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

[Jalyn]

I'm on page 10 I'll post with thoughts as soon as I have some.

[Jalyn]

OK. I'm probably going to end up triple posting here, with details and analysis and such, but here's my current suspicion list:

Sir Tornado
Adel/Lawrencelot
Lowell
----
Ripley/ABR

Here's the interesting thing I noted from day 1 reactions to the mason claims.

1. Accepted - Theo & Ripley (obviously)
2. Completely rejected - Ryan, Adel & Lawrencelot
3. Accepted and then stopped posting - Lowell (I don't remember if there was a reason for this or not)
4. Never posted about it at all - Aimee, Me
5. Accepted and kept bringing up reasons to lynch the masons the next day? - Sir Tornado

I realize people have started to think he's scum as of today, but I spent my reading time of day one thinking "How can people think he's pro-town?!"

Anyway, I can't see a scum group of Ryan/Adel/Lawrencelot. Not even the most misguided scum group would have all attacked two masons confirming each other.

I'll post quotes from Sir Tornado from day showing what I'm talking about.

[Jalyn]

The point I am trying to make is -- and what I think Lowell was saying is -- I feel that A Papaya's claim will not really help the town at all unless he is a scum. It is, I feel, anti-town and will cause only trouble for us.
That is the reason why I am keeping my vote on A Papaya for now.

Having said that, I would still keep my vote where it is (on A Papaya), at least until we get a confirmation or a denunciation of A Papaya's claim.

Two posts keeping his vote on the claimed mason and a request for confirmation or counter claims. Counter claims make sense, confirmation should NOT have been necessary. (I understand why ABR did it, and I'm not commenting on that.) No protown player should have been looking for a second mason to come out to support A Papaya's claim - a lack of counter claim should have been sufficient proof for day one.

I had no idea the Masons and the Scum could PM each other during the day. If that is the case, then we must take that into account. Before this, I assumed that the Scum had made their plans at night and were simply implementing it during the day. If they can PM like the Masons, then it means that they can change their plans in coordination with each other even during the day. Did we take this into account?

On ARB

First of all, I must say I am convinced by Albert's mason claim that Papaya and he are masons, which is why I took my vote off Papaya. I believe in ABR's claim 100%.
For the reasons I gave in my second last post, I do not agree with ABR's countdown to "reveal" the third mason. I confess to being torn on ABR right now -- on one hand, I don't think ABR's claim to being a mason with Papaya could be false, and on the other, I am surprised that a mason would actually want to reveal the third one.

I believe ABR 100%. I confess to being torn on ABR right now. In two consecutive paragraphs! This reads to me like, "I'm protown, I believe the masons but here's this little niggling of doubt that I'd like to introduce to the town and see if anyone runs with it."

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.

Are Masons and Scum allowed to PM during the day time?

These are the same posts, but I chopped out the middle, so I seperated them. He again supports the mason claim but now if they aren't NKed, the town should lynch them. Sir Tornado went on this for a while, I'll have more quotes about it.

The PM question is interesting. I'm not sure why it would be brought up again except by a mafioso a) making sure that the mod caught a potential rule violation (though you would think that this would be handled by a PM) or b) "I don't know what's going on, I don't know what the rules are for the scum group"

Put it this way: If we get a scum right now, and they don't get a mason in NK, their chances are really very slim. 9 players, 2 scum, 3 masons, and that on day 2 when we have some information on everyone. It really becomes too easy for us after that.

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.

The second case Why is it important for Scum to bump off one mason if we strike out one scum today:
Assuming they don't:
scum/masons/vanilla townies
Day 1: 3/3/5
Day 2: 2/3/4
This is at a time when we have a good idea about who is who at least for half the vanilla townies too. So, the masons just have to shift through a couple of townies before hitting their mark. It becomes too easy for the town after that.
Plus, there is this one other thing:
Supposing in the next 2 days, we have 1 townie lynch and 1 scum lynch and even 2 mason NKs...
Day 4: 1/1/3.
With 1 mason NK...
Day 4: 1/2/2
If all the masons are made known at this juncture, the game is as good as over (with the amount of information we would have on the players at that juncture) with a town win.
I will not say that my reasoning here is air tight. But, it is quite close to the truth.

