkill of Papaya caused you to change your suspicion from Adel/Lawrencelot to Adel alone.

[Ripley]

Here is a thought, at some point you and Ripley could switch with me and Lawerencalot. We'll continue the interrogation of Sir Tornado and y'all take Lowell. What do you think?

Thanks, but you know what, I'm doing just fine with the conventional method of asking questions of whoever I like, whenever I think of any.

I think there is about a 2 in 3 chance that Lawrencelot is scum. However, that works out to us only having a 50-50 shot at winning if he is lynched and is scum and I am lynched as well. If Both of us are lynched and Lawrencelot isn't scum, that is a lost game in my analysis. It would be easy to be in the Lawrencelot wagon, but a hasty mistake would be a game looser.

Unless you think there's a greater than 2 in 3 chance of Lowell being scum, I can't see any logic here that justifies your favoring a lynch of Lowell over Lawrencelot.

It is too obvious that Lawrencelot is being framed. (which is why I settled on Adel being scum, but at this instant, it is still close between Adel/Lawrencelot for the scum position for me)

Huh? If he's obviously being framed, how can he possibly be scum?

[Ripley]

Welcome to the game, Jalyn.

Do you have any thoughts as to Sir Tornado's most likely partner, if he is scum?

[Ripley]

No, after these 2 quotes from this page my suspicion of SirT is gone:

Really? You thought the only valid point against Sir T was that "PM'ing during that day" business?

And I have a new argument for my own defense, yay! (although attention is going away from me now).

I wouldn't be too quick to celebrate if I were you.

But anyway: if I was scum, I would have killed ABR.

Well, anybody could say that, couldn't they? It seems to me that the scum, whoever they are, would have every reason to leave ABR alive after what happened Day 2. Maybe it would happen again. You say that ABR was "going after you and Adel", and that therefore you'd have NK'ed him, but in fact "going after you and Adel" turned out in practical terms to mean "lynching Aimee".

Interesting here that you're picking up on Sir T's argument in post 754:

Look at A Papaya's posts on day 2. They clearly say many times over, that he wants to lynch Lawrencelot on day 3. And, he gets NKed on night 2? It is too obvious that Lawrencelot is being framed. (which is why I settled on Adel being scum, but at this instant, it is still close between Adel/Lawrencelot for the scum position for me)

This was his response to my pressing him for reasons why the nightkill of Papaya caused him to change his suspicion from Adel/Lawrencelot to Adel alone. He claims that you (Lawrencelot) were obviously being framed, though somehow despite this he has reverted to the position where it's close between Lawrencelot/Adel in his supicions. I already asked him (Post 761) how a player that was being framed could be scum, but I got no answer.

I've found Sir T's responses to my many questions to be evasive and unsatisfactory. He was far too quick to do an about turn yesterday and jump on the lynch wagon of a player he believed innocent "because it would yield us such useful information". It was painfully obvious that with all the voters except himself voting under orders from ABR, that it would yield us almost nothing.

I asked him to tell us what useful info he'd got from Aimee's death. Since this was his alleged reason for joining in her lynch, you'd expect him to have been bursting with this key info for which he sacrificed Aimee, but actually I had to persevere to get it out of him at all. He said after the nightkill, he thought the scum were Adel and Lowell. (This is his ninth post of the day, and he hadn't mentioned Lowell at all. I really think SIr T is making this up as he goes along.) Immediately after Aimee's death but before the NK results, his scum choices were Lawrence/Adel and bird. The fact that he discarded these choices after the nightkill show that Aimee's death turned out to be entirely useless in determining Sir T's scum picks, which are in fact based on the NK of Papaya.

Therefore I believe his attempt to justify his lynching of Aimee for the info we could gain from it is demolished. He gained nothing, we gained nothing and the comments he makes when pressed about Lawrence and Adel are confused and unconvincing.

Jalyn also makes the excellent point that Sir T pushed hard for reasons to get a claimed mason, ABR or Papaya, lynched Day 2. The reasons:

Give me one reason why we shouldn't lynch YOU or ABR if your choice of lynch turns out to be a townie? Ok, so, you've claimed mason, and I believe that for now, but I will have major doubts over that if your lynch does not turn out to be a scum.