Three posts attempting to set up the lynch of masons the next day. Two of them continue with the "if they aren't NKed" theme and one of them implies that if they guess wrong in the 1/3 chance to hit mafia they should be killed.

Firstly, we have to assume that you and A Papaya are telling the truth. Fine. Right now, there is no counter claim, so we do.
But, what happens if Bird or Aimee turns out to be the mason and you do not, and he is, for some reason holding a counter claim? You take out Adel, and she turns out to be innocent. Then, you go and take out Ryan. HE turns out to be innocent. So, you go after Bird or Aimee and they turn out to be mason. At this point, the town realises that you are scum and have taken them for a ride.
This was, primarily the reason why I was deeply suspicious of your 72 hour deadline early on. You see, the players on vacation would not have been back in those 72 hours. So, if either one or both of them were masons, then the third one, who could be active right now, would not have any way to counter claim, because there is no one to verify it. And, in the mean time, in order to get your quick lynch (before the vacationing players turn up) you set up your 72 hour deadline to get one townie out. Then, you NK a mason at night, and the game swings in your favour.
I realise that what I have said in the last para or so would sound highly fantastic to a lot of people, but that was my actual thoughts when I read about that deadline. (But it sounded a bit far-fetched to me because it would mean you being sure of the identity of the three masons, which is would be hard to detect)
Then there is another matter: Even if you are not masons, I don't think any counter-claim against you could actually stand right now. The general tendency has been to believe you, and I doubt whether it would be stemed if we get a single counter-claim from anyone at all... in fact, that counter-claim may be the first to be lynched, followed by a possible mason NK, which would be disasterous. Plus, I don't think revealing masonry on day 1 is a very nice play at all... I wouldn't have done it if I were a mason. And, even if I was a mason in this situation, I would not counter-claim two mason claims, not on day 1 anyway. It's foolish to reveal all your cards on day 1.
The only reason I believe your claim, despite all this foolishness, is not because there is no counter-claim, but because I find it hard to believe that a scum -- let alone

two

scums -- would make a mason claim on day 1. That would be a height of foolishness surpassing all others.

More far-fetched reasoning on how/why to not believe the mason claims.

If A Papaya/ABR's choice of lynch for today turns out to be a townie, my trust in their claim will be shaken.

Yes but what if

they are the scum

?
I will not consider this possibility right now because both of them have claimed. Unlikely if they were both scum. But, if their lynch for today is not a scum, then I will have to consider it. (and, we may have a counter claim too by then, if indeed there is to be one)

Ok, the way I see things:
1) 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)
2) A Papaya, ABR and a third person are scums.
Now, why would they claim otherwise?
The theory would go like this (I have a thing for making up unbelievable theories, so please bear with me)
It could be possible that the above mentioned trio could be scum. In the ensuing persecution of Papaya by Adel, Lowell and Ryan, we saw ABR jumping to his rescue one time too many. Despite that, A Papaya had reached -1. So, if the hammer were to drop then, and A Papaya were to turn out to be a scum, who would be his most likely scum buddy? Based on the situation at that time, I would have said ABR. So, A Papaya panics and claims, and, left with no option, ABR claims with him.
However, I will not be believing in anything like this unless the first lynch turns out to be a townie.
On another note, I would like to see

A Papaya

post

something

. I feel that, as a claimed mason he should be on the forefront trying to hunt the scum down. Why the heck is not doing it right now? I am, frankly speaking sick of A Papaya's behaviour in this game. Had I been a vig, and he not been a claimed mason, I would have got him night 1, I swear, I would have. He is, basically a scum's dream mason.
So, A Papaya: May I have your views on what you think of all the players? And, please don't give any of your

"I don't think there is anything to comment on"

bullshit anymore. Because, I would seriously begin to question your sanity if you do so.
Sorry if the attack on A Papaya sounds too personal, but I am totally frustrated by his behaviour in this game.
Sir T.

Again, if we lynch one of this group of three people and they are innocent, lets start lynching the claimed masons.

Gah. Long. Sorry, I trimmed three times and this is as short as I could get it.

[Jalyn]

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

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

Interesting. I don't agree with all arguments against Sir Tornado, but there was one quote that I found very interesting:

"Are Masons and Scum allowed to PM during the day time?"

In case some of you forgot, and Jalyn didn't read it yet: ryan was modkilled for pming someone during daytime, right? Ryan was mafia. Sir Tornado could be the one who ryan pmed. Jalyn, could you tell me the page of this quote?

A possibly valid point, but Sir Tornado was asking this in direct response to ABR saying that he had PMed A Papaya and told him not to reveal that he was a mason. Both of the posts where he mentions the Daytalking are on page 13, posts 311 & 315.

[Jalyn]

I think it has pretty much stopped, but I'm not particularly comfortable speculating on how a player may or may not have reacted to the knowledge of someone else cheating.

Sir Tornado's post hasn't altered my suspicions at this point, but I'd like to hear more from Lowell than "nice perspective."

[Jalyn]

Lowell hasn't posted since Friday. I would like to see his analysis of possible scum groupings.

Yep.

[Jalyn]

Meh good enough,

Vote: Adel

That seems a bit out of the blue? What is your reasoning for Sir Tornado not being the play for today?

[Jalyn]

I'm strongly suspicious of Sir Tornado and mildly suspicious of everyone but Ripley & ABR.

[Jalyn]

vote: Sir Tornado

[Jalyn]

Adel, what do you think about my logic from this post:

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

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'm going to hold off voting, but without rereading the Tornado lynch, I'd say that Lowell is my best guess for the last mafia.

[Jalyn]

Reread ryan, Sir Tornado, Lowell and Lawrencelot

Aaaaaaargh, I made a post with reactions to like 20 quotes, then I pressed preview, got an error and then it was gone... I copied everything, because I get these errors more often, but then I copied something else while I got the error, before I had a chance to paste it again...

Alright, what do I do now. I'll just make a summary of everything I wanted to post, since it cost me more than half an hour to make the post, seriously. Heres in short what I wanted to post, in fact it were reactions to a lot of quotes starting from page 15.

Summary:
ABR is scum. Arguments against this statement: a) he claimed mason b) there was no counterclaim. Arguments for this statement: 1. claiming mason doesn't mean he's mason 2. he claimed it at a moment when it was not necessary 3. a papaya did only make anti-town posts and ABR is on A Papaya's side 4. ABR threatened the town 5. ABR is 100% sure of Adel's alignment all the time 6. ABR wants to lynch Adel all the time 7. ABR insults people. Counterarguments: a) scum can also claim mason b) if I was mason, I wouldn't have counterclaimed until a mason was close to a lynch b) the inactives could be mason too.

A Papaya is scum too, obviously.

The third one could be either theo, ripley or a lurker. Since not both theo and ripley can be scum, I don't know who the third member is.

Adel is townie. a) she's no mason b) she acts like a townie c) she tries to hunt scum d) she is not 100% sure of anybody's alignment. Only argument against this statement that I know of is this one: 1. She wanted to "clear ryan".

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, no claims please. I'm fine with a mason claim if any mason is close to being lynched though.

Heres a diagram I made:

Scum----------------------------Neutral------------------------------Adel's side
ABR
A Papaya
-----------Theopor
-----------Ripley
-----------------------------------SirTornado
-----------------------------------Lurkers
---------------------------------------------------ryan
---------------------------------------------------Lowell?
--------------------------------------------------------------Lawrencelot
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Adel

I really commented on 20-30 quotes, and I really hate it that it is gone. Forgive me, and please hate my computer.