If ABR and Papaya didn't pick a scum to be lynched, Sir T wants one of them lynched next day. Where's the sense in this? They were masons, not cops. Did they strike you as efficient scum-finding machines? I somehow doubt it. Looks like a plan to follow ABR and Papaya in the lynching of a townie, hold them accountable and lynch a mason next day. Here are the votes at the time of Post 345:

A Papaya (2) -- ryan, bird1111,
Aimee (2) -- Lowell, Sir T
ryan (1) -- Ripley
Adel (3) -- Albert B. Rampage, Papaya, Theopor
ABR (1) – lawrence

Both masons on the Adel wagon, joined by Theo, With several other possible Adel voters on the scene. A mason-led lynch of Adel looks like a real possibility. If Adel is innocent it's all set up for a mason lynch tomorrow. Double whammy for the scum.

Then there's this:

If the scum do not NK him [ABR], then it would be proof positive that he is the scum and is lying, and we lynch him on day 2.

It wuld be proof positive of nothing of the sort. The scum could try and take out the third, unknown mason, A no-lose strategy for them. Either they kill a mason, or else a player strongly supportive of the masons, with the bonus that suspicion will fall on the claimed masons because they survived. Of course, the ryan modkill incident basically screwed all this up, but Sir T wouldn't have known that was going to happen.

I'm also suspicious of post 729 where Sir T tries to set up a vote on whether we should lynch someone right away. Maybe he didn't want bird, or bird's replacement, taking part in the day (if so, judging by Jalyn's posts, he was right not to want it) But just a few posts later, 751, he is very firmly in favor of a longer day 3 and waiting for bird. Maybe, with absolutely no takers for the idea of the immediate lynch, he thought it wiser to declare his allegiance to the other camp.

[Ripley]

I've got the votes and unvotes up to post 320, if that's any use to you. That was the point at which I gave up in despair.

[Ripley]

Vote: Lawrencelot

[Ripley]

I think Lawrencelot is the most suspicious, both individually and as a scum partner for the known scum.

I can't forget Sir Tornado's question to Lowell at the start of Day 3:

Why Lawrencelot? Why not Adel? Any difference between them, or are you totally convinced that they are the two scum (as you said yesterday) and you don't care in which order they are lynched

Would Sir T bother saying that if Lawrencelot and Adel were both innocent? Unlikely. More unlikely still if Adel were scum with him.

Well...

It's highty WIFOM, but the fact that he pointed at three people and said "if we lynch one of them and they are innocent, we'll start lynching masons" tends to indicate that the majority of the people being pointed at weren't guilty. I think Adel was more likely to be lynched at that point than Lawrencelot, so I guess I'd put the list at:

Lowell
Lawrencelot
Adel

I see what Jalyn's getting at here but I don't entirely agree with her conclusions. It's a bit confusing that there were two different, though overlapping, A/R/L groups around at the time:

1. Lowell/Adel/ryan - dedicated to fighting lurkers, everywhere
2. Adel/ryan/Lawrencelot - underminers, discrediters and deniers of the claimed masons

This can lead to confusion about which trio is being referred to.

If the voting goes as per the current trend, we will have our lynch before we hear from everyone and I don't want that to happen. I will be happy to vote for Adel, Ryan or Lowell before this day is over.

Here it's the lurkerhunters on the block.

I really think that the answer here is quite simple. Today, we lynch Adel/Ryan/Lawrencalot. If one of them is scum, then we're good to go.

Give me one reason why we shouldn't lynch YOU or ABR if your choice of lynch turns out to be a townie? Ok, so, you've claimed mason, and I believe that for now, but I will have major doubts over that if your lynch does not turn out to be a scum.

Your saying we lynch A/R/L today and Aimee/Bird tomorrow if the first lynch is a townie sounds highly suspicious to me. The reason being, that if we get 2 lynches incorrect, we lose the game. It is as simple as that. This is exactly what a Scum would do.

This is a response to papaya's Post 343 so, if he's paying attention, Sir T should know that the trio now up for eviction are Adel, Ryan and

Lawrencelot

. This worries me a bit. You would expect, as Jalyn says, with Sir T threatening to lynch a mason tomorrow if today's lynch turns up town, he's going to be fairly confident that the lynch

will

be town. On the face of it this argues against ryan and Lawrence both being scum. (This, I think, is why Jalyn has Lowell top of her list).

However, Sir T might not have been paying close attention, and got confused by his own abbreviation, thinking the L refered to Lowell as it had earlier. Or it could have seemed, to him, clear that Adel would be the one lynched (she had both masons and Theo voting her already) so that the others in the group hardly mattered. What does seem clear is that this is more very strong evidence against Adel being scum.