Well, Lowell sure had a change of mind. It is easy to say all those things at this point. After the ABR claim you weren't like this. Now it's almost out of the question that ABR and Papaya are scum, but back then... I hope you can see why me and Adel didn't believe it. And how come you now congratulate ABR for playing well, while it appeared to me that you found his actions terrible after he claimed? (like the fake dealine etc)

I admit I took Adel's side. But now I'm on the side of the others, like ripley and such.

If Adel turns out to be scum, you can lynch me if you want, although I am a townie.

I still think Adel acted very townie-like during the game, although Aimee's post almost persuaded me. In another game, I was also focusing solely on voting lurkers, but although I was scum in that game, I wasn't doing that because I was scum. I won't vote Adel yet, she has a right to defend herself (and I hope you give me that right when I will get lynched.

But my important question remains unanswered:

Why is ABR or A Papaya not nightkilled if they are masons?

Bolding is Mine. After finding those,especially the bolded bits, I can see a Lawrencelot lynch. Anything we need to discuss before a hammer?

[Jalyn]

I see no reason to rush the day. I haven't even had a chance to go back and read Adel yet.

[Jalyn]

Well, in this game at least it wouldn't be telling the scum who not to kill. If Law turns up town, who do you think should be next Adel? Lowell?

[Jalyn]

Er. That wasn't a suggestion, I was addressing the question to both of you.

[Jalyn]

Lawrencelot - do you have any response to the posts that I pulled out as looking really scummy?

[Jalyn]

Actually, I thought the reason the bolded bits were scummy was fairly obvious, but I'll give an explaination as well:

I don't know why the things you bolded look scummy. Maybe the things you bolded were

not

scummy, and the rest was? Well, I'll give a reaction anyway, but I didn't think it was worth commenting on.

We either lynch ABR, A Papaya or we make up a plan that does not reveal a mason

I really thought they were not the masons, which isn't scummy because at that point they both acted really really scummy. I thought there were other real masons, which I didn't want to get revealed.

You didn't want the "real masons" revealed so you thought it would be a good idea to lynch one of the two claimed masons on no evidence what-so-ever. Would you lynch a claimed cop on day 1 with no counterclaim or would you wait for a reason to do so? This can be read like you wanted to lynch one of the masons without forcing one of your scum buddies to fake claim, as you knew no one else would counterclaim.

So, no claims please. I'm fine with a mason claim if any mason is close to being lynched though

What I found strange was that others kept saying: "why didn't any other mason counter-claim if they are not the masons?" I thought, while I thought ABR and Papaya were not masons, that the "real" masons would only come out if any of them were close to a lynch. I wanted to protect the masons, which I believed exist, until D2.

Same problem as above.

If Adel turns out to be scum, you can lynch me if you want, although I am a townie

People saw me on Adel's side, so I offered a Lawrencelot lynch, but only after an Adel lynch.

Tying yourself to Adel and trying to look like your allignment rests on what Adel's allignment is. Agreeing to lynch her and if she's scum, then the town can lynch you, if she's town, it's an argument against your lynch

But my important question remains unanswered: Why is ABR or A Papaya not nightkilled if they are masons?

This was an important question, although then I already believed ABR and A Papaya were masons. No one gave a good answer, even up until now, but now the question isn't important anymore.

Except that this is just bringing up Sir Tornado's argument that "if the masons aren't night killed, then they must be fake and we'll lynch them." Which is pretty much what we lynched Sir Tornado for yesterday.

So, I don't really understand your accusation against me Jalyn. If it's just that I didn't believe the masons, you can accuse me for that, although I gave my reactions to that many many times.

Does that make more sense?

:good posting:

Not really.

He doesn't seem to find it hard, so that's another argument. Vote: Lowell.

That

, however, is interesting.

[Jalyn]

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.

Exactly.

Then consider a self-hammer. I'm pretty sure that we'll take your opinion of Lowell awfully seriously if you turn up town, esp since this is an open set-up. I am pretty confident that Lowell would follow you. Do you agree, Ripley and Jalyn?

Though I also didn't like this post. Problem is, I think she's basically right, it's either Lawrencelot or Lowell.
I'm going to go ahead and

vote: Lawrencelot

. Offering to self-hammer (The heck?) and then not doing so feels like a final "really, I'm town, I'd even suicide for you if you think it would help" gambit.

[Jalyn]

The good news? Jalyn isn't scum. Reread will happen as soon as possible.

[Jalyn]

Awww. Lowell's sending me to my very first page in this game. Unfortunately, I don't see what you are pointing out to me.

Lowell

1. Ripley was on to what? She seemed to consider you & Lawrencelot to be the most suspicious.
2. What do you think I'll see in those interactions? WIFOM or not, I don't see it.
3. Back to what I've been saying since I said that I thought you would be most likely to be Sir Tornado's partner: Why would he explicitly note that he wanted to lynch the masons if they mislynched day 1 if the lynch that they were going for was mafia?

Adel

Oh hell. We know why Adel looks suspicious. I can't even think of anything to have her clarify for me...

(Though, Adel, I'm glad you believe me, seeing as I actually just proved that I was town. Scum would have simply hammered and won.)

Basically, I'm at "Lowell, why shouldn't I vote to lynch you?"

[Jalyn]

3. He=Sir Tornado. Masons were going after Adel/Ryan/Lawrencelot - Adel being the most likely to be lynched.

[Jalyn]

Jalyn: congrats on your win in our other game. Did winning that endgame give you any insight in this game?

Heh. No. In that game I was never unsure of who was who

Anyway, sorry, between a vacation and the Deathly Hallows (followed by a reread of the entire series. Addict) I haven't reread the thread yet. I promise to come back with something interesting as soon as possible.

[Jalyn]

Adel

- "FOS"ed Sir Tornado as opposed to voting him when Lowell noted him as the furthest back. ("My day 1 policy, vote for whoever has gone the longest w/o posting. Tornado, post and my vote leaves. "Lowell: we are on the same page. That is a great metric to track. Are you willing to track people's time since last post and list them in order here periodically, say every three or four days? It would save several of us from having to do the same work, and quality assurance would not be a problem. FoS: Sir Tornado")

- To quote, er paraphrase, Adel about me in a completed game "I think you're smarter than this" regarding the mason claims on day 1.

[Jalyn]

Lowell:

- Sir Tornado noting that if we lynched as ABR wished and hit town, we should lynch a mason. Most likely lynch at that time was Adel. Lowell was not on the possible list.

- "if I was a mason, I'd lurk" followed by a lurker hunt (note: "If I was a mason or scum" is full sentiment")

- Acted different than either Ryan or Sir Tornado regarding mason claims

- "positive" that Adel & Lawrencelot are both scum.

- Emphatically verifies that he believes the mason claim on day 2 when no one was suggesting otherwise.

- Sir Tornado said "If either ryan or Adel or both turn up scum, I'll vote for Lowell"

- Sir Tornado said "Adel, Ryan, one of Lawrencelot/Lowell may be scum."

[Jalyn]

Well, those responses were helpful.

vote:Lowell

[Jalyn]

Well damn.

Honestly, I couldn't find enough to sway what I (and, in my impression, the rest of the town) was thinking yesterday, so I went with it.

That FOS instead of vote for Sir Tornado is probably the only reason that I didn't vote when I first made the two final lists. That didn't feel right. I was hoping to hear [i[something[/i] after that.

[Jalyn]

At the end of the day*, I convinced myself that no scum group would act the way you did (two of them pretending to be convinced that the masons were faking, your "if they're town, lynch the masons...") and remained convinced of it for the entire game.

Ah well, I actually

don't

have an immunity to iocaine powder.

*Er. I mean that as the cliche "at the end of the day" and not in the sense of "when I ended the mafia day by lynching the last townie" thought I suppose both are appropriate.

[Jalyn]

I am not absolutely convinced. If Adel is scum, her partner must be Lowell. But Law is more likely scum with you right now.