Adel, Ryan and one of Lawrencelot/Lowell may be scums. We lynch one today, see if they turn out to be innocent. If they do, we go after the scummiest looking person on board: A Papaya (I would definitely be voting A Papaya right now, had he not been a claimed mason

Now Lawrencelot and Lowell are both in the pot along with A and R. Murkier than ever. The one thing that remains constant is Adel leads the voting and is favorite to go.

Also in Adel's favor is her comment about actively looking for evidence to clear ryan. I don't see scum saying that about a fellow scum.

Overall I think it's probable that Adel's an innocent who's been used.

Jalyn's done nothing wrong but can't be ruled out. There was nobody present in that role for the vast majority of the game, so no opportunity to make mistakes. Her first post with content (775) has SIr T at the top of her suspect list and she then (776) launches a sustained attack on him. She could just about be scum. Sir T hadn't been holding up too well under my questioning and his position might have been about to collapse, in which case leading the charge on him would probably be the game-winning play. So, I'm ranking Jalyn as an outside chance.

I have some notes somewhere about Lowell/Sir T and why I thought they weren't a likely pair. I'll dig them out later.

[Ripley]

My current thinking is that with Jalyn having gone staright after Sir Tornado on her arrival, and her predecessor never having posted any material at all and therefore nothing incriminating, she's very unlikely ever to get lynched, so I've been focusing on the other three.

I've already made quite a detailed post (881), a lot of which points to Adel probably being innocent, but I said I'd need to look more closely at Lowell as well. I'd made a couple of notes of posts that looked good for Lowell, but on reflection they don't add up to much:

Only 2 people benefit from ABR's non-lynch, myself and Lowell. I know that I am not a scum. Ergo, Lowell is.

IF Adel/Lawrence arent' the last 2 scum, then SIR T is my next most likely candidate.

Hmm, doesn't mean much really. There wasn't anyone else left except Jalyn.

Post 845, Sir T names Adel and Lowell as the scum, rolls dice and votes Lowell (putting him on 2 votes). Doesn't necessarily mean much either, it seemed pretty clear Lawrencelot or Sir T himself would be lynched.

Some comments made by Sir T (numbered by his own posts only):

Adel then posts about being on the same wavelength with Lowell. I think that makes me think that they are both townies. Scum would not be bring out the fact that they are voting or FOSing lurkers or any players for that matter in co-ordination themselves.
…
Lowell and Adel: Seems to be very keen to hunt down the lurkers, and they could be either way. I think, however, that if one of them turns out to be a scum, the other will too.

Twice in one post he groups Adel and Lowell as being of the same alignment, though his initial belief that they are both townies seems to have lessened by the time of the second quote.

A vote on Lawrencelot seemed to be a bit idiotic, because I feel he is a townie who has a grudge on ABR for some reason I cannot fathom, and me voting on him might start a bandwagon on him, which would be anti-town.

Seems like a bizarrely complex way of saying "I'm not voting Lawrence because I think he's town." Is there a sinister reason why he finds he has to dance in such a complicated way around what should be a very simple statement, when it comes to explaining why he's not voting this particular player?

But, if either Ryan or Adel or both turn out to be scum, Lowell will certainly be the person I would vote for next.

Seems to commit himself to voting Lowell next in these circumstances, but when ryan does actually turn out to be scum, he does nothing of the kind.

However it was Sir Tornado who made the case that Lowell was trying to speed lynch Lawrencelot, with which I actually agreed. I don't see how a comment like Lowell's "My god this is obvious. People, vote for Lawrence already. " can be taken any other way, and it's clear from what happened to Aimee that his remarks about quicklynches never actually happening are ridiculous. So, is Lowell scummy for pushing the quicklynch, or does the fact of a known scum making a case against him count in his favor? I'm not sure. Lowell's done a load of things throughout this game that I've hated, right from the initial (all wordings that follow are mine, not actual quotes) "I'm going to sit back and let the masons do the work of finding scum" through "I'm going to autovote the player who hasn't posted for the longest" right up to "Lawrence and Adel are obvious scum, everyone vote for them" - I don't think there was a single other player who couldn't see how unlikely it was that Lawrence and Adel would both be scum.

So... I think there's a good chance that if Lawrencelot isn't scum, Lowell is. I wish I could say I was absolutely certain it's one of the two, but I'm not quite that sure